NSA's Favorite Techdirt Posts Of The Week
from the let's-here-the-other-side-speak dept
Given how much time we've spent on the NSA surveillance story this week, we thought it would only be fair to allow the NSA a chance to speak for itself, and so we offered up our standard "favorite Techdirt posts of the week" post to the NSA. I think we may have accidentally signed ourselves up for PRISM in doing so, but such is life.First off, thanks to Mike for giving us this chance to reach out directly. We're already well aware of what you think of us (you know why), and frankly, Techdirt seemed rather empty this week compared to its usual bits of content. But, here are our favorites, and your own surfing habits suggest you agree:
- ◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼ ◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼ ◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼ ◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼
- ◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼ ◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼ ◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼
- ◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼ ◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼ ◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼ ◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼ ◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼
- These are sobering findings.
- ◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼ ◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼ ◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼ ◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
NSA's Favorite Techdirt Posts Of The Week
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Response to: Anonymous Coward on Jun 15th, 2013 @ 12:02pm
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Response to: Anonymous Coward on Jun 15th, 2013 @ 12:02pm
[ link to this | view in thread ]
NSA points
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Response to: Anonymous Coward on Jun 15th, 2013 @ 12:02pm
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Also, why do tin foil hats never have an adjustable band? Think about it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: NSA points
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Talk about secretive ...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Talk about secretive ...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Now the thing I don't get is why the NSA try so hard to be secret when Joe Biden will leak everything.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Response to: Anonymous Coward on Jun 15th, 2013 @ 12:02pm
[ link to this | view in thread ]
"Stay Alert! Trust No One! Keep Your Laser Handy!"
And above all else, always remember: The Computer is your Friend.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Response to: Anonymous Coward on Jun 15th, 2013 @ 12:02pm
[ link to this | view in thread ]
◊◊◊◊ ◊◊◊◊, ◊◊◊◊ ◊◊◊◊ ◊◊◊◊. ◊ ◊◊◊ ◊◊◊◊ ◊◊◊◊◊! ◊◊◊ ◊◊ ◊◊◊ ◊◊◊? ◊◊◊◊◊◊ ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ ◊◊◊◊ ◊◊◊◊ ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ ◊ ◊◊◊◊ ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ ◊◊ ◊◊◊ ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Response to: Anonymous Coward on Jun 15th, 2013 @ 12:02pm
[ link to this | view in thread ]
What the hell?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Response to: Anonymous Coward on Jun 15th, 2013 @ 12:02pm
The rise of pirates have rob you of your pride, you believed in something that was never to last.
You won't find peace in anger.
Piracy is here to destroy monopolies that outgrown their usefulness and others are not responsible for your wrong choices in life.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Talk about secretive ...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Response to: Anonymous Coward on Jun 15th, 2013 @ 12:02pm
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Bawk!!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Response to: Anonymous Coward on Jun 15th, 2013 @ 12:02pm
I love this place!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
#Corrections
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Fear and loathing
Secret stuff is still stupid, like the agency that handed this out back when secrecy was not redactable.
Oh, standards have gravely slipped.
Must put a new law into place to control the idiots.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Response to: Anonymous Coward on Jun 15th, 2013 @ 12:02pm
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
Instead you should relax, take a break and maybe do some yoga until you become flexible enough to stick your head up your ass where it belongs.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Response to: Anonymous Coward on Jun 15th, 2013 @ 12:02pm
Why should anyone care what you have to say, anyway? You're just a noisemaker, like a crashing cymbal or a clanging gong.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mike is the one making joke of a serious matters.
It's just masnicking: daily spurts of short and trivial traffic-generating items.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Response to: Anonymous Coward on Jun 15th, 2013 @ 12:02pm
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Oh, Hey!
NSA Director walks into a bar.
Bartender asks, “Did you hear the one about… ?”
NSA Director interrupts, “Yep.”
[ link to this | view in thread ]
NSA Blaaaaaargh!!!
Derpa Derp!!! Duh!!!
Mikey Masnick no talky 'bout thing dat matter...
Derp Derp!!
Mikey scared talk 'bout stuff 'n' things.
Duh!!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Meanwhile... the stories that didn't get covered:
One such story was a review of the "leaker" himself, showing that he exaggerated his claims, and potentially may just be a patsy for other people doing the real leaking. His employer pointed out that this high school drop out wasn't making the 200k a year that he claimed, as an example, and that it's rare for someone with 3 months experience to be in job this guy claimed to be in. Could be nothing more than BS, but interesting that it got no play on Techdirt.
