N.S.A. Collecting Millions of Faces From Web Images(nytimes.com)
nytimes.com
N.S.A. Collecting Millions of Faces From Web Images
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/01/us/nsa-collecting-millions-of-faces-from-web-images.html
22 comments
And since we know that SnapChat doesn't actually delete the photos people send with it, it's probably safe to say that the NSA now also has the largest boob and dick recognition system in the world.
GCHQ has specific exemptions in legislation to cover them if they scoop up images of child sexual abuse or other images of naked children.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/part/1/crosshead...
> (c)at the time of the offence charged he was a member of GCHQ, and it was necessary for him to make the photograph or pseudo-photograph for the exercise of any of the functions of GCHQ.
("Make" here includes "download from the Internet" becuase that causes a local copy).
Looking through all the legislation is a bit worrying. Perhaps it's all just exemptions asked for but not used as a way pf covering what they actually do; or maybe it's asked for because they might do it in the future but don't do it now; or maybe they ask for it because they do it?
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/part/1/crosshead...
> (c)at the time of the offence charged he was a member of GCHQ, and it was necessary for him to make the photograph or pseudo-photograph for the exercise of any of the functions of GCHQ.
("Make" here includes "download from the Internet" becuase that causes a local copy).
Looking through all the legislation is a bit worrying. Perhaps it's all just exemptions asked for but not used as a way pf covering what they actually do; or maybe it's asked for because they might do it in the future but don't do it now; or maybe they ask for it because they do it?
What is your take on this:
"Pentagon declined to investigate hundreds of purchases of child pornography"
[0] -- http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/upshot/pentagon-declined-investi...
"Pentagon declined to investigate hundreds of purchases of child pornography"
[0] -- http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/upshot/pentagon-declined-investi...
You can just imagine how the conversation goes:
"Sir, he burned off half his face to resist identification."
"...Have him drop trough."
Serious note though, it's similar to how the kinect is sitting in households across America, and I think the new one with the XBOX One can't be turned off. A microphone and camera system right into people's living rooms.
And of course, the government now wants a database of consumers credit information.
I try to not be a conspiracy theorist but when you hand them this much information, it's hard to trust people to do the 'right' thing.
"Sir, he burned off half his face to resist identification."
"...Have him drop trough."
Serious note though, it's similar to how the kinect is sitting in households across America, and I think the new one with the XBOX One can't be turned off. A microphone and camera system right into people's living rooms.
And of course, the government now wants a database of consumers credit information.
I try to not be a conspiracy theorist but when you hand them this much information, it's hard to trust people to do the 'right' thing.
>XBOX One can't be turned off
you are only half a year to the party
http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2013/08/12/microsoft-re...
you are only half a year to the party
http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2013/08/12/microsoft-re...
Of course it can be unplugged. You can also unplug the whole thing from the wall outlet. That's not the point. The point is it works even when you are not playing games.
Turn off whole console then, with a physical switch.
Thinking like this is a problem. The question isn't "is it possible for people to X". It's "will average citizens have the knowledge, time, and energy to X".
99% of XBox owners will not physically unplug the XBox every time they are done using it because of hazy privacy concerns. Suggesting that a few people could is worse than doing nothing. Those with the knowledge and skill to understand the problem will be inclined to solve the problem only for themselves. A bunch of others will use the "they could just unplug it" line to blame the average user for being insufficiently dedicated/savvy. It dissipates the energy for solving the problem properly. And if the NSA is using the Kinect cameras, then they'll be perfectly happy with photos of 99% of users.
As an example, consider the iPhone. Smartphones existed before it. But by packaging the tech in a way that anybody could use it, they made smartphones mainstream. If we want to make privacy mainstream, we need to do something similar, not fall back on blame-y non-solutions like telling people to unplug things.
99% of XBox owners will not physically unplug the XBox every time they are done using it because of hazy privacy concerns. Suggesting that a few people could is worse than doing nothing. Those with the knowledge and skill to understand the problem will be inclined to solve the problem only for themselves. A bunch of others will use the "they could just unplug it" line to blame the average user for being insufficiently dedicated/savvy. It dissipates the energy for solving the problem properly. And if the NSA is using the Kinect cameras, then they'll be perfectly happy with photos of 99% of users.
As an example, consider the iPhone. Smartphones existed before it. But by packaging the tech in a way that anybody could use it, they made smartphones mainstream. If we want to make privacy mainstream, we need to do something similar, not fall back on blame-y non-solutions like telling people to unplug things.
You shouldn't have to engage in combat against your appliances, even if it's easy to win.
Or the Nest, which is constantly sending proximity information to Google (and the NSA).
Wait, there's a proximity sensor in the Nest (thermostat, I'm assuming you're talking about)? What function does the sensor serve? And what is its capability exactly - it can detect a person within 10 feet - who happens to be in the same room as the Nest thermostat? Or?
It turns on the display when you approach (normally it's dark), and also tries to detect when no one is home so it can go into "away" mode automatically.
Even if SnapChat deleted stuff, the NSA would have grabbed it all off the wire anyway. Not that it makes it right, but if it transits, it archives.
That didn't happen. Except in the fantastical magical world of the conspiracy theorist.
> That didn't happen.
Are you saying that thus far it has never been the case that NSA or some other US Governmental agency has intercepted Snapchat images off the wire? How would you know whether or not it has ever happened? I think it is very reasonable to assume that NSA can do this.
> Except in the fantastical magical world of the conspiracy theorist.
This is an outright insult. Vent your frustrations elsewhere.
Are you saying that thus far it has never been the case that NSA or some other US Governmental agency has intercepted Snapchat images off the wire? How would you know whether or not it has ever happened? I think it is very reasonable to assume that NSA can do this.
> Except in the fantastical magical world of the conspiracy theorist.
This is an outright insult. Vent your frustrations elsewhere.
Wait what? The parent OP said that every snapchat was being intercepted and archived by the NSA.
I feel like you're trolling, but this[0]
[0]http://vr-zone.com/articles/nsa-tapped-fiber-backbone-spy-go...
[0]http://vr-zone.com/articles/nsa-tapped-fiber-backbone-spy-go...
The article says that theoretically it is possible that the NSA hacked internal server traffic at Google. Therefore they are intercepting and archiving every snapchat ever sent? This is not intelligent discourse.
You joke about it, but with the betterment of facial recognition and Facebook, just imagine 1 scenario...
