The metadata is the greater danger to liberty and freedom.

[reusrename]

This spying on the public, it's apples and oranges.


There are two separate concerns, for sure. One is the privacy issue associated with listening to phone conversations/reading emails, along with all the questions of whether or not the laws are constitutional, or whether or not they are even being followed. This has always been the case with the 4th Amendment, ever since the country was founded.

The second concern is completely new, and it has to do with the use of metadata. Metadata is used to create the targets for a counterinsurgency operation. Sometimes (or according to research, in most cases) the most influential person in a social network (or insurgency) is not the most high profile or the most vocal individual in the group. With very large groups (OWS for example), this new technology identifies those individuals who's participation in the group is the most critical.

That, in a nutshell, is why the metadata is being collected and for what it is being used. It should be obvious how this information can be used/misused to affect our first amendment freedoms, specifically our right to peaceably assemble. There are a couple of stories floating around today about how the MIC is targeting opponents of the keystone pipeline. This counterinsurgeny technology and training is being used against law-abiding citizens right here in America.

Because the algorithms being used are easily handled by computers, and because no errors are introduced by trying to decode or translate any communication content, the system can create a very precise mapping of our social networks. Only actual metadata associated with each communication is logged into the software, and from that information the algorithms sort out the social connections.

Almost everything about this particular type of surveillance is new. The science behind the algorithms that are used and the computers that store and sift the data are new. The idea behind controlling the pubic is not new, however. It has been done before, and very effectively, even without this new weapon.

This all fits into the bigger picture of the War on Terror. Remember that our country was founded by insurgents. Many, if not all of our heroes, would have been easily thwarted under this type of surveillance regime and folks have written about how Paul Revere could have been easily stopped using this technology.


For some basic info about how the science is implemented, google the keywords:

thesis+insurgent+social+network


This use of the metadata seems to be the more dangerous issue. The eavesdropping can be used to disrupt/detain/dissuade/discredit a specific target once it has been identified. But the meticulous scientific selection of targets is what thwarts our (the ones who are trying to change things) ability to properly organize any resistance. This is serious. Without organization we have no idea who to aim our pitchforks at.

Basically, we are racing toward future where you either support the 1% or else you are a terrorist. This path leads to the restoration of slavery. There is no doubt about it.

Without any ability to organize, we will never be able to define who "they" are.

>>>


Snowden’s leak of classified US government information acquired during his work for the National Security Agency (NSA) confirms that the US government is gathering and archiving online data and metadata on a massive scale. The data is stored at NSA data centers, where zettabytes of cloud storage are available to authorities. Snowden’s revelations have again framed the debate over the balance between our privacy rights and our need for security.

>>>


The point we should derive from Snowden’s revelations – a point originally expressed in March 2013 by William Binney, a former senior NSA crypto-mathematician – is that the NSA’s Utah Data Center will amount to a “turnkey” system that, in the wrong hands, could transform the country into a totalitarian state virtually overnight.

>>>


http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jun/13/prism-utah-data-center-surveillance?CMP=twt_gu

The common wisdom in the US is that we are too well armed for this kind of thing. We have too many guns, it could never happen here. Our would-be oppressors will always be outgunned.

This line of thinking illustrates a complete and total misunderstanding of what we would actually be up against.

The only way to mount any effective armed resistance would be to organize. We would have to know who to point our pitchforks at, and we would have to know why they were the enemy.

This new technology is specifically targeted at disrupting our ability to organize. This is what folks need to come to terms with. Only a very small number of individuals need to be removed from the public to accomplish this end.

My guess is that less than 1/100 of 1% of the population would need to be detained in order to create such a totalitarian state. For a town like mine of 30,000, that is less than 3 people. If such a crackdown were to occur overnight, what is it that these folks who have all the guns and feel so safe right now, what is it that they will do? Will they shoot the sheriff deputy when he comes to serve a terrorist warrant on the neighbor? Who, exactly, will they point their guns at?

I believe that this is the question that should be asked. Not: "can it happen here?" but, instead: "what would it look like if it did happen here?"

By the way, there have been many reports that Haliburton has built detainment facilities that can hold up to 1/100th of 1% of the country's population, so that's where I come up with that figure. It is actually way too high a number.


