Search Mailing List Archives


Limit search to: Subject & Body Subject Author
Sort by: Reverse Sort
Limit to: All This Week Last Week This Month Last Month
Select Date Range     through    

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

Brian Conley brianc at smallworldnews.tv
Mon Jun 17 06:25:08 PDT 2013


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

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.

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

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 <jacob at appelbaum.net>
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 companys at 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 companys at stanford.edu or changing your settings at
https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.stanford.edu/pipermail/liberationtech/attachments/20130617/d8b098ef/attachment.html>


More information about the liberationtech mailing list