http://theweek.com/article/index/245285/how-the-nsa-uses-your-telephone-records Am I the only one who finds this to be incredibly creepy? And it's not just Verizon, it's Skype, Google, Yahoo, Facebook, etc. All wrapped up in this broad blanket of surveillance. It's like we're all targets now. But maybe that's just how I view things.
This sorta reminds me of when my boss announced that they were going to record all calls and all I thought was: "Wow, they're going to get about 30 phone calls a month of me calling my mom before I head home." Now they're going to get a lot of recordings of my mom arguing with her family members. I pity the poor ******* if anything happens who has to sit through that. On a more serious note... I'm actually not surprised, especially since it's under the Patriots Act. This whole Patriots Act reminds me of the Red Scare in the 1960's and when wiretapping, listening in to phone calls and god-knows what else went on. If you never saw "Good day, and good night." I HIGHLY recommend that movie in just how much of a risk those journalists were taking to expose what the hell was going on in the system. Anyway, it's now a part of life, will it change anything for the good? Maybe, will it affect a lot of innocent people because of paranoia? Most likely, and hopefully at some point someone will realize how insanely out of control this is getting and stop it.
I don't consider this a big deal, but I personally don't have to hide much. Besides, they're not listening in to the actual calls. It logs all information related to the call (location, to who, duration, time, etc. for both ends of the convo) and stores it. No one is out there going over every citizen's phone call each time a call is made. I don't necessarily support it, but I'm not freaking out over it. It's simply a continuing log so if there is an investigation of a person (I think the example used by most Senators is the Boston Bombing suspect), they can look at their call history and see if anything's unusual and connect the dots to other persons of interest. I don't see it any different than the authorities being able to track your bank history during investigations (except that I don't think there is actually a process where all bank information is constantly being stored). I had always assumed that a milder form of this was being practiced for years (you delete your call history, but some computer in your network provider's HQ keeps it stored in some abysmal file), but apparently it's only about 7 years old and most providers have actually deleted that information after some time.
^ This. What is troubling however is not the fact that they have access to such a database in and of itself, it' s that they can access it warrantlessly. No questions asked, no counterpower whatsoever, they just tell you they won' t misuse that power and expect you to take their word on it. Sorry, I don' t sit well with baseless, unconditional trust. Sure, I suppose none of us here has anything to hide, but considering Obama' s administration allergia to any sort of transparency it is indeed troubling : when journalists start becoming targets you should really start wondering if you still live in a democracy. If they don' t misuse their power, then why would they fear transparency ? Can' t have it both ways dude.
There's been some new developments. We now have a name and a face to put with the being responsible for bringing this information to light. Edward Snowden. A man who worked for the CIA, had a house in Hawaii, a girlfriend, he lived the American dream. But one day, he found he could not keep this secret anymore. Because he so loves his country that gives him these opportunities. A country that could very well possibly charge him with treason. He is currently hiding in a hotel room in Singapore. He covers his computer and himself to prevent cameras from seeing his keystrokes. He shoves pillows in front of his door because he fears eavesdropping. He barely leaves the hotel room. His best option is asylum in Iceland. Source
Entries of note from the original article: They say their only task is to collect the data, and that their oversight is adequate. Can we trust them? Well, I'd answer that question with another question: If that's all there is to it, what about the idea of transparency frightens them such that they would persecute a whistleblower to this degree? What do they have to hide? Odds are we're not in the oppressive, thousand-eyed totalitarian state of our nightmares, but gods know the door is open.
Not much to add but "oh wow", it says it all really. Petition to free Snowden of all charges : https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/pardon-edward-snowden/Dp03vGYD
Bump ! I didn' t want to create a new thread just for that, but it looks like there are many big brothers. Okay who' s next ? My bet is on Great Britain.
Coming from Le Monde I' d be surprised to learn they made it all up. Look at what happened with Snowden, maybe it' s best to keep the snitch name hidden. I did notice there was close to no source in that article though. I' m not naive enough to swallow it all hook and sinker, but specifics aside by now I' m not naive enough to think it doesn' t all sound very likely either. I' ll just wait and see what that kick in the antfarm will reveal in the long run.
