India next after PRISM: govt can soon legally read your mail

[Nisha]

Yes...but the damage done to a persons freedom and privacy will be far worse than any terrorist attack..... Politicians will take every advantage of it ... Besides...i am 1000 times more likely to be killed by anything but terrorism or bombs which will be completely out of bounds of any govt. control ... There is absolutely no doubt govt. will fully take advantage of this ..the corruption is bad enough now ...imagine what they will do with access to so much information ....

Trust me...terrorists and bombs are least of your worries when it comes to security ....

Exactly, we don;t even have proper rules and regulation sto govern the politicans and judges....and now we are going to alow them to snoop on us and given them the means to blackmail and coerce innocent ppl. Plz.....if the govt truly wants this to move forward then why wont they pass LOk PAL in the first place?

 

[JayAtl]

Wrong. You only know bits and pieces. The US IS snooping on its own citizens. It is taking all the info and placing it data centers throughout the country and using supercomputers to shift thru it. The issue is what happens to this info. If it was so innocent and aimed at thwarting terrorism. this only makes it harder. If you live in the US, pay attention to the news but even then they are biased.l

I hate under educated views on topics they have no clue about.

Firstly , every company in the program cited have said THERE IS NO DIRECT ACCESS GIVEN to any US govt ( directly and unfettered) to their data centers and servers.

Second - the only data collected by other means is stored and not looked at , TILL a outside the US number triggers a specific inquiry

Third- The data collected is absent of Account holders name, it is the telephone bill one gets with just numbers on it and not the names of whom it belongs to

Fourth - Once a number form outside triggers showing up calling a " a number" in the US, then and ONLY then - do they HAVE YOU go to a judicial court to get a warrant to see WHOM that number belongs to!

Apple: According to the Wall Street Journal, Apple says they've "never heard" of it, adding "We do not provide any government agency with direct access to our servers, and any government agency requesting customer data must get a court order." Apple was the most recent company to join the PRISM program, according to a training slideshow published by both the Post and the Guardian.


Google: The company sent the following statement to both the Post and the Guardian. It's not quite as strongly worded as those from Apple and Google, the other early birds on the statement front: "Google cares deeply about the security of our users' data. We disclose user data to government in accordance with the law, and we review all such requests carefully. From time to time, people allege that we have created a government 'backdoor' into our systems, but Google does not have a 'backdoor' for the government to access private user data."


Facebook: Here's their statement, provided to TechCrunch: “We do not provide any government organization with direct access to Facebook servers. When Facebook is asked for data or information about specific individuals, we carefully scrutinize any such request for compliance with all applicable laws, and provide information only to the extent required by law.”


Yahoo: Also a denial, apparently.
Yahoo on PRISM, finally: "Yahoo! takes users' privacy very seriously. We do not provide the government with direct access to our servers..."
— Tim Bradshaw (@tim) June 7, 2013

Microsoft: The company told the Verge that "we provide customer data only when we receive a legally binding order or subpoena to do so, and never on a voluntary basis. In addition we only ever comply with orders for requests about specific accounts or identifiers. If the government has a broader voluntary national security program to gather customer data we don’t participate in it.” (for what it's worth, Microsoft owns Skype, so this statement might also reflect their response, too. We'll see if they release their own take on the story, however).

 

[JayAtl]

Maoists are right..... the Brahmanist regime must be destroyed.

this coming from a guy whose country treats him like a dimwit and denies him access to basic articles and websites if they have mere words of dissent on it. The world's biggest police and internet cop on its own citizens, has its village idiot posting about other countries snooping programs

 

[Star Wars]

Does it matter if it is direct or indirect access ... that is not the problem..the problem is govt. ability to legally have access to your information without your permission .... Govt. has no business to access personal information of people...

 

[Nisha]

I hate under educated views on topics they have no clue about.

Firstly , every company in the program cited have said THERE IS NO DIRECT ACCESS GIVEN to any US govt ( directly and unfettered) to their data centers and servers.

