Obama embracing some Bush-era anti-terror policies

ThirdTerm · Jun 7, 2013

The National Security Agency has obtained direct access to the systems of Google, Facebook, Apple and other US internet giants, according to a top secret document obtained by the Guardian.

The NSA access is part of a previously undisclosed program called PRISM, which allows officials to collect material including search history, the content of emails, file transfers and live chats, the document says.

The Guardian has verified the authenticity of the document, a 41-slide PowerPoint presentation – classified as top secret with no distribution to foreign allies – which was apparently used to train intelligence operatives on the capabilities of the program. The document claims "collection directly from the servers" of major US service providers.

Although the presentation claims the program is run with the assistance of the companies, all those who responded to a Guardian request for comment on Thursday denied knowledge of any such program.

In a statement, Google said: "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 'back door' into our systems, but Google does not have a back door for the government to access private user data."

Several senior tech executives insisted that they had no knowledge of PRISM or of any similar scheme. They said they would never have been involved in such a program. "If they are doing this, they are doing it without our knowledge," one said.

An Apple spokesman said it had "never heard" of PRISM.

The NSA access was enabled by changes to US surveillance law introduced under President Bush and renewed under Obama in December 2012.

The program facilitates extensive, in-depth surveillance on live communications and stored information. The law allows for the targeting of any customers of participating firms who live outside the US, or those Americans whose communications include people outside the US.

It also opens the possibility of communications made entirely within the US being collected without warrants.

Disclosure of the PRISM program follows a leak to the Guardian on Wednesday of a top-secret court order compelling telecoms provider Verizon to turn over the telephone records of millions of US customers.

NSA PRISM program taps in to user data of Facebook, Yahoo and others | World news | The Guardian

myp · Jun 7, 2013

The emergence of Big Data is an interesting one with consequences being hard to predict.

As for the government's actions here- looks horrible from the outside, but who knows what they know or what might have happened otherwise. But that might not be enough to justify such an invasion either.

With the market for information greater than it has ever been, it will be interesting to see what happens to the market for privacy- something I expect to grow.

ThirdTerm · Jun 8, 2013

The UK's electronic eavesdropping and security agency, GCHQ, has had access to PRIZM since 2010 and the system may have prevented some terror plots in both Britain and America and the UK's intelligence agencies would have more powers under the snooper's charter. Obama has expanded Bush's electronic surveillance programme to Google, Facebook, Microsoft, Apple, Yahoo and Skype since 2008 and the war on terror has become more covert during his first term to reduce America's overseas footprint with his frequent use of drone strikes.

Protectionist · Jun 8, 2013

It was reported today on CNN that the Boston Bombing might have been prevented if information protected by law, had gotten through to the US govt. So maybe there's still TOO MUCH privacy going on, resulting in Americans being killed, and terrorists succeeding in their evil deeds ????

myp · Jun 8, 2013

Protectionist said:
It was reported today on CNN that the Boston Bombing might have been prevented if information protected by law, had gotten through to the US govt. So maybe there's still TOO MUCH privacy going on, resulting in American's being killed, and terrorists succeeding in their evil deeds ????

Even if that is true, that isn't enough to solely justify less privacy. At every margin you are going to have positives and negatives. It is about weighing the two.

Protectionist · Jun 9, 2013

myp said:
Even if that is true, that isn't enough to solely justify less privacy. At every margin you are going to have positives and negatives. It is about weighing the two.

1. It certainly IS more than enough to justify less privacy. We're living in a much more technologized world than we used to and a much more dangerous one. People need to start getting that in their heads.

2. So maybe if we had the "less privacy" you mention, we wouldn't have had just a Boston Bombing. Maybe we would have had 10 bombings in 10 cities, and maybe even a nuclear one. What we all need is a good dose of the facts about what terrorist attacks we have been spared, because of the privacy we have forgone, and the damages we've avoided. That's the story I what to hear about, and I'm not accepting or rejecting anything about that, until I get a lot more information. That's when the weighing begins.

