42
   

Snowdon is a dummy

 
 
BillRM
 
  1  
Wed 2 Oct, 2013 02:40 pm
@Walter Hinteler,
Keep the employees lay off and the funds reduce so they can not do mass spying of the type they been doing.



Quote:


http://www.forbes.com/sites/andygreenberg/2013/10/02/heres-the-letter-telling-nsa-staff-to-go-home-for-the-government-shutdown/

Here's The Letter Telling NSA Staff To Go Home For The Government Shutdown
Comment Now Follow Comments
Given that the government shutdown makes an exception for “national security,” some employees of the National Security Agency may have been surprised Tuesday to get a letter telling them their jobs don’t fall under that category.

In a memo sent to thousands of NSA staffers, shared with me by one agency employee, the NSA’s associate director of human resources noted that despite exceptions to the federal government shutdown that include “activities required for national security, including the safety of human life or the protection of property,” recipients of the letter are being sent home indefinitely. “We very much regret the shutdown furlough and recognize the difficult financial implications of any furlough, no matter how limited its length,” reads the unclassified letter. “While everyone at the NSA provides vital services, because the duties you perform do not support ‘excerpted’ functions, you will be placed in a furlough status effective 1 October 2013.”

Here’s the full letter, which also includes a form NSA staffers can use to file unemployment claims:
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  2  
Thu 3 Oct, 2013 01:36 pm
The Snowden files: why the British public should be worried about GCHQ - that's a longer article, focused mainly on the British resonse, but it seems to be no difference to other countries ...

Quote:
[...]
And yet nobody, at least in Britain, seems to care. In the UK there has been an extraordinary disconnect between the scale and seriousness of what Snowden has revealed, and the scale and seriousness of the response. One of the main reasons for that, I think, is that while some countries are interested in rights, in Britain we are more focused on wrongs.

In Europe and the US, the lines between the citizen and the state are based on an abstract conception of the individual's rights, which is then framed in terms of what the state needs to do.

That's not the case in Britain: although we do have rights, they were arrived at by specific malfeasances and disasters on the part of the state.

Every right that limits the behaviour of the police, from the need for search warrants to the (now heavily qualified) right to silence to habeas corpus itself, comes from the fact that the authorities abused their powers.

This helps to explain why Snowden's revelations, perceived as explosive in American and Europe by both the political right and left, have been greeted here with a weirdly echoing non-response. In the rights-based tradition, the flagrant abuse of individual privacy is self-evidently a bad thing, a (literally) warrantless extension of the power of the state.

Here in the UK, because we've been given no specific instances of specific wrongs having been committed, the story has found it hard to gain traction. Even if there were such instances – just as there were 2,776 rule violations by the NSA last year alone – we wouldn't know anything about them, because the system of judicial inspections at GCHQ is secret.

So it is a perfectly sealed mechanism: we aren't interested in rights in the abstract, and we are prevented by law from hearing about any of the specific abuses which might start to focus our attention.

The documents make clear that GCHQ's eavesdropping abilities are on a scale unmatched anywhere in the free world, and they privately boast about the "more permissive legal environment" in the UK – and yet, nobody seems to care. It's tragicomic that the surveillance story which most gripped the public imagination concerned Poole borough council's use of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (Ripa) to spy on a family suspected of cheating in regard to school catchment areas.
[...]
People misunderstand what a police state is. It isn't a country where the police strut around in jackboots; it's a country where the police can do anything they like. Similarly, a security state is one in which the security establishment can do anything it likes.

We are right on the verge of being an entirely new kind of human society, one involving an unprecedented penetration by the state into areas which have always been regarded as private. Do we agree to that? If we don't, this is the last chance to stop it happening. Our rulers will say what all rulers everywhere have always said: that their intentions are good, and we can trust them. They want that to be a sufficient guarantee.
[...]
BillRM
 
  2  
Thu 3 Oct, 2013 03:23 pm
Another man who deserve the medal of freedom.



Quote:



http://www.staradvertiser.com/news/nyt/Snowdens_email_service_in_a_legal_tug_of_war_with_the_FBI.html


By Nicole Perlroth & ScottSnowden's email service in a legal tug of war with the FBI
Shane

New York Times
POSTED: 01:30 a.m. HST, Oct 03, 2013



AP
This June 9, 2013 photo provided by The Guardian newspaper in London shows Edward Snowden, who worked as a contract employee at the U.S. National Security Agency, in Hong Kong.

