|
On August 11 2012 10:02 Trowa127 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2012 09:06 Liquid`Drone wrote:
If true, how is this not big news? Global surveillance with facial recognition? You're fine with someone knowing where you are and what you're doing at every moment? There's absolutely no way any possible terrorist or other threat justifies this gross invasion of privacy, and that's that.
I don't have time to really investigate this now but based on OP, this is terrible, and the most important leak from wikileaks so far. Thank you. People's disregard for their own privacy is just insane -_-. And btw this is obviously coming from someone who's probably monitored 24/7 in London. We all know the Franklin quote so I won't bother repeating it, but I really can't see how this can be justified.
Public privacy?
Talk about oxymorons.
|
On August 11 2012 10:18 Heh_ wrote:
Not surprising. Even if you record everything, how are you gonna manage all the data? The average Joe shouldn't be too worried because there's simply not enough manpower to keep close tabs on everyone. There could be some interception of keywords in emails and calls like "bomb" for example, but that will create a ton of false positives and any unsavory elements can cover up their tracks too..
To understand the logistics of this, think about the 7/7 London bombings. The UK authorities spent thousands of man-hours to trawl through CCTV footage of the terrorists. This was only possible because the CCTV footage was recent, and they had an idea of who the targets were. If you store months, or even years, worth of discreetly-gathered information, how do you know where to start looking? That is, if you know where to look. Even with a "perfect" surveillance system, you can't catch every potential criminal/terrorist.
A few people asked how they will manage the data so i'm just going to quote you to refer to everyone that asked that question.
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/03/ff_nsadatacenter/all/1
This article by a whistleblower answers your question to how they analyze the data. Its basically about the Utah Data center, the main purpose of it is to collectivly analyze and store data from all intelligence agencies. Its rather long but definetly worth a read. The most important quote if your too lazy:
Under construction by contractors with top-secret clearances, the blandly named Utah Data Center is being built for the National Security Agency. A project of immense secrecy, it is the final piece in a complex puzzle assembled over the past decade. Its purpose: to intercept, decipher, analyze, and store vast swaths of the world’s communications as they zap down from satellites and zip through the underground and undersea cables of international, foreign, and domestic networks. The heavily fortified $2 billion center should be up and running in September 2013. Flowing through its servers and routers and stored in near-bottomless databases will be all forms of communication, including the complete contents of private emails, cell phone calls, and Google searches, as well as all sorts of personal data trails—parking receipts, travel itineraries, bookstore purchases, and other digital “pocket litter.” It is, in some measure, the realization of the “total information awareness” program created during the first term of the Bush administration—an effort that was killed by Congress in 2003 after it caused an outcry over its potential for invading Americans’ privacy.
|
On August 11 2012 10:18 Heh_ wrote:
Not surprising. Even if you record everything, how are you gonna manage all the data? The average Joe shouldn't be too worried because there's simply not enough manpower to keep close tabs on everyone. There could be some interception of keywords in emails and calls like "bomb" for example, but that will create a ton of false positives and any unsavory elements can cover up their tracks too..
To understand the logistics of this, think about the 7/7 London bombings. The UK authorities spent thousands of man-hours to trawl through CCTV footage of the terrorists. This was only possible because the CCTV footage was recent, and they had an idea of who the targets were. If you store months, or even years, worth of discreetly-gathered information, how do you know where to start looking? That is, if you know where to look. Even with a "perfect" surveillance system, you can't catch every potential criminal/terrorist.
Without a supercomputer like ARIIA from Eagle Eye, you can't. Who's to say there isn't one?
On August 11 2012 10:15 ireverie wrote:
Everyone who is referring to the 1984 here clearly never finished it or just simply did not understand a single sentence I suppose. Also, all the master plans of world destruction/occupation are not true for one simple reason. If US wanted every possible resource they would've already occupied Saudi Arabia, Canada and every other country that they want.
gg wp
They aren't plans.
|
On August 11 2012 10:26 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2012 10:19 multiversed wrote:On August 11 2012 10:15 ireverie wrote:
Everyone who is referring to the 1984 here clearly never finished it or just simply did not understand a single sentence I suppose. Also, all the master plans of world destruction/occupation are not true for one simple reason. If US wanted every possible resource they would've already occupied Saudi Arabia, Canada and every other country that they want.
gg wp shh, the neckbeards are talking. Why support him? The idea that the US could occupy Saudi Arabia is ridiculous, and Canada even more so. Maybe in a vacuum? The US has the military for it (well, Saudi Arabia has nuclear weapons so that's tricky) - but the US doesn't want the entire world to turn against it. That would suck.
