Is privacy coming back?

[Adam Cruea]

A couple of points/questions:

(1) From your first three paragraphs are you saying you'd be okay with the FBI being the ones in charge of collecting the metadata? I think the NSA is doing it because they (NSA) also have much of the foreign completion data, so they can tie things together. I'd actually prefer the NSA do it, quite frankly, as they (NSA) aren't responsible for law enforcement here. It creates a bit of a firewall, in other words. And again, it isn't like the NSA is endlessly pouring over this data, they access it pretty infrequently, and with oversight. So says the NSA and congress. Now we can chose not to believe them. But as I've stated, it is pretty difficult to keep hundreds of people from blabbing when a program like this is misused.

(2) Your points about airport security are well-taken. But do you think a guy from the Middle East doesn't imagine airport screeners are going to look at him a bit more closely than they look at you, regardless of what the TSA says? Why do you think terrorist organizations are trying to recruit people that don't look Middle Eastern? Have you seen the recent press reports of young (impressionable) girls from Australia that were brought to the Middle East as possible mating partners?

So many of these programs (airport security, metadata collection, etc.), by their mere existence, make the job of terrorists more difficult. Just the possibility of getting caught boarding an airplane, or of the NSA identifying a cell because of the use of telephones, makes it that much more difficult for terrorist organizations.

I think it was Snowden that said the NSA wanted to monitor chat traffic on gaming networks. Whether they are or aren't doesn't really matter, because if you're a terrorist you now have to assume they may be.

The government is going to be blamed no matter what. If there is an attack, they will be blamed for not having done enough. Until then, they will be blamed for having gone too far.

The game is called "You can't win."

1) The NSA doesn't have oversight; they're a black operation, part of the black budget, and they're basically accountable to know one. The Snowden leaks prove that. The NSA can access almost any of your communications anytime, anywhere they want. How do they keep people from blabbing? Well, I don't know your background (I stick to the Neaderthal Haven mostly, so pardon here), but if you've ever done an SF-86 for a TS clearance, then actually read the NDA you have to sign, you know it's better to shut up and not risk it. There's a reason Snowden is in Russia and will stay in a non-extradition treaty country until his death; breaking that NDA is basically viewed upon as treason, which is punishable by death. Ever noticed you don't see many people leaking state secrets, and when they do, they go directly to jail, do not pass go, and do not collect $200? The TS NDA covers that. Long story short: what you see cannot be repeated under any circumstances. You are to die with this information and for this information. Release of this information is punishable by termination, jail, and any applicable sentence thereof. There's also the small case that some of the people honestly believe in the mission.

While sitting in the SF airport and Portland airports, I saw bags getting left behind multiple times. I glanced around to see if anyone else noticed; guess what? Most people had their nose stuck in a cell phone not caring. I've seen the same in train stations and metro stations here in DC (it's one of the myriad of reasons I hate riding transit out here).

The thing is, terrorists don't care if they get caught; that's the whole idea: instill fear. Whether they bomb something or not, their mission has been accomplished. Once fear is instilled, all is right for them.

Personally, as a US citizen, it is my responsibility to be on watch for suspicious people acting oddly, not the government's. Maybe it's because I work with the government and I realize they could screw up their own erotic dreams, but I wouldn't trust the government to sit on their butts and collect a paycheck without screwing it up (as evidenced by several porn-browsing-during-work-while-the-country-crumbles stories).

[Phil Thien]

Personally, as a US citizen, it is my responsibility to be on watch for suspicious people acting oddly, not the government's.

While we clearly disagree on most points, I do respect your opinions.

On that point above, that you're going to watch for suspicious people acting oddly, could you explain something that a terrorist cell would naturally do that would tip you off to the fact that they're planning something diabolical? Some tell-tale sign?

[Pat Barry]

While sitting in the SF airport and Portland airports, I saw bags getting left behind multiple times. I glanced around to see if anyone else noticed; guess what? Most people had their nose stuck in a cell phone not caring. I've seen the same in train stations and metro stations here in DC (it's one of the myriad of reasons I hate riding transit out here).

