Glenn Greenwald: The NSA Can "Literally Watch Every Keystroke You Make"

[Coyotl]

http://www.democracynow.org/2013/12/30/glenn_greenwald_the_nsa_can_literally

The German publication Der Spiegel has revealed new details about a secretive hacking unit inside the National Security Agency called the Office of Tailored Access Operations, or TAO. The unit was created in 1997 to hack into global communications traffic. Hackers inside the TAO have developed a way to break into computers running Microsoft Windows by gaining passive access to machines when users report program crashes to Microsoft. In addition, with help from the CIA and FBI, the NSA has the ability to intercept computers and other electronic accessories purchased online in order to secretly insert spyware and components that can provide backdoor access for the intelligence agencies. American Civil Liberties Union Deputy Legal Director Jameel Jaffer and journalist Glenn Greenwald join us to discuss the latest revelations, along with the future of Edward Snowden.

Transcript ...............

Follow Glenn Greenwald on Twitter
https://twitter.com/ggreenwald

[gcomeau]

1. Welcome to the 10,000th episode...

...of "Intelligence agency performs intelligence gathering activities!"

Who would have ever imagined that spy agencies spend their days figuring out ways to access data?!?!?!?!?

[Savannahmann]

3. Hi, I thought you might like to read about a little quirky thing that some of us are considering.

We're thinking about amending the constitution, and putting in there that the Government doesn't get to read your mail, or other personal stuff. I'm not sure what number this would be, if it passed. I can think of a couple, perhaps three amendments now. There is the separation of church and state one. Then there is one that needs to go, the guns one. Then there is one that says the President can only serve two terms. So I guess this would be the 4th Amendment.

Anyway, I thought you would like to join us in pushing for the right to privacy. It's a radical ideal I know, but some of us think it's about time we had it.

[gcomeau]

4. Let's put it this way and see if you catch on...

"Breaking news! Did you know the Pentagon has the ability to blow you into tiny little pieces right in your house!?!?!? Anytime they feel like it!?!?!? THEY TOTALLY COULD DO THAT!!!!!!!"


The above is both true, and ridiculous. For the exact same reasons all the "look what the NSA is able to do!" hand waving freakouts are.

[Savannahmann]

7. Not what they are able to do

But what they ARE doing. They are intercepting packages, and planting spyware in both hardware, and software on the electronics contained therein. I would be surprised if any of those packages intercepted were headed overseas, in other words to foreign nations. The reason is one of logistics. Why pay for international shipping when you can get the item you are buying locally cheaper.

So who is being targeted? Are there enough terrorism suspects in the nation to have a program established, and classified as "one of our most successful"? No. that means that they are targeting anyone who catches their interest.

BTW, this is what they are strictly speaking, prohibited from doing domestically. You know those pesky laws and amendments I mentioned before. But don't worry, I'm sure that as time goes by, fewer and fewer people will be on your side of the issue. Because every poll shows more and more people opposed to it.

[randome]

12. And are they doing this interception for just anyone who strikes their fancy?

Or are they doing it for legitimate targets of an investigation? Funny how no one seems to ask that basic question.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]You have to play the game to find out why you're playing the game. -Existenz[/center][/font][hr]

[DirkGently]

17. Well in the past, they've listed to their ex-lover's phone calls.

You're not serious with the argument that government overreach is not a problem because we can just trust people with secret extra-Constitutional powers, are you?

The NSA stampeded right through the Fourth Amendment under Bush, without hesitation. Even the super-friendly FISA court has found more abuses since Obama.

It's not it's some crazy theory that state power that can be abused, will be abused.

You're not actually trying to sell the idea that Everything is Okay Because Good Guys Are in Charge?

[randome]

20. I wouldn't try to sell anything to you or anyone else.

All I'm saying is why don't these so-called 'journalists' ask basic questions to provide context? You know, like 'what', 'where', 'why', all the things I learned in college that were essential to being a journalist.

It's Greenwald and the Guardian who are pushing a certain line in this inquiry. They are the ones trying to sell us something. People aren't buying.

If the NSA is breaking the law, let heads roll. But this article is nothing but scare-mongering.

