Re: [liberationtech] Boundless Informant: the NSA's secret tool to track global surveillance data

[Jacob Appelbaum]

Rich Kulawiec:
> On Sun, Jun 09, 2013 at 10:11:08AM -0400, Nadim Kobeissi wrote:
>> On 2013-06-09, at 10:08 AM, Rich Kulawiec  wrote:
>>> Second: stupidity, in all forms, fully deserves to be slapped down --
>>
>> This is where I stop reading.
> 
> I have to admit, even though I've read this half a dozen times,
> I don't get it.  I tried coffee.  Nope.  I tried scotch.  Nope.
> I tried staring at the clouds.  Nope.
> 
> So let me try explaining my take on it.

Lets reword it - rather than stupidity - lets rephrase it 'illiteracy' -
and rather than slapped down, lets be more direct: we should work
tirelessly to raise consciousness about this illiteracy, to improve
literacy for every person on the planet.

> 
> We're not playing around here.  There are people out there reading
> this list and trying to figure out how to use technology to fight
> human rights abuses, stop wars, reveal corruption, etc.  And they're
> opposed, in many cases, by very smart very nasty very ruthless people
> who will not hesitate to threaten, kidnap, torture and kill anyone
> they perceive as a credible threat.
> 

I met a woman today in Tunis who told me that this is her concern - that
she will be kidnapped and killed as a result of surveillance. She asked
me to evaluate her current work flow and when I did so, I showed her
what I could capture, what others can likely capture and what could be
done with the data. She nearly started to cry while I dryly explained
the vulnerabilities in using a network under heavy surveillance, about
the privacy concerns presented by GSM/UTMS and about the kind of malware
specifically known to be deployed against her friends.

"What do we do?"

People understand the stakes - we can also appraoch this in a way that
is more humble. It is hard at times because many of us, myself included,
simply screw this humility up. We should strive to have humility and to
improve things for those who are open to it.

There is a flip side - there are people, people on this list even, where
they refuse to acknowledge reality. Those people fought obvious
realities about Skype, about Google, about even Twitter - each company
has different issues, obviously. However, none of them are actually
secure in a meaningful sense.

> The advice we hand out here, the technology we create, may be the
> difference in keeping the former group safe from the latter.
> 

I agree. This is not to be taken lightly. At the same time - we must not
be so angry, we must not be so loud and rude, we must try to welcome the
people who are just now realizing many of us were right for a decade.
For a decade and for some, two decades many of us looked like crazy
people. We no longer look like crazy people. Now, we must work very
hard, very smartly to not screw this up - people care and people want to
make changes. Now is our time to shine - now is our time to really help,
to really help bring policy and technology in line - we should not screw
up this opportunity.

> So if one of us makes a mistake, then we all need to know.  If I recommend
> bad crypto because I don't know any better, *someone* had better smack
> the crap out of me as quickly as possible before someone else makes the
> mistake of listening to me.  I'll get over the momentary embarrassment:
> heck, I make enough mistakes in an average day that I've gotten pretty
> used to it.  I won't get over knowing that my error cost someone else dearly.
> 

You will, others won't. This is fragile. I understand that someone
giving bad advice should be clearly and firmly told the facts that are
known, or the risks of being dead wrong. It can be done in a way that
won't drive people away.

> We owe that to all the people who are in the field trying to make this
> world a better place.  We need to be as "right" as we can be, with our
> limited knowledge and human propensity for mistakes.  And we need to not
> worry about *who's* right or *how* they're right, because once we've
> rid the world of poverty and starvation and disease and bigotry and
> prejudice and violence and ignorance and superstition and repression,
> then we'll have plenty of time to sit around and philosophically
> debate the fine points of who should get which credit for what part of
> the glorious and peaceful new reality.
> 
> Also there will be scotch.  Really, really good scotch. ;-)
> 
> So yes, stupidity SHOULD be slapped down.  So should ignorance,
> superstition, prejudice, bigotry, and all of the other negative things
> that -- during all of recorded human history and likely before --
> have been the tools of tyrants and dictators.  Empires come and go,
> political structures become fashionable and then fade away, the names
> and places change constantly...but *these* things are the constant
> enemy.  If we are to overcome them in those we oppose -- we must
> first overcome them in ourselves.

It should be done with kindness and compassion whenever possible. It is
almost always possible, it is however sometimes very di

Re: [liberationtech] Boundless Informant: the NSA's secret tool to track global surveillance data

[Brian Conley]

Hold on...
On Jun 11, 2013 12:27 AM, "Yosem Companys"  wrote:
>
 The distinction between direct or indirect access is semantic, not
substantive, and likely irrelevant to most Americans. 

And then...
>
> As I said, a recent NY Times article spoke specifically of the embedding
of NSA employees at US tech firms via firms' corporate legal departments,
and we know how it happened at AT&T, with the employee getting cart blanche
to do whatever he wanted at the firm and take as much data as he wanted
with no questions asked.

 we know how it happened at AT&T, with the employee getting
cart blanche to do whatever he wanted


That's not substantively different from a FISC finding being issued in each
case? *that * is EXACTLY the difference between direct and indirect and it
IS substantive.

This AT&T issue involved an individual being trusted solely to "do the
right thing." Whether we like it or not, an FISC ruling is a big
difference, even if is not public, for the individual being monitored by a
stalker ex, for example.

Indirect access doesn't make it more acceptable, but direct could and
should make it LESS.

> On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 3:09 PM, Jacob Appelbaum 
wrote:
>>
>> x z:
>> > @Jacob, I agree with your points regarding American exceptionalism.
>> > @Eugen, to prepare for the worst scenario is one thing, to advocate
some
>> > shady rumor as fact is another.
>> > @Rich, those are good movie scripts :-). But it does not work for 9
firms,
>> > and hundreds of execs all with diverse values and objectives.
>> > @Nadim, when you say "we all always 'knew' this was happening", I don't
>> > know what "this" refers to. Is it NSA surveillance, or is it the
"direct
>> > access" bit?
>> >
>> > To me, the crucial point is the "*direct access*", and also Guardian's
>> > claim of these firms "willingly participating" in PRISM. I argued that
>> > "direct access" is untrue in my previous email, but none of your
replies
>> > (except Rich's) are relevant to my arguments.
>>
>> What would you call a FISA API for government agents to query a system
>> and return data on a target? Would you call that direct access or an
>> indirect access? If Google runs the FISA API server, does that make it
>> more or less direct than if the FISA API server is a blackbox run by the
>> NSA?
>>
>> >
>> > The "direct access" bit is what made this story sensational. Without
this
>> > bit, the story would be much less juicy but more true. In the long run,
>> > truth gives more power than lies. Washington Post has backed down to
>> > reality, for which I applaud their judgment. Guardian has not, and
keeps on
>> > defending their misinformation and bad reporting, for which I resent
deeply.
>> >
>>
>> You don't know the truth and you seem to think you do. The story that is
>> important is that Google makes one claim, while the NSA slide makes
>> another. Note that the law doesn't allow Google to even tell the press
>> the whole truth.
>>
>> > If Snowden and Greenwald do not mislead the world on 'direct access"
and
>> > just report it rationally, I'd applaud their courage. Now I think
Snowden
>> > is not more than a self-aggrandizing douche.
>> >
>>
>> I'm sorry, did you watch his video interview? On what grounds to you
>> call him a self-aggrandizing douche exactly?
>>
>> > I hope internet freedom can advance with accurate awareness, not by
public
>> > paranoia.
>>
>> You take issue with a very weird semantic bit of the larger story. How
>> does such semantic nitpicking, where you don't actually even know the
>> facts behind your speculations, help advance any cause, anywhere?
>>
>> All the best,
>> Jacob
>> --
>> Too many emails? Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password by
emailing moderator at compa...@stanford.edu or changing your settings at
https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech
>
>
>
> --
> Too many emails? Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password by
emailing moderator at compa...@stanford.edu or changing your settings at
https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech
--
Too many emails? Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password by emailing 
moderator at compa...@stanford.edu or changing your settings at 
https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech

Re: [liberationtech] Boundless Informant: the NSA's secret tool to track global surveillance data

[Rich Kulawiec]

On Sun, Jun 09, 2013 at 10:11:08AM -0400, Nadim Kobeissi wrote:
> On 2013-06-09, at 10:08 AM, Rich Kulawiec  wrote:
> > Second: stupidity, in all forms, fully deserves to be slapped down --
> 
> This is where I stop reading.

I have to admit, even though I've read this half a dozen times,
I don't get it.  I tried coffee.  Nope.  I tried scotch.  Nope.
I tried staring at the clouds.  Nope.

So let me try explaining my take on it.

We're not playing around here.  There are people out there reading
this list and trying to figure out how to use technology to fight
human rights abuses, stop wars, reveal corruption, etc.  And they're
opposed, in many cases, by very smart very nasty very ruthless people
who will not hesitate to threaten, kidnap, torture and kill anyone
they perceive as a credible threat.

The advice we hand out here, the technology we create, may be the
difference in keeping the former group safe from the latter.

So if one of us makes a mistake, then we all need to know.  If I recommend
bad crypto because I don't know any better, *someone* had better smack
the crap out of me as quickly as possible before someone else makes the
mistake of listening to me.  I'll get over the momentary embarrassment:
heck, I make enough mistakes in an average day that I've gotten pretty
used to it.  I won't get over knowing that my error cost someone else dearly.

We owe that to all the people who are in the field trying to make this
world a better place.  We need to be as "right" as we can be, with our
limited knowledge and human propensity for mistakes.  And we need to not
worry about *who's* right or *how* they're right, because once we've
rid the world of poverty and starvation and disease and bigotry and
prejudice and violence and ignorance and superstition and repression,
then we'll have plenty of time to sit around and philosophically
debate the fine points of who should get which credit for what part of
the glorious and peaceful new reality.

Also there will be scotch.  Really, really good scotch. ;-)

So yes, stupidity SHOULD be slapped down.  So should ignorance,
superstition, prejudice, bigotry, and all of the other negative things
that -- during all of recorded human history and likely before --
have been the tools of tyrants and dictators.  Empires come and go,
political structures become fashionable and then fade away, the names
and places change constantly...but *these* things are the constant
enemy.  If we are to overcome them in those we oppose -- we must
first overcome them in ourselves.

---rsk

--
Too many emails? Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password by emailing 
moderator at compa...@stanford.edu or changing your settings at 
https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech

Re: [liberationtech] Boundless Informant: the NSA's secret tool to track global surveillance data

[Guido Witmond]

On 11-06-13 12:21, Eugen Leitl wrote:

On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 10:27:33PM +0200, Guido Witmond wrote:


The big deal is that now it's become impossible to believe the lies, and
that you [Americans] are forced to accept the truth.


Reality check: https://twitter.com/_nothingtohide

http://www.people-press.org/2013/06/10/majority-views-nsa-phone-tracking-as-acceptable-anti-terror-tactic/

No further questions, your honor.


1st step to recovery is denial...



However, the question of Pew Research (in that second link) is not
fair: "Which is more important?
 A. Investigate terrorist threats;
(or) B. Not intrude on privacy (of the general public)

There is a third choice:
C. Investigate terrorist threats AND not intrude on privacy (of the
general public). We pay you people $X Billion dollars to do so.


I tend to agree with Lauren Weinsteins opinion that it is rampant 
paranoia that lead us (the world) into this.

http://lauren.vortex.com/archive/001044.html



Realistically, we should be thankful for this brief
flash of interest (already waning) and use it to reignite
interest in stalled projects.


I am very grateful for mr Snowden and Greenwald to leak this. Now it is 
ok for EU-commissioner mrv Viviane Reding to state that privavcy isn't a 
luxury but a right.




Regards, Guido.

PS: Check out the background picture on that twitter-page, sheep!

--
Too many emails? Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password by emailing 
moderator at compa...@stanford.edu or changing your settings at 
https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech

Re: [liberationtech] Boundless Informant: the NSA's secret tool to track global surveillance data

[Rich Kulawiec]

On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 01:48:23PM -0700, x z wrote:
> @Rich, those are good movie scripts :-). But it does not work for 9 firms,
> and hundreds of execs all with diverse values and objectives.

