×

Announcing: Slashdot Deals - Explore geek apps, games, gadgets and more. (what is this?)

Thank you!

We are sorry to see you leave - Beta is different and we value the time you took to try it out. Before you decide to go, please take a look at some value-adds for Beta and learn more about it. Thank you for reading Slashdot, and for making the site better!

NSA Drowns In Useless Data, Impeding Work, Former Employee Claims

samzenpus posted about a year ago | from the we're-putting-new-coversheets-on-all-the-TPS-reports-before-they-go-out-now dept.

Privacy 120

An anonymous reader writes in with this story of confusion at the NSA due to the flood of data they harvest. "Some of the documents released by Mr. Snowden detail concerns inside the NSA about drowning in information. An internal briefing document in 2012 about foreign cellphone-location tracking by the agency said the efforts were 'outpacing our ability to ingest, process and store' data. In March 2013, some NSA analysts asked for permission to collect less data through a program called Muscular because the 'relatively small intelligence value it contains does not justify the sheer volume of collection,' another document shows. In response to questions about Mr. Binney's claims, an NSA spokeswoman says the agency is 'not collecting everything, but we do need the tools to collect intelligence on foreign adversaries who wish to do harm to the nation and its allies.'"

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Fosty Face! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45791899)

I pull out my dick. I piss in yo FACE! Glug glug glug, you slurp up every drop. Mmm mm frosty!

Solution... (4, Funny)

msauve (701917) | about a year ago | (#45791909)

Simply build a new $1.5 billion data center [wikipedia.org] to process the collected data.

Re:Solution... (2)

cold fjord (826450) | about a year ago | (#45791973)

That is just warehousing data they can't process. Snowden and the commentators say that encryption is still good, it still works. At best that allows them to process chains of related data if they get a break.

All standards are tested but some standards are mo (1)

AHuxley (892839) | about a year ago | (#45792275)

The fun the US and UK govs had was setting global standards and then passing them as 'tested' back to a tame private sector to offer in its product mix. http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/sep/16/nsa-gchq-undermine-internet-security [theguardian.com]
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/05/nsa-gchq-encryption-codes-security [theguardian.com]
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2013/11/04/how-we-know-the-nsa-had-access-to-internal-google-and-yahoo-cloud-data/ [washingtonpost.com]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turbulence_(NSA) [wikipedia.org]

Re:All standards are tested but some standards are (3, Insightful)

cold fjord (826450) | about a year ago | (#45792455)

That's all very nice, but be clear -

Bruce Schneier: Crypto works [youtube.com] .

Yes cold it is very nice (0)

AHuxley (892839) | about a year ago | (#45792559)

LOL The world now understands tame US crypto as used, sold and tested is junk. Encryption works when it is not weakened during development. So a lot of very skilled people can now thanks to Snowden can review and fix where needed.

Re:Yes cold it is very nice (1)

cold fjord (826450) | about a year ago | (#45792707)

LOL The world now understands tame US crypto as used, sold and tested is junk.

You keep repeating that, but it still isn't true. (Did you even bother to watch any of it?) All the available evidence is that the math is still protective. The problems are other places.

I think the NSA would probably be happy to see your scenario. Just think, part time visual basic programmers around the world turning out "secure" products to protect you from the "Yankees." Of course they will guarantee their own work, it's from their elite programmers, their own local genius that can't be questioned. It is an extra bonus if they come up with their own cipher - nobody else knows how we do it, so it's unbreakable! The NSA will have the last laugh. So yes, sell that idea far and wide. An extra bonus comes in if the new government contract in that country goes to the minister's cousin, something I'm sure you'll agree never happens. After all, who would benefit?

Everybody wins Cold (0)

AHuxley (892839) | about a year ago | (#45792883)

Again LOL.
Trade deals, banking, political parties, political leaders around the world, NGO's, anti war protesters, law reform groups, environmentalists... commercial and scientific developments...end users are all at risk.
As the video you posted stats bulk collection of data is now cheap and easy. At the 43 min and 46 min point in - "we have made surveillance too cheap"
So long term, where the NSA and GCHQ got in thanks to junk encryption standards, so can ex staff, former staff and any group that can hire them.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2013/nov/28/war-on-democracy-corporations-spy-profit-activism [theguardian.com]
Bad encryption is useless at any level or price - too many people have the keys now :)

Re:Everybody wins Cold (1)

cold fjord (826450) | about a year ago | (#45793239)

I guess it's my turn to LOL now. Bulk collection is cheap because encryption isn't generally used. When governments legally force the turnover of keys that won't change. Although there may be some spots where security is stronger, it is likely we'll see more actual junk being produced in the future. Perhaps you recall the early days of PCs when many vendors did their own thing instead of relying on DES. How many of those products would hold up to NSA, FSB, or China? And that is before you get into the question of key handling by all these new firms. The fact that you expect many more of them to be outside the US will also probably mean more crypto compromised by foreign governments since not all of them play as nicely as the US does despite the hysterics on Slashdot. If your concern is for the activists, that would make them more susceptible, not less. Your link doesn't seem to provide any evidence of encryption keys being compromised to private industry by US government intelligence, nor the infrastructure to exploit them if they did. Companies have always been interested in adversaries trying to bring them down and there are legitimate grounds for concern. Not every activist is honest, reasonable, sane, or has goals supported by general society. One only has to look at the eco-terrorists of ELF and Earth First to realize that. Private industry provides nearly all of the critical infrastructure and critical services relied upon by society, and there are legitimate security concerns. By the same token there is always a need for watchdogs against abusive or illegal behavior on the part of companies and government. You almost seem to be applauding panic on this, and panicked people seldom make good decisions. That is before we get to the question of human intelligence, the specialty of Russia, China, and various other nations. I've seen a number of your posts where you worry about "sock puppets," but you never seem to worry about agent provocateurs in this matter. Since you should understand the existence of pitfalls when approaching encryption and security, a single mistake can sink you, why don't you worry about the panicked herd being directed towards a cliff? From claimed "junk" crypto to actual junk crypto?

Re:Everybody wins Cold (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45793329)

Geezuz,
If this is the US govt playing nice, we are all in deep shit when the economy there truly tanks and they need even bigger distractions to hide their incompetence behind.

