back to article NSA: 'Dozens of attacks' prevented by snooping

The National Security Agency has defended its slurping of phone records and other business data on the grounds the information contained has helped it fight terrorism. In a congressional hearing on cybersecurity and government surveillance on Tuesday, NSA Director General Keith Alexander said the NSA's data slurping had let it …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.
  1. JP19

    "NSA's "intent" to get specific figures on the number of attacks prevent out in the next week."

    Because they need a week to make them up.

    1. Don Jefe
      WTF?

      Re: "NSA's "intent" to get specific figures on the number of attacks prevent out in the next week."

      I know right... A system whose sole purpose is to prevent terrorist attacks and they don't know instantly how many attacks it has prevented? Fucking McDonalds knows how many hamburgers they make in a day and these toolbelts don't even know if they are accomplishing their mission of saving the country. National Security Agency my ass.

      1. Eguro
        Meh

        Re: "NSA's "intent" to get specific figures on the number of attacks prevent out in the next week."

        They don't need a week to make up numbers, they need a week to change the definition of a terrorist attack, so that they can actually claim to have prevented any.

        1. Wzrd1 Silver badge

          Re: "NSA's "intent" to get specific figures on the number of attacks prevent out in the next week."

          Bleh, they redefine what a terrorist is daily. No need for a week.

          It's far too well practiced since 9-11.

          Funny thing is, the US performed the same response as it did for Pearl Harbor.

          Attack someone else that didn't attack them. THEN attack the attacker.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: "NSA's "intent" to get specific figures on the number of attacks prevent out in the next week."

            "Funny thing is, the US performed the same response as it did for Pearl Harbor."

            Isn't their a tin-foil hat argument that both events were allowed to happen to justify America's entry into the war?

      2. Wzrd1 Silver badge

        Re: "NSA's "intent" to get specific figures on the number of attacks prevent out in the next week."

        *MY* response to him would've been, "SHOW ME THE AUDIT RECORDS OF DELETION".

        He could take a trillion years and not show them.

      3. bitmap animal
        Stop

        Re: "NSA's "intent" to get specific figures on the number of attacks prevent out in the next week."

        "Fucking McDonalds knows how many hamburgers they make in a day"

        Surely you're not comparing that to the NSA not releasing figures.

        They have to operate covertly without people knowing exactly what they do, who they are and how they operate. If their methods were all public knowledge then those they are trying to stop would know exactly how to circumvent them.

        If a bomber goes on a mission and gets run over by a car, that could be put down to bad luck and they would probably carry on again using similar methods. What if that was an intelligence driven 'hit'? They have stopped an event and have their methods sill in place to continue monitoring.

        Yes it is much better to stop the root cause but that isn't always possible. You need sneaky hard people do do the dirty work against sneaky dangerous people.

        1. Marvin the Martian
          Holmes

          Re: "NSA's "intent" to get specific figures on the number of attacks prevent out in the next week."

          Nice made up narrative. It's about as convincing as holy mass. Feel free to personally donate all your life savings to this new saviour, but the rest of us want some evidence to justify both methods and budgets.

        2. Don Jefe

          @bitmap animal

          I'm saying there is no reason they shouldn't know when asked exactly how many attacks they've stopped. All I can see evidence of are the attacks they failed to stop.

          I understand the need for secrecy, but there are plenty of questions that could be answered without compromising anything.

          1. Tom 13

            Re: @bitmap animal

            Actually there is. One that's not very pleasant, but very real. The information is compartmentalized and for operational purposes, they don't need to know how many they've stopped, only an estimate on how degraded they are keeping the enemy. So even though you know a bunch of attacks have been stopped, you don't have that number at hand. And given the red tape monster, getting the connectors in place to pull those numbers into one location in just one week is moving at a pretty good clip.

            1. Don Jefe
              Facepalm

              Re: @bitmap animal

              The head of any agency should know at all times if his leadership is guiding the agency in a successful manner. He obviously does not have access to even the most basic metrics so he absolutely cannot state that he is succeeding in his mission. He doesn't know! That is a management failure on many levels.

              If nothing else the NSA should put some analytical and reporting upgrades in their next budget request. I thought management dashboards were standard fare a decade ago...

        3. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge

          Re: "NSA's "intent" to get specific figures on the number of attacks prevent out in the next week."

          >If a bomber goes on a mission and gets run over by a car,

          That would explain America's appaling road safety record. If those 30-40,000 deaths were all actually CIA hits on terrorists

        4. Jamie Jones Silver badge
          Joke

          Re: "NSA's "intent" to get specific figures on the number of attacks prevent out in the next week."

          ""Fucking McDonalds knows how many hamburgers they make in a day"

          Surely you're not comparing that to the NSA not releasing figures.

          They have to operate covertly without people knowing exactly what they do, who they are and how they operate. If their methods were all public knowledge then those they are trying to stop would know exactly how to circumvent them."

          Ok... And how about the NSA?

      4. BillG
        Happy

        'Dozens of attacks' prevented by snooping

        NSA: "Hey, would we lie to you?"

    2. 404

      Re: "NSA's "intent" to get specific figures on the number of attacks prevent out in the next week."

