It's easy to opine about things like educating the public or engineering 'crypto' for the common man.
In my opinion that would be an exercise in futility.
I think a proper response to this issue is to simply promote social depravity on a grand scale.
Everybody should just constantly read/watch/listen to media involving things like methamphetamine manufacturing, nuclear & home made weapons/chemicals, illegal currencies, human trafficking, hardcore pornography, armed rebellions, the middle east, famous terrorists, serial killers, bon jovi, etc
All of those are a lot more interesting to the common man than lessons on how to use PGP....which is theoretically breakable thanks to the advent of quantum computing.
If everything is being sniffed and stored, there have to be a number of very specific topics that are being sought after in that data.....in my opinion it'd be far worse if the government wasn't searching for things like human trafficking and nuclear weapons (things, hopefully, we can all agree are not good).
Television series like "Breaking Bad" are already pulling weekly audience number of around 3 million plus. One could argue that you wouldn't even have to do much promotion, as these topics already seem to be mainstays in much present day pop culture
As much as I hate to disappoint everyone, chaffing with lots of keywords, made up searches, and arbitrary blocks of suggestive text will not trigger any kind of flag except "people trying (poorly) to chaff NSA".
The algorithms used for text mining are much more contextual and semantic than what would be fooled by the simple gags I commonly see on the Internet. Those gags might send a message of sorts but they don't make anyone's job more difficult. For a start, they know you are not a terrorist or whatever; nothing about your life as modeled across myriad data sources suggests that. Instead, you will be some random person pretending to stick it to The Man, which they don't care about and never lands in front of a person.
To chaff the state-of-the-art data mining would require some sophisticated computer science and sophisticated operations. You would (1) have to understand the state-of-the-art algorithms used and (2) devise a way to break those algorithms transparently. It is not a trivial task by any means even for someone that understands what is involved.
Superficial attempts to chaff surveillance systems might feel good but they won't accomplish much against a sophisticated adversary. The tech these days is much too good. Even leaving a minimal footprint for analysis is becoming nigh impossible.
Emacs' M-x spook command will paste some suitable words into the current buffer:
Croatian nuclear FBI colonel plutonium Ortega Waco, Texas Panama CIA DES jihad
fissionable quiche terrorist World Trade Center assassination DES NORAD Delta
Force Waco, Texas SDI explosion Serbian Panama Uzi Ft. Meade SEAL Team 6
Honduras PLO NSA terrorist Ft. Meade strategic supercomputer $400 million in
gold bullion quiche Honduras BATF colonel Treasury domestic disruption SEAL
Team 6 class struggle smuggle [Hello to all my fans in domestic surveillance]
Business idea: A "chaff box" that can be sold to the public.
Given a list of dodgy search keywords, youtube links, etc etc etc, regularly updated from a central location (think like a websense blocklist but in reverse), uses a configurable amount of bandwidth. Hits these sites with a human-like usage pattern when HTTP traffic from your LAN IP is detected (so it only works when you're actually browsing the web).
Plug it in and gain plausible deniability from most forms of government shenaniganery. Given critical mass, makes most forms of government behavioral analysis (and possibly advertiser behavioral analysis) useless.
Build it on the raspberry pi or similar platform. Materials cost is $35 plus shipping materials. Main time investment is limited to maintaining the blocklist and the central servers.
Hmm. Wonder how this could sell to the soccer mom crowd...
Would also raise some interesting and thorny questions for the server side. If enough people are using the box for the effect to be meaningful, then a lot of sites are going to have a lot of useless web traffic; yet allowing sites to "opt out" or having an identifier of some kind of the box's traffic completely defeats the purpose of the system.
> PGP....which is theoretically breakable thanks to the advent of quantum computing.
This is a minor quibble with your overall point, but what I've quoted is wrong. The underlying encryption algorithms for modern PGP implementations are breakable with Shor's algorithm on a quantum computer, but not all encryption algorithms are vulnerable and a PGP implementation in the future could use such an algorithm as default instead. (For instance, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McEliece_cryptosystem)
According to Mr. Binney's sworn declaration[1] in support of an EFF suit[2] against the NSA (stemming from the warrantless wiretapping/AT&T scandal,) he doesn't actually know that any of this is going on, but bases his assumptions on decade-old knowledge that it was possible.