Re:Everybody wins Cold (1)

AHuxley (892839) | about a year ago | (#45793353)

We all recall how DES ended up long term Cold: weakened http://cryptome.org/jya/cracking-des/cracking-des.htm [cryptome.org]

Re:Everybody wins Cold (1)

cold fjord (826450) | about a year ago | (#45793621)

LOL, sorry, no. DES was only ever intended for unclassified data and was limited in strength. The record is clear that NSA strengthened the DES algorithm against attacks not publicly known at the time. The best anyone ever did against full strength DES was pretty much brute force (linear was very late to the game, and limited). That is what the DES Cracking project was about, finally putting a bullet in DES to get the next standard going. Now we have AES, and nobody can really claim that it is weak, can they? IIRC AES it approved for both unclassified and classified data. People always suspected that NSA had inserted a back door in DES with the S-Box changes when they had actually strengthened it against differential cryptanalysis which humbled many other schemes, but not DES. DES was almost perfect as designed, as long as you executed it as designed. That is no reduced number of rounds, no changes to the S-boxes, no other toying. It was exactly as strong as it needed to be, and pretty much free of weaknesses other than speed (it was designed for hardware where it was fast, but many did it in software where it was slow). Only the key length was a long term issue, and then you could still do triple DES. Here is the funny thing - many people suspected the government put in a back door and went with some other crypto scheme that was almost certainly inferior if for no other reason than they weren't designed to resist the secret differential cryptanalysis technique, or any other secret techniques. People ran from the back door boogey man and ran over the cliff of poorly designed crypto, and that doesn't even take into account mistakes in implementation. We will almost certainly be seeing the same sort of thing playing out in the future. "You can't trust AES, it was approved by NSA! There must be a back door! No, we're going to use Krasnovian Software A.G.'s ROT-39, developed by our resident super genius."

Wouldn't the same argument apply? - ‘We Can Trust GCHQ On Encryption’ [techweekeurope.co.uk]

It will be interesting to see how it plays out.

Re:Everybody wins Cold (1)

AHuxley (892839) | about a year ago | (#45793687)

Cold "the NSA strengthened the DES algorithm against attacks not publicly known" but kept the ability to decrypt. Good PR on one side, back to plain text as always.

Re:Everybody wins Cold (1)

cold fjord (826450) | about a year ago | (#45793773)

If so then nobody but NSA knows about the technique despite decades of trying. The password and brute force are pretty much it as far as anyone else knows. Even differential and linear are hardly useful.

I suppose there is an advantage to spreading rumors that DES and AES have a back door. Then more people will use weak crypto, and NSA gets the bounty.

Re:Everybody wins Cold (2)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | about a year ago | (#45793645)

"When governments unethically and immorally, but legally force the turnover of keys that won't change."

FTFY

I have a better idea. The police forces and security services should do actual police work, instead of eavesdropping on the entire population. Detective work and investigations are labor intensive, but the US constitution demands that such labor be used instead of just spying on everyone.

Re:Solution... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45792687)

Crypto (likely) still works now. The NSA wants to snapshot everything they can so that as their code cracking capabilities expand they can go back and decrypt old data as desired.

As Doc Brown once said, you have to think four dimensionally.

Bugs are NSA's best friend (1)

DrYak (748999) | about a year ago | (#45795785)

Crypto (likely) still works now. The NSA wants to snapshot everything they can so that as their code cracking capabilities expand they can go back and decrypt old data as desired.

Yup imagine that a bug like debian's openssl bug is discovered.
That mean that the NSA can suddenly go back through all these archives and decrypt what they can.

Note: this is different from brute forcing. And brute forcing is NOT going to happen. Modern cryptography has reached the point where brute forcing is not merely difficult (like back in the time of Enigma) but beyond what could theoretically be possible with current mathematics and current physics while still even having a margin in case of some bugs.

Back at enigma time brute-forcing a password was the equivalent of searching for a needle in a haysack: proverbially difficult, but not technically impossible, given enough people and given enough time. (Or in enigma's case: given a big amount of very fast password-solving computers called bomb. Have giant halls full of them and enigma cracking became possible).

Nowadays the search space for burte forcing is immense. That would be like trying to find a grain of sand. Not anywhere on the whole planet, but even worse. That would be like trying to find a grain of sand, when each grain of sand on that Earth is actually a whole planet cointaining each one the same huge amoung of sand than our Earth. The scale is just mind blowing. Cracking this? Well not possible before the heat death of the universe. Brute-forcing modern crypto-graphy is just not possible under current laws of physics.

Breaking modern crypto usually relies on finding errors:

Like human errors:
- When the most frequent password is "123456" there's simply no point even trying to crack encryption. Just use that password and you've automatically gained access of 60% content, according to the last data leak mentionned here around.
- Add in a few more other common possibilities, take account of a few tricks, etc. and you can find even more access. Not by trying every single possible combination, but just heading for the most common ones. That's what dictionnary attacks are for.

Like implementation errors:
The mentionned openssl bug in debian. To use again the "grain of sand" metaphor, it is as if debian had a prefered spot on a nearby beach to pick its grains of sand from, due to a broken random generator.

Lastly, by looking for actual error in the algorithm themselves.
That's what happened to older algo like DES: it was found that they are not as secure as though. There are fundamental flaws in the algorithm making it easier to break. (To take another simplified image: think about ceasar-cyphers, where you rotate the alphabet around. In theory, there should be 25 different possible rotations. But simply looking at the frequencies in the encrypted text, you can spot the most frequent one, which could help you pin-point which rotation should produce the most common letter of the language. For english that means that instead of trying every single of the 25 rotations, you just try 2-3 best candidates which match clear text "e" with the most frequent coded symbol).