All those folks who share selfies of themselves anonymously online both of them clothed and unclothed, we are starting to see the ability to pinpoint who they are, just because they keep an online facebook.
All those folks who share selfies of themselves anonymously online both of them clothed and unclothed, we are starting to see the ability to pinpoint who they are, just because they keep an online facebook.
I have my doubts that the fully surveilled society that is being created by the government and corporations can be turned back, I see it as only becoming more comprehensive for the foreseeable future. We don't understand the ethical issues that will be involved in this new society, there are surely some benefits along with the many negatives. I envision it kind of like The Matrix where we are all plugged into the global brain with shrinking spaces for any kind of underground.
As these people keep getting away with ignoring the constitution/law, they are being conditioned[1] to believe that nobody can/will stop them. What we've been seeing recently is the lack of fear.
Usually, threat of having to defend yourself in front of a judge keeps keeps this kind of behavior limited to smaller, often one-off events. When you have a proper Fear of getting caught, one event where you get away with some illegal and/or immoral behavior isn't a pattern yet, and so most people quietly go on with their life. After a sufficient amount of conditioning, this changes. A pattern emerges, and the idea that maybe you really can get away with anything starts to creep in. This is a rational decision on their part (Bayes Theorem obviously applies).
Worse, there seems to be a kind of "avalanche breakdown" effect in how we see our social position/role, due to the large amount of hysteresis[2] in how we interpret/rationalize our own social standing. The feedback loop between these two effects is probably why the current situation can appear to be impossible to turn back. It certainly will be impossible if left alone and unchallenged.
The soap box hasn't worked. The ballot box is a joke (and might be rigged, depending on who you ask). The use of the jury box is still pending in some areas places, and has failed in others. I would love to be wrong about this, but... nothing will change until the ammo box has been used to kill at least a few.
So I guess we should start preparing for the Civil War. /sigh/
[1] e.g.: Skinner ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operant_conditioning )
[2] The ideas taken from this RSA[3] Animate, which explains the idea better than I ever could: http://www.thersa.org/events/rsaanimate/animate/rsa-animate-...
[3] This RSA == The Royal Society, not the crypto by Rivest, Shamir and Adleman
Usually, threat of having to defend yourself in front of a judge keeps keeps this kind of behavior limited to smaller, often one-off events. When you have a proper Fear of getting caught, one event where you get away with some illegal and/or immoral behavior isn't a pattern yet, and so most people quietly go on with their life. After a sufficient amount of conditioning, this changes. A pattern emerges, and the idea that maybe you really can get away with anything starts to creep in. This is a rational decision on their part (Bayes Theorem obviously applies).
Worse, there seems to be a kind of "avalanche breakdown" effect in how we see our social position/role, due to the large amount of hysteresis[2] in how we interpret/rationalize our own social standing. The feedback loop between these two effects is probably why the current situation can appear to be impossible to turn back. It certainly will be impossible if left alone and unchallenged.
The soap box hasn't worked. The ballot box is a joke (and might be rigged, depending on who you ask). The use of the jury box is still pending in some areas places, and has failed in others. I would love to be wrong about this, but... nothing will change until the ammo box has been used to kill at least a few.
So I guess we should start preparing for the Civil War. /sigh/
[1] e.g.: Skinner ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operant_conditioning )
[2] The ideas taken from this RSA[3] Animate, which explains the idea better than I ever could: http://www.thersa.org/events/rsaanimate/animate/rsa-animate-...
[3] This RSA == The Royal Society, not the crypto by Rivest, Shamir and Adleman
Too many people are treating this technical problem like it's a political problem. Our communications infrastructure is vulnerable to eavesdropping; hence, eavesdropping occurs. That's not going to change unless the war you desire involves either destroying all communications networks or upgrading them.
http://video.fosdem.org/2014/Janson/Sunday/NSA_operation_ORC...
It is a political problem. Technical solutions don't matter when the other side has an effectively unimited budget and manpower.
I strongly recommend watching PHK's recent talk talk on that subject in the link above. Avoiding politics by claiming this is a technical problem is simply forfeiting any goals you may have had to the opposition without a fight. Technical issues don't mean a damn thing against the bad end of rubber hose cryptanalysis or the old Soviet trick of simply "disappearing" people, and the aren't particularly useful against the current game of gag-order-filled "National Security Letters".
THAT SAID
It is also a technical problem. As you say, there will always be people interested in eavesdropping, and the tech needs to be fixed regardless. Maybe now we can finally get some progress on that front - I've taught more people about PubKey encryption and the Web Of Trust in the last year than the previous two "B.S."[1] decades. There's still a huge amount of work to do, unfortunately.
Both aspects - political and technical - are important, and we cannot afford to neglect either.
[1] "B.S." => "Before Snowden"
It is a political problem. Technical solutions don't matter when the other side has an effectively unimited budget and manpower.
I strongly recommend watching PHK's recent talk talk on that subject in the link above. Avoiding politics by claiming this is a technical problem is simply forfeiting any goals you may have had to the opposition without a fight. Technical issues don't mean a damn thing against the bad end of rubber hose cryptanalysis or the old Soviet trick of simply "disappearing" people, and the aren't particularly useful against the current game of gag-order-filled "National Security Letters".
THAT SAID
It is also a technical problem. As you say, there will always be people interested in eavesdropping, and the tech needs to be fixed regardless. Maybe now we can finally get some progress on that front - I've taught more people about PubKey encryption and the Web Of Trust in the last year than the previous two "B.S."[1] decades. There's still a huge amount of work to do, unfortunately.
Both aspects - political and technical - are important, and we cannot afford to neglect either.
[1] "B.S." => "Before Snowden"
> So I guess we should start preparing for the Civil War.
Preparations which then will be used to reinforce the "justification" of mass surveillance by the gov't.
Preparations which then will be used to reinforce the "justification" of mass surveillance by the gov't.
In lieu of civil war, I anticipate us preparing a worldwide peaceful movement, in which those who would harm come to realize the value of harmonious living. It would definitely require thorough technical underpinning, but government surveillance would be irrelevant.
And yet the people most able to understand the breadth and scope of the surveillance problem are also probably those most vocally against, say, the right to bear arms of significant efficacy.
