Snowden OMG Moment During Interview

[easysurfer]

I watched the Edward Snowden interview with Brian Williams and in it he mentions his OMG moment. That is, where he saw that the NSA could tap into anyone's communication and see, for example each eye stroke as the person is composing a document.

The technology I bet probably isn't so different then remote controlling a PC. I remember back while w*rking, tech support would do that all the time. Plus, there was the assumption of no privacy is expected (in other words, assume that what one does on the PC can be monitored).

If you watch "Criminal Minds" where the tech person of the FBI goes pulling up data of suspects at her fingertips, that idea isn't so far fetched after all.

 

[frayne]

I watched the interview and thought for some kid without a high school diploma he comes across very polished. Don't know how much he embellishes his position but a comment he made that surprised me was how easy it is/was for about any contractor or NSA employee to make off with classified information due to lack of auditing procedures, checks/balances and the like. In light of the VA problems, I don't doubt for a minute what he says is true about how easy it is to access classified information.

 

[Helena]

.

I think Snowden is a CIA agent whose unsuccessful act was
supposed to propel him into the good graces of Vladimir Putin.

 

[MRG]

You guys tell me what you thought about your visit to Room 101.
MRG

 

[W2R]

The technology I bet probably isn't so different then remote controlling a PC. I remember back while w*rking, tech support would do that all the time. Plus, there was the assumption of no privacy is expected (in other words, assume that what one does on the PC can be monitored).

Exactly. Our tech support did that all the time, too.

I remember back in the early 90's seeing employment opportunities with one of the intelligence agencies that was looking for experts in creating and using new Trojan horses and other malware. I have forgotten which agency, but it might have been the NSA. These skills were specifically mentioned in these official, public, employment ads that (ironically!) were printed out and posted on our bulletin board. I would have been floored to find out that intelligence agencies DIDN'T perform this type of computer surveillance, and to me it was inconceivable that this possibility never occurred to Snowden, even before becoming a contract employee for the NSA.

 

[zinger1457]

Frontline produced a 2 part program earlier this month of what changes took place at NSA after 9/11 called "United States of Secrets". The first part was excellent and a real eye opener for me. Haven't watched part 2 yet, recorded it on my DVR. Would highly recommend it for those wanting to get a better picture of what did/is going on with NSA's monitoring programs and the controversies surrounding it.

 

[KiraC]

I saw a preview of the discussion and he came across very credible to me. Since I have a distrust of upper management due to experience (i.e. his bosses), I could be convinced his management is lying to save themselves and looking for a scapegoat. I've seen upper management act unethically and lie easily so it's a possibility.

 

[Alan]

Frontline produced a 2 part program earlier this month of what changes took place at NSA after 9/11 called "United States of Secrets". The first part was excellent and a real eye opener for me. Haven't watched part 2 yet, recorded it on my DVR. Would highly recommend it for those wanting to get a better picture of what did/is going on with NSA's monitoring programs and the controversies surrounding it.

I've watched both parts and I thought they were really well presented. Shocking to see that the NSA have inserted hardware in many/all of the switches and routers used by the ISP's without their knowledge so that essentially everyone's data passing through is copied and sent to NSA computers. Since data is streamed through fiber optic cables then placing a simple light splitter in all the key data networks gives them a complete copy of everything.

 

[Midpack]

I've watched both parts and I thought they were really well presented. Shocking to see that the NSA have inserted hardware in many/all of the switches and routers used by the ISP's without their knowledge so that essentially everyone's data passing through is copied and sent to NSA computers. Since data is streamed through fiber optic cables then placing a simple light splitter in all the key data networks gives them a complete copy of everything.

I only saw part two, but I had the same reaction to that episode as you describe. I still thought the NSA was only collecting metadata until then, that was a disturbing (but not entirely surprising) revelation to me at least.

There's really no such thing as privacy anymore, and I doubt that will change. And it's not unique to the USA either, and some other countries are probably as "good at it" as the US too.