Regarding to modern cryptography that seems difficult. The currently considered "best" algorithme for encryption, signing, hashing, etc. (like AES, RSA, DSA, SHA, etc.) have been around for quite some time and have not been fundamentally broken. Only broken through implementation bugs.
Things like bitcoins and other alt-coins are even more interesting given that there's money at stake. Still, despite potential monetary gain, all the virtual coin heist have been through bugs or social engineering. Nobody has found a fundamental flaw in ecDSA (used in the protocol) or SHA256 (bitcoin's proof-of-work) or Scrypt (used in Litecoin), etc.
Currently, when newer algo are introduced (like SHA-3), it's not to replace broken algo (SHA256 is still unbroken) but to introduce newer interesting features (SHA-3' Keccak has an interesting "sponge function").

So probably modern crypto won't be broken that way. You much more likely to see breaking based on dictionary attacks and on implementation flaws.

Then there's still the "current laws of physics" part of the problem. By moving to exotic forms of computing - like quantum computing - in theory the "hard to solve" problems on which modern crypto is based could be made much more easy. But we're still years away from this becoming reality.

Re:Solution... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45791985)

Simply build a new $1.5 billion data center [wikipedia.org] to process the collected data.

That idea is ... ... nice. Or! Build a giant tapered fucking dildo that gets wider and wider the further in it goes. Then grease up your filthy rancid asshole and SSLLIIDDEE on down. Urrghghrrhghghgg *pop* mmm there we go. Tell me more.

Re:Solution... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45793593)

'not collecting everything, but we do need the tools to collect intelligence on foreign adversaries who wish to do harm to the nation and its allies

Or they could consider some kind of grid implementation with the allies, call it SEarch for TerrorIst @ Gov program.

Re: Solution... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45796863)

Just wipe it like they did with the Apollo 11 footage.

NSA drowns (1)

zlives (2009072) | about a year ago | (#45791923)

the sorrows of NSA, drowned in an information cocktail, Binny o Binny why did you leave me
the woman spoke

It's not actually a problem. (5, Funny)

DoofusOfDeath (636671) | about a year ago | (#45791931)

Because it's only simulated drowning.

Re: It's not actually a problem. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45791975)

Ask any data management practitioner and they will tell you > 80% of dealing with data involves preparation and integration. Well less than 20% of your time is analysis, let alone meaningful insight

Re: It's not actually a problem. (2)

djmurdoch (306849) | about a year ago | (#45792081)

That's because "data management practitioners" spend their time practicing data management. I bet if you asked the "data analysts" about it, they'd say most of the important work dealing with data is in the analysis, but they still need to waste 20% of their time on data preparation and integration.

Re: It's not actually a problem. (3, Informative)

Hangtime (19526) | about a year ago | (#45792247)

That's because "data management practitioners" spend their time practicing data management. I bet if you asked the "data analysts" about it, they'd say most of the important work dealing with data is in the analysis, but they still need to waste 20% of their time on data preparation and integration.

Actually the number we quote is analysts spend 60 - 80% of their time manually prepping their data for analysis if they don't have a solution in place. Its a BIG problem. Just because you can ingest everything in the world doesn't mean you should.

Re: It's not actually a problem. (1)

djmurdoch (306849) | about a year ago | (#45792285)

If you have an infinite budget, it makes sense to do that. The NSA comes pretty close.

Re:It's not actually a problem. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45792027)

Clever joke.

Re:It's not actually a problem. (1)

game kid (805301) | about a year ago | (#45792915)

It's just metadrowning, the emotions you feel alongside the actual drowning. They don't identify you, your trauma, or the hot date-on-the-side you were with when you fell into the ocean though (we found that through your Facebook page).

Re:It's not actually a problem. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45796215)

Nice. Very Clever.

the answer: collect useless data (2)

larry bagina (561269) | about a year ago | (#45791953)

And if that don't work: collect more useless data.

Re:the answer: collect useless data (4, Insightful)

flaming error (1041742) | about a year ago | (#45792109)

Yep. When your job is to find a needle, the best strategy is always to pay top dollar for a few million haystacks and see if there are any needles there.

Re:the answer: collect useless data (1)

davester666 (731373) | about a year ago | (#45793759)

Didn't find a needle? We need more haystacks! There has to be a needle in one of them!

Re:the answer: collect useless data (1)

bob_super (3391281) | about a year ago | (#45794347)

Well, to be fair, other parts of the US government are very very busy manufacturing new needles all the time.
There is no questions that there are needles which can be found.
But if that haystack is still out of reach by now, that needle isn't likely to stab anyone, so is it worth searching for?

Re:the answer: collect useless data (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45795069)

Just give the NSA time, they'll find a bigger magnet and box of matches. The trick is to start making those needles out of something indistinguishable from the rest of the hay.

same old same old (4, Insightful)

minstrelmike (1602771) | about a year ago | (#45791961)

I think this is the problem at most companies. Once someone in charge has a "good" idea, then no one else can point out how stupid it is. Collecting data is easy, cheap. Analyzing it is what is expensive. And useful. Collecting unanalyzed data is a waste of time and effort. Period.
And the first analysis is: what sort of data should we collect to make analysis easier? But of course, if people actually analyzed the process itself, someone would have already pointed out that the only way to measure cost-effectiveness is to have an actual goal in mind. Collecting everything you can get your hands is an easy goal to state.

Stating why all that data will help you prevent attacks on America instead of being viewed as an attack on Americans is a whole lot harder to articulate.

Same old same old.
It's a lot easier to invade a country than it is to state what peace would really have to look like.

Re:same old same old (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45792089)

Collecting data is easy, cheap. Analyzing it is what is expensive. And useful. Collecting unanalyzed data is a waste of time and effort. Period.

But not much of a "waste and time and effort", because it's "easy, cheap".

Re:same old same old (4, Insightful)

deconfliction (3458895) | about a year ago | (#45792577)

Collecting unanalyzed data is a waste of time and effort. Period.

It is much, much worse than that. Collecting unalyzed data that, in more nefarious hands, can be used for extortion and political manipulation, in part because it was collected en-masse, is a criminal violation of spirit of the 4th ammendment to the U.S. constitution, if not the interpretable letter of it.