Two responses.

"hundreds"?  Not necessary.  Not desirable, from the NSA's point of view,
either.  One person per firm would suffice, and they need not be an executive.
Surely you can't think for a moment that the NSA is incapable of placing
its own people on the datacenter staff of any major operation?

Second, how's this for a movie script?

(quoting myself)

> Ad I'd also, by the way, develop custom lookalike hardware.  (With
> the NSA's budget, this could be done with chump change.)  Who's going to
> open up a Cisco router and yank a board and look at it closely enough
> to figure out that it didn't come from Cisco?

Now quoting this (h/t to Rob Slade):


http://www.scribd.com/doc/95282643/Backdoors-Embedded-in-DoD-Microchips-From-China

This paper is a short summary of the first real world detection
of a backdoor in a military grade FPGA.  Using an innovative
patented technique we were able to detect and analyse in the
first documented case of its kind, a backdoor inserted into the
Actel/Microsemi ProASIC3 chips. The backdoor was found to exist
on the silicon itself, it was not present in any firmware loaded
onto the chip. Using Pipeline Emission Analysis (PEA), a
technique pioneered by our sponsor, we were able to extract
the secret key to activate the backdoor. This way an attacker
can disable all the security on the chip, reprogram crypto and
access keys, modify low-level silicon features, access unencrypted
configuration bitstream or permanently damage the device. Clearly
this means the device is wide open to intellectual property theft,
fraud, re-programming as well as reverse engineering of the design
which allows the introduction of a new backdoor or Trojan. Most
concerning, it is not possible to patch the backdoor in chips
already deployed, meaning those using this family of chips have
to accept the fact it can be easily compromised or it will have
to be physically replaced after a redesign of the silicon itself.

---rsk

--
Too many emails? Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password by emailing 
moderator at compa...@stanford.edu or changing your settings at 
https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech

Re: [liberationtech] Boundless Informant: the NSA's secret tool to track global surveillance data

[michael gurstein]

Sad but I guess true, but there has been a huge amount of learning from this
particularly internationally and the reverberations on that will continue
and perhaps even grow for a very very long time.

M

-Original Message-
From: liberationtech-boun...@lists.stanford.edu
[mailto:liberationtech-boun...@lists.stanford.edu] On Behalf Of Eugen Leitl
Sent: Tuesday, June 11, 2013 6:21 AM
To: liberationtech@lists.stanford.edu
Subject: Re: [liberationtech] Boundless Informant: the NSA's secret tool to
track global surveillance data

On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 10:27:33PM +0200, Guido Witmond wrote:

> The big deal is that now it's become impossible to believe the lies, 
> and that you [Americans] are forced to accept the truth.

Reality check: https://twitter.com/_nothingtohide

http://www.people-press.org/2013/06/10/majority-views-nsa-phone-tracking-as-
acceptable-anti-terror-tactic/

No further questions, your honor.
 
> And truth hurts! Especially when you want to believe the lies. Wanting 
> to believe is easier than facing the truth, even when deep in your 
> heart you've known the truth for a long time.
> 
> Now is the time to come clear with your conscience, end this abusive 
> relationship and kick the abusive partner out of your life. (ie: 
> repeal the unjust laws.)

Realistically, we should be thankful for this brief flash of interest
(already waning) and use it to reignite interest in stalled projects.
--
Too many emails? Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password by
emailing moderator at compa...@stanford.edu or changing your settings at
https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech

--
Too many emails? Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password by emailing 
moderator at compa...@stanford.edu or changing your settings at 
https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech

Re: [liberationtech] Boundless Informant: the NSA's secret tool to track global surveillance data

[Eugen Leitl]

On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 10:27:33PM +0200, Guido Witmond wrote:

> The big deal is that now it's become impossible to believe the lies, and
> that you [Americans] are forced to accept the truth.

Reality check: https://twitter.com/_nothingtohide

http://www.people-press.org/2013/06/10/majority-views-nsa-phone-tracking-as-acceptable-anti-terror-tactic/

No further questions, your honor.
 
> And truth hurts! Especially when you want to believe the lies. Wanting
> to believe is easier than facing the truth, even when deep in your heart
> you've known the truth for a long time.
> 
> Now is the time to come clear with your conscience, end this abusive
> relationship and kick the abusive partner out of your life. (ie: repeal
> the unjust laws.)

Realistically, we should be thankful for this brief
flash of interest (already waning) and use it to reignite
interest in stalled projects.
--
Too many emails? Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password by emailing 
moderator at compa...@stanford.edu or changing your settings at 
https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech

Re: [liberationtech] Boundless Informant: the NSA's secret tool to track global surveillance data

[fukami]

Heu! 

On 11.06.2013, at 01:11, x z  wrote:
> I argue that direct access or not is is substantive, not semantic. We have
> the following two versions of the story:
> 
> *A: The Guardian story alleges that NSA has direct access to user data from
> major internet firms, and these firms are willingly cooperating with NSA
> for the capability of en masse data pull. It indicates that NSA can pull
> whatever data they feel like, and that NSA has such dark power that all the
> internet firms have to kowtow.*
> 
> *B: On the other hand, NSA and these companies' statement is consistent to
> what most of us have already known, that NSA can request data from these
> firms on the basis of FISA. And the data pull is quite limited. (By the
> way, it doesn't really matter it's US or non-US citizens to me, there's
> nothing special about America).*
> 
> Do you think the difference between the two is merely semantic? Also, if
> you believe in A, then everybody on the NSA/corporation side are liars, and
> we are truly living in a police state. This, is, not, semantic.

Taking a look how this works in other countries, I'm sure it works pretty
much the same way in the US. I.e. in Germany there is traffic duplication 
at provider level where the data gets send over so called SINA boxes - 
nowadays even without any sort of real safe guards, and providers simply 
don't know anymore what's really going on in their networks (so far for the 
Upstream part for LI and homeland secret service). 

For direct data access there are in fact known APIs for everything, be 
it Swift, PNR or whatever. You shouln't need much fantasy to get an idea 
of the actual implementation at service level. So I agree 100% with Jake.
And really: At the end it doesn't matter how exactly it works - it just 
does and it is widely used. 

As a side note: An interesting story popped up today in the German press 
where a 18 year old Au Pair got send back home because of her private Facebook 
conversations. So it seems that even the DHS has this kind of capabilities. 
Giving the fact that there are thousands of people entering the US every day,
do you really think they don't get this information in an automated fashion
via API? I seriously doubt that.  

> @Jacob, if your hypothetical FISA API thingy works only on the limited data
> the firms knowingly disclose to NSA, then it's not big deal. This "FISA
> API" thing is semantic, not substantive, to use your classification scheme.

Jake made the most important point already: The laws doesn't allow the 
companies to even tell the whole story. Although it might look like a weak 
argumentation, it is in fact a strong one. 

Also do you *really* believe a guy like Zuckerberg more than internal training 
material of the NSA? I don't for a simple reason: Why should they lie on these 
slides? It makes no sense at all. These were not made with a public audience 
in mind. This has nothing to do with paranoia of any sort but common sense.


Take care,
  fukami


--
Too many emails? Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password by emailing 
moderator at compa...@stanford.edu or changing your settings at 
https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech

Re: [liberationtech] Boundless Informant: the NSA's secret tool to track global surveillance data

[Jacob Appelbaum]

x z:
> I argue that direct access or not is is substantive, not semantic. We have
> the following two versions of the story:
> 
> *A: The Guardian story alleges that NSA has direct access to user data from
> major internet firms, and these firms are willingly cooperating with NSA
> for the capability of en masse data pull. It indicates that NSA can pull
> whatever data they feel like, and that NSA has such dark power that all the
> internet firms have to kowtow.*
> 

That is correct.

>
> *B: On the other hand, NSA and these companies' statement is consistent to
> what most of us have already known, that NSA can request data from these
> firms on the basis of FISA. And the data pull is quite limited. (By the
> way, it doesn't really matter it's US or non-US citizens to me, there's
> nothing special about America).*

This sounds like semantic bickering. If the FISA order says to pull data
on your account, your account is pulled; Twitter did not automate it,
others did.

> 
> Do you think the difference between the two is merely semantic? Also, if
> you believe in A, then everybody on the NSA/corporation side are liars, and
> we are truly living in a police state. This, is, not, semantic.

Yes. It is semantic. The reason is because under FISA, basically any and
all data is fair game. Thus, a FISA API may be only limited in what it
might say and as we see from Verizon, well, gosh, some limit! However,
UPSTREAM tells us how they complete the picture.

So in the case of the Verizon order, if they installed a tapping device
on a span port in Verizon's network - does that count as direct access?
I'd say yes.

> 
> @Jacob, if your hypothetical FISA API thingy works only on the limited data
> the firms knowingly disclose to NSA, then it's not big deal. This "FISA
> API" thing is semantic, not substantive, to use your classification scheme.
> 

The firms don't know it, perhaps some agent might know but say, the CEO
of Google? Is he read into the program and cleared? If not, actually,
I'd argue that the firm doesn't know it. Nor would the board.

> @Yosem, I always applaud the accurate disclosure of the AT&T and Verizon
> cases. That is one thing that we need to change.
>
> 
> Let me stress it again, I am not rooting for B, I think it need more
> transparency and FISA need revision. But let's not pretend that the
> government is so powerful, that *is* paranoia.
> 

FISA needs to be torn down. It is a disgrace.

The US Government is powerful and what we see is that the only thing
you're grasping at here is about "direct" versus "indirect" access
semantics. In good time, I think you will find that you were seriously
mistaken by your read on all of these things. I look forward to hearing
your suggestions on what to do next - once you accept the seriously
awful reality that is reflected in these leaks and in places like Bluffdale.

All the best,
Jacob
--
Too many emails? Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password by emailing 
moderator at compa...@stanford.edu or changing your settings at 
https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech

Re: [liberationtech] Boundless Informant: the NSA's secret tool to track global surveillance data

[x z]

I argue that direct access or not is is substantive, not semantic. We have
the following two versions of the story:

*A: The Guardian story alleges that NSA has direct access to user data from
major internet firms, and these firms are willingly cooperating with NSA
for the capability of en masse data pull. It indicates that NSA can pull
whatever data they feel like, and that NSA has such dark power that all the
internet firms have to kowtow.*

*B: On the other hand, NSA and these companies' statement is consistent to
what most of us have already known, that NSA can request data from these
firms on the basis of FISA. And the data pull is quite limited. (By the
way, it doesn't really matter it's US or non-US citizens to me, there's
nothing special about America).*

Do you think the difference between the two is merely semantic? Also, if
you believe in A, then everybody on the NSA/corporation side are liars, and
we are truly living in a police state. This, is, not, semantic.

@Jacob, if your hypothetical FISA API thingy works only on the limited data
the firms knowingly disclose to NSA, then it's not big deal. This "FISA
API" thing is semantic, not substantive, to use your classification scheme.

@Yosem, I always applaud the accurate disclosure of the AT&T and Verizon
cases. That is one thing that we need to change.

Let me stress it again, I am not rooting for B, I think it need more
transparency and FISA need revision. But let's not pretend that the
government is so powerful, that *is* paranoia.



2013/6/10 Jacob Appelbaum 

> Yosem Companys:
> > The distinction between direct or indirect access is semantic, not
> > substantive, and likely irrelevant to most Americans.  What Americans
> want
> > to know is whether there is access to their personal data, and I would
> bet
> > focus groups would show that's the key takeaway of this incident.
>
> Indeed.
>
> >
> > As I said, a recent NY Times article spoke specifically of the embedding
> of
> > NSA employees at US tech firms via firms' corporate legal departments,
> and
> > we know how it happened at AT&T, with the employee getting cart blanche
> to
> > do whatever he wanted at the firm and take as much data as he wanted with
> > no questions asked.
>
> The word stasi comes to mind with this kind of DIRECT ACCESS. The
> server, taps and likely API itself are almost irrelevant details when we
> consider HUMAN INFILTRATION as part of the NSA strategy.
>
> Land of the free... refill?
>
> All the best,
> Jacob
> --
> Too many emails? Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password by
> emailing moderator at compa...@stanford.edu or changing your settings at
> https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech
>
--
Too many emails? Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password by emailing 
moderator at compa...@stanford.edu or changing your settings at 
https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech

Re: [liberationtech] Boundless Informant: the NSA's secret tool to track global surveillance data

[Jacob Appelbaum]

Yosem Companys:
> The distinction between direct or indirect access is semantic, not
> substantive, and likely irrelevant to most Americans.  What Americans want
> to know is whether there is access to their personal data, and I would bet
> focus groups would show that's the key takeaway of this incident.