Recent Historic Example: During the Iranian uprising several years ago, only 800 people were arrested, IIRC, and only three or four were killed in order to put down a revolution that was very broad and very deep. Remember that this was a population in which many had lived through the overthrow of the Shah. (Since the revolution was put down, most, if not all, of the 800 who were detained have been executed.) IIRC, the US had no official position on any of this. My understanding of these events is two-fold: that we need to have a bad guy in order to have a nuclear confrontation and that the thwarting of this uprising would not have been possible without our technology. YMMV. Total population of Iran is about 75 million and the only arrested (and have since executed) about 800, which is about 0.0001% or way less than what one might normally think is necessary.

[JimDandy]

1. K & R for exposure

although there's not much that supports some of the assertions. For ex: "This path leads to the restoration of slavery. There is no doubt about it."

[Liberal_in_LA]

2. kick again

[reusrename]

5. It has always been that way, throughout all recorded history.

We are nothing but chattel without our ability to organize.

It is this ability to organize that most of this new technology is directed at.

[HiPointDem]

3. kick

[PowerToThePeople]

4. they can find out exactly who is in contact with who

How will it be used? Guilt by association is how I see it coming down.

I think the people need to overcome this with technology. The tools are available (IPsec as an example) that can stop or at least greatly hinder the availability of information of this type. We need to push service providers and end-points to use it.

Internet services should locate to Countries that will not hand over data to any Gov. What countries currently stand up to the USGov? Ecuador? Venezuela? Possibly some European countries?

[Recursion]

9. How have they used it so far? They've been doing it with postal mail since World War I

And with telephones since the 1970s or so.

[PowerToThePeople]

12. have they?

Have they kept a permanent database of every letter sent and every telephone call made?

Or, if they supplied a warrant, did they get the phone records?

I believe the answer would be the latter, not the former...

[Recursion]

13. They've kept a "database" of who's mailing whom since before there were databases

In WWI they got the Post Office to take a photograph of the outside of every envelope mailed, and they've been keeping that data ever since (presumably they have a more high-tech way of storage and retrieval now than in 1918).

Phone calls they have trusted the carriers to hold on to the data for and request it later, for the most part, but they have the legal capacity to just store all of that (though a law from the 1980's put some limitations on that).

[PowerToThePeople]

14. links for these claims?

[Recursion]

15. Sure

For starters,

http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/new_york_times_post_office_photocopies_envelopes_of_all_mail_sent_in_the_us/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smith_v._Maryland

[PowerToThePeople]

20. Thank you

This is history I was unfamiliar with.

So, how do we avoid this? Public/Private key-pair and exchange only with trusted pears for communication? Connect to a router via encrypted tunnel and only identify by your public key?

I am not super knowledgeable on these methods but I know there are ways that can currently be implemented to shelter all data, even personally identifiable meta-data from others.

[Recursion]

21. Encryption technology is point-to-point, meaning routing information is always in the clear

There's no way to avoid it; that's one of the reasons metadata is not Constitutionally protected.

[jeff47]

22. Could use TOR to protect the routing information. (nt)

[Recursion]

25. Well, it makes it harder for them

It just becomes very tedious to trace back.

[PowerToThePeople]

24. that is why connect to router via encrypted tunnel.

All they see is a bunch of clients hooked to one node. They can not tell end-point to end-point traffic. Unless they can get into the router itself. Routers could be housed outside the reach of USGov.

(Maybe this could be a project for the computers & internet topic groups to look into)

[Recursion]

26. Sure, if you control both ends of the transaction, that works great

The worry is when you're talking with other people.

[reusrename]

34. This is the important discussion, figuring out the best course to take.

I'm not convinced that the technology itself is all that sinister.

I can see how it could be used for some noble purposes if it were only open to scrutiny by the public.

I don't think there is any way to put the toothpaste back in the tube. We have to find a way to exist with this stuff.

[jeff47]

6. You know, one of the most troubling aspects about this whole thing

the the large quantity of bullshit that is casually tossed out as fact.

Such as your assertion that the government is listening to US person's phone calls and reading their emails. Not backed up by anything leaked by Snowden. Sure, lots of people are conflating the separate programs he leaked in order to make it sound worse. But wouldn't that be the one of the first things leaked if it was true?