Not only that, but if in order to collect it, you had weaken the security systems used by the masses for their communications, you are basically making all those systems easier to attack for everyone. This is what has happened, both directly with things like the $10M to RSA, and indirectly, just by having a quid-pro-quo where all the tech companies are blissfully happy to not invest in real security for their users, because the more influential government overlords are totally cool with it. They leak the vulnerabilities they discover that they want fixed, and enjoy a massive trove of vulnerabilities they keep for themselves (and unknown numbers of others clever enough to discover them as well)

Re:same old same old (3, Insightful)

greenbird (859670) | about a year ago | (#45792937)

It is much, much worse than that. Collecting unalyzed data that, in more nefarious hands, can be used for extortion and political manipulation,

Ummm...that's the whole point of collecting the data. It has nothing to do with national security. That's just the cover. It's about power and control.

Re:same old same old (0)

ahabswhale (1189519) | about a year ago | (#45792961)

lol...politics are already extorted and manipulated to an extreme degree even without any involvement from the NSA. Frankly, with all the fucked up shit going on, they're the least of my worries. I'm not saying they should be ignored but they're pretty low on the priority list imho. Wake me after we get the corporations out of our government and we do something about wage inequality. Until then, the NSA is more than welcome to ponder my Asian porn collection and my secret love for the reality show Pregnant in Heels.

Re:same old same old (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45795183)

... what peace would really have to look like ...

The USA fought the North Koreans who invaded the US-friendly South Korea. Then the US decided they could invade North Korea and no-one would could stop them. China disagreed and forced the US to a cease-fire.

The US invaded Vietnam supposedly because a patrol boat fired an unknown number of torpedoes at the US Navy. How does invading a country change that? The war was run to kill all the communist sympathizers and when the US couldn't, they just lied about it.

The US invaded their ally Grenada because the new airport 'supported' communism. Then the military had to 'save' the US citizens who couldn't leave Grenada because the USA had blockaded all flights off the island!

But by far the best example is the invasion of Iraq. First it was to destroy WMDs, then because 'justifiable' regime-change would liberate the populace. That there was the hubris: That the US army would be Saviour to an entire country. The rich hated it because they lost power, the poor hated it because strangers with guns were telling them what to do, but the devout loved it because they had someone to blame and kill.

For a long time now, a US-led invasion has nothing to do with peace.

Real Message: (4, Insightful)

some old guy (674482) | about a year ago | (#45791991)

We have all this yummy data we gorged on, and we can't digest it all.

Obviously, we need a bigger budget for more contractor analysts and hiring Google to write better analytical tools.

Re:Real Message: (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45794457)

Obviously, we need a bigger budget for more contractor analysts and hiring Google to write better analytical tools.

Uh, why hire Google when you can just tap their internal traffic and analyze it?

Also, you have to go at the analysis strategically. You start with analyzing the data of the most dangerous people: senators who are critical of increasing the NSA budget. That way, the problem sorts itself out. Preventing terrorist attacks, in contrast, prevents future funding, thus endangering the interests of the U.S. domestically and abroad, and has to be avoided.

Any casualty that can be blamed on terrorism is worth roughly $100 mil in funding. If the automobile industry got paid similarly for traffic deaths, Detroit would be the capital of the U.S.A. Why would you pay the automobile industry for traffic deaths? Well, why do you pay NSA/CIA for terrorist deaths? Without the CIA to promote terrorism, partly by providing incentives, partly by training terrorists (where did Osama Bin Laden get his training?).

Information overload? (2)

Alex Vulpes (2836855) | about a year ago | (#45792001)

Reminds me of this. [youtube.com]

Be friendlier to foreigners .... (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45792003)

An easier solution .... treat foreigners as you would have them treat yourself or your compatriots. Apply the same standards of "justice" that you would meet out on your own citizens. That means no torture, no dronings, and respect for international law. In the end a much more successful strategy, and certainly a far cheaper one. Foreigners are not inherently evil, nor are they all plotting your demise. They are people who deserve equality.

Re:Be friendlier to foreigners .... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45796713)

How is this going to lead to more funding of the NSA? "treat foreigners as you would have them treat yourself"? Are you fucking crazy? Why would one live in a country where one runs in danger to be shot every day by people without education and hope, whether or not a member of the police force, if one is not allowed to look down on nations who think every man was created equal?

The land of hope and glory is on this side of the fence. What are you? An abolitionist? Where is the point of living in the danger of getting the boot in the face from police, TSA, compatriots, muggers, if you are not allowed in turn to shoot foreigners in the head and spit in their face?

Drown in HOly GayNiggGer SeeD! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45792047)

Suck it Down, feemale bithces!

captha: sexual. Damn rite.

On a certain level this is their job. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45792059)

The argument is that they have to "see everything" to see as many potential threats as they can. At a surface glance this makes sense.
At anything beyond a surface glance, you can see how mission creep happens and oversight is effectively nullified in the process.

Not all surveillance is necessary, without question the vast majority of it serves no functional purpose beyond its own self-certification.
The lying certainly isn't helping anyone trust them.

Wasn't that the problem (5, Interesting)

wbr1 (2538558) | about a year ago | (#45792079)

Here: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/homefront/view/ [pbs.org]

The NSA knew about some of the 9-11 hijackers, but it was lost in the noise (and in lack of interdepartmental information sharing). The solution, suck in more noise? Makes little sense to me.

Re:Wasn't that the problem (4, Funny)

ebno-10db (1459097) | about a year ago | (#45792167)

Makes little sense to me.

You're obviously too intelligent to get very far in intelligence work.

Re:Wasn't that the problem (2)

cold fjord (826450) | about a year ago | (#45792605)

Here: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/homefront/view/ [pbs.org]

The NSA knew about some of the 9-11 hijackers, but it was lost in the noise (and in lack of interdepartmental information sharing). The solution, suck in more noise? Makes little sense to me.

I don't think that is quite right.

NSA speaks out on Snowden, spying [cbsnews.com]

Gen. Keith Alexander: Well, the reality is if you go and do a specific one for each, you have to tell the phone companies to keep those call detail records for a certain period of time. So, if you don’t have the data someplace you can’t search it. The other part that's important, phone companies-- different phone companies have different sets of records. And these phone calls may go between different phone companies. If you only go to one company, you'll see what that phone company has. But you may not see what the other phone company has or the other. So by putting those together, we can see all of that essentially at one time.