Indeed.

> 
> As I said, a recent NY Times article spoke specifically of the embedding of
> NSA employees at US tech firms via firms' corporate legal departments, and
> we know how it happened at AT&T, with the employee getting cart blanche to
> do whatever he wanted at the firm and take as much data as he wanted with
> no questions asked.

The word stasi comes to mind with this kind of DIRECT ACCESS. The
server, taps and likely API itself are almost irrelevant details when we
consider HUMAN INFILTRATION as part of the NSA strategy.

Land of the free... refill?

All the best,
Jacob
--
Too many emails? Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password by emailing 
moderator at compa...@stanford.edu or changing your settings at 
https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech

Re: [liberationtech] Boundless Informant: the NSA's secret tool to track global surveillance data

[Nadim Kobeissi]

On 2013-06-10, at 6:26 PM, Yosem Companys  wrote:

> The distinction between direct or indirect access is semantic, not 
> substantive, and likely irrelevant to most Americans.  What Americans want to 
> know is whether there is access to their personal data, and I would bet focus 
> groups would show that's the key takeaway of this incident.

Hear hear. And not just Americans want to know this — due to the fact that most 
Big Data is centred in the US, these secret programs affect the privacy of 
world citizens as well, just as much, and in the same way, as they affect 
Americans

NK

> 
> As I said, a recent NY Times article spoke specifically of the embedding of 
> NSA employees at US tech firms via firms' corporate legal departments, and we 
> know how it happened at AT&T, with the employee getting cart blanche to do 
> whatever he wanted at the firm and take as much data as he wanted with no 
> questions asked.  
> 
> On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 3:09 PM, Jacob Appelbaum  wrote:
> x z:
> > @Jacob, I agree with your points regarding American exceptionalism.
> > @Eugen, to prepare for the worst scenario is one thing, to advocate some
> > shady rumor as fact is another.
> > @Rich, those are good movie scripts :-). But it does not work for 9 firms,
> > and hundreds of execs all with diverse values and objectives.
> > @Nadim, when you say "we all always 'knew' this was happening", I don't
> > know what "this" refers to. Is it NSA surveillance, or is it the "direct
> > access" bit?
> >
> > To me, the crucial point is the "*direct access*", and also Guardian's
> > claim of these firms "willingly participating" in PRISM. I argued that
> > "direct access" is untrue in my previous email, but none of your replies
> > (except Rich's) are relevant to my arguments.
> 
> What would you call a FISA API for government agents to query a system
> and return data on a target? Would you call that direct access or an
> indirect access? If Google runs the FISA API server, does that make it
> more or less direct than if the FISA API server is a blackbox run by the
> NSA?
> 
> >
> > The "direct access" bit is what made this story sensational. Without this
> > bit, the story would be much less juicy but more true. In the long run,
> > truth gives more power than lies. Washington Post has backed down to
> > reality, for which I applaud their judgment. Guardian has not, and keeps on
> > defending their misinformation and bad reporting, for which I resent deeply.
> >
> 
> You don't know the truth and you seem to think you do. The story that is
> important is that Google makes one claim, while the NSA slide makes
> another. Note that the law doesn't allow Google to even tell the press
> the whole truth.
> 
> > If Snowden and Greenwald do not mislead the world on 'direct access" and
> > just report it rationally, I'd applaud their courage. Now I think Snowden
> > is not more than a self-aggrandizing douche.
> >
> 
> I'm sorry, did you watch his video interview? On what grounds to you
> call him a self-aggrandizing douche exactly?
> 
> > I hope internet freedom can advance with accurate awareness, not by public
> > paranoia.
> 
> You take issue with a very weird semantic bit of the larger story. How
> does such semantic nitpicking, where you don't actually even know the
> facts behind your speculations, help advance any cause, anywhere?
> 
> All the best,
> Jacob
> --
> Too many emails? Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password by 
> emailing moderator at compa...@stanford.edu or changing your settings at 
> https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech
> 
> --
> Too many emails? Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password by 
> emailing moderator at compa...@stanford.edu or changing your settings at 
> https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech

--
Too many emails? Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password by emailing 
moderator at compa...@stanford.edu or changing your settings at 
https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech

Re: [liberationtech] Boundless Informant: the NSA's secret tool to track global surveillance data

[Yosem Companys]

The distinction between direct or indirect access is semantic, not
substantive, and likely irrelevant to most Americans.  What Americans want
to know is whether there is access to their personal data, and I would bet
focus groups would show that's the key takeaway of this incident.

As I said, a recent NY Times article spoke specifically of the embedding of
NSA employees at US tech firms via firms' corporate legal departments, and
we know how it happened at AT&T, with the employee getting cart blanche to
do whatever he wanted at the firm and take as much data as he wanted with
no questions asked.

On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 3:09 PM, Jacob Appelbaum wrote:

> x z:
> > @Jacob, I agree with your points regarding American exceptionalism.
> > @Eugen, to prepare for the worst scenario is one thing, to advocate some
> > shady rumor as fact is another.
> > @Rich, those are good movie scripts :-). But it does not work for 9
> firms,
> > and hundreds of execs all with diverse values and objectives.
> > @Nadim, when you say "we all always 'knew' this was happening", I don't
> > know what "this" refers to. Is it NSA surveillance, or is it the "direct
> > access" bit?
> >
> > To me, the crucial point is the "*direct access*", and also Guardian's
> > claim of these firms "willingly participating" in PRISM. I argued that
> > "direct access" is untrue in my previous email, but none of your replies
> > (except Rich's) are relevant to my arguments.
>
> What would you call a FISA API for government agents to query a system
> and return data on a target? Would you call that direct access or an
> indirect access? If Google runs the FISA API server, does that make it
> more or less direct than if the FISA API server is a blackbox run by the
> NSA?
>
> >
> > The "direct access" bit is what made this story sensational. Without this
> > bit, the story would be much less juicy but more true. In the long run,
> > truth gives more power than lies. Washington Post has backed down to
> > reality, for which I applaud their judgment. Guardian has not, and keeps
> on
> > defending their misinformation and bad reporting, for which I resent
> deeply.
> >
>
> You don't know the truth and you seem to think you do. The story that is
> important is that Google makes one claim, while the NSA slide makes
> another. Note that the law doesn't allow Google to even tell the press
> the whole truth.
>
> > If Snowden and Greenwald do not mislead the world on 'direct access" and
> > just report it rationally, I'd applaud their courage. Now I think Snowden
> > is not more than a self-aggrandizing douche.
> >
>
> I'm sorry, did you watch his video interview? On what grounds to you
> call him a self-aggrandizing douche exactly?
>
> > I hope internet freedom can advance with accurate awareness, not by
> public
> > paranoia.
>
> You take issue with a very weird semantic bit of the larger story. How
> does such semantic nitpicking, where you don't actually even know the
> facts behind your speculations, help advance any cause, anywhere?
>
> All the best,
> Jacob
> --
> Too many emails? Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password by
> emailing moderator at compa...@stanford.edu or changing your settings at
> https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech
>
--
Too many emails? Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password by emailing 
moderator at compa...@stanford.edu or changing your settings at 
https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech

Re: [liberationtech] Boundless Informant: the NSA's secret tool to track global surveillance data

[Nadim Kobeissi]

On 2013-06-10, at 6:09 PM, Jacob Appelbaum  wrote:

> x z:
>> @Jacob, I agree with your points regarding American exceptionalism.
>> @Eugen, to prepare for the worst scenario is one thing, to advocate some
>> shady rumor as fact is another.
>> @Rich, those are good movie scripts :-). But it does not work for 9 firms,
>> and hundreds of execs all with diverse values and objectives.
>> @Nadim, when you say "we all always 'knew' this was happening", I don't
>> know what "this" refers to. Is it NSA surveillance, or is it the "direct
>> access" bit?
>> 
>> To me, the crucial point is the "*direct access*", and also Guardian's
>> claim of these firms "willingly participating" in PRISM. I argued that
>> "direct access" is untrue in my previous email, but none of your replies
>> (except Rich's) are relevant to my arguments.
> 
> What would you call a FISA API for government agents to query a system
> and return data on a target? Would you call that direct access or an
> indirect access? If Google runs the FISA API server, does that make it
> more or less direct than if the FISA API server is a blackbox run by the
> NSA?
> 
>> 
>> The "direct access" bit is what made this story sensational. Without this
>> bit, the story would be much less juicy but more true. In the long run,
>> truth gives more power than lies. Washington Post has backed down to
>> reality, for which I applaud their judgment. Guardian has not, and keeps on
>> defending their misinformation and bad reporting, for which I resent deeply.
>> 
> 
> You don't know the truth and you seem to think you do. The story that is
> important is that Google makes one claim, while the NSA slide makes
> another. Note that the law doesn't allow Google to even tell the press
> the whole truth.
> 
>> If Snowden and Greenwald do not mislead the world on 'direct access" and
>> just report it rationally, I'd applaud their courage. Now I think Snowden
>> is not more than a self-aggrandizing douche.
>> 
> 
> I'm sorry, did you watch his video interview? On what grounds to you
> call him a self-aggrandizing douche exactly?

I can't believe I was actually feeling bad for this guy yesterday. Dismissing 
one of the greatest whistleblowers of century as a "self-aggrandizing douche" 
is just beyond words. Maybe we're being trolled.

NK

> 
>> I hope internet freedom can advance with accurate awareness, not by public
>> paranoia.
> 
> You take issue with a very weird semantic bit of the larger story. How
> does such semantic nitpicking, where you don't actually even know the
> facts behind your speculations, help advance any cause, anywhere?
> 
> All the best,
> Jacob
> --
> Too many emails? Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password by 
> emailing moderator at compa...@stanford.edu or changing your settings at 
> https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech

--
Too many emails? Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password by emailing 
moderator at compa...@stanford.edu or changing your settings at 
https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech

Re: [liberationtech] Boundless Informant: the NSA's secret tool to track global surveillance data

[Jacob Appelbaum]

x z:
> @Jacob, I agree with your points regarding American exceptionalism.
> @Eugen, to prepare for the worst scenario is one thing, to advocate some
> shady rumor as fact is another.
> @Rich, those are good movie scripts :-). But it does not work for 9 firms,
> and hundreds of execs all with diverse values and objectives.
> @Nadim, when you say "we all always 'knew' this was happening", I don't
> know what "this" refers to. Is it NSA surveillance, or is it the "direct
> access" bit?
> 
> To me, the crucial point is the "*direct access*", and also Guardian's
> claim of these firms "willingly participating" in PRISM. I argued that
> "direct access" is untrue in my previous email, but none of your replies
> (except Rich's) are relevant to my arguments.

What would you call a FISA API for government agents to query a system
and return data on a target? Would you call that direct access or an
indirect access? If Google runs the FISA API server, does that make it
more or less direct than if the FISA API server is a blackbox run by the
NSA?

> 
> The "direct access" bit is what made this story sensational. Without this
> bit, the story would be much less juicy but more true. In the long run,
> truth gives more power than lies. Washington Post has backed down to
> reality, for which I applaud their judgment. Guardian has not, and keeps on
> defending their misinformation and bad reporting, for which I resent deeply.
> 

You don't know the truth and you seem to think you do. The story that is
important is that Google makes one claim, while the NSA slide makes
another. Note that the law doesn't allow Google to even tell the press
the whole truth.

