Very Disturbing Article in "Wired"

[brewmaster15]

If you care about your right to privacy and civil liberties... this article is an absolute must read......

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/201...nsadatacenter/


The sheer size of this "Domestic" spying facility and its capabilities for collecting and storing data is absolutely staggering... It gives new meaning to "big brother is watching You" Big brother will be able to keep tabs on us in more ways that are unconstitutional than you can even imagine. The NSA can down play it all they want to but that facility is going to do far more than they say...and its sure to be abused....historical fact that power like that is always abused. Not to mention what happens when Data is leaked and theres a security breach.

And in the long run it will all come down to the statement that "Its to protect National Security Interests and our way of life" ... that line of reasoning is hard to argue against... but people need to. ..The gilded cage we are putting ourselves in is getting smaller and smaller... we aren't protecting our freedom and way of life....we are losing them more and more.

Read the article completely...Its important. This is wrong on so many levels its mind numbing.

-al

[rbarn]

Anyone want to split an island off the coast of Belize with me ?

[Orange Crush]

And in the long run it will all come down to the statement that "Its to protect National Security Interests and our way of life" -al

Our way of life is to be able to have civil liberties, freedom of speech, and privacy. This does not protect our way of life, it completely destroys it with it's hypocracy.....

[zimmjeff]

Is there enough fresh water for water changes?

[DiscusOnly]

I saw a few episodes of the TV show "Person of Interest" and it makes me wonder how much of that is being done already.

Very interestings article. Thanks for the link Al

[YSS]

If it's truly doing what the article says it's going to do, I don't think we would be reading about it in the wired magazine. Not saying something like this may not be in the works, but I have my doubts about legitimacy of the story and its sources.

[brewmaster15]

If it's truly doing what the article says it's going to do, I don't think we would be reading about it in the wired magazine. Not saying something like this may not be in the works, but I have my doubts about legitimacy of the story and its sources.

Yun,
If you do a net search on this, No one has questioned the validity of the facts in that article, or the sources. The only thing the critics say is that the author's conclusion of how the facility will be used is wrong....not because these critics actually know this to be true or have proof the facility will adhere to all our laws...but simply that they don't think the NSA or other Government agencies would do that. Either that or they think along the those lines of "its needed to protect your freedom from outside threats." Which I am sure it is...however....theres no safeguards inplace to prevent the abuses in power that have become so prevalent these last 10 years, IMO.

More articles for you...
http://www.democracynow.org/2012/3/2...as_largest_and

You mentioned that you doubt the legitimacy of the story and its sources...
..

Please read this article by Forbes...
http://www.forbes.com/sites/lorentho...ricas-enemies/

The article goes to great lengths to talk about the knowledge base and experience of the "Wired Magazines" article on the spy center, though it unfortunately draws a different conclusion of what the center will be used for....again...no doubting there of its capabilities is evident.

On the author per Forbs magazine...

Bamford is no newcomer to the study of U.S. intelligence, having written award-winning books on NSA and other arcane aspects of America’s global espionage efforts. In fact, he probably has done more to explain NSA to an otherwise ignorant body politic than any other author since the agency was established in a secret executive order signed by President Truman 60 years ago.

as for the primary source of the data.. William Binney, His background would make him extremely knowledgeable on the project.

former NSA official William Binney, a “crypto-mathematician largely responsible for automating the agency’s worldwide eavesdropping network.” Binney further shed light on the NSA’s warrantless wiretapping program, first exposed by the New York Times in 2005 and the subject of EFF’s long running suit Jewel v. NSA, which challenges the constitutionality of the NSA’s program.



The NSA claims it only has access to emails and phone calls of non-U.S. citizens overseas, but Binney provides more detail to the many previous reports by the New York Times, USA Today, New Yorker, and many more that the program indeed targets US based email records. In the 11 years since 9/11, Binney estimates 15 to 20 trillion “transactions” have been collected and stored by the NSA.

http://www.infosecisland.com/blogvie...-Evidence.html


I follow a website a bit call the https://www.eff.org/
Electronic Frontier Foundation
Interesting links this page...
https://www.eff.org/search/site/NSA

Read this one...
https://wfc2.wiredforchange.com/o/90...ction_KEY=8444
[QUOTEDon’t Let Congress Use "Cybersecurity" Fears to Erode Digital Rights

Congress is considering legislation that would give companies a free pass to monitor and collect communications, including huge amounts of personal data like your text messages and emails, and share that data with the government and anyone else. All a company has to do is claim its privacy violations were for "cybersecurity purposes." Tell Congress that they can’t use vaguely-defined "cybersecurity threats" as a shortcut to bypassing the law.