John Miller: Before 9/11, did we have this capability?

Gen. Keith Alexander: We did not.

John Miller: Is it a factor? Was it a factor?

Gen. Keith Alexander: I believe it was.

What Gen. Alexander is talking about is that two of the 9/11 hijackers, Khalid al-Mihdhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi were in touch with an al Qaeda safe house in Yemen. The NSA did not know their calls were coming from California, as they would today.

Gen. Keith Alexander: I think this was the factor that allowed Mihdhar to safely conduct his plot from California. We have all the other indicators but no way of understanding that he was in California while others were in Florida and other places.

Re:Wasn't that the problem (2)

baKanale (830108) | about a year ago | (#45793373)

Perhaps the parent is referring to the information disclosed in this article: 9/11 Was 'Zero Day' in Intercepted Warning [go.com]

Re:Wasn't that the problem (2)

cold fjord (826450) | about a year ago | (#45796679)

Possibly, but note this section from the article [go.com] :

... sources said, even if the messages had been translated sooner, it would not have been of much use because the messages were too vague and had no context, with no details of time, location or the nature of the event referred to.

The sources did not consider the information to be a smoking gun, and described it as the sort of chatter that is intercepted constantly, and is seldom of use.

Re: Wasn't that the problem (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45794769)

Based on what should the sayings of General Alexander be trusted? Given that he has repeatedly lied about other things, how do people reason - why would he NOT lie here as well?

I want to understand the thinking. Following this debacle from outside of the US has been interesting to say the least, though occasionally, like now, puzzling.

Re: Wasn't that the problem (1)

cold fjord (826450) | about a year ago | (#45796647)

I think the first thing to consider is that many claims are made, but not all hold up under examination. They would prefer to not have to say anything, it is the nature of their job. To understand some of the theater going on you may want to read this [commentarymagazine.com] .

Big Data (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45792099)

The belief that as the size of a pile of shit increases, the probability of finding a pony approaches 1.

Re:Big Data (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45792805)

The belief that as the size of a pile of shit increases, the probability of finding a pony approaches 1.

Monitor. Everything. [chzbgr.com]

Like FBI before 9/11 (1)

Black Parrot (19622) | about a year ago | (#45792103)

After the fact it was discovered that they had lots of clues. The problem is how to link them together when you've got so much in your files.

Re:Like FBI before 9/11 (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45792153)

They were trying REAL hard not to see those clues at the top levels of our government. Bush was personally warned on his Crawford ranch by an NSA agent.

There *might* have been some motivations to miss the 9/11 attack "clues", just like there were motivations to deny the USS Liberty bombing/strafing incident.

Re:Like FBI before 9/11 (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45792201)

And for lying about "weapons of mass destruction". And for building 7 to collapse.

Re:Like FBI before 9/11 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45792241)

And for electing a Communist Kenyan Marxist Anti-Colonial Muslim fraud!

Re:Like FBI before 9/11 (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45792349)

Because economics is too complex for you, you think colonialism is still a good idea, eh? Oh right, it's because he's BLACK that you're uneducated...

Fucking good. (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45792111)

Good. Let's create some more useless data for them, I'm starting a second Tor node and a Freenet node tonight.

More pro-NSA FUD from owners of Slashdot (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45792119)

"it doesn't matter if the NSA collects every form of information about every US citizen, because they are too incompetent to process this data, and worse, the more they collect, the bigger the problem becomes."

This is called the HOARDER psy-op (psychological operations- you do know that the US government spends TENS OF BILLIONS of dollars on psychological operations alone very year?) ploy. Essentially, you ask the sheeple to use their total lack of any technical knowledge to imagine processing that much data, and concluding it would be impossible. So, the average sheeple then imagines the NSA to be like those 'hoarders' constantly depicted on reality TV shows in the USA.

In reality, the NSA uses unthinkably large data storage facilities built using the SAME hardware and software engineering used by Google for its 'civilian 'corporate' businesses. Google designed software collects, stores, indexes, mines and searches the growing mass of full surveillance data collected by the NSA, with ever growing efficiency. Google designed data centres are perfectly scalable, and use commodity hard-drives to drive data storage costs to an absolute minimum. The NSA operation is the DIAMETRIC opposite to the old "space program" screwdrivers that NASA would pay bent contractors tens of thousands per tool for.

The NSA stores the CONTENTS of every available electronic message- including all phone-calls, and NOT just so-called meta-data. Google seems obsessed with voice-recognition and language translation methods because the NSA needs such reliable software to mine voice messages, and handle voice and text in non-English languages.

Voice-to-text is an imperfect 'science' and speaker recognition even more difficult. Periodically, new Google software methods are applied to all the voice data stored on NSA systems to better 'transcribe' the messages, to attempt to identify the speaker, and to translate to English where required.

NSA full surveillance programs are incredibly more widespread and comprehensive than anything hinted at by Snowden. The NSA has long moved passed the point of collecting ALL available data, and now is spending multiple billions attempting to produce new sources of data for the NSA to collect and process. 100% of these new data targets are YOU, the ordinary citizen (en masse).

Microsoft's Xbox One is the single greatest new NSA spying project to date. Every Xbox One has a unique cryptological key, and a copy of each key is held by the NSA. Every online Xbox One reports this fact to a master NSA server in the MS cloud. Any online Xbox One can be remotely instructed to begin streaming a high quality video/audio feed to an NSA server, without disrupting ANY possible activity currently underway on the console, including AAA gaming, or full use of Kinect by the user at the time.

The Xbox One, being a vastly less powerful console than the competing Sony PS4, uses far less power than the PS4 EXCEPT when in 'standby'. Why? Because the Xbox One is ALWAYS giving full power to the NSA Kinect 2 sensor bar, and is always filming and listening to to room (and adjacent rooms), even in the dark. One 1/8 to 1/6 of ALL Xbox One hardware and storage is dedicated to exclusive NSA Kinect 2 use. No game, much to the outrage of developers like the one responsible for the COD franchise, can access this hardware processing power. The Xbox One even has THREE operating systems, with the 'master' OS being the one dedicated to the NSA spy functions of Kinect 2.