> If Snowden and Greenwald do not mislead the world on 'direct access" and
> just report it rationally, I'd applaud their courage. Now I think Snowden
> is not more than a self-aggrandizing douche.
> 

I'm sorry, did you watch his video interview? On what grounds to you
call him a self-aggrandizing douche exactly?

> I hope internet freedom can advance with accurate awareness, not by public
> paranoia.

You take issue with a very weird semantic bit of the larger story. How
does such semantic nitpicking, where you don't actually even know the
facts behind your speculations, help advance any cause, anywhere?

All the best,
Jacob
--
Too many emails? Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password by emailing 
moderator at compa...@stanford.edu or changing your settings at 
https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech

Re: [liberationtech] Boundless Informant: the NSA's secret tool to track global surveillance data

[Griffin Boyce]

Nadim Kobeissi  wrote:

> What qualifies a journalist as overzealous? Is it passion and hard work?
> When this passion produces a consistent stream of intelligent arguments and
> debate, is it still overzealous? Ask yourself these questions.
>

I don't think Glenn Greenwald is overzealous, but I think his passion is...
untempered at times.  Not a bad thing at all.  But not everyone's going to
like his work.

~Griffin
--
Too many emails? Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password by emailing 
moderator at compa...@stanford.edu or changing your settings at 
https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech

Re: [liberationtech] Boundless Informant: the NSA's secret tool to track global surveillance data

[Guido Witmond]

On 10-06-13 21:36, Jacob Appelbaum wrote:

Maxim Kammerer:

On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 12:01 PM, x z  wrote:

Occam's razor would give us the following is what has actually
happened in the past three days: a semi-clueless whistle blower
fed an overzealous journalist a low-quality powerpoint deck,
which met the privacy-paranoia and exploded.


I agree. I also don't understand what's the big deal.


The big deal is that now it's become impossible to believe the lies, and
that you [Americans] are forced to accept the truth.

And truth hurts! Especially when you want to believe the lies. Wanting
to believe is easier than facing the truth, even when deep in your heart
you've known the truth for a long time.

Now is the time to come clear with your conscience, end this abusive
relationship and kick the abusive partner out of your life. (ie: repeal
the unjust laws.)


Cheers, Guido.
--
Too many emails? Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password by emailing 
moderator at compa...@stanford.edu or changing your settings at 
https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech

Re: [liberationtech] Boundless Informant: the NSA's secret tool to track global surveillance data

[Jacob Appelbaum]

Maxim Kammerer:
> On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 12:01 PM, x z  wrote:
>> Occam's razor would give us the following is what has actually happened in
>> the past three days: a semi-clueless whistle blower fed an overzealous
>> journalist a low-quality powerpoint deck, which met the privacy-paranoia and
>> exploded.
> 
> I agree. I also don't understand what's the big deal. It is well-known
> that the NSA (with cooperation with SIGINT agencies of other
> countries) scans all communication channels it can get to. By reaching
> popular communication methods like webmail and social media, it is
> just doing its job. What apparently is at the core of the hysterical
> public reaction is that the NSA spies on Americans, who think that
> they are special, and should be treated differently. The reason they
> think they are special is that the huge geopolitical / economic /
> military-industrial complex influence of the United States elevates
> and accustoms them to a position that's completely out of proportion
> with their actual value to the world — utterly un-democratic, if you
> think about it. Well, your spy agencies are more democratic than you
> guys — they spy on you, too. If that wouldn't have been the case, it
> would mean that your military-industrial complex is not that powerful,
> which would imply that you are not special anymore, which, ironically,
> rejects the original premise. Hopefully someone else can appreciate
> the irony as well (hence writing this).

Occam's razor doesn't work the way that it is presented here. All things
being equal, the multi-billion dollar spy agency really does the spying
and it was really just revealed.

And yes, it really does shatter the idea American exceptionalism - that
is actually the best part of the entire discussion. Americans need this
wakeup call - with our drone strikes that kill people based on their
metadata (eg: signature strikes) surveillance programs and with our
death camp (eg: Gitmo) in Cuba. We as a nation should be ashamed of
these things and the first step to such shame is the inability to deny
what is being done in our name.

It is now the case that it is impossible to deny the dragnet
surveillance order published about Verizon. Our "leaders" have
acknowledged it. It is also impossible to deny the massive surveillance
as a whole - the DNI, the White House and other agencies have confirmed
it. It is also now impossible to deny the existence of specific programs
named UPSTREAM, PRISM and BOUNDLESSINFORMANT.

The open questions are merely about scope. In time, we'll learn the
details - but we need not debate that this is just the tip of the
iceberg - it is obviously the case that we don't have all the details.

To attack Glenn and Snowden is pointless. Without a doubt, if anyone
knows less than them - it is all of us. Unless you hold a TS/SCI
clearance, of course. In which case, please do feel free to speak up -
we'd love to hear some clarifications on the matter! Though overall - we
should all be speaking up - but lets be clear that not all voices here
have access to the same information, or the same understanding even when
presented with the same information.

All the best,
Jacob
--
Too many emails? Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password by emailing 
moderator at compa...@stanford.edu or changing your settings at 
https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech

Re: [liberationtech] Boundless Informant: the NSA's secret tool to track global surveillance data

[Maxim Kammerer]

On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 12:01 PM, x z  wrote:
> Occam's razor would give us the following is what has actually happened in
> the past three days: a semi-clueless whistle blower fed an overzealous
> journalist a low-quality powerpoint deck, which met the privacy-paranoia and
> exploded.

I agree. I also don't understand what's the big deal. It is well-known
that the NSA (with cooperation with SIGINT agencies of other
countries) scans all communication channels it can get to. By reaching
popular communication methods like webmail and social media, it is
just doing its job. What apparently is at the core of the hysterical
public reaction is that the NSA spies on Americans, who think that
they are special, and should be treated differently. The reason they
think they are special is that the huge geopolitical / economic /
military-industrial complex influence of the United States elevates
and accustoms them to a position that's completely out of proportion
with their actual value to the world — utterly un-democratic, if you
think about it. Well, your spy agencies are more democratic than you
guys — they spy on you, too. If that wouldn't have been the case, it
would mean that your military-industrial complex is not that powerful,
which would imply that you are not special anymore, which, ironically,
rejects the original premise. Hopefully someone else can appreciate
the irony as well (hence writing this).

--
Maxim Kammerer
Liberté Linux: http://dee.su/liberte
--
Too many emails? Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password by emailing 
moderator at compa...@stanford.edu or changing your settings at 
https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech

Re: [liberationtech] Boundless Informant: the NSA's secret tool to track global surveillance data

[Rich Kulawiec]

On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 01:30:19AM -0700, x z wrote:
> First of all, I don't feel offended by Jacob's reply to my email at all,
> probably because I know and expect his style of wording. So far I think the
> discussion is still pretty civil.

I concur.  This is what spirited discussion looks like.  It's healthy.

Let's dig in.

> - The PRISM slides do not prove such "direct access" (as we interpret it)
> exists.  [snip]

You're correct.   To take your point further, they don't prove *anything*,
they...well, for lack of a better word, they "indicate".  They point in
a general direction, omitting significant details -- which is of course
why we're debating just what those details are.

But, that said: the NSA (and every other similar agency) has a long
history of engineering for their convenience over engineering for due
process and safeguards.  And certainly "direct access" is far more convenient
for them than multistep processes.  So I think it's pretty safe to say
that the NSA would very much *like* "direct access" if they can get it.
Which leaves us with the question of whether or not they have.  Yet.

> - The firms (Apple, Google, Facebook, etc) do not have any incentive to
> participate in such a program to offer "direct access" to NSA.

A, but I think they do.  There's a message I noticed on this list
this morning, which was forwarded from Dave Farber's excellent "IP"
(Interesting People) mailing list and explains one such incentive:


https://mailman.stanford.edu/pipermail/liberationtech/2013-June/008815.html

> Then, what kind of power do people think NSA possesses that
> can secretly coerce these firms into cooperation?? 

That kind of power.  (see link, just above).  To paraphrase an old
saying, you can get much more with a kind word and a hide nailed to
the wall than you can with just a kind word.

> Will these firm's CEO or Chief Legal Officer go to jail, for not providing
> "direct access"?

Maybe.  See above.  But jail is not the only possible unhappy outcome.
There are other kinds of pressure that can be brought to bear as well.

Consider the set S of {all Cxx executives at all the tech companies
mentioned so far plus the ones involved but not yet mentioned}.

Now consider the number N of members of set S who (a) are in financial
difficulty (b) have a monkey on their back (c) have something in their
past (d) did something dubious on their tax returns (e) failed to disclose
something to the SEC (f) etc.

As the size of set S increases, the probability that N=0 decreases.
And whatever N is, it provides N opportunities for leverage.

I think it's also safe to say that some of those people would do it
merely because they're asked: it appeals to their sense of patriotism.
We might argue that this is wrong, that it violates the Constitution and
thus is about as unpatriotic as it's possible to be; but they would not
agree with us.

And there's another approach: large companies like this are very
sensitive to bad press, or even the possibility of bad press.
None of them want any part of this potential future story:

"US law enforcement: we could have stopped [name of future
attack], but Internet giant Blah, Inc. wouldn't cooperate."

Yeah, that's a longshot, but to risk-averse Cxx people, it might be
enough of a nonzero probability to convince them.  (And there's
already a long history of "blame the Internet" narratives, so it
would dovetail nicely.)  Blah, Inc.'s stock would drop a kazillion
points in the minutes after that story broke and thus so would the
personal fortunes of many.  Then there would follow recriminations
and the blame game, board meetings and firings, and in the end,
suitably obedient people would be put in place to make sure that
it never happened again.

> - If all these "participating" firms have built such a system to feed NSA's
> request automatically, many people would have got involved. This is not a
> trivial task, the executives need to find engineers to make it happen. And
> the number of engineers won't be small, given the diversity of data
> mentioned here. 

I think this is the strongest argument in support of your proposition.
I've spent some time over the past few days trying to figure out how
this could be done and haven't yet figured out a method that would be
likely to succeed.

On the other hand, the NSA has had years, billions of dollars, and
thousands of people to throw at the problem, so if a solution within
those constraints exists, they're far more likely to have found it
than I'll ever be.

But let me requote something you wrote:

"[...] the executives need to find engineers to make it happen."

Not if the executives weren't involved.

The NSA *could* go directly to the NOC engineers, for example, and
there are certain advantages to doing so: for one, these are people
with a lot less wealth and power, thus perhaps more readily manipulated.
For another, these are the people who actually need to do the work --
unlike the C

Re: [liberationtech] Boundless Informant: the NSA's secret tool to track global surveillance data

[Eugen Leitl]

On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 01:30:19AM -0700, x z wrote:

> I think many people on this list have been hoping or waiting for something
> like this, because it reinforces their beliefs and helps their agenda, so
> they readily fall for it. I expect more rigor from geeks.

If you work in security, and expect proof of compromise before
deploying your countermeasures instead of proactively preventing 
compromise, and assuming a worst case scenario, you don't
need more rigor.

You need a new job.
--
Too many emails? Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password by emailing 
moderator at compa...@stanford.edu or changing your settings at 
https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech

Re: [liberationtech] Boundless Informant: the NSA's secret tool to track global surveillance data

[Nadim Kobeissi]

It seems Europe isn't safe either from data mining, due to overreach:
http://www.zdnet.com/blog/igeneration/google-admits-patriot-act-requests-handed-over-european-data-to-u-s-authorities/12191

NK

On 2013-06-09, at 1:22 PM, Jacob Appelbaum  wrote:

> Nadim Kobeissi:
>> 
>> On 2013-06-09, at 1:02 PM, Jacob Appelbaum 
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> Nadim Kobeissi:
 Jake, I don't agree with x z (and rather agree with you), but
 I'm really tired of just how aggressive and rude you always are
 on Libtech. And it doesn't appear to just be towards me. I'm not
 the only person who feels like this.
 