[deleted]
I don't think Skynet is going to be our problem, it's going to be Spynet, when the two to four large chunks of aligned intelligence forces (US, China, Russia, larger Europe depending on how it goes) gradually merge and it really becomes us (human citizens) vs them (lizard overlords).
> “We would not be doing our job if we didn’t seek ways to continuously improve the precision of signals intelligence activities [...]” said Vanee M. Vines, the agency spokeswoman.
Which leads directly to the annihilation of any form of privacy (total surveillance), given the exponential advances that technology embodies.
If our governments really think that this is what their voters/citizens want, then this subject should be put to a very explicit vote.
Which leads directly to the annihilation of any form of privacy (total surveillance), given the exponential advances that technology embodies.
If our governments really think that this is what their voters/citizens want, then this subject should be put to a very explicit vote.
No.
First up, I agree 100% with the idea that this sort of thing is systematically wiping out both freedom and the illusion of freedom. Of course we all know that over time it will close in getting worse and worse until we become little more than controlled cattle. However.....
Government has every right to think its what people want. Or, to put it another way, it is not what they don't want. The mass population simply doesn't care, since they know that it probably won't ever affect them. And if it does, well, the mass population won't care, they'll just see it as a bit of bad luck, happening to someone they don't know, who is not them, their family, friend or colleague.
What I don't see anywhere, US, here in the UK, or anywhere else is any form of mass objection. When you look at the numbers, protesters/population, petitioners/population, and so on, you'll see it is a small minority who actually care. As a politician, I'd be concerned about the mass population and their votes. Thats where the power is, not with a loud(ish) minority.
Im with you, I really am. I actually suffer minor anxiety symptoms as I read and think about this stuff. It really creeps me out. But the tragic fact is, the vast majority don't give a toss.
This will only change when majorities show signs of really caring about the issue.
First up, I agree 100% with the idea that this sort of thing is systematically wiping out both freedom and the illusion of freedom. Of course we all know that over time it will close in getting worse and worse until we become little more than controlled cattle. However.....
Government has every right to think its what people want. Or, to put it another way, it is not what they don't want. The mass population simply doesn't care, since they know that it probably won't ever affect them. And if it does, well, the mass population won't care, they'll just see it as a bit of bad luck, happening to someone they don't know, who is not them, their family, friend or colleague.
What I don't see anywhere, US, here in the UK, or anywhere else is any form of mass objection. When you look at the numbers, protesters/population, petitioners/population, and so on, you'll see it is a small minority who actually care. As a politician, I'd be concerned about the mass population and their votes. Thats where the power is, not with a loud(ish) minority.
Im with you, I really am. I actually suffer minor anxiety symptoms as I read and think about this stuff. It really creeps me out. But the tragic fact is, the vast majority don't give a toss.
This will only change when majorities show signs of really caring about the issue.
) Government has every right to think its what people want.
What? Why? You don't justify this bold claim in any way.
What? Why? You don't justify this bold claim in any way.
Parent post is extremely clear in its meaning. You have taken half a thought, the entirety of which is a clear argument, and demanded explanation. It suggests either intellectual dishonesty or simple laziness in reading.
The shortest part of that statement that it would be reasonable to quote alone is: "Government has every right to think its what people want. Or, to put it another way, it is not what they don't want." You don't have to agree with this at all. But it is a single self-contained idea that can be comprehended and understood, before attempting to justify or refute it.
The shortest part of that statement that it would be reasonable to quote alone is: "Government has every right to think its what people want. Or, to put it another way, it is not what they don't want." You don't have to agree with this at all. But it is a single self-contained idea that can be comprehended and understood, before attempting to justify or refute it.
He didn't make that claim. He stated that apathy could be construed as people not being against something which is a valid notion. More importantly it can be key to getting programmes funded and extended ie if there is no large scale public disapproval then there is no risk to anyone's political career in signing off on something.
It's hard enough to get even Congress as a whole to care about issues normal people actually care about, but it's even worse if even Congress itself can't pass good laws because it's being hijacked by a few. For example, most of the House voted to pass the USA Freedom Act as is (which was pretty good originally), but the Rules Committee, comprised of a handful of people, stripped down almost all the good reforms in it, making it essentially useless, and potentially worse than if it had not existed:
http://www.emptywheel.net/2014/05/23/four-reasons-usa-freedu...
Sometimes, it all falls onto one man, such as the Audit the Fed bill, which also got a huge majority in House, but Harry Reid refused to put it on the floor in Senate, or when Patrick Leahy single-handedly killed the recent patent reform bill.
All of this doesn't seem "democratic" at all to me.
http://www.emptywheel.net/2014/05/23/four-reasons-usa-freedu...
Sometimes, it all falls onto one man, such as the Audit the Fed bill, which also got a huge majority in House, but Harry Reid refused to put it on the floor in Senate, or when Patrick Leahy single-handedly killed the recent patent reform bill.
All of this doesn't seem "democratic" at all to me.
> Sometimes, it all falls onto one man
I suppose you're looking for this type of system [0]. Switzerland is a proud and well-known defender of it.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_democracy
I suppose you're looking for this type of system [0]. Switzerland is a proud and well-known defender of it.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_democracy
We're not even talking direct democracy, here. The parent post is saying (for example) that a single Senator can prevent a bill from entering the Senate, even if said bill would get a majority of Senate votes.
If it was possible to get such bills put to a vote over the objections of singular individual representatives, then there would be less need for direct democracy.
If it was possible to get such bills put to a vote over the objections of singular individual representatives, then there would be less need for direct democracy.
Switzerland is not a direct democracy. No country is. Some have more democratic processes, at the extreme ends being Switzerland, Finland, and I suppose Germany, while at the other end, with least democratic processes being US among others. US has great constitution/rights, terrible democratic system.
CV Dazzle explores how fashion can be used as camouflage from face-detection technology
http://cvdazzle.com
Anonymous releases how-to instructions on fooling facial recognition (VIDEO)
http://rt.com/usa/video-surveillance-face-trapwire-237/
http://cvdazzle.com
Anonymous releases how-to instructions on fooling facial recognition (VIDEO)
http://rt.com/usa/video-surveillance-face-trapwire-237/
[deleted]
The N.S.A. collects iris scans of foreigners through other means.
The Army:
"Army Reveals Afghan Biometric ID Plan" http://www.wired.com/2010/09/afghan-biometric-dragnet-could-...
