malware?

http://www.thewire.com/technology/2013/12/nsa-intercepts-laptops-purchased-online-install-malware/356548

http://www.policymic.com/articles/77765/insane-new-nsa-spying-allegations-have-emerged

The latest batch of leaks from Der Spiegel and The Guardian.

How is this allowed? Does Obama know? Does he care?

12/30/2013 7:31:03 PM

They are only doing this for individuals or agencies the NSA is already targeting... it's not like they are intercepting every laptop (or even random laptops) and doing this for people who are not already under surveillance.

I would compare it to putting a bug in a target's phone. I didn't read anywhere what the legal process is... do they need a warrant, etc?

[Edited on December 30, 2013 at 8:06 PM. Reason : ]

12/30/2013 8:05:30 PM

It is for your own safety and security, stop asking questions....



[Edited on December 30, 2013 at 10:42 PM. Reason : l]

12/30/2013 10:37:07 PM

nobody cares

in other news, something something black people, something duck dynasty, something obamacare, etc

12/30/2013 10:39:39 PM

you forgot OMFG GAYS GETTING MARRIED AND PEOPLE SMOKING POT!!!!!!!!!!!



[Edited on December 30, 2013 at 10:44 PM. Reason : lol]

[Edited on December 30, 2013 at 10:44 PM. Reason : l]

12/30/2013 10:43:23 PM

george bush opened pandoras box

also something something drones

12/30/2013 10:46:37 PM

something something

something

12/30/2013 11:40:09 PM

hey, insert a comic with no punchline

thanks

12/31/2013 12:02:23 AM

i'm cool with them doing this for people who are already intelligence targets. if they are American citizens, though, there needs to be a warrant. A real, individual warrant--not this bullshit collective dragnet umbrella they like to pretend complies with the 4th Amendment. As long as they're doing it the right way, then great. Something tells me, though, that the rules get interpreted...creatively, sometimes.

12/31/2013 12:16:20 AM

well just how are they gonna find the targets without the dragnet???

12/31/2013 9:44:32 AM

And since there are over a million people on the terror watch list, including citizens, and there aren't really any standards for who goes on the list or if/when they come off, why is it okay for all people who are already intelligence targets? We have no oversight on who an intelligence target or terrorist is, so saying its okay for "people who are already intelligence targets" is naive and shortsighted.

12/31/2013 9:47:44 AM

^^ I have to assume that's a joke?

^ that's not a problem with the laptop intercepts and bugging. That's a problem with the general oversight-American citizens shouldn't get fucked with unless a warrant is issued, just like any other investigation.

12/31/2013 11:18:41 AM

it should be a joke but that's their argument against giving it up

12/31/2013 11:55:12 AM

Here is a great video explaining the Der Spiegel documents. A good watch from the 30c3 convention.

http://boingboing.net/2013/12/31/jacob-appelbaums-must-watch.html

12/31/2013 10:02:49 PM

Quote :

"How is this allowed? Does Obama know? Does he care?"

Agree with Smath74: I view this as just a variation on the traditional practice of planting bugs, tracking devices, wiretaps, etc. practiced by just about every intelligence service and police department on the planet. I think as long as it's treated with the same regulations as other traditional practices (warrants, court approval, etc.), I see nothing wrong with the practice. Think attention is better focused on the other practices like the massive dragnets.

1/3/2014 3:55:13 PM

Quote :

" if they are American citizens, though, there needs to be a warrant."

Is there any legal basis for the belief that the constitution only applies to citizens? (This is an actual question.)

1/3/2014 6:51:49 PM

Quote :

"And since there are over a million people on the terror watch list, including citizens, and there aren't really any standards for who goes on the list or if/when they come off, why is it okay for all people who are already intelligence targets? We have no oversight on who an intelligence target or terrorist is, so saying its okay for "people who are already intelligence targets" is naive and shortsighted."

This

I'm just wondering where the outrage is. Cisco, juniper, Huewei, Samsung, among other companies have been targets for the TAO for a long time. They're pissed, but why not the public? No oversight, so they can pretty much pick and choose who they want to target. And who signs off on it? Maybe some judge behind a firewall that the public can't see or interact with?

1/3/2014 10:19:45 PM

Now they are collecting your sewage also for more intelligence gathering

http://gizmodo.com/the-nsa-would-like-your-sewage-1493962489

1/7/2014 9:00:40 PM

Posted around ncsu.

1/7/2014 10:17:27 PM

As much public backlash as the NSA has gotten, how has no political momentum started to remedy the problem.

This isn't like other grassroots outrages like congressmen earning their salaries during the gov't shutdown where politicians have a vested interest to ignore their constitutes....

1/8/2014 12:12:37 PM

No politician wants to give their opponent ammo for future races by being able to say "Jim Bob voted to PROTECT terrorists, are you sure you want him representing you?"

1/8/2014 3:56:13 PM

^^^
hahaha

1/8/2014 3:59:27 PM

Fuck

http://www.policymic.com/articles/79141/the-nsa-can-t-hack-you-if-you-don-t-have-internet-this-has-now-been-debunked

1/15/2014 7:06:28 PM

This is something that a spy agency SHOULD BE DOING.

