PRISM, Microsoft et al. and Your Privacy

[Friendly]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/investiga ... story.html

http://www.h-online.com/security/news/i ... 62870.html

[hail good sir]

crime

[CloudyMusic]

I love how you singled out Microsoft alone in the original version of the thread title, then changed it in an apparent attempt to maintain some facade of impartiality.

That said, as soon as the XBONE is out, you can bet that there'll be hundreds of people with packet sniffers inspecting whatever data the Kinect and/or the console sends up to Microsoft, so all of the speculation about "Kinect spying" can either be proven or disproven.

[Friendly]

I love how you singled out Microsoft alone in the original version of the thread title, then changed it in an apparent attempt to maintain some facade of impartiality.

At first I only wanted to create a thread about how Microsoft spies on Skype users, but then decided to also make this about PRISM in general. The reason I named Microsoft first is because they were the very first to join PRISM and send collected data to the NSA.

PRISM was launched from the ashes of President George W. Bush’s secret program of warrantless domestic surveillance in 2007, after news media disclosures, lawsuits and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court forced the president to look for new authority.

Congress obliged with the Protect America Act in 2007 and the FISA Amendments Act of 2008, which immunized private companies that cooperated voluntarily with U.S. intelligence collection. PRISM recruited its first partner, Microsoft, and began six years of rapidly growing data collection beneath the surface of a roiling national debate on surveillance and privacy.

[hail good sir]

the

[ZellSF]

I love how you singled out Microsoft alone in the original version of the thread title, then changed it in an apparent attempt to maintain some facade of impartiality.

That said, as soon as the XBONE is out, you can bet that there'll be hundreds of people with packet sniffers inspecting whatever data the Kinect and/or the console sends up to Microsoft, so all of the speculation about "Kinect spying" can either be proven or disproven.

Encryption? I'm guessing we'll only be able to tell how much data it sends, not what data it sends.

[Friendly]

PRISM is one of the largest scandals in US-history. Total disregard for the rights and privacy of Americans and people all over the world who use US-online service providers.
And yet nobody wants to even talk about this? Sad, but it explains how the NSA and their ilk keep succeeding: Total apathy.

[Ed Oscuro]

I'm not surprised. It's been clear that something was up and the recent discussion on Capitol Hill about keeping the War On Terror limping going for another 20 years is a huge issue in my view. I don't know what kind of reception it's been getting by the general public, or if they even are aware, but apparently at least some people know.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/ju ... tions-live

It's funny to be writing this but this really is starting to look like Deus Ex.

In all seriousness, I think having the capability is fine, but it's being used in a bloated and inefficient system which is soaking up a huge amount of tax dollars. It's not just secret-clearance data centers, but an absolutely massive - think on the scale of the defense community - shadow industry with many, many companies working on surveillance, and many of them duplicating effort or working on stuff that nobody ever sees, which means that quite likely there are many gratuitous breaches of privacy.

One of the other effects of this is quite clear also - when you have members of Congress getting a clearance so they can work in an oversight capacity (this illustrates the problem), but then cannot actually directly let anyone know about what they've learned, it's quite clear the public is not being trusted at all. Even things which are quite clearly not BEADWINDOW-type violations (i.e., giving away specific ability, or the location of units at a specific time) with operational ramifications - things like "what is the scope of the program?" - are being hidden, probably with the intent that we do not want anybody to know about the scope of the capability, and to be either complacent or paranoid, depending on what they think of it. But it seems pretty reasonable that a slight theoretical operational benefit does not, according to the design of the U.S. system as outlined in the various founding documents, come at the cost of locking the citizens out of debate about the national policy.

[hail good sir]

grew

[Friendly]

I always expected something like this and never trusted Microsoft, Google, etc.
That's why I stopped using Skype as soon MS acquired it. I don't use Hotmail, Bing, Gmail (I even try to avoid sending emails to to gmail accounts), I don't accept cookies from Google, have no Youtube or Facebook account. Whenever I came in contact with these corporations, I never provided any real personal information. With a bit of common sense, you can largely avoid data-mining and being spied on.

[CStarFlare]

that's pretty suspicious of you

[louisg]

First they came for the Sony fans, and I said nothing...

[Ed Oscuro]

Reportedly they wanted to add DropBox to the list of PRISM suppliers.

One wrinkle in all this is that look, most internet infrastructure is currently in the U.S., and so how are you going to spy on foreign nationals who use US services? It is obviously going to be a bit complicated, especially when you consider the dragnet goes through a lot of domestic citizens' information at the same time.

The pyramids thing: Surprisingly, you get a nice pyramid out of the deal, and personal employment when you can't till your fields. We just have some ugly buildings hidden somewhere, and more taxes.

[Moniker]

I am SO getting a PS4 now.