It certainly might be the case that all net traffic is being stored by the NSA, but this man's say-so is hardly proof.
To me the warrantless wiretapping scandal IS the proof.
I mean if we know that there are Room 614As [1] all over the country, and that they are diverting nearly ALL communications to their facilities, in addition to them building new facilities to house data all the time [2].
All of this culminating with their shiny new data center [3], which cost 2 billion dollars to build, covers 900,000 sqft, and has a 40 million dollar annual utility bill, it becomes less about proving that they're doing this, but proving that they aren't doing this.
To be fair to the man, its pretty clear from his declaration you link to that some what he says is first-hand, some is second hand and some is assumptions. I think this is a little less nuts than the way you make it sound (that he doesn't know anything other than its possible).
Right from the start it sounds strange. They cite the case of Petreus as a proof FBI has access to everybody's email. But it is certainly wrong - FBI can obtain access to everybody's email if it is hosted by US provider such as Google, given enough cause to obtain warrants (such as suspicion that CIA director's email account was compromised). This is not news - hardly anyone in the US has doubts that given strong enough cause, FBI can solicit and receive access to specific accounts at US providers. Calling this "everyone under surveillance" is misleading. And how is it related to NSA? And why does not Binney point out Petreus' case is not about surveillance?
The key to this all are these two things (and someone who knows more please correct me):
1) Constitutionally they (NSA) seemed to have found a loophole that states that just storing the data on the disk doesn't constitute spying|invasion of privacy. Only when someone (a human) looks at the results then it triggers all the Constitutional restrictions. Sounds like a bunch of bullshit to me, but that's how they are justifying it.
2) A court subpoena or an executive "magic-Patriot-Act-Federal-Injunction whatever it is called?" when issued can apply to all the data, including historic data from the beginning of time associated with that individual. So, if they ever get a subpoena say when you are in your 50's they could legally pull all the data you generated, created, accessed since the day you were born.
Basically it is pretty obvious they are just planning on storing all the data they can. Therefore the big new data center with a 65MW power station next to it.
My hope is only that someone who is involved in this, just like this whistle-blower, will realize that this is wrong and will expose it and the public in general will start caring enough about this to turn this into a major political issues.
The FBI accessed all of Broadwell's IP address info and email accounts with nothing more than subpoena's.
I believe they are storing this information, they just don't have the technology yet that can sort it and allow access to it. So the Petreus emails are probably being stored at the NSA as well, it was just easier for the FBI to get them from Google.
Wired had some time ago an article about one NSA data center [1]. That article had some additional numbers on the scale of the surveillance efforts. Specifically it did note that the specific site will have a 65 MW power station, which one can compare to some supercomputers. For comparision RIKENs K Computer demands roughly 12 MW of power. [2] ( One can also try to estimate similar numbers from the size of the facility and from the building costs. In all cases one gets a similar factor of a few above modern supercomputers.)
How is this news? We've known this since Mark Klein[0] leaked the NSA warrantless wiretapping program to the press in 2006, more than 6 years ago. If you're doing anything illegal with a method of communication that doesn't have end-to-end encryption, then you're really stupid. Fortunately for the authorities, the vast majority of individuals who commit crimes are really stupid.
"I don’t think they are filtering it. They are just storing it"
How much would it actually cost to store all the emails that American citizens send and receive? I find it difficult to visualise a system of checks and balances approving the massive budget required to house all that data. And the technical challenge of sifting through those emails would be seriously hard. I understand that this might not be just about national security, but it could also be a power game on the part of the FBI. One has to consider how much [national security | power] this really affords [US citizens | the FBI] when measured against the gargantuan expenditure required to actually pull it off. This makes me totally skeptical. Additionally, by saying 'basically the e-mails of virtually everybody in the country' Binney demonstrates his lack of conviction and uncertainty of his own claims.