Not collecting metadata from every phone call and email in the world.

[Edited on January 15, 2014 at 7:19 PM. Reason : speaking of the OP, not any links posted since that I haven't read]

1/15/2014 7:16:26 PM

^^ Yeah, I'm not particularly too worried about that. Seems like the kind of shit that a spy agency just, you know, does.

1/16/2014 12:06:26 AM

just, you know, like, totally

1/16/2014 12:08:18 AM

http://arstechnica.com/security/2013/12/scientist-developed-malware-covertly-jumps-air-gaps-using-inaudible-sound/

1/16/2014 2:21:27 PM

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jan/16/nsa-collects-millions-text-messages-daily-untargeted-global-sweep

I seriously doubt they are limiting their non-warranted searches to just metadata. Like someone in the comments said, how is this not phone tapping?

1/16/2014 8:47:39 PM

This is a magnificent work of art. I would like to shake the hand of the photoshop genius that created it. It has everything: visual metaphor, allusion, pastiche, flag cock. Simply exquisite.

1/16/2014 9:23:20 PM

Everyone's forgotten that this was allowed under the patriot act right? Because we said fighting terror was going to make this necessary...

1/18/2014 8:21:08 AM

Shut up, citizen, we'll keep you safe!

1/18/2014 4:14:59 PM

That's not what they were saying...

Patriot Act! They were going to monitor calls and asked that everyone was going to have sacrifice some privacy to do it... and people answered saying they didn't mind it for the war on terror.

So actually... Edward Snowden is SERIOUSLY late by a decade.

1/19/2014 12:19:40 AM

a lot of people minded and have continuously minded since

even before the full scope was known

[Edited on January 19, 2014 at 1:20 AM. Reason : .]

1/19/2014 1:20:21 AM

Well they didn't say enough when it did...

Don't act so blindsided... The government let you know it was happening.

Besides, I don't see anyone using Google or facebook any less... and they do A LOT worse and didn't bother telling anyone until folks raised their voice about what information they were giving up IN THEIR PRIVATE EMAIL.

EVEN THEN... they just made it so that you had to agree to their terms.

[Edited on January 19, 2014 at 11:41 AM. Reason : edit]

1/19/2014 11:39:04 AM

Quote :

"Don't act so blindsided... The government let you know it was happening."

The NSA's activities are disturbing but not surprising. All but the most delusional among us understand that governments don't tend to become more trustworthy when the get more power.

Garden variety liberals, civil libertarians, and even the crackpot conspiracy theorists were warning about most of this stuff becoming reality all during GWB's terms. Republicans justified it with national security. Obama got in and liberals gave him a pass for a while, but from what I'm hearing now, almost no one is defending the administration on this topic.

We're well past the point where public opinion matters. When privacy is forfeited, it's not easily won back. I would imagine there exists some bureaucrat, or group of bureaucrats, that has the ability to make any major politician "play ball" if it comes down to it. Politicians come and go, but bureaucracies are the real cancer.

1/19/2014 5:36:34 PM

moar like...."spyware" amirite?

also...

Quote :

"build big bother"

1/19/2014 5:48:06 PM

Well the war on the terror is hardly over, and SEVERAL (but not all plots) so far have been averted. I'm not sure whether I would directly attribute this to the snooping... though the NSA has.

One of the weird things about this so far that I'd like to point out:

Edward Snowden claims to have a crisis of conscience after fooling 25 or so people into giving them their username and password by claiming he was unable to fix their computer and network issues without them. He downloaded as much material as possible and fled.

Edward Snowden's first act as soon as he got the material and made people aware was plea for support from Russia and China... two nations who are known to snoop on their own citizens.

Afterwards, he gave news outlets and foreign nations classified information regarding NSA snooping on foreign nations... not on our own citizens, though he has yet to provide that information to news outlets just aside from statistics and data (not that I've seen in the news anyway). Come to find out that those foreign nations requested our help to provide them that information.

The point is... Edward Snowden, in my opinion, is no hero. Heroes take the fall for the greater good. This one saw an opportunity, exploited it, and ran away and then continued to create as much damage to his country as possible. The actions are not one that is fitting of someone who has a crisis of conscience. Instead, he was an opportunist who seized an opportunity and now he wants to come back home. No one is going to set the precedent that if you steal enough secrets, then you can strike a deal with the government.

The NSA is doing as it always has... It acquires information on everyone: Allies, partners, and adversaries... just like everyone else is trying to do with us.

Google and facebook has been doing this for awhile too... and no one seemed to mind when they were caught. In fact, a good portion of you probably still uses Google and facebook to some degree after they had admitted to using your information. Facebook sold your information to foreign nations, and Google has done the same.

Aside from that.

Now I agree... 4th amendment dictates for reasonable search and seizures... In my opinion, a time of war is a such a time to mandate reasonable search and seizure in this way until that threat is eliminated.

The time to be angry is when that war is over... not right now when so much good has come out of these extreme precautionary measures. I have yet to see or hear of someone being indicted based on evidence collected by the NSA.