DALLAS >> One day last May, Ladar Levison returned home to find an FBI agent's business card on his Dallas doorstep. So began a four-month tangle with law enforcement officials that would end with Levison's shutting the business he had spent a decade building and becoming an unlikely hero of privacy advocates in their escalating battle with the government over Internet security.

Prosecutors, it turned out, were pursuing a notable user of Lavabit, Levison's secure email service: Edward J. Snowden, the former National Security Agency contractor who leaked classified documents that have put the intelligence agency under sharp scrutiny. Levison was willing to allow investigators with a court order to tap Snowden's email account; he had complied with similar narrowly targeted requests involving other customers some two dozen times.

But they wanted more, he said: the passwords, encryption keys and computer code that would essentially allow the government untrammeled access to the protected messages of all his customers. That, he said, was too much.

"You don't need to bug an entire city to bug one guy's phone calls," Levison, 32, said in a recent interview. "In my case, they wanted to break open the entire box just to get to one connection."

On Aug. 8, Levison closed Lavabit rather than, in his view, betray his promise of secure email to his customers. The move, which he explained in a letter on his website, drew fervent support from civil libertarians but was seen by prosecutors as an act of defiance that fell just short of a crime.

The full story of what happened to Levison since May has not previously been told, in part because he was subject to a court's gag order. But on Wednesday, a federal judge unsealed documents in the case, allowing the tech entrepreneur to speak candidly for the first time about his experiences. He had been summoned to testify to a grand jury in Virginia; forbidden to discuss his case; held in contempt of court and fined $10,000 for handing over his private encryption keys on paper and not in digital form; and, finally, threatened with arrest for saying too much when he shuttered his business.

Spokesmen for the Justice Department and the FBI said they had no comment beyond what was in the documents.

Levison's battle to preserve his customers' privacy comes at a time when Snowden's disclosures have ignited a national debate about the proper limits of surveillance and government intrusion into American Internet companies that promise users that their digital communications are secure.

Much of the attention has been focused on Internet giants like Microsoft and Google. Lavabit, with just two employees and perhaps 40,000 regular users, was a midget by comparison, but its size and Levison's personal pledge of security made it attractive to tech-savvy users like Snowden.

While Levison's struggles have been with the FBI, hovering in the background is the NSA, which has worked secretly for years to undermine or bypass encrypted services like Lavabit so that their electronic message scrambling cannot obstruct the agency's spying. Earlier in September, The New York Times, ProPublica and The Guardian wrote about the NSA's campaign to weaken encryption. Levison's case shows how law enforcement officials can use legal tools to pry open messages, no matter how well protected.

Levison said he set up Lavabit to make it impossible for outsiders, whether governments or hackers, to spy on users' communications. He followed the government's own secure coding guidelines, based on the NSA's technical guidance, and engineered his systems so as not to log user communications. That way, even if he received a subpoena for a user's communications, he would not be able to gain access to them. For added measure, he gave customers the option to pay extra to encrypt their email and passwords.

Levison, who studied politics and computer science at Southern Methodist University, started Lavabit in April 2004, the same month Google rolled out Gmail. To pay his bills, he worked as a Web consultant, helping develop websites for major brands like Dr Pepper, Nokia and Adidas. But by 2010, the email service had attracted enough paying customers to allow Levison to turn to Lavabit full time.

On occasion, he was asked to comply with government requests for specific email accounts, including that of a child pornography suspect in Maryland this year. Levison said he had no qualms about cooperating with such demands, but the latest request was far broader, apparently to allow investigators to track Snowden's whereabouts and associates. When Levison called the FBI agent who had left the business card, the agent seemed interested in learning how Lavabit worked and what tools would be necessary to eavesdrop on an encrypted email account.

The agent did not mention at first who the government was pursuing, and Levison will not name the targets of the government's investigation. The name was redacted from the court order unsealed Wednesday, but the offenses listed are violations of the Espionage Act, and the timing of the government's case coincides with its leak investigation into Snowden, which began last May when he fled Hawaii for Hong Kong carrying laptops containing thousands of classified documents.

By then, Snowden's Lavabit email address was already public. He had listed his personal Lavabit email address in January 2010, and was still using a Lavabit address this July, when he summoned reporters to a news conference at the Moscow airport.

That email invitation proved to be an unintended endorsement for Lavabit's security. Before that, Levison said that, on average, Lavabit was signing up 200 new users daily. In the days after Snowden's email, more than 4,000 new customers joined each day.

But a month before the news conference, court documents show, Levison had already received a subpoena for Snowden's encrypted email account. The government was particularly interested in his email metadata - with whom Snowden was communicating, when, and from where. The order, from the U.S. District Court in Alexandria, Va., required Levison to log Snowden's account information and provide the FBI with "technical assistance," which agents told him meant handing over the private encryption keys, technically called SSL certificates, that unlock communications for all users, he said.