So, if his words aren't the giveaway, then two minutes of critical thinking will make the interview seem alarmist and inaccurate.
I'm curious as to the technical specifications of the supposed Naris device. I don't doubt that the US government can obtain the email logs of most citizens, but would it truly occur in this manner? Binney seems to describe a single unit connected directly into the backbone networks of major ISPs, logging all data on certain ports I assume (ie, the common POP3, IMAP, SMTP ports)? Depending on the level of distribution, this device would be tapping into potentially enormous amounts of data. The processing and storage infrastructure would have to be incredibly robust.
I'm not very knowledgable as to the feasibility of such a device, and quite frankly don't know where to begin, but I would love to hear from someone who might know more.
As a back of the napkin, rougher-than-order-of-magnitude calculation, it seems more feasible for the government to tap into existing email providers' databases than to try and administer their own. Would it not simply be easier to file requests (perhaps in a quasi-legitimate manner) for data from Google/Yahoo/MS/Apple than to try and catalog the entire email history of the Internet?
I think the government is sniffing packets directly. It's much easier to feed through whatever content analysis engines they have today than try to access remote systems routinely. SSL? When the government has access to most of the internet's root keys, decrypting 128-bit SSL is 'annoying' and definitely solved. There was a controversy a few years ago about secret closets with direct access to raw fiber traffic:
Mirroring traffic at the ISP would be much harder to detect, more thorough, and reduces the number of pesky admins who would come across surprises in their logs. My vote is on that approach -- it's similar to how spy satellites are operated now ("record everything and playback like it's a DVR when we need it").
As an aside, this is the third time in as many days that I've seen 'repeated' content from old Slashdot on HN. Not sure what I make of that trend.
Filing requests with endpoints leaves a trail, and an agency would have a hard time requesting everyone's total traffic without proper cause.
On the other hand, recording everything through a key bottleneck leaks no information about what is specifically of interest. It also allows retrospective looks at things that might not have seemed interesting enough to request up front. And 'certain ports'? Bah! Get it all. Maybe future breakthroughs (or current undisclosed innovations) can render it all transparent.
This may not be the 'easiest' approach, but it's definitely the 'best', for maximum knowledge, if you can afford/manage it.
The proper spelling is 'Narus', which is also the name of the supplier company, based in Sunnyvale and since 2010 a subsidiary of Boeing. You can read about them and their capabilities at:
In addition to probably millions of pieces of cyberpunk/science fiction, there was a crack in Gilmore Girls about victims not caring if you take away their freedom slowly and without them noticing at first.
Almost everyone is distracted from the main point:
"A declaration of rights is not a creation of them, nor a donation of them. It is a manifest of the principle by which they exist, followed by a detail of what the rights are; for every civil right has a natural right for its foundation, and it includes the principle of a reciprocal guarantee of those rights from man to man. As, therefore, it is impossible to discover any origin of rights otherwise than in the origin of man, it consequently follows, that rights appertain to man in right of his existence only, and must therefore be equal to every man."-- Thomas Paine
I'd feel a lot better if this article was from almost any other news site. RT is not known for being fair or balanced when it comes to anything involving the USA.
If you find similar coverage elsewhere please link it. In the meantime I'm glad RT is on this.
And please distinguish between the long-term goals and values of the USA and the craven personal interests of its present rulers. In pieces I've read and seen from RT, they've often honored the former while excoriating the latter. Which is something I wish an American news source could do. I'll know it's possible as soon as I see a single example.
> I'd feel a lot better if this article was from almost any other news site. RT is not known for being fair or balanced when it comes to anything involving the USA.
Quite the contrary. RT is pretty well balanced when it comes to USA. A lot more so than Fox or CNN say.
RT is not balanced when it comes to Russia though.
>> RT: It seems that the public is divided between those, who think that the government surveillance program violates their civil liberties, and those who say, 'I've nothing to hide. So, why should I care?' What do you say to those who think that it shouldn't concern them.?
