• Welcome to BookAndReader!

    We LOVE books and hope you'll join us in sharing your favorites and experiences along with your love of reading with our community. Registering for our site is free and easy, just CLICK HERE!

    Already a member and forgot your password? Click here.

Don't Look Now but Big Brother is Watching

Meadow337

Former Moderator
For every one with paranoid delusions about being watched there is really good news ... you aren't delusional - for every one else who laboured under the illusion that online privacy existed ... you don't have any!

Both international governments and the world's biggest tech companies are in crisis following the leaking of documents that suggest the US government was able to access detailed records of individual smartphone and internet activity, via a scheme called Prism.

Last night Ed Snowden, a 29-year-old former technical worker for the CIA, revealed himself to be the source of the leaks in an interview with the Guardian news website.

US director of national intelligence James Clapper described the leaks as "extremely damaging" to national security, but Mr Snowden said he had acted because he found the extent of US surveillance "horrifying".

What could the US government see?

According to the documents revealed by Ed Snowden, the US National Security Agency (NSA) has access on a massive scale to individual chat logs, stored data, voice traffic, file transfers and social networking data of individuals.

The US government confirmed it did request millions of phone records from US company Verizon, which included call duration, location and the phone numbers of both parties on individual calls.

According to the documents, Prism also enabled "backdoor" access to the servers of nine major technology companies including Microsoft, Yahoo, Google, Facebook, PalTalk, AOL, Skype, YouTube and Apple.

These servers would process and store a vast amount of information, including private posts on social media, web chats and internet searches.

All the companies named have denied their involvement, and it is unknown how Prism actually works.

Some experts question its true powers, with digital forensics professor Peter Sommer telling the BBC the access may be more akin to a "catflap" than a "backdoor".

"The spooks may be allowed to use these firms' servers but only in respect of a named target," he said.

"Or they may get a court order and the firm will provide them with material on a hard-drive or similar."

What about data-protection laws?

Different countries have different laws regarding data protection, but these tend to aim to regulate what data companies can hold about their customers, what they can do with it and how long they can keep it for - rather than government activity.

Most individual company privacy policies will include a clause suggesting they will share information if legally obliged - and include careful wording about other monitoring.

Facebook's privacy policy, for example, states: " We use the information [uploaded by users] to prevent potentially illegal activities".

Are we all being watched?

The ways in which individual governments monitor citizen activity is notoriously secretive in the interests of national security, and officials generally argue that preventing terrorism over-rides protecting privacy.

"You can't have 100% security and also then have 100% privacy and zero inconvenience," said US President Barack Obama, defending US surveillance tactics on Sunday.

Speaking to the BBC UK Foreign Secretary William Hague said that "law abiding citizens" in Britain would "never be aware of all the things... agencies are doing to stop your identity being stolen or to stop a terrorist blowing you up".

Does it make a difference which country you live in?

User data (such as emails and social media activity) is often not stored in the same country as the users themselves - Facebook for example has a clause in its privacy policy saying that all users must consent to their data being "transferred to and stored in" the US.

The US Patriot Act of 2001 gave American authorities new powers over European data stored in this way.

This method of storage is part of cloud computing, in which both storage and processing is carried out away from the individual's own PC.

"Most cloud providers, and certainly the market leaders, fall within the US jurisdiction either because they are US companies or conduct systematic business in the US," Axel Arnbak, a researcher at the University of Amsterdam's Institute for Information Law, told CBS News last year after conducting a study into cloud computing, higher education and the act.

"In particular, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Amendments (FISA) Act makes it easy for US authorities to circumvent local government institutions and mandate direct and easy access to cloud data belonging to non-Americans living outside the US, with little or no transparency obligations for such practices - not even the number of actual requests."

Are other governments involved?

UK Foreign Secretary William Hague has so far refused to confirm or deny whether British government surveillance department GCHQ has had access to Prism but is expected to give a statement to Parliament today.

It is not known whether other governments around the world have been either aware of or involved in the use of Prism, which is reported to have been established in 2007.