 Even if you're right, tone your ego knob down already. Be nice. I
 can barely read through threads anymore. Thank you.
>>> 
>>> Dear Nadim,
>>> 
>>> I'm sorry that your felt that I was aggressive and rude. It wasn't
>>> my intention. Nor do I think that my last email had anything to do
>>> with my ego.
>>> 
>>> I was defending Glenn's reputation and his findings - which seem 
>>> absolutely solid from where I'm standing.
>> 
>> What a nice thing to say! Thank you! :-) I think Glenn Greenwald is a
>> wonderful journalist who really revealed a hugely meaningful story.
>> Maybe not the story of the decade overall, but perhaps the story of
>> the decade when it comes to computer and information security and
>> privacy.
>> 
>> The thing is, I agree with you almost all the time. But you alienate
>> me (and I think others too) because of the ruthlessness in which you
>> express yourself. Even well-known members of a community do not
>> obtain a license to talk down to others.
>> 
> 
> I'm sorry that you think I am rutheless. I feel that I actually have
> quite a lot of compassion and I regularly express it. I do not generally
> feel pity - to feel pity, generally one must place oneself above others
> - which isn't useful or productive.
> 
>> I think it's super nice of you to be this considerate and I think
>> this is a solid contribution to improving the mood of this list. I
>> hope "x z" also appreciates this clarification! Hurray for Jake!
>> 
> 
> Do you suppose you might reply to the points that I made?
> 
> You asserted that I was aggressive and rude. I contested it. Did you
> decide that my previous emails were not so, after clarification, or what?
> 
> All the best,
> Jake
> --
> Too many emails? Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password by 
> emailing moderator at compa...@stanford.edu or changing your settings at 
> https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech

--
Too many emails? Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password by emailing 
moderator at compa...@stanford.edu or changing your settings at 
https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech

Re: [liberationtech] Boundless Informant: the NSA's secret tool to track global surveillance data

[Jacob Appelbaum]

Nadim Kobeissi:
> 
> On 2013-06-09, at 1:02 PM, Jacob Appelbaum 
> wrote:
> 
>> Nadim Kobeissi:
>>> Jake, I don't agree with x z (and rather agree with you), but
>>> I'm really tired of just how aggressive and rude you always are
>>> on Libtech. And it doesn't appear to just be towards me. I'm not
>>> the only person who feels like this.
>>> 
>>> Even if you're right, tone your ego knob down already. Be nice. I
>>> can barely read through threads anymore. Thank you.
>> 
>> Dear Nadim,
>> 
>> I'm sorry that your felt that I was aggressive and rude. It wasn't
>> my intention. Nor do I think that my last email had anything to do
>> with my ego.
>> 
>> I was defending Glenn's reputation and his findings - which seem 
>> absolutely solid from where I'm standing.
> 
> What a nice thing to say! Thank you! :-) I think Glenn Greenwald is a
> wonderful journalist who really revealed a hugely meaningful story.
> Maybe not the story of the decade overall, but perhaps the story of
> the decade when it comes to computer and information security and
> privacy.
> 
> The thing is, I agree with you almost all the time. But you alienate
> me (and I think others too) because of the ruthlessness in which you
> express yourself. Even well-known members of a community do not
> obtain a license to talk down to others.
> 

I'm sorry that you think I am rutheless. I feel that I actually have
quite a lot of compassion and I regularly express it. I do not generally
feel pity - to feel pity, generally one must place oneself above others
- which isn't useful or productive.

> I think it's super nice of you to be this considerate and I think
> this is a solid contribution to improving the mood of this list. I
> hope "x z" also appreciates this clarification! Hurray for Jake!
> 

Do you suppose you might reply to the points that I made?

You asserted that I was aggressive and rude. I contested it. Did you
decide that my previous emails were not so, after clarification, or what?

All the best,
Jake
--
Too many emails? Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password by emailing 
moderator at compa...@stanford.edu or changing your settings at 
https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech

Re: [liberationtech] Boundless Informant: the NSA's secret tool to track global surveillance data

[Nadim Kobeissi]

On 2013-06-09, at 1:02 PM, Jacob Appelbaum  wrote:

> Nadim Kobeissi:
>> Jake, I don't agree with x z (and rather agree with you), but I'm
>> really tired of just how aggressive and rude you always are on
>> Libtech. And it doesn't appear to just be towards me. I'm not the
>> only person who feels like this.
>> 
>> Even if you're right, tone your ego knob down already. Be nice. I can
>> barely read through threads anymore. Thank you.
> 
> Dear Nadim,
> 
> I'm sorry that your felt that I was aggressive and rude. It wasn't my
> intention. Nor do I think that my last email had anything to do with my ego.
> 
> I was defending Glenn's reputation and his findings - which seem
> absolutely solid from where I'm standing.

What a nice thing to say! Thank you! :-)
I think Glenn Greenwald is a wonderful journalist who really revealed a hugely 
meaningful story. Maybe not the story of the decade overall, but perhaps the 
story of the decade when it comes to computer and information security and 
privacy.

The thing is, I agree with you almost all the time. But you alienate me (and I 
think others too) because of the ruthlessness in which you express yourself. 
Even well-known members of a community do not obtain a license to talk down to 
others.

I think it's super nice of you to be this considerate and I think this is a 
solid contribution to improving the mood of this list. I hope "x z" also 
appreciates this clarification! Hurray for Jake!

NK

> 
> All the best,
> Jake
> --
> Too many emails? Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password by 
> emailing moderator at compa...@stanford.edu or changing your settings at 
> https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech

--
Too many emails? Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password by emailing 
moderator at compa...@stanford.edu or changing your settings at 
https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech

Re: [liberationtech] Boundless Informant: the NSA's secret tool to track global surveillance data

[Jacob Appelbaum]

Nadim Kobeissi:
> Jake, I don't agree with x z (and rather agree with you), but I'm
> really tired of just how aggressive and rude you always are on
> Libtech. And it doesn't appear to just be towards me. I'm not the
> only person who feels like this.
> 
> Even if you're right, tone your ego knob down already. Be nice. I can
> barely read through threads anymore. Thank you.

Dear Nadim,

I'm sorry that your felt that I was aggressive and rude. It wasn't my
intention. Nor do I think that my last email had anything to do with my ego.

I was defending Glenn's reputation and his findings - which seem
absolutely solid from where I'm standing.

All the best,
Jake
--
Too many emails? Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password by emailing 
moderator at compa...@stanford.edu or changing your settings at 
https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech

Re: [liberationtech] Boundless Informant: the NSA's secret tool to track global surveillance data

[Yosem Companys]

>From our list guidelines:

"3. We have a zero-tolerance policy for anyone who posts inflammatory,
extraneous, or off-topic messages, so please keep discussions
constructive and civil. We urge you to use the list to ask for (or
offer) advice, discuss issues, and share information. But please
refrain from making hard product (or service) sells."

Continuous non-constructive and uncivil behavior will get you moderated.

Yosem, one of your moderators

On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 9:53 AM, Nadim Kobeissi  wrote:
>
> On 2013-06-09, at 11:49 AM, Katrin Verclas  wrote:
>
>> +1000 on Nadim's comment who is not always that civil either.
>
> It's absolutely right that I also sometimes can get riled up or 
> passionate.But they key word there is "sometimes".  Some on this list are 
> just almost *always* like that like it's an acceptable form of behaviour. 
> It's not — it's bullying and oppression. It's stepping on people's throats. 
> And it has to stop.
>
> The amount of abuse I took as a new professional in information security a 
> year+ ago was so intense that I had to start seeing a shrink. Many of the 
> people behind that abuse are on this list. Some need to understand the limits 
> between productive discourse and debate and what, quite frankly, amounts to 
> nothing more than wagging your genitals at others.
>
> I am neither white or from a privileged background. I actually immigrated to 
> Canada due to my family losing its livelihood thanks to Israeli bombings. And 
> yet even though I've been through a lot, even I still find the abuse and 
> disrespect propagated by some in this community to be hard to handle, even 
> when it's directed at others.
>
> When I sent my first email complaining about this, I got many encouragements 
> in private from people who didn't speak out in public because they were 
> afraid of having "their throats jumped" upon. I wish they would join me in 
> making their concerns public. Why do I always have to be the one to say 
> what's on everyone's mind?
>
> This list isn't about shaming stupidity. It's about educating stupidity. It's 
> not about teaching people the "guts" they need to be "up to the task of 
> liberating". No one here has the authority to teach strangers about what they 
> can and can't handle. Stop being so arrogant, egotistical, apathetic and 
> near-sighted. It's about damn time this list, and this community, started 
> being professional and respectful.
>
> I'm sick and tired! Those who continue being abusive bullies should be called 
> out. I understand a lot of them still contribute a lot of valuable 
> information and debate (and I admire them for it,) but we need to separate 
> the two facets.
>
> NK
>
>> If you notice who speaks on this list- it's geeky men. And not just speak 
>> but flame at times and engage in silly meta discussions best filtered out.
>>
>> The discourse on this list, in general, does not encourage truly thoughtful 
>> discussion nor does it invite diverse voices. That might be lost on people 
>> like RK but it's not lost on the many "others" here who are not speaking.  
>> Liberation isn't just for and by the few white men spouting off here more 
>> often than not. Might be worth keeping in mind when posting.
>>
>> On Jun 9, 2013, at 10:08, Rich Kulawiec  wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, Jun 09, 2013 at 09:45:31AM -0400, Nadim Kobeissi wrote:
 I don't agree with x z (and rather agree with you), but I'm really tired 
 of just how aggressive and rude you always are on Libtech.
>>>
>>> First: you've got to be kidding.  I've never seen a single message on
>>> this list that goes past about 2 on a 10 scale.  (Not that I'd mind
>>> seeing things that go higher: I really do enjoy quality flamage.)
>>>
>>> Second: stupidity, in all forms, fully deserves to be slapped down --
>>> hard.  I expect that if I say something stupid here (and if I haven't
>>> already, eventually I will) that I'll get hammered for it.  Good.
>>> I should be.  Because I would rather endure the pummelling and the
>>> possible embarassment than persist in being wrong.  (Or worse,
>>> making someone else be wrong too because they think I'm right when
>>> I'm most certainly not.)
>>>
>>> Third: anyone who can't handle the exceedingly gentle discussions here
>>> (which are, generally speaking, held between people who are *all on the
>>> same side*, at least in a philosophical sense), is really, really not
>>> up to the task of "liberating" anything.  Because doing so will require
>>> going up against people who will do far more than just type a few mildly
>>> caustic words in an email message from time to time.
>>>
>>> Jacob's contributions here are among the most cogent and useful.  I don't
>>> care how "aggressive" and "rude" he is (and I don't think he is at all,
>>> by the way), I care if he's right -- and he has an excellent track record
>>> of being so.
>>>
>>> ---rsk
>>> --
>>> Too many emails? Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password by 
>>> emailing moderator a

Re: [liberationtech] Boundless Informant: the NSA's secret tool to track global surveillance data

[Nadim Kobeissi]

On 2013-06-09, at 11:49 AM, Katrin Verclas  wrote:

> +1000 on Nadim's comment who is not always that civil either.

It's absolutely right that I also sometimes can get riled up or passionate.But 
they key word there is "sometimes".  Some on this list are just almost *always* 
like that like it's an acceptable form of behaviour. It's not — it's bullying 
and oppression. It's stepping on people's throats. And it has to stop.

The amount of abuse I took as a new professional in information security a 
year+ ago was so intense that I had to start seeing a shrink. Many of the 
people behind that abuse are on this list. Some need to understand the limits 
between productive discourse and debate and what, quite frankly, amounts to 
nothing more than wagging your genitals at others.

I am neither white or from a privileged background. I actually immigrated to 
Canada due to my family losing its livelihood thanks to Israeli bombings. And 
yet even though I've been through a lot, even I still find the abuse and 
disrespect propagated by some in this community to be hard to handle, even when 
it's directed at others.

When I sent my first email complaining about this, I got many encouragements in 
private from people who didn't speak out in public because they were afraid of 
having "their throats jumped" upon. I wish they would join me in making their 
concerns public. Why do I always have to be the one to say what's on everyone's 
mind?

