http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013...-web-searches/ This is part of a longer article: The agency acknowledged the existence of the program -- called XKeyscore -- but said access is limited and suggested it was mainly aimed at foreign intelligence targets. The Guardian article described it differently. According to the piece, the XKeyscore program is the "widest-reaching" system the agency has and allows analysts without prior authorization to dig around the database by filling out an on-screen form giving a basic justification. According to the report, the program covers "nearly everything a typical user does on the internet" including emails and websites visited. It also reportedly allows analysts to intercept Internet activity in "real time." The Guardian report seems to make a distinction between what is technically possible under this program and what is legally allowed. It notes that U.S. law requires the NSA to get a warrant if the target is a U.S. individual -- but says the XKeyscore program provides "the technological capability, if not the legal authority" to go after Americans without a warrant as long as an analyst knows information like an email or IP address. The NSA, in its statement, pushed back on these assertions.
Limited how? By the law (laugh), by the dictates of the program (whatEVER), only by the agent's imagination (most likely) Suggested but didn't outright state, which means they hope that you read it the way they wrote it and not how it actually works. But not exclusively or entirely. That's it, if you want to communicate with me from now on (personally), you have to provide me with your GPG public key. No more clear email. I'm done.
From the same article - NSA program reportedly allows analysts to track emails, chats, web searches | Fox News Right, like the unprecedented, vague and far-reaching grab of MONTHS worth of call data from cellular providers...or maybe the COMPLETELY ILLEGAL overreach involving the AP? Hmm? Maybe? Smells like a turd, sounds like a turd, looks like a turd...It's A '''''''''''''''''''''''( '''''''''''''''''''''''')'''''/ '''''''''''''''''''('''(''''(##)---._ _ '''''''''''''''''''')'''b''''"'''''''''`----- _ _ _'''''\''''''''(''''88_ '''''`-----(##)''''''___888b__ ''''''''''''"''''''_d888888888b'''( '''''''''('''''___d888888888888_''') '''''''''')'''d88888888888888888b'( '''''''''('''d8888888888888888888__ ''''''''''___8888888888888888888888b '''''''''d88888888888888888888888888b '''''''''888888888888888888888888888P '''''''''Y8888Zot888888888888888888P I'm sorry, is the NSA spokesperson unfamiliar with the GIANT datacenter being built in Draper Utah? Prove most of the information is "never reviewed". What's that, you can't...don't have the technology to even review your OWN EMAIL?!?!?! How'd that early warning system work in Boston earlier this year? It's more of the same, get the people used to being monitored one step at a time until you can't even think something for fear of going to jail or being labeled at terrorist!
If you have never read "Brave New World" by Aldous Huxley you need to do so. "1984" by George Orwell should be a required book for all to read today.
What bothers me about all this data collection, is the backwards capable search potential. Joe blow, does something wrong, he is researched, and all of his contacts are researched, then their contacts, and everything they have ever done or said becomes part of the probe, and their contacts....they claim there are only 6degrees of seperation between us all.
They should call this whole program "Terminator" since they can effectively go back in time to get anybody they want. AT
From Justin Amashs' Facebook page On July 24, Representatives in Congress were presented with a simple question: Do you *oppose* the suspicionless collection of the phone records of every American? Click HERE to see their answer
The fact there even needed to be a vote on this is one more indication of how deep in the doodoo we are. On a side note, arms and rounds ready for an open season....................yeah,that's it...........open season.
I guess it's a good thing that I'm always a few years behind the technology curve. I don't have a "Smart-TV," or a "Smart-phone," or any other "Smart" device. If the government wants to spy on me, they'll have to do it the old-fashioned way.
That will not save you. I remember an article a few years back, where any computer screen could be used as s poor camera. It worked well enough to tell how many people were in the house, and where in the house to find them.
It's not just NSA in USA... America thinks it owns the global internet and has a right to spy on everyone everywhere....for the children....for our protection of coarse. Michael Geist - Secret Surveillance Puts Internet Governance System at Risk Friday August 02, 2013 One year ago, many Internet users were engaged in a contentious debate over the question of who should govern the Internet. The debate pitted the current model led by a United States based organization known as the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (supported by the U.S.) against a government-led, United Nations-style model under which countries such as China and Russia could assert greater control over Internet governance. The differences between the two approaches were never as stark as some portrayed since the current model grants the U.S. considerable contractual power over ICANN, but the fear of greater foreign government control over the Internet led to strong political opposition to UN involvement. While supporters of the current model ultimately prevailed at a UN conference in Dubai last December where most Western democracies, including Canada, strongly rejected major Internet governance reforms, the issue was fundamentally about trust. Given that all governments have become more vocal about Internet matters, the debate was never over whether government would be involved, but rather about who the global Internet community trusted to lead on governance matters. My weekly technology law column (Toronto Star version,homepage version) argues that the Internet governance choice was a relatively easy one at the time, but in recent weeks the revelations about widespread U.S. secret surveillance of the Internet may cause many to rethink their views. Starting with the first disclosures in early June about the collection of phone metadata, the past two months have been marked by a dizzying array of reports that reveal a massive U.S. surveillance infrastructure that covers the globe and seeks access to virtually all Internet-based communications. The surveillance programs include phone metadata collection that captures information on billions of calls, access to data from Internet giants such as Google, Facebook, and Microsoft (which may even include user passwords), and the monitoring of Internet traffic through undersea cables around the world. Moreover, the surveillance activities involve the active co-operation of the same governments that support the U.S. on Internet governance, including the United Kingdom and Canada. Not only do the surveillance programs themselves raise enormous privacy and civil liberties concerns, but oversight and review is conducted almost entirely in secret with little or no ability to guard against misuse. In fact, U.S. officials have now acknowledged providing inaccurate information on the programs to elected politicians, raising further questions about who is watching the watchers. The surveillance programs have emerged as a contentious political issue in the U.S. and there are several reasons why the reverberations are likely to extend to the global Internet governance community. First, the element of trust has been severely compromised. Supporters of the current Internet governance model frequently pointed to Internet surveillance and the lack of accountability within countries like China and Russia as evidence of the danger of a UN-led model. With the public now aware of the creation of a massive, secret U.S.-backed Internet surveillance program, the U.S. has ceded the moral high ground on the issue. Second, as the scope of the surveillance becomes increasingly clear, many countries are likely to opt for a balkanized Internet in which they do not trust other countries with the security or privacy of their networked communications. This could lead to new laws requiring companies to store their information domestically to counter surveillance of the data as it crosses borders or resides on computer servers located in the U.S. In fact, some may go further by resisting the interoperability of the Internet that we now take for granted. Third, some of those same countries may demand similar levels of access to personal information from the Internet giants. This could create a "privacy race to the bottom", where governments around the world create parallel surveillance programs, ensuring that online privacy and co-operative Internet governance is a thing of the past.
