Big Brother is Watching You

[Vrede too]

:?: J. Edgar Hoover ran the FBI from its founding in 1935 until 1972, spanning the entire period you're discussing. We know the harm he did with snooping.

Anyhow, my point was that Ike was predicting the future as much as he was describing the 1950s, and his prediction is embodied by AT&T and the NSA joining forces to spy on millions of Americans - 1.1 billion domestic cellphone calling records a day.

[O Really]

Yes, Hoover was a sociopath allowed to run loose in the FBI. We also had McCarthy and the "Un-American Activities Committees." We've had witch hunts, both literal and figurative. But my point all along with the emails has been that they aren't private to start with.

From you to your recipient, your computer -> your ISP -> your email provider -> some router on the internet -> the email provider destination -> his ISP -> his computer -
unless encrypted, all information is in plain-text. A malicious person in the ISP, or anyone having access to the internet router, etc, can just read it, without any problems. And you won't know it. How likely is that to happen? Probably not very (Banni would likely know), but possible. You voluntarily let websites keep track of what you read and what you buy (well, maybe not you personally, but most do). You use various social and travel media that keeps track of where you are and maybe even who you're with. (again, maybe not you personally). None of this is private. None even claims to be. Load a new app and you see a list that says, "this app will have access to...yada... and we'll share it with whoever we damn well please." (or something similar)

So why is it such a personal hazard if NSA has access to data that's not private? Who's more likely to cause you personal harm - NSA or the people trying to steal your identity? NSA or the people trying to out users for their activities? NSA or a foul ex-spouse stalking? Of all the people who have or can get access to your data, NSA is probably among the least likely to do harm to Johnny Average.

[Vrede too]

We're discussing cell calls at the moment.

"more likely to cause you personal harm" is a bit of a red herring.
Websites and corporations are more likely to harm you by getting you on spam and junk mail lists.
"the people trying to steal your identity" want your money.
"a foul ex-spouse" wants the kids, wants the property and alimony, and/or wants to wreck your friendships.

All of these are bad and "more likely", but what the NSA can want, and government has proved it wanted in the past like with the FBI, the Un-American Activities Committees and witch hunts is to punish dissent or to chill it before it happens. This harms the foundation of democracy and civil society more.

[O Really]

Sure - cell calls. Which some believe aren't any more private than email. Buy your own equipment here... http://www.flexispy.com/en/features/spy ... eption.htm

So how "public" would data have to be for you to find it reasonable for NSA to have it? Your picture/license plate driving through the toll booth? Security vids from airports and malls? Recording of a speech you made in Pack Square? There were complaints about the AVL police recording demonstrations back last year. I understand the principle, but how can you say you can record the event but a cop can't? Maybe there's a difference in a government agency taking active steps to track you vs. just using what somebody else has. But how can one have any claim to privacy whatsoever walking on a public street when you know every store has surveillance and everybody you meet has a camera/video?

[Vrede too]

How thorough would the government have to be in accessing cell calls, email, facial recognition, license plate readers, security vids from airports and malls, speeches made in Pack Square, demonstration recordings, etc. before we've reached Orwell's 1984?

High-tech policing: Do cities need Big Brother to lower crime?

[O Really]

Oh, I think we've long exceeded the surveillance technology they had in "1984." I think the original "Big Brother" could have only wished they had facial recognition, voice recognition, gps trackers, etc. But totalitarian governments don't have to have all that to maintain power - it just made it more convenient for BB. They also relied heavily on reports by friends, co-workers, and families, remember. They also relied on having a captive audience who could be kept ignorant of everything outside the boundaries, and were fed constant propaganda that they had no real means of proving or disproving. It may seem that just last week we were allies of Iraq and enemies of Iran, but maybe not. Maybe we're allies with Iran. (umm, I mean, Eastasia) And maybe always were. BB controlled access to everything, including food, transportation, housing - everything.

So while it's always fun to compare real life stuff in the US with "1984" (and I certainly remember saying when Reagan was elected - "remember 1984 is just 3 years away.") it's a lot like those who always bring up Hitler. There really is no comparison, except in specific instances taken out of context. Sure, the US government publishes propaganda and engages somewhat in Newspeak (it did used to be a Department of War, didn't it, and interestingly became the Department of Defense in 1949 a year after "1984") But US citizens are hardly cut off from alternative information sources. It was more mind control with BB than physical - even though there certainly was a physical aspect. That doesn't work as well when you have a population that can Google.

Of course, if the oligarchs and their owned Republicans get their way, the population won't get enough education to know how to Google, and won't know there is a Google. Then we might be in trouble.

[Vrede too]

Agreed, I meant the surveillance aspects only, not much of the other 1984 totalitarianism . . . yet.

[O Really]

Agreed, I meant the surveillance aspects only, not the other totalitarianism . . . yet.

Understood. But anything approaching that level of totalitarianism doesn't exist anymore outside of places like North Korea. And it can only exist among an uneducated and uninformed populace. To get there, you'd have to start with a war leaving a current government structure, economy, and society in ruins. Set up an environment where there is no legal government and where those who have something others want, or who have the power to take what others have can flourish. Something like 1917 in Russia. The closest the US got to those conditions would be the reconstruction following the Civil War.

[Vrede too]

We've seen how fast a modern society can turn ugly - Germany, Yugoslavia, Ukraine, Syria and others.