...did I win the thread?

[hail good sir]

I

[Moniker]

Actually, you're right. My penis is fully retracted. Let no one say I don't admit when I'm being an asshole.


Peace, Friendly.

[Ganelon]

I don't use Hotmail, Bing, Gmail (I even try to avoid sending emails to to gmail accounts), I don't accept cookies from Google, have no Youtube or Facebook account.

I agree with you on the caution but when you don't use the biggest email providers, chances are a lot higher that your email account will disappear down the line.

It's hilarious in hindsight how hypocritical Google was in backing out of China though.

[BulletMagnet]

It's hilarious in hindsight how hypocritical Google was in backing out of China though.

If anyone ever believed the whole "don't be evil" thing for a second, I honestly don't know what to tell them.

In any event, I'll never for the life of me understand why, of all the Bush-era initiatives to take up the mantle of without any reservations (and expand on top of that), Obama picks this one: even if you somehow choose to disregard the whole "uh, the government's spying on its own citizens without any probable cause, that's not a good sign" thing, on a purely short-term, self-interested level this is not only a particularly sore issue for Obama's base (especially since Bush's supporters gave them such hell, totally sans restraint, let alone consequences of any sort, for "wanting the terrorists to win" when they complained about warrantless wiretapping back then), but his opponents can still effortlessly bludgeon him over the head with it even though the program isn't entirely of his own making.

Has the whole hastily-'roided up, money-chugging "national security" structure already become such a force of nature, and have its critics been beaten down like dogs so many times, that nobody's willing or able to roll it back? There's got to be somebody with access to high-level government operations who could take steps in this direction, but considering how utterly unapologetic he's been about this whole thing it sure isn't Barry...and what worries me more is that if anyone dares to run on a platform vowing to roll back these measures he/she will have to put up with the same "soft on terror" BS that got us into this mess, and it'll work just as frustratingly well as it did every time leading up to now.

[ED-057]

Has the whole hastily-'roided up, money-chugging "national security" structure already become such a force of nature, and have its critics been beaten down like dogs so many times, that nobody's willing or able to roll it back?

Carter tried to rein in the intelligence apparatus after the revelation of Cointelpro and whatnot. He failed. When the interests of entrenched bureaucracy, politicians, the military-industrial complex, law enforcement, private prison industry, and various other big businesses are all aligned? They aren't going to give up just because of a temporary media ruckus, or hearings or "investigations."

I'm not at all surprised by this news. Pleased that it is being reported, but not optimistic that anything will change as a result.

Meanwhile, the latest Washington Spectator printed poll results indicating that 29% of Americans believe armed resistance against the government to preserve liberty may become necessary "in the next few years." I find this to be shockingly high. It was not specified what the respondants' particular concerns were though, so I don't know if this sentiment has anything to do with, for instance, utter disregard for the Bill of Rights.

[Skykid]

It's hilarious in hindsight how hypocritical Google was in backing out of China though.

People are so caught up in the pro-western democracy news filtering that they can't see the woods for the trees. This Prism data collection business isn't news for some people, it's been commonly acknowledged by (non-conspiracy theorist) groups that the likes of Google and Facebook share information with the government for years.

I brought this up ages ago when Julian Assange was running his weekly programme on RT and his US net hacker guest explained the whole thing in very basic terms.

He also explained that the Chinese don't block Facebook, YouTube or Google because of the sensational idea of infringing people's rights (why bother, they already practice Internet censorship): it's because they're not going to let the US waltz through the internet backdoor and start collecting enormous and potentially politically incendiary information on their general population.

The Internet thick are always crying about poor Chinese people who can't enjoy wonderful western social media, but fail to realise they have their own highly profitable versions of the exact same thing: Weibo, We Chat, Taobao, Baidu and endless Facebook equivalents. Social networking in China comprises a whopping 3.2 billion accounts and is used by 91% of the population - more than the US and UK combined. The US want some of that action, but have simply (and sensibly, from a national security standpoint) been cock-blocked.

The UK and every other Facebook and Google embracing country, however, your personal info belongs to the US government and associates. The net is a battlefront, make no mistake.

[Ed Oscuro]

Meanwhile, the latest Washington Spectator printed poll results indicating that 29% of Americans believe armed resistance against the government to preserve liberty may become necessary "in the next few years." I find this to be shockingly high. It was not specified what the respondants' particular concerns were though, so I don't know if this sentiment has anything to do with, for instance, utter disregard for the Bill of Rights.

I'm not one to share these beliefs, but I think that common knowledge about the widening of this intelligence net, along with a lack of specifics, and the reality of the indefinite detention of foreign nationals, has lead many of these people to believe that the government is going to unleash something like what you see in Deus Ex: Human Revolution - infringement of privacy and mass detention or disappearances. Add in the recent track record of elected members of the government and top members of bureaucracies not paying attention to people's demands that government policy not continue its class warfare against people who aren't in the top 1% or 2% - the government really is at a low ebb for accountability.