David · Jun 9, 2013

Protectionist said:
1. It certainly IS more than enough to justify less privacy. We're living in a much more technologized world than we used to and a much more dangerous one. People need to start getting that in their heads.

2. So maybe if we had the "less privacy" you mention, we wouldn't have had just a Boston Bombing. Maybe we would have had 10 bombings in 10 cities, and maybe even a nuclear one. What we all need is a good dose of the facts about what terrorist attacks we have been spared, because of the privacy we have forgone, and the damages we've avoided. That's the story I what to hear about, and I'm not accepting or rejecting anything about that, until I get a lot more information. That's when the weighing begins.

1. The world is actually safer now though I agree with the rest of your point.

2. I really don't understand this whole privacy thing people have going on. You (you being the general population) sign bills whenever you buy something with a debit/credit card, you give out your SSN everytime you go on a gov't or bank website, you go out in public, you give away your ID every time a cop stops you or you engage in an age restricted activity, etc. Yet the moment the gov't starts putting up cameras or checking call/email logs (not eavesdropping on the actual messages mind you) privacy suddenly becomes the Holy Grail... Utterly illogical.

Protectionist · Jun 9, 2013

David said:
1. The world is actually safer now though I agree with the rest of your point.

2. I really don't understand this whole privacy thing people have going on. You (you being the general population) sign bills whenever you buy something with a debit/credit card, you give out your SSN everytime you go on a gov't or bank website, you go out in public, you give away your ID every time a cop stops you or you engage in an age restricted activity, etc. Yet the moment the gov't starts putting up cameras or checking call/email logs (not eavesdropping on the actual messages mind you) privacy suddenly becomes the Holy Grail... Utterly illogical.

What make you think the world is safer now ? Ever hear of Shukrijumah ? Pakistani nukes ? Boston Bombing ? Proxys ? And the ""world" you say ? Seen what's been happening in Africa lately ? Sudan ? Mali ? Nigeria ? Egypt ?

Northern Mali conflict (2012?present) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sudan and South Sudan | Insight on Conflict

Nigeria's war with Boko Haram gets a new ground zero | World news | The Guardian

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2013/0...n-police-allowing-attack-on-coptic-cathedral/

David · Jun 10, 2013

Protectionist said:
What make you think the world is safer now ? Ever hear of Shukrijumah ? Pakistani nukes ? Boston Bombing ? Proxys ? And the ""world" you say ? Seen what's been happening in Africa lately ? Sudan ? Mali ? Nigeria ? Egypt ?

Northern Mali conflict (2012?present) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sudan and South Sudan | Insight on Conflict

Nigeria's war with Boko Haram gets a new ground zero | World news | The Guardian

New video shows Egyptian police allowing deadly attack on Coptic cathedral | Fox News

Yes and 7 decades ago people were dying by the 10s of thousands in single battles. 200 years ago the US, France, UK and Russia made the world burn as everyone tried to carve out an empire or themselves. 400 years ago we were just crawling out of the Middle ages. 800 years ago Rome was going to shit. So yes, for all it's problems, the world is safer than it's ever been. Hopfully that trend will continue.

myp · Jun 10, 2013

Protectionist said:
1. It certainly IS more than enough to justify less privacy. We're living in a much more technologized world than we used to and a much more dangerous one. People need to start getting that in their heads.

2. So maybe if we had the "less privacy" you mention, we wouldn't have had just a Boston Bombing. Maybe we would have had 10 bombings in 10 cities, and maybe even a nuclear one. What we all need is a good dose of the facts about what terrorist attacks we have been spared, because of the privacy we have forgone, and the damages we've avoided. That's the story I what to hear about, and I'm not accepting or rejecting anything about that, until I get a lot more information. That's when the weighing begins.

1. What makes you think the world is more dangerous now? What is the source of your data for this claim? I would actually make the argument that based on the data the world is becoming a safer and more peaceful place, not vice-versa.