H.R. 3523, also known as the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act of 2011, would let companies spy on users and share private information with the federal government and other companies with near-total immunity from civil and criminal liability. It effectively creates a "cybersecurity" exemption to all existing laws.

There are almost no restrictions on what can be collected and how it can be used, provided a company can claim it was motivated by "cybersecurity purposes." That means a company like Google, Facebook, Twitter, or AT&T could intercept your emails and text messages, send copies to one another and to the government, and modify those communications or prevent them from reaching their destination if it fits into their plan to stop cybersecurity threats.

Worst of all, the stated definition of "cybersecurity" is so broad, it leaves the door open to censor any speech that a company believes would "degrade the network." The bill specifically mentions that cybersecurity can include protecting against the "theft or misappropriation of private or government information" including "intellectual property." Such sweeping language would give companies and the government new powers to monitor and censor communications for copyright infringement. It could also be a powerful weapon to use against whistleblower websites like WikiLeaks.

Congress wants to use the threat of "cybersecurity" to undermine our digital rights. Tell your lawmakers that we won’t stand for dangerous, unsupervised information sharing in this bill or any bill like it.][/QUOTE]

the Bill itself is here...http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/hr3523

summarized as follows...

QUOTEOFFICIAL SUMMARY
The following summary was written by the Congressional Research Service, a nonpartisan arm of the Library of Congress, which serves Congress. GovTrack did not write and has no control over these summaries.

11/30/2011--Introduced.
Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act of 2011 - Amends the National Security Act of 1947 to add provisions concerning cyber threat intelligence and information sharing. Defines "cyber threat intelligence" as information in the possession of an element of the intelligence community directly pertaining to a vulnerability of, or threat to, a system or network of a government or private entity, including information pertaining to the protection of a system or network from: (1) efforts to degrade, disrupt, or destroy such system or network; or (2) theft or misappropriation of private or government information, intellectual property, or personally identifiable information. Requires the Director of National Intelligence to: (1) establish procedures to allow intelligence community elements to share cyber threat intelligence with private-sector entities, and (2) encourage the sharing of such intelligence. Requires the procedures established to ensure that such intelligence is only: (1) shared with certified entities or a person with an appropriate security clearance, (2) shared consistent with the need to protect U.S. national security, and (3) used in a manner that protects such intelligence from unauthorized disclosure. Provides for guidelines for the granting of security clearance approvals to certified entities or officers or employees of such entities. Authorizes a cybersecurity provider (a non-governmental entity that provides goods or services intended to be used for cybersecurity purposes), with the express consent of a protected entity (an entity that contracts with a cybersecurity provider) to: (1) use cybersecurity systems to identify and obtain cyber threat information in order to protect the rights and property of the protected entity; and (2) share cyber threat information with any other entity designated by the protected entity, including the federal government. Regulates the use and protection of shared information, including prohibiting the use of such information to gain a competitive advantage and, if shared with the federal government, exempts such information from public disclosure. Prohibits a civil or criminal cause of action against a protected entity, a self-protected entity (an entity that provides goods or services for cybersecurity purposes to itself), or a cybersecurity provider acting in good faith under the above circumstances. Directs the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board to submit annually to Congress a review of the sharing and use of such information by the federal government, as well as recommendations for improvements and modifications to address privacy and civil liberties concerns. Preempts any state statute that restricts or otherwise regulates an activity authorized by the Act.

With this kind of mindset, Its not hard to see where NSA Critics like Bamford draws his conclusions.