I have the Snowden-Williams program on my DVR, haven't watched it yet. I am no fan of Snowden, but he has certainly forced some discussion that I don't believe would have happened any other way. If he'd chosen to be an internal whistleblower, I doubt anything would have changed, and for the most part I doubt much will change even with him going public...

 

[samclem]

Snowden is absolutely no hero. I believe he has a personality disorder.

It is important to realize that we are hearing one side of the story, and those on the other side simply cannot effectively respond due to their obligations to defend various national interests.

There's a big difference between keeping call data (the "who called who" info that has always been available to telephone companies, and about which there is little expectation of privacy--any more than the outside of an envelope) and listening to the calls themselves. And when an event occurs (e.g Boston bombing) I think we can agree it might be important and relevant to know who the people may have been talking to--retrospectively. If that data is gone, or if it is not being kept by the phone companies (is it less subject to abuse there?), it might be a big problem.

Sure, there need to be safeguards.

 

[stepford]

Why can't Snowden be both hero and traitor? He clearly betrayed the trust placed in him and damaged the organization for which he worked (traitor). Yet he also sacrificed his home and much of his freedom to bring an injustice to light and has very likely effected positive change in our civil liberties (hero).

We don't live in a simple black and white world and simple binary characterizations aren't necessarily valid.

 

[Bestwifeever]

I think I will put some duct tape over all our computers' cameras; I would hate for some poor unsuspecting NSA flunky to be scarred for life while our electronics are under visual surveillance.

 

[galeno]

Freedom fighter vs terrorist is another example of this relativity.

 

[Midpack]

There's a big difference between keeping call data (the "who called who" info that has always been available to telephone companies, and about which there is little expectation of privacy--any more than the outside of an envelope) and listening to the calls themselves. And when an even occurs (e.g Boston bombing) I think we can agree it might be important and relevant to know who the people may have been talking to--retrospectively. If that data is gone, or if it is not being kept by the phone companies (is it less subject to abuse there?), it might be a big problem.

I tended to agree when I thought it was just metadata (who talked to who, emailed who, etc.), but the PBS report very much stated otherwise using PRISM to include stored and live content.

United States of Secrets | FRONTLINE | PBS

NARRATOR: The PRISM revelations reached beyond the collection of phone records.

NEWSCASTER: —spying on its own citizens—

NARRATOR: This was about the acquisition of content of tens of thousands of NSA targets.

NEWSCASTER: Did you check your account on Gmail?

NEWSCASTER: —secret spying program is entirely different—

BARTON GELLMAN: The PRISM program is not about metadata, it’s about content. It’s the photos and videos you send. It’s the words of your emails. It’s the sounds of your voice on a Skype call. It’s all the files you have stored on a cloud drive service. It’s content. It’s everything.

PRISM (surveillance program) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

 

[meierlde]

I think I will put some duct tape over all our computers' cameras; I would hate for some poor unsuspecting NSA flunky to be scarred for life while our electronics are under visual surveillance.

Actually you can go into the control panel on windows and disable the cameras, Likewise the mike. (laptops have a mike often).
Just like once the radio is off on a cellphone, it can't be activated. (there are posts that ask the cell phone company to do this to find a lost cell phone and they say they can not do so. Now of course if your cell phone is on and a smart phone it could be turned into a monitoring device. My idea if concerned is to turn it off except when you want to use it. (After all cell phones do come with voice mail), so you can check messages.

 

[zinger1457]

There's a big difference between keeping call data (the "who called who" info that has always been available to telephone companies, and about which there is little expectation of privacy--any more than the outside of an envelope) and listening to the calls themselves. And when an even occurs (e.g Boston bombing) I think we can agree it might be important and relevant to know who the people may have been talking to--retrospectively. If that data is gone, or if it is not being kept by the phone companies (is it less subject to abuse there?), it might be a big problem.

Sure, there need to be safeguards.

That's what I thought until I saw the program Frontline did. There appears to be a lot more information (emails, phone calls, credit card records) being collected than what we've been told.

