'Team Sport' Is The NSA's Buzzword For Getting Companies To Violate Your Privacy

from the that's-not-very-sporting dept

I noticed something interesting in two of our recent stories about NSA surveillance. In yesterday's revelation in the Guardian about how Microsoft had made it easy for the NSA to record Skype audio and video, an internal NSA bulletin referred to the situation this way:

The document continues: "The FBI and CIA then can request a copy of Prism collection of any selector…" As a result, the author notes: "these two activities underscore the point that Prism is a team sport!"

That was apparently written on August 3, 2012. But the "team sport" phrase caught my attention, because while Tim Cushing was writing up that story, I had been working on the story about the NSA's talking points for the groundbreaking of its massive datacenter in Bluffdale Utah. Those talking points were for January 6, 2011, but they too, reference "team sports" as a way to describe the collaboration with tech companies:

Cyber must be a team sport -- it is too big for one agency, or even one nation to be able to "control."

Seeing that exact phrase show up in two separate documents, which were both revealed on the same day, through different means (one via a leak, one via a FOIA request), were written at different times, and were revealed through very different sources, has me wondering. It seems likely that this is a key talking point that the NSA has been working on for quite some time, should information on PRISM and other programs ever get out. As long as they call these efforts a "team sport" perhaps people won't be as freaked out about them, or something.

But it's kind of a funny thing to call them. Who is the "opposing" team here? The public? And it's a funny sort of "sport" when the rules are all secret, and the referees and umpires get to reinterpret the rules in secret with the NSA/companies' team, without ever informing the public of the rule changes. There's definitely a team here, but it doesn't seem very sporting. It seems more like a bunch of people with way too much power screwing over the public. Perhaps that's what they should actually call it.

Filed Under: buzzwords, nsa surveillance, prism, privacy, surveillance, team sport

Crowdsourced, Cloud-Based Anti-Virus? Lots Of Buzzwords, But How Does It Work?

from the who-detects-what-now? dept

We've seen plenty of crowdsourced anti-spam apps, but Jesse points us to a company called Immunet that claims to be launching a free "cloud-based, collaborative anti-virus" solution. The idea is that people install it, and as soon as anyone detects a virus problem, that info is shared with all of the other users, thereby (in theory) working much faster than today's brand-name anti-virus products. However, I have to admit I can't figure out how this works. For anti-spam stuff it makes sense -- since anyone can recognize spam. But how can it work for anti-virus? Who's determining what the actual virus is? How is it protected against false positives? None of that's clear. I went through the company's website, and it seems to just skip right over the question of actually detecting the virus. It makes fun of the established anti-virus providers for taking too long in examining suspected viruses in their lab, but never explains how the detection occurs otherwise. In fact, about the only thing I can figure out from the company's own language is that it's going to simply use the virus definitions found in those other products installed on people's computers. If that's true, then it won't actually be any better or faster than those companies it was making fun of earlier. The whole thing sounds full of buzzwords and hype, but appears to have little substance.

Filed Under: anti-virus, buzzwords, cloud, crowd sourced

Web 2.0 Buzzword Bingo

from the say-what?!? dept

I'm going to remove the names of the two web 2.0 startups that apparently have just merged, according to a recent blog post from Jeff Nolan. I don't really care about the merger at all or either of the two companies. I'm merely posting a short excerpt from the press release announcing the merger with the names redacted (they don't deserve more publicity with a press release like this), because I don't think I've ever seen a paragraph filled with so many web 2.0 buzzwords that says absolutely nothing.

Company A, a universal profile service for the social web that engages communities and enables content discovery, today announced its acquisition of Company B, a provider of semantic intelligence solutions. The integration of Company B's proprietary semantic intelligence-based discovery engine will bring richer, context-based profile and reputation management capabilities to the Company A service. To be useful across different types of social media, profiles and reputation have to be localized and linked to the context of the conversation. In this way, thought leaders emerge within and across communities based on their specific expertise and contributions.

Seriously? From that paragraph, does anyone have the slightest idea what either of these companies do -- or what the merger is for? I've been known to point out stupid PR tricks, which focus mostly on the way they continue to bombard me with pointless and irrelevant press releases. But when the buzzword bingo gets this thick, it's hard to do anything but sit back and laugh. That, and get to work on my latest proprietary universal social widget-enabler intelligence-context-based profiler management integrator. Because, clearly, that's what the market demands.

Filed Under: buzzwords, press releases, web 2.0