Is privacy coming back?

[Mel Fulks]

Yeah. Which president vowed to fire Hoover; Johnson? Nixon? J.Edgar left the elliptical edifice with a promise he could
stay head of the bureau as long as he wanted and get a bigger bag O' money budgeted.

[Scott Shepherd]

The bigger concern with things such as TOR is not that there is some sort of back door but that you will either not properly configure your computer to use it, or that you will exit on a compromised node, which allows the compromiser to watch the traffic; which I think is mostly only a problem if your stream of traffic contains data that you do not want someone to see.

When I say compromised node, I don't mean a node where someone has taken it over, I mean a node that was setup by someone for the sole purpose of watching the traffic.

So do you think that there's a server farm somewhere with 1000's of computers in it, all running as part of the TOR network to be used exactly as that compromised node? Wouldn't doing that just provide them the "in" that they needed? (I'm not well versed on TOR, other than basically knowing what it does and having had looked at it a number of times over the years).

I never signed up for it because, at the times I looked, I think it violated the terms of service for my internet provider, which would mean using it put my entire connectivity at risk.

[Phil Thien]

Note to Phil and others. If you don't think government agencies "blackmail" or use subtle threats you are very naïve, too young to remember, or have a short memory. Remember good ole J. Edgar? He was the king of abuse of power and blackmailed presidents, members of congress, and members of the media. His files on even regular Americans who didn't came to his or the FBI's attention because they were considered "subversive" or questioned things were legion. How do you think he survived so many years past the mandatory retirement age?

The only difference between J. Edgar and today is the technology used. Personal privacy is an illusion. Our rights have been eroded slowly and steadily as the unchecked power of the executive branch of government has become preeminent over the legislative and judicial.

There is much speculation that Hoover employed blackmail, but little proof.

The idea that Hoover blackmailed presidents to remain in power has been debunked.

There was not a single time during Hoover's life that any sort of blackmail attempt blew-up. Nobody can be that good at blackmailing. Especially when the targets are powerful, connected people. Eventually someone is going to kill themselves, but not before sending a letter to the NY Times saying they were being blackmailed by Hoover.

And you seriously think one of Nixon's or Kennedy's lieutenants (guys like G. Gordon Liddy) wouldn't have just killed the guy and made it look like an accident if any of that were true? Just push him down the stairs, make sure he hits his head real hard, suffocate him at the bottom, say it was an accident.

I mean, you know why "Deep Throat" refused to reveal themselves, right? Because they knew they'd (Whitehouse Operatives) kill him/her.

In terms of privacy and our constitution, I feel okay. I think things are still working alright. The Supreme Court recently held police can't search a smart-phone w/o a warrant. I haven't heard of any instances where people have claimed their constitutional rights were actually violated as a result of any collection efforts by the spooks.

I think people are buying into sensationalist coverage of this crap.

"The NSA has your phone meta data, and this is what they COULD do."

"What your bank account may tell the NSA."

Good grief.

My position: Concerned, not alarmed, refusing to buy into the hysteria.

[John Coloccia]

Phil, the world was a much different place before the internet and 24/7 news cycles. Incidentally, Truman himself flat out accused Hoover of blackmail.

[Mel Fulks]

I will leave the Hoover blackmail thing to better historians. But some stories over time get played down simply because
they are embarrassing to perpetrator and victim, I think the Hoover - M.L. King thing is one of those. It is proven that
Hoover,in testimony before congress to ask for more money made up his own statistics.

[Scott Shepherd]

In terms of privacy and our constitution, I feel okay. I think things are still working alright. The Supreme Court recently held police can't search a smart-phone w/o a warrant. I haven't heard of any instances where people have claimed their constitutional rights were actually violated as a result of any collection efforts by the spooks.

I think people are buying into sensationalist coverage of this crap.

So recording private conversations without consent (just a a point of reference, in the state of Virginia, one person has to consent to the taping of a call for it to be legally gathered) is perfectly fine with you? You don't see that as ANY violation of privacy?

I knew, about 25 years ago that all phone calls were routed through a system that listened for keywords. It was the trigger of those keywords that flipped the switch to get things recording. You knew, as long as you didn't get on the phone and start staying some pretty bad stuff, your call wasn't recorded.

