Edward Snowden thread

Originally posted by dadudemon
Obviously, places like the NSA will not declassify information on how or what they did with that information until they are good and ready.

But, you studied criminal psychology, right? I'm pretty sure you've talked in depth about that massive area of psychology, before. I've taken a single semester and it focused more on the IT side. I would just assume it focuses much more on the terrorism aspect of it and much less on the hacker side. I would really like to spend years studying that.

not to a serious degree, no. It comes up in relation to other things.

My point would be more along the lines of: It is nearly impossible to predict much less complex behaviour, in far more controlled settings, with potentially trillions of times the data points per subject than the NSA would have per individual, and further, modeling and predicting such behaviour says nothing about the mechanisms behind it, which are essential for identifying criminal behaviour.

Its almost like the lie detector. Its not that it can't work, it is that to make it even moderately effective at detecting lies, you have to accept a hugely inflated number of false alarms. In terms of storing data of hundreds of millions of Americans, plus any "foreigner" they want, the NSA is going to have massive difficulties finding signals in the noise. Assuming even the best intentions from the NSA [sic], there is no way they wouldn't end up determining innocent people are about-to engage in terrorist activities.

in terms of hackers, you mean very specifically the behaviours you can track as they use the web, right? not from screening their email or who they are calling? I'd look at these as being very different types of profiling.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I don't get it. 🙁

the fact we call torture and "enhanced" interrogation technique is almost more troubling to me than the fact we engage in torture. The sanitization of evil, basically. I use the term "enhanced interrogation techniques" because I think it actually sounds worse than saying "torture"

Originally posted by Oliver North
stopping terrorism is only the expressed justification for such a system.

In essence, the NSA wants to be a more sophisticated version of the Stasi, but can't just say that directly, so they use "terrorism" as a way to justify their actions. Make no mistake, this system was designed to control you and the American public, not keep you safe.

no, not even close

that was the major controversy behind zero dark thirty, in fact

Between November 23, 2002, and January 11, 2003, al-Qahtani was interrogated for 48 days at Guantanamo more or less continuously, kept awake for much of that time by loud music being blasted when he was falling asleep, doused with water and subjected to cold temperatures, kept naked and forced to perform tricks as if he were a dog. However, he wasn't waterboarded or beaten.

From the secret summaries of al-Qahtani's Guantanamo interrogations made public by WikiLeaks, at some point, it's not exactly clear when, he told interrogators about a man known as Abu Ahmed al-Kuwaiti who was part of the inner circle of al Qaeda's leaders.

Another al Qaeda member named Hassan Ghul who was also subjected to coercive interrogation techniques in a CIA secret prison told his interrogators at some point -- when, it is also not clear -- that the mysterious Abu Ahmed al-Kuwaiti was one of bin Laden's couriers.

Balanced against this, harsh techniques including waterboarding were also used by the CIA on two of the most significant leaders of al Qaeda: Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who was the operational commander of the 9/11 attacks, as well as his successor as No. 3 in al Qaeda, Abu Faraj al-Libi. Both these al Qaeda leaders gave up disinformation about the Kuwaiti to their interrogators. ("Zero Dark Thirty" shows al-Libi lying to his interrogators about the Kuwaiti.)

For the defenders of coercive interrogation techniques, the example of al-Qahtani and Ghul might seem to prove that these kinds of approaches actually worked, while for critics of such techniques, the cases of Mohammed and al-Libi show that coercion also produced false information.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
It's not a secret that Americans dislike the word government. I don't see how that's relevant, though. Representative democracy is based on the belief that it is impractical or undesirable to have everyone 100% engaged in governing the people select people to represent them. The representatives of the people knew what was going on so the people still have control over these projects.

This is more of a strike against the US system of representative democracy than in favor of PRISM but it is relevant. Lots of people remember Lincoln's line about government being "by the people" and "for the people" but it starts with "of the people" for a reason. Representatives are people (in the literal sense) and part of the people (in the political sense), that's the point.

I'm not really interested in an academic discourse on what is or isn't "the people" in a representative democracy, except to say, by that logic, the president can pass and enforce otherwise secret law, because he is a citizen and he knew about it, thus making it not secret.

Originally posted by Oliver North
Its not that it can't work, it is that to make it even moderately effective at detecting lies, you have to accept a hugely inflated number of false alarms. In terms of storing data of hundreds of millions of Americans, plus any "foreigner" they want, the NSA is going to have massive difficulties finding signals in the noise. Assuming even the best intentions from the NSA [sic], there is no way they wouldn't end up determining innocent people are about-to engage in terrorist activities.