      'People Created or Saved' argument... Been there, IRS got the t-shirt.

    3. Wzrd1 Silver badge

      Re: "NSA's "intent" to get specific figures on the number of attacks prevent out in the next week."

      Eh, eh and a half.

      First, I personally know of a half dozen attacks planned.

      Of those, six precisely were apprehended after attempting to purchase their supplies (explosives and other needed things to make the explosives go boom) from FBI informants.

      Strangely enough, there was no NSA involvement until after.

      And yes, I'd know about NSA activity more than FBI activity, I'm retired military.

      I have a few concerns. The General speaking to Congress said he had no idea about how to spy on the White House.

      Let us see, the NSA provides crypto keys to all of the DoD. DISA runs comms for the White House. DISA uses crypto keys provided by the NSA and backed up by the NSA in case it has to be decrypted later.

      WOW! That makes great fertilizer! After a long bit of compost, it's still steaming.

      Add to that the fact that he's both Cyber Command's commander and the NSA director, uh huh.

      His "we stored, but did not look" is meaningless, it's another Winston Televiewer argument.

      Didn't work out well for him in Nineteen Eighty Four.

      Be well and truly ready to become "Airstrip One". :(

      Honestly, considering current case law and what is currently accepted, I'm getting off of this continent.

      After profitably liquidating my assets.

      I'm also a big enough of a prick to register for my military pension and have it automagically transferred through a few hollow trees to me, wherever I end up.

    4. Mark 65

      Re: "NSA's "intent" to get specific figures on the number of attacks prevent out in the next week."

      Are these the same saves we are unable to hear the details of vs the actual attacks we've witnessed? Like, err, the Boston one?

    5. LarsG
      Meh

      Then let me see

      Then LET ME SEE the evidence because I am sure as hell not going to take your word for it.

    6. tmTM

      Re: "NSA's "intent" to get specific figures on the number of attacks prevent out in the next week."

      Well they defiantly helped things in Boston.

      and the data given to GCHQ certainly helped prevent the recent attack on a soldier in London.

    7. James Micallef Silver badge
      Facepalm

      Re: "It's dozens of terrorist events that these have helped prevent,"

      Colour me skeptical.

      Is that like the dozens of WMDs found in Iraq?

  2. Anomalous Cowshed

    NSA

    Isn't it strange how this NSA, which a few years ago was almost unheard of, and which is supposed to be top-secret and virtually non-existent, has become such a hot topic of conversation? Everybody seems to know what they are up to, and discussions are raging across millions of armchairs connected around the world by TV and the Internet, about something which none of us really knows anything about...Now they even have their little PR machine. And this from the organisation which is supposedly the "dark matter" of US intelligence spending, accounting for xxx% of their expenditure...and making the mighty CIA look like a lapdog...oh whatever. It's surreal.

    1. Don Jefe

      Re: NSA

      They have an exit off the Interstate just outside DC marked NSA ONLY and you can see the complex from the highway. I drive by several times a week and laugh at how the super secret guys are out in the open but the FBI and CIA complexes are tucked away in the woods.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: NSA

        The CIA has a clearly marked exit off the George Washington Parkway in Virginia. In fact, I think their sign is bigger than the NSA's.

        1. Don Jefe
          Happy

          Re: NSA

          Yep. The George Bush Center for Intelligence. My wife laughs every time we go by. You can't see the complex from the GW though, just the sign.

          1. 404

            Re: NSA

            What is up with the digital building signs the Feds are using now? Did a double-take when I saw the NSA's, freaking Vegas in DC now?

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: NSA

        That's probably just a dummy building, to absorb the first bomb sent their way. I expect the real offices are well hidden somewhere out West (or North).

    2. Wzrd1 Silver badge

      Re: NSA

      Way, way, way back, when I joined the military, there were still two secret organizations, the NSA and NRO.

      Eventually, both became public, generations later.

      Today, they're commonplace knowledge.

      One ponders what exists that isn't public knowledge today.

      I only know of one that I can divulge, the Fractious Agency Recognizing TartS, which is a central agency in NATO. ;)

      It's a covert organization that supports the morale of the men and a few women.

      Or something. :P:p

  3. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    $80 Billion divided by HOW many attacks prevented? Mmmm!

    Based on comments about two of the major attacks defeated by PRISM, and all the rest of the snooping programs, it looks like old-fashioned feet on the ground (by Britain's MI5 no less!) found the perps, and NSA just did some backup.

    Now maybe NSA can get some better examples, but is suspect that their methodology only works after the perps are already known.

    They certainly didn't find the nutcase who was planning to burn through the cables of the Brooklyn Bridge with a propane torch. In fact it's claims like this, where the perp should have been sectioned, and the informant quized on how much he organized of the "crime" that make you wonder if most of our $80 Billion is spent on a ritual dance with the occasional incitement to felony thrown in.

    1. Wzrd1 Silver badge

      Re: $80 Billion divided by HOW many attacks prevented? Mmmm!

      Under the math, societal acceptance of summary execution would be cheap.

      A return to the days in Texas under Judge Roy Bean.