2. While terrorist attacks are a cost, so is invasion of privacy if we value both safety and privacy, which we do seem to value as a society. Again it is all relative and marginal changes are what matter as you trade one off for the other.

Protectionist · Jun 10, 2013

David said:
Yes and 7 decades ago people were dying by the 10s of thousands in single battles. 200 years ago the US, France, UK and Russia made the world burn as everyone tried to carve out an empire or themselves. 400 years ago we were just crawling out of the Middle ages. 800 years ago Rome was going to shit. So yes, for all it's problems, the world is safer than it's ever been. Hopfully that trend will continue.

You didn't answer a single one of my questions. So, that being the case, I'll assume that NO, you are not aware of Shukrejumah, Pakistani nuclear warheads, and the other stuff I mentioned, which are just a part of the world's dangers. And since the examples you gave are all before the nuclear age, none of them compare with the danger to the whole world of nuclear war, supplemented by today's biological warfare capabilites, which have the capability to spread worldwide.

David · Jun 10, 2013

Protectionist said:
You didn't answer a single one of my questions. So, that being the case, I'll assume that NO, you are not aware of Shukrejumah, Pakistani nuclear warheads, and the other stuff I mentioned, which are just a part of the world's dangers. And since the examples you gave are all before the nuclear age, none of them compare with the danger to the whole world of nuclear war, supplemented by today's biological warfare capabilites, which have the capability to spread worldwide.

Your questions were irrelevant to my point. I said the world was safer, not that it was without dangers. Sometimes it seems you don't actually read a post before responding.

Protectionist · Jun 10, 2013

myp said:
1. What makes you think the world is more dangerous now? What is the source of your data for this claim? I would actually make the argument that based on the data the world is becoming a safer and more peaceful place, not vice-versa.

2. While terrorist attacks are a cost, so is invasion of privacy if we value both safety and privacy, which we do seem to value as a society. Again it is all relative and marginal changes are what matter as you trade one off for the other.

"The data" ? What data ? Does this data talk about the lack of US/Soviet style "mutual deterrence" regarding nuclear war, that exists among Islamists who view death as a desirable thing ? A lot of things make me think the world is a more dangerous place. Have you heard of al Qaeda's call for the "American Hiroshima" ? Know who Shukrijumah is ? Ever read The Day of Islam by Dr. Paul Williams ? Not concerned with 100+ nuclear warheads in Pakistan ? You ought to be. They're the greatest danger to America in American history (including World War II).
As for a sample of other places in the world, see the African wars links in Post # 8.

Newsmax.com: America's News Page

WikiLeaks cables highlight Pakistani nuclear terror threat | World news | The Guardian

Iran?s Nuclear Attack Plan | JR Nyquist | FINANCIAL SENSE

FBI ? ADNAN G. EL SHUKRIJUMAH

Adnan el Shukrijumah | The Counter Jihad Report

https://www.google.com/#q=shukrijum...61,d.eWU&fp=85e440c1310b44c5&biw=1002&bih=591

Why Pakistan's nuclear bombs are a threat | Asia | DW.DE | 09.04.2013

The Terrorist Threat to Nuclear Weapons in Pakistan

http://foreignpolicy.com/files/fp_uploaded_images/120524_nuke2.JPG

I could go on listing links ALL DAY LONG. So much for "the data" (whatever that is)

Protectionist · Jun 10, 2013

David said:
Your questions were irrelevant to my point. I said the world was safer, not that it was without dangers. Sometimes it seems you don't actually read a post before responding.

I know what you said, and NO, my questions are not irrelevant to your point. My questions pertain to the fact that the world has never been less safe than it is now, and if you knew the answers to my questions, you'd know why. See Post # 13

Protectionist · Jun 11, 2013

myp said:
While terrorist attacks are a cost, so is invasion of privacy if we value both safety and privacy, which we do seem to value as a society. Again it is all relative and marginal changes are what matter as you trade one off for the other.

