Nobody Is Listening To Your Phone Calls
Rockadelic
Out Digging 13,993 Posts
Or reading youir emails
Rockadelic
Out Digging 13,993 Posts
Comments
^^Been saying this for years^^
You realize that the metadata may be even more dangerous than all-out tapping of a phone? Example. Say you know someone who knows someone bad (or possibly an annoying protestor), and you talk to them on the phone. All the government can do is look at your records, and without context judge your association to them. Do you think they'll say "Oh, I'm sure he's just a good old chap"? Really? Its not just about catching the bad-guy anymore, its about the "social-network" of the bad-guy guy which means everyone related (either through social media, phone calls, e-mail, etc...) to that person as well.
In addition, we aren't too far from audio/video bugs all over our house or even follow you around everywhere you go. Most people have such weak passwords and our devices have such flimsy security. It is much easier than people realize to hack into someones phone or computer, and even while its apparently(to the user) turned off, use it as a listening(or watching) device. That likely requires a warrant however.
What doesn't require a warrant, among many other things, are your texts and the GPS data on your phone, which is pretty creepy too (see below). To me the difference between bugging ones house and this is minimal. This is new, more convenient way bugging of your house.
http://www.propublica.org/special/no-warrant-no-problem-how-the-government-can-still-get-your-digital-data
The phone thing seems a little out there, but as pointed out by William Saletan on Slate today, this was run through both houses of congress. Any senator claiming outrage is full of shit.
Actually, in the scenario you describe, it seems like the metadata would do more to exonerate you than implicate you.
How so? Any connection would just cause them to look deeper no? The problem is that it neither exonerates nor implicates, it just puts you into their data mining algorithms.
No. That's not how metadata is interpreted, at least not by any explanation I've read. If this was the way it worked they would need a team of millions to "look deeper" into all of the possible connections. The fact that you're only talking to one 'bad' person and not a network of them indicates that you are an outlier and not in on their nefarious plot and would suggest that you aren't worth following up on.
The FISA (Secret Court) has been around for years.
FISA's powers and scope were greatly expanded by the Patriot Act.
Libertarians have been complaining about the possibility/probability of what has just been confirmed.
Oregon Senator Ron Wyden has been fighting against this for years.
That so many people care so little for their 4th amendment rights depresses me.
That so many people see nothing wrong with a secret court depresses me.
What have you read? I haven't heard any details of their search algorithms being leaked. While what you describe is possible, that assumes there is a "network" of people participating in everything they look for. So as soon as you get a lone wolf scenario (or in the case of Boston, just two brothers) the whole system would break down. Which, is maybe why they didn't catch those guys beforehand. In addition testing for the social-networks alone likely wouldn't be the only thing they look at cause one data-point wouldn't have a strong enough correlation(leading to many false positives and negatives).
Any data scientist worth their salt would use a multivariant linear regression to pare down the vast social network I described (this is a process whereby several variables are tested in unison to calculate more realistic statistically correlations). But, and this is what I was trying to say, this would require more data points (e.g. text messages, location data, social media data etc...). Thus whether they start with phone records or your google searches, as the algorithm gets deeper more data is needed to properly exclude/include people. Thus even the process of exclusion would result in more violations of ones privacy.
I'm just speaking from my own experience as to how data analysis is done. The scenario I described wouldn't require millions of people, it just requires maybe 5 programmers and 5 statisticians and a large, continuously updated database (which is clearly already in place).
I thought the way cells work is that a small group (a cell) communicates with only one other member of the group.
Only one person in the cell knows who the higher up person is.
Only one person in the cell knows one person in another cell they are working with.
It was my understanding that the purpose of a cell was to limit communication to protect the organization.
OK found a wiki page. Far more complex than what I said. But the point is, in a cell communication is limited.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clandestine_cell_system#Classic_models_for_cell_system_operations
If what they were looking for was who is talking to bad guys, then all they would need is to subpoena the records of the bad guys.
you can't really have a democracy if the government treats all its citizens as enemies, but maybe I'm alone in thinking this.
And how much follow up are these people going to do? Do they go to court to get subpoenas? Do they do fieldwork/surveillance?
Real follow up requires real man power, there's no way a few computer jockeys are doing meaningful follow up.
I'm not going to pretend to be an expert on algorithms etc, but the scenario you describe is far more likely to be the profile of an extraneous person than somebody relevant, and therefore is not likely to result in scrutiny. If it did, then millions of people would be getting scrutinized, and I really don't think that's happening for resource reasons alone.
There are obviously better, less intrusive ways to do this. The thing that bothers me most is the belligerence of it all.
To extrapolate further: Even if their algorithms were 99% sensitive (meaning 99/100 bad guys ID'd) and 99% specific (meaning 99/100 good guys ID'd properly; and this accuracy is almost impossible to achieve btw) because the prevalence of would be terrorists (lets say 1/1million) is so low the positive predictive value of the test would be about 1/100,000. This means for every terrorist caught (a true positive) there are 100,000 innocent people implicated (false positives). Meaning out of 400,000,000 people in America whose phone records are being looked at there would be 4 million innocent people implicated, and 4 terrorists still on the loose.
This is hypothetical and I am coming at this from a healthcare/epidemiology background. To clarify where I am coming from with all this, I did research on building a decision analysis model for cancer treatment. In addition, through this work I made friends with a programmer who was trying to create software to catch hackers through analyzing peoples social networks and behavior in medical records software. I read a lot about building models/screening tests while doing research and how a social network can be used in user profiling from my programmer friend.