[O Really]

Others who like to compare Orwell's creations to real and fictional places... http://www.nationmultimedia.com/life/To ... 05397.html

I thought you'd especially like "Mike Lawson, American author of award-winning political thrillers, takes on these latter developments directly in an essay called "Joe - 2012" that imagines FBI founder J Edgar Hoover armed with today's cyber tools. Little imagination is needed, he points out - governments and private corporations now routinely override human rights online."

[O Really]

We've seen how fast a modern society can turn ugly - Germany, Yugoslavia, Ukraine, Syria and others.

Interesting you mentioned Yugoslavia. It did turn ugly, but largely in rebellion against the dictators, not so much to try to create one. Germany turned ugly too, but it also suffered a loss of previous governmental stability, then got treated badly after WWI, giving Hitler an opportunity. I would have thought you'd have attributed that bit of ugliness to the US and its allies.

[Vrede too]

Interesting you mentioned Yugoslavia. It did turn ugly, but largely in rebellion against the dictators, not so much to try to create one.

But that's what happened, the creation of civil war and ethnic cleansers.

Germany turned ugly too, but it also suffered a loss of previous governmental stability, then got treated badly after WWI, giving Hitler an opportunity. I would have thought you'd have attributed that bit of ugliness to the US and its allies.

We know the contributing factors, my point was just that modern freedom and stability ain't a sure thing and what follows it will retain the extant tools and data for whatever uses.

Another one, the Dirty War. From your link:

Ernesto Mallo's "One on Any Given Night" is its sharp counterpoint in character, a dark account of police in Argentina turning ordinary citizens into suspects and victims....

Also, 1970s Chile and Franco's Spain.

[O Really]

Yeppers. Gotta be ever vigilant.
Here's where I used to work. Notice the motto on the patch
https://www.facebook.com/6931ESS/info?tab=page_info

[Vrede too]

My examples are about the military being the problem, not the solution.

[O Really]

My examples are about the military being the problem, not the solution.

Understood, but that's not always the case. Sometimes, but not always. Plus "the military" isn't exactly homogeneous.

[rstrong]

BTW, new broke last week of a pair of security leaks at the Office of Personnel Management that will do far more damage to America's security than anything Snowden ever did.

In the first leak, Chinese hackers downloaded the personal information for every single current or past federal government employee. Including unencrypted SIN numbers. Everything needed for identity theft, and for handy use for espionage purposes.

In the second leak:

The forms authorities believed may have been stolen en masse, known as Standard Form 86, require applicants to fill out deeply personal information about mental illnesses, drug and alcohol use, past arrests and bankruptcies. They also require the listing of contacts and relatives, potentially exposing any foreign relatives of U.S. intelligence employees to coercion. Both the applicant's Social Security number and that of his or her cohabitant is required.

In a statement, the White House said that on June 8, investigators concluded there was "a high degree of confidence that ... systems containing information related to the background investigations of current, former and prospective federal government employees, and those for whom a federal background investigation was conducted, may have been exfiltrated."

"This tells the Chinese the identities of almost everybody who has got a United States security clearance," said Joel Brenner, a former top U.S. counterintelligence official. "That makes it very hard for any of those people to function as an intelligence officer. The database also tells the Chinese an enormous amount of information about almost everyone with a security clearance. That's a gold mine. It helps you approach and recruit spies."

One can imagine the first five queries done:

1) List all Americans currently or recently in China who have government security clearances, and yet are here as corporate staff, teachers, tour guides etc..

2) List all Americans with a security clearance who have a history of drug abuse or bankruptcy. Include their addresses and contact information. Cross-reference it with private bankruptcy and foreclosure information to see who is the most desperate.

3) List all retirees who had security clearances. Cross-reference them with private bankruptcy and foreclosure information.

4) For the rest, list the addresses, SIN numbers etc. of their families.

5) Calculate how much the Russians and Iranians will pay for this information. Or the Germans and French for that matter.

6) Take that query data and cross-reference it with the data from the Ashley Madison leak. With records for 21.5 million people in the OPM leak and 21 million in the Ashley Madison leak, there's bound to be a large number of people in both. This gives you a long list of people with US government security clearances AND who are in financial difficulty AND/OR are cheating on their spouses. Or who are married to someone - with a government security clearance - who is cheating on them.

The Ashely Madison leak no doubt gave many foreign intelligence officials a Stimulating Personal Moment without even having membership.

[Vrede too]

Cross-reference the Ashley Madison leak with NSA and other spooks and you get literal and figurative fuckers.

[rstrong]

Cross-reference the Ashley Madison leak with NSA and other spooks and you get literal and figurative fuckers.

They didn't need Ashley Madison for that. When the CIA was kidnapping suspects around the planet a decade ago, sodomizing them to create "capture shock" was one of their practices. (I don't think that was in the heavily redacted torture report summary a few months back, but it's known from testimony by European government officials who found themselves dragged into court over it happening on European soil.)

[O Really]

Good example here of why disclosures of "spy" activity isn't necessarily a right of public domain. http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/us- ... ar-AAdR2UH

How "secret" is a campaign when it's a new article on msn?

[Vrede too]

... U.S. officials said ...

This is one of those instances where supposedly secret info. is divulged that is favorable to the government and no one objects or condemns the journalists that publish it.