Forget Google, I'm talking about just pure traffic. My email, which is my own domain, is gathered. Why? You have no reason to believe I have done anything wrong or am planning to do anything wrong. So who and what gives you the rights to take all my private emails and store them without a warrant? It has nothing to do with whether or not I have anything to hide, it has to do with principle and no one's given these people the authority to do it, they're just doing it, without our permission and we have no say so in it.

I don't care that they run my phone calls or emails through a keyword filter. I'm fine with that. But the threshold has always been that as long as that data isn't stored, then it's legal. Now, it's being stored, which is where I have the issue with it.

[David Weaver]

There is much speculation that Hoover employed blackmail, but little proof.

The idea that Hoover blackmailed presidents to remain in power has been debunked.

The idea that he was collecting information on individuals has not.

A quote from truman about the FBI:

"They are dabbling in sex-life scandals and plain blackmail."

Presidents Harry S. Truman and John F. Kennedy each considered dismissing Hoover as FBI Director, but ultimately concluded that the political cost of doing so would be too great.

Why would that be?

And you seriously think one of Nixon's or Kennedy's lieutenants (guys like G. Gordon Liddy) wouldn't have just killed the guy and made it look like an accident if any of that were true? Just push him down the stairs, make sure he hits his head real hard, suffocate him at the bottom, say it was an accident.

Do you think that anything hoover and his comrades amassed would've just disappeared if that occurred?

[Phil Thien]

The idea that he was collecting information on individuals has not.

A quote from truman about the FBI:

"They are dabbling in sex-life scandals and plain blackmail."

Presidents Harry S. Truman and John F. Kennedy each considered dismissing Hoover as FBI Director, but ultimately concluded that the political cost of doing so would be too great.

Why would that be?



Do you think that anything hoover and his comrades amassed would've just disappeared if that occurred?[/COLOR]

Truman (and others) misunderstood WHY Hoover himself would send a trusted agent to tell a member of congress (or a governor, or whoever) that they had been made aware of compromising information.

Say a politician's wife is having an affair. The FBI comes knocking and says, "hey, your wife is having an affair. We just wanted you to know that we know. Here is my card."

Is that a threat? Super-smooth blackmail?

Fast forward six months and her now-jilted lover wants $50k, or he is going to the press.

You could call the cops, but that may blow up in your face.

Or you could find that card the agent gave you and give him a call. He is going to know exactly what to do.

[Phil Thien]

So recording private conversations without consent (just a a point of reference, in the state of Virginia, one person has to consent to the taping of a call for it to be legally gathered) is perfectly fine with you? You don't see that as ANY violation of privacy?

I knew, about 25 years ago that all phone calls were routed through a system that listened for keywords. It was the trigger of those keywords that flipped the switch to get things recording. You knew, as long as you didn't get on the phone and start staying some pretty bad stuff, your call wasn't recorded.

Forget Google, I'm talking about just pure traffic. My email, which is my own domain, is gathered. Why? You have no reason to believe I have done anything wrong or am planning to do anything wrong. So who and what gives you the rights to take all my private emails and store them without a warrant? It has nothing to do with whether or not I have anything to hide, it has to do with principle and no one's given these people the authority to do it, they're just doing it, without our permission and we have no say so in it.

I don't care that they run my phone calls or emails through a keyword filter. I'm fine with that. But the threshold has always been that as long as that data isn't stored, then it's legal. Now, it's being stored, which is where I have the issue with it.

Not all calls are being recorded.

Think about it.

Just think about how much storage would be required, and how much bandwidth would be required to transmit all that data back to a facility where it could be archived. Think about all the smaller carriers (hundreds of LD haulers), and at least one of them would have been run by a screaming libertarian that would have gone to the press and insisted that the gov't was demanding a feed.

And 25 years ago, digital switches barely had enough horsepower for call completion, much less voice recognition. Maybe on a limited basis, something could be deployed, but not wide-spread. And not only that, that technology would have to tie right into the switches, there is no way you'd get every operator in the states to just agree to keep their mouths shut.