Then there's the claim that metadata is somehow new. Well, the relevant US Supreme Court decision was in 1979. That's not new. And it isn't your data - that decision declared metadata to belong to the phone company. And they've been selling it to marketers for a while now.

That then leads off into "of course private companies are using it!". Again, with no evidence.

We're supposed to be the "reality" party. If you've got proof, then show it. Otherwise, you're just doing another variation on Cadillac-driving welfare queens.

[reusrename]

7. Of course this stuff is fact. I don't understand how anyone can question it.

The whole idea behind the research and development of computer mapping techniques for social networks, and how this new science is currently being implemented is not being taken seriously enough. This is not the same thing as the pen registers that were around back in the 60's and 70's.

From my limited personal experience with the Military/Industrial Complex, it is clear that the military is about ten years ahead of what is available to the public sector in just about every area of strategic research and technology. Here are just a couple of examples that I found quite quickly that explain how social networking science is being used. Remember, this information is public, and in no way is it representative of what is classified.

There really is a lot more if you just use the google:

thesis+social+networks+insurgent

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>



THESIS

MODELING METHODOLOGIES FOR REPRESENTING
URBAN CULTURAL GEOGRAPHIES IN STABILITY
OPERATIONS

>>>

The overarching objective for this thesis is to investigate effective modeling
methodologies capable of implementing an analytic social theory model suite into a
stand-alone simulation tool. This analytic social theory model suite was designed by the
RUCG project team to capture HBR with respect to a civilian population undergoing
stability operations within an irregular warfare (IW) environment. The various aspects
and complex nature of this environment are extremely difficult to model, and
subsequently, to analyze. The successful construction of a model within a single
simulation tool will provide a capability to explore complex adaptive systems such as
this one.

>>>

An essential aspect of warfare is the battle for the support of the civilian
populace. This model quantifies attitudinal change within a civilian populace due to
actions taken by designated actors, how the population perceives these actions, the innate
attitudes of the subpopulations that the civilian populace is composed of, and the effect of
inter-subpopulation influences.


http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA483623


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

A Social Network Approach to
Understanding an Insurgency

>>>


Social network analysts start with the simple yet powerful notion
that the primary business of social scientists is to study social structure.
They believe that the most direct way to study a social structure is to analyze
the patterns of ties linking its members. The fundamental difference be-
tween a social network explanation of a process and a non-network explana-
tion is the inclusion of concepts and information on relationships among
units in a study. Network analysis operationalizes structures in terms of net-
work linkages among units. Regularities or patterns in interactions give rise
to structures. The social network perspective views characteristics of the so-
cial units as arising out of structural or relational processes and focuses on
properties of the relational systems. The task is to understand properties of
the social, economic, or political structural environment and how these
structural properties influence observed characteristics and associations re-
lated to the characteristics. Standard social science perspectives usually ig-
nore relational information.

>>>

Social network analysis provides a precise method to define impor-
tant social concepts, a theoretical alternative to the assumption of inde-
pendent social actors, and a framework for testing theories regarding struc-
tured social relationships. Equally relevant is the understanding of a social
network approach to assessing power and its distribution in organizations.
Structural perspectives on power argue that it is derived from each person’s
position in the division of labor and the communication system of the
organization.

>>>

Revolutionary coalitions tend to form around pre-existing national-
ism, populism, or religions capable of aggregating a broad array of social
classes. Such organizations may also offer selective incentives to encourage
participation in various activities, particularly dangerous ones such as guerilla
warfare. It is the ongoing provision of collective and selective goods, not
ideological conversion in the abstract, that plays a principal role in solidifying
social support for insurgents.

While pre-existing ties are the foundation, it is a common interest in
addition to the institutional means to pursue it that serves as the catalysts for
creating a collective identity that allows a group to embrace collective action.
Collective identities draw conceptual boundaries around the genus of
individuals who are similarly affected by specific circumstances. However,
these conceptual maps only apply when pre-existing social ties are in place.
The dual role of these social relations—as a means for assessing the validity
of a collective identity, and as a means for action, or influencing others to
act—accounts for the fact that formal and informal ties act together in the mo-
bilization and unity of effort.