Another interesting story that didn't make it here was that Trent Reznor announced a new NIN album is coming out. Now, Techdirt doesn't usually cover record releases, but then again, it's not every day that the Lord of the FREE! Reznor announces new music - on a record label. That's right, the new album is getting released on Columbia. So the message here is "do it yourself when nobody will pay for it, but most certainly use labels when you want to make money and get wide exposure". Another story just not making it onto Techdirt.
Then again, we still have Step2 on the top of every page (and that dog is dead), but the CwF thing is pretty much gone, replaced with "buy our stuff" insider shop. Sort of tells you a whole story, doesn't it?
So actually, this is in keeping with this joke post from Mike, which is that Techdirt redacted anything that would go against the themes of the site, even if it is news and interesting.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Cracked it
End result was a very nice recipe for chicken alphabet noodle soup. I suspect there is also a message in the soup but I was too hungry at the time to stop and read it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
exaggerated his claims,
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57589495-38/nsa-admits-listening-to-u.s-phone-calls-without -warrants/?part=rss&subj=news&tag=title
Hmm. Nope. Go boil your head, moron.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: exaggerated his claims,
The claims of the guy about himself. If he can't tell the truth about himself, what else did he stretch it on?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: exaggerated his claims,
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: exaggerated his claims,
http://news.yahoo.com/5-ways-nsa-leaker-edward-snowdens-story-isnt-115500971.html
Other than that, can the mods please take out the trash?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: What the hell?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: exaggerated his claims,
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/42138_CNET_Says_NSA_Admits_Listening_to_US_Phone_Ca lls_-_but_Thats_Not_What_the_Video_Shows
Not exactly the same thing, is it? You are falling for the same thing that drives much of Techdirt these days, third hand information and unverified sources.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Mike is the one making joke of a serious matters.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: exaggerated his claims,
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Can i take NSA to court for copyright?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Response to: Anonymous Coward on Jun 15th, 2013 @ 12:02pm
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Redactation
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Not so funny, now
The NSA is listening to calls without a warrant. Usually it's based on an analyst's decision:
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57589495-38/nsa-admits-listening-to-u.s-phone-calls-wit hout-warrants/
" The National Security Agency has acknowledged in a new classified briefing that it does not need court authorization to listen to domestic phone calls."
" If the NSA wants "to listen to the phone," an analyst's decision is sufficient, without any other legal authorization required, Nadler said he learned. "I was rather startled," said Nadler, an attorney and congressman who serves on the House Judiciary committee. "
Who's laughing now? I'm certainly not.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Not so funny, now
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/42138_CNET_Says_NSA_Admits_Listening_to_US_Phone_C a lls_-_but_Thats_Not_What_the_Video_Shows
Not exactly the same thing, is it? You are falling for the same thing that drives much of Techdirt these days, third hand information and unverified sources.
Work on critical thinking, you might do better!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Mike is the one making joke of a serious matters.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Cracked it
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Not so funny, now
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Not so funny, now
Taken from your own source, do you even read what you post?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Not so funny, now
Do you see a silver lining in all this because I sure don't.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The best
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Not so funny, now
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Not so funny, now
Rep. Nadler did say that he was told that a new warrant was not needed to listen to the call. Nadler asked Director Mueller what was necessary in order to "listen to the phone," Mueller said "a particularized order from the FISA court" would be required, Nadler then asked if that answer was "classified in any way," Mueller said he didn't "think so," then Nadler said that he was told that "you didn't need a new warrant." The context is beyond clear. Nadler asks it twice, first as "get the contents of that phone," and then as "listen to that phone." Metadata comes up only once and it's merely used as the reason someone might "want to do more" in Mueller's words. You can assert that Nadler got it wrong (misunderstood, misremembered, or even lied) but not that CNET mischaracterized Nadler. I actually went through the trouble of transcribing the exchange below.
Nadler: "Secondly, um, under section 215, if you've gotten information from metadata and you, as a result of that, um, think that, 'Um, gee, this phone number, 873-whatever, um, looks suspicious, and we ought to actually get the contents of that phone, of that phone' do, do you need a new specific warrant?"
Mueller: "You need at least a national security letter. All you have is a telephone number. You do not have subscriber information so you need the subscriber information. You would have to get probably a national security letter to get that subscriber information."
Nadler: "And to..."
Mueller: "And then if you wanted to do more..."
Nadler: "If you wanted to listen to the phone?"
Mueller: "Then you would have to get a special, a particularized order from the FISA court directed at that particular phone of that particular individual."
Nadler: "Now is the answer you just gave me classified?"
Mueller: "Is what?"
Nadler: "Is the answer you just gave me classified in any way?"
Mueller: "I don't think so."
Nadler: "Okay, then I can ask, then I can say the following: We heard precisely the opposite at the briefing the other day. We heard precisely that, uh, you could get, uh, specific information from that telephone, uh, simply based on an analyst deciding that and you didn't need a new warrant. In other words, what you just said is incorrect. So there's a conflict..."