The NSA is collected, by default, from EVERY Xbox Console (that is ever online and ever has the Kinect 2 spy sensor bar connected) daily full face photos and times of presence of every person who enters and leaves the same room as the console. The latest software provided to the NSA by Google processes billions of individual facial photos, attempting to identify those that belong to the same person, and ultimately use other data sources to positively identify the people.

The NSA wants a full record of who and when for everyone in every home in the USA. Bill Gates and Google have moved forward this ambition to an extraordinary extent.

Meanwhile, the owners of Slashdot will continue to push every form of FUD to a readerbase they think are complete morons. So, of course they tell you the NSA is like that mad old man down the road with his house full of pointless rotting junk.

Here's a clue for you. Does Google (in its guise as an 'innocent' corporation) refuse to index some Internet site because it is 'junk'? NO!!! And does the fact that many Internet sites are junk, and yet are indexed by Google make Google's its Internet Search project useless? NO!!! Then why does Slashdot try to 'encourage' you to believe that full surveillance projects will suffer if much of the data collected is of no interest. Because THAT is how stupid they think you are!

Re:More pro-NSA FUD from owners of Slashdot (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45792853)

My attention span is too short to read that comment.

Re:More pro-NSA FUD from owners of Slashdot (2)

TheloniousToady (3343045) | about a year ago | (#45793351)

My attention span is too short to read that comment.

Your ingenious technique for not drowning in useless data is much more cost-effective than anything the NSA will come up with.

I don't get it (1)

Shemmie (909181) | about a year ago | (#45792171)

not collecting everything, but we do need the tools to collect intelligence on foreign adversaries who wish to do harm to the nation and its allies.

Foreign adversaries.

Like the Germans, French, Spanish, British, Israel and other Americans?

Re:I don't get it (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45794471)

Yes! And to protect allies like Germans, French, Spanish, British, Israel, the rest of the NATO from doing harm to Foreign adversaries like Germans, French, Spanish, British, Israel, the rest of the NATO.

You Should Have Those Tools (5, Insightful)

Bob9113 (14996) | about a year ago | (#45792239)

"we do need the tools to collect intelligence on foreign adversaries who wish to do harm to the nation and its allies."

Ahh, good, something we can agree on. You should have those tools. And you do have them, even without the dragnets. Here's how they work:

1. Pick the person who you believe wishes to do harm to the nation and its allies.
2. Start collecting surveillance.
3. Present to an appropriately skeptical judge the reasons that you believe that person wishes to do harm to the nation and its allies.
4. The judge will decide whether your evidence amounts to reasonable suspicion.
5. As long as the judge agrees, you can continue the surveillance.

It's a pretty cool system, really. It ensures that you get the surveillance on people who really do appear to be up to something, while protecting the vast majority of people who are innocent.

Re:You Should Have Those Tools (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45792651)

Obama "Over half the country didn't vote for me and I don't know which half. We need survalance on all of it because not voting for me is the same as harming the country."

Judge "So in return for me signing this, you will appoint me to a higher federal position. And now that the GOP gets no vote it will sail right through the Senate. Here is your signed warrent".

Re:You Should Have Those Tools (1)

martin-boundary (547041) | about a year ago | (#45793207)

Whoa! They could call it Just In Time(TM) Spying.

Re:You Should Have Those Tools (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45793417)

"3. Present to an appropriately skeptical judge the reasons that you believe that person wishes to do harm to the nation and its allies."

add = 3a. That person being duly informed and properly represented as a requirement, to argue to the judge against those reasons to be spied on.(just like a real, transparent, and actually legal investigation)

celle

Re:You Should Have Those Tools (1)

oodaloop (1229816) | about a year ago | (#45794901)

There's a step before 1 that's prety important. How do you determine who wishes harm? Partly through combing through vast amounts of various kinds of intelligence data. I totally agree with steps 3-5 and I support the 4th amendment BTW. (IAA Intelligence Analyst)

Re:You Should Have Those Tools (1)

CrimsonAvenger (580665) | about a year ago | (#45795697)

You have steps two and three reversed. See the Judge before beginning surveillance.

misinformation campaign (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45792255)

Yeah, this 'employee' is claiming that they actually asked to collect less but were forced against their will to collect more than they can handle? Flat out bullshit.

They know the cats out of the bag so now they're just going to run with "We've got more information than we can use, so you really have nothing to worry about us hoarding all your data and in fact the more we collect the safer you are!"

Where have we seen this before? Oh that's right, "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!"

(captcha: seducing)

The sock puppets have new talking points (5, Insightful)

AHuxley (892839) | about a year ago | (#45792333)

We are back to the pre Snowden classic - too much information.
This has never been a problem due to fast sorting, keywords, voice prints, numbers called and cheap storage.
GCHQ and the NSA could get every call from Intelsat back the late 1960's for sorting and indexing. Once you have the total 'in' and 'out' points of any nation as its telco networks is constructed: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/08/dea-and-nsa-team-intelligence-laundering [eff.org] shows how easy a lifetime of collection can be and looks like under one small program :)

Re:The sock puppets have new talking points (1)

Vitriol+Angst (458300) | about a year ago | (#45795403)

Isn't it curious that the NSA seems to have more leaks now after Snowden than before?

You would think there would be more scrutiny.

I can imagine two scenarios;
1) There is some welcome internal discussion bleeding out to question what the NSA is doing to itself and if it's actually useful to collect all the data.
2) Misinformation is trying to make it look like the NSA is a goofy information hoarder drowning in it's collection of bits and bytes and was never able to track or control anything. That's right folks -- you were safe all along from our doddering old "Man from UNCLE."

The EVIDENCE we have so far is that they are indeed large and unwieldy, and that because they were corrupt and caring more about power than security, they hired contractors like Snowden, who had access to everything. If they weren't corrupt and incompetent -- we wouldn't have ever heard of Snowden.

But then again, we learn that the NSA is smart enough to pre-seed a lot of security groups and "help them" make encryption standards that the NSA can get into through the back door. They set up complex and covert pipes into Google, AT&T and all of Europe. We haven't head from leakers at that end of the organization -- just the low level data storage flunkies.