Personally, as a US citizen, it is my responsibility to be on watch for suspicious people acting oddly

So - did you report this suspicious activity or what? Did you note who left the bags? Brown, purple, what have you, or maybe it was granny. Did they shut down the airport, bring in the bomb squad? Just curious

[Chuck Wintle]

1)
Personally, as a US citizen, it is my responsibility to be on watch for suspicious people acting oddly, not the government's. Maybe it's because I work with the government and I realize they could screw up their own erotic dreams, but I wouldn't trust the government to sit on their butts and collect a paycheck without screwing it up (as evidenced by several porn-browsing-during-work-while-the-country-crumbles stories).

Do you think you would have spotted the boston bombers? By most accounts they were not doing anything suspicious.

[Scott Shepherd]

Do you think you would have spotted the boston bombers? By most accounts they were not doing anything suspicious.

Just for clarity, neither did law enforcement, the FBI, the NSA, CIA, or anyone else with all the data collecting they are doing.

[Chuck Wintle]

Just for clarity, neither did law enforcement, the FBI, the NSA, CIA, or anyone else with all the data collecting they are doing.

yes all the taxpayers money hard at work keeping the public safe!

[Phil Thien]

Just for clarity, neither did law enforcement, the FBI, the NSA, CIA, or anyone else with all the data collecting they are doing.

100% agreed. While I was impressed with how quickly they were identified after the fact, I think most of the credit there goes to security cameras belonging to commercial enterprises.

[Adam Cruea]

100% agreed. While I was impressed with how quickly they were identified after the fact, I think most of the credit there goes to security cameras belonging to commercial enterprises.

And thank you for making my point.

It wasn't Big Brother that did much of anything. It was entities not even related to Big Brother.

So - did you report this suspicious activity or what? Did you note who left the bags? Brown, purple, what have you, or maybe it was granny. Did they shut down the airport, bring in the bomb squad? Just curious

In the cases of the airports, people generally came back after about 5 minutes. However, not only am I trying to express that people don't pay attention, people don't even try to keep themselves safe. You're specifically told *not* to leave baggage unattended because people could slip whatever into your bags, yet people are happy and content to believe that after TSA checks, they're "safe" and don't need to worry. False.

And yes, I have reported unattended baggage (as has my wife) on the Metro here in DC. Know what happened? Zilch. My wife was actually told not to bother with it by the Metro PD.

On that point above, that you're going to watch for suspicious people acting oddly, could you explain something that a terrorist cell would naturally do that would tip you off to the fact that they're planning something diabolical? Some tell-tale sign?

Well, let's see. There's that whole "We don't care about landing a plane, just flying it" that would have tipped me off about 14 years ago for one.
For two, anything out-of-the-ordinary is suspicious. People are habitual creatures that naturally fall into patterns.
For three, read up on "microexpressions". You can use microexpressions along with body language to determine someone's intent. For example, someone that shifts about in their chair is uncomfortable. Someone that shifts about in their chair and nervously looks around is hiding something. When talking to someone, when one holds your gaze abnormally long (stares) or won't hold your gaze, they are trying to hide something. In the first case, they are aggressively trying to cover something up. In the second case, they are trying to avoid your attention. Even meek people will make eye contact during interaction; only people trying to avoid interaction wholly avoid eye contact.

Read up on social engineering techniques; a lot of those will tell you what to look for when you want to find something out-of-the-ordinary. And it's also a sad truth that most people don't pay attention; hence why social engineering is so successful so many times.

Again, I'm not being snotty when I say it, but read up on psychology. It's really quite fascinating being able to see someone and within about 30 seconds summarize their personality and intentions. This works for a good portion of people, basically those without serious mental illness. Human beings are open books waiting to be read; you just have to know how to read them.

[Phil Thien]

And thank you for making my point.

It wasn't Big Brother that did much of anything. It was entities not even related to Big Brother.

In the cases of the airports, people generally came back after about 5 minutes. However, not only am I trying to express that people don't pay attention, people don't even try to keep themselves safe. You're specifically told *not* to leave baggage unattended because people could slip whatever into your bags, yet people are happy and content to believe that after TSA checks, they're "safe" and don't need to worry. False.