I know people have made accusations. Even "insiders." But they probably don't even understand the scope of the project.

[David Weaver]

Recording a call wouldn't require much of a bit rate. I have no idea if anyone would care to commit the resources to it, but it wouldn't take that much. A percentage could be sampled (10%?), and just because small carriers might not be involved, it could be strategic, like pay as you go phones or specific carriers.

The insider comments you may be referring to are folks describing the MYSTIC program (I had to look it up) that said that they have the capacity to record 100% of a foreign country's voice calls and retrieve the calls later. The same story that I found describing it said it was in full swing in 2011. The same story said that the calls go into a 30 day buffer and any calls deemed interesting are rolled into long-term storage.

As far as your interpretation of hoover helping people by spying on them, that's what I'd tell them to if I were spying on them. "Look, I'm doing this to help you" (until I need it for leverage against you, but I'm not going to tell you that part).

[Scott Shepherd]

Not all calls are being recorded.

Think about it.

Just think about how much storage would be required, and how much bandwidth would be required to transmit all that data back to a facility where it could be archived. Think about all the smaller carriers (hundreds of LD haulers), and at least one of them would have been run by a screaming libertarian that would have gone to the press and insisted that the gov't was demanding a feed.

And 25 years ago, digital switches barely had enough horsepower for call completion, much less voice recognition. Maybe on a limited basis, something could be deployed, but not wide-spread. And not only that, that technology would have to tie right into the switches, there is no way you'd get every operator in the states to just agree to keep their mouths shut.

I know people have made accusations. Even "insiders." But they probably don't even understand the scope of the project.

You might just want to check that data- EVERY call made is being RECORDED. The Utah data center is said to have enough capacity to store everything ever created to date.

EVERY call IS being recorded. That's not even a point of debate at this point in time. It's been admitted in front on congress. The carriers have no say so in it. Screaming libertarians or not.

If you don't think this is happening, you need to look into a little more.

Here's the data center that's being built :

http://www.wired.com/2012/03/ff_nsadatacenter/all/

Here's how large it is, in terms of storage :

"the Pentagon is attempting to expand its worldwide communications network, known as the Global Information Grid, to handle yottabytes (10²⁴ bytes) of data. (A yottabyte is a septillion bytes—so large that no one has yet coined a term for the next higher magnitude.)"

[Pat Barry]

TOur rights have been eroded slowly and steadily as the unchecked power of the executive branch of government has become preeminent over the legislative and judicial.

I certainly prefer it this way and I am sure everyone would. Obviously its not unchecked power. God only knows how bad things would be if our Legislative branch actually had any operational responsibility. It would be a nightmare, a quagmire, and a fiasco all rolled into one. Could you imagine our bickering legislature, who care more about re-election than ANYTHING else, particularly in election years (which by the way is every year) actually being accountable to get anything of substance actually done?

[Pat Barry]

You might just want to check that data- EVERY call made is being RECORDED. The Utah data center is said to have enough capacity to store everything ever created to date.

EVERY call IS being recorded. That's not even a point of debate at this point in time. It's been admitted in front on congress. The carriers have no say so in it. Screaming libertarians or not.

If you don't think this is happening, you need to look into a little more.

Here's the data center that's being built :

http://www.wired.com/2012/03/ff_nsadatacenter/all/

Here's how large it is, in terms of storage :

"the Pentagon is attempting to expand its worldwide communications network, known as the Global Information Grid, to handle yottabytes (10²⁴ bytes) of data. (A yottabyte is a septillion bytes—so large that no one has yet coined a term for the next higher magnitude.)"

Is this "Big Brother"?

[David Weaver]

I agree with Mel, we're going to get used to the fact that everything digital exists in archive. I kind of assume that's the case now. It may not be quite yet, but it's inevitable.

(consequently, I have heard old timers at home telling me about the imaginary glass panes that extend into space designating what you own, and they weren't happy about airplanes flying through their space. I guess their parents must've impressed the same thing on them).

[John Coloccia]

I certainly prefer it this way and I am sure everyone would.

You would be wrong. Try to remember, Pat, that the person wearing the crown won't always have the same ideas that you do.