What I think is going on is that the NSA is a large Elephant -- and some people only see the end they have access to, and from there it looks harmless. The parts we don't hear from, are the dangerous end. But watch that you don't get buried in large amounts of bowel movement before it tramples you. There is no way to know anything about the organization because it is all lies -- that's what it has done very well for years now.

They've recruited some of the brightest minds on the planet. They have data collected from everywhere. If Google can route the entire internet to everyone else on the internet, then I'm sure the NSA an manage to have some way to abstract all their data collection. You are only going to get leaks from people on the edges who do not have the big picture. We need to be wary of what information accidentally comes our way from the tightly controlled, smart end of the NSA.

Re:The sock puppets have new talking points (1)

AHuxley (892839) | about a year ago | (#45796183)

The nature of the leak before Snowden was a bit different. Many wrote books from open material, some added 'new' cleared material, some faced complex court cases or had to wait for chapter reviews.
To stay in their countries and be free, they had to play the review/court/cleared game. Snowden understood the total chilling option of any US court even with US political protection and good cleared lawyers.
The real long term struggle seems to have been between the NSA, GCHQ and political leaders over allowing people in their own countries to understand that the full collection system was domestic, over all data flows and ready for court use.
The UK seemed to hold the view that some PR spin of looking to the Soviet Union/Russia/emerging distant issues would be better to keep the flow pure.
If people did not know they where been watched, they would talk in a more free way. A wise long term view that did not fail.
The US seems to be floating the locked box idea for domestic US courts. A rewind of a life of calls with no escape as life is now very digital.
If people know they are been watched, they still have to keep using the junk US networks. Results driven for extra share of a mil budget?
Thanks to Snowden we can now fill in the 1980~2010 crypto telco/computer band history.
Two large PR experiments - to hide it or to use it. Why the sudden change? The large Elephant could just be that the digital "Berlin wall" is up and the govs feel safe that every connection in or out is tracked, logged, decoded .....

Whoa, weird (1)

BringsApples (3418089) | about a year ago | (#45792311)

You mean playing 'God of the Internet' is hard to do? Imagine that.

I've said it since the Snowden leaks first came out, there isn't a way to process all of the data that is generated on the internet. And I feel that this whole bullshit concept about the NSA collecting all of the information on the internet is another way to dowse for illegal activity (dowsing as explained here [ted.com] ) Meaning that as long as people believe 'it has the power to do such' (because it was fucking expensive to build that Utah data center), that's all that's required to get others to follow along with rulings based on secret evidence that's all redacted.

I stand by my belief that the NSA, no, humanity itself, is not capable of playing God to itself, in any way - other than self-regulation (that means a person regulating him or herself and not as a country regulating itself). This fear-mongering way of regulation is outgrown by our own understanding of ourselves.

Well no shit! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45792379)

Did they actually think we're all terrorist? Hell no they're just a bunch of nosy fuckers more interested in gossip than their actual jobs. If they cannot do their job without breaking the law they should be terminated. Our rights are being violated every single damn day, what's up with that?

Really is my ranting and bitching on the internet really worth so much? How is NetFlix, video games, pointless emails, text, skype chat, bitching on news sites, and most importantly some German fart fetish porn really that much of a threat that it requires being saved by the government??

Think East German (1)

AHuxley (892839) | about a year ago | (#45792535)

Every US citizen could be calling the press, contacting a political leader, becoming a local activist, working with a trade unionist, helping an author, talking to a federal agency, helping a state agency, sending HD recordings to internal affairs, funding a political foundation, questioning more wars,
Any of the above could be politically sensitive to current or former political leaders, their backers and top staff.
If only you can be found before your story is published, open court work or protest starts ...

The spying was never for terrorist and here is why (1, Troll)

3seas (184403) | about a year ago | (#45792481)

Terrorist can use any words they want, common phrases but given a different and agreed upon meaning within their dialog constraints.

On the other hand and within the timeline there was need to have an ear to the public in order to know how to respond in the cover up of 9/11 (Building 7 was not hit by a plane, It obviously was taken down by demolition and what it contained needed to be removed to help the cover up.) This is verfied!

What the government knew for certain is that they could create a feedback loop with the help of the media, so to influence the public to their bias.
They did not have to look for the needles in a hay farm (terrorist), as they were looking at the hay....... the public.

They never needed technology that didn't yet exist to process so much information for terrorist finding. They just made use of what technology they could get
Spying on Americans....

Re:The spying was never for terrorist and here is (1)

3seas (184403) | about a year ago | (#45792497)

I didn't agree to have my taxes spent this way!

Re:The spying was never for terrorist and here is (1)

3seas (184403) | about a year ago | (#45792579)

Previously an article on slashdot of them wanting more data collection ...... in total contradiction to this article. http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=4590265&cid=45767805 [slashdot.org]

Two words: Binney. Thin Thread (3, Informative)

WOOFYGOOFY (1334993) | about a year ago | (#45792547)

The point is that they can target YOU (5, Interesting)

Daniel Hoffmann (2902427) | about a year ago | (#45792629)

This mass collection is not about what they can process or correlate with terrorism or whatever. This massive amount is dangerous because they can target individuals. You simply can not assume that all this power will be used for the good of the nation, the inner workings of this huge system are manned by humans. They are prone to corruption, bribery, self interest and so on.

This much power with this little accountability is just bound to be used for personal gain. Imagine if some worker of this system decides he really does not like his neighbor guts. He could target that individual and discover that for example he is having an affair and the disclose that information to cause harm to that individual in particular. Well change that neighbor to some politician that is contrary to the current governing party.

The funny thing is that Metal Gear Solid 2 foretold all this more than a decade ago.

Re:The point is that they can target YOU (1)

xombo (628858) | about a year ago | (#45793127)

I wish I had points to mod up your MGS 2 reference.

I'm still waiting for remote controlled soldier's like in MGS 4.

Can FedEX and UPS Nail NSA For Their Problems? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45792659)

'Yes We Can!' I can hear coming in a few weeks.

A few weeks are needed to go through the legal hoops in a formal complaint within the Federal District Court System of the USA.

0.15 second delays per transmissions caused by NSA "Vacuum Cleaner" programs and TCP/IP augmented (secret, and cracked) protocols is hard evidence in the Federal Complaint.