Yes, we value both privacy and security, but consistently over the years, we value security over privacy. This shows up clearly, in 3 Washington Post/Pew Research polls taken in 2006, 2010, and now, in June 2013.

2006
65% security - 32% privacy

2010
68% security - 26% privacy

2013
62% security - 34% privacy

Security > privacy, in 1 poll question

Road Warrior · Jun 16, 2013

Protectionist said:
1. It certainly IS more than enough to justify less privacy. We're living in a much more technologized world than we used to and a much more dangerous one. People need to start getting that in their heads.

2. So maybe if we had the "less privacy" you mention, we wouldn't have had just a Boston Bombing. Maybe we would have had 10 bombings in 10 cities, and maybe even a nuclear one. What we all need is a good dose of the facts about what terrorist attacks we have been spared, because of the privacy we have forgone, and the damages we've avoided. That's the story I what to hear about, and I'm not accepting or rejecting anything about that, until I get a lot more information. That's when the weighing begins.

So, besides the Fourth Amendment, which other parts of the Constitution or Liberties should we shred in the name of Security?

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.pdf

Amendment 4 - Search and Seizure. Ratified 12/15/1791.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against
unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but
upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the
place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

David · Jun 16, 2013

Road Warrior said:
So, besides the Fourth Amendment, which other parts of the Constitution or Liberties should we shred in the name of Security?

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.pdf

My FB response earlier to something similar:

There is no such thing as privacy. You have FB, Twitter, Google, etc. at home recording your life, birth to death. You have cashiers and cops handling your ID. You give away your SSN to banks and creditors. ISPs and phone companies keep tabs on everything you do while using their products/services. To start complaining about Big Brother when the gov't decides to get in on the action is to declare to the world your utter naivety and obliviousness to your surroundings. Those that accept the gov't snooping aren't necessarily supportive of it, they just realize the truth of what I've just said and so don't bother complaining.

Welcome to the hivemind. If you don't like it, you should of been born in a different century.

myp · Jun 16, 2013

David said:
My FB response earlier to something similar:

There is no such thing as privacy. You have FB, Twitter, Google, etc. at home recording your life, birth to death. You have cashiers and cops handling your ID. You give away your SSN to banks and creditors. ISPs and phone companies keep tabs on everything you do while using their products/services. To start complaining about Big Brother when the gov't decides to get in on the action is to declare to the world your utter naivety and obliviousness to your surroundings. Those that accept the gov't snooping aren't necessarily supportive of it, they just realize the truth of what I've just said and so don't bother complaining.

Welcome to the hivemind. If you don't like it, you should of been born in a different century.

There is a difference between voluntarily giving up info and not having a choice in the matter...

David · Jun 16, 2013

myp said:
There is a difference between voluntarily giving up info and not having a choice in the matter...

You don't have a choice when Google logs your activity. You don't have a choice when a cashier or cop demands to see your ID. You don't have a choice when a bank demands your SSN. You don't have a choice when your ISP and phone company keeps tabs of your every movement. If you think you do, you haven't been paying attention.

myp · Jun 17, 2013

David said:
You don't have a choice when Google logs your activity. You don't have a choice when a cashier or cop demands to see your ID. You don't have a choice when a bank demands your SSN. You don't have a choice when your ISP and phone company keeps tabs of your every movement. If you think you do, you haven't been paying attention.

You do have a choice not to use Google- there are other competitors readily available. A cop looking at your state-issued ID isn't a privacy matter- the state is looking at a number that they issued you and already know about you. The greater privacy concerns are not about that sort of thing, but about things like listening to your personal conversations or knowing what your plans are for next Friday night.

Your ISP/phone company keeping tabs is the issue at hand...

Privacy like pretty much every other abstract thing that is important to us (freedom, security, happiness, etc.) is a thing of balance. It isn't either have it or you don't.

Obama embracing some Bush-era anti-terror policies

Similar threads