      Who pocketed every penny of fines on top of ignoring anything even vaguely resembling the Constitution.

    2. Ole Juul

      Re: $80 Billion divided by HOW many attacks prevented? Mmmm!

      "It's dozens of terrorist events that these have helped prevent," Alexander said.

      I wonder what he suffers from. Does he have a diagnosis?

  4. Anonymous Coward
    Big Brother

    A non-defense

    You can justify anything by saying 'it _helps_ fight terrorism'.

    The question is whether this is an effective way of fighting terrorism and whether it is worth the cost.

    1. Wzrd1 Silver badge

      Re: A non-defense

      Indeed!

      Let's try one out for a bit, then another.

      Bombarding Sol to force its shutdown would eliminate terrorism.

      Thermonuclear bombardment of the *entire* planet would eliminate terrorism.

      Think that would fly for even a quarter news cycle?

      Now, ask yourself *why* US media outlets are shutting up after AP had its phone records seized. Then, consider who OWNS the US media. THEN, consider who PAYS FOR CAMPAIGNS in the US.

      The last two elections cost in excess of eight billion dollars. Doing the math shows it didn't come from the citizens, but from corporations who now have equal rights to citizens.

      Next SCOTUS decision is that a corporation has the same vote as the number of employees totally, regardless of nationality or citizenship or something.

      Yes, this US veteran has that dim a view of his government and is planning to liquidate and depart soon.

      To either a nation I can control or more probably, a nation that respects it's Constitution and the rights of the populace.

      I have no desire to reside in a land of cowards.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: A non-defense

        @Wzrd1 - Cowardice is a bit harsh. Afraid ? Sure. Surprisingly so I'd say. Never lived in a culture moe governed by fear. Sad really.

      2. Sir Runcible Spoon

        Re: A non-defense

        "To either a nation I can control or more probably, a nation that respects it's Constitution and the rights of the populace."

        Let me know when you find such a place, I'll meet you there and you can buy me a liquidated beer :)

  5. Dodgy Geezer Silver badge
    Black Helicopters

    Security Service 101. (Pay attention, James...!)

    ...Now maybe NSA can get some better examples, but is suspect that their methodology only works after the perps are already known....

    This is all a giant budget-justifying exercise after the loss of the Russians as major justifiers of funding when the Cold War ended.

    For those of you who seem poorly informed, a typical Security Service MO follows this path...

    1 - pick up someone a little dodgy in a Muslim area by asking the local police for names - perhaps get them picked up for a minor crime.

    2 - 'persuade' them to act as an 'agent'. Forgetting the charge is very helpful here.

    3 - get them to report on anyone they know who is discussing terrorism. This will, of course, pick up all sorts of people, including people that the agent lied about in order to have something to write down.

    4 - bug their phones and watch them. This is where the justification for GCHQ and PRISM comes from. Depending on what people say when they're drunk, you can soon have lots of low-grade evidence that there is a terrorist threat of any level you want.

    5 - If you need an arrest, get your agent to encourage some of the stupidest hot-heads to think that they could be Jihadis. Provide them with some incriminating literature. Suggest that you can find a bomb for them to put under a bridge...

    6 - After delivering a dummy bomb/lots of castor oil seeds/WHY, arrest them in a dawn raid with armed police and full press coverage. Charge them with being a sleeper cell for Al-Queda and have them locked up forever.

    7 - start again by bugging their friend's phones. Some of their friends should be really pissed off, and might well be encouraged to be the next on your list...

    1. Wzrd1 Silver badge

      Re: Security Service 101. (Pay attention, James...!)

      Erm, you obviously didn't pay attention to the timeline involved in the end of the cold war and now.

      I was military during the cold war and through its end long enough to know the difference.

      Can't argue with your point #2, it's well established. Dammit.

      #3 would only reap the ENTIRE PLANET that uses telephones, including the US. Not really worth the effort to dispatch, as it was dead on delivery.

      Can argue that George Orwell made point #4 an essential in his warning that is now an instruction manual.

      For #4, I only recall how the NSA and NRO bragged how they'd be able to monitor every living human in the planet in half a decade. That was fifteen years ago, but only rather recently did OBL manage to get to be found.

      For #5, just look up the court records. It worked by agent provocateur or more commonly and annoyingly, by US citizen seeking specific weapons that an informant tipped off the FBI. Doesn't make *their* point, interestingly enough, but the US populace doesn't pay attention to facts, only opinion voiced in the press that agrees with their superior, erm, party.

      For #6, there are far too many areas that I'd go with that action, others, I'd suggest other, more transparent means. I and my teams *did* work alongside and parallel with SAS and other teams. Still, there needs to be transparent oversight that doesn't divulge classified information. It isn't *that* hard unless one is attempting trial by press!

      For #7, nonsense. Just move toward putting televiewers inside of every party member's home on Airstrip One.

      Or something.

      The *reality* is, DENOUCEMENT is the key. Denounce thy neighbor and get along OK or better.

      Something Stalin and Hitler knew all too well, but the US populace has forgotten.

      1. Dodgy Geezer Silver badge
        Black Helicopters

        Re: Security Service 101. (Pay attention, James...!)