"Could Iris Scans Stop a New Iraq Insurgency?" http://www.wired.com/2008/08/maliki-vs-sois/
And probably by infiltrating other countries' iris-scanning of undesirables like refugees:
http://jordantimes.com/iris-scanning-technology-streamlines-...
"Army Reveals Afghan Biometric ID Plan" http://www.wired.com/2010/09/afghan-biometric-dragnet-could-...
"Could Iris Scans Stop a New Iraq Insurgency?" http://www.wired.com/2008/08/maliki-vs-sois/
And probably by infiltrating other countries' iris-scanning of undesirables like refugees:
http://jordantimes.com/iris-scanning-technology-streamlines-...
Reading these stories it seems the rationale is "lazy bureaucrats". Clearly where this ends up is putting all poor people into a "system" which ultimate serves the blind will of the faceless bureaucrats running it. The pretext is that this power is used to "help" the poor, but ultimately it will be used simple to keep the faceless people in power--come hell or high-water.Iris scanning refugees is basically akin to iris scanning for food stamps. Truly the banality of evil.
How well do cosmetic contact lenses defend against this?
Start wearing them as a matter of course.
Start wearing them as a matter of course.
All non-citizens are photographed & fingerprinted by cbp when entering the US. Maybe that?
No they aren't.
Which ones aren't fingerprinted and photographed?
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/US-VISIT
> The U.S. government states that the purpose of US-VISIT is to advance the security of both the United States and worldwide travel, through the use and sharing of biometric information for identity management. U.S. Department of State consular officers and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officers collect biometric information (digital fingerprints and a photograph) from all non-U.S. citizens between the ages of 14 and 79, with some exceptions, when they apply for visas or arrive at major U.S. ports of entry.[4]
There are "some exceptions", and it doesn't cover people under 14 or over 79.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/US-VISIT
> The U.S. government states that the purpose of US-VISIT is to advance the security of both the United States and worldwide travel, through the use and sharing of biometric information for identity management. U.S. Department of State consular officers and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officers collect biometric information (digital fingerprints and a photograph) from all non-U.S. citizens between the ages of 14 and 79, with some exceptions, when they apply for visas or arrive at major U.S. ports of entry.[4]
There are "some exceptions", and it doesn't cover people under 14 or over 79.
The U.S. military has long been conducting biometric scanning in Afghanistan, as it was very successful in Iraq in helping identify insurgents and terrorists [1]
I would assume this is a major source, possibly along with the attempts to gain covert access to other nations' similar counter-terrorism biometric databases.
[1] http://www.wired.com/2010/09/afghan-biometric-dragnet-could-...
I would assume this is a major source, possibly along with the attempts to gain covert access to other nations' similar counter-terrorism biometric databases.
[1] http://www.wired.com/2010/09/afghan-biometric-dragnet-could-...
I remember listening to an interview of soldiers who had to iris scans of all the people we killed in Fallujah. 500+ corpses piled in rows, remove the sheet, scan biometrics, next.
Not sure exactly what the point was.
Not sure exactly what the point was.
To see if they killed any known insurgents / high value targets. If they can mark them off the list then they can focus on getting the other ones / people that fill their empty position.
It's interesting, that by forcing/coercing/recruiting a single individual (say a patrol leader in Afghanistan) you can insert false information (say DNA, fingerprint and iris scan) into the database, so that when you drop your poor ignorant doppelgänger dead in a back alley in some country rife with civil war you can be taken off the list of targets...
Are suggesting that a multi-million dollar program can be defeated by a three-cent bullet and the will to do the deplorable?
Surely you jest--I suppose next you'll be asserting that you can cause billions of dollars of economic damage using only some box cutters!
Surely you jest--I suppose next you'll be asserting that you can cause billions of dollars of economic damage using only some box cutters!
I've heard second hand information about commercially available iris (not retina) scanners that can acquire 50 irises per minute from a rather large distance.
[deleted](1)
Maybe, hacking other country databases. Some countries like India have started a voluntary identification number (like social security number) program where they take all these biometrics. That would be too aggressive to be practical though.
> too aggressive to be practical
I'm pretty sure that's one of the only requirements for an NSA project.
I'm pretty sure that's one of the only requirements for an NSA project.
Perhaps not general shots on Instagram, but a larger face picture might have a 80x80 pixel area on one eye. Not enough for a real iris scan maybe, but quite possibly enough to identity an individual?
And as high-DPI screens get more common, ordinary snapshots online will probably move up from the low resolutions they are now.
And as high-DPI screens get more common, ordinary snapshots online will probably move up from the low resolutions they are now.
Part of US-VISIT perhaps?
Seems like it's more damage control than an actual expose. It's extremely confusing, why certain quotes were included unless they were to mislead the reader, e.g.
"It is not clear how many images the agency has acquired. The N.S.A. does not collect facial imagery through its bulk metadata collection programs, including that involving Americans’ domestic phone records, authorized under Section 215 of the Patriot Act, according to Ms. Vines."
Why would a phone metadata program, which is basically call records ever be thought to include photos?
"It is not clear how many images the agency has acquired. The N.S.A. does not collect facial imagery through its bulk metadata collection programs, including that involving Americans’ domestic phone records, authorized under Section 215 of the Patriot Act, according to Ms. Vines."
Why would a phone metadata program, which is basically call records ever be thought to include photos?
They insist (through actions, as opposed to any words they might use) upon total transparency of the lives of the general public, while submitting to practically zero transparency in their own behaviour.
This asymmetry should bother everyone who has made the effort to consider information as power -- and to consider self-governance as necessarily based upon an informed self.
If nothing else, one should consider the horror of a world-spanning bureaucracy that seeks a singular, uncompartmentalized rule and control. Many thoughts flicker through my consciousness about the limits and diversity of human culture -- and the robustness that comes from that latter. Or, I can think of a more "basic" quip, that Nature abhors a monoculture.
People need to think seriously about how much they can "just let someone else deal with", and how much they need to step up and be at least partially responsible for, themselves.
"Liberal" or "Conservative", most seem to, one way or another, reach the conclusion that they have to take responsibility for their own affairs and community.
What we are currently developing seems to be an antithesis to this.
This asymmetry should bother everyone who has made the effort to consider information as power -- and to consider self-governance as necessarily based upon an informed self.