The full functioning of a network depends on how well, and in what
ways, the members are personally known and connected to each other. This is
the classic level of social network analysis, where strong personal ties, often
ones that rest on friendship and bonding experiences, ensure high degrees of
trust and loyalty. To function well, networks may require higher degrees of
interpersonal trust than do other approaches to organization, like hierarchies.
Kinship ties, be they of blood or brotherhood, are a fundamental aspect of
many terrorist, criminal, and gang organizations.

http://strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pubs/parameters/Articles/07summer/reed.pdf

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

My experience has been that a lot of people view this whole topic as a bunch of tin-foil-hattery. There are literally hundreds of doctoral theses written on this subject, and still no one really wants to discuss any of it or take it seriously, or examine what impact it may have on political discourse or political activism.

Think about that for a second.

As for the listening in on calls an reading emails, Snowden had talked about this. I don't know how anyone could miss it. There are yottabyte storage facilities where ALL digital communications are being stored so they can be looked at later.

It's very simple really. An FBI agitator speaks on the phone with someone that opposes the XL pipeline and blowing up the pipeline comes up in the conversation. They legally can monitor anyone's conversations who is associated with that person. He's a terrorist, don'tcha know.

This is hard to come to terms with, but all I can do is assure you that the folks that are trying to expose this system are telling the honest truth. That list includes some very brave folks.

I know that there would be a natural resistance to actually believing that all this can really be happening. All I can say is:

THIS IS NOT A DRILL!

.

[jeff47]

8. Your post is utterly free of facts.

The whole idea behind the research and development of computer mapping techniques for social networks, and how this new science is currently being implemented is not being taken seriously enough.

No, there's no need for those new algorithms when you're talking about metadata. The research is how to tie people together with limited data from social networks. When you have phone metadata, you don't need that. You already have all the necessary information to map people.

My experience has been that a lot of people view this whole topic as a bunch of tin-foil-hattery.

My, how shocking.

As for the listening in on calls an reading emails, Snowden had talked about this.

He talked about programs monitoring non-US persons. Non-US persons have no Constitutional rights.

The only programs involving US persons leaked by Snowden are the phone metadata program. And it's difficult to claim it's a 4th amendment violation when the information belongs to the phone company and has been routinely sold to third parties for a while now.

There are yottabyte storage facilities where ALL digital communications are being stored so they can be looked at later.

So you're now claiming that the information is sent through a time machine so it can be stored in a facility that hasn't been completed yet?

Or perhaps you're once again not operating close to reality.

An FBI agitator speaks on the phone with someone that opposes the XL pipeline and blowing up the pipeline comes up in the conversation. They legally can monitor anyone's conversations who is associated with that person.

Nope. According to what Snowden leaked, US persons are not being monitored. Again, you are conflating multiple programs into a single evil.

If the government was doing what you claim, how come Snowden is hiding it too? Why wouldn't he leak that first?

I know that there would be a natural resistance to actually believing that all this can really be happening.

No, there's a bias towards reality. You have conflated several different programs into a single program, and are using as evidence facilities that have not been built yet.

In other words, you are claiming that you have seen a Cadillac-driving welfare queen loading dozens of steaks into her trunk bought with her WIC card.

[Recursion]

10. ^^^ Everyone please read and digest this post (nt)

[randome]

11. Seconded. Well said, Jeff.

[hr][font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font][hr]

[reusrename]

17. Yep, hundreds of doctoral theses are not real, not fact.

Why?

Because Jeff says so.

[reusrename]

16. You should probably avoid technical discussions.

"No, there's no need for those new algorithms when you're talking about metadata. The research is how to tie people together with limited data from social networks. When you have phone metadata, you don't need that. You already have all the necessary information to map people."

How is this done, exactly?

Do they print everything out on green and white fanform paper and then look through it all manually?

Wait, that would take computers, wouldn't it?

Seriously.

How is this accomplished?

Should be a simple question for someone who knows all about this stuff.

How are the social networks actually being mapped?

Do they do it like Mark Lombardi?




http://modcult.org/image/1976


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=3571293&mesg_id=3574623

[jeff47]

18. When you're talking about phone metadata

you have a database listing the phone numbers and who owns them. It's trivial to map who called who. 555-1234 called 555-5678. 555-1234 is owned by Jim Smith, and 555-5678 is owned by Sally Fakelastname. Ta-da! a map.