        ...Erm, you obviously didn't pay attention to the timeline involved in the end of the cold war and now. I was military during the cold war and through its end long enough to know the difference...

        Oh, I was paying very close attention to the politics inside the UK security apparatus during the early 90's, because of my job. But I wouldn't exactly have called myself 'military'...

        ...The *reality* is, DENOUCEMENT is the key. Denounce thy neighbor and get along OK or better....

        Reasonably well presented by the BBC's 'A Lesson from History', I think. The lesson is:

        Denounce your neighbour FIRST - before he does it to you....

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Security Service 101. (Pay attention, James...!)

          "Denounce your neighbour FIRST - before he does it to you...."

          How very similar to the State Department's policy of getting the USA's retaliation in first.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Security Service 101. (Pay attention, James...!)

      "For those of you who seem poorly informed, a typical Security Service MO follows this path..."

      Interestingly enough, that's more or less identical to what happened under the Catholic (not just Spanish!) Inquisition. Or, of course, the Protestant dispensations of places like Salem and many others.

      Informers had a financial motive to find disliked, lonely people who seemed a little different - especially if they had some property. They denounced those people to the Inquisition, which arrested them and tortured them until they confessed to anything and everything. Then it only remained to torture them for the names of the next few candidates, before burning them alive. (For the good of their souls, of course). Then the Inquisition split the spoils with the informers; rinse and repeat.

      The most curious part of the whole thing was how little it had to do with religion.

      1. Dodgy Geezer Silver badge
        Black Helicopters

        Re: Security Service 101. (Pay attention, James...!)

        ...Interestingly enough, that's more or less identical to what happened under the Catholic (not just Spanish!) Inquisition. Or, of course, the Protestant dispensations of places like Salem and many others....

        Or Walsingham's fitting up of Catholics under Good Queen Bess in the late 1500s,

        Or the denunciations to the Committee of Public Safety during the French Revolution in the 1790s,

        Or the Okhrana's way of supporting the Czar during the 1800s - who simply morphed into the VCheka in 1917...

        This is hardly news. It's the way humans end up operating if you give them these sorts of tasks and then say that, because of secrecy, you will allow no outside audit of their activities. But that the THREAT has always got to be there, otherwise their funding will be cut...

  6. ThomH

    Then surely the NSA could justify tying everyone up in their homes all day?

    My feeling is that doing so would substantially decrease the crime rate?

    1. Wzrd1 Silver badge

      Re: Then surely the NSA could justify tying everyone up in their homes all day?

      Not here. I've worked with and reported to NSA personnel. I know what and how they do many, many things.

      They're far from the CIA working overseas or even the CIA in the 1960's ignoring their charter.

  7. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Just remember

    Pretty much every 'terrorist' plot 'discovered' by the FBI is setup by the FBI. Strangely almost all the real plots are discovered the old fashioned way - someone notices something strange, the regular police investigate within the parameters of the law, and the plot is foiled. Or, as was the case with 9/11, a member of the public raises very credible suspicions and then the FBI higher ups ignore the intel - both the terrorists training to be pilots having no interest in learning takeoffs and landings, or the famous "Bin Ladin Determined To Strike in US" presidential briefing.

    The successful attacks are almost always characterized by being done by loners (i.e. the Unibomber). When they don't talk there's no metadata to scoop up. Worse, scooping up lots of data gives you false confidence that you'll detect plots so you probably don't bother with the old fashioned field work either.

    1. Wzrd1 Silver badge

      Re: Just remember

      Actually, *every* instance was either that or some moron attempting to light either an explosive sandal or explosive diaper.

      But that is two. Add in three for the Yemen printer bombing attack.

      Then, consider the two initially, then add in well reported cases where idiot was recruited or accepted a suggestion. Idiot then stupidly looked about for boom making things. Idiot eventually found an FBI informant.

      Said idiot then attempts a purchase of said boom making things.

      Said suspect then is arrested.

      From my own count, from one who pays very close attention to the subject, there are far less than suggested by the General.

  8. Thorne

    NSA New Proposals

    If we implant chips into everybody's heads monitoring for illegal thoughts, we can stop even more attacks.

    Safety at the cost of freedom...

    1. Wzrd1 Silver badge

      Re: NSA New Proposals

      Silly talk!

      If we summarily execute everyone upon first evidence of thought, such as attempts to speak, we'd be free from all attacks, if our borders (or is it the American "boarders" or some other illiterate shit?).

      Honestly, after serving nearly 28 years in the military, this shit makes me want to actually pick up my gun.

      Then, put it in my mouth and pull the trigger.

      This is NOT the nation our Constitution says we should be.

      This is Stalin's dream.

      Hence, why I don't use that gun for anything more than target practice and competition.

  9. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Let 'em die

    Authorities should scale back their surveillance activities for a few months and allow some terrorists to kill a bunch of gullible people. Then and probably only then would the general public get a grip on reality.

    1. Wzrd1 Silver badge

      Re: Let 'em die

      The reality being:

      WAR IS PEACE, FREEDOM IS SLAVERY, and IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Let 'em die

        "WAR IS PEACE, FREEDOM IS SLAVERY, and IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH."