In a statement, the EU Justice Commission said it was "concerned" about the consequences of Prism for EU citizens and was "seeking more details" from the US authorities.

"Where the rights of an EU citizen in a Member State are concerned, it is for a national judge to determine whether data can be lawfully transmitted in accordance with legal requirements (be they national, EU or international)," said a spokesperson for Justice Commissioner Vivane Reding.

What does this mean for internet use?

William Hague insists that law-abiding citizens have nothing to worry about, and there is no legal way of "opting out" of monitoring activity carried out in the name of national or global security.

However privacy concerns about information uploaded to the internet have been around for almost as long as the internet itself, and campaign group Privacy International says the reported existence of Prism confirms its "worst fears and suspicions".

"Since many of the world's leading technology companies are based in the US, essentially anyone who participates in our interconnected world and uses popular services like Google or Skype can have their privacy violated through the Prism programme," says Privacy International on its website.

"The US government can have access to much of the world's data, by default, with no recourse."

Edward Snowden, the source of the leaked documents, said he had acted over concerns about privacy.

"I don't want to live in a society that does these sort of things… I do not want to live in a world where everything I do and say is recorded," he told the Guardian.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-22839609
 
no none of the protestations of innocence and ignorance put me at ease. I feel fully justified now in my attitude to FB as well. Just their TOC's made me very nervous ... now I know why they are written so deliberately vaguely.
 
“Even if you’re not doing anything wrong, you’re being watched and recorded… you don’t have to do anything wrong, you simply have to eventually fall under suspicion from somebody even by a wrong call and then they can use the system to go back in time and scrutinize every decision you’ve ever made, every friend you’ve ever discussed something with and attack you on that basis to derive suspicion from an innocent life and paint anyone in the context of a wrongdoer.”

MAYBE finally people will sit up and start taking notice of what has been done in the name of 'freedom' although I seriously question what kind of freedom one has in a system that monitors everything you say and do from birth onwards.
 
I tend to be a bit of a Pollyanna in this regard - if you haven't be doing anything unlawful then you don't have anything to worry about. I'd rather the powers that be catch the ones that intend harm to others than allow them free reign to go about their plotting and terrorism. Maybe if the net had been a bit tighter in 2001 the Twin Towers might still be standing.
 
I tend to be a bit of a Pollyanna in this regard - if you haven't be doing anything unlawful then you don't have anything to worry about. I'd rather the powers that be catch the ones that intend harm to others than allow them free reign to go about their plotting and terrorism. Maybe if the net had been a bit tighter in 2001 the Twin Towers might still be standing.

Sorry but what happens when your entirely lawful activity today becomes an unlawful activity tomorrow ... like say owning certain kinds of books? People who fail to learn the lessons of the past are doomed to repeat them. If people can't see certain patterns emerging in all the neurosis and fear mongering and how much freedom is being ALLOWED to be eroded in the name of freedom I truly worry for the future. If it was only the USA living out their paranoia I would be less worried. Let them turn themselves into another North Korea or similar, but the USA is too big, too powerful on the world political scene for any one on the planet not to worry about where they are headed. For a nation that is so obsessed with freedom they seem to be in a hurry to give it up left right and center in the illusion that doing so will preserve it. FYI the best way to protect something as nebulous as freedom, is to have it, to exercise it, to have openness and debate, and due process of the law, not to fear the boogeyman under the bed and invade your citizens right to privacy and along with them the right to privacy of all citizens in the world. Apart from anything else WHO gave them the right? ALL US citizens should demand that the Patriot Act be revoked with immediate effect and all intelligence gathering based on 'freedoms' granted by it cease and all information held that cannot be proved to be gathered as the result of court order based on reasonable proof of wrong doing be destroyed. THEN we talk about freedom.

I, as a world citizens, whose right to privacy is probably being invaded right this instant because already in this post are certain key words that almost certainly have ensured it be recorded, demand that MY rights be upheld, even if you don't care about yours, I care about mine.
 
Didn't the 'listeners' hear a threat before 9/11 which was disregarded? I thought I had read that.