This list isn't about shaming stupidity. It's about educating stupidity. It's 
not about teaching people the "guts" they need to be "up to the task of 
liberating". No one here has the authority to teach strangers about what they 
can and can't handle. Stop being so arrogant, egotistical, apathetic and 
near-sighted. It's about damn time this list, and this community, started being 
professional and respectful.

I'm sick and tired! Those who continue being abusive bullies should be called 
out. I understand a lot of them still contribute a lot of valuable information 
and debate (and I admire them for it,) but we need to separate the two facets.

NK

> If you notice who speaks on this list- it's geeky men. And not just speak but 
> flame at times and engage in silly meta discussions best filtered out. 
> 
> The discourse on this list, in general, does not encourage truly thoughtful 
> discussion nor does it invite diverse voices. That might be lost on people 
> like RK but it's not lost on the many "others" here who are not speaking.  
> Liberation isn't just for and by the few white men spouting off here more 
> often than not. Might be worth keeping in mind when posting. 
> 
> On Jun 9, 2013, at 10:08, Rich Kulawiec  wrote:
> 
>> On Sun, Jun 09, 2013 at 09:45:31AM -0400, Nadim Kobeissi wrote:
>>> I don't agree with x z (and rather agree with you), but I'm really tired of 
>>> just how aggressive and rude you always are on Libtech. 
>> 
>> First: you've got to be kidding.  I've never seen a single message on
>> this list that goes past about 2 on a 10 scale.  (Not that I'd mind
>> seeing things that go higher: I really do enjoy quality flamage.)
>> 
>> Second: stupidity, in all forms, fully deserves to be slapped down --
>> hard.  I expect that if I say something stupid here (and if I haven't
>> already, eventually I will) that I'll get hammered for it.  Good.
>> I should be.  Because I would rather endure the pummelling and the
>> possible embarassment than persist in being wrong.  (Or worse,
>> making someone else be wrong too because they think I'm right when
>> I'm most certainly not.)
>> 
>> Third: anyone who can't handle the exceedingly gentle discussions here
>> (which are, generally speaking, held between people who are *all on the
>> same side*, at least in a philosophical sense), is really, really not
>> up to the task of "liberating" anything.  Because doing so will require
>> going up against people who will do far more than just type a few mildly
>> caustic words in an email message from time to time.
>> 
>> Jacob's contributions here are among the most cogent and useful.  I don't
>> care how "aggressive" and "rude" he is (and I don't think he is at all,
>> by the way), I care if he's right -- and he has an excellent track record
>> of being so.
>> 
>> ---rsk
>> --
>> Too many emails? Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password by 
>> emailing moderator at compa...@stanford.edu or changing your settings at 
>> https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech
> --
> Too many emails? Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password by 
> emailing moderator at compa...@stanford.edu or changing your settings at 
> https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech

--
Too many emails? Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password by emailing 
moderator at compa...@stanford.edu or changing your settings at 
https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech

Re: [liberationtech] Boundless Informant: the NSA's secret tool to track global surveillance data

[Katrin Verclas]

+1000 on Nadim's comment who is not always that civil either. If you notice who 
speaks on this list- it's geeky men. And not just speak but flame at times and 
engage in silly meta discussions best filtered out. 

The discourse on this list, in general, does not encourage truly thoughtful 
discussion nor does it invite diverse voices. That might be lost on people like 
RK but it's not lost on the many "others" here who are not speaking.  
Liberation isn't just for and by the few white men spouting off here more often 
than not. Might be worth keeping in mind when posting. 

On Jun 9, 2013, at 10:08, Rich Kulawiec  wrote:

> On Sun, Jun 09, 2013 at 09:45:31AM -0400, Nadim Kobeissi wrote:
>> I don't agree with x z (and rather agree with you), but I'm really tired of 
>> just how aggressive and rude you always are on Libtech. 
> 
> First: you've got to be kidding.  I've never seen a single message on
> this list that goes past about 2 on a 10 scale.  (Not that I'd mind
> seeing things that go higher: I really do enjoy quality flamage.)
> 
> Second: stupidity, in all forms, fully deserves to be slapped down --
> hard.  I expect that if I say something stupid here (and if I haven't
> already, eventually I will) that I'll get hammered for it.  Good.
> I should be.  Because I would rather endure the pummelling and the
> possible embarassment than persist in being wrong.  (Or worse,
> making someone else be wrong too because they think I'm right when
> I'm most certainly not.)
> 
> Third: anyone who can't handle the exceedingly gentle discussions here
> (which are, generally speaking, held between people who are *all on the
> same side*, at least in a philosophical sense), is really, really not
> up to the task of "liberating" anything.  Because doing so will require
> going up against people who will do far more than just type a few mildly
> caustic words in an email message from time to time.
> 
> Jacob's contributions here are among the most cogent and useful.  I don't
> care how "aggressive" and "rude" he is (and I don't think he is at all,
> by the way), I care if he's right -- and he has an excellent track record
> of being so.
> 
> ---rsk
> --
> Too many emails? Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password by 
> emailing moderator at compa...@stanford.edu or changing your settings at 
> https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech
--
Too many emails? Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password by emailing 
moderator at compa...@stanford.edu or changing your settings at 
https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech

Re: [liberationtech] Boundless Informant: the NSA's secret tool to track global surveillance data

[Andrés Leopoldo Pacheco Sanfuentes]

This is very silly. The list would be much better served if people
would restrain from "metaflaming" on stuff that's not really " a
flame" - especially in this case, it sounds to me that's just another
instance of "friendly fire"

Best Regards | Cordiales Saludos | Grato,

Andrés L. Pacheco Sanfuentes

+1 (817) 271-9619


On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 9:25 AM, Brian Conley  wrote:
> +1 to the tone comments, but my verdict is still out on greenwald, though
> until I see the lawyers and privacy people talking a big game (not just
> executives) I would tend to believe there is more than a grain of accuracy.
>
> On Jun 9, 2013 6:45 AM, "Nadim Kobeissi"  wrote:
>>
>> Jake,
>> I don't agree with x z (and rather agree with you), but I'm really tired
>> of just how aggressive and rude you always are on Libtech. And it doesn't
>> appear to just be towards me. I'm not the only person who feels like this.
>>
>> Even if you're right, tone your ego knob down already. Be nice. I can
>> barely read through threads anymore. Thank you.
>>
>> NK
>>
>> On 2013-06-09, at 9:15 AM, Jacob Appelbaum  wrote:
>>
>> > x z:
>> >> 2013/6/8 Jacob Appelbaum 
>> >>
>> >>> Oh man, Glenn Greenwald is my hero and a hero to us all.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Do you still believe Glenn's reporting that NSA has "direct access to
>> >> servers of firms including Google, Apple and Facebook"?
>> >
>> >
>> > Yeah, I think it is clearly a FISA interface or API of some kind. Either
>> > that or it is pwnage of the server. Probably one or the other in some
>> > cases.
>> >
>> >> In my view, he
>> >> misled the world intentionally (the few prism training slides published
>> >> did
>> >> not seem to claim this). Glenn is at best a wacky journalist without
>> >> common
>> >> sense.
>> >
>> > He just broke the story of the decade, good to know your views on him.
>> >
>> >>
>> >> His reporting on the Verizon case was good, but I think his credibility
>> >> bankrupted after the PRISM one.
>> >
>> > We disagree, obviously. You'll see soon enough and when you're eating
>> > crow, I'm sure we'll have another discussion.
>> >
>> >>
>> >> Everyone on
>> >>> this list who was looking for 'some evidence' about global
>> >>> surveillance
>> >>> and previously ignored all other evidence, well, here you go!
>> >>>
>> >>> "Revealed: The NSA's powerful tool for cataloguing data – including
>> >>> figures on US collection"
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/08/nsa-boundless-informant-global-datamining
>> >>>
>> >>> This screenshot from the program is very web 2.0:
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2013/6/8/1370715185657/boundless-heatmap-large-001.jpg
>> >>>
>> >>> The NSA is spying on the US and on the rest of the planet. There is no
>> >>> ability to deny this anymore. Anyone who denies it is a complete
>> >>> moron.
>> >>>
>> >>> I don't understand why this "evidence" is significant in any way. NSA
>> >> certainly has lots of information, and a web2.0'ish tool is nothing
>> >> surprising. It's rather moot to state "anyone who denies it is a
>> >> complete
>> >> moron". It's like the highway patrol keeping my driving record.
>> >>
>> >
>> > Why does it matter if you are surprised?
>> >
>> > Also, your analogy is tired and boring. This is nothing like a highway
>> > patrol.
>> >
>> >> Again, I'm not rooting for NSA. I think its power need to be limited
>> >> and it
>> >> needs more transparency. But I hate using misinformation or hyperbole
>> >> to
>> >> achieve that goal. This hurts the credibility of all the pro-privacy
>> >> groups
>> >> in general.
>> >
>> > I don't see any misinformation or hyperbole from Glenn. I see
>> > contradicting claims between governments and corporations. I also see
>> > that he wanted to ensure everyone understood what each side claimed.
>> > Note the very carefully worded denials all around.
>> >
>> > All the best,
>> > Jacob
>> > --
>> > Too many emails? Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password by
>> > emailing moderator at compa...@stanford.edu or changing your settings at
>> > https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech
>>
>> --
>> Too many emails? Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password by
>> emailing moderator at compa...@stanford.edu or changing your settings at
>> https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech
>
>
> --
> Too many emails? Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password by
> emailing moderator at compa...@stanford.edu or changing your settings at
> https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech
--
Too many emails? Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password by emailing 
moderator at compa...@stanford.edu or changing your settings at 
https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech

Re: [liberationtech] Boundless Informant: the NSA's secret tool to track global surveillance data

[Brian Conley]

+1 to the tone comments, but my verdict is still out on greenwald, though
until I see the lawyers and privacy people talking a big game (not just
executives) I would tend to believe there is more than a grain of accuracy.
On Jun 9, 2013 6:45 AM, "Nadim Kobeissi"  wrote:

> Jake,
> I don't agree with x z (and rather agree with you), but I'm really tired
> of just how aggressive and rude you always are on Libtech. And it doesn't
> appear to just be towards me. I'm not the only person who feels like this.
>
> Even if you're right, tone your ego knob down already. Be nice. I can
> barely read through threads anymore. Thank you.
>
> NK
>
> On 2013-06-09, at 9:15 AM, Jacob Appelbaum  wrote:
>
> > x z:
> >> 2013/6/8 Jacob Appelbaum 
> >>
> >>> Oh man, Glenn Greenwald is my hero and a hero to us all.
> >>
> >>
> >> Do you still believe Glenn's reporting that NSA has "direct access to
> >> servers of firms including Google, Apple and Facebook"?
> >
> >
> > Yeah, I think it is clearly a FISA interface or API of some kind. Either
> > that or it is pwnage of the server. Probably one or the other in some
> cases.
> >
> >> In my view, he
> >> misled the world intentionally (the few prism training slides published
> did
> >> not seem to claim this). Glenn is at best a wacky journalist without
> common
> >> sense.
> >
> > He just broke the story of the decade, good to know your views on him.
> >
> >>
> >> His reporting on the Verizon case was good, but I think his credibility
> >> bankrupted after the PRISM one.
> >
> > We disagree, obviously. You'll see soon enough and when you're eating
> > crow, I'm sure we'll have another discussion.
> >
> >>
> >> Everyone on
> >>> this list who was looking for 'some evidence' about global surveillance
> >>> and previously ignored all other evidence, well, here you go!
> >>>
> >>> "Revealed: The NSA's powerful tool for cataloguing data – including
> >>> figures on US collection"
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/08/nsa-boundless-informant-global-datamining
> >>>
> >>> This screenshot from the program is very web 2.0:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2013/6/8/1370715185657/boundless-heatmap-large-001.jpg
> >>>
> >>> The NSA is spying on the US and on the rest of the planet. There is no
> >>> ability to deny this anymore. Anyone who denies it is a complete moron.
> >>>
> >>> I don't understand why this "evidence" is significant in any way. NSA
> >> certainly has lots of information, and a web2.0'ish tool is nothing
> >> surprising. It's rather moot to state "anyone who denies it is a
> complete
> >> moron". It's like the highway patrol keeping my driving record.
> >>
> >
> > Why does it matter if you are surprised?
> >
> > Also, your analogy is tired and boring. This is nothing like a highway
> > patrol.
> >
> >> Again, I'm not rooting for NSA. I think its power need to be limited
> and it
> >> needs more transparency. But I hate using misinformation or hyperbole to
> >> achieve that goal. This hurts the credibility of all the pro-privacy
> groups
> >> in general.
> >
> > I don't see any misinformation or hyperbole from Glenn. I see
> > contradicting claims between governments and corporations. I also see
> > that he wanted to ensure everyone understood what each side claimed.
> > Note the very carefully worded denials all around.
> >
> > All the best,
> > Jacob
> > --
> > Too many emails? Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password by
> emailing moderator at compa...@stanford.edu or changing your settings at
> https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech
>
> --
> Too many emails? Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password by
> emailing moderator at compa...@stanford.edu or changing your settings at
> https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech
>
--
Too many emails? Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password by emailing 
moderator at compa...@stanford.edu or changing your settings at 
https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech

Re: [liberationtech] Boundless Informant: the NSA's secret tool to track global surveillance data

[David Golumbia]

complete agreement with Rich on my part.