        Hmmm, thanks for the reminder. The thing is, when you come to think about it, we have already accomplished the first and last of those three tenets. It's just the second that still needs a little work.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Let 'em die

      "Authorities should scale back their surveillance activities for a few months" - who's to say then won't SAY the are doing that then manufacture some scenario where they can justify being reinstated (and then some)?

      I’m not paranoid I know the pot plant in the corner has a spy cam and is watching me...

    3. Intractable Potsherd

      Re: Let 'em die

      You reeaaalllly have an exaggerated notion of how many people there are that could be successful terrorists. There aren't enough to justify more than 1% of the funding, manpower, or spying levels currently employed. In addition, even a successful terrorist attack couldn't affect enough people to count as significant if the population has a proper backbone and just ignores the attackers.

  10. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Reality for the brainless people

    I'm sick and tired of the paranoia. The corporations that the NSA got the information from already HAD said information, but that didn't bother anyone, did it? No it did not, because it was all owned FOR PROFIT. When the government gets even a part of the SAME information YOU share with the money-men: Ooh, scary!

    Please. Most people have given out 20 times the personal information to the private sector versus what the government has slurped on you...and you didn't care ONE LITTLE SHIATE. The private sector has used that information for years to line their pockets...which then then use to lobby the government to get their way. So when money does something *for* money. it's OK. When government does the same thing, the world is ending! Hide in your caves, you can't let your guberment get any info! Post all this radical snoop activity on your Facebook with your next birthday pic update!

    I live in a world of morons.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Reality for the brainless people

      Aaah, but see the problem is the covert aspect of it.

      Sure Facebook gets tons and tons of personal data from people - and probably more than some of those people would be fine with if they stopped to think about it - but they provide a service in exchange for that information.

      There are also laws in place that dictate what can and cannot be done with your data by a private corporation (granted relative to your location and the location of the corporation that means fuck all), with the NSA there are laws in place, but who enforces that law, who even knows if the laws are being broken?

      Your point is, I think, mistaken. If I pay someone to mow my lawn, then huzzah: he gets money, I get a mowed lawn. If someone takes my money and tells me that he's totally doing something for me to earn it... Well that's when it all gets a bit fishy.

      1. Wzrd1 Silver badge

        Re: Reality for the brainless people

        AC, it's more like, "If I pay someone to mow my lawn, then huzzah: he gets money, I get a mowed lawn.", but he either only or also puts cameras on every damned window, facing in.

        And offers no rights to whatever you and yours does inside of your formerly private home, but has exclusive rights to those activities.

        The truth is always what it's been. The US Constitution is whatever the current government decides it to be, rights also variable, regardless of enumeration.

        Indeed, for much of the existence of the US Constitution, the "Bill of RIghts" was exclusively for the states.

        Apparently, the states only had the right to freedom of religion, press, speech (not the populace) or even later, the right to not be forced to incriminate oneself and more.

        It was literally turned 180 degrees out of phase with the desire of those who signed the Constitution.

        Today, we have a mixed bag in the SCOTUS. Strict Constitutionalists (what it says is what it means, screw linguistic and cultural drift), Progressive types (what is intended and advances as culture, society and even humanity moves foreward) and various change nothing at all types.

        Me? I'm a progressive literalist.

        But then, in my early teens, I lived in Philadelphia, during the bicentennial celebrations. To say that I was steeped in our Constitution is to make an anemic comment.

        I'm also not a conservative in the form of blaming a victim, starving anyone who disagrees with me to death (see McCarthyism) or any other insane thoughts.

        Our Constitution says that church and state are separate, I'm great with that. Hasn't happened yet, but I'd love it to be so.

        I can speak my mind in public, as long as there is no threat of imminent lawless action. I'm cool with that, I don't have any desire to cause a riot.

        I have the right to keep and bear arms. I literally own a dozen firearms, half inherited. Of those, two are notable for historic reasons, one is just accurate. My own firearms are either hunting rifles, a rusty single shot shotgun or precision shooting competition models of both pistol and rifle.

        There is a right to own artillery or machineguns or other absurd things, but I have to prove that I am worthy of trust to possess such insanely harmful weapons.

        I can trivially do so. I just lack the will to do so, as it is a waste of money and time.

        Besides, I had my fill in the military.

        I have the right to refuse to quarter a soldier in my home, both involuntarily and without compensation. Honestly, one could be forced to quarter, if one is compensated. :/

        Operable is:

        The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

        The fourth amendment.

        ALL of the constitution is inviolable or the entire thing falls.

        Since the very same Constitution grants the courts, Congress, the SCOTUS and POTUS and binds the rest of the nation, there shouldn't be an issue.

        Pity that there is.

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Reality for the brainless people

        Difference is give and take... I'm happy to give to charity, not so happy about being mugged...

      3. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Reality for the brainless people

        I don't believe so - you've missed the point.

        The factual point is that everyone is fearful of what the government just might do with that slurped data. That is the true, psychological issue.

        The fact is that the data that the government now has was GIVEN or GRANTED, previously without concern. The vast, vast majority of people wantonly and openly volunteered their data in the completely naive belief that it was a one-sided benefit: they believed it was a "fair trade", they gave their info and got...a mere pittance of a 'service' in exchange.