I think, for average Americans and even for most friendly nationals (who don't have brown skin / names that tend to trigger watch lists, i.e. members of commonwealth nations, Europeans, some Asian nationals), there is little enough possibility of the government taking your data and using it to make your life miserable. However, when all this collected data is warehoused for a long period of time, there is a significant personal privacy risk.

I'll finish up by saying that in the White House, the President is surrounded by people who are laser-focused on preventing another 9/11, and really, from that viewpoint, how would you say that even a massive breach of privacy (i.e. in a leak / theft of data from data holding facilities) is worse than the argument that we can save lives? I can't stress enough that all the pressure is on to prevent people from being killed (Americans and friendly nationals, anyway) in another terrorist attack. What we don't know is how much slack there is in the system, and how much of the intelligence that is actually sifted through is useful, or how well the sifting works in the first place. I'm sure it would be very complicated to sort it all out even if we did have all the facts.

[Friendly]

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-Benjamin Franklin

[Aliquantic]

It isn't news that the US government can request information from web companies (Google makes a lot of noise about being "forced" by the courts to open up to law enforcement), but it is news when PRISM claims to have *direct* access to their servers. And having concrete evidence gives very interesting quotes, like "98 percent of PRISM production is based on Yahoo, Google and Microsoft; we need to make sure we don’t harm these sources" so they don't leave the program... that makes the web industry look less like innocent victims, though the best part is really seeing the government's defense with the usual themes of "reprehensible whistleblowing", "it doesn't hurt you", "we're only going for foreign targets", and the rather hilarious spin on the negotiations with China about Internet spying this weekend. Priceless.

[BulletMagnet]

\When the interests of entrenched bureaucracy, politicians, the military-industrial complex, law enforcement, private prison industry, and various other big businesses are all aligned? They aren't going to give up just because of a temporary media ruckus, or hearings or "investigations."

My optimistic side (yes, I do have one ) wonders if an issue like this couldn't finally work as a way to bring those on both sides of the political aisle together, decisively, as the two definitely have a nice sharp axe to grind with a good amount of crossover, but there's so much money flowing around this sector that heaven only knows who of consequence would actually show up.

Meanwhile, the latest Washington Spectator printed poll results indicating that 29% of Americans believe armed resistance against the government to preserve liberty may become necessary "in the next few years."

I really hope that number was somehow massaged to make for a more shocking headline, since the last thing we need in times like these are more Ted Nugents (or, more accurately, people who take Ted Nugent seriously, as the draft-dodging gasbag himself will never do anything but talk). No matter how many guns we buy the government is better-armed than us and so are the corporatists; meaningful change will have to come about via other means, because on that front everyone else is trumped from the start.

[Ganelon]

My optimistic side (yes, I do have one ) wonders if an issue like this couldn't finally work as a way to bring those on both sides of the political aisle together, decisively, as the two definitely have a nice sharp axe to grind with a good amount of crossover, but there's so much money flowing around this sector that heaven only knows who of consequence would actually show up.

With the week ending, I daresay this news might overall be beneficial for Obama. Most folks online nowadays have been conditioned to knowing that nothing is private. The GOP seems to have retreated significantly from previous weeks when Obama was constantly attacked for the IRS, DOJ, and Benghazi blunders. I wouldn't be surprised if prominent folks on the other side of the aisle were praising Obama in private for extending this Bush policy. So much for conservative values from either party; our new pledge should be national security and justice for all.

That said, politicians are in a no-win situation. If they don't implement the best possible security, Americans will castigate them when the next terrorist strike happens. And if they do, civil liberty advocates will raise the alarm. I think Obama is an intelligent and reasonable person who doesn't seem to have gotten too power-hungry. If he feels there's a need to extend this program despite being heavily anti-surveillance as a Senator and earlier, then there must be good reasons. It's a tough bind right now between liberty and security but it's certainly not as black and white as some have painted.

