Confiscating the Phone Records of US Citizens

[heironymouspasparagus]

Oh. You haven't burst my bubble, it's just disappointing that this all had to come to light under the current president.  Had it been Bush or any other Repub, the media would have turned it into a shitstorm and the public would be marching on Washington.  Unfortunately under the current administration the media is content to label it as a fake scandal, and the liberal half of the liberty-minded is content with saying "Oh, well.  It's always been this way. Our government is just looking out for us."  

I really wish Snowden had done his thing when Bush was president.

I seem to recall a past president being impeached, and resigning for recording conversations in a single room.

It did come to light before...under Nixon.  Reagan.  Baby Bush.  None of whom received the kind of non-event BS this current clown is getting.

One little example; we have heard ad nauseum about Benghazi...4 killed, which IS tragic and deserves some attention.  But not calls for impeachment.  UNLESS the same criteria had been applied to Baby Bush - which it was not - when 32 people were killed during his regime at inadequately secured embassies.  Where were the cries for impeachment then?  Or even an investigation?

What happened to the RWRE when atrocities occurred?  Again...perspective.

[Gaspar]

Were US Military assets ordered to stand-down in the midst of the attacks, to avoid the impression that an attack was taking place on 9/11 in an election year?

Did the president and his staff immediately deny terrorist activity and continue that narrative for two weeks, even though they knew that very night that the group was linked to Al Qaeda?

Was a cover-story created about an internet video so that the president wouldn't' have to miss an important $30K fundraising event the next day?

Did the administration then take participation in a media event to showcase an American "film-maker" being arrested with a bag over his head for producing such a film?

Did the State department continue to hold back information and restrict access to survivors for over a year?

The truth is that our embassies are not safe.  The issue is why would the president and his staff choose to lie about what occurred?
You are right, this was a horrible attack but it was no worse than others we have seen in recent years.  The difference is that in those instances, we know what happened, and we took action, both during and after the attacks to secure our assets. The perpetrators in those attacks are either dead or incarcerated, and there were investigations by the FBI. 

As of today, even though we have the perpetrators of Benghazi on video and know their names, the FBI has yet to arrest anyone.


It is fairly obvious.  The false narrative was a political move to avoid the immediate inconvenience to Obama, and has now become a cover-up to avoid the repercussions to Hillary.

It has now gotten to the point where even CNN and MSNBC can't deny its importance as an issue.  They may suppress it all they like, and belittle those who pursue it, but there is too much time between now and 2016, and scandals of this magnitude don't lie dormant that long.  Facts have a way of working themselves out over time.

[Townsend]

Were US Military assets ordered to stand-down in the midst of the attacks, to avoid the impression that an attack was taking place on 9/11 in an election year?

Did the president and his staff immediately deny terrorist activity and continue that narrative for two weeks, even though they knew that very night that the group was linked to Al Qaeda?

Was a cover-story created about an internet video so that the president wouldn't' have to miss an important $30K fundraising event the next day?

Did the administration then take participation in a media event to showcase an American "film-maker" being arrested with a bag over his head for producing such a film?

Did the State department continue to hold back information and restrict access to survivors for over a year?

The truth is that our embassies are not safe.  The issue is why would the president and his staff choose to lie about what occurred?
You are right, this was a horrible attack but it was no worse than others we have seen in recent years.  The difference is that in those instances, we know what happened, and we took action, both during and after the attacks to secure our assets. The perpetrators in those attacks are either dead or incarcerated, and there were investigations by the FBI. 

As of today, even though we have the perpetrators of Benghazi on video and know their names, the FBI has yet to arrest anyone.


It is fairly obvious.  The false narrative was a political move to avoid the immediate inconvenience to Obama, and has now become a cover-up to avoid the repercussions to Hillary.

It has now gotten to the point where even CNN and MSNBC can't deny its importance as an issue.  They may suppress it all they like, and belittle those who pursue it, but there is too much time between now and 2016, and scandals of this magnitude don't lie dormant that long.  Facts have a way of working themselves out over time.

What's up, FOX news guy?

[patric]

Surely someone didnt just hijack this into another Benghazi witch hunt...

[heironymouspasparagus]

Were US Military assets ordered to stand-down in the midst of the attacks, to avoid the impression that an attack was taking place on 9/11 in an election year?

Did the president and his staff immediately deny terrorist activity and continue that narrative for two weeks, even though they knew that very night that the group was linked to Al Qaeda?

Was a cover-story created about an internet video so that the president wouldn't' have to miss an important $30K fundraising event the next day?

Did the administration then take participation in a media event to showcase an American "film-maker" being arrested with a bag over his head for producing such a film?

Did the State department continue to hold back information and restrict access to survivors for over a year?

The truth is that our embassies are not safe.  The issue is why would the president and his staff choose to lie about what occurred?
You are right, this was a horrible attack but it was no worse than others we have seen in recent years.  The difference is that in those instances, we know what happened, and we took action, both during and after the attacks to secure our assets. The perpetrators in those attacks are either dead or incarcerated, and there were investigations by the FBI.  

As of today, even though we have the perpetrators of Benghazi on video and know their names, the FBI has yet to arrest anyone.


It is fairly obvious.  The false narrative was a political move to avoid the immediate inconvenience to Obama, and has now become a cover-up to avoid the repercussions to Hillary.