If nothing else, one should consider the horror of a world-spanning bureaucracy that seeks a singular, uncompartmentalized rule and control. Many thoughts flicker through my consciousness about the limits and diversity of human culture -- and the robustness that comes from that latter. Or, I can think of a more "basic" quip, that Nature abhors a monoculture.
People need to think seriously about how much they can "just let someone else deal with", and how much they need to step up and be at least partially responsible for, themselves.
"Liberal" or "Conservative", most seem to, one way or another, reach the conclusion that they have to take responsibility for their own affairs and community.
What we are currently developing seems to be an antithesis to this.
How is this even unusual? Google do much the same, all the time. You'd expect the NSA to do it.
"John, don't run."
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0181689/
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0181689/
[deleted]
The stated reason for this are two failed bombings. How would this facial recognition tech have stopped those two failed bombings?
> The N.S.A. achieved a technical breakthrough in 2010 when analysts first matched images collected separately in two databases — one in a huge N.S.A. database code-named Pinwale, and another in the government’s main terrorist watch list database, known as Tide — according to N.S.A. documents.
Sounds like this is the answer.
One of the difficult aspects of investigating terrorist networks through signals intelligence would be deciphering the network itself (which is why NSA would have been interested in phone metadata).
If you had a known list of terrorist suspects (TIDE) and could match those to legally-intercepted video feeds or pictures (which is what I'm assuming PINWALE is for) then you could identify the user IDs being chatted with and then use PRISM and other approved signals interception methods to decipher "who's who in the zoo".
With a better selectivity of who the targets would be then you could use targeted access operations to both get better fidelity on actual plots (instead of dumb keywords searches, actually assign analysts to get a "deep dive" into any of the plot(s) under discussion). This would also enable you to avoid wasting time and resources on people who are not a threat by filtering out "where the terrorists are not".
The ideal end result: Disrupting a bombing plot before it happens. Both the 2009 and 2010 bombings were disrupted only by luck, so "clearly" the NSA didn't have the tools they needed, which is why I warn you guys that the argument "oh but they didn't catch Tsarnaev" doesn't end the way you think it does. :P
----
I know you all like to claim that counter-terrorism is just rhetoric used to justify more sinister motives, but I've found it striking how almost every time a leak is presented the evidence shows a bunch of NSA analysts trumpeting... counter-terrorism.
This case is no different: "another 2011 N.S.A. document reported that a facial recognition system was queried with a photograph of Osama bin Laden.", "A 2011 PowerPoint showed one example when Tundra Freeze, the N.S.A.’s main in-house facial recognition program, was asked to identify photos matching the image of a bearded young man with dark hair.", "One N.S.A. PowerPoint presentation from 2011, for example, displays several photographs of an unidentified man — sometimes bearded, other times clean-shaven — in different settings, along with more than two dozen data points about him. These include whether he was on the Transportation Security Administration no-fly list, his passport and visa status, known associates or suspected terrorist ties, and comments made about him by informants to American intelligence agencies."
There's certainly an argument to be made about whether such investigative abilities are safe for democracy, but what we've consistently not seen is a bunch of people trying to subvert democracy, not even according to the very documents NSA and their managers thought would be safest from ever being publically disclosed.
Sounds like this is the answer.
One of the difficult aspects of investigating terrorist networks through signals intelligence would be deciphering the network itself (which is why NSA would have been interested in phone metadata).
If you had a known list of terrorist suspects (TIDE) and could match those to legally-intercepted video feeds or pictures (which is what I'm assuming PINWALE is for) then you could identify the user IDs being chatted with and then use PRISM and other approved signals interception methods to decipher "who's who in the zoo".
With a better selectivity of who the targets would be then you could use targeted access operations to both get better fidelity on actual plots (instead of dumb keywords searches, actually assign analysts to get a "deep dive" into any of the plot(s) under discussion). This would also enable you to avoid wasting time and resources on people who are not a threat by filtering out "where the terrorists are not".
The ideal end result: Disrupting a bombing plot before it happens. Both the 2009 and 2010 bombings were disrupted only by luck, so "clearly" the NSA didn't have the tools they needed, which is why I warn you guys that the argument "oh but they didn't catch Tsarnaev" doesn't end the way you think it does. :P
----
I know you all like to claim that counter-terrorism is just rhetoric used to justify more sinister motives, but I've found it striking how almost every time a leak is presented the evidence shows a bunch of NSA analysts trumpeting... counter-terrorism.
This case is no different: "another 2011 N.S.A. document reported that a facial recognition system was queried with a photograph of Osama bin Laden.", "A 2011 PowerPoint showed one example when Tundra Freeze, the N.S.A.’s main in-house facial recognition program, was asked to identify photos matching the image of a bearded young man with dark hair.", "One N.S.A. PowerPoint presentation from 2011, for example, displays several photographs of an unidentified man — sometimes bearded, other times clean-shaven — in different settings, along with more than two dozen data points about him. These include whether he was on the Transportation Security Administration no-fly list, his passport and visa status, known associates or suspected terrorist ties, and comments made about him by informants to American intelligence agencies."
There's certainly an argument to be made about whether such investigative abilities are safe for democracy, but what we've consistently not seen is a bunch of people trying to subvert democracy, not even according to the very documents NSA and their managers thought would be safest from ever being publically disclosed.
> what we've consistently not seen is a bunch of people trying to subvert democracy, not even according to the very documents NSA and their managers thought would be safest from ever being publically disclosed.
In August 2013, a report by Reuters revealed that the Special Operations Division (SOD) of the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration advises DEA agents to practice parallel construction when creating criminal cases against Americans that are actually based on NSA warrantless surveillance. [1] The use of illegally-obtained evidence is generally inadmissible under the Fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine. [2]
[1] http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/05/us-dea-sod-idUSBRE... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_construction
In August 2013, a report by Reuters revealed that the Special Operations Division (SOD) of the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration advises DEA agents to practice parallel construction when creating criminal cases against Americans that are actually based on NSA warrantless surveillance. [1] The use of illegally-obtained evidence is generally inadmissible under the Fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine. [2]
[1] http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/05/us-dea-sod-idUSBRE... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_construction
That's not an example of "subverting democracy" (though I'll admit I do find it distasteful).
Even that has rules, and the rules are on the whole followed.
Parallel construction is about finding evidence that can hold up in the court of law, without divulging classified intelligence "sources and methods" (you know, much the very things NSA is complaining about Snowden having done).