That was the problem (false positives) that was discussed in the material. However, despite the false positive issues, the AI used in the heuristic definitions are (not going to be, but "are" as in presently) so advanced that even brand new behaviors can be discerned by the system and properly identified as 'bad.'

But, yes, there is still the hurdle of false positives in those systems. That is the biggest concern. Followed by false negatives.

Since students are studying it in school, it is much more likely that the NSA is already using more robust versions of the things I am discussing (classified systems and programs). It makes me think, "What is the point of even storing all of the public's information if they already have IDS/IPS's that pretty dang advanced?"

Originally posted by Oliver North
in terms of hackers, you mean very specifically the behaviours you can track as they use the web, right? not from screening their email or who they are calling? I'd look at these as being very different types of profiling.

1. Yes, improper use of IT systems, not just hackers (some people innocently go places they shouldn't or do things they shouldn't).
2. Yes, the psychology for hackers is definitely going to be different than the psychology of terrorists. That much is obvious. The terrorism stuff does not get taught to or disseminated to students. IIRC, it is classified.

Originally posted by Oliver North
the fact we call torture and "enhanced" interrogation technique is almost more troubling to me than the fact we engage in torture. The sanitization of evil, basically. I use the term "enhanced interrogation techniques" because I think it actually sounds worse than saying "torture"

That makes sense, now.

Originally posted by red g jacks
that is where i first heard that the torture techniques even played a role. from what i read the controversy was that the film overplayed the role such techniques played in locating him, not that they played no part at all. here is where i got that impression:

http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/10/opinion/bergen-zero-dark-thirty

the claims are incredibly dubious and come from the government itself in most cases.

and remember, it was nearly 10 years after these guys gave up a name (which is still debatable in the Ghul case) that they got Bin Laden, whereas traditional intelligence work that involved tracing phone calls made by bodyguards in 2010 led the Americans right to the compound.

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Asia-South-Central/2011/0502/Bin-Laden-bodyguard-s-satellite-phone-calls-helped-lead-US-forces-to-hiding-place

further, going by that CNN [sic] article anyways, it shows quite clearly that more advanced techniques are associated with less reliable information...

the importance of those two individuals seems to be what is overblown

EDIT: there is also no evidence that I can find of enhanced techniques being used against Ghul, or when during interrogation al-Qahtani gave up the courier's name, re: there is no evidence torture played a role.

YouTube video

Originally posted by Oliver North
YouTube video

indeed, with all the problems in the world, like Syria, it is good to know the major cold war powers can still agree on ****ing over the little guy

Originally posted by Oliver North
indeed, with all the problems in the world, like Syria, it is good to know the major cold war powers can still agree on ****ing over the little guy

It gets the ol' USSR politicians in the feels, this Snowden crap does.

YouTube video

Originally posted by Oliver North
YouTube video

I cannot watch the vid, mang. How did they do it? Through their stockpiling of information?

Originally posted by Oliver North
YouTube video

Someone a the NSA should leak the details of their good deeds.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I cannot watch the vid, mang. How did they do it? Through their stockpiling of information?

how? classified

how man? classified

but trust them!

LipTV didn't have the follow-up, and they are more conspiratorial than I typically like to post, so I wouldn't go looking there to find it. There have been senators on the intelligence committee who have seen the classified data and have essentially said none of these claims are true, but given it is classified, we sort of have to choose whose word to take.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Someone a the NSA should leak the details of their good deeds.

considering how much they generally tout the plots they do break up, even the most mundane, its amazing they are willing to offer no details here...

Originally posted by Oliver North
considering how much they generally tout the plots they do break up, even the most mundane, its amazing they are willing to offer no details here...

Has the NSA ever spoken about plots they were involved in?

Russia has now said that they will not extradite Snowden.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/25/edward-snowden-moscow-vladimir-putin

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Has the NSA ever spoken about plots they were involved in?

I'm actually not sure. you could be right, it might just be more of an FBI thing

mmmm, I'm so gay for Glenn Greenwald

YouTube video

That was a good interview. Just saw clips of it on liberal viewer. I also very seldomly disagree with Greenwald lately.

Originally posted by Bardock42
That was a good interview. Just saw clips of it on liberal viewer. I also very seldomly disagree with Greenwald lately.

normally, it is really easy for me to find issues I disagree with most of the people I follow on. Greenwald is one of the few that I honestly have almost no disagreement with, and that scares me more than anything. Makes me feel like I need to step up my cynicism game...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-23084166

So it seems Obama is trying not to make a big deal about this (at least publicly) and isn't treating this like an issue of national security. I wonder how that will play out at home.