>Any kind of Internet traffic that passes before these mass surveillance sensors can be analyzed in a protocol-agnostic manner, meta-data and content both, and it can be today, right now, searched not only with very little effort, via a complex regular expression — which is a type of shorthand programming — but also via any algorithm an analyst can implement in popular high level programming
That's amazing. Imagine being able to construct a regular expression that get's applied on every single piece of communication in the world. Yes, it's far too much power to entrust to anyone, much less an unaccountable secretive organization, but I'll be damned if that's not an incredibly fascinating and attractive proposition. No wonder these bureaucrats are willing to so thoroughly overstep the law, that kind of power must be very tempting.
Every comment, every upvote, every webpage you've ever viewed - parsed and mined for context specific metadata by some watson-like super-brain. And the interface isn't a regex, it's more minority-report style and lets you query people by political/economic/religious/etc affiliation. And you better believe there's a terminate button that disables your car brakes courtesy of on-star. (I keed I keed)
As someone who has worked for a number of sensitive human rights groups over the years this sickens but doesn't surprise me. I would be very surprised if some of my operations haven't been targeted by this.
Many of the groups targeted are involved with actively investigating human rights abuses conducted by many countries in the world - including the USA in Guantanamo Bay, Abu Ghraib, drone strikes, secret prisons, etc. I fail to see exactly what the US National Security interest is in investigating these groups (Caveat: not all NGOs worldwide should be outside scrutiny, ie ones which funnel arms to Al Qaeda obviously but these ones certainly don't do that). The security community (as has happened in many countries over the years - the UK in Northern Ireland for example) has confused "National Security" with "embarrassment." I say "security community" as there are many fantastic people within US government and private institutions that are capable of looking at the long-term interest and are doing a good job of supporting human rights and freedom on the internet. For example, it is a credit that so much great work like The Guardian Project and Whisper Systems is underway to address such problems.
Human rights groups and journalists have been consistently the victim of high-level APT from China, Russia and elsewhere - there are many cases documented online. Many of these have been targeted through the exact same methods that large corporations like banks, defence companies, nuclear energy businesses. It's somehow morally wrong that organisations like GCHQ and the NSA actively thwart attacks (and share information) on such companies, while ignoring and obviously exploiting threats against human rights groups (which often end in the deaths of human rights defenders, aid workers and journalists).
The long-term national interest of the USA and other countries is the spread of our good values - freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, self determination, respect for international law etc. The "war on terror" has caused too many to lose sight of these soft-power instruments and that is a pity. Which does more long-term good for our way of life, values and foreign policy these days, Lockheed Martin or Amnesty International?
>The long-term national interest of the USA and other countries is the spread of our good values - freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, self determination, respect for international law etc.
That's not really an interest, short or long term. What are the various lobbies to gain from this? What is indeed an interest, and has been for over a century, is being the top dog, and taking advantage of that (using propaganda, lackeys and military power when needed) to get cheap resources, favorable trade deals and allies that ensure this goes on forever.
Playing on a level playing field has never been of interest.
Gosh I am shocked. Of all the people they would spy on they target a human rights group. Who would have thought it?
We have heard a lot about how people don't want their cloud computing in the US any more, however, as of yet, there has not been a lot about how those that now know they are effectively being targeted have changed procedures.
Anyone in a 'save the world' group care to comment?
The NSA's job is more than simply spying -- they also subvert security through intentionally and maliciously weakening it. I wouldn't be surprised if the NSA considers it an acceptable risk that sensitive government systems are allowed to continue remaining vulnerable regardless of the dangers because fixing those security vulnerabilities would alert their adversaries to such vulnerabilities.
Even furthermore, the various intelligence agencies also weaken systems for their own convenience, and yet there is nothing stopping anyone else from exploiting such weaknesses. Isn't this simply recklessness and negligence?
We keep hearing about hackers getting customer data over and over again, is that because of what our government has done?
I'm not in a "save the world" group but I do have friends that are in conservation groups. The common response was a sarcastic "who would have guessed?!?!" type of response.
These days everyone drinks at the NSA bar. where everything is on tap, all the time.
Remember that April fools joke by the pirate bay a few years ago..? They moved their hosting to the land of the free.
I am in two Dutch groups that are saving the world, both of them were not hosted there but definitively won't now.
Also a company I work for was collecting client customer data, they moved storage from US to Netherlands.
If anyone could post a video link or download that doesn't require flash, it would be appreciated. There seems to be a MP4 file hidden somewhere in the layers of obfuscation in their streaming player.
Those groups investigate and report things like the torture by those guards in Afghanistan, and other such abuses. But also abuses of local lackeys ("allies") worldwide. Including stuff done by corporations that have powerful lobbyists, in banana republics, the third world, etc.
The agenda one would guess is: get them to stop, intimidate people who follow a hot lead, know anything that's about to be reported in advance, etc.
It even happens for ecology groups. Here's a case from Britain -- see how far these things can go:
It's just a move covert intelligent gathering approach of using a vaccination program to obtain DNA samples of the local populace. It's exercise for the reader to work out when technique was apparently used.
Certain groups that the US deems contrary to their national interests may come to an aid agency for help.