 

[W2R]

Frontline produced a 2 part program earlier this month of what changes took place at NSA after 9/11 called "United States of Secrets". The first part was excellent and a real eye opener for me. Haven't watched part 2 yet, recorded it on my DVR. Would highly recommend it for those wanting to get a better picture of what did/is going on with NSA's monitoring programs and the controversies surrounding it.

Thanks. I am listening to it now.

United States of Secrets | FRONTLINE | PBS

 

[ERhoosier]

Did not watch the interview, but the whole issue makes me wonder about the utility of this spying 'program' in preventing terror attacks. If NSA can monitor every call & tap into every keystroke, how in the Lord's green earth did these clowns miss the Boston bombers? These guys had been fairly openly posting radial Islamist and anti-American junk before the bombing & the Russians had already warned us about 'em. The London Telegraph reported that the younger brother, Dzhokhar, posted... "Later he would taunt America over al-Qaeda's most successful terror attack, "September 10th baby, you know what tomorrow is. Party at my house! £thingsyoudontyellwhenenteringaroom".
Boston bomber arrested: Tamerlan Tsarnaev's hateful rage behind American dream - Telegraph

 

[samclem]

That's what I thought until I saw the program Frontline did. There appears to be a lot more information (emails, phone calls, credit card records) being collected than what we've been told.

Again, consider that all the info that has become public is from one perspective.

And nuance is very important. For instance, in your post: can we agree that there's a world of difference between "collected" and "analyzed" (or even) "listened to" ? These are the kinds of distinctions that need to be made and understood. Until the data becomes information, I'm not sure that anyone's privacy has truly been violated.

I have seen reported in open press that there were approx a dozen instances of improper use of the information that was collected. And they were discovered within channels and the people punished well before all of this became an issue. They were not instances of dark conspiracy (e.g. listening to political opponents and using "mud"), they were not cases of government malfeasance or official policy, they were the kind of picayune individual rulebreaking that flesh is heir to (e.g. an individual employee listening to someone who he/she suspected of having an affair with his/her spouse). Yes, egregious, and the cases were detected and punished. But if there were anything like the wholesale abuse of information that is being alleged, then there would be many more of these stories.

 

[Midpack]

And nuance is very important. For instance, in your post: can we agree that there's a world of difference between "collected" and "analyzed" (or even) "listened to" ? These are the kinds of distinctions that need to be made and understood. Until the data becomes information, I'm not sure that anyone's privacy has truly been violated.

I agree we need more information before drawing conclusions. But in the wake of the Snowden leaks numerous very high level "official spokespersons" told us in no uncertain terms the NSA was only collecting metadata. That appears to be false, to use a kind term, and there's no way no one knew otherwise...makes me wonder. YMMV

 

[Alan]

The first of the 2 Frontline programs hardly mentioned Snowden, it was all officials up to Director level who were trying to spill the beans on the, in their opinion, illegal tapping of private citizens communications with no solid legal basis. Those folks interviewed on Frontline in program 1 were absolutely believable, they just didn't have or weren't prepared to hand over loads of documents to the press.

 

[target2019]

Any internal device that is physically connected to the computer can be turned on and enabled. Some users put black tape over the camera.

 

[CaliforniaMan]

Why can't Snowden be both hero and traitor? He clearly betrayed the trust placed in him and damaged the organization for which he worked (traitor). Yet he also sacrificed his home and much of his freedom to bring an injustice to light and has very likely effected positive change in our civil liberties (hero).

We don't live in a simple black and white world and simple binary characterizations aren't necessarily valid.

None of us can know for certain his true motivations for revealing what he did, but nobody can deny its importance to the discussion. It was the dividing line. For me I don't think the government has any business or right to look at my private communications or watch what I do if I am not suspected of being involved in criminal activity. I do believe in our right to privacy.

What I worry about is what happens if government intrusion continues and grows. In East Germany spying was institutionalized originally to protect the state. In the end however, it was mainly used for blackmail, political and personal. With the present system I worry that it is only a question of time before it is used here, if it has not been already.

I don't really think this is even a partisan political issue, both parties have been responsible for the erosion of privacy in the name of safety.