It starts from evidence legally collected by NSA (which is why "fruit of the poisonous tree" would not apply). The law permits the NSA to share that legally-collected information in some cases with law enforcement.
But law enforcement can't build a case on that without burning the NSA source, so NSA advises them on how to start a new trail that can lead to a prosecution without NSA having to close off that intelligence source.
Is it unfair? Perhaps, but then so is Google using legal tax loopholes to avoid paying taxes. Distasteful perhaps, but legally permissible.
Even that has rules, and the rules are on the whole followed.
Parallel construction is about finding evidence that can hold up in the court of law, without divulging classified intelligence "sources and methods" (you know, much the very things NSA is complaining about Snowden having done).
It starts from evidence legally collected by NSA (which is why "fruit of the poisonous tree" would not apply). The law permits the NSA to share that legally-collected information in some cases with law enforcement.
But law enforcement can't build a case on that without burning the NSA source, so NSA advises them on how to start a new trail that can lead to a prosecution without NSA having to close off that intelligence source.
Is it unfair? Perhaps, but then so is Google using legal tax loopholes to avoid paying taxes. Distasteful perhaps, but legally permissible.
While not defending it in any sense, this STILL shows what the grandparent poster is saying:
The folks THINK they're doing the RIGHT thing. They're giving extra evidence of crimes to convict criminals!
Just a thought: terrorist networks may not be the most significant factor here. Recent outrages (and I mean that) in Boston, London[1] and Birmingham/West Midlands[2] UK have been the work of lone individuals who may have self-radicalised, 'consuming' propaganda thrown over the wall by terrorist organisations based in different parts of the world. Where would people here put the line between eccentricity, a known condition, extreme speech and terrorism[3], [4]?
[1] http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-25424290
[2] http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-birmingham-24586050
[3] http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-27633943
[4] http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-27328590
PS: not one of these people was on any kind of list.
[1] http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-25424290
[2] http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-birmingham-24586050
[3] http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-27633943
[4] http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-27328590
PS: not one of these people was on any kind of list.
I can't speak for GCHQ, but the Boston bombers were identified by signals intelligence. It was Russia's, but they were identified nonetheless and turned over to the FBI.
The FBI failed to properly follow-up with that lead, but that's not (itself) a failure of SIGINT.
Despite all that (and ironically), the Boston bombing was a scenario where we should expect the NSA to be unable to see early signs, since they are forbidden from tracking the communications of either of the Tsarnaev brothers since they were on U.S. soil. NSA would only have seen anything if they had reached out to a known foreigner, outside of the U.S., in the process of germinating their plot.
But even so, it may be that we have to "settle" for the existence of occasional homegrown extremism (America is no stranger to that either) while still foiling the external plots that can be foiled.
The FBI failed to properly follow-up with that lead, but that's not (itself) a failure of SIGINT.
Despite all that (and ironically), the Boston bombing was a scenario where we should expect the NSA to be unable to see early signs, since they are forbidden from tracking the communications of either of the Tsarnaev brothers since they were on U.S. soil. NSA would only have seen anything if they had reached out to a known foreigner, outside of the U.S., in the process of germinating their plot.
But even so, it may be that we have to "settle" for the existence of occasional homegrown extremism (America is no stranger to that either) while still foiling the external plots that can be foiled.
And one week later a massive explosion in West, Texas killed a lot more people. Yet somehow we only talk about the Boston bombers.
It is a theater, but the NSA got way too far. And even the motto of "100% security" by Obama is complete nonsense. Because it didn't stop the massive explosion in West, Texas, nor the Boston bombings.
Their problem is a lack of logical thinking.
It is a theater, but the NSA got way too far. And even the motto of "100% security" by Obama is complete nonsense. Because it didn't stop the massive explosion in West, Texas, nor the Boston bombings.
Their problem is a lack of logical thinking.
> Their problem is a lack of logical thinking.
If you're trying to equate the psychological impact of things like 9/11 to the equivalent number of coal deaths or traffic accidents then I'm not sure the lack of logical thinking is limited to them.
Treating humans like they should be Vulcans is one of the most illogical things of all. People are not Vulcans, and any systematic policy that fails to take that into account is doomed to failure.
If you're trying to equate the psychological impact of things like 9/11 to the equivalent number of coal deaths or traffic accidents then I'm not sure the lack of logical thinking is limited to them.
Treating humans like they should be Vulcans is one of the most illogical things of all. People are not Vulcans, and any systematic policy that fails to take that into account is doomed to failure.
> If you're trying to equate the psychological impact of things like 9/11 to the equivalent number of coal deaths or traffic accidents then I'm not sure the lack of logical thinking is limited to them.
The executive branch of US gov, also didn't do one bit to relax the minds of "us". Instead they waved the red (and the US-) flag quite a lot and they put oil on the flame of fear. That by itself is criminal enough. But they went further and further... We know the history.
The executive branch of US gov, also didn't do one bit to relax the minds of "us". Instead they waved the red (and the US-) flag quite a lot and they put oil on the flame of fear. That by itself is criminal enough. But they went further and further... We know the history.
Yes, I remember that. Good point. And of course the drip-drip of car accidents and alcohol use &c.
Wasn't it Shneier who said that it wasn't the things you read about in the paper (by definition rare and exotic) that you had to watch out for but the banal ordinary things?
Wasn't it Shneier who said that it wasn't the things you read about in the paper (by definition rare and exotic) that you had to watch out for but the banal ordinary things?
I'm assuming that I misunderstand the point of this technology, as used by the NSA. It seems that they have pictures of people that they want to arrest. And they have information about those same people, but without pictures. And so they have developed a technology that matches a picture with the name of the person in that picture?
If the NSA wants to have person A detained then wouldn't it be a good idea for them to already know what that person looks like? Am I entirely missing the point?
If the NSA wants to have person A detained then wouldn't it be a good idea for them to already know what that person looks like? Am I entirely missing the point?
Well somehow I doubt that the NSA has a decent picture on everybody, but for those that they do then yes, it's a way of doing identity matching between pictures of people and data involving those people.
Think doing relational SQL joins based on photos, IMO.
Think doing relational SQL joins based on photos, IMO.
So my interface looks something like:
Age: Height: Sex: Eye Color: Skin Color: Build:
and I can fill it in and I will be presented with an image (or images) that matches that query, along with basically all the other information currently collected about that individual?