And the agents who were caught abusing their authority were...um, caught. By the NSA. Admitted to by the NSA. Disciplined and/or fired, I would hope.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]"If you're bored then you're boring." -Harvey Danger[/center][/font][hr]

[Lifelong Dem]

39. They would lose the dramatic effect if they answered those questions

Figures GG picks up on this article.

[Jester Messiah]

57. Hey, you were told that the sky is falling.

Why are you not running around like a chicken with its head cut off? CONFORM ALREADY!!

[WillyT]

65. "People aren't buying." - Really ??? - Then Explain This:

Polls Continue to Show Majority of Americans Against NSA Spying
BY MARK M. JAYCOX - EFF
OCTOBER 7, 2013

Shortly after the June leaks, numerous polls asked the American people if they approved or disapproved of the NSA spying, which includes collecting telephone records using Section 215 of the Patriot Act and collecting phone calls and emails using Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. The answer then was a resounding no, and new polls released in August and September clearly show Americans' increasing concern about privacy has continued.

Since July, many of the polls not only confirm the American people think the NSA's actions violates their privacy, but think the surveillance should be stopped. For instance in an AP poll, nearly 60 percent of Americans said they oppose the NSA collecting data about their telephone and Internet usage. In another national poll by the Washington Post and ABC News, 74 percent of respondents said the NSA's spying intrudes on their privacy rights. This majority should come as no surprise, as we've seen a sea change in opinion polls on privacy since the Edward Snowden revelations started in June.

What's also important is that it crosses political party lines. The Washington Post/ABC News poll found 70 percent of Democrats and 77 percent of Republicans believe the NSA’s spying programs intrude on their privacy rights. This change is significant, showing that privacy is a bipartisan issue. In 2006, a similar question found only 50 percent of Republicans thought the government intruded on their privacy rights.

Americans also continue their skepticism of the federal government and its inability to conduct proper oversight. In a recent poll, Rasmusson—though sometimes known for push polling—revealed that there's been a 30 percent increase in people who believe it is now more likely that the government will monitor their phone calls. Maybe even more significant is that this skepticism carries over into whether or not Americans believe the government's claim that it "robustly oversees" the NSA's programs. In a Huffpost/You Gov poll, 53 percent of respondents said they think "the federal courts and rules put in place by Congress" do not provide "adequate oversight." Only 18 percent of people agreed with the statement.

More: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/10/polls-continue-show-majority-americans-against-nsa-spying

[randome]

84. Changes will occur at the NSA.

It doesn't matter what the truth is, or who wants to promote a certain perspective. Enough people think changes are needed ergo changes will be made.

But articles like this, where a secret document is read and then Der Spiegel tells us what it says without giving us the facts and context to go along with it, is disingenuous journalism.

Journalists should never tell us what something says. That's for the editorial page. A journalist should be objective and only present the facts, imo. All the facts.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]No squirrels were harmed in the making of this post. Yet.[/center][/font][hr]

[gcomeau]

13. Did someone not read the OP?

It's entirely about what the NSA CAN do. They have "develloped a way to".... they "have the ability to"...


They are not actually monitoring your every damn keystroke. For many reasons. Not the least of which is that nobody gives a shit about your every keystroke, or mine.

[Th1onein]

60. SO, they're intercepting computers and installing malware in them so that they CAN do this?

Come on, now! You know better.

[gcomeau]

66. Excuse me?

OF COURSE they're doing it so they CAN. Because they don't know in advance who they're actually going to have to do it to. It's the same reason when they built the freaking original landline phone system they put in the ABILITY to tap people's calls. It wasn't so they could then proceed to record every damn phone call in america so they could pour over every detail of your personal communications and keep track of who your kids are dating and what you ate at the barbecue this weekend because every single thing you do is just so amazingly important and fascinating!


Are you seriously saying you don't understand this? That you seriously think the NSA is right now watching every word you type on this screen you're looking at?


Because not to put too fine a point on it, but that's flat out batshit insane.

[Th1onein]

89. You don't even make sense.

You're saying that everytime someone buys a computer, this team is intercepting the computer so that they can install spyware on it, just in case they want to tap into it. Yeah right.

I don't think that they have the manpower to look at what everyone is typing as they type it. They don't have to have the manpower; they've got data mining programs for that.