        The ISSUE is that everyone now is screaming "1984!" at the top of their lungs, all paranoid and fearful of what might become, what might happen now that the government has some information on them.

        But these morons, who either claim to have read 1984 or at least heard of the story...didn't grasp the concepts that George Orwell was trying to communicate.

        His 60-year old story was a warning: a warning of what people, in general, will try to do. Ignorant people applied Orwell's analogy to the term "government" and then completely and utterly FAILED to comprehend that "government" is a construct of people. "Government", therefore, is only the actions of individual people, collected.

        And Orwell's warning is that PEOPLE will always grab for power when the ability presents itself. People will always seek to control a situation and, when presented with a technology, the technology will inevitably deteriorate into a method of power struggle. People will collectivize for gains, but unless thoroughly and highly overseen the collective will seek to control and subjugate individuals. That constant vigilance against mass power is to be the dogma of our existence.

        George Orwell's world of 1984 used technology to infiltrate every aspect of life, every aspect of society. It did so by a constant overwatch of every activity - a collection of every scrap of personal ideas, personal data and personal activities. Big Brother was the most haunting of constructs in Orwell's universe and a warning of what could happen in a world where technology was given free reign.

        So now we have the internet. And people openly, and voluntarily, dumped hundreds to thousands of pieces of personal life data into it and actually expected - to their everloving stupidity - an actual level of "privacy". They read 1984, or at least they knew about all its warnings, and completely ignored it all for the short-sighted gains of a bit of convenience or silly little fun. Orwell's socio-political universe and ever-present telescreens WARNED you of what would happen when you let both technology and politics, and the power that creates them, run together without question...and you all ignored it for your own convenience.

        Your post proves this: you STILL believe that you had a expectation of "privacy" on the internet, all while dealing with private enterprises that take your personal data for the advantage of profit. You DIDN'T LEARN A THING. Ignoring Orwell's writings, you thought that someone collecting information on you wouldn't use that information against you, wouldn't get or allow that information into the hand of someone who could use that information against you. You volunteered the information or allowed it to be collected without questioning the reasons and then foolishly and completely believed that said information would only be used, strictly and completely, to your benefit.

        You (the collective "you", not personal) constructed a mental double-standard: Give the information to those you want, expect the information to stay away from the things you didn't.

        And now, you're pissed. The information you THOUGHT would only serve your own purposes...is possibly being used in another fashion.

        Once you opened Pandora's Box of granting others your personal information, you actually expected it all to behave exactly as you would have hoped. Either that makes you "Silly", "Foolish", "Ignorant"...or just plain "Stupid". Orwell is laughing at all of you right now with "I told you so".

        1. Don Jefe

          Re: Reality for the brainless people

          In your sorely misguided, but epic, comment you failed to note that all the technology in 1984 was forced on the citizens by the government. You were punished for not being visible and doing your exercise in front of the monitor in your living room. I'm quite certain that you either have not read the book yourself or if you did you skimmed it or maybe just saw the movie as you don't seem to grasp the basic details only broad themes.

          At any rate, if you can't see the difference between Facebook and a government you are a sad little fool and I pity you.

        2. Intractable Potsherd

          Re: Reality for the brainless people

          There is a world of difference between data held by a private company and government. A private company cannot: change or interpret laws to make something that was legal yesterday illegal today: ensure that data are used covertly to allow or deny you access to social goods; coerce action or inaction from a person based on threats to freedom or social goods. Governments can do and have done all these things. It makes sense to be afraid of what those in power (who, despite your naive comments, do not reflect the will of the people when the choice is two or three parties indistinguishable from each other) will do to ensure that there will not be a significant change in the way things are done, to their detriment.

          It is a shame you cannot see this, and choose to try to trivialise the magnitude of the wrongness in this situation.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Reality for the brainless people

      "I live in a world of morons".

      Perhaps you are confusing the world with your own immediate vicinity.

  11. Florida1920
    Facepalm

    Great harm to animals

    Think of the donkeys! ObL already knew about PRISM of course. That's why he used a personal courier, not a telephone. Had al-Kouriah not ordered take-out felafel so often they'd never have found him.

    If this dope was so sensitive, how was a tech in Hawaii able to access it? Need to know my Minox. Heads should roll at NSA, but not starting with Snowden's. Good grief, my gossiping great aunt is better at keeping secrets.

    1. Intractable Potsherd

      Re: Great harm to animals

      There is some truth in what you say - the code-breakers at Bletchley Park kept their secrets until well into the 1970s. What chance of that happening now?

  12. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge

    My dog prevented hundreds of attacks

    Although none of the operations led to any arrests, drones attacks or anything that could be mistaken for evidence - rest assured that in his own top secret and unidentifiable way, spot prevented 100s of terrorist incidents

    1. Katie Saucey
      Happy

      Re: My dog prevented hundreds of attacks

      That's reassuring. I'm quite sure my dog is directly responsible for most low level terror attacks around my house, my garbage, sofa, wood railing, anything stuffed etc. She's never caught in the act, maybe the NSA can help with the surveillance...