Well to be fair if the US did hypothetically invade Canada what would the rest of the world do lol. Attack via speed boat  .
This is really scary though. It's amazing how the US and the world has changed since 9/11.
|
only children assume we have the ability to parse data on this level and use it effectively. when you grow up and start interacting with adults on a real-world level, you will begin to see that the world is uncontrolled chaos and no one has any idea what they are truly doing. the bigger something is, the less controlled it becomes. it is never the other way around. the secret world you want to unravel does not even exist.
|
On August 11 2012 10:34 tokicheese wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2012 10:26 Djzapz wrote:On August 11 2012 10:19 multiversed wrote:On August 11 2012 10:15 ireverie wrote:
Everyone who is referring to the 1984 here clearly never finished it or just simply did not understand a single sentence I suppose. Also, all the master plans of world destruction/occupation are not true for one simple reason. If US wanted every possible resource they would've already occupied Saudi Arabia, Canada and every other country that they want.
gg wp shh, the neckbeards are talking. Why support him? The idea that the US could occupy Saudi Arabia is ridiculous, and Canada even more so. Maybe in a vacuum? The US has the military for it (well, Saudi Arabia has nuclear weapons so that's tricky) - but the US doesn't want the entire world to turn against it. That would suck. Well to be fair if the US did hypothetically invade Canada what would the rest of the world do lol. Attack via speed boat . This is really scary though. It's amazing how the US and the world has changed since 9/11.
Attack? No way. But you can be pretty sure NATO and the UN would flip the fuck out and the US would lose quite a lot of international business and stuff.
|
plus, if you think this is scary... i knew a man who was in control of a data center that stored voicemail for a major carrier. he told me 10 years ago that rather than erasing data, they just added more space... stew on that one...
|
So far I'm not seeing anything I didn't assume was already going on.
I mean, I'll wait for more info, but strong surveillance of public places isn't something I have an issue with. The whole point is that they're public. . .
|
On August 11 2012 10:38 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2012 10:34 tokicheese wrote:On August 11 2012 10:26 Djzapz wrote:On August 11 2012 10:19 multiversed wrote:On August 11 2012 10:15 ireverie wrote:
Everyone who is referring to the 1984 here clearly never finished it or just simply did not understand a single sentence I suppose. Also, all the master plans of world destruction/occupation are not true for one simple reason. If US wanted every possible resource they would've already occupied Saudi Arabia, Canada and every other country that they want.
gg wp shh, the neckbeards are talking. Why support him? The idea that the US could occupy Saudi Arabia is ridiculous, and Canada even more so. Maybe in a vacuum? The US has the military for it (well, Saudi Arabia has nuclear weapons so that's tricky) - but the US doesn't want the entire world to turn against it. That would suck. Well to be fair if the US did hypothetically invade Canada what would the rest of the world do lol. Attack via speed boat . This is really scary though. It's amazing how the US and the world has changed since 9/11. Attack? No way. But you can be pretty sure NATO and the UN would flip the fuck out and the US would lose quite a lot of international business and stuff.
No, if US ever invaded anything but brown people (sorry for the offensive context, but that's it's main export is killing brown people as George Carlin loved to quote) then they'd simply be blown off the face of the earth, same goes for any other country. Imagine if russia invaded Germany etc. Nuclear arms negates major conflicts, that is why the Cold War never actually took place because you can destroy nations. So if you want to be hypothetical, they wouldn't lose "trade" they'd lose cities. Canada wouldn't be the aggressor (and since Canada and US are in bed together its a completely ridiculous assertion) but someone would surely not allow (including the American people unless the cause was just I would presume (though obviously that's not always been the case)) US to just simply expand like the medieval ages.
|
I could care less if someone is staring at me every time i walk in front of a camera. I think it could be helpful but it's also pretty dumb
|
I don't understand why this would be a surprise to anyone... There are cameras all over public places now.. what did you think they were doing if not filming the public?