Mueller: "I'm not certain it's the same answer to the same question. I'm sorry, I didn't mean to interrupt."
Nadler: "Well, I asked the question both times and I think it's the same question."
Check the accuracy of my transcription yourself-- http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/FBIOver
Nadler begins to speak at about 46:20 into the video.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Not so funny, now
I don't think he reads what he posts or think much about it, because clearly Mr. Nadler is questioning why before they were told that they could get the the information and contents of calls with just an analyst believing they needed and now that is not the case, I believe that is what he meant by "So there's a conflict..."
Mueller appears to pull the "confused act", he clearly was caught unprepared.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Prism may be new.. but the "pipe" is not
"Americans who disapprove of the government reading their emails have more to worry about from a different and larger NSA effort that snatches data as it passes through the fiber optic cables that make up the Internet’s backbone. That program, which has been known for years, copies Internet traffic as it enters and leaves the United States, then routes it to the NSA for analysis."
PRISM may "focus" the data stream into many independent feeds, but the "bulk feed" has been in place for a long time. And when you consider how "dirt cheep" Terrabyte disk drives are today...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Puerile and childish
It's sad to see how Masnick thinks this is just some sort of joke for him to make a little extra money.
And he copped some considerable flak from it too, But Masnick is simply too stupid to see what this kind of thing does to the tatters that are the left overs of whatever was left of his 'reputation'.
Are those blank lines every single original thought that Masnick has ever had ?
Masnick, no one quite knows what it is you do with your life, but one thing for sure, you don't know how to do 'funny'.
We do know thought that Masnick has found his position in life, and is at least aware of his limitations.
Who else would spend their entire lives cleaning the toilets of the internet and pasting them here.
I hope you 15 diehard, cultist fans found this really funny, and that it was worth it for the slap in the fact this has done to your already deeply damaged 'reputation'.
Masnick, you are really funny when you are trying to be serious, you are seriously bad when you are trying to be funny.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Not so funny, now
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Puerile and childish
It's sad to see how Masnick thinks this is just some sort of joke for him to make a little extra money.
And he copped some considerable flak from it too, But Masnick is simply too stupid to see what this kind of thing does to the tatters that are the left overs of whatever was left of his 'reputation'.
Are those blank lines every single original thought that Masnick has ever had ?
Masnick, no one quite knows what it is you do with your life, but one thing for sure, you don't know how to do 'funny'.
We do know thought that Masnick has found his position in life, and is at least aware of his limitations.
Who else would spend their entire lives cleaning the toilets of the internet and pasting them here.
I hope you 15 diehard, cultist fans found this really funny, and that it was worth it for the slap in the fact this has done to your already deeply damaged 'reputation'.
Masnick, you are really funny when you are trying to be serious, you are seriously bad when you are trying to be funny.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Meanwhile... the stories that didn't get covered:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121022/00013120781/trent-reznor-talks-to-techdirt-about-hi s-unconventional-new-record-deal-why-he-still-loves-diy.shtml
Maybe you should actually read Techdirt instead of going straight to the comments to complain that we didn't write what you wanted us to write...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Meanwhile... the stories that didn't get covered:
Actually, that story is a year old, and it was in relation to Trent's work with his wife on the How to Destroy Angels project. Part of the reasoning for a label deal at that point was because the project was not the same as NIN, and therefore needed the exposure that Trent could not generate himself within his own fan base.
To quote "Reznor pointed out that he has a huge fan base... for Nine Inch Nails. He was worried that those fans are the only ones who would pay attention -- and that they'd not necessarily appreciate How to Destroy Angels or (worse!) think that it's "just a side project with my wife." He specifically worried that NIN fans would say "this isn't what we want to hear," and that would then limit their ability to reach a wider audience."
Not a single mention there of a new NIN album. In fact, Trent had been in the past pretty clear that there was no new NIN material in the making. Something clearly changed in the last 12 months.
So before you get all uppity and feel superior about yourself, perhaps you should consider that the story clearly has changed since October 2012, and now the deal has clearly expanded to cover NIN work as well.
No matter how you feel about it, it's a pretty significant situation when even NIN needs the label deal to get the exposure and connections required to be hit material, don't you think? The release of a new NIN album (and not work with his wife) is pretty important, don't you think?