So, a use case would be...a 6'2'' individual with medium complexion and shinny build with heavy facial hair was caught on a camera doing some potentially illicit activity and the feds can feed that info into the DB and the output is a list of people who match that description, along with all available information such as (I'm guessing here), last known location (most likely according to their last internet login and/or cellphone ping), full transcripts of their emails, chat, voip conversations, etc..?
But how does the system match the photo to the name? [The app 'NSA' would like access to your Facebook Photos. This app will not be able to post on your behalf."]?
Age: Height: Sex: Eye Color: Skin Color: Build:
and I can fill it in and I will be presented with an image (or images) that matches that query, along with basically all the other information currently collected about that individual?
So, a use case would be...a 6'2'' individual with medium complexion and shinny build with heavy facial hair was caught on a camera doing some potentially illicit activity and the feds can feed that info into the DB and the output is a list of people who match that description, along with all available information such as (I'm guessing here), last known location (most likely according to their last internet login and/or cellphone ping), full transcripts of their emails, chat, voip conversations, etc..?
But how does the system match the photo to the name? [The app 'NSA' would like access to your Facebook Photos. This app will not be able to post on your behalf."]?
I have no clue on how it works other than the linked article.
It's not hard to make reasonable guesses based on fundamental systems engineering principles though. E.g. the interface might simply be "Here's a known picture of the guy, find all matches to this picture" and start seeing which connections pop up. Almost like a Facebook Graph Search based on an image identifier instead of a Facebook UID.
It's not hard to make reasonable guesses based on fundamental systems engineering principles though. E.g. the interface might simply be "Here's a known picture of the guy, find all matches to this picture" and start seeing which connections pop up. Almost like a Facebook Graph Search based on an image identifier instead of a Facebook UID.
And algorithms now work better than humans at face detection.
https://medium.com/the-physics-arxiv-blog/2c567adbf7fc
They don't even have to snoop.
They don't even have to snoop.
We could do this right now and sell it as an app http://www.mimisbrunnr.net/~munin/blog/apps-for-privacy.html
> In addition to in-house programs, the N.S.A. relies in part on commercially available facial recognition technology, including from PittPatt, a small company owned by Google, the documents show.
These docs are from 2011, the acquisition of PittPatt happened in July 2011: http://techcrunch.com/2011/07/22/google-acquires-facial-reco...
Any "commercially available facial recognition technology" was a pre-Google thing, PittPatt is no more.
Any "commercially available facial recognition technology" was a pre-Google thing, PittPatt is no more.
> Any "commercially available facial recognition technology" is a pre-Google thing, PittPatt is no more.
I see no reason to believe this. Google certainly had an obligation to honor existing PittPatt agreements after the acquisition. And I see no reason why they wouldn't continue working with the NSA if it was in their interest.
I am very pessimistic about bulk electronic surveillance reform. One of the few points of leverage I can see is publicly making it clear when companies work with the NSA, and avoid them when possible. I would include companies that acquire companies that work with the NSA. For example, I have slowly stopped using services of the PRISM companies, including Google.
I see no reason to believe this. Google certainly had an obligation to honor existing PittPatt agreements after the acquisition. And I see no reason why they wouldn't continue working with the NSA if it was in their interest.
I am very pessimistic about bulk electronic surveillance reform. One of the few points of leverage I can see is publicly making it clear when companies work with the NSA, and avoid them when possible. I would include companies that acquire companies that work with the NSA. For example, I have slowly stopped using services of the PRISM companies, including Google.
> Google certainly had an obligation to honor existing PittPatt agreements after the acquisition
[citation needed] one has to be privy to such contracts to make these conjectures, also they're software might have been of the "off the shelf" variety.
> One of the few points of leverage I can see is publicly making it clear when companies work with the NSA, and avoid them when possible. I would include companies that acquire companies that work with the NSA.
That's fine, but you should get the facts straight before lobbing accusations, as for 'companies that acquire companies' point, I don't subscribe to any guilt by association sort of animosity, this doesn't seem fair and lots of things are more connected than you think.
My main objection is that the NYT should have used "... now owned by Google" instead of "owned by Google" in their piece.
[citation needed] one has to be privy to such contracts to make these conjectures, also they're software might have been of the "off the shelf" variety.
> One of the few points of leverage I can see is publicly making it clear when companies work with the NSA, and avoid them when possible. I would include companies that acquire companies that work with the NSA.
That's fine, but you should get the facts straight before lobbing accusations, as for 'companies that acquire companies' point, I don't subscribe to any guilt by association sort of animosity, this doesn't seem fair and lots of things are more connected than you think.
My main objection is that the NYT should have used "... now owned by Google" instead of "owned by Google" in their piece.
> [citation needed] one has to be privy to such contracts to make these conjectures, also they're software might have been of the "off the shelf" variety.
Fine, it's true, the contact could have said anything, including "if you are acquired, you are released of any obligations," although I find that hard to believe. Yes, and it could have been off the shelf with no support contact.
However, in my experience, having gone through an acquisition where the acquired company had existing obligations, those obligations were transferred to the acquiring company and understanding them were a large part of the due diligence.
> but you should get the facts straight before lobbing accusations
What was my accusation? All I did was quote the article. You tried to refute it -- claiming any interaction between PittPatt and the NSA was pre-Google -- by giving dates which were still entirely consistent with the article as written (docs from 2011, acquisition from July of that year).
> My main objection is that the NYT should have used "... now owned by Google" instead of "owned by Google" in their piece.
Again, I don't see any compelling evidence you've given for contracting the article as written. I'm going to have to go with the professional reporting on this one.
> as for 'companies that acquire companies' point, I don't subscribe to any guilt by association sort of animosity, this doesn't seem fair
That's fine, think whatever you want. We disagree.
Fine, it's true, the contact could have said anything, including "if you are acquired, you are released of any obligations," although I find that hard to believe. Yes, and it could have been off the shelf with no support contact.
However, in my experience, having gone through an acquisition where the acquired company had existing obligations, those obligations were transferred to the acquiring company and understanding them were a large part of the due diligence.
> but you should get the facts straight before lobbing accusations
What was my accusation? All I did was quote the article. You tried to refute it -- claiming any interaction between PittPatt and the NSA was pre-Google -- by giving dates which were still entirely consistent with the article as written (docs from 2011, acquisition from July of that year).