>> WB: The problem is if they think they are not doing anything that’s wrong, they don’t get to define that. The central government does, the central government defines what is right and wrong and whether or not they target you. So, it’s not up to the individuals. Even if they think they aren't doing something wrong, if their position on something is against what the administration has, then they could easily become a target.
It's Bluffdale, not Buffdale. And it creeps me out every time I look across the valley at it.
I really wish the investors in the company I was working on building to encrypted email for the "common man" would have been willing to invest what it would really take to make it work. We were on the right track. :(
Thought my connection to Google was almost always under the HTTPS protocol... can someone explain to me how the NSA has broken SSL encryption to possibly THE largest internet company in the world?
How does this compare to the current practices in other countries? Are there whistleblowers elsewhere whose revelations are reported on in reliable press sources?
(I used to live in a country that was then ruled by a dictatorship, and I am aware of how people behave under such rule. That country now has a free press and free, contested elections for the national leadership.)
I would invite HN readers to consider that report, then consider over a decade of technology improvements have since occurred, then consider how little of the public's interest has been engaged in such matters. Having done so, consider supporting the efforts of a small number of parties like the EFF and Assange to raise awareness of these issues and fight for the public interest and individual rights.
Is it possible to write an OTR plugin/extension for Google Talk that can encrypt the text locally before it's sent to the other person, who would also use this plugin? From what I'm reading Cryptocat already works in a similar way.
I know there's already Jitsi or Pidgini with OTR that can do this for Google Talk and FB chat, but those are just other apps that you need to install, and I think a Chrome plugin/"app" would see much wider adoption. Or should we just wait for web crypto before this can be possible (2014)? Or just wait until Google themselves to do it? (if ever)
Those who care anyway already use clients which support OTR with the same Google Talk or any other XMPP server like Pidgin, Adium, Jitsi and etc. Those who don't care won't use anything even within the Google Talk web application.
Standalone XMPP clients anyway are way better than Google Talk web application, since they are more flexible and allow using several accounts at once.
Someone should buy a Naris and let hackers start hammering on it. The delivery vector for any malware developed would be trivial. Just send it in an email to someone in the USA.
1.) Citizens can't afford a Narus device, let alone what they're offering now (more service oriented, less local hardware)
2.) Narus doesn't sell to citizens. Citizens aren't allowed to have information on what kind of monitoring Narus does because it's national security classified.
>The exact use of this data is not fully documented, as the public is not authorized to see what types of activities and ideas are being monitored.
I am from those "parts" of the world but also monitor US media. I found from experience that RT actually does a great job covering issues related to US (and other countries) but it is complete bullshit when it comes to Russia itself.
American and other news agencies (say Al Jazeera) also seem to follow the same pattern more or less.
So it helps to monitor and compare various news outlets and you can sort of see who they cover the same story and how they spin and then, well, decide for yourself if you can't independently verify the facts. If you can then you can benchmark and compare the performance/quality of each of the news sources.
'Everyone in US', but not limited to the US, right? Services provided by servers in the States are used by people all around the world. Many communications started in other countries have their recipients in the US.
So isn't it more like 'A large part of the worlds population under virtual surveillance'?
[+] [-] melito|13 years ago|reply
In my opinion that would be an exercise in futility.
I think a proper response to this issue is to simply promote social depravity on a grand scale.
Everybody should just constantly read/watch/listen to media involving things like methamphetamine manufacturing, nuclear & home made weapons/chemicals, illegal currencies, human trafficking, hardcore pornography, armed rebellions, the middle east, famous terrorists, serial killers, bon jovi, etc
All of those are a lot more interesting to the common man than lessons on how to use PGP....which is theoretically breakable thanks to the advent of quantum computing.
If everything is being sniffed and stored, there have to be a number of very specific topics that are being sought after in that data.....in my opinion it'd be far worse if the government wasn't searching for things like human trafficking and nuclear weapons (things, hopefully, we can all agree are not good).