“I am proud of the fact that despite the dramatic protestations of intelligence chiefs, no evidence has been shown by any government that the revelations of the last year have caused any specific harm,” he added. “My motivation is to improve government, not to bring it down.”
I think this goes against the grain for a lot of HN.
What? Even most hardcore libertarians don't want to bring down the government. And HN discussions rarely have anything more than moderate anti-government stances.
Despite common perception, almost all libertarians are "minarchists" not anarchists. They want to minimize government, not have no government.
An agency such as the NSA could actually fit into that model of governance if it had a defensive focus instead of an offensive one (ie. protecting citizens interests first instead of the state).
I disagree. I've seen very few arguments on HN for anarchy. I have seen many libertarian posts, but that is a very different thing. Anarchy is about removing the government; libertarianism is about keeping it tightly constrained. The NSA is a great example of government not kept constrained.
pvnick|12 years ago
That's amazing. Imagine being able to construct a regular expression that get's applied on every single piece of communication in the world. Yes, it's far too much power to entrust to anyone, much less an unaccountable secretive organization, but I'll be damned if that's not an incredibly fascinating and attractive proposition. No wonder these bureaucrats are willing to so thoroughly overstep the law, that kind of power must be very tempting.
id|12 years ago
MrZongle2|12 years ago
"Too many secrets" indeed.
swalsh|12 years ago
smokeyj|12 years ago
timdiggerm|12 years ago
roasty|12 years ago
secfirstmd|12 years ago
Many of the groups targeted are involved with actively investigating human rights abuses conducted by many countries in the world - including the USA in Guantanamo Bay, Abu Ghraib, drone strikes, secret prisons, etc. I fail to see exactly what the US National Security interest is in investigating these groups (Caveat: not all NGOs worldwide should be outside scrutiny, ie ones which funnel arms to Al Qaeda obviously but these ones certainly don't do that). The security community (as has happened in many countries over the years - the UK in Northern Ireland for example) has confused "National Security" with "embarrassment." I say "security community" as there are many fantastic people within US government and private institutions that are capable of looking at the long-term interest and are doing a good job of supporting human rights and freedom on the internet. For example, it is a credit that so much great work like The Guardian Project and Whisper Systems is underway to address such problems.
Human rights groups and journalists have been consistently the victim of high-level APT from China, Russia and elsewhere - there are many cases documented online. Many of these have been targeted through the exact same methods that large corporations like banks, defence companies, nuclear energy businesses. It's somehow morally wrong that organisations like GCHQ and the NSA actively thwart attacks (and share information) on such companies, while ignoring and obviously exploiting threats against human rights groups (which often end in the deaths of human rights defenders, aid workers and journalists).
The long-term national interest of the USA and other countries is the spread of our good values - freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, self determination, respect for international law etc. The "war on terror" has caused too many to lose sight of these soft-power instruments and that is a pity. Which does more long-term good for our way of life, values and foreign policy these days, Lockheed Martin or Amnesty International?
coldtea|12 years ago
That's not really an interest, short or long term. What are the various lobbies to gain from this? What is indeed an interest, and has been for over a century, is being the top dog, and taking advantage of that (using propaganda, lackeys and military power when needed) to get cheap resources, favorable trade deals and allies that ensure this goes on forever.
Playing on a level playing field has never been of interest.
w_t_payne|12 years ago
ForHackernews|12 years ago
toufka|12 years ago
tomswartz07|12 years ago
Theodores|12 years ago
We have heard a lot about how people don't want their cloud computing in the US any more, however, as of yet, there has not been a lot about how those that now know they are effectively being targeted have changed procedures.
Anyone in a 'save the world' group care to comment?
ihsw|12 years ago
Even furthermore, the various intelligence agencies also weaken systems for their own convenience, and yet there is nothing stopping anyone else from exploiting such weaknesses. Isn't this simply recklessness and negligence?
We keep hearing about hackers getting customer data over and over again, is that because of what our government has done?
It's not just spying.
conkrete|12 years ago
These days everyone drinks at the NSA bar. where everything is on tap, all the time.
Ihmahr|12 years ago
I am in two Dutch groups that are saving the world, both of them were not hosted there but definitively won't now. Also a company I work for was collecting client customer data, they moved storage from US to Netherlands.
saraid216|12 years ago
RexRollman|12 years ago
dublinben|12 years ago
ds9|12 years ago
unknown|12 years ago
[deleted]
w_t_payne|12 years ago
TeMPOraL|12 years ago
There is likely no agenda related to those groups in particular. They are spying on everyone.
coldtea|12 years ago
The agenda one would guess is: get them to stop, intimidate people who follow a hot lead, know anything that's about to be reported in advance, etc.
It even happens for ecology groups. Here's a case from Britain -- see how far these things can go:
http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2012/jan/20/undercover-police-...
Guthur|12 years ago
Certain groups that the US deems contrary to their national interests may come to an aid agency for help.
happyscrappy|12 years ago
I think this goes against the grain for a lot of HN.
dmix|12 years ago
Despite common perception, almost all libertarians are "minarchists" not anarchists. They want to minimize government, not have no government.
An agency such as the NSA could actually fit into that model of governance if it had a defensive focus instead of an offensive one (ie. protecting citizens interests first instead of the state).
SoftwareMaven|12 years ago