"It was the equivalent of asking Coca-Cola to hand over its secret formula," Levison said.

By July, he said, he had 410,000 registered users. Similar services like Hushmail, a Canadian encrypted email service, had lost users in 2007 after court documents revealed that the company had handed 12 CD's worth of decoded emails from three Hushmail accounts to American law enforcement officials through a mutual assistance treaty.

"The whole concept of the Internet was built on the idea that companies can keep their own keys," Levison said.

He told the agents that he would need their request for his encryption keys in writing.

A redacted version of that request, which was among the 23 documents that were unsealed, shows that the court issued an order July 16 for Lavabit's encryption keys. Prosecutors said they had no intention of collecting any information on Lavabit's 400,000 other customers. "There's no agents looking through the 400,000 other bits of information, customers, whatever," Jim Trump, one of the prosecutors, said at a closed Aug. 1 hearing.

But Levison said he spent much of the following day thinking of a compromise. He would log the target's communications, unscramble them with the encryption keys, and upload them to a government server once a day. The FBI told him that was not enough. It needed his target's communications "in real time," he said.

"How as a small business do you hire the lawyers to appeal this and change public opinion to get the laws changed when Congress doesn't even know what is going on?" Levison said.

When it was clear Levison had no choice but to comply, he devised a way to obey the order but make the government's intrusion more arduous. On Aug 2., he infuriated agents by printing the encryption keys - long strings of seemingly random numbers - on paper in a font he believed would be hard to scan and turn into a usable digital format. Indeed, prosecutors described the file as "largely illegible."

On Aug. 5, Judge Claude M. Hilton ordered a $5,000-a-day fine until Levison produced the keys in electronic form. Levison's lawyer, Jesse R. Binnall, appealed both the order to turn over the keys and the fine.

After two days, Levison gave in, turning over the digital keys - and simultaneously closing his email service, apologizing to customers on his site. That double maneuver, a prosecutor later told his lawyer, fell just short of a criminal act.

Meanwhile, he hopes to resurrect the business he spent a decade building. "This wasn't about one person," Levison said. "This was about the lengths our government was willing to go to conduct Internet surveillance on one person."




0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Thu 3 Oct, 2013 03:24 pm
@Walter Hinteler,
Quote:
Our rulers will say what all rulers everywhere have always said: that their intentions are good, and we can trust them. They want that to be a sufficient guarantee.


We choose our rulers and all rulers everywhere are not chosen and when we do choose them we feel we ought to trust them because we look pretty silly if we don't. And we trust our Gracious Queen and She could put 20,000,000 on the streets with a nod.

No Government here likes the Queen passing out black looks.
BillRM
 
  2  
Thu 3 Oct, 2013 03:31 pm
@spendius,
Quote:
we ought to trust them because we look pretty silly if we don't


Sorry but the US government was design with the idea that no set of rulers should be trusted absolutely with layers of safe guards.

A system that was design after putting up with your nation rulers misbehaviors that resulted in our needing to break out the guns.
Walter Hinteler
 
  2  
Fri 4 Oct, 2013 02:07 am
Since NSA is perhaps not working completely just now, everyone (sic!) can use this tool ...

http://i1334.photobucket.com/albums/w641/Walter_Hinteler/b_zpsa1a09801.jpg

According to a report in Der Spiegel, they don't asked you for anymore than you credit card.

Walter Hinteler
 
  3  
Fri 4 Oct, 2013 02:56 am
@Frank Apisa,
Frank Apisa wrote:
Shame on them, Walter. I suspect that some day this move will bite them on their collective asses.

Snowden deserves one thing...a fair trial of his peers here in the United States. I hope he gets it.
Referring to the nomination, former National Security Agency Director Michael Hayden joked Thursday about putting Edward Snowden on a kill list,
Source

And some minutes later, he said:
Quote:
"Assassinations are forbidden by executive order," Hayden continued. "We don't do assassinations."
But he said the government does perform "targeted killings against enemy combatants" because the nation is at war.

Source
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Fri 4 Oct, 2013 04:42 am
@BillRM,
I only described our system briefly Bill. I didn't say it was any better or any worse than yours. You're rather sensitive about these things.

Our schools don't stress individual rights very much. That you can't beat the system is the general message.

We consider freedom to being free from caring whether we are free or not. It must be very stressful to be worrying about a thing like that all the time when the State is getting, necessarily, more and more powerful.