Television series like "Breaking Bad" are already pulling weekly audience number of around 3 million plus. One could argue that you wouldn't even have to do much promotion, as these topics already seem to be mainstays in much present day pop culture
[+] [-] jandrewrogers|13 years ago|reply
The algorithms used for text mining are much more contextual and semantic than what would be fooled by the simple gags I commonly see on the Internet. Those gags might send a message of sorts but they don't make anyone's job more difficult. For a start, they know you are not a terrorist or whatever; nothing about your life as modeled across myriad data sources suggests that. Instead, you will be some random person pretending to stick it to The Man, which they don't care about and never lands in front of a person.
To chaff the state-of-the-art data mining would require some sophisticated computer science and sophisticated operations. You would (1) have to understand the state-of-the-art algorithms used and (2) devise a way to break those algorithms transparently. It is not a trivial task by any means even for someone that understands what is involved.
Superficial attempts to chaff surveillance systems might feel good but they won't accomplish much against a sophisticated adversary. The tech these days is much too good. Even leaving a minimal footprint for analysis is becoming nigh impossible.
[+] [-] cpeterso|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Karunamon|13 years ago|reply
Given a list of dodgy search keywords, youtube links, etc etc etc, regularly updated from a central location (think like a websense blocklist but in reverse), uses a configurable amount of bandwidth. Hits these sites with a human-like usage pattern when HTTP traffic from your LAN IP is detected (so it only works when you're actually browsing the web).
Plug it in and gain plausible deniability from most forms of government shenaniganery. Given critical mass, makes most forms of government behavioral analysis (and possibly advertiser behavioral analysis) useless.
Build it on the raspberry pi or similar platform. Materials cost is $35 plus shipping materials. Main time investment is limited to maintaining the blocklist and the central servers.
Hmm. Wonder how this could sell to the soccer mom crowd...
Would also raise some interesting and thorny questions for the server side. If enough people are using the box for the effect to be meaningful, then a lot of sites are going to have a lot of useless web traffic; yet allowing sites to "opt out" or having an identifier of some kind of the box's traffic completely defeats the purpose of the system.
[+] [-] Jach|13 years ago|reply
This is a minor quibble with your overall point, but what I've quoted is wrong. The underlying encryption algorithms for modern PGP implementations are breakable with Shor's algorithm on a quantum computer, but not all encryption algorithms are vulnerable and a PGP implementation in the future could use such an algorithm as default instead. (For instance, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McEliece_cryptosystem)
[+] [-] blhack|13 years ago|reply
http://www.haystackproject.org/
[+] [-] charonn0|13 years ago|reply
It certainly might be the case that all net traffic is being stored by the NSA, but this man's say-so is hardly proof.
[1] https://publicintelligence.net/binney-nsa-declaration/
[2] https://www.eff.org/cases/jewel
[+] [-] s_henry_paulson|13 years ago|reply
I mean if we know that there are Room 614As [1] all over the country, and that they are diverting nearly ALL communications to their facilities, in addition to them building new facilities to house data all the time [2].
All of this culminating with their shiny new data center [3], which cost 2 billion dollars to build, covers 900,000 sqft, and has a 40 million dollar annual utility bill, it becomes less about proving that they're doing this, but proving that they aren't doing this.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Room_641A
[2] http://www2.sacurrent.com/news/story.asp?id=69607
[3] http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/03/ff_nsadatacenter/al...
[+] [-] twelvechairs|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] wildranter|13 years ago|reply
Now seriously, the government got too big. What are you going to do about it?
Caution! Everything you say here or anywhere is being recorded, and may or may not be used against you in a court of law.
[+] [-] smsm42|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rdtsc|13 years ago|reply
1) Constitutionally they (NSA) seemed to have found a loophole that states that just storing the data on the disk doesn't constitute spying|invasion of privacy. Only when someone (a human) looks at the results then it triggers all the Constitutional restrictions. Sounds like a bunch of bullshit to me, but that's how they are justifying it.
2) A court subpoena or an executive "magic-Patriot-Act-Federal-Injunction whatever it is called?" when issued can apply to all the data, including historic data from the beginning of time associated with that individual. So, if they ever get a subpoena say when you are in your 50's they could legally pull all the data you generated, created, accessed since the day you were born.