  13. btrower

    Sure, we all *love* the PATRIOT Act.

    Not.

    re: "referring on multiple occasions to the unanimous support that the Patriot Act had received in the early 2000s"

    Yeah, right. The PATRIOT act is an insulting attack on the Republic. The fact that these weasels are still frantically spinning this shows how bold they have become.

    There is nothing even the tiniest bit complicated about the fundamental law of the land as embodied in the United States Constitution and they are well beyond any sane interpretation of it.

    It defies the imagination that anybody in the know could seriously think the PATRIOT act does not conflict with the Constitution. Even courts already stacked by an over-reaching federal government have ruled that it contains provisions that are unconstitutional.

    How does legislation so fundamentally at odds with the spirit and even the letter of the basic law of the land even get introduced, let alone passed?

    Is it too much to ask that legislators voting on this are conversant with legislation they are passing? How about at least requiring them to have some familiarity with the Constitution they have sworn an oath to protect?

    They should be seriously considering allowing recall elections and term limits. That would at least slow down this rush to the bottom.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Sure, we all *love* the PATRIOT Act.

      That the PATRIOT Act was passed into law by Congress, when Congresspeople had had no time to read even part of it, shows that the vaunted "separation of powers" and "checks and balances" are no longer in operation. How can Congress act as a check on the Executive when it passes its laws without even a cursory glance at their contents? That isn't a legislature, that is a giant rubber stamp.

      Since the Supreme Court is appointed by the President, with the approval of Congress (which always does what the President tells it to) the USA is now just as much of a dictatorship as Mao's China or Saddam's Iraq - and probably a little worse than Putin's Russia. The only people who matter are the President and a handful of his advisors. All the other branches of government are just window dressing. Yet the government and media (supported by the education system) do such a marvellous job of keeping up appearances that most Americans imagine they still live in a democracy - or at least a republic. After all, the USA is the home and global headquarters of the PR and marketing industries. Even Goebbels acknowledged his debt to Madison Avenue.

  14. Dazed and Confused

    If you've nothing to hide

    Remember:

    If you've nothing to hide

    You've nothing to fear

    So install a web camera in your bedroom and let the world see everything you're doing.

    Will the politicos mandate this?

    Will they be the first to install a web camera in their bedrooms?

    To show us that there is no need for any privacy?

  15. Eddy Ito
    Big Brother

    Déjà vu

    "This rock program keeps tigers terrorists away."

    "How does it work?"

    Can't tell you, top secret. It's a matter of national security but I don't see any tigers around, do you?

    1. Uncle Slacky Silver badge
      Thumb Up

      Re: Déjà vu

      NSA, I'll buy that rock!

  16. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    "NSA: "Dozens of attacks" prevented by our snooping"

    "He would say that wouldn't he...." (Profumo affair)

    Fine, Show us your proof I say....

    1. Will Godfrey Silver badge
      Thumb Up

      Re: "NSA: "Dozens of attacks" prevented by our snooping"

      Indeed so, and I'd have far more trust in Christine Keeler than in this muppet.

  17. Potemkine Silver badge

    For the french-speaking audience...

    .. I would suggest to listen to Lofofora's song "Mondiale Paranoia" (Worldwide Paranoia), it fits quite good with today's situation.

    For the others, here's a translation (sort of) by Google: http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=fr&sl=fr&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.parolesmania.com%2Fparoles_lofofora_28921%2Fparoles_mondiale_paranoia_1070779.html

  18. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    the drones do their jobs

    most of the time too. And the oh, well, collateral damage, is a sad fact of life (and death, for those unfortunate enough to have been born and raised and walked next to a "mark".

  19. Patrick O'Reilly
    FAIL

    Save Marilyn Monroe

    Do they mean that time they prevent two British hipsters digging up Marilyn Monroe?

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2093796/Emily-Bunting-Leigh-Van-Bryan-UK-tourists-arrested-destroy-America-Twitter-jokes.html

  20. This post has been deleted by its author

  21. This post has been deleted by its author

  22. Aldous
    Facepalm

    These the attacks started by the FBI?

    Where they get their CI's/undercovers to basically go into mosques and go "hey guize let's go jihad!" grab a couple of the dumbest ignorant idiots, form a bomb plot and then arrest everyone except the ring leader (who turns out to be an undercover). Remember it is not entrapment if its part of TWAT.

  23. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Yeah, right

    Well, they would say that, wouldn't they?

    Publish the evidence, please. Oh no you can't - it's secret. Why is it secret? Because of all the horrid terrorists who are just waiting to get hold of secret government information and use it to destroy us all. What terrorists are those, and what is the evidence that they exist? Oh, you can't tell us because that's secret.

    Sounds like a great way of running a "democratic" government without any interference from those pesky people.

  24. 080
    Linux

    In "The thin blue line" Detective Inspector Grimm said it was a simple matter to prevent all crime, just lock everyone up until they can prove that they are innocent.