Second - the only data collected by other means is stored and not looked at , TILL a outside the US number triggers a specific inquiry

Third- The data collected is absent of Account holders name, it is the telephone bill one gets with just numbers on it and not the names of whom it belongs to

Fourth - Once a number form outside triggers showing up calling a " a number" in the US, then and ONLY then - do they HAVE YOU go to a judicial court to get a warrant to see WHOM that number belongs to!

The only one uneducated about this program is you. First point, there is direct access. Google was the only one who put up a fight. Second point the data collected and stored and be pulled up anytime. Are you really that naive to think they pull up it up anytime, they have some suspicions base don what exactly nobody including yourself know nothing about? Third point, you sure are a clueless. Telephone numbers can easily pull up names and addresses. Bugs can be embedded to keep a track on a target. Many ppl have been innocently targetted by accident. You only point out telephone numbers, yet you conveniently forget about data, internet use, and the fact that all voicecalls are stored on servers. Easy access. Now the fourth point, it not wrong but its not exactly correct. They can "fish" if they feel so. Rules have been shown to be broken countless times. To get warrants they use a panel of 3 secret judges but this does not allow opposition or due process to object. The patriot act has provisions where warrants are not needed.



As you list, what do you think the tech companies were going to say? Seriously? The govt has given them assurances.


YOu are using this to post your points...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324299104578533802289432458.html



But this is informaton given by the US govt to abate fears. This not entirely truthful in itself. Also, this program has been in place for yrs. Only after 2008, did the courts become involved. Now read up on what exactly the Guardian and Washington Post that were given with direct access to
Snowden's papers which have not been fully disclosed.

 

[Nisha]

I hate under educated views on topics they have no clue about.

Firstly , every company in the program cited have said THERE IS NO DIRECT ACCESS GIVEN to any US govt ( directly and unfettered) to their data centers and servers.

Second - the only data collected by other means is stored and not looked at , TILL a outside the US number triggers a specific inquiry

Third- The data collected is absent of Account holders name, it is the telephone bill one gets with just numbers on it and not the names of whom it belongs to

Fourth - Once a number form outside triggers showing up calling a " a number" in the US, then and ONLY then - do they HAVE YOU go to a judicial court to get a warrant to see WHOM that number belongs to!

Okay, so let's discuss the possibilities assuming the intelligence in the Guardian is accurate:
Firstly, what do they mean by direct. Secondly why is list what it is. There are omissions.
Let's look at the rest of the slide first.
The background is the submarine cable network. FAIRVIEW, ___ , BLARNEY. This isn't new NSA territory - they did it to Soviet cables in 1971. There's a 'Fairview' in a ton of places, one of which is Cheltenham - could be a US<->UK cable.
These taps get you raw wire data. Many sites are encrypted. If the NSA had broken the encryption platform it would only need upstream taps for US internal data. Coupled with the US ISP sinks and ECHELON, they'd have everything.
Working on this assumption, we can rule out any interception that involves simply copying the encrypted data after it leaves.
Now lets return to the questions we had:
Direct connection
1. Almost who uses Facebook could say they have a direct connection. People in various repressed regimes have to use proxies. So that's one definition, the 'non-proxy' direct'.
2. If you had a seperate fibre connection between these content providers and the NSA, that's another layer of direct. This is still perfectly above board - it would merely stop the NSA worrying about bandwidth problems when the data they are served via an approved request is given. So 'hardware' direct
3. The final definition is the one people bring up. Changing the definition of connection from 'any ability to send and receive' to 'the ability to remotely manipulate' gives us remote access. Again this could be with or without the fibre-link.
Permission
For a fibre link you'd need permission. But if all you are doing is option 2, then it's a reasonable request (albeit OTT unless you are making a lot of them). Given the Google statistics do not include FISA requests and they could be broad, we don't know the scope.
If option 3 was going on, Google would have to be complicit in some fashion (which could not involve senior management - plausible deniability is possible in theory). In an organisation like Google it's difficult to see that a single person doing favors for the NSA would work - there's checks and balances all over the place, you can't open a port up on a router without sign-offs. At minimum you'd need some middle management approval.
Denial
The denials focus on the scale of the requests and the idea of 'back-doors'. From Google's perspective it's not a backdoor, it's a front-door however. In addition they highlight that the transparency they provide is a false view. It's incomplete - it has to be - the orders they get tell them they can't disclose them, so they have to exclude the FISA powered orders from stats.
Regarding them hearing about the program title, well clearly - they aren't going to use the NSA code name when they ask for access are they?