Basically it is pretty obvious they are just planning on storing all the data they can. Therefore the big new data center with a 65MW power station next to it.
My hope is only that someone who is involved in this, just like this whistle-blower, will realize that this is wrong and will expose it and the public in general will start caring enough about this to turn this into a major political issues.
[+] [-] nikcub|13 years ago|reply
The FBI accessed all of Broadwell's IP address info and email accounts with nothing more than subpoena's.
I believe they are storing this information, they just don't have the technology yet that can sort it and allow access to it. So the Petreus emails are probably being stored at the NSA as well, it was just easier for the FBI to get them from Google.
[+] [-] rhizome|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] yk|13 years ago|reply
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3711603
[2] http://top500.org/list/2012/11/
[+] [-] Uhhrrr|13 years ago|reply
That seems like a giant blinking point of failure.
[+] [-] w1ntermute|13 years ago|reply
0: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Klein
[+] [-] OzzyOsbourne|13 years ago|reply
How much would it actually cost to store all the emails that American citizens send and receive? I find it difficult to visualise a system of checks and balances approving the massive budget required to house all that data. And the technical challenge of sifting through those emails would be seriously hard. I understand that this might not be just about national security, but it could also be a power game on the part of the FBI. One has to consider how much [national security | power] this really affords [US citizens | the FBI] when measured against the gargantuan expenditure required to actually pull it off. This makes me totally skeptical. Additionally, by saying 'basically the e-mails of virtually everybody in the country' Binney demonstrates his lack of conviction and uncertainty of his own claims.
So, if his words aren't the giveaway, then two minutes of critical thinking will make the interview seem alarmist and inaccurate.
[+] [-] nikcub|13 years ago|reply
NSA budgets aren't approved by the entire house, but by secret meetings of the intelligence sub-committee.
This datacenter is definitely being built. It is so well known that Wired did a cover story on it:
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/03/ff_nsadatacenter/
[+] [-] jkimmel|13 years ago|reply
I'm not very knowledgable as to the feasibility of such a device, and quite frankly don't know where to begin, but I would love to hear from someone who might know more.
As a back of the napkin, rougher-than-order-of-magnitude calculation, it seems more feasible for the government to tap into existing email providers' databases than to try and administer their own. Would it not simply be easier to file requests (perhaps in a quasi-legitimate manner) for data from Google/Yahoo/MS/Apple than to try and catalog the entire email history of the Internet?
[+] [-] yajoe|13 years ago|reply
* http://yro.slashdot.org/story/05/12/25/0029204/nsa-data-mini...
* http://slashdot.org/story/06/04/07/1246259/att-forwarding-al...
* http://yro.slashdot.org/story/07/11/09/2040206/ex-att-tech-s...
Mirroring traffic at the ISP would be much harder to detect, more thorough, and reduces the number of pesky admins who would come across surprises in their logs. My vote is on that approach -- it's similar to how spy satellites are operated now ("record everything and playback like it's a DVR when we need it").
As an aside, this is the third time in as many days that I've seen 'repeated' content from old Slashdot on HN. Not sure what I make of that trend.
[+] [-] gojomo|13 years ago|reply
On the other hand, recording everything through a key bottleneck leaks no information about what is specifically of interest. It also allows retrospective looks at things that might not have seemed interesting enough to request up front. And 'certain ports'? Bah! Get it all. Maybe future breakthroughs (or current undisclosed innovations) can render it all transparent.
This may not be the 'easiest' approach, but it's definitely the 'best', for maximum knowledge, if you can afford/manage it.
The proper spelling is 'Narus', which is also the name of the supplier company, based in Sunnyvale and since 2010 a subsidiary of Boeing. You can read about them and their capabilities at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narus_%28company%29
http://www.narus.com/
[+] [-] unknown|13 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] grecy|13 years ago|reply
It seems like every day a new article comes to light about how the government is blatantly violating it with complete disregard.
Worse, nobody seems to be doing anything about it.