Edit: This may not be applicable to the system in place, and assumes that everyone is either "ruled out" or "ruled in" at some point.
We are not alone, just in the minority.
Too many people think that if the secret proceedings of the government cross some line they can't articulate, they will magically know and be able to make it stop.
You're describing a completely different pattern than the one being discussed.
More people die on the streets of Chicago most weekends than were killed by terrorists in 2013. Fix that first, and leave my rights alone till then.
And fixing that will of course not involve any rights violations at all.
b/w
It's hard to imagine a more meaningless comparison than that one.
Now, now. I'm sure you have a better imagination better than that.
Nah, that's about it.
In addition the situation I described is likely different from reality, but keep in mind my hypothetical "terrorist detector is probably more accurate than anything out there. Proof from the Washington Post re PRISM program: http://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/us-intelligence-mining-data-from-nine-us-internet-companies-in-broad-secret-program/2013/06/06/3a0c0da8-cebf-11e2-8845-d970ccb04497_story_2.html
"Analysts who use the system from a Web portal at Fort Meade, Md., key in ???selectors,??? or search terms, that are designed to produce at least 51 percent confidence in a target???s ???foreignness.??? That is not a very stringent test. Training materials obtained by The Post instruct new analysts to make quarterly reports of any accidental collection of U.S. content, but add that 'it???s nothing to worry about.' "
And this is just detecting whether someone is foreign or not, regardless of their intent.
Concerning your criticism that I only consider attacks on the US, Verizon is an US company only serving the US. What would a domestic spying program have anything to do with foreign terrorist attacks?
b/w
Please stop talking about crayons, this isn't an art class.
Edit: Thyme, I just saw your critique of the WP article. The guardian was actually the one who leaked it, and just because the companies deny it (I mean if you were caught up in this mess, who wouldn't?) doesn't mean its false. Whistle blowers have been saying this for years. Now we are just seeing the hard proof.
i'm with frank and rockadelic on this!!
in fact the government never makes mistakes,never ever misuses information or has to admit fault because they are the good guys and they are always right!!
heck i'm totally with you guys!
it's just swell and fine if the government wants to do anything they want with my emails,cell phone,landlines,faxes,im's,medical records etc,because it keeps me very very safe from the bad evil doers that want to harm me and all of my friends!
how fucking brainwashed are you?
bahhh goes the sheeple.
ask this guy how well the current war on terror and it's maniacal computerized deathfucktorture machine works.
he's a lucky cunt, after all was said and done they didn't kill him like the pigs do daily under the auspices of the war on drugs.
pffft
not enough truth or reality for you?
here it is in action,faulty information in the "war on drugs"
think it can't happen to you?
here is a map depicting all of the murders the pigs have committed across the US using no knock warrants.
many of which were using faulty "information"from police "informers" in the war on drugs.
I could keep going but why bother?
We are all safe and sound with our fancy lil record collections in our nice lil homes with our nice law abiding families not committing crimes,paying taxes to perpetrate these awesome acts of bravery and courage in the name of law enforcement,the war on drugs and terror !
http://www.cato.org/raidmap
I"m not so sure the 4A is implicated here: SMITH v. MARYLAND, 442 U.S. 735 (1979)
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=CASE&court=US&vol=442&page=735
"The telephone company, at police request, installed at its central offices a pen register to record the numbers dialed from the telephone at petitioner's home. Prior to his robbery trial, petitioner moved to suppress "all fruits derived from" the pen register. The Maryland trial court denied this motion, holding that the warrantless installation of the pen register did not violate the Fourth Amendment. Petitioner was convicted, and the Maryland Court of Appeals affirmed.
Held:
The installation and use of the pen register was not a "search" within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment, and hence no warrant was required. Pp. 739-746."
Curious as to how you know this - mole in the NSA?
http://www.livescience.com/37104-teen-builds-nuclear-reactor-dq.html
Farnsworth is one of only 15 high-school students to ever achieve nuclear fusion, and the first person to do so in the state of Wyoming. "He made it using parts he ordered online, traded with other fusioneers and created himself," the Star-Tribune reported.
Thyme: You asked where 4 million wrongfully suspected people could be, I gave you the honest answer. In response you call me soft, why the name calling? Look at Kala's post. That is what happens when these small mistakes escalate.
Its not about how hard you or are how much plight the government puts you through, its about how abuse of power stifles democracy. Peaceful protestors are regularly monitored and targeted illegally. Take the story of an acquaintance of mine from college who was politically active. He was arrested and beaten(on two separate occasions) for his protesting activities. See video here of his personalized beating by NYPD (note that this it is dated 2 years before occupy wall street):
He tried to sue for the VIDEOTAPED incident ... and lost. That was the first time. The second time, fortunately he won the case cause it was clear he was arrested for his political views. The story was, that while celebrating the night Obama got elected(ironic) in Tompkins square(with a thousand other people), cop asked him to take a bandana off his face which he didn't (google search New York Anti-Mask Law), then was pushed off a bike, beaten, and arrested. The cop then said it wouldn't have happened if he voted for McCain. Dude won $20,000 and donated it to a bail/legal fund for kids like him (which I have incredible respect for).
Either way, is a 50/50 chance really what you want for your wrongful punishment? Or are you just satisfied with being able to tell chicks how tough you were.
I enjoy hearing your perspectives, but I'm done with you non-Orwell reading clowns for the night.