OH BOY! Popcorn is a pop'n. :-D

Excellent... (1)

meeotch (524339) | about a year ago | (#45792939)

...how can I help?

No, seriously - I tried to start discussion in a previous "The NSA is sniffing your dirty boxers" thread about the possibility of an easy-to-use browser / email plugin / app / etc. that would encourage Joe User to increase the amount of "noise traffic" he generated. E.g., something that would tack a bunch of Terror Words onto the end of every email, but more practical and less scary to use. Encourage people to automatically participate in conscientious objection to surveillance the way that they reflexively download mp3's or jaywalk.

I think the only response was "emacs spook mode", which is funny, but not really the discussion I was hoping for.

Re:Excellent... (2)

AHuxley (892839) | about a year ago | (#45793491)

With advice on air gaps, help people find/write better code, cpu and networking http://yro.slashdot.org/story/13/06/28/0136202/richard-stallman-speaks-about-back-doors-after-nsa-documents-leak [slashdot.org]
That would help some physical sites. Get people thinking about crypto - the historical ways in during pre ww2, ww2, the cold war, 1990's and via the good news from Snowden.
Re conscientious objection - support mainstream and alternative media, legal rights groups and educators all over the political spectrum.
Learn from work done in US courts like: http://www.freedomwatchusa.org/court-declares-nsa-spying-program-unconstitutional-and-grant [freedomwatchusa.org]
Parallel construction https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/08/dea-and-nsa-team-intelligence-laundering [eff.org]
The domestic legal vision of a life long box for all your phone calls
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/frame_game/2013/06/surveillance_lockbox_why_can_the_nsa_search_your_phone_records_without_a.html
Start *any* discussion is the best thing you can do. Long worded emails to the press about material they covered with all the terms they used and your insights :)
Like in East Germany, standing in front of the Church with a sign, you will be *noted* by a powerful State but a lot of people will read your wise words.
Read all you can: http://cryptome.org/2013-info/06/whistleblowing/whistleblowing.htm [cryptome.org] is not new :)

Drown 'em with Tor traffic (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45793283)

The NSA hates Tor [torproject.org] . So running a Tor Relay is a great and safe way for us to actually do something about the NSA.

Hmph - Nice PSYOP. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45793459)

They are playing the injured naughty puppy. Please, what better way to alleviate your privacy invasion fears than to make you think they can't even handle all of the data. Surely, it's digitized, compressed and permanently stored for future data mining purposes should you ever become a person of interest. I mean really. The future FBI won't even have to profile people the traditional way, many of us are already doing it for them (hello FB).

I heard drowning is a peaceful way to go (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45794083)

Nothing that can't be solved with a trillion dollars or two.

All a crock of sh... (1)

Tim12s (209786) | about a year ago | (#45794297)

I've given this capability a long and hard thought. This interception only works during an economic war and does nothing during a real war. Once a real war kicks off on any global scale, these types of interception capabilities get turned off because countries will sever certain cables and links.

Companies that are hosted in the cloud will get disconnected destroying them in hours.

Thin Thread (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45794489)

I thought ThinThread(tm) was supposed to fix that. It was supposed to be able to pull the needle from the haystack. I think it works, but the NSA has made the haystack so big...

A law? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45794515)

It happened to the StaSi, it happens to the NSA, maybe there's soemthing fundamental going on.

If you have unlimited funds to spend on collecting data, you won't be able to afford doing anything meaningful with it.

Re:A law? (1)

gl4ss (559668) | about a year ago | (#45795137)

huh.. stasi did a lot of "meaningful" things.

just not any good things.

but there is a law, if the budget of the one who is controlling secrets is a secret, then his budget will be unlimited - and that has consequently ends up being more expensive than it is worth, but it takes the state to crumble to expose that, since where the money is going is a secret.

Re:A law? (1)

AHuxley (892839) | about a year ago | (#45796387)

Thats the problem when you move beyond the CIA or FBI skills. One person can write to the press, question political leaders, turn up and be tracked at any/many local protests.
Have an interesting book buying list, travel: sooner or later a database will sort a lot of people's files for human security review.
The Stasi moment - that flood of new files, limit cleared staff and the political demands to find something to show the tame press.
The what can the gov do? A sneak and peak? More logging of web 2.0 use? A chat at the door hinting that a person was "seen" at a protest?
What can a gov afford to do with the files? Go to open court and face real lawyers? Form sealed courts and win every time? Sooner or later the lawyers will start asking questions.....

The purpose of NSA data collection (2)

buck-yar (164658) | about a year ago | (#45794923)

Is not for terrorism, or even drug fighting. Its a tool for the Democrats or Republicans, whoever is in power, to snoop on their political opponents and line their pockets by stealing civilian secrets. Look at the IRS scandal, look at Fast & Furious / Gunwalker. Nothing is beyond this out of control, corrupt as heck govt. Probably more corrupt than Russia or wherever in the world, they just were able to hide most of it (until Snowden).

Never, but Never (3, Interesting)

ThatsNotPudding (1045640) | about a year ago | (#45795103)

In response to questions about Mr. Binney's claims, an NSA spokeswoman says the agency is 'not collecting everything, but we do need the tools to collect intelligence on foreign adversaries who wish to do harm to the nation and its allies.'

,
But never, ever dare ask why so many wish to do harm to the Imperial Us and our henchman, upon pain of treasonous death.

They ARE collecting "everything"... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45796011)

The NSA data center(s) have a 7 day to month collection of all electronics communications in the world.
Wireless, satellite, internet, broadband, phones, wired, you name it. If it has a wavelength we have it.
The issue is not whether the US collects international data as foreigner are not protected under US statutes.
The point is if that collection on US citizens is legal and justifiable in a supposedly open democracy where citizens interest is supposed to be looked after by our elected representatives. Where was the public debate and legal findings that are accessible to the citizenry. We are rapidly veering toward a non free and dysfunctional state. Our political parties no longer represent the interests of the majority and have increasing failed us for decades. Civil unrest and grass roots organising and action are the only option that can restore the power to the people at this late date.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?