> My main objection is that the NYT should have used "... now owned by Google" instead of "owned by Google" in their piece.
Again, I don't see any compelling evidence you've given for contracting the article as written. I'm going to have to go with the professional reporting on this one.
> as for 'companies that acquire companies' point, I don't subscribe to any guilt by association sort of animosity, this doesn't seem fair
That's fine, think whatever you want. We disagree.
... of course although the NSA can't analyse domestic US photographs themselves, they can still mine the metadata attached to the photographs, which can include GPS data in some cases...
Semi-off topic, what are some of the good algorithms to search faces with a similarity factor? Let's say I have a database of millions of faces and I want to go through the streaming of a video to identify all the faces showing up in the video with a 90% similarity factor.
I assume the faces on each frame of the video are extracted to be queried against the face database.
Would all the faces in the db loaded into memory and constructed in some data structure for efficient query? Or some mapping to SQL's standard B+ tree index with range searching can be done?
I assume the faces on each frame of the video are extracted to be queried against the face database.
Would all the faces in the db loaded into memory and constructed in some data structure for efficient query? Or some mapping to SQL's standard B+ tree index with range searching can be done?
[deleted]
Countdown until these are treated like pressure cookers...
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groucho_glasses
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groucho_glasses
heres one for the nsa...
http://i.imgur.com/bp7bJFh.jpg
Whether this works or is right or wrong misses the point of doing it. This is being done because bad people brought bad things into this world. None of this was done until bad people did stuff. People forget that side of the equation.
You know, I don't really mind that the NSA is collecting this information. What bothers me is that it's not being released to the public. What good are their efforts if no one else can build off of their work?
As if they care about the common good. Hilarious.
For US citizens, it's an obvious yes. If you disagree, can you show me where collecting this information has held detrimental effects on the common good of US citizens?
Perhaps, over time, the increasing isolation of the US coupled with deep distrust of future presidents by the leaders of other governments may lead to a reduction in economic power?
Also, the impossibility of organising a broad based political movement for change within the US in response to, say, severely worsening economic or climatic conditions because of 'self censorship' by US citizens?
These are weak signals working over a long timescale. But those things are important.
Also, the impossibility of organising a broad based political movement for change within the US in response to, say, severely worsening economic or climatic conditions because of 'self censorship' by US citizens?
These are weak signals working over a long timescale. But those things are important.
If being under surveillance really does trigger the feeling of being stalked as prey; then it raises everyones stress level ( as represented by cortisol in the bloodstream ) and that should be detectable in the general population through the incidence of stress related injuries and mental health issues. Of course it could just be lost in the noise of the ongoing financial and environmental crises.
If you don't know what information they are collecting and how they are using it, then how would you know if it has or has not detrimental effects? It's impossible to know.
I think you'd be hard pressed to find people at the NSA who don't care about the common good. Perhaps you don't share the same understanding of what constitutes the common good, but your accusation is unfair.
Utter crap.
I do not think you know what the hell you're talking about - and I also don't think you understand the gravity of the power that having an octopus for total information awareness over the planet actually means.
You're lost.
I do not think you know what the hell you're talking about - and I also don't think you understand the gravity of the power that having an octopus for total information awareness over the planet actually means.
You're lost.
It's not crap - the point is valid.
The fact that there exists danger in "an octopus for total information awareness", and that IMO it's entirely undesirable, it's also perfectly possible that a bunch of people disagree with me, and believe that the existence of such is indeed for the "common good."
You don't win a war like this by painting these people as evil or amoral. They are just wrong.
The fact that there exists danger in "an octopus for total information awareness", and that IMO it's entirely undesirable, it's also perfectly possible that a bunch of people disagree with me, and believe that the existence of such is indeed for the "common good."
You don't win a war like this by painting these people as evil or amoral. They are just wrong.
Thanks for getting the point.
> I do not think you know what the hell you're talking about - and I also don't think you understand the gravity of the power that having an octopus for total information awareness over the planet actually means.
Jesus, you're a a condescending prick.
Jesus, you're a a condescending prick.
Apologies for coming across as condescending - I didn't mean it to be. This is a topic I am really passionate about.
They don't release their data to the public because this would cancel the asymmetry that they are aiming to increase. Asymmetry in information or money is the definition of power.
You look at the various other agencies and foundations that feed into NSA, and look at the academic work being funded by those groups.
There's a reason Springer-Verlag publishes so many data-mining books.
There's a reason Springer-Verlag publishes so many data-mining books.
>>You know, I don't really mind that the NSA is collecting this information. What bothers me is that it's not being released to the public. What good are their efforts if no one else can build off of their work?
You don't mind because you think it'll only be used to catch "hardcore criminals & terrorist". Also, if everyone had the info the NSA has I'm sure all kinds of extortion, job dismissals and divorces would happen. Even those in power I'm sure don't want that info just out there on an API for any random person with interwebz.
You don't mind because you think it'll only be used to catch "hardcore criminals & terrorist". Also, if everyone had the info the NSA has I'm sure all kinds of extortion, job dismissals and divorces would happen. Even those in power I'm sure don't want that info just out there on an API for any random person with interwebz.
> You don't mind because you think it'll only be used to catch "hardcore criminals & terrorist".
Please don't speak for me. I was talking about the information collection, not what they're doing with that information.
Please don't speak for me. I was talking about the information collection, not what they're doing with that information.
What possible good can come from collecting a bunch of private data that wasn't intended to be collected by a third party? They're not collecting it for nothing. If you think it's okay to collect the data you must consider what can be done with it.
Catching criminals? Sure, but that's very minor compared to the real harm that data can do to a bunch of relatively harmless people. Like using a gun to kill a housefly. The chances of you hitting the housefly are very low, but the chances of you harming a bunch of innocent people while trying are likely.
Catching criminals? Sure, but that's very minor compared to the real harm that data can do to a bunch of relatively harmless people. Like using a gun to kill a housefly. The chances of you hitting the housefly are very low, but the chances of you harming a bunch of innocent people while trying are likely.
This is ridiculous!
Whenever some revelation about the NSA makes the news again, it sounds like something out of Mission Impossible or Batman. I'm beginning to think they just hired action movie writers to design their programs.
Whenever some revelation about the NSA makes the news again, it sounds like something out of Mission Impossible or Batman. I'm beginning to think they just hired action movie writers to design their programs.