In the U. S., many people have been arrested by the FBI after the FBI has supplied the knowledge and means to commit terrorist acts. These people would not be able to do this on their own because they were mentally incapable, did not have the knowledge or the explosives. These people were apparently identified by the FBI through their emails or social pages. Essentially, they were entrapped, yet the courts have found them guilty. I would like to know what role PRISM had in this spying on American citizens. It all just seems to coincidental.




The PRISM program is used to data mine essentially keyboard communications, along with probably some video and audio. Another program(s) is used to collect and store all telephone metadata. I am sure yet another program merges the information produced by these two programs to form a more complete picture. We know that the addresses on all paper mail we send is electronically scanned for sorting and routing, which means that the source and destination addresses are captured and stored in databases. This is done for USPS, Fedex, UPS, etc. Is the government also merging this metadata into their spying database?

 

[livingdead]

@Nisha @JayAtl ... please dont get personal yaar...

 

[Nisha]

For JAYATL and Others


What these companies are saying is worded very carefully. So when some claim "they have never heard of Prism" is does not say that they have provided no backdoors into their systems for gov, it just says they don't know the internal name the NSA gave the project. Similarly, when they say "... no direct access" they are making no comment about any extensive and real time indirect access. so one needs to look carefully at exactly what they are saying. They "comply with the law" is meaningless as is could be interpreted as meaning they maintain users legal privacy (how the companies want you to interpret the comment) or it could mean that they are legally obliged to secretly give everything to the NSA. Weasel words.
Similarly, as the law has been presented, they are legally obliged to deny knowledge of the schemes so, they would be in big trouble were they to acknowledge participation.




The Washington Post has backtracked from the 'direct access' allegation. Good summary here
http://au.businessinsider.com/washington-post-updates-spying-story-2013-6
Will The Guardian be revising its story as well, particularly given that the Post broke the story initially?





Read this:
http://www.aclu.org/national-security/faa-foia-documents




http://bpmredux.wordpress.com/2013/06/08/big-data-and-analytics-hero-or-villain/

 

[Nisha]

@Nisha @JayAtl ... please dont get personal yaar...

Not peronal but if someone is going to post facts and then be prepared to back it up. Simply using BS sources, is not enough

 

[Nisha]

Yesterday, Mark Zuckerberg posted the following status on Facebook. While one can argue that giving the government direct or indirect access to Facebook servers and data is academic, it's the information the court approves the government gets, it is very interesting is that Zuckerberg notes Facebook knew nothing about Prism until 'yesterday'. Yet in other articles today, e.g. Washington Post, Facebook is clearly identified as involved with Prism. Here's a copy/paste of Zuckerberg's post from yesterday on Facebook.

"I want to respond personally to the outrageous press reports about PRISM:

Facebook is not and has never been part of any program to give the US or any other government direct access to our servers. We have never received a blanket request or court order from any government agency asking for information or metadata in bulk, like the one Verizon reportedly received. And if we did, we would fight it... aggressively. We hadn't even heard of PRISM before yesterday.

When governments ask Facebook for data, we review each request carefully to make sure they always follow the correct processes and all applicable laws, and then only provide the information if is required by law. We will continue fighting aggressively to keep your information safe and secure.

We strongly encourage all governments to be much more transparent about all programs aimed at keeping the public safe. It's the only way to protect everyone's civil liberties and create the safe and free society we all want over the long term."

So, I suspect we all, along with Mr. Zuckerberg, have a lot more to earn about this.

 

[JayAtl]

Okay, so let's discuss the possibilities assuming the intelligence in the Guardian is accurate:

I am not going to go through your gibberish when you specially quote the below. Same old tin foil hat mentality. SHOW ME ONE TERRORIST that has been shown not to be guilty based on the "FBI Told me to make the bomb"

In the U. S., many people have been arrested by the FBI after the FBI has supplied the knowledge and means to commit terrorist acts. These people would not be able to do this on their own because they were mentally incapable, did not have the knowledge or the explosives. These people were apparently identified by the FBI through their emails or social pages. Essentially, they were entrapped, yet the courts have found them guilty. I would like to know what role PRISM had in this spying on American citizens. It all just seems to coincidental.