[MommysBestGames]

My most cynical side had wondered if the government was working with search companies to rifle through our exchanges, but to hear that it's very likely actually happening is awful. I'm basically pretty optimistic about most US government issues in their intent. I don't think they're trying to do evil or are out to get people. But I'm not as confident in their competency. I'm mostly worried about them incorrectly interpreting all this data and going after innocent people (foreign and domestic). I've knowingly shared personal data with plenty of corporations (grocery, bank, doctor's office, facebook), but I'm mostly not concerned with them. Sure they could screw something up with my order, or bank account, etc. That could be bad. But they don't have a police force or military, and can't legally hold someone on suspicion of whatever.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/ju ... tions-live

That was a good interview.
"If you look at everything Sen. Wyden has said over the last four years, he’s never called for the program to be declassified. He called for the legal justification to be declassified Our position was it’s a misuse of the classification system to classify legal interpretations."
I think that's an important distinction--the public's not expecting the government to reveal everything because, yes, then U.S. enemies could follow along and be one step ahead. But *everything* seems to be classified concerning this monitoring issue, so nothing can be talked about. The public can't know anything, and we can't know how much further the program is extended, how beneficial it is, etc. From the interview, it sounds like the oversight committee itself it is not very effective, which again suggests, it can continue to spiral out of control.

I think there's definitely a lot of "I figured as much" attitude towards the revelations of how much internet communications are being recorded and examined. But can we do anything about it? Is the news covering this enough? Are people just going to blow it off, and it will settle down and we'll just have to live with it, and more companies will continue to sign on to the watch program?

[levity]They make a Minesweeper reference in the interview Ed linked, so hey, game referenced--not all bad [/levity]

[xgunnBlaze]

Rather than focusing on the XB1 with all of this drama and bad news, why not focus on other consoles, which have good things going for them? I do get a kick out of that "Xbox One Reveal 2013 Highlights" video on youtube, but I think I would be drained/angry if all I heard was this depressing news about the XB1...

[dcharlieJP]

Rather than focusing on the XB1 with all of this drama and bad news, why not focus on other consoles, which have good things going for them? I do get a kick out of that "Xbox One Reveal 2013 Highlights" video on youtube, but I think I would be drained/angry if all I heard was this depressing news about the XB1...

yup - there's a whole bunch of choices out there, people can vote with their wallets.

I'm waiting for the full details - i'm sure MS has gone a little nuts, but i know i'd shamefully fold in the face of games i'm actually interested in. DRM or not, i'd be all over a certain bunch of games if they come.

I'm more excited for my next laptop than either next gen console at this moment, but i'm open to seeing some new and interesting titles.

[Ed Oscuro]

If you're using the Internet, you can't really just opt out.

Now, I believe that the system is - as they're saying - set up so that they require an OK from the FISA court to collect data on any source, including people outside the USA. However what's at stake is the shameless warehousing of YOUR data - as stated by one of the critics of the policy, trying to make a distinction between warehousing and "collecting" data is a sham. I don't believe that they will try to use the data in any context where there isn't a previously established link to terrorism, or a threat to life (as they say), but it is asking for trouble that so many records are being kept.

For those who aren't following me, what I'm referring to is the recent characterization of the system by members of the Administration and the intelligence community. There is your data - actual recorded phone calls, records of your history using the Internet, and the like. That is warehoused. Then there is what they are calling "metadata," which is a gloss on those. I don't know what internet history metadata would look like, or if we can really trust there is any. In the case of phone records, they have given a characterization that makes sense: It is "like what you'd see on your phone bill," a record that you called somebody on such a date and talked for so long. At that stage they do not have the text of the data.

I don't weep for the thought that anybody who was not intentionally targeted, but turned out to be a real threat to life, might fall prey to the system - any more than I weep for the thought that a murderer might be thrown in jail on bogus charges, or that an Elm tree might drop a heavy branch on a child rapist's head. Here is the central paradox of security versus liberty - with apologies to Ben Franklin, the common way of viewing these things nowadays is through the rubric of "cost-benefit analysis:" How do you balance liberties against draconian requirements? And it is very hard to know even if these things can be balanced, let alone what the exact ratio of "days of your life wasted to strange regulations, taxes, and general bullshit" to "saving lives." Of course the government (of either party) puts very little faith in the ability of people to thwart terrorist attacks, but more importantly they haven't gone out of their way to tell us exactly what has been thwarted. To hear the two last Administrations put it, we're constantly under threat from enemies. Does this mean there's a plot thwarted every week? Or does it mean that as long as there is one guy in a hut hating us that we'll be "constantly under threat?"

And of course the second question is just as important - how much guns can we add to the "guns and butter" equation? Security spending does push the economy along in some ways, but it's hard not to see much of it as wasteful effort, especially in light of all the other challenges we face. Without the ability to even know the size of the spending, there is no way for the public to exert pressure on the government even towards efficient use of their resources, let alone shrinking the size of the massive security budget.

Yesterday the news quiz/variety show "Wait, Wait, Don't Tell Me" had a fun quip from the show's emcee, Peter Sagal: "This week we learned that the government is listening in on everything - except public radio." A promised hour of "seditious talk" followed.

Also, an interesting op-ed from Dublin:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/technology ... ian-geeks/

[Chaos Phoenixma]

Microsoft, Google, and Yahoo.

So, what search engines are safe to use?