People are saying the outrage comes from who is getting this data (government.. private companies like Dow) but if this information is there and stored... couldn't anyone with the proper know how and desire be able to access it anyway?
I think getting up in arms now is a bit alarmist... if there was truely a public outrage it should have come when the cameras installed and not now..
Can this be seen as an invasion of privacy? I suppose so (even though these people are out in public)
Can it develop into a problem if misused? Of course
Is it a problem right now? I don't consider it one
And as for that wired article.. I admit I did not read the whole thing because it is a huge wall of text... but I did skim through it and read the paragraph you quoted and all it says is that that is the point of the facility... and from what I skimmed it sounded like they haven't even successfully developed the storage system let alone the ability to analyze it... it will be interesting to see if they can actually implement it but there currently isn't a publicly known method being able to process all that information
|
On August 11 2012 10:45 NeMeSiS3 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2012 10:38 Djzapz wrote:On August 11 2012 10:34 tokicheese wrote:On August 11 2012 10:26 Djzapz wrote:On August 11 2012 10:19 multiversed wrote:On August 11 2012 10:15 ireverie wrote:
Everyone who is referring to the 1984 here clearly never finished it or just simply did not understand a single sentence I suppose. Also, all the master plans of world destruction/occupation are not true for one simple reason. If US wanted every possible resource they would've already occupied Saudi Arabia, Canada and every other country that they want.
gg wp shh, the neckbeards are talking. Why support him? The idea that the US could occupy Saudi Arabia is ridiculous, and Canada even more so. Maybe in a vacuum? The US has the military for it (well, Saudi Arabia has nuclear weapons so that's tricky) - but the US doesn't want the entire world to turn against it. That would suck. Well to be fair if the US did hypothetically invade Canada what would the rest of the world do lol. Attack via speed boat . This is really scary though. It's amazing how the US and the world has changed since 9/11. Attack? No way. But you can be pretty sure NATO and the UN would flip the fuck out and the US would lose quite a lot of international business and stuff. No, if US ever invaded anything but brown people (sorry for the offensive context, but that's it's main export is killing brown people as George Carlin loved to quote) then they'd simply be blown off the face of the earth, same goes for any other country. Imagine if russia invaded Germany etc. Nuclear arms negates major conflicts, that is why the Cold War never actually took place because you can destroy nations. So if you want to be hypothetical, they wouldn't lose "trade" they'd lose cities. Canada wouldn't be the aggressor (and since Canada and US are in bed together its a completely ridiculous assertion) but someone would surely not allow (including the American people unless the cause was just I would presume (though obviously that's not always been the case)) US to just simply expand like the medieval ages.
You can't blow the US off the face of the Earth without the US blowing up the rest of the face of the Earth
|
On August 11 2012 10:45 NeMeSiS3 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2012 10:38 Djzapz wrote:On August 11 2012 10:34 tokicheese wrote:On August 11 2012 10:26 Djzapz wrote:On August 11 2012 10:19 multiversed wrote:On August 11 2012 10:15 ireverie wrote:
Everyone who is referring to the 1984 here clearly never finished it or just simply did not understand a single sentence I suppose. Also, all the master plans of world destruction/occupation are not true for one simple reason. If US wanted every possible resource they would've already occupied Saudi Arabia, Canada and every other country that they want.
gg wp shh, the neckbeards are talking. Why support him? The idea that the US could occupy Saudi Arabia is ridiculous, and Canada even more so. Maybe in a vacuum? The US has the military for it (well, Saudi Arabia has nuclear weapons so that's tricky) - but the US doesn't want the entire world to turn against it. That would suck. Well to be fair if the US did hypothetically invade Canada what would the rest of the world do lol. Attack via speed boat . This is really scary though. It's amazing how the US and the world has changed since 9/11. Attack? No way. But you can be pretty sure NATO and the UN would flip the fuck out and the US would lose quite a lot of international business and stuff. No, if US ever invaded anything but brown people (sorry for the offensive context, but that's it's main export is killing brown people as George Carlin loved to quote) then they'd simply be blown off the face of the earth, same goes for any other country. Imagine if russia invaded Germany etc. Nuclear arms negates major conflicts, that is why the Cold War never actually took place because you can destroy nations. So if you want to be hypothetical, they wouldn't lose "trade" they'd lose cities. Canada wouldn't be the aggressor (and since Canada and US are in bed together its a completely ridiculous assertion) but someone would surely not allow (including the American people unless the cause was just I would presume (though obviously that's not always been the case)) US to just simply expand like the medieval ages.