 

[Nisha]

I am not going to go through your gibberish when you specially quote the below. Same old tin foil hat mentality. SHOW ME ONE TERRORIST that has been shown not to be guilty based on the "FBI Told me to make the bomb"

Why won't you look for it! How can you not be guilty when entrapment is used. Think about it!



Here is link from a very simple google search about entrapment:

http://riverdalepress.com/stories/Report-says-FBI-baited-Newburgh-4,48683


Showing you a terrorist that was shown to be not guilty goes against being the premise of innocence till proven guilty. Labeling them a terrorist goes against that basic notion. That;s why you are a moron. Anyway read if you can monkey, here is proof of so called "terrorists" being found not guilty on 3 different occasions! Like I said you talk a lot of crap but can't prove nothing if you life depended on it. Go back to where you come, you are not worthy of calling yourself an American....

http://www.rollingstone.com/politic...ts-and-letting-bad-guys-off-the-hook-20120515


As for the Gibberish, those posts were quite valid. Maybe you should read because it destroyed each of your phony points!

 

[JayAtl]

Why won't you look for it blabbering buffoon! How can you not be guilty when entrapment is used. Think about it!



Here is link from a very simple google search:

Report says FBI baited Newburgh 4 - The Riverdale Press



As for the Gibberish, those posts were quite valid, maybe you should read becaue they destroyed each of stupid phony points!


Stupid slave mentality......keep it moving you are not fit to have freedom....YOu don;t have to go thru it anyone with half a brain who reads thru the posts will see thru you crap!

The onus of proving a claim made by you is on you. If your tin foil sent a message into your brain than prove it! don't give me links from Akbar guy claiming it was entrapment on an opinion piece written for idiots like you who fall for it. or even some report but some group where not one single iota of proof was shown or a court that supported the evidence

I got one for you 26/11 was done by RAW ... on it's own people. See I can also sound stupendously moronic and make claims like you too!

 

[Nisha]

The onus of proving a claim made by you is on you retard. If your tin foil sent a message into your brain than prove it! don't give me links from Akbar guy claiming it was entrapment on an opinion piece written for idiots like you who fall for it. or even some report but some group where not one single iota of proof was shown or a court that supported the evidence

I got one for you 26/11 was done by RAW ... on it's own people. See I can also sound stupendously moronic and make claims like you too!

read the links and posts....You re so stupid. How can one reply without reading thru slowly.



You tried to dismiss my responses to my posts by using one quote. Sry buddy but the point was to make ppl like yourself think. Entrapement is against the law. Plain and simple. The only reason judges did not find the defendants innocent was because they decided to go thru with the plans that were completely manufactured and set up by the FBI. I gave another link that showed 3 examples. Stoop being lazy and look for the proof instead of being spoon fed crap by the media which is biased. You need to learn how to think freely and independently, co zyou sure cannot. Now keep it moving....

 

[JayAtl]

Retard read the links and posts....You re so stupid. How can one reply without reading thru slowly.



You tried to dismiss my responses to my posts by using one quote. Sry buddy but the point was to make ppl like yourself think. Entrapement is against the law. Plain and simple. The only reason judges did not find the defendants innocent was because they decided to go thru with the plans that were completely manufactured and set up by the FBI. I gave another link that showed 3 examples. Stoop being lazy and look for the proof instead of being spoon fed crap by the media which is biased. You need to learn how to think freely and independently, co zyou sure cannot. Now keep it moving.... little dick nigga

Indian calling another of similar heritage a nigga , now is that not telling . Speaks ill of the US will trying his best american lingo thank god you are few mamta banerjee like intellect in india! All you have shown is conspiracy claims and NOTHING to back it up chutiya. Make sure you next meeting of morons R us is shown the posts you made here- that weeks dunce of year cap will be quickly placed on your head. Not a single terrorist tried has proven to be entrapment even if they are folks you deeply believe in.

we go by proof and not opinion pieces