  25. Old BRAT
    Holmes

    Bul**hit issue

    I believe the NSA wiretap issue is a red herring being pushed by the Lame Stream Media to deflect attention away from the IRS and Benghazi scandals, to protect their Anointed One. They have chosen to highlight the NSA scandal because the Administration will eventually point out that surveillance of citizens has existed as long as there have been governments,. the only difference is the technology. Using the IRS as a vindictive political tool was rejected even by Nixon and abandoning an embassy to terrorists hasn't occurred since Carter, the former WPE. The LSM is trying to depict these scandals as "old news" and "nothing to see here, folks" to protect the new Worst President Ever.

    1. Florida1920
      Devil

      Re: Bul**hit issue

      "I believe the NSA wiretap issue is a red herring being pushed by the Lame Stream Media to deflect attention away from the IRS and Benghazi scandals, to protect their Anointed One."

      Sarah Palin reading (and commenting on) El Reg? YOU BETCHA!

  26. Handler
    Big Brother

    "There is no doubt in my mind that we will lose capabilities as a result of this [disclosure]"

    If there are terrorists out there using Verizon, AT&T, Sprint, T-Mobile or any other US-based mobile carrier, they should be caught and tried for stupidity. Wake up, folks! Real terrorists DO NOT USE mobile carriers for their nefarious deed planning. They use secure communications - encrypted sat phones, couriers, encrypted e-mail, postal services and other means. You cannot lose a capability you did not have in the first place.

    1. Don Jefe

      You are giving terrorists too much credit. Box cutters, household cooking implements,and cars or vests filled with construction explosives or fertilizer is how they operate. It's buying into propaganda to believe they are operating with the same level of sophistication as a state actor. They're the lowest level of sacrificial political actor operating out of basements and shitty apartments.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Sure. Some are so bright they don't fill out their online car insurance properly, come up as 'vehicle not insured' during a routine police stop and get nailed for a boot full of weapons. Encrypted satellite phones aren't a defence against complete stupidity, and judging by the last dozen or so cases through the UK courts, our 'home grown' jihadis would have Abu Nidal weeping with embarrassment at clownery dense enough to make "Four Lions" look more like a rather sympathetic documentary than a spoof.

      No doubt there are smart people out there looking to do bad things, but Islamism's desire to roll human understanding back several centuries means a lot of the foot soldiers are barely bright enough to facilitate a decent brawl let alone pose an existential threat. I'd certainly prefer my chances with them than with a government willingly handed all the necessaries to create a police state, and the only thing preventing them from doing so being a thoroughly British sense of fair play.

  27. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    can I sue NSA

    when someone hacks my credit card info and they didn't prevent unauthorized use? After all they had all the information but did not act = cooperated with thieves. If I'm being spied on I'd like to feel safe (that's the goal, right?) and some ROI (they leach off taxes we pay) would be nice as well.

    I guess this would be too much for our federal watchers - they only go after those whom they don't like (at a time).

  28. WatAWorld
    WTF?

    US courts rule companies have to hand over data on foreigners (us) even if no warrant

    Note: The way I read this, if the account holder is not a US resident no search warrant is required.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/14/technology/secret-court-ruling-put-tech-companies-in-data-bind.html?hpw

    Secret Court Ruling Put Tech Companies in Data Bind

    By CLAIRE CAIN MILLER

    Published: June 13, 2013

    "... In a secret court in Washington, Yahoo’s top lawyers made their case. The government had sought help in spying on certain foreign users, without a warrant, and Yahoo had refused, saying the broad requests were unconstitutional.

    The judges disagreed. That left Yahoo two choices: Hand over the data or break the law.

    So Yahoo became part of the National Security Agency’s secret Internet surveillance program, Prism, according to leaked N.S.A. documents, as did seven other Internet companies. ..."

  29. ShortLegs

    2000 terrorists plots foiled in Britain

    Probably very similar to a statistic released circa 2006 in the UK, when the Govt announced that the Police, across the country, had foiled and/or made arrests in some 2000+ terrorist plots.

    What the news services didn't do was dig down into the data. A (single) terrorist-related detection was headline news back then, just after 9/11 and July 05. No one asked the obvious question "why have we not heard of these arrests/plots", let alone "please provide us with more detail".

    Had they, they might have found that the reality was that the Police had made 2000+ arrests using the powers of newly enacted anti-terror laws, and had arrested people for sending the children to an out-of-catchment area school, holding a protest on a dis-used runway, looking in the wrong direction (I kid you not), taking a picture of a police officer, or even just taking a picture of a public building.

    The Law of Unintended Consequences. Wouldn't surprise me if the NSA is categorising any conversation or on-line posting that disparages OBL, the USA, the NRA etc, as a 'terrorist".

  30. Henry Wertz 1 Gold badge

    Ahh, the "technically not lying" lie

    "Though NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden alleged he could wiretap Obama from his desk, Alexander said he knew of "no way to do that" when probed by congress."

    Ahh the "technically not lying" lie. If he has not been specificaly shown how to use wiretap equipment, he "knows of no way to do that". That's not the same as saying he knows the NSA has the capbility or not or any other meaningful statement, while being phrased close enough to being a meaningfuls tatement to trick most people. (Of course, those people probably don't believe it either way.)

This topic is closed for new posts.

Other stories you might like