And yes, I have reported unattended baggage (as has my wife) on the Metro here in DC. Know what happened? Zilch. My wife was actually told not to bother with it by the Metro PD.

Well, let's see. There's that whole "We don't care about landing a plane, just flying it" that would have tipped me off about 14 years ago for one.
For two, anything out-of-the-ordinary is suspicious. People are habitual creatures that naturally fall into patterns.
For three, read up on "microexpressions". You can use microexpressions along with body language to determine someone's intent. For example, someone that shifts about in their chair is uncomfortable. Someone that shifts about in their chair and nervously looks around is hiding something. When talking to someone, when one holds your gaze abnormally long (stares) or won't hold your gaze, they are trying to hide something. In the first case, they are aggressively trying to cover something up. In the second case, they are trying to avoid your attention. Even meek people will make eye contact during interaction; only people trying to avoid interaction wholly avoid eye contact.

Read up on social engineering techniques; a lot of those will tell you what to look for when you want to find something out-of-the-ordinary. And it's also a sad truth that most people don't pay attention; hence why social engineering is so successful so many times.

Again, I'm not being snotty when I say it, but read up on psychology. It's really quite fascinating being able to see someone and within about 30 seconds summarize their personality and intentions. This works for a good portion of people, basically those without serious mental illness. Human beings are open books waiting to be read; you just have to know how to read them.

So you want to profile people based on their inability to sit still at the airport (which could just as easily be a 'roids flare-up) or someone not looking you in the eyes while talking (which could just be someone that has one form or another of high-functioning autism)? That sounds a ton more invasive than the NSA collecting telephone metadata and searching it for patterns.

I'll take a pass on any of those ideas.

[Chuck Wintle]

So you want to profile people based on their inability to sit still at the airport (which could just as easily be a 'roids flare-up) or someone not looking you in the eyes while talking (which could just be someone that has one form or another of high-functioning autism)? That sounds a ton more invasive than the NSA collecting telephone metadata and searching it for patterns.

I'll take a pass on any of those ideas.

i agree its great to be vigilant and watch for suspicious people but in a crowd how does one maintain this level of scrutiny with thousands of people milling about?

[Scott Shepherd]

Looks like the head of the FBI doesn't like the encryption angle from Google and Apple either, so he's either a good actor and still has access to it all, or it's a serious step in taking back the privacy....

This just popped up on Mashable today.

http://mashable.com/2014/10/16/fbi-d...g-dark-speech/

[Wilbur Harris]

A long time ago, probably 5 years or longer, I was out of town on Saturday and needed some money. Nobody would cash a 2K check so I laptopped into Western Union to get the money. Not a good idea but I needed the money. That said, here's what happened....

Western Union (WU) told me I needed to call them on the phone and I did. The lady nicely (really was nice) explained that this was an unusual request and that she needed to verify my identity. I agreed and she asked about 5 multiple choice questions. I answered the questions and she agreed to approve the transaction. Don't remember the questions exactly but I can recreate them for the point.

What color car have you bought in the last 2 years? Wasn't so much the color but she knew what colors I hadn't bought.

What is the middle name of your child?

What domain name do you have registered?

When is your wife's birthday?

What is the first name of your wife's sister?

There was only one correct answer to these questions meaning that she had correct data and was able to pull the data in minutes. This was just WU so if you think you need to concern yourself you are right. Right on one hand and wrong on the other. I don't believe you can prevent such data gathering and don't know what hurts and what doesn't. All I'm saying is that they have such databases and the data is available to most anybody that needs it or says they do....such as WU.

[Adam Cruea]

So you want to profile people based on their inability to sit still at the airport (which could just as easily be a 'roids flare-up) or someone not looking you in the eyes while talking (which could just be someone that has one form or another of high-functioning autism)? That sounds a ton more invasive than the NSA collecting telephone metadata and searching it for patterns.

I'll take a pass on any of those ideas.

Unless you're a hermit and you don't talk to people, you do this every day.

Some people are just more adept at it and realize it than others.

You've shown that you are not adept at this. A 'roids flare-up will not have someone looking around nervously. They will have expressions on their face of pain and discomfort, not nervousness.