The purpose of a totalitarian states surveillance system is to get people to change their behavior to something less dangerous to the state. It seems that we are moving in that direction now. Law abiding American citizens feel they need to change their behavior for fear of state spying. Our system was formed on the idea that the state is the people. 1984 seems tame to what we could have now.

As attributed to Ben Franklin, "People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both."

 

[ERD50]

... I am no fan of Snowden, but he has certainly forced some discussion that I don't believe would have happened any other way. If he'd chosen to be an internal whistleblower, I doubt anything would have changed, and for the most part I doubt much will change even with him going public...

That is pretty much my take on it also. I just don't think I know enough, at least at this point, to judge him. Maybe others feel they do, that's OK.

Re: 'collecting data':

That's what I thought until I saw the program Frontline did. There appears to be a lot more information (emails, phone calls, credit card records) being collected than what we've been told.

OK, I see samclem pointed this out, but I agree with him - big difference between 'collecting it all ' (it's all on the fiber, you probably get it all or nothing) and actually looking/analyzing any of it, until there is reasonable cause to go there. I think the 'collecting it all' is just typical journalistic sensationalism.

Did not watch the interview, but the whole issue makes me wonder about the utility of this spying 'program' in preventing terror attacks. If NSA can monitor every call & tap into every keystroke, how in the Lord's green earth did these clowns miss the Boston bombers? ...

This is my concern also. It reminds me of so many calls to bring in all this amazing technology, but then the simple things slip through the cracks. In hindsight, there were all sorts of deep yellow flags with those brothers, ones that I think should have been caught.

It reminds me a bit of when we first got full near-real-time databases of all our production information going at MegaCorp. At first, we were thrilled to have all this data at our fingertips. Ten minutes later, we realized, "What the hell are we going to do with all this data?!?! We're drowning in data!". But we figured out how to create reports that condensed it into something meaningful, and flagged anomalies. But it took time and effort.


Overall, I'm far less concerned about how much data they collect, even of my personal data (in fact, I really don't care about that at all), than I am of what controls are in place to assure it is not misused. As a more down-to-Earth example, not hypothetical at all - we send our SS# and sensitive financial data, address, phone numbers and maybe checking account numbers to the IRS. Am I concerned that they have that info? Only to the point that it might get misused. If it is used for its intended purpose, it's a non-issue for me.

I feel the same about anything they collect from me. If they want my shopping list from emails to DW, I don't care. Just don't give anyone access who could use it to figure when we are away from the house, and do use it to catch bad guys.

-ERD50

 

[ERD50]

... For me I don't think the government has any business or right to look at my private communications or watch what I do if I am not suspected of being involved in criminal activity. I do believe in our right to privacy. ...

I feel differently about this, maybe we will just need to agree to disagree on this point. The main thing I want form my government is to help provide a safe and orderly environment. There are bad guys out there, using these tools to do harm. If they need to have a computer scan my emails and analyze patterns to find bad guys, I'm OK with that.

What I worry about is what happens if government intrusion continues and grows. In East Germany spying was institutionalized originally to protect the state. In the end however, it was mainly used for blackmail, political and personal. With the present system I worry that it is only a question of time before it is used here, if it has not been already.

It's a concern. That's why I'm more interested in controls than the actual collection/analyzing of data.

The purpose of a totalitarian states surveillance system is to get people to change their behavior to something less dangerous to the state.

Can't it be to protect us?

As attributed to Ben Franklin, "People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both."

I've heard this quote before, but have never seen it in context. As much admiration as I have for Franklin, it sounds silly to me. Living in a society is essentially an agreement to give up liberties for security. I like the fact that we have speed limits, some regulations on food/medicine, etc, laws against disturbing the peace, etc.

Each of those means I'm giving up a freedom - to drive as fast as I want, to sell 'patent medicine' and contaminated food, I can't play loud rock music at 2PM in front of your house if I want. But giving up those freedoms are worth the protections I receive. I haven't lost both, and this has been going on since the first societies formed.

-ERD50