[+] [-] moostapha|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] wissler|13 years ago|reply
"A declaration of rights is not a creation of them, nor a donation of them. It is a manifest of the principle by which they exist, followed by a detail of what the rights are; for every civil right has a natural right for its foundation, and it includes the principle of a reciprocal guarantee of those rights from man to man. As, therefore, it is impossible to discover any origin of rights otherwise than in the origin of man, it consequently follows, that rights appertain to man in right of his existence only, and must therefore be equal to every man."-- Thomas Paine
[+] [-] Karunamon|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jessaustin|13 years ago|reply
And please distinguish between the long-term goals and values of the USA and the craven personal interests of its present rulers. In pieces I've read and seen from RT, they've often honored the former while excoriating the latter. Which is something I wish an American news source could do. I'll know it's possible as soon as I see a single example.
[+] [-] tokenadult|13 years ago|reply
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4247829
"> The source of the submitted article, rt.com, is not known for careful journalism.
"Understatement of the year."
[+] [-] shmerl|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rdtsc|13 years ago|reply
Quite the contrary. RT is pretty well balanced when it comes to USA. A lot more so than Fox or CNN say.
RT is not balanced when it comes to Russia though.
[+] [-] R_Edward|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] clobber|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nathan_long|13 years ago|reply
>> RT: It seems that the public is divided between those, who think that the government surveillance program violates their civil liberties, and those who say, 'I've nothing to hide. So, why should I care?' What do you say to those who think that it shouldn't concern them.?
>> WB: The problem is if they think they are not doing anything that’s wrong, they don’t get to define that. The central government does, the central government defines what is right and wrong and whether or not they target you. So, it’s not up to the individuals. Even if they think they aren't doing something wrong, if their position on something is against what the administration has, then they could easily become a target.
[+] [-] SoftwareMaven|13 years ago|reply
It's Bluffdale, not Buffdale. And it creeps me out every time I look across the valley at it.
I really wish the investors in the company I was working on building to encrypted email for the "common man" would have been willing to invest what it would really take to make it work. We were on the right track. :(
[+] [-] gojomo|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] salman89|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tokenadult|13 years ago|reply
(I used to live in a country that was then ruled by a dictatorship, and I am aware of how people behave under such rule. That country now has a free press and free, contested elections for the national leadership.)
[+] [-] unknown|13 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] shmerl|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rooshdi|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] contingencies|13 years ago|reply
I would invite HN readers to consider that report, then consider over a decade of technology improvements have since occurred, then consider how little of the public's interest has been engaged in such matters. Having done so, consider supporting the efforts of a small number of parties like the EFF and Assange to raise awareness of these issues and fight for the public interest and individual rights.
[+] [-] mtgx|13 years ago|reply
I know there's already Jitsi or Pidgini with OTR that can do this for Google Talk and FB chat, but those are just other apps that you need to install, and I think a Chrome plugin/"app" would see much wider adoption. Or should we just wait for web crypto before this can be possible (2014)? Or just wait until Google themselves to do it? (if ever)
[+] [-] shmerl|13 years ago|reply
Standalone XMPP clients anyway are way better than Google Talk web application, since they are more flexible and allow using several accounts at once.
[+] [-] jessaustin|13 years ago|reply
Hi NSA!
[+] [-] IheartApplesDix|13 years ago|reply
2.) Narus doesn't sell to citizens. Citizens aren't allowed to have information on what kind of monitoring Narus does because it's national security classified.
>The exact use of this data is not fully documented, as the public is not authorized to see what types of activities and ideas are being monitored.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narus_%28company%29
[+] [-] makhanko|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rdtsc|13 years ago|reply
American and other news agencies (say Al Jazeera) also seem to follow the same pattern more or less.
So it helps to monitor and compare various news outlets and you can sort of see who they cover the same story and how they spin and then, well, decide for yourself if you can't independently verify the facts. If you can then you can benchmark and compare the performance/quality of each of the news sources.
[+] [-] hamoid|13 years ago|reply
So isn't it more like 'A large part of the worlds population under virtual surveillance'?
[+] [-] propercoil|13 years ago|reply