The autistic will not talk to you and you know they're autistic right off the bat. I've dealt with autistic kids; you know almost right away. They also don't avoid eye-contact; they will look around randomly. The person wanting to hide will purposely keep from making eye contact.

Either way, you do this every day in human-to-human interactions, unless you're on the spectrum. You register people's expressions and emotions without realizing it; we all do.

[Phil Thien]

Unless you're a hermit and you don't talk to people, you do this every day.

Some people are just more adept at it and realize it than others.

You've shown that you are not adept at this. A 'roids flare-up will not have someone looking around nervously. They will have expressions on their face of pain and discomfort, not nervousness.

The autistic will not talk to you and you know they're autistic right off the bat. I've dealt with autistic kids; you know almost right away. They also don't avoid eye-contact; they will look around randomly. The person wanting to hide will purposely keep from making eye contact.

Either way, you do this every day in human-to-human interactions, unless you're on the spectrum. You register people's expressions and emotions without realizing it; we all do.

Adam, I don't know what you've read or what show you watched, but it really isn't possible to reliably draw conclusions about someone's intention based on their posture or the way they're fidgeting in a chair or the expression on their face.

And even if you think someone is acting in a nervous manner, that doesn't necessarily mean they have some sort of evil planned. Maybe a soon-to-occur meeting with a difficult family member is causing some nervousness.

But nonetheless, the underlying and most important point is: You feel the NSA's access to metadata is a violation of your right to privacy, but it is okay for you to involve the police in someone's life because you think you have a read on the person based on some perceived micro-expressions and body language.

What you're proposing is far more invasive than looking at metadata. And again, I'll take a big pass.

[Adam Cruea]

Adam, I don't know what you've read or what show you watched, but it really isn't possible to reliably draw conclusions about someone's intention based on their posture or the way they're fidgeting in a chair or the expression on their face.

And even if you think someone is acting in a nervous manner, that doesn't necessarily mean they have some sort of evil planned. Maybe a soon-to-occur meeting with a difficult family member is causing some nervousness.

But nonetheless, the underlying and most important point is: You feel the NSA's access to metadata is a violation of your right to privacy, but it is okay for you to involve the police in someone's life because you think you have a read on the person based on some perceived micro-expressions and body language.

What you're proposing is far more invasive than looking at metadata. And again, I'll take a big pass.

It's called real life and understanding body language. Human beings are habitual creatures, with habitual actions and habitual patterns. A difficult family member will not elicit nervousness; that elicits dread. People take the path of least resistance; a difficult family member causes resistance, which causes stress, which causes effort in dealing with them, which is shown as dread. Nervousness is caused by fear of getting caught doing something you shouldn't. How is meeting a difficult family member doing something you shouldn't be doing?

I realize you don't believe me, and frankly, I can't say I care. If you want to deny to yourself that this is what any interrogator does (read expressions, body language, and puts them all together) while manipulating the interrogated's environment, okay. I'm not here to change your mind. You're the one that posted, which opens up your opinion to alternatives which you might not be able to fully understand (I don't understand the paranoid crypto-folks and the "if you have nothing to hide, why care" folks, so don't take that as a slam). You've yet to show that you understand basic human psychology, though. Here's some light reading: http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/...ance-behaviors

I never said it was okay to involve the police in someone's life. Personally, I feel everyone needs to leave me the hell alone, and I'll leave everyone else the hell alone. I honestly don't understand the point of terrorism (I understand why it's done, how it's done, and the purpose), just like I don't understand the point of war, or religion, or really anything other than working towards a common goal. Nor do I really understand the point of police; intelligent people are able to police themselves.

Terrorism, war, religion, police; they're all used by feeble-minded people to control masses of more people, because en masse, a group of humans is as smart at the dumbest member (mob mentality). Why? What's the point? To prove who has the better method of killing? To prove who has the better farcical deity? To prove who has better "order" or is more "cultured"? Yeah, we all see how well that's working out.

Exercise to understand the situation: argue on the side of brown-skinned Middle Easterners as to why America is the terrorist in the global society. You'll quickly understand that "terrorist" is merely a matter of perspective and that there are extremists on both sides of the fence. One just happens to be backed by more resources than the other, and the one with more resources generally trains the one with fewer resources.