It has now gotten to the point where even CNN and MSNBC can't deny its importance as an issue.  They may suppress it all they like, and belittle those who pursue it, but there is too much time between now and 2016, and scandals of this magnitude don't lie dormant that long.  Facts have a way of working themselves out over time.

Oh, puuuulllllleeeeaaasssseeee!!!


And even if 100% real... pales in comparison to artificially creating an event that killed over 4,000 of our kids and squandered $2 trillion of our wealth!!  Off budget of course, so it didn't look as bad as it was!  But it did get Cheney and his cronies $90 billion in no-bid "gubmint" work....that's the important thing!!

[Gaspar]

Surely someone didnt just hijack this into another Benghazi witch hunt...

That statement is offensive to Hillary.

[patric]

Agencies have traded recipes for grabbing location and planning data when a target uses Google Maps, and for vacuuming up address books, buddy lists, phone logs and the geographic data embedded in photos when someone sends a post to the mobile versions of Facebook, Flickr, LinkedIn, Twitter and other services.

http://www.zdnet.com/u-k-u-s-spy-agencies-scoop-leaky-app-data-new-snowden-leaks-say-7000025628

Despite the multiyear effort and supposed value of smartphone data...the agencies' struggle to make use of it all; apparently crunching one month of NSA cell phone data yielded 8,615,650 people of interest, and required 120 computers...the report found nothing suspicious or noteworthy.

[patric]

Terrorists...Lawyers, what's the difference? 

The list of those caught up in the global surveillance net cast by the National Security Agency and its overseas partners, from social media users to foreign heads of state, now includes another entry: American lawyers.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/16/us/eavesdropping-ensnared-american-law-firm.html?_r=0

[patric]

The NSA has been remotely activating your webcam to run "automatic facial recognition experiments" (to monitor existing suspects and to "discover new targets of interest") or watching you masturbate: 

http://www.zdnet.com/big-brother-really-is-watching-you-7000026716/

The latest revelations show that ordinary citizens are being targeted, purely because they like the convenience of talking to each other through the Web.
The data was fed into the NSA's XKeyscore program, making it searchable by analysts.

[AquaMan]

Sounds like Pogo stuff, "We have seen the enemy...and he is us!"

[Townsend]

They've been checking your "O" face.

[AquaMan]

"O" face? Orgasm face? Here it is for free....

[Gaspar]

The NSA has been remotely activating your webcam to run "automatic facial recognition experiments" (to monitor existing suspects and to "discover new targets of interest") or watching you masturbate:  

http://www.zdnet.com/big-brother-really-is-watching-you-7000026716/

The latest revelations show that ordinary citizens are being targeted, purely because they like the convenience of talking to each other through the Web.
The data was fed into the NSA's XKeyscore program, making it searchable by analysts.

Most of us in the IT world recognize the vulnerability of the webcam.  That's why we have duct tape over it.  NSA can't get around duct tape.

Edit to add:
Many of Tulsa's larger employers have scripts on company laptops that allow admins to view screen, key-log, and webcam activity. We find this regularly when we have to work on systems or acquire old hardware.

Chances are if you work for a big company with a large IT department, there is a good possibility that they are logging your activity, at least for future CYA, and to avoid corporate espionage. If your company also manages government contracts you can almost guarantee it.

If there is a network security specialist on staff, you can count on the fact that they are reviewing endpoint reports (reports that show daily internet activity, use of proxy, personal webmail, or 3rd party email applications like thunderbird or remote connectivity via RDP, FTP, VNC or other protocol).  I know a few of these guys and am amazed by the data they have available on employees, and the speed at which they can intercept and shut down a tunnel if they find that sensitive corporate data is at risk.

It's a good idea to read whatever section of the handbook covers software/hardware and the use of company computers.

[nathanm]

Most of us in the IT world recognize the vulnerability of the webcam.  That's why we have duct tape over it.  NSA can't get around duct tape.

Doesn't do smile for the microphone, though.

Edit to add:
Many of Tulsa's larger employers have scripts on company laptops that allow admins to view screen, key-log, and webcam activity. We find this regularly when we have to work on systems or acquire old hardware.

What this has to do with NSA spying, I'm not quite sure. If you are an employee using a computer supplied by your employer, they have every right to watch (and log) what you do. Nobody is, at all but the largest employers, but they certainly can. Anybody that has to be SOX compliant will have monitoring systems installed, the question is whether anybody actually looks at the collected data. You'd be amazed at what can be deduced about your activity just from the stuff your computer sends back to the AD server in a Windows environment, with no need of network sniffing or proxies. Event Viewer alone can tell a person a lot. Throw some third party tools on there and it's like the freakin' Panopticon.

That said, exfiltrating data from most companies is basically trivial if you have a tiny bit of patience and they don't have the end-user machines locked down like..well, nothing is locked down that well in my experience. If an employee wants to steal data they have access to and either has a bit of technical competence or help from an outside source, they are going to be successful no matter what controls you put in place.

[heironymouspasparagus]

Doesn't do smile for the microphone, though.

What this has to do with NSA spying, I'm not quite sure. If you are an employee using a computer supplied by your employer, they have every right to watch (and log) what you do. (Nobody is, at most employers, but they certainly can)

I had about 3 months of trying to get the company laptop microphone to work - and enlisted the aid of 3 IT guys over that time.  Could not get it to work.  Finally, one day for no apparent reason, it turned on and has worked fine ever since.  (It came on during boot up that morning.)  I guess the monitors didn't want me to use it at all....