The NSA seems to be the cause of the furore. It leaks.

Obarmy has said that Americans would have been better off if they had remained unaware of the NSA surveillance activities. I think that is roughly how we see the matters but there are plenty of exceptions. And you voted for Obarmy.

We are probably getting to the point where things are so complex that nobody can understand what's going on but many feel that they do.

The significant aspect seems to me to be that the young support Snowden and the old don't. Poking the authorities in the eye is generally attractive to the young.

It's Parkinson's Law again. Work expands so as to fill the time available for its completion. When the work is well paid you have leverage.
Olivier5
 
  3  
Fri 4 Oct, 2013 04:57 am
@Frank Apisa,
Quote:
Snowden deserves one thing...a fair trial of his peers here in the United States. I hope he gets it.

Bush and Obama deserve a fair trial in the Hague. Unfortunately there's no justice in this world.
spendius
 
  1  
Fri 4 Oct, 2013 06:59 am
@Olivier5,
But isn't that just an attempt to distance yourself from the "rough men", as Orwell called them, who enable you to live as easy as you do.
JTT
 
  0  
Fri 4 Oct, 2013 09:28 am
@spendius,
That's simply nonsense, Spendi. These "rough men" are simply thieves, pirates, gangsters, murderers, ... . You wouldn't suggest for a moment that we allow gangsters to run our own societies so why let them run the lives of others.
Olivier5
 
  2  
Fri 4 Oct, 2013 10:42 am
@spendius,
Nope. Bush worsened the world's security situation in many ways, debilitated the (vital IMO) Afghan front to go **** up Iraq for instance. His blocking of any advance on global warming is another example. As for Obama, I am now convinced he is essentially an absentee president. Your government is shut down but nothing happens, right? Ergo they are there for the show only.

And someone please tells me what spying on Brazilian petrol company has to do with security... Evidently the very powerful NSA tools are used for commercial and industrial espionage on US allies...
cicerone imposter
 
  2  
Fri 4 Oct, 2013 10:52 am
@Olivier5,
For the administration to continue their lies about spying on everybody, they want to assign one person who will police NSA. That one belongs on the laffer curve.

The only solution is to make illegal spying obsolete is to make the penalty so outrageous, nobody would dare. The solution is to provide the person who turns in anybody who spies illegally to collect a huge reward.

That will police itself. We don't need more levels of "security."
0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  2  
Fri 4 Oct, 2013 11:05 am
@spendius,
Quote:
The significant aspect seems to me to be that the young support Snowden and the old don't. Poking the authorities in the eye is generally attractive to the young.


Or the young at heart as I am 64 years old at the moment and from the internet boards with special note of the computer/internet security boards one hell of a lot of older people are looking for means and tools to do some poking back at the NSA and the government as a whole.

Next your culture [UK], as you had pointed out yourself, seems must more willing to roll over for anyone in authority then the American culture.
izzythepush
 
  2  
Fri 4 Oct, 2013 02:15 pm
@BillRM,
Our culture passed a vote in parliament that stopped your Syrian strikes dead in their tracks. That's standing up to authority.
BillRM
 
  -1  
Fri 4 Oct, 2013 03:19 pm
@izzythepush,
Sorry one part of your government giving another part of your government a hard time is not an example of the British people standing up to your government.

Hell you are even allowing the great wall of English internet censorship to be put into place and your government is buying the hardware to do so from a Chinese company another government that does not believe in freedoms for it people.

I know it is being sold to protected the children but it is going to be used to protect the people in power instead.
JPB
 
  1  
Fri 4 Oct, 2013 03:41 pm
@Walter Hinteler,
Trust me, Walter, they're working completely.
0 Replies
 
JPB
 
  1  
Fri 4 Oct, 2013 03:43 pm
@Walter Hinteler,
That's bullshit. I'll try to grab the article about a previous "Privacy Officer" who was accused repeatedly of being a "terrorist" by her co-workers at the NSA.
0 Replies
 
JPB
 
  2  
Fri 4 Oct, 2013 04:09 pm
Here you go

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20131002/02052624725/former-dhs-chief-privacy-officer-recounts-how-she-was-regularly-called-terrorist-intelligence-community.shtml
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  2  
Fri 4 Oct, 2013 05:18 pm
@BillRM,
Quote:
Sorry one part of your government giving another part of your government a hard time is not an example of the British people standing up to your government.


We don't stand up to our government. We elect the fuckers. What do we want to elect people for in order to stand up to them?
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Snowdon is a dummy
  3. » Page 124
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.08 seconds on 07/18/2025 at 03:06:31