First of all, it should be noted that Russia is probably the only nation on the planet that actually has enough nukes to blow the US "off the face of the earth". Second, if you set aside USA and Russia, the number of nukes in the hands of "brown people" is higher than that in the hands of, err, white people.
|
On August 11 2012 09:05 SergioCQH wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2012 09:04 Vindicare605 wrote:On August 11 2012 09:03 SergioCQH wrote:
Uh, if true, so what? How is this big news? Never read 1984 I assume? Does reading 1984 make one cool, or just paranoid?
always cool to say '1984'
|
On August 11 2012 10:53 Warlock40 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2012 10:45 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On August 11 2012 10:38 Djzapz wrote:On August 11 2012 10:34 tokicheese wrote:On August 11 2012 10:26 Djzapz wrote:On August 11 2012 10:19 multiversed wrote:On August 11 2012 10:15 ireverie wrote:
Everyone who is referring to the 1984 here clearly never finished it or just simply did not understand a single sentence I suppose. Also, all the master plans of world destruction/occupation are not true for one simple reason. If US wanted every possible resource they would've already occupied Saudi Arabia, Canada and every other country that they want.
gg wp shh, the neckbeards are talking. Why support him? The idea that the US could occupy Saudi Arabia is ridiculous, and Canada even more so. Maybe in a vacuum? The US has the military for it (well, Saudi Arabia has nuclear weapons so that's tricky) - but the US doesn't want the entire world to turn against it. That would suck. Well to be fair if the US did hypothetically invade Canada what would the rest of the world do lol. Attack via speed boat . This is really scary though. It's amazing how the US and the world has changed since 9/11. Attack? No way. But you can be pretty sure NATO and the UN would flip the fuck out and the US would lose quite a lot of international business and stuff. No, if US ever invaded anything but brown people (sorry for the offensive context, but that's it's main export is killing brown people as George Carlin loved to quote) then they'd simply be blown off the face of the earth, same goes for any other country. Imagine if russia invaded Germany etc. Nuclear arms negates major conflicts, that is why the Cold War never actually took place because you can destroy nations. So if you want to be hypothetical, they wouldn't lose "trade" they'd lose cities. Canada wouldn't be the aggressor (and since Canada and US are in bed together its a completely ridiculous assertion) but someone would surely not allow (including the American people unless the cause was just I would presume (though obviously that's not always been the case)) US to just simply expand like the medieval ages. First of all, it should be noted that Russia is probably the only nation on the planet that actually has enough nukes to blow the US "off the face of the earth". Second, if you set aside USA and Russia, the number of nukes in the hands of "brown people" is higher than that in the hands of, err, white people.
referring to the middle east specifically, but it was more tailored to his line about how after Germany the US just simply stopped attacking white people etc.
On August 11 2012 10:49 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2012 10:45 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On August 11 2012 10:38 Djzapz wrote:On August 11 2012 10:34 tokicheese wrote:On August 11 2012 10:26 Djzapz wrote:On August 11 2012 10:19 multiversed wrote:On August 11 2012 10:15 ireverie wrote:
Everyone who is referring to the 1984 here clearly never finished it or just simply did not understand a single sentence I suppose. Also, all the master plans of world destruction/occupation are not true for one simple reason. If US wanted every possible resource they would've already occupied Saudi Arabia, Canada and every other country that they want.