As a side note, your uppity and superior tone makes you sound like a smarmy little kid. It's not the first time this week that you have completely missed the point of a post, trying to sound like you know better. Maybe you should spend a little more time reading and understanding before you dismiss comments.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Not so funny, now
Nadler's own questioning is weak, and so confusing that he appears to have confused himself. Why not just ask a direct question instead of running around in twisted circle? He left himself (and everyone else) confused.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Meanwhile... the stories that didn't get covered:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Not so funny, now
...is just a wrong statement. Accurate comments are sometimes walked back or "corrected", if the comments were something that wasn't supposed to be revealed or were damaging to someone powerful enough to demand a walkback.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Prism may be new.. but the "pipe" is not
This is true (and covers all digital communications, not just internet -- so it includes telephone, too).
However, there's a little tricksiness in that description. The program isn't limited to internet traffic that leaves or enters the US. It's all internet traffic. They say it's "international", but they have define all internet traffic as "international" regardless of the origin or destination of the packets.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Meanwhile... the stories that didn't get covered:
Any more horseshit you want to say.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Just kidding, don't really know what they use.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not so funny, now
Is right there on the link you have provided.
Now you want to believe the NSA is not looking into everything, well, I have this bridge you know, have you intersted in making a once in a lifetime investment on a sure high ROI? by the way I have to transfer fifteen million dollars but I need a contact are you interested in it I am an African Prince.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Not so funny, now
I've compared your transcription with another transcription of that same exchange.
That other transcription is contained with the story, “Jerrold Nadler Does Not Think the NSA Can Listen to U.S. Phone Calls”, by Connor Simpson, The Atlantic Wire, dated: "12:30 PM ET" (no other date) (web page metadata: Modified: 16 Jun 2013).
While there are some differences in words and phrases between the two transcripts, those differences do not appear to materially affect the substance of the exchange.
Further, while I did not review the video at this time, I did watch the hearing live on C-SPAN. Both transcripts substantially comport with my recollection of the essentials of that exchange.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Prism may be new.. but the "pipe" is not
Source that assertion for me, please.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not so funny, now
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Meanwhile... the stories that didn't get covered:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Meanwhile... the stories that didn't get covered:
You aren't having a good week, are you?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Meanwhile... the stories that didn't get covered:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I'm curious how long post #89's visible life will be.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Response to: Anonymous Coward on Jun 16th, 2013 @ 1:27pm
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Prism may be new.. but the "pipe" is not
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Prism may be new.. but the "pipe" is not
Well, one of the items that I was comparing it against was a story that came out in today's Washington Post.
“U.S. surveillance architecture includes collection of revealing Internet, phone metadata”, by Barton Gellman, June 16, 2013
So at one time —although, it is claimed, not anymore— it is semi-reputedly asserted that NSA lawyers were playing definitional games with the word “acquire”.
We've heard something similar about possible definitional games with the word “collect”.
Then there's the “51% chance of foreign”, and I believe that may actually be attributable to a named source.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Prism may be new.. but the "pipe" is not
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Prism may be new.. but the "pipe" is not
From the Associated Press story referenced by the OP, the closest to a named, reputable(*) source that I can come up with for that assertion is Bruce Schneier. And Schneier makes clear that that's just a reasonable assumption. It appears that he doesn't know it for a fact, of his own personal knowledge, and can't testify to it. He's just making assumptions.
Meanwhile, we have the Chairman of the House Intelligence Committe, Mike Rogers (Michigan) telling us today:
While most of that statement refers to phone content (which may or may not have anything to do with VoIP), the portion that says, “The NSA … is not monitoring their emails,” seems to refer to internet content.
Of course, Mr Rogers was not under oath—he was on CNN. And the American electorate just isn't too shocked any more by politicians who tell bare-faced lies.
(*) Btw, “semi-reputedly” in my earlier post should have been “semi-reputably”. However, despite the difference in meaning, either word does work in that earlier context.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: exaggerated his claims,
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
and Techdirt is composed of undereducated drunkies.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: NSA points
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Cracked it
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Response to: Anonymous Coward on Jun 15th, 2013 @ 12:02pm
[Redacted]
Thanks to the moderators for putting in the humor that was missing from the original post!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Prism may be new.. but the "pipe" is not
“Exposure of NSA surveillance draws attention to Mueller remark about real time email tracking”, by Catherine Herridge, Fox News, June 17, 2013
Much like Declan McCullagh's CNET story over the weekend, I'm not sure that the facts behind the Fox News story published today bear the interpretion spun onto them.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Not so funny, now
A third transcription: “James Clapper Throws a Concentrated Nugget of Orwellian Turd-Splat”, Emptywheel, June 17, 2013.
Emptywheel indicates she did her transcription herself:
Again, some small differences among —all three, now— transcriptions. Emptywheel does omits one brief bit of dialogue that may have been cross-talk. No material differences.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Meanwhile... the stories that didn't get covered:
[ link to this | view in thread ]