[jeff47]

18. So apparently you've never bought a computer.

I would be surprised if any of those packages intercepted were headed overseas, in other words to foreign nations. The reason is one of logistics. Why pay for international shipping when you can get the item you are buying locally cheaper.

Yes, think about all the computers that are built in, say, Spain.

Oh wait...they don't do that. Virtually all computers built on the planet are built in Asia and shipped to the rest of the world. Meaning if you are "buying locally", you're already paying international shipping. As well as the price added on for the rent on the local computer store, and to pay the store's employees. And the store's profit to add in. Even if the shop assembles the final computer locally, they are buying parts that originate in Asia.

It's not cheaper to buy electronics locally.

But please, let's continue this fantasy where we ignore the 7 billion people outside the US. They're clearly not important to the NSA.

[Progressive dog]

26. Talk about hilarious writing

I would be surprised if any of those packages intercepted were headed overseas, in other words to foreign nations. The reason is one of logistics. Why pay for international shipping when you can get the item you are buying locally cheaper.

Oh heavens, the NSA can intercept packages, add built in malware to them, and they can't figure out how to ship them overseas because logistics, don't you know.

[BenzoDia]

9. +1

[Coyotl]

6. Once you have been tortured by the government, this stuff takes on added importance.

I'm looking forward to your coming around ceremony.

[Pholus]

55. Hey, at least we know where they practiced....

http://www.npr.org/2011/12/14/143639670/the-technology-helping-repressive-regimes-spy

I can't wait to hear the rationales after the next big roundup here.

[Pholus]

54. Too bad they aren't surveilling actual bad guys.

"Sciencia est Potentia" I guess. Terra has nothing to do with these clowns.

[onehandle]

2. I've assumed that since the first day I connected to the Internet. nt

[KoKo]

45. Maybe for you...but most Americans whose first experience was

Win-95 that was the Non Computer Geeks Open Door to the Personal Computer to the riches of the Internet and the Possibilities might have expected that the "Internet and our Privacy was Safe" ...because we grew up that way. And, when our kids went on "My Space" we thought...hey...cool ...it's a new way of communcating and fun.

THEN..........!

[onehandle]

69. Long before Win95 for me.

I connected before the word 'Internet' jelled for the public.

I knew people at proto-ISPs who watched your every move. Simply because there were so few people connected.

These days, with so many online, nobody is specifically watching you.

Except for Google. If you use their 'free' services, advertisers across the globe know your every move.

[KoKo]

90. But...Everything we say and our e-mail, phone conversations, locations

and SS/Medical Records/Bank Records...Everything is swept up by the NSA. META DATA...

Have you not read the Snowden Revelations that are in all the MSM and elsewhere as to what is being collected on us?

This is a total invasion of our American Privacy without our Permission. Like Search and Seizure with one having no recourse to protest!

[TheKentuckian]

87. Your assumption doesn't excuse or make any of this acceptable.

Doesn't reconcile anything with what we espoused as our values and codified into our fundamental law.

[snooper2]

5. LOL, just like they record evey call made in the World

Snowy and Green,


All I want to know is, when is the fucking movie coming out!



They can get Bill Maher to play Assange

[L0oniX]

8. I invited the NSA to install a inner bowl toilet cam so they can see my opinion of them.

[Jefferson23]

37. lol

[jazzimov]

86. Ah, you need to check out some sites

that have already installed hidden cams in toilet bowels. It seems there are some who have that fantasy.

If you don't believe me, Google it.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

10. And, we the victims, get to pay for their fascism.

[Electric Monk]

35. but it's time for austerity in all other aspects. Education cuts, infrastructure cuts, etc.

It's all a matter of priorities.

[Scurrilous]

11. Are they recording anything else we stroke?

[FSogol]

63. You win the thread!

[FactBasedLifeform]

14. Does anyone have a list of people that have went to prison because of NSA monitoring?

I'm doing research and want a list of people that have been monitored and busted by the NSA for crimes not related to terrorism.

If they have all this technology to be the all-seeing eye, it must be an exhaustive list.

Thanks in advance!

[Coyotl]

16. They tell law enforcement to create a cover-up of the source of info.

In other words, those who are imprisoned would have to be released if they could prove this because the prosecution is withholding info.

[FactBasedLifeform]

19. Interesting. Was this in one of the documents Snowden leaked? nt

[Coyotl]

21. Listen to the video where your question is answered.

[99Forever]

67. Jeeez...

... you'd think a "FactBasedLifeform" would have already done that!


Do I detect that odor which emanates from under a bridge?

[Th1onein]

62. Here you go......

http://www.forbes.com/fdc/welcome_mjx.shtml

[Zorra]

28. Sorry, that's classified information. What makes you think you have any right to see it?

PS - Let us know if Snowden or Greenwald sends you the list.

Sincerely,
The NSA

[last1standing]

59. I'm doing research and want a list on DU sockpuppets. Know any?

Thanks in advance.

[Th1onein]

61. No, darlin', they use the SOD for that, and the evidence they use against us is "recreated."

In a parallel investigation, remember? Then, they lie to the judges and the attorneys, which is oh-so-American, right?

[FactBasedLifeform]

78. That's certainly a frightening hypothesis.

If that is indeed going on, I'm sure we will know soon!

[Th1onein]

88. It's not an hypothesis

http://www.forbes.com/fdc/welcome_mjx.shtml

[jeff47]

15. Ever notice that Greenwald, et al, manage to just skip over the 'targeting' step

in all the stuff they release?

The docs have it in there. Yet they keep writing as if this is being employed only on US persons. Like they just managed to forget about the actual contents of their leaks, and the roughly 7 billion non-US persons on the planet.

Quite an interesting version of "American Exceptionalism". But it probably sells a lot more US papers.

[MrMickeysMom]

22. Go here and then re-evaluate ...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1017&pid=167044

American Exceptionalism? Hey, it knows no boundaries!

[jeff47]

25. Oooo...One talk.

Now, let's line that up with the hundreds of other statements where he heavily implies the US government is using it on US persons....

[MrMickeysMom]

27. You couldn't possibly have had the time to watch this...

So, why the snark?

[jeff47]

29. You're free to explain how the summary is completely wrong. (nt)

[MrMickeysMom]

30. Oh, I get it...

Don't let objectivity let you down in 2014, Mr. Poopy head.

[jeff47]

34. Again, you are free to explain why the summary is wrong.

Popping up a video isn't going to fit in my schedule right now.

[MrMickeysMom]

91. Yes… we wouldn't want to mess up that schedule

I mean, there's only so much drive-by commentary a mile wide and an inch deep you can give here… carry on!

[jeff47]

93. Yet you still can't explain what's so wrong about the summary.

How odd. If the summary is so inadequate, surely you could explain exactly what's wrong after watching the video.

[MrMickeysMom]

95. "If the summary is so inadequate, surely you could explain…" WTF?

jeff, apparently you are such a busy person. I know I am today, so let me sum up what I tried to do up-thread in response to strange "response" posts like yours...

You have no time to account through the keynote address Greenwald gives in this video, which, by the way, references questions from the international community and all of their concerns with the spies. You are too busy. You can't observe any video that is clear in questions over 2013 in that way… Fine… Yet, you have plenty of time to drop by GD and try your very best to comment those who have been examining everyone in 2013 who has paid the price of whistle-blowing in military operations, or what Greenwald and others as a journalists have been following, much less what has been revealed in the way information after infiltration of the NSA. But, here you are, going on and on about something you are invited to weigh in on (thus, this forum). You are STILL are too busy to step outside of what you've determined. You employ the same tactics to place that duty on anyone who presents Greenwald's analysis as a journalist.

So, here's to you, jeff!

Reading is good. Researching is good. Try applying yourself in a meaningful way in 2014.

Happy New Year!

[jeff47]

97. Dropping by and writing a comment takes about 2 minutes.

It's pretty easy to squeeze in a couple minutes every so often. I'm currently waiting for a compile and automated test suite to finish, for example.

Watching a video:
1) Requires getting around the company's block at the firewall of video streams.
2) Requires finding and installing speakers or headphones.
3) Requires sitting through the entire video.

But hey, we all must be doing it exactly like you, right?

So you've got plenty of time to post a massive rant against me, but you still can't quite get around to a single sentence covering what's wrong about the summary that is fixed by watching the video.

How odd. Almost like you're just looking for a way to attack instead of inform.

[MrMickeysMom]

100. Welcome to my ignore list

Three strikes, and you're another personality disorder I don't have to deal with anymore.

Go blow smoke up someone else's ass...

[ProdigalJunkMail]

117. can't refute their points... put them on ignore

becoming shockingly frequent method of 'discussion' on DU.

sP

[DisgustipatedinCA]

31. Hey, Einstein...Greenwald didn't release this information

Learn to process information (meaning, at a minimum, read the article) before giving us your expert analysis. Who knows, you may even start to sound like you know what you're talking about.

[jeff47]

32. So, you're such a genius you missed "et al"? (nt)

[DisgustipatedinCA]

36. If you have something to say about der Spiegel, do so.

Otherwise, you've just stated that anyone who says anything that you might confuse with Greenwald is just as "guilty" as he is in your mind. It's ok for people to know you didn't read the article, certainly better than you digging some more and looking ridiculous in the process.

[jeff47]

40. So it's utterly inconceivable to you that both are doing the same thing

which is skipping over the 'targeting' components of the stuff they release in order to fan fears in the US that the NSA is spying on US persons.

But please, continue to attack one sentence instead of trying to defend skipping over that little "targeting" detail.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

41. No, it's not inconceivable to me. What's inconceivable to me is the notion that you knew this was

from a der Spiegel article, and that Greenwald was just commenting on it. It's very clear to me that you didn't read the linked article. I don't always read linked articles either, and on occasion, that's caught up with me. You reacted in a preprogrammed way, because you don't like Greenwald. It's not a crime, but it was something I chose to point out.

[MrMickeysMom]

92. I think I get by now the intent here of some come back commentary here...

You know, when people are disgusted in what goes on in GD these days, it's because of preprogrammed commentary, drive-by pot shots in response to not liking Greenwald, or what possibly is going on in our entire controlled world these days.

I'm disgusted by the just plain laziness of persons who, rather than reading or watching, use phony arguments.

There are none so blind who refuse to read or observe. Give me an argument based on doing either one of those things, and I'll at least respect the argument, but this guy's GOT no point.

Sorry I jumped in on the end of yours, but I just had to say that.

[jeff47]

96. "Greenwald, et al" is a convenient grouping. Not the source of what I'm saying.

There's a whole lot of people working for many different publications skipping the "targeting" step because doing so gets more page views. Saying "der Spiegel, et al" or "Wired, et al" would be referring to the same group of people.

That does not mean Greenwald is the source of this tactic. He's just the most famous of the people employing it on this subject.

[Th1onein]

64. Have you seen the FISA warrant to Verizon?

That's not exactly "targeting," now is it? They asked for ALL of the data, period, and if there was a target, it was AMERICANS.

And, by the way, WHEN did it become okay to COLLECT Americans' information, as long as they were not "targeted"? That's not what the NSA was created for, and not it's task.

[jeff47]

94. Yes. Have you seen the relevant 1979 SCOTUS decision?

And, by the way, WHEN did it become okay to COLLECT Americans' information, as long as they were not "targeted"?

When it was no longer "American's information". The 1979 SCOTUS ruling made it Verizon's business information. Thus it not private, and thus has no legal protection.

On the other hand, a lot of people are claiming all the rest of the NSA programs are collecting data on US persons, despite what the leaks actually say.

That's not what the NSA was created for, and not it's task.

The NSA was created for two jobs: Electronic spying and defense/enhancement of US electronics. Storing the data falls under the second category.

And let's take a moment to think about this: Would you rather Verizon store that data forever? They're already selling summaries of it. Wouldn't be a terribly large leap for them to start selling individual data.

If I could wave a magic wand, I'd require the phone companies to turn the data over to a server farm run by the Library of Congress - getting the third branch of government involved would add protection. Executive branch requests data via subpoena, Judicial branch approves it and then legislative branch hands over the part of the data that's in the subpoena. Since the legislative branch isn't directly involved in law enforcement, they'd be much less likely to abuse the data.

[Th1onein]

102. Verizon didn't store the data "forever," or even for very long, until Congress passed a law

REQUIRING it to.

This argument is old, old, old, and never holds water. We AGREE to give Verizon, and other companies, access to our data. We do NOT agree to give it to the government, and Verizon can't ruin our lives, or put us in prison.

It is a violation of the Fourth Amendment, no matter who says it's A-okay.

[jeff47]

103. No, Verizon still doesn't store the data very long. No such law has been passed.

Requiring Verizon to keep the data is one alternative people offer to the NSA program. It's not a terribly good solution, because Verizon provides far less protection than the government for the data.

We AGREE to give Verizon, and other companies, access to our data

It's not your data. That's the point.

The 1979 SCOTUS ruled it was Verizon's data. Not yours.

and Verizon can't ruin our lives, or put us in prison.

No, actually they can do an excellent life-ruining job. Just don't pay your bill and you can experience it yourself. And with them already selling this data you are so concerned about, they have a greater ability to ruin your life.

It is a violation of the Fourth Amendment, no matter who says it's A-okay.

Except the final arbiter of what is a violation of the Fourth Amendment, the SCOTUS, says it is not a violation. Because it is not your data. It is a run-of-the-mill business record that belongs to Verizon.

[Th1onein]

104. Without us, there would be no data. So...it's our data.

You can call it what you want, but it's our data. The SCOTUS has also said that a corporation is like a human being; I suppose that's true, too, just because they said it?

And, by the way, these are INALIENABLE rights. We have them, whether SCOTUS or anyone else says we do. The Bill of Rights is about reining in the government, not enumerating what rights it gives to us. We have these rights, no matter what.

[jeff47]

105. Again, there is an on-topic SCOTUS ruling.

Doesn't matter how much you like that ruling. That ruling is how the government will act.

The SCOTUS has also said that a corporation is like a human being; I suppose that's true, too, just because they said it?

The government has to treat it as true.

And, by the way, these are INALIENABLE rights. We have them, whether SCOTUS or anyone else says we do

The ruling doesn't say we don't have these rights. The ruling says taking the data does not violate these rights.

Again, they ruled that the call logs are run-of-the-mill business records created by the phone company and that belong to the phone company. Without an explicit law making it your data, it is handled like any other normal business record - not privileged.

Wanna change it? You'll need a new law from Congress. Just think through what you're asking for - a lot of "fixes" proposed on DU would hand the data over to anyone who asks, as long as they don't have a badge.

[Th1onein]

106. "Doesn't matter how much you like that ruling. That ruling is how the government will act. "

Great argument. We're going to do it anyway, so suck it up.

Sorry, doesn't hold water.

[jeff47]

109. You're welcome to time travel back to 1789 and change the basic structure of our government.

Again, if you don't like it, the way you fix it is not whining at the executive branch. You need a law passed by Congress to make the data privileged.

[Th1onein]

111. You really don't understand the term "inalienable," do you?

We do not derive our rights from the government. We have them, with or without the government's permission.

[jeff47]

113. You really don't understand "does not apply", do you?

Again, the SCOTUS ruling is that the call records are not privileged. You don't own them. They are not your data. They are the phone company's data.

As a result, the 4th amendment does not apply. Just like you have no 4th amendment protection over my possessions - it's not your stuff.

To make the 4th amendment apply, you need a new law to make the data yours or otherwise protected. Then the 4th amendment would apply.

[Th1onein]

114. Without us, there would be no data, and without us, no reason to collect the data.

It is our data, in every sense.

[Rex]

23. No. Not quite. They can read and monitor your email and phone calls though.

They can go back over your keystrokes, but real time monitoring is still science fiction.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

38. Neither of us knows whether the NSA is doing real-time monitoring

But I definitely know it's technically feasible, even trivial. There are lots of programs that will let you either control or observe a remote PC. Making the watcher invisible isn't a very big step. In other words, the technology is already there and just needed to be put together.

[Rex]

46. Oh sure, if they use PCAnywhere or Logmein etc..

But I was surmising that the article meant they could do so at a moments notice. Which they probably can on most personal computers without any trouble. I was thinking along the lines of TIA, maybe we are there.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

51. Live monitoring of anyone/everyone all the time? I agree they're not there yet.

But I am under the assumption that if they become interested in an individual, it's not too many hours before they can watch what that person is doing in real-time after getting into and depositing stasiware on the target PC. I don't know that with any certainty, but it would be completely unsurprising if news like that dropped.

By the way, happy New Year.

[Rex]

52. Happy New Year DCA.

I agree, a Person of Interest would have all their electronic devices tagged in no time for tapping. I just worry that they really do want some kind of TIA and with it a Big Brother nation. The fact that they built some kind of NOC for Intel Domination doesn't give me much encouragement for transparency.

[SomethingFishy]

101. We are already there. Fact is keystroke monitoring was in play long before

any of this NSA/PAtriot Act stuff.. the FBI went through a few different names for their real time keystroke monitoring software.

I believe the name they settled on was Magic Lantern.

I remember back before the Internet when I was on BBS's lots of hackers were worried about the development of this software.

[intaglio]

24. So can any hacker who puts his or her mind to it

Your point is?

[Lifelong Dem]

43. +1 n/t

[last1standing]

58. Any idiot with a gun can shoot you. Does that mean we shouldn't care if the government does it too?

Just because a private individual has the ability to illegally spy on you doesn't mean the government should have the legal right to do so.

Why is this basic logical exercise so difficult for some to figure out?

[Jefferson23]

33. Thay have to be fucking kidding me.

K&R

[Historic NY]

42. For around 50 bucks everyone can purchase a keystroke monitor...

is marketed to parents and business.


http://www.sentrypc.com/

http://download.cnet.com/Award-Keylogger/3000-27064_4-10914957.html

[Spitfire of ATJ]

44. .eurt s'taht fi meht htiw kcuf ot ZTOG tsuJ

[shaayecanaan]

47. porn porn porn porn

Cat video on YouTube lol, porn porn lady gaga porn porn porn check up on DU porn Google dominos pizza voucher codes porn porn porn

[Spitfire of ATJ]

70. Local flower shop, discount liquor, bulk anal lubricant and breath freshening dog biscuits.

[WillyT]

48. K & R !!!

[baldguy]

49. But can they literally watch every keystroke 7 billion people make all at the same time?

Let's all finally agree, once & for all that Glenn Greenwald is full of shit. OK?

[Rex]

53. Not yet, I would think it would take a quantum leap in processing power

and manpower. I do still fear the idea of some nebulous government agency inventing TIA and not telling anyone about it. Specially not Congress or the POTUS.

[Pholus]

56. Naw, you seem to be able to cheerlead/apologize/agree enough for all of us.

The rest of us can only watch this bullshit going down and shake our heads sadly.

"Sciencia est Potentia" baby! Amiright?

[stupidicus]

50. none of these revelations are really surprising

anymore than the defenses of it by the "little brothers" are.

And what the Der Spiegel article details is that one of the things that the NSA is really adept at doing is implanting in various machines—computers, laptops, even cellphones and the like—malware. And malware is essentially a program that allows the NSA, in the terminology that hackers use, to own the machine. So, no matter how much encryption you use, no matter how much you safeguard your communication with passwords and other things, this malware allows the NSA to literally watch every keystroke that you make, to get screen captures of what it is that you’re doing, to circumvent all forms of encryption and other barriers to your communications.

Apparently the expectation of privacy is just another "quaint" thingy they are willing to give up, at least under this pres anyway.

They remind me of all the rightwingnuts that used all the same BS to defend Bush's illegal wiretapping, including the "well, if you have nothing to hide..." turd.

[goldent]

68. The gov has been able to tap phone lines for tens and tens of years

and other kinds of secret surveillance. So the fact that the NSA can do tons of stuff with computers and communication is not any surprise; the scandal would be if they did not have the ability to do this (i.e. they were less skilled than hobbyists).

What Greenwald and Snowden need to do is show how this capability is being systematically misused. Then I'll get interested.

[bobduca]

81. Here you go.. how this info is being used against Americans "Parallel Construction"

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/05/us-dea-sod-idUSBRE97409R20130805

"Parallel construction is a law enforcement technique we use every day," one official said. "It's decades old, a bedrock concept."

A dozen current or former federal agents interviewed by Reuters confirmed they had used parallel construction during their careers. Most defended the practice; some said they understood why those outside law enforcement might be concerned.

"It's just like laundering money - you work it backwards to make it clean," said Finn Selander, a DEA agent from 1991 to 2008 and now a member of a group called Law Enforcement Against Prohibition, which advocates legalizing and regulating narcotics.

Some defense lawyers and former prosecutors said that using "parallel construction" may be legal to establish probable cause for an arrest. But they said employing the practice as a means of disguising how an investigation began may violate pretrial discovery rules by burying evidence that could prove useful to criminal defendants.

[GoneFishin]

71. It's only meta-data. It's is only a series of individual typed letters and numbers,

which are meaningless unless read in the exact right order, which I am sure they would never do without a warrant.

[20score]

72. I was just going to post this here. Beat me to it.

[20score]

73. I saw a few defenders of the NSA/authoritarian mindset here.

Couldn't keep reading. Those people turn my stomach.

But at least Greenwald and Snowden look so good in comparison to the J. Edgar Hoover wing of our party, they're turning others off too.

[bobduca]

82. Ignore helps with that stomach turning quisling-queasieness

There are no NSA defenders on this thread unless I use incognito mode.

[bvar22]

74. Well, there goes ANOTHER Talking Point for the Conservative Right Authoritarians at DU.

Gosh, They've been so wrong for so long, since Day ONE about Snowden and the other Whistle Blowers.
You would think that would slow them down a little and cause them to actually THINK,
but no.
Their performance in this thread dispels all hope for their awakening or redemption.

Rampant Government Secrecy and Democracy can not co-exist.

Persecution of Whistle Blowers and Democracy can not co-exist.

Government surveillance of the citizenry and Democracy can not co-exist.

Secret Laws/Secret Courts and Democracy can not co-exist.

Our Democracy depends on an informed electorate.

Kudos to the protectors of our Democracy.

[baldguy]

75. So, do you think Obama is more like Hitler, or more like Stalin?

You should stop posting Teabagger talking points.

[20score]

76. When you use mindless ad hominems and attack people with insultingly

ridiculous straw men and false dichotomies, you may think you're on top of your game; but you just look really, really bad. 9(Trying to be polite.)

[baldguy]

79. I think you're replying to the wrong post.

Otherwise, it appears that you believe that those characterizing Snowden's skeptics & those who have correctly tagged Greenwald as a self-serving stooge of the RW as "conservative right authoritarians" aren't using ad hominem attacks, and that you can't recognize the double standard that people who post Teabagger talking points on DU are employing.

[bvar22]

77. Laughably LAME , Dude.

You better wait for the new Talking Points to be distributed.
You don't have the "resources" to Freelance.
People are laughing at your embarrassingly pathetic Strawman.

For your own good, and to save you and DU from future embarrassments, baldguy.
I don't like to see anybody, even authoritarian conservatives, humiliate themselves this way.
No Charge this time.

Sincerely,
bvar22

[baldguy]

80. FYI, your hero Greenwald thinks Obama is more like Hitler. JUST LIKE THE TEABAGGERS DO!

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/12/04/925643/--UPDATE-Glenn-Greenwald-compares-Obama-to-Hitler-Seriously

It's just a matter of time before St Glenn gets to be one of Rupert Murdoch's tame "liberals" on Faux Snooze.

[SidDithers]

115. Paul Revere!...

Sid

[baldguy]

116. Member since: Mon Dec 30, 2013, 10:13 PM

n/t

[bobduca]

83. Hey the turnaround on talking points is 24 hours...

I'm sure we'll have the Pro fessional talking points tomorrow morning, east coast press-release time, ~ 6am.

[woo me with science]

98. "It is difficult to get a man to understand something

[font size=3]when his salary depends upon his not understanding it." [/font size]

-Upton Sinclair

[jazzimov]

85. well, of course! We've been doing that for years

in the private sector. In fact, most of our customers demand it. We can even synch up video feeds to watch them as they make those keystrokes, so they can go right to vid at the point of keystroke. Of course, they have to have a video feed, first. But that's standard.

Do you have a webcam?

If so, do you think you have any right to privacy? When you installed the drivers, did you actually read the TOS or just click I Agree?

We gave up our privacy willingly, long ago. Just because we didn't read the Fine Print but clicked I Agree.

[woo me with science]

99. Corporate fascism. nt