gg wp shh, the neckbeards are talking. Why support him? The idea that the US could occupy Saudi Arabia is ridiculous, and Canada even more so. Maybe in a vacuum? The US has the military for it (well, Saudi Arabia has nuclear weapons so that's tricky) - but the US doesn't want the entire world to turn against it. That would suck. Well to be fair if the US did hypothetically invade Canada what would the rest of the world do lol. Attack via speed boat . This is really scary though. It's amazing how the US and the world has changed since 9/11. Attack? No way. But you can be pretty sure NATO and the UN would flip the fuck out and the US would lose quite a lot of international business and stuff. No, if US ever invaded anything but brown people (sorry for the offensive context, but that's it's main export is killing brown people as George Carlin loved to quote) then they'd simply be blown off the face of the earth, same goes for any other country. Imagine if russia invaded Germany etc. Nuclear arms negates major conflicts, that is why the Cold War never actually took place because you can destroy nations. So if you want to be hypothetical, they wouldn't lose "trade" they'd lose cities. Canada wouldn't be the aggressor (and since Canada and US are in bed together its a completely ridiculous assertion) but someone would surely not allow (including the American people unless the cause was just I would presume (though obviously that's not always been the case)) US to just simply expand like the medieval ages. You can't blow the US off the face of the Earth without the US blowing up the rest of the face of the Earth
Exactly, that's the point and why Nuclear arms have stopped conflicts from occuring, watch Robert Macnamara's Documentary (11 lessons I believe) to see how close you and I were to not even existing.
|
United States7483 Posts
On August 11 2012 10:29 Brett wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2012 09:45 Whitewing wrote:On August 11 2012 09:42 emythrel wrote:On August 11 2012 09:33 AgentChaos wrote:
lol i bet uk doesnt have this shit (we are too poor) even if we did, what does it matter? Is everyone who is worried about "being spied on" so self deluded to think that their government or anyone that doesn't know them directly could give a flying fuck what they do? I certainly am not. My government couldn't care less what I'm doing unless I am doing one of the following: 1) Breaking laws 2) Not paying taxes Monitor me all you want, if I get caught doing something I shouldn't have been doing in the first place then I have no one but myself to blame. Its the same old story, every generation since time began has felt oppressed by their government and every previous generation tells them how it was better in the old days, just like when older people say "kids respected their elders in my day" its all bullshit... it was exactly the same, just with worse technology. Please get it through your heads, no one cares what you do unless you are doing something wrong. If cameras and datamining help deter, prevent or catch people breaking laws then they are doing their job and those who stay within the law have nothing to fear. The old "slippery slope" argument is beyond stupid, the government can't arrest you for staying within the law and if they did, YOU HAVE THE VIDEO EVIDENCE TO PROVE YOURSELF INNOCENT since ofc they have everything on CCTV and backed up on fortified HDDs...... And when the people in charge decide to abuse the power an authority you let them have without protest, what then? People should have a right to privacy. You're in public... Some dolt on the street can follow you and record your every move if they want. And they don't need this system to do it. I think this is paranoia at its finest.
Again, if you'd read my previous posts, it's not about being recorded, it's about who is doing the recording, and on what kind of scale, for what purpose. The issue is about private corporations recording massive amounts of people for some purpose. Also, for the record, if some dolt followed me around and recorded everything I did, he could easily get arrested for that and I could get a restraining order.
To be fair, I'm honestly not too concerned about it as it is now, but just be aware things could go downhill pretty easily if people just roll over for more and more power to the corporations and the government.
|
I'm only surprised that it took this long to happen.
|
On August 11 2012 10:59 NeMeSiS3 wrote:
Exactly, that's the point and why Nuclear arms have stopped conflicts from occuring, watch Robert Macnamara's Documentary (11 lessons I believe) to see how close you and I were to not even existing.
I do understand that nuclear weapons have this tendency to keep a Status Quo and the cold war could have made shit hit the fan big time.
Even though this is a ridiculous hypothetical conversation, I think that even if the US invaded Canada you'd have every country in the world flipping the fuck out with all their guns toward the US but nobody would shoot.
|
inb4 people realize that most everyone with a digital footprint has a pretty in depth profile built of them and in FBI databases from programs similar to Trapwire for years now, not yet a decade though. But yea, there's a lot of active surveillance, not passive. But really, did you expect anything else? You can't really get new actionable information not relying on an large existing base unless you're using active methods after all...
|
I have to disagree with the people saying that the US would "get blown off the face of the earth" if they invaded Canada. No country would throw around a Nuke for the sake of another country. Won't happen because then they put themselves in the line of the US nuclear arsenal which why would they want that? The US WOULD nuke anyone asap who was nuking them so no I don't think Russia would risk that.
No one is going to use nukes unless they are crazy or are retaliating against said crazy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