And when that time is over, that's when someone needs to take this to the Supreme Court and say "this is unconstitutional!"

You can't fight ideals and terrorism with bullets... that's just one of many tools. You fight it with information.

[Edited on January 20, 2014 at 12:09 AM. Reason : a]

1/20/2014 12:05:43 AM

^
Citations, please.

1/20/2014 1:11:45 AM

The news.

Not going to do your homework for you but all my sources are from New York Times, Wall Street journal, Bloomberg, Washington post, Christian Science monitor, Los Angeles times, and Reuters. I read them all on a daily basis so I'm up to speed.

It's there. Just google it.

1/20/2014 2:48:48 AM

Quote :

"Edward Snowden's first act as soon as he got the material and made people aware was plea for support from Russia and China... two nations who are known to snoop on their own citizens."

He pleaded to many countries for asylum. Russia was the one that provided it. Their own stance on snooping is irrelevant.

Quote :

"Afterwards, he gave news outlets and foreign nations classified information regarding NSA snooping on foreign nations."

Yeah, that was the entire point. History has shown that whistleblowing through government channels does nothing. So he released it through the news.

Quote :

"In my opinion, a time of war is a such a time to mandate reasonable search and seizure in this way until that threat is eliminated."

We've been at war more often than not for the past hundred years.

Quote :

"The point is... Edward Snowden, in my opinion, is no hero. Heroes take the fall for the greater good. This one saw an opportunity, exploited it, and ran away and then continued to create as much damage to his country as possible. The actions are not one that is fitting of someone who has a crisis of conscience. Instead, he was an opportunist who seized an opportunity and now he wants to come back home. No one is going to set the precedent that if you steal enough secrets, then you can strike a deal with the government. "

lol what is this bullshit? "Heroes take the fall"? His life is ruined, dude. He's an enemy of the United States. "Create as much damage to his country as possible"? Yes, Edward Snowden and Glen Greenwald are trying to destroy America.

Quote :

"The time to be angry is when that war is over... not right now when so much good has come out of these extreme precautionary measures."

source

1/20/2014 8:38:33 AM

Quote :

" History has shown that whistleblowing through government channels does nothing."

also, he even tried reporting his concerns to his superiors

1/20/2014 8:51:17 AM

^^Never read any of that in my research which is pretty objective. All my points (which were researched) were declared irrelevant by you based on information you've provided that I can't find. I can't argue with you so there's no point trying.

^Report to superiors on information he found using coworkers username and password? So the next logical step is to hand that information over to foreign nations? That's pretty fishy... Not to mention unprofessional.

1/20/2014 11:11:45 AM

Quote :

"Not going to do your homework for you... It's there. Just google it."

When I do my homework, I provide citations.

1/20/2014 11:19:48 AM

^^
Previous NSA whistleblower, who went through legal channels:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Binney_(U.S._intelligence_official)#Whistleblowing

Snowden's pleas for asylum in a handy little table:
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424127887323936404578581632706784010

Quote :

"So the next logical step is to hand that information over to foreign nations? That's pretty fishy... Not to mention unprofessional."

Hold on a minute, I thought you were just using hyperbole earlier. Do you really think he handed information directly to foreign nations, vs. reporters?

[Edited on January 20, 2014 at 11:32 AM. Reason : .]

1/20/2014 11:31:47 AM

China media is state-run... An extension of the government... Where all open source information to include propaganda is distributed or collected. When Snowden provides this information to Chinese reporters, who is he handing that information to?

1/20/2014 12:03:53 PM

Wikipedia... Do better in research.

WSJ, that's AFTER he fled to Russia... Don't skew the timetable just to fit your argument.

Next?

1/20/2014 12:07:41 PM

What's your point? Any information he has released, he has intended to be available to the public eye. This includes any and all governments.

Still waiting for sources on what good the NSA has done. I've provided mine.

1/20/2014 12:08:02 PM

You provided a news link that didn't fit any argument except to debunk yours. You're lazy at arguing as you are in research.

The same newspaper you linked has the testimony the NSA director placed before congress.

[Edited on January 20, 2014 at 12:13 PM. Reason : W]

1/20/2014 12:12:38 PM

No, I gave you historical proof that going through legal channels would have done nothing but destroy his life, and proof that he applied for asylum to many countries. The fact that he went to Hong Kong and Russia first doesn't imply that he sought their assistance first.

More on William Binney, since you don't trust Wikipedia http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424127887323936404578581632706784010

If you're expecting me to write you a research paper with a bibliography, you're outta luck.

[Edited on January 20, 2014 at 12:18 PM. Reason : .]

1/20/2014 12:16:57 PM

The link you just provided is still the Snowden table for asylum... nothing on William Binney.

Hey I have nothing against the whistleblower... as long as his actions match his conscience.

If you are going to have a problem with homeland spying (and I think it's pretty reasonable that all of us do)... you don't go to Russia and China and hand over classified information regarding allies, partners, and adversaries.

Instead, you would go straight to the media and say... this is what I found out and it's seriously unconstitutional.

1/20/2014 12:33:12 PM