-al

[retiredsailor]

Al, I'm not entirely sure how to answer this. First off, the government has had, for a while now, the ability to collect all cyber communications. Two of the limiting factors have been: 1. not enough analysts to go through the all the information. and 2. Intelligence Oversight laws, which prohibit, among other things, spying on Americans. Looking at #2, however, I am not sure how that has been affected by all the legislation put through after 9/11. After all, the Bill of Rights only contains 2 or 3 articles that haven't been done away with. The net has been monitored for quite some time. If you send emails threatening the president you can expect a knock at your door by the secret service eventually. If you search for, or correspond about, the A N A R C H I S T cookbook. Your IP will be flagged and you will be watched. I purposefully spelled it that way to hopefully preclude that result. Overall, sadly, our civil liberties have taken a back seat to National security. One thing to consider, in relation to all of this, is the lack of a large scale terrorist attack since 9/11. Our borders are wide open. I have friends on the front lines trying to protect those borders, but think about it... a cargo ship slows down on its way to NYC and lets off a few zodiacs to shoot off into CT for whatever nefarious deeds. It seems very simple, however it hasn't happened. Which makes me wonder, what do we have working that lets us know of things like that and prevents them? and that isn't my paranoia speaking, i've carefully kept it in check this time.
Now, to present my credentials (so i don't seem like some arm-chair quarterback), I spent 20 years as an intelligence analyst with the U.S. Navy. That included a 4 year stint in the Pentagon with the Joint Chiefs of Staff in their Crisis Management Directorate. I've seen crazy things. One thing I will tell you... Never, ever, underestimate the NSA!

ian drennan
drums, pa

[brewmaster15]

Ian,
With the technology and staff they are putting in place at the Utah facility , Factor number 1 doesn't look to be a road block. And as for factor number 2..."Intelligence Oversight laws, which prohibit, among other things, spying on Americans." Thats thrown out the window when ever they Claim" its for our own good and to protect national security, etc etc. and they make it easier and easier for that to be used. "the Patriot act" comes to mind.

I have also thought on the lack of terror events since 9-11....makes you think things are working now, so that all the sacrificesof freedoms forced on us, must be working. These threats have always existed though....how many years went by before 9-11 happened without an event?.. Whats troubling is the knee jerk reaction that followed 9-11 and the over blown out of proportion responses government made. Heaven help us when another attack occurs... what will the response be then? what liberties will we be told to sacrifice to protect our freedoms.

The ends doesn't justify the means in a free society...

I don't mean to question the need for the facility itself to protect against external threats...what I question is the lack of safeguards and disclosure in its use against what those in power perceive as internal threats....

-al

[nc0gnet0]

The ends doesn't justify the means in a free society...

AMEN

Why more people cannot grasp this very simple concept is beyond me. If we give up our freedom to protect our freedom, haven't we already lost the battle?

perspective

3,000 people died in 9 11

16,000 people die every year in alcohol related car crashes.

[YSS]

Al,

Can't argue with what you have posted. As for the factor #1, this will be the main limiting factor in analyzing the data being collected. My guess is that over 99% of the data collected (if it's collecting all of world's digital communication) will not even be touched. Meaning emails from you and me and posts on simply may be collected, but not looked at by anyone. Not saying that collecting this data is right. I understand not giving up freedom to protect freedom, but if spying on your neighbor by NSA resulted in stopping a terrorist plot that could have harmed your immediate loved ones, you may feel differently about a lot of what's going on to protect our country. I know I would.

[Second Hand Pat]

Yun, a person is not required to look that that data personally. Computer can be setup and are used to search for keywords or phases. It is called data mining.

[brewmaster15]

Yun,

but if spying on your neighbor by NSA resulted in stopping a terrorist plot that could have harmed your immediate loved ones, you may feel differently about a lot of what's going on to protect our country. I know I would.

Careful there with that line of thinking..Historically its been done alot and still is by many countries under various guises and under various reasons...

Its not hard to see where the pitfalls lay when we rationalize... One sad fact is , history repeats itself often... make me wonder are we here again?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism

-al

[YSS]

Yun, a person is not required to look that that data personally. Computer can be setup and are used to search for keywords or phases. It is called data mining.

Understood, Pat. I meant being really looked at beyond simple keyword search. If a system is going through the data looking for keywords or phrases and dump everything else if it doesn't find the keywords, then I consider that no harm done. May be I am too laxed about this.

Yun,
Careful there with that line of thinking..Historically its been done alot and still is by many countries under various guises and under various reasons...

Its not hard to see where the pitfalls lay when we rationalize... One sad fact is , history repeats itself often... make me wonder are we here again?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism

-al

Al, understand what you mean. Bottom line is, I feel that as long as there is check and balances, I am ok with my emails being stored and being mined for suspicious phrases. Again, the key being right checks and balances.

[Mep1127]

Big brother is everywhere unfortunately you cant "outrun" it. Privacy and freedom are "sacrificed" for a false sense of security.