NSA installed '50,000 malware sleeper cells' in world computer networks America's NSA had established an army of "sleeper cells" – malware-infected, remote-controllable computers – on 50,000 networks by the middle of 2012. That's according to the latest leaks from whistleblower Edward Snowden. Dutch newspaper NRC Handelsblad reports that the elite NSA TAO (Tailored Access Operations) hacking squad …
So do they have a court-issued warrant for every machine they've infected or have they simply got a "You can't touch this" card which means they're immune from prosecution, given that this is exactly the kind of thing they are supposed to exist to stamp out? And given that the US is so quick to insist on extradition for anyone it deems is doing this to computers in their own country, shouldn't the UK etc (which has extradition treaties in place) insist that the people running this program be extradited to stand trial in affected countries?
(I know they won't but seriously, a 50,000 strong botnet is well past "passive observance of tagets", it's only real use is for cyber-esionage and cyber-terrorism (DDOS attacks etc))
What's the point of being a super-power if we can't tell the rest of the world where to get off?
Do as we say, and pay no attention to what we do. We're the super-good guys, and most of you ain't!
Just accept that fact that you all need constant watching!
See how easy that is?
(Be thankful we've got no camera in your ensuite ... yet.)
NSA=no secrets, arseholes!
"did the UK government know?... If they didn't know, then why not?"
If they did know, then of course, they didn't know because they didn't want to admit knowing. Either that, or they would never admit to not knowing because it could imply that they were claiming not to know when they knew and they knew that admitting that they knew was worse than pretending they didn't know what they patently knew (I think).
Vive la révolution!
You see, if they'd used their powers to *take down* the botnet then the public wouldn't have nearly as much of a problem with all this surveillance stuff...if it's used for good. But these cunts always choose the Dark Side. That's why we have a problem with our privacy being continually dry arse-fucked.
but have you been paying attention lately? There is no justification. They don't need one. They established the all-encompassing "war on stuff" and that's it. Regarding the gunning down of unarmed villagers – well yes, nicely put. Thanks to Manning we do know that such options are very much on the table. http://www.collateralmurder.com/ So there should be no surprise here either.
Ethical justification, you almost got me there ;)
@Old Handle:
Re: "equivalent of gunning down a bunch of unarmed villagers"
It is; and just as illegal acts carried out under the Nazis in WWII were not subject to statutes of limitations or justification because it was nominally 'legal' in their jurisdiction, this is not either. If/when sanity returns to the government, the perpetrators should be rounded up, tried and jailed.
The NSA have demonstrated beyond any shadow of a doubt that they are incapable of safeguarding the national trust - not to mention international good will. They should be disbanded forthwith. We did without them before. Accountability is a tenet of democratic government, and they spit on the idea.
The Constitution is no match for nosy human nature, so surveillance will always increase at the rate of the technology to do so, regardless of the threat.
Notice that the only people upset are those outside the loop, including Congressional intelligence committees, but were you or I or Congressional oversight committees in charge, the state of affairs would not likely be so very different.
Re:"were you or I or Congressional oversight committees in charge, the state of affairs would not likely be so very different."
Speak for yourself. My moral compass is still operational. Even if it were shown that the world was so very dark beyond our borders that the potential to examine all communications was necessary, I would never, not ever, place the power to do so into a single set of hands. Individual persons or entities cannot be trusted with that kind of power over others.
To the extent that reasonable people have seen what information the government has classified, they have reported that classification serves to protect the classifiers, not the nation they claim to serve. Something similar is almost certainly true of the the surveillance going on. It serves to extend the power of the people doing the snooping. Sometimes they might use that power for good, but the potential for evil outweighs any benefit.
I am well aware that there are very bad things going on in the world, that there are truly evil people out there and that sometimes good men must do very unpleasant things. However, it stretches the imagination that we have to somehow dismantle all domestic rights to maintain ... domestic rights.
The NSA doesn't exist to "safeguard" anything. They aren't a police force, they aren't in the business of making sure American technical assets are protected. They are in the business of gathering and analyzing every single bit of intel they can.
That said, I vote that we add a new amendment to the US constitution. It should state:
"Federal, state and local governments and all representatives must abide by the same laws as US citizens. Any individual failing to abide by such laws are subject to the normal criminal and civil penalties in addition to 10 years in a federal penitentiary without eligibility for parole"
That would stop this bullshit.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
