Comments on: The “New” Outcry Against Intelligence Gathering

By: Dianna

Dianna — Thu, 13 Mar 2008 18:31:15 +0000

Siobhan Gorman has been writing on national security since she was at The National Journal. I thought the article was a nice summary of what’s what; she didn’t express an opinion. This is her job, she interviewed a lot of people, and a lot of them were NSA types. It’s a thorough article, and none of it is new to people who’ve been following FISA and the rest.

Disclaimer - I’ve been reading Siobhan’s work practically since she started working as a journalist.

By: ChrisG

ChrisG — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 17:56:32 +0000

Electronic communications are VERY non-secure. Your network administrator knows what you do at work. Your IP provider keeps records on where your webserf at home. Data minor “ad-ware” tracks your searches and web browsing history (despite efforts to get rid of it). Google and other search engines archive your search terms (ask.com has an option to disable this feature, but stores your data for weeks before dumping it). Webpages look at your IP and give you adds directed to your location. Your bank keeps tabs on your purchases to track credit fraud. And that is just the tip of the iceberg.

Even on this site (and probably every blog), whenever you post a reply, we see your IP and email address. We usually ignor this information, but it has uses. It helped me realize an imposter had posted under someone’s name as the imposter had a different IP (on a different continent) and email from the regular poster and take corrective actions. Information, like any ‘weapon’ is dangerous if used for malice but it is not the information that is the actor.

There is no privacy on the net, or anything electronic (like cell/text phones), unless you can ecrypt better than anyone interested can decrypt. Even that only lasts so long.

By: Becca

Becca — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 14:10:14 +0000

Every electronic device we use on a daily basis emits a signal. Those signals can tell us a lot about what type of device it is, what its being used for; communications signals are no different. With the right equipment, everything is fair game — to civilian and government agency alike. Maybe it’s my background in signals, but any expectation of “true” privacy online is a little ridiculous. *Especially* when it comes to “the subject-header of an email or a Web address from an Internet search.”

By: Doc Washboard

Doc Washboard — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 12:54:34 +0000

Back in the Olden Days of the stone-aged, outdated Em Ess Em, a reporter’s “pet peeve” was called his “beat.” It was the particular topic that he or she knew something about and covered on a regular basis.

By: Igor R.

Igor R. — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 01:25:34 +0000

But what if the NSA accidentally catches a guy like Spitzer? Well now that he’s been found out, there is nothing for anyone to worry about, full steam ahead!

By: Gregory Dittman

Gregory Dittman — Mon, 10 Mar 2008 20:55:28 +0000

This one of several things I have issues with electronic intelligence.
1. It doesn’t stop other countries from data mining U.S. material. That means the CIA could call Britian, Russia, China Israel etc. and ask them for information they aren’t allowed to get. This kind of information would be embarrising to Congress if China called saying they overheard two terrorists talking to each other in the U.S. and gathered that intelligence in a way the FBI and CIA weren’t allowed to use. I imagine that’s why the U.S. allows some countries to use Echalon (data mining software) so that our allies can spy on the U.S. in order to protect the U.S.

2. The CIA and FBI complain to the FCC that the U.S. shouldn’t apply certain security to U.S. telecommunications. That means that U.S. communications are less secure than any other country because the other countries use updated ecryption while the U.S. ecryption is 20 years old or older.