On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 10:08 AM, Rich Kulawiec  wrote:

> On Sun, Jun 09, 2013 at 09:45:31AM -0400, Nadim Kobeissi wrote:
> > I don't agree with x z (and rather agree with you), but I'm really tired
> of just how aggressive and rude you always are on Libtech.
>
> First: you've got to be kidding.  I've never seen a single message on
> this list that goes past about 2 on a 10 scale.  (Not that I'd mind
> seeing things that go higher: I really do enjoy quality flamage.)
>
> Second: stupidity, in all forms, fully deserves to be slapped down --
> hard.  I expect that if I say something stupid here (and if I haven't
> already, eventually I will) that I'll get hammered for it.  Good.
> I should be.  Because I would rather endure the pummelling and the
> possible embarassment than persist in being wrong.  (Or worse,
> making someone else be wrong too because they think I'm right when
> I'm most certainly not.)
>
> Third: anyone who can't handle the exceedingly gentle discussions here
> (which are, generally speaking, held between people who are *all on the
> same side*, at least in a philosophical sense), is really, really not
> up to the task of "liberating" anything.  Because doing so will require
> going up against people who will do far more than just type a few mildly
> caustic words in an email message from time to time.
>
> Jacob's contributions here are among the most cogent and useful.  I don't
> care how "aggressive" and "rude" he is (and I don't think he is at all,
> by the way), I care if he's right -- and he has an excellent track record
> of being so.
>
> ---rsk
> --
> Too many emails? Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password by
> emailing moderator at compa...@stanford.edu or changing your settings at
> https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech
>



-- 
David Golumbia
dgolum...@gmail.com
--
Too many emails? Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password by emailing 
moderator at compa...@stanford.edu or changing your settings at 
https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech

Re: [liberationtech] Boundless Informant: the NSA's secret tool to track global surveillance data

[Nadim Kobeissi]

On 2013-06-09, at 10:08 AM, Rich Kulawiec  wrote:

> On Sun, Jun 09, 2013 at 09:45:31AM -0400, Nadim Kobeissi wrote:
>> I don't agree with x z (and rather agree with you), but I'm really tired of 
>> just how aggressive and rude you always are on Libtech. 
> 
> First: you've got to be kidding.  I've never seen a single message on
> this list that goes past about 2 on a 10 scale.  (Not that I'd mind
> seeing things that go higher: I really do enjoy quality flamage.)
> 
> Second: stupidity, in all forms, fully deserves to be slapped down --

This is where I stop reading.

NK

> hard.  I expect that if I say something stupid here (and if I haven't
> already, eventually I will) that I'll get hammered for it.  Good.
> I should be.  Because I would rather endure the pummelling and the
> possible embarassment than persist in being wrong.  (Or worse,
> making someone else be wrong too because they think I'm right when
> I'm most certainly not.)
> 
> Third: anyone who can't handle the exceedingly gentle discussions here
> (which are, generally speaking, held between people who are *all on the
> same side*, at least in a philosophical sense), is really, really not
> up to the task of "liberating" anything.  Because doing so will require
> going up against people who will do far more than just type a few mildly
> caustic words in an email message from time to time.
> 
> Jacob's contributions here are among the most cogent and useful.  I don't
> care how "aggressive" and "rude" he is (and I don't think he is at all,
> by the way), I care if he's right -- and he has an excellent track record
> of being so.
> 
> ---rsk
> --
> Too many emails? Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password by 
> emailing moderator at compa...@stanford.edu or changing your settings at 
> https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech

--
Too many emails? Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password by emailing 
moderator at compa...@stanford.edu or changing your settings at 
https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech

Re: [liberationtech] Boundless Informant: the NSA's secret tool to track global surveillance data

[Rich Kulawiec]

On Sun, Jun 09, 2013 at 09:45:31AM -0400, Nadim Kobeissi wrote:
> I don't agree with x z (and rather agree with you), but I'm really tired of 
> just how aggressive and rude you always are on Libtech. 

First: you've got to be kidding.  I've never seen a single message on
this list that goes past about 2 on a 10 scale.  (Not that I'd mind
seeing things that go higher: I really do enjoy quality flamage.)

Second: stupidity, in all forms, fully deserves to be slapped down --
hard.  I expect that if I say something stupid here (and if I haven't
already, eventually I will) that I'll get hammered for it.  Good.
I should be.  Because I would rather endure the pummelling and the
possible embarassment than persist in being wrong.  (Or worse,
making someone else be wrong too because they think I'm right when
I'm most certainly not.)

Third: anyone who can't handle the exceedingly gentle discussions here
(which are, generally speaking, held between people who are *all on the
same side*, at least in a philosophical sense), is really, really not
up to the task of "liberating" anything.  Because doing so will require
going up against people who will do far more than just type a few mildly
caustic words in an email message from time to time.

Jacob's contributions here are among the most cogent and useful.  I don't
care how "aggressive" and "rude" he is (and I don't think he is at all,
by the way), I care if he's right -- and he has an excellent track record
of being so.

---rsk
--
Too many emails? Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password by emailing 
moderator at compa...@stanford.edu or changing your settings at 
https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech

Re: [liberationtech] Boundless Informant: the NSA's secret tool to track global surveillance data

[Rich Kulawiec]

On Sat, Jun 08, 2013 at 08:10:17PM -0700, x z wrote:
> Do you still believe Glenn's reporting that NSA has "direct access to
> servers of firms including Google, Apple and Facebook"? In my view, he
> misled the world intentionally (the few prism training slides published did
> not seem to claim this). Glenn is at best a wacky journalist without common
> sense.

First, Greenwald is one of the most sober, accurate, prescient,
and courageous journalists on this planet.  Not that there was
any confirmation required of these qualities, but the nature of
the reaction of the NSA et.al. to these reports speaks volumes
about their veracity.

[ To explain: whenever someone indignantly claims that revelations
like this endanger an ongoing operation, they are lying.
(a) Because any competent adversary, that is, anyone worth actually
taking seriously, knows about things like this way before any
journalist.  I will bet the house that Moscow and Beijing and
Tehran all knew about this program a long time ago.  [1] If not,
someone should be having a stern word with their intelligence
agencies, who get lots of money and resources to find things
like this out.  (b) Because it's a tried and true tactic to attack
the patriotism/loyalty/etc. of people who tell the truth.
So much so that when it happens right on cue, it's nearly
equivalent to a full confirmation of everything they're saying. ]

Second, there is at this moment plenty of evidence on the table to
support the claim of "direct access".  There is no evidence on the
table to support the denials that have been issued by the spokesliars
at Google, Apple, and Facebook.  (Have you failed to notice how
carefully parsed and similar their responses are?   Anyone with
any expertise at all with the craft of spin control should recognize
this tactic immediately -- it's right out of the playbook: "pick one
claim, deny it vehemently, deny it consistently, ignore all others".)

Third, let us suppose for a moment, against all experience and evidence,
that the NSA does *not* have direct access -- today.  Is there anyone
so lacking in predictive vision, to think that they won't have it
tomorrow?  Of course they will.  They want it.  Who's going to stop
them?  (Certainly not the chimps and baboons in Congress, who are busy
lobbing excrement at each other.)  So even if we were silly enough
to make the foolish and naive assumption that "direct access" isn't a
precisely accurate term now, it will be...soon enough.

---rsk

[1] I used nation-states as examples, but of course the same exercise
in cognitive dissonance applies to other entities.  On the one hand,
we are supposed to believe that such adversaries are incredibly powerful,
to the point where they constitute an existential threat to the US.
On the other hand, we are supposed to believe that they're too stupid
and incompetent to manage basic intelligence practice.   On the one hand,
they're massively funded with multiple income streams; on the other hand,
they're too poor to pay for espionage or buy the results from someone else.
On the one hand, they're scheming masterminds concocting fiendish plans
of destruction; on the other hand, they're halfwits who aren't clever
enough to avoid even the simplest countermeasures.
--
Too many emails? Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password by emailing 
moderator at compa...@stanford.edu or changing your settings at 
https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech

Re: [liberationtech] Boundless Informant: the NSA's secret tool to track global surveillance data

[Nadim Kobeissi]

Jake,
I don't agree with x z (and rather agree with you), but I'm really tired of 
just how aggressive and rude you always are on Libtech. And it doesn't appear 
to just be towards me. I'm not the only person who feels like this.

Even if you're right, tone your ego knob down already. Be nice. I can barely 
read through threads anymore. Thank you.

NK

On 2013-06-09, at 9:15 AM, Jacob Appelbaum  wrote:

> x z:
>> 2013/6/8 Jacob Appelbaum 
>> 
>>> Oh man, Glenn Greenwald is my hero and a hero to us all.
>> 
>> 
>> Do you still believe Glenn's reporting that NSA has "direct access to
>> servers of firms including Google, Apple and Facebook"? 
> 
> 
> Yeah, I think it is clearly a FISA interface or API of some kind. Either
> that or it is pwnage of the server. Probably one or the other in some cases.
> 
>> In my view, he
>> misled the world intentionally (the few prism training slides published did
>> not seem to claim this). Glenn is at best a wacky journalist without common
>> sense.
> 
> He just broke the story of the decade, good to know your views on him.
> 
>> 
>> His reporting on the Verizon case was good, but I think his credibility
>> bankrupted after the PRISM one.
> 
> We disagree, obviously. You'll see soon enough and when you're eating
> crow, I'm sure we'll have another discussion.
> 
>> 
>> Everyone on
>>> this list who was looking for 'some evidence' about global surveillance
>>> and previously ignored all other evidence, well, here you go!
>>> 
>>> "Revealed: The NSA's powerful tool for cataloguing data – including
>>> figures on US collection"
>>> 
>>> 
>>> http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/08/nsa-boundless-informant-global-datamining
>>> 
>>> This screenshot from the program is very web 2.0:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2013/6/8/1370715185657/boundless-heatmap-large-001.jpg
>>> 
>>> The NSA is spying on the US and on the rest of the planet. There is no
>>> ability to deny this anymore. Anyone who denies it is a complete moron.
>>> 
>>> I don't understand why this "evidence" is significant in any way. NSA
>> certainly has lots of information, and a web2.0'ish tool is nothing
>> surprising. It's rather moot to state "anyone who denies it is a complete
>> moron". It's like the highway patrol keeping my driving record.
>> 
> 
> Why does it matter if you are surprised?
> 
> Also, your analogy is tired and boring. This is nothing like a highway
> patrol.
> 
>> Again, I'm not rooting for NSA. I think its power need to be limited and it
>> needs more transparency. But I hate using misinformation or hyperbole to
>> achieve that goal. This hurts the credibility of all the pro-privacy groups
>> in general.
> 
> I don't see any misinformation or hyperbole from Glenn. I see
> contradicting claims between governments and corporations. I also see
> that he wanted to ensure everyone understood what each side claimed.
> Note the very carefully worded denials all around.
> 
> All the best,
> Jacob
> --
> Too many emails? Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password by 
> emailing moderator at compa...@stanford.edu or changing your settings at 
> https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech

--
Too many emails? Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password by emailing 
moderator at compa...@stanford.edu or changing your settings at 
https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech

Re: [liberationtech] Boundless Informant: the NSA's secret tool to track global surveillance data

[Jacob Appelbaum]

x z:
> 2013/6/8 Jacob Appelbaum 
> 
>> Oh man, Glenn Greenwald is my hero and a hero to us all.
> 
> 
> Do you still believe Glenn's reporting that NSA has "direct access to
> servers of firms including Google, Apple and Facebook"? 