When you're talking about social networks, you don't have enough information from the public posts of people to tie them together with just the data. When Sally posts a message, "Went to the park with Jim today", it doesn't give you enough information to tie Jim to a specific person. Which is why you need more sophisticated algorithms to map social networks.

But please, continue to claim there's some other problem that you can't quite identify.

[reusrename]

23. Again, you should either read up and learn something or butt out of the discussion completely.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metadata

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_virtualization


This is not the old pen registers from the 60's and 70's.

This is the second time I've had to correct you on this point.



You seem to not be able to answer the simplest question that I asked you.

How are these social networks being mapped if they are not being mapped in the manner I described?

Can you please try and answer that question? It's at the heart of the conversation.

[jeff47]

27. I'm afraid it's not me that's misunderstanding the situation.

I'm quite familiar with the research you keep referring to.

Metadata in this context is phone metadata. Because you're talking about Snowden and what he leaked. And that means which two phone numbers were connected at what time and for how long.

Metadata, the term, is broader but that's not relevant when discussing a program involving phone metadata.

Second, data virtualization is a data storage and access technique. It is not new. Nor is it necessary for social network mapping. If you're mapping Facebook, you need data from Facebook. Not Facebook and Linkedin.

How are these social networks being mapped if they are not being mapped in the manner I described?

They're being mapped. But Snowden leaked nothing about mapping them. In addition, the algorithms you describe are necessary when you only have access to the public information. If you're a government, you presumably have access to all the private information. That makes the mapping about as easy as phone metadata - they'd have everyone's 'Friends list'.

If you actually understood this topic, you'd be able to say exactly where I'm wrong. Instead you're just making nebulous claims that come down to you shouting "Nuh Uh!!!!".

[reusrename]

29. So you have no idea about how our social networks are being mapped?

Only that the doctoral theses on the subject are all wrong.


You're all over the place, but thanks for finally admitting that you have no clue of how our social networks are being mapped, because that really is the whole point of the discussion in this thread.


If you want to start another thread bashing Snowden, go right ahead. But I wish you'd try and stay on topic in this thread.

.

[jeff47]

36. Again, if you actually understood what you are talking about

you would be able to specifically say what the problem is. You aren't. Because you can't.

Instead, you're hiding behind "appeal to authority" without knowing what those authorities are actually doing. With the occasional "NUH UH!!!" and confusion about terms thrown in.

Most people would realize that this situation would not make them look favorable, but I have to applaud you for sticking with it. Wanna claim the new research on the Higgs boson proves something about electrodynamics next?

[reusrename]

37. The problem is a very simple one. You are clueless about this topic.

Have you even looked at any of the links I've posted?

The reason you see these facts as some kind of trick, as some kind of an "appeal to authority," is because if you were to accept the facts you would no longer be able to just make stuff up.

You can't even make up a good lie. It's pathetic.



http://flowingdata.com/2013/06/13/sniffing-out-paul-revere-with-basic-social-network-analysis/

[arely staircase]

19. metadata collection can repealed by congress, and should be

once Snowden gives the Russians his laptop full of US intel. the horse is out of the barn.

[Catherina]

28. K&R! n/t

[BanzaiBonnie]

31. Agreed, there's no question

about what they're doingwith this information.

[marions ghost]

32. K&R

---

[Waiting For Everyman]

33. It's the reason for killing JFK, RFK, MLK, and Malcolm X in the 60's.

Kill the leaders. Or as in Cambodia, kill everybody who is educated. Destroy the "centerrs of influence", and resistance is nearly impossible.

I agree, the medadata is more dangerous. Blanket spying should never be allowed.

[reusrename]

35. Yep, and there's also another very interesting side discussion that should go forward.

There's the whole subject of orchestrated disruption of internet political forums.

Several years ago there was a pretty detailed story by Tom Griffin about how the internet response changed after the 2006 Lebanon War. Common wisdom was that Lebanon won the media conflict and thereby won the support of the public at large. Folks sided against Israel.

This was a teaching moment for the folks who have an interest in controlling public support.

It's a long and difficult read, but it is informative and useful:

http://pulsemedia.org/2009/07/02/web-2-0-warfare-from-gaza-to-iran/