Yeah but that had little to nothing to do with the internet. The information was all there, it's just that the CIA, FBI, and NSA were not in effective communication with each other. THAT is why 9/11 happened.
 
Yeah but that had little to nothing to do with the internet. The information was all there, it's just that the CIA, FBI, and NSA were not in effective communication with each other. THAT is why 9/11 happened.

Wouldn't that be a case of the net allowing loopholes - and I don't mean the Internet?
 
yes because of course terrorists discuss what they are going to do where some one can listen to it.

I think maybe the people listening or looking for credible threats might be quite a bit smarter than what you are giving them credit for. Information I imagine is disseminated in all sorts of ways other than telephone lines and I'm sure the various agencies are well aware of that.
 
I think maybe the people listening or looking for credible threats might be quite a bit smarter than what you are giving them credit for. Information I imagine is disseminated in all sorts of ways other than telephone lines and I'm sure the various agencies are well aware of that.

No I think you are giving the powers that be too much credit. The fact that they have a very wide and loose net taking information from FB for heaven's sake .... PUHLEEZE explain to me what self respecting terrorist is going to plan an attack via FB? There is clearly no logical rationale behind it other than casting a net in the information ocean hoping to catch a fish with no real 'intelligence' behind it. Without probable cause and a warrant they have NO RIGHT to do what they are doing. And saying its 'for national security' doesn't hold water. The onus is on them to prove their defense of their inexcusable actions and given the way they are doing anything but ... I don't think they can.

Other than they are doing it because they can ... because totalitarian states throughout history have always started with controlling their citizens through secret files / databases ... because they are being allowed to.
 
Wouldn't that be a case of the net allowing loopholes - and I don't mean the Internet?

Loopholes that allow for freedom of expression and the right to privacy must exist to prevent the State becoming a totalitarian dictatorship in which there is no freedom at all.

"Basic civil rights around the world, which are taken for granted far too naively in Western democracies, are being placed under attack by state 'security architecture' such as the US spying program Prism. In Germany -- where the relatively recent examples of two totalitarian state systems mean that the consequences of state monitoring in the private sector are still in living memory -- three things must result from this: clarification of the situation, defense and self-protection."

"The only good thing about the NSA spying is that it exposes the principle tenet of domestic security that has been used to justify the rebuilding of the security system since Sept. 11, 2001: That those with nothing to hide have nothing to fear. This is simply a stupid idea."

http://www.spiegel.de/international...gram-attacks-basic-civil-rights-a-905089.html

Whenever any government (this doesn’t just happen in the US!) gets caught with its hand in the privacy jar, we’re always given two platitudes: If you haven’t done anything wrong, you have nothing to hide; and, Trust us, we’re the government, we have your best interests at heart.

The nothing-to-hide argument is, at best, a pathetically naive defense that owes most of its efficacy to our fear of extremism. Basically, the government is saying that only criminals want to hide data about themselves. Just by paraphrasing the nothing-to-hide argument, you begin to see the stupidity of this argument. We all have things we want to hide, from our loved ones, from our friends, from our communities, and from our government. If you went up to Barack Obama, or some other senior figure, and asked to see his personal email or credit card bill, what do you think their response would be? Without turning this into a conversation about privacy, which is a very complex topic indeed, suffice it to say that the nothing-to-hide argument is underpinned by a very, very narrow understanding of privacy. Think about this: What happens if a hacker breaks into the government’s database?
http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/...how-to-protect-yourself-from-being-spied-on/2
 
I don't think there is any one answer other than people do need to stand up and hold Government accountable. I would love to see the Patriot Act either repealed or at very least substantially limited. I think that in most instances the law is more than adequate and that government agencies should be required to stay within its bounds in terms of warrents for information etc just like the police are required to follow. I see no difference between the two. Most of all I think people should passively resist by being much more aware of their rights online and avoiding services that aren't transparent, don't protect your privacy in clearly stated T & C's, and don't give you the option to opt out of any data recording / history.
 
Back
Top