Yeah, I think it is clearly a FISA interface or API of some kind. Either
that or it is pwnage of the server. Probably one or the other in some cases.

> In my view, he
> misled the world intentionally (the few prism training slides published did
> not seem to claim this). Glenn is at best a wacky journalist without common
> sense.

He just broke the story of the decade, good to know your views on him.

> 
> His reporting on the Verizon case was good, but I think his credibility
> bankrupted after the PRISM one.

We disagree, obviously. You'll see soon enough and when you're eating
crow, I'm sure we'll have another discussion.

> 
> Everyone on
>> this list who was looking for 'some evidence' about global surveillance
>> and previously ignored all other evidence, well, here you go!
>>
>> "Revealed: The NSA's powerful tool for cataloguing data – including
>> figures on US collection"
>>
>>
>> http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/08/nsa-boundless-informant-global-datamining
>>
>> This screenshot from the program is very web 2.0:
>>
>>
>>
>> http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2013/6/8/1370715185657/boundless-heatmap-large-001.jpg
>>
>> The NSA is spying on the US and on the rest of the planet. There is no
>> ability to deny this anymore. Anyone who denies it is a complete moron.
>>
>> I don't understand why this "evidence" is significant in any way. NSA
> certainly has lots of information, and a web2.0'ish tool is nothing
> surprising. It's rather moot to state "anyone who denies it is a complete
> moron". It's like the highway patrol keeping my driving record.
> 

Why does it matter if you are surprised?

Also, your analogy is tired and boring. This is nothing like a highway
patrol.

> Again, I'm not rooting for NSA. I think its power need to be limited and it
> needs more transparency. But I hate using misinformation or hyperbole to
> achieve that goal. This hurts the credibility of all the pro-privacy groups
> in general.

I don't see any misinformation or hyperbole from Glenn. I see
contradicting claims between governments and corporations. I also see
that he wanted to ensure everyone understood what each side claimed.
Note the very carefully worded denials all around.

All the best,
Jacob
--
Too many emails? Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password by emailing 
moderator at compa...@stanford.edu or changing your settings at 
https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech

Re: [liberationtech] Boundless Informant: the NSA's secret tool to track global surveillance data

[Andrew Lewis]

I guess the question is still, is it just them using the already existing API's 
or do they have colocated sniffing tools?

-Andrew
On Jun 9, 2013, at 3:13 PM, Trevor Timm  wrote:

> From the Washington Post, just published:
> 
> "Intelligence community sources said that this description, although 
> inaccurate from a technical perspective, matches the experience of analysts 
> at the NSA. From their workstations anywhere in the world, government 
> employees cleared for PRISM access may “task” the system and receive results 
> from an Internet company without further interaction with the company’s 
> staff."
> 
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/us-company-officials-internet-surveillance-does-not-indiscriminately-mine-data/2013/06/08/5b3bb234-d07d-11e2-9f1a-1a7cdee20287_print.html
> 
> 
> On 6/8/13 8:10 PM, x z wrote:
>> 2013/6/8 Jacob Appelbaum 
>> Oh man, Glenn Greenwald is my hero and a hero to us all.
>> 
>> Do you still believe Glenn's reporting that NSA has "direct access to 
>> servers of firms including Google, Apple and Facebook"? In my view, he 
>> misled the world intentionally (the few prism training slides published did 
>> not seem to claim this). Glenn is at best a wacky journalist without common 
>> sense.
>> 
>> His reporting on the Verizon case was good, but I think his credibility 
>> bankrupted after the PRISM one.
>> 
>> Everyone on
>> this list who was looking for 'some evidence' about global surveillance
>> and previously ignored all other evidence, well, here you go!
>> 
>> "Revealed: The NSA's powerful tool for cataloguing data – including
>> figures on US collection"
>> 
>> http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/08/nsa-boundless-informant-global-datamining
>> 
>> This screenshot from the program is very web 2.0:
>> 
>> 
>> http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2013/6/8/1370715185657/boundless-heatmap-large-001.jpg
>> 
>> The NSA is spying on the US and on the rest of the planet. There is no
>> ability to deny this anymore. Anyone who denies it is a complete moron.
>> 
>> I don't understand why this "evidence" is significant in any way. NSA 
>> certainly has lots of information, and a web2.0'ish tool is nothing 
>> surprising. It's rather moot to state "anyone who denies it is a complete 
>> moron". It's like the highway patrol keeping my driving record.
>> 
>> Again, I'm not rooting for NSA. I think its power need to be limited and it 
>> needs more transparency. But I hate using misinformation or hyperbole to 
>> achieve that goal. This hurts the credibility of all the pro-privacy groups 
>> in general.
>> 
>> All the best,
>> Jacob
>> --
>> Too many emails? Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password by 
>> emailing moderator at compa...@stanford.edu or changing your settings at 
>> https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> --
>> Too many emails? Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password by 
>> emailing moderator at compa...@stanford.edu or changing your settings at 
>> https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech
> 
> -- 
> Trevor Timm
> Activist
> Electronic Frontier Foundation
> (415) 436 9333 ex. 104
> https://eff.org/join
> --
> Too many emails? Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password by 
> emailing moderator at compa...@stanford.edu or changing your settings at 
> https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech

--
Too many emails? Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password by emailing 
moderator at compa...@stanford.edu or changing your settings at 
https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech

Re: [liberationtech] Boundless Informant: the NSA's secret tool to track global surveillance data

[Trevor Timm]

>From the Washington Post, just published:

"Intelligence community sources said that this description, although
inaccurate from a technical perspective, matches the experience of
analysts at the NSA. From their workstations anywhere in the world,
government employees cleared for PRISM access may "task" the system and
receive results from an Internet company without further interaction
with the company's staff."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/us-company-officials-internet-surveillance-does-not-indiscriminately-mine-data/2013/06/08/5b3bb234-d07d-11e2-9f1a-1a7cdee20287_print.html


On 6/8/13 8:10 PM, x z wrote:
> 2013/6/8 Jacob Appelbaum  >
>
> Oh man, Glenn Greenwald is my hero and a hero to us all. 
>
>
> Do you still believe Glenn's reporting that NSA has "direct access to
> servers of firms including Google, Apple and Facebook"? In my view, he
> misled the world intentionally (the few prism training slides
> published did not seem to claim this). Glenn is at best a wacky
> journalist without common sense.
>
> His reporting on the Verizon case was good, but I think his
> credibility bankrupted after the PRISM one.
>
> Everyone on
> this list who was looking for 'some evidence' about global
> surveillance
> and previously ignored all other evidence, well, here you go!
>
> "Revealed: The NSA's powerful tool for cataloguing data -- including
> figures on US collection"
>
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/08/nsa-boundless-informant-global-datamining
>
> This screenshot from the program is very web 2.0:
>
>
> 
> http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2013/6/8/1370715185657/boundless-heatmap-large-001.jpg
>
> The NSA is spying on the US and on the rest of the planet. There is no
> ability to deny this anymore. Anyone who denies it is a complete
> moron.
>
> I don't understand why this "evidence" is significant in any way. NSA
> certainly has lots of information, and a web2.0'ish tool is nothing
> surprising. It's rather moot to state "anyone who denies it is a
> complete moron". It's like the highway patrol keeping my driving record.
>
> Again, I'm not rooting for NSA. I think its power need to be limited
> and it needs more transparency. But I hate using misinformation or
> hyperbole to achieve that goal. This hurts the credibility of all the
> pro-privacy groups in general.
>
> All the best,
> Jacob
> --
> Too many emails? Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password
> by emailing moderator at compa...@stanford.edu
>  or changing your settings at
> https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech
>
>
>
>
> --
> Too many emails? Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password by 
> emailing moderator at compa...@stanford.edu or changing your settings at 
> https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech

-- 
Trevor Timm
Activist
Electronic Frontier Foundation
(415) 436 9333 ex. 104
https://eff.org/join

--
Too many emails? Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password by emailing 
moderator at compa...@stanford.edu or changing your settings at 
https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech

Re: [liberationtech] Boundless Informant: the NSA's secret tool to track global surveillance data

[x z]

2013/6/8 Jacob Appelbaum 

> Oh man, Glenn Greenwald is my hero and a hero to us all.


Do you still believe Glenn's reporting that NSA has "direct access to
servers of firms including Google, Apple and Facebook"? In my view, he
misled the world intentionally (the few prism training slides published did
not seem to claim this). Glenn is at best a wacky journalist without common
sense.

His reporting on the Verizon case was good, but I think his credibility
bankrupted after the PRISM one.

Everyone on
> this list who was looking for 'some evidence' about global surveillance
> and previously ignored all other evidence, well, here you go!
>
> "Revealed: The NSA's powerful tool for cataloguing data – including
> figures on US collection"
>
>
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/08/nsa-boundless-informant-global-datamining
>
> This screenshot from the program is very web 2.0:
>
>
>
> http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2013/6/8/1370715185657/boundless-heatmap-large-001.jpg
>
> The NSA is spying on the US and on the rest of the planet. There is no
> ability to deny this anymore. Anyone who denies it is a complete moron.
>
> I don't understand why this "evidence" is significant in any way. NSA
certainly has lots of information, and a web2.0'ish tool is nothing
surprising. It's rather moot to state "anyone who denies it is a complete
moron". It's like the highway patrol keeping my driving record.

Again, I'm not rooting for NSA. I think its power need to be limited and it
needs more transparency. But I hate using misinformation or hyperbole to
achieve that goal. This hurts the credibility of all the pro-privacy groups
in general.

All the best,
> Jacob
> --
> Too many emails? Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password by
> emailing moderator at compa...@stanford.edu or changing your settings at
> https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech
--
Too many emails? Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password by emailing 
moderator at compa...@stanford.edu or changing your settings at 
https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech

Re: [liberationtech] Boundless Informant: the NSA's secret tool to track global surveillance data

[Nathan of Guardian]

On 06/08/2013 09:35 PM, Jacob Appelbaum wrote:
> This screenshot from the program is very web 2.0:
> http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2013/6/8/1370715185657/boundless-heatmap-large-001.jpg

Just noticed this "Map by Ammap.com" in the screenshot

http://www.ammap.com/

"amMap is a robust interactive Javascript/HTML5 maps library"

Web 2.0 indeed!

--
Too many emails? Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password by emailing 
moderator at compa...@stanford.edu or changing your settings at 
https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech

[liberationtech] Boundless Informant: the NSA's secret tool to track global surveillance data

[Jacob Appelbaum]

Oh man, Glenn Greenwald is my hero and a hero to us all. Everyone on
this list who was looking for 'some evidence' about global surveillance
and previously ignored all other evidence, well, here you go!

"Revealed: The NSA's powerful tool for cataloguing data – including
figures on US collection"

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/08/nsa-boundless-informant-global-datamining

This screenshot from the program is very web 2.0:


http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2013/6/8/1370715185657/boundless-heatmap-large-001.jpg

The NSA is spying on the US and on the rest of the planet. There is no
ability to deny this anymore. Anyone who denies it is a complete moron.

All the best,
Jacob
--
Too many emails? Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password by emailing 
moderator at compa...@stanford.edu or changing your settings at 
https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech