Glenn Greenwald's Article On NSA Snooping Actually Snooped On Everyone Who Clicked

[Whisp]

http://www.businessinsider.com/glenn-greenwald-snooped-on-everyone-2013-8

Glenn Greenwald's Article On NSA Snooping Actually Snooped On Everyone Who Clicked

An article by The Guardian's Glenn Greenwald on XKEYSCORE actually gathered the browsing habits of everyone who clicked and wasn't protected (by private, encrypted, and/or proxy browsing), reports Bob Cesca of the Daily Banter.

Using a free web application called Ghostery — which tells the user about embedded trackers — Cesca found that The Guardian embedded 27 tracking bugs inside Greenwald's article.

The bugs track browsing metadata, a lot like what Greenwald exposed on June 6 with his article on the National Security Agency and Verizon.

Ostensibly, private companies track browsing metadata on the web in order to help advertise and market products to users online.


Maybe Glenn uses that information to send out mail begging for more ca-ching

YeeeeeeeeeeHaaaaaaaaaaa!

[randome]

1. Just as I remain skeptical of anything Greenwald says...

...I remain skeptical about this unless someone else independently verifies it.

But it wouldn't surprise me if it was true.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]

[JDPriestly]

135. It would be up to the Guardian, not to Greenwald.

[randome]

154. Yeah, that sounds more likely.

[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]

[AtomicKitten]

2. My head just exploded.

k&r

[BenzoDia]

3. Lol! But that's different!

[TalkingDog]

44. Only in that corporations can't use the evidence they gather against you in a court of law.

That said, I've been using Ghostery since it was first introduced. I also use a couple of other anti-cookie, anti-advertising application add-ons.

So, with the people to whom it matters, no. Not different at all.

[MrScorpio]

120. Not unless those corporations want to sue you civilly, of course.

Just ask anyone whose IP address was tracked in order to sue them for downloads of movies or music.

[TalkingDog]

158. Point taken. And as I suggested in the body of my post: I don't view them as different n/t

[NYC_SKP]

4. Let's seen. At even one penny per reader....

I wonder how much $ changes hands.

[sweetloukillbot]

32. I'm not going to say Greenwald's reporting is completely about money

But the way these have been rolled out rather than dumped is about sustaining traffic to the website - which is raking in ad revenue for clicks. There is a lot of money in page views. And the Guardian has a windfall in these NSA stories.
I do some freelance music writing for a major newspaper/website and it is all about pageviews. The determining factor in coverage is whether or not they think a story will get hits. So I'm supposed to repost my stories on FB and other social media and friendly blogs, to drive traffic.
One story I did garnered over a million hits - at that point I wished I was being paid by the page view and not a flat fee!

[ZombieHorde]

5. I thought most corporate websites did this.

They use them to determine who should see different ads, right?

[abelenkpe]

6. Yes

[Whisp]

7. isn't that surveillance as well?

that's the kind that bugs me much more than some jerkoff at the NSA bored and listening in to my boring phone calls or emails.

corporate surveillance is what we should be paying a lot more attention to.

[BenzoDia]

11. Yep, the potential for abuse is there.

Unlimited queries on your data, gaining unfair competitive/economic advantages, black mail, etc. An outside agent can hack this info and use it for their needs.

Hell, a company might just hand that information over to law enforcement when asked.

[ZombieHorde]

15. It's a type of surveillance. Me reading your posts is a type of surveillance too.

It is an open surveillance that doesn't involve torture, guns, and cages.

[Union Scribe]

28. Can the Guardian arrest you? nt

[bahrbearian]

36. Wait till the Guardian has Drone Capabilities, ya better watch yourself.

[KharmaTrain]

49. They Can Send You To Economic Hell...

...I had an associate who almost lost his house and saw the interest rates climb on other accounts thanks to a "mistake" made by a credit agency; a corporation that datamined his personal information. It cost him untold hours and dollars to fix a "mistake" that he wasn't aware of until this person saw their monthly mortgage nearly double without any explanation. Now...that's tangible, real people being harmed by corporate spying...as Whisp pointed out earlier, far more pervasive and a threat to all of us than Office Mike finding out who you called and when. BOTH need to be investigated...

[Union Scribe]

61. "BOTH need to be investigated"

I'll happily agree with that.

[JDPriestly]

140. Very true. That would be a horrible experience.

And if a private company can do that much damage to an innocent person, think of what the government could do. Could make it hard to get a job. All kinds of things could be made difficult if the government collects data on people, perhaps makes a mistake on some of it and then provides it or uses it.

Think of professionals who have to get licenses and pass character examinations of one kind or another to qualify. A mistaken government report based on silly internet posts could be a big problem in some professions.

Do you think the Koch Brothers might check their employees or the employees of companies with which they do business on sensitive matters to be sure that the employees have not expressed any sentiments or beliefs on the internet that are contrary to the ideas that the Koch Brothers espouse? Could happen. Employers may not be doing that now, but they could.

I'm for blanket privacy protections on the internet. It isn't just a matter of government surveillance although the government surveillance is the most dangerous because it implicates our separation of powers and our rights under the Bill of Rights in the Constitution among many other things.

[KharmaTrain]

146. Private Corporate Invasion...

...is a real ongoing problem for too many Americans. The supposed NSA surveillance is far less evasive...I'm still looking for a case where someone has been dragged out of their house or been tossed into some gulag due to an intercepted call directed through the NSA. When that happens then we have a real problem. What I'm refering to isn't theoretical, it's very real and very ignored in all this paranoia about the government having access to phone calls...the same list that your phone company can and do sell to third parties. If the government really wants to pry into your life, they do so every year and you are required to provide the information...it's called filing taxes. They have access to your annual income and investments and who gives you that money. If a totalitarian state is gonna go after someone, following the money is a hell of a lot easier than tracing phone calls.

That said...I can cite tons of damage that is done by corporates who misuse metadata and other private information. I'm also for a Church-type investigation into the NSA and other intelligence operations. As a child of the 60s and 70s, I learned that anything that's said on a phone, written in a letter or now sent via electronic transmission (fax and internet) can be intercepted. I want more facts...not hypotheticals...and if there have been abuses and laws have been broken, those involved need to be prosecuted. Until then color me skeptical of all the charges that our government has turned into the stasi...

Cheers...

[KittyWampus]

130. No, but the information garnered on you by corporations can prevent you from getting a job,

buying a house, getting a loan, insurance.

[joshcryer]

174. Ask Sergey Aleynikov or Peter Adekeye.

Oh wait. Corporations are people.

[leveymg]

131. Are you aware that virtually every commercial Internet site uses tracking cookies? This one, too

The Guardian is no different. Cesca is again spinning something quite routine and trying his damnedest to try to twist it into something that seems sinister. Only the truly credulous fall for it.

[go west young man]

134. You hit the nail on the head.

[leveymg]

143. Bob Cesca is a source of disinformation.

He doesn't just do sloppy blogging, he does workmanlike propaganda.

Good enough to attract acolytes. Not expert enough so that it isn't easily spotted for what it is.

[JDPriestly]

138. Laws that protect the privacy of all legal activity on the web would be great.

I think that might be more likely if we can stop the NSA snooping first. That would make it more likely that the government and Congress would decide to protect our confidentiality when we are on the internet.

[NoOneMan]

81. Basically almost everyone does this (blogs, forums, etc)

Its not the actual site most of the time, but 3rd parties whose scripts are loaded to deliver ad content. Of course a newspaper would have these.

[Whisp]

10. whatsamatta you? something got in your craw?

[VanillaRhapsody]

9. Yes...THAT'S metadata...and how it works...

exactly! Which is why I continue to say.....there is no privacy on the Internet. And guess what....companies are backing up all that information to databases...redudantly. They even buy and sell it to each other...

[Aerows]

12. Did you check the source of that article

by chance? Not talking about Business Insider.


It's from the daily banter.

http://thedailybanter.com/2013/08/washington-post-hacked-by-supporters-of-syrian-president-bashar-al-assad/

Things like this are regularly posted there. Business Insider needs to take a deep breath and realize what they are posting.

[ProSense]

48. That post is a statement by WaPo editors about its site being hacked.

It was WaPo's official statement, also posted at TPM

Washington Post Says Its Website Was Hacked

The Washington Post said its website was hacked Thursday by a group known for its support of the Syrian government.

"The Washington Post Web site was hacked today, with readers on certain stories being redirected to the site of the Syrian Electronic Army," an editor's note on the Post's website read. "The group is a hacker collective that supports Syrian President Bashar al-Assad."

The Post wrote that it is working to resolve the issue.

http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/washington-post-says-its-website-was-hacked

[Aerows]

56. I'll sit back and wait

until I have more information, because quite frankly, I don't believe a bit of it. And with good reason. Suddenly the WaPo is hacked by "terrorists" after it reported something ugly about the NSA.

[MineralMan]

70. Download Ghostery and check it yourself.

It's very interesting, to say the least. Go try it.

Foxnews.com - 24
Huffington Post - 19
Firedoglake - 16
cnn.com - 15
alternet.org - 14
naturalnews.com - 15
drudgereport.com - 29
dailypaul.com - 19
yahoo.com - 7
Bing.com - 4
dogpile.com - 2
aljazeera.com - 10
rt.com - 3

google.com - 0
DemocraticUnderground.com - 1 Google Analytics
Whitehouse.gov - 2
nsa.gov - 1 Google Analytics
fbi.gov - 3

[RKP5637]

133. Ghostery is blocking 20 on this Business Insider article ... too funny ... n/t

[pnwmom]

74. Bob Cesca also reported in the Daily Banter about how the NSA is making

thousands of errors in its surveillance every year.

So there's no reason to suspect his motives here.

[hobbit709]

13. So you're blaming Greenwald for what the Guardian does.

I'll give you 10-1 odds that the Guardian does that on EVERY article and so do most other websites.

[Aerows]

21. Something taken from a site

that regularly does satire isn't exactly a fantastic source for an article.

[Whisp]

25. just funny as all hell is what it is...

that the Guardian and media are bellowing about privacy and they collect data themselves, mostly unknown to participants.
And that Greenwald is part of the Snoopery. Gotta love the irony. So Rich.

And this is nothing to do with credibility of the banter in the OP, as some point out - we all know corps do this and have been doing this for a long, long time.

[AtomicKitten]

102. the "Snoopery"

You have made me blow Red Stripe out my nose laughing twice now. Yeeeouch!

[Whisp]

106. this one is narcisstic enough for GG...

nah, snoopy is just too darned cute for that kind of malign.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

14. Did the person who blew the whistle on Ghostery get his passport pulled?

Will be be tried for espionage?

[Aerows]

18. More like the source was

The daily banter for bi's article.

[arely staircase]

16. Now that my dear friend Whisp

is irony.

[Aerows]

19. Indeed it is

Considering the source.

[arely staircase]

20. Bob Cesca is a much better source than Greenwald. nt

[Aerows]

22. The Onion

is a much better source than the Daily Evangelical. I'm not going to be quoting either of them as serious sources. BI messed up on this one.

[arely staircase]

24. Never heard of the Daily Evangelical nt

[Aerows]

26. Of course not

I made it up. Like this entire article. Like the Onion. Like http://www.larknews.com/

[bunnies]

31. Did you read the Daily Banter article?

Doesnt seem like satire to me. Its actually quite a good piece on corporate spying.

http://thedailybanter.com/2013/08/nsa-critics-in-ron-paul-jalopy-territory-trusting-corporations-more-than-government/

[Aerows]

38. I did

and it originated at a BS site, was sent to a usually credible website, but originated, again, at a site that isn't all that credible. Several people and "sources" pointing at a semi-credible source and calling it credible doesn't make it credible. Let's be honest, isn't that everyone says about Snowden and Greenwald, and then you want to take the word of a site that is a mix of The Onion and TMZ and have me call it gospel?

I think not. Those that question the NSA aren't the only ones on DU with big ole blinders on if you take that seriously.

[bunnies]

50. Im not saying it should be taken as gospel...

and I get that its The Daily Banter... but its an opinion piece by Bob Cesca. Is he not credible in your opinion?

[Aerows]

54. The article certainly isn't

You honestly think there is a difference between choosing to click the Twitter button, Google +1 or Facebook share and having your email archived and read? One is consent. The other is without your consent.

[bunnies]

59. Of course I think those things are different...

Its more the collection of data not initiated by me that gets me. I dont feel as though by simply clicking on a web site they should be able to track my behaviors without asking me if I will allow them to do so.

[Aerows]

67. When you post on a site

You are consenting to post there. Get what I'm saying? If you click on a Twitter button to tweet your post, that's consent. When you Google+1, that's consent. When you Facebook, that's consent.

When you choose to be a member of a site then share that information with another site, that is consent. When the government scoops all of that information up and collects your email and telephone metadata, that's not consent anymore, because Google, Twitter and Facebook as entities can't send you to jail, rendition you or monitor your spouse, children and extended family just because they don't like you.

[bunnies]

73. I agree with what youre saying.

Completely. But Im not referring to those types of interactions. Just those damn tracking cookies that some sites throw on your computer when all you've done is visited the site. Every time I run my cleaner I get hundreds of the damn things. And none of them are from any sites I participate on. Pisses me off.

[arcane1]

76. Those Facebook buttons track you whether you click on them or not.

Heck, that's the reason I installed Ghostery in the first place

[Aerows]

80. Good luck to them

since I don't have either a Facebook account or a Twitter feed

[Whisp]

33. Cesca has kept his head while so many are losing theirs...

http://thedailybanter.com/2013/08/nsa-critics-in-ron-paul-jalopy-territory-trusting-corporations-more-than-government/

The most popular article on The Atlantic yesterday was a sloppy-wet rant about how the National Security Agency (NSA) has “commandeered” the internet. Yes, commandeered it. The author of the post, Bruce Schneier, wrote that the government’s “surveillance apparatus” has taken over “vast swaths” of the internet just as the military commandeers ships and factories during wartime. But since we’re not at war (we’re not?) and this is peacetime (it is?), this commandeering is unacceptable.

There’s an important point to be made here about how we as Americans regard both corporations and the government, but first things first. This article is absurd.

Schneier literally begged internet tech companies to shield him from the big bad government by refusing NSA’s requests to attain user data as part of the agency’s effort to monitor overseas communications. Yes, this is where we’ve arrived: Team Greenwald is pleading with for-profit corporations to protect them from the government. On the surface, it appears to be another significant lurch in the direction of Ron Paul’s huffy-puffy whimsical jalopy brand of fantastical anti-government libertarianism. More on this presently.

--
pissing myself laughing at the bolded part.

[Aerows]

35. You are free to take that site 100% seriously

I am free to judge what I take seriously, and isn't that or this BI article. Sorry, my friend, we agree on some things, this isn't going to ever be one of them.

[Mojorabbit]

100. That is a matter of opinion, isn't it? nt

[Hissyspit]

167. Only if you are Alanis Morrisette.

[Enrique]

17. i heard Greenwald likes Matt Damon movies

[Whisp]

23. I thought it was Sean Connery - To Russia With Lurve.... n/t

[Cha]

71. I hear greenwald fans like insipid deflection.

[Th1onein]

110. That all ya got, Cha?

Wow. Looks like it's getting thin pickin's in authoritarian land.

[LittleBlue]

27. The Daily Banter?

Their website literally says "read it and weep suckas"

Is it a joke site or serious?

[bunnies]

30. Heres the article BI took the snip from...

Its actually quite a good article on corporate spying...

http://thedailybanter.com/2013/08/nsa-critics-in-ron-paul-jalopy-territory-trusting-corporations-more-than-government/

[Aerows]

34. Judge for yourself.

http://thedailybanter.com/2013/08/top-5-dumbest-buzzfeed-top-10-lists-of-the-week/

[Whisp]

29. Why is it OK for private companies to snoop

Which begs the question: Why is it OK for private companies to snoop in the name of capitalism, but not for the government to do so in the name of security?

[Th1onein]

40. Because corporations can't put your ass in jail, or send swat teams over, or share your info with

other government agencies.

Geez. What IS it about that you guys don't GET?

On Edit: And by the way? I get to CHOOSE which companies I do business with/want to give my information to. I can't do that when the government snoops on me.

And just in case you forgot? IT'S A BREACH OF MY FOURTH AMENDMENT RIGHTS FOR THE GOVERNMENT TO SPY ON ME WITTHOUT PROBABLE CAUSE!

[grasswire]

47. I think they live in smilie-land

Everything is simple there, and communication is facilitated by buttons. No one questions authority.

[Whisp]

51. Then tell me who has been Swatted and jailed as a result of NSA spying.

Got to be Some concrete examples if the NSA is spying on Everyone, All The Time...

[Aerows]

58. You won't get any

because by the time those folks end up in court, the DEA has buried their original source from which the NSA tip off came. Which, of course, is illegal.

[Th1onein]

63. There doesn't "got to be" anything. THAT is secret, too! Or have you never heard of the SOD

programs, where they are "recreating" investigations, in the cases where they got the information from NSA snooping?

See, they can't SAY that they got the information from NSA snooping, BECAUSE THAT'S AGAINST THE FUCKING LAW, so they have to "recreate" the investigation and LIE to the lawyers, and the judges, and the courts, in general, because it's "fruit of the poison tree" and inadmissible, otherwise.

It's very strange that you don't see the problems with this. That everything is A-Okay with you when it comes to spying on Americans. I seriously question your motives.

[Whisp]

75. everything is not okay.

there has been no solid proof of this vast network of spying on Americans by the government.

Snowden couldn't, didn't, wouldn't provide proof to what he claimed – that he could get into Obama's email and phone, etc. People are just taking his word on that. Now to me, I have serious questions of motives of those who would believe him so strongly, without proof.

It's just another wild ride put out by the crazies (like libertarian Greenwald and his spooky ideas of supporting Citisens United and being pro gun) like all those other non scandals. But this one is sticking a bit longer because it hit the jackpot of sleight of hand and agenda. The privacy boogyman is more important than all else, jobs, fair pay, environment and climate change, Fukishima, all of this is on the side dish because of this nonsense.

[Th1onein]

91. I'm sorry but you are dead ass wrong.

And, quite frankly, I'm getting tired of the same old arguments, rinse, repeat, and retried, over and over and over again. Are you saying that there is no proof of the SOD (Special Operations Division) or that they don't get information from the other alphabet agencies, or that they don't hide it's origin? Think again: http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/05/us-dea-sod-idUSBRE97409R20130805 and http://www.forbes.com/sites/jennifergranick/2013/08/14/nsa-dea-irs-lie-about-fact-that-americans-are-routinely-spied-on-by-our-government-time-for-a-special-prosecutor-2/

And this isn't Snowden's stuff. It's coming from other sources. IS EVERYBODY LYING and Obama and Clapper are the only ones telling the truth? GET REAL.

If this is what is motivating you: "The privacy boogyman is more important than all else, jobs, fair pay, environment and climate change, Fukishima, all of this is on the side dish because of this nonsense." Then, you are full of shit. Because that's not true.

But, let's say, it was, for the sake of argument. Do you not believe in the Fourth Amendment? Do you not think that it is very important, and even central, in some cases, to just about every other mechanism of democracy that we hold dear? If you don't, sir, then you are truly mistaken, and I pity you. We will not have a democracy left to us if the situation continues, unabated, and if another Republican like Bush gets into office. You might as well kiss your country goodbye.

[Whisp]

94. save your pity for the suckers who give GG money. n/t

[Th1onein]

95. I doubt it has a thing to do with GG, but you already know that, don't you?

It's just one more lie to justify the authoritarian position on this issue. Poor things can't tell the truth, because then they'd be WRONG.

[Whisp]

97. well, when I got to choose between door #1 and door #2...

I picked the Authoritarian door and you picked Number Two...

- the paranoid conspiracy voices in your socks door.

[Th1onein]

104. So sad......When you can't win an argument because the FACTS are not on your side...

you resort to ad hominem attacks.

[Whisp]

109. I like ad hominem grits, got lots of good fibre. n/t

[Th1onein]

115. And now, nonsense.

[Warren DeMontague]

127. You have to understand

it's been an extremely difficult summer for folks emotionally invested in pushing certain agendas and/or narratives.

[Whisp]

148. yes it has, because each one that the GOP and media feed to, ahem, certain people

ends up being a total flop and on to the next faux scandal, atrocity, Stasi shiney thing.

How many grammas has Obama killed by cutting SS so deep they starve and die slowly eating cat food? Someone has got to have the numbers..

[Warren DeMontague]

149. I'm sorry. So you're saying you have no problem with the DEA committing perjury in court?

Using NSA spy data on Americans?

Yah, fuck the 4th Amendment. And I'm sure the only reason crazy fringe journalistic outposts like the Washington Post are talking about it, is because they (like all of us, really. You figured it out) are out to get Obama.

[Whisp]

150. I have a big problem with believing anything someone on the internet just spouts out

because it's the cause of the week to undermine this administration. Sadly, probably most don't even know they are being played.

[Warren DeMontague]

151. "someone on the internet" - you mean, like reuters?

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/05/us-dea-sod-idUSBRE97409R20130805

Yeah, they just make shit up. All the time.

A dozen current or former federal agents interviewed by Reuters confirmed they had used parallel construction during their careers. Most defended the practice; some said they understood why those outside law enforcement might be concerned.

***

"That's outrageous," said Tampa attorney James Felman, a vice chairman of the criminal justice section of the American Bar Association. "It strikes me as indefensible."

Lawrence Lustberg, a New Jersey defense lawyer, said any systematic government effort to conceal the circumstances under which cases begin "would not only be alarming but pretty blatantly unconstitutional."

[Whisp]

152. I actually meant what you typed in your previous post...

Media is not to be trusted all the time, I hope you learned that somewhere along the way.

The flag waving by most for the illegal Iraq War should probably make one a bit suspicious if they have an agenda other than the truth.

Words like 'outrageous! indefensible! alarming! blatantly unconstitutional! should give one a clue because that sounds Hair on Fire to me and not reporting.

[Warren DeMontague]

153. I don't find assertions that the Constitution is being shat on in the name of the drug war

all that terribly hard to believe, frankly.

[JTFrog]

177. Pot kettle and all that. FFS. n/t

[bananas]

178. The Jury voted 0-6 to LEAVE IT.

I'm juror #5, is there some way to alert on the alerter?

7:11 AM
Automated Message
AUTOMATED MESSAGE: Results of your Jury Service
Mail Message
At Sun Aug 18, 2013, 08:07 AM an alert was sent on the following post:

There doesn't "got to be" anything. THAT is secret, too! Or have you never heard of the SOD
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3478050

REASON FOR ALERT:

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate. (See <a href="http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=aboutus#communitystandards" target="_blank">Community Standards</a>.)

ALERTER'S COMMENTS:

"It's very strange that you don't see the problems with this. That everything is A-Okay with you when it comes to spying on Americans. I seriously question your motives."

Rude and disruptive personal attack. Stick to the issues, quit making everything personal. If you can't debate the issues, stay out of the conversation. These ridiculous accusations and attacks really make DU suck.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sun Aug 18, 2013, 08:11 AM, and the Jury voted 0-6 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: It IS very strange that they don't see the problems with this.
I'd even have to question the motives of the person who alerted on this post.

Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: Seriously?

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[Th1onein]

179. I didn't see this until now, bananas. Thanks for posting it.

[Union Scribe]

65. So the NSA spying has never led to a single arrest?

Is that what you're claiming? If so, how on earth could you justify its existence? The whole point is keeping us safe by intercepting bad guys right?

[Whisp]

88. no, some are saying that the NSA spies on everyone, all the time.

or they could, if they had 6 billion + workers and another planet to store the information.

I am not talking about surveillance in cases of suspects of crime, as you are.

[Warren DeMontague]

103. Except the normal procedure in a "crime" (read: Granny has a pot plant in her closet)

is for the police to have probable cause to think she's doing something wrong, get a warrant, and THEN they can send the Million Dollar SWAT team in to kick down her door and drag her off in her wheelchair.

That's how the system is supposed to work, silly.

Apparently that 4th Amendment, right-to-a-fair-trial rigamarole is waaaaay too onerous for "law enforcement enthusiasts" and the DEA, so instead they let the NSA scour bulk data for evidence of "crimes" (i.e. Granny calling the hydroponic shop) and then they investigate her, do the SWAT team gig, and when they get to court they make up a story (and lie about it, otherwise known in the common parlance as "perjury&quot about how the neighbors smelled something.

[Warren DeMontague]

69. You missed the part about the DEA constructing "parallel evidence trails" (read: lying in court)

to cover up the fact that they were tipped off about minor drug crimes by the NSA?

[Th1onein]

96. He didn't miss it. He ignored it. Because it didn't fit the talking points.

[Warren DeMontague]

98. But aside from the drug users incarcerated based upon phony evidence trails,

"who has actually been harmed by NSA spying?"

[Th1onein]

101. Well, if the breach of your, mine, and everyone else's Fourth Amendment rights mean nothing.....

then I'd have to refer you to the SECRET store, because all of this shit is secret. The courts, the laws, the investigations, the interpretation of the laws, everything.

[Warren DeMontague]

105. See! You can't prove it!

[font size=1]because all the evidence is covered under assorted national security letters and cannot be disclosed ahem ahem[/font]

[Th1onein]

107. ROFLMAO!

[grasswire]

41. your question is naive or duplicitous on so many levels nt

[arcane1]

53. Because the government works for corporations n/t

[Warren Stupidity]

55. Lets start with it isn't ok.

Now which is worse, corporate snooping on your browsing habits or government snooping on your browsing habits?

[neverforget]

170. I have the feeling you'll be a long time waiting on that answer.

If ever....

[grasswire]

37. Doesn't DU do this too?

I'm pretty sure that the ads I'm seeing on DU today are directly related to the browsing I did last night on eBay.

[Aerows]

43. I'm pretty sure

based on the site where BI got the information that Greenwald is Bigfoot and Snowden is a Yeti Monster.

[MineralMan]

60. The only thing Ghostery detects on DU is Google Analytics.

Any website that doesn't use that has no idea what's going on on their site. It's a standard for almost every website on the planet. The ads you're seeing come from elsewhere. To pay for DU, DU displays ads to non-Star users. Of course, I can't see what Ghostery detects for non-Star members. But Ghostery is free, so you can download it and see for yourself.

[DJ13]

78. Also Google Adsense

[MineralMan]

86. Not if you have a star membership.

Odd, huh?

[Progressive dog]

39. Ghostery only shows 15 trackers now

They probably don't have as many since the article is a couple of weeks old. Trackers are 24/7 Media, Audience Science, Chartbeat, Facebook Social Graph, ForeSee, Google+1, Google Adsense, Google AJAX Search API, Linkedin Widgets, NetRatings SiteCensus, Omniture, Optimizely, Outbrain, Quantcast, and Twitter Button.

[arcane1]

46. I got the same results.

Thanks for typing them out so I don't have to

[Aerows]

52. Answer your own question

Why on earth would twitter, linkedin, google adsense, google +1, AJAX search and the rest of them be tracking?

AJAX is a newsgroup search engine for forum posts which is utilized right here on DU so it can keep track of updated posts. Because you might want to search posts. Adsense is obvious. Twitter Button, the Facebook Social and Google+1 are the buttons that regularly appear so that you can recommend an article to your friends.

None of this records who you are unless you click on the buttons, but then you have consent. See, anyone that thinks there isn't a difference between consent and no consent ... probably shouldn't go on dates.

[Progressive dog]

82. They are there, they are real, they are trackers.

Ghostery site has no trackers, but does have twitter and facebook buttons.

None of this records who you are unless you click on the buttons, but then you have consent. See, anyone that thinks there isn't a difference between consent and no consent ... probably shouldn't go on dates.

That is simply stupid.

Ghostery™ sees the invisible web - tags, web bugs, pixels and beacons. Ghostery tracks the trackers and gives you a roll-call of the ad networks, behavioral data providers, web publishers, and other companies interested in your activity.

BTW I only show Google Analytics on DU as a tracker. This is what they say about themselves

"Google Analytics gives you insights into your website traffic and marketing effectiveness. We help you buy the right keywords, target your best markets, and engage and convert more customers."

and this

"Google Analytics not only lets you measure sales and conversions, but also gives you fresh insights into how visitors use your site, how they arrived on your site, and how you can keep them coming back."[/d

I'm still looking for my consent button.

[olddots]

42. this crap has been going on for thousands of years

think about it or not .

show any interest in anything and you are subject to the attention you have shown even if you mistakably drag your pointer too near an ad .

[arcane1]

45. I'm using Ghostery with Firefox, but it only counted 15 blocked items for me

As for DU, it only counts one: Google Analytics

[dkf]

57. Oh my...I am so scared of the UK Guardian! What will those Brits do to me?

[Aerows]

62. They are using AJAX

to keep track of you posting places. You know, places where you consent to post so that you can find them again. Those devils!

[dkf]

83. Thank goodness I don't know what you are speaking of or I may be alarmed.

[gulliver]

64. Maybe some Snowden at the Guardian wants to come clean...

...on Greenwald. Come on, Guardian Snowden! Let's have some dirt on Greenwald or the Guardian!

[rhett o rick]

66. So The Guardian embedded tracking bugs in a Greenwald article and you

switch it to somehow reflect on Mr. Greenwald.

It would be a more honest assessment if one were to compare this data with how many tracking bugs are placed in other articles by The Guardian and how many bugs other publications add to their articles?

The insinuation that these "bugs" are reflective of Mr. Greenwald is absurd. This smacks of just one more ad hominem attack.

[Th1onein]

72. IT IS AMAZING, isn't it? How FAR they will reach, to try to justify our government spying on us!

Since WHEN did that EVER become okay? It's bizarre that they would be doing this. Especially on DU.

I find it very difficult to justify it, by any means.

[rhett o rick]

79. I am compiling a list of arguments used by the non-anti-authoritarians to justify taking

no actions against the authority of Booz-Allen/NSA.

This argument will fall under the category of attacking the messenger.

[Th1onein]

93. I think they're airing out a new one, too: WE just don't understand how the internet works.

Just an FYI. And, it's typical authoritarian bullshit; they ALWAYS think they're smarter than us riff raff.

[rhett o rick]

124. I think it's more like, The Guardian spys, everyone spys, so dont pay attention to NSA/Booz-Allen

spying.

[NoOneMan]

84. If GG cared, he would only publish to a Word document on his computer

[Whisp]

89. I'll send him a chisel and a slab of rock.

I'd prefer he use that.

[NoOneMan]

108. But the anthropologists! Theyll spy on him rendering him a hypocrite (fallacy: Ad Hominem Tu Quoque)

[Whisp]

111. Is this chiseled or painted, I can't tell...

Must have been done on one of Greenwald's wayback machine trips. Him and his chisel were busy in some cave in France...

Anyway, there's big bad Obama on the upper left, lordin' over all surveilled. Like he does all the time. I don't know who the guy on the upper right with the penis sticking out is tho - maybe it's Anthony Wiener but he's irrelevant to everything.

That turkey on the bottom must be Snowden (seeing as Greenwald is the artist, otherwise it could be him - hmmm, maybe a self portrait then).

Bo is on the bottom left taking big chunks and bites out of old people's Social Security...

The guy on the bottom left, just above Bo, has a broken leg. And folks who oppose ACA tell him to shut up and don't say nothin' about Obamacare actually helping him out.

That's all I can see right now. What do you see?

[NoOneMan]

139. I see the best of all possible worlds

[Warren DeMontague]

68. ZOMG! Because a cookie is the EXACT SAME THING as the DEA using NSA spy data to prosecute drug use!

http://www.salon.com/2013/08/10/the_nsa_dea_police_state_tango/

Little known fact, privacy weenies: Google and Facebook send SWAT teams to arrest cancer grannies for pot all the time ZOMG ZOMG

[populistdriven]

141. BINGO!

My granny loved playing it until she got busted by the feds.

[NoOneMan]

77. Same with DU

If only money didn't drive the web experience, but it does

[Marr]

85. This is why no one takes you apologists seriously anymore.

Yesterday, you were defending Clapper's lying before Congress, and here you are today trying to say that a simple website cookie is comparable to NSA spying.

You've become absurd.

[Whisp]

92. you're not so constructive criticisms are not so becoming either

when you constantly trash this administration.

but don't worry, don't stand up, no one cares who should.

it's just good lung exercise for some, I guess.

[Th1onein]

112. NOBODY is trashing this administration.

If anything, Obama, by lying to us, is doing a good job of that, all by himself.

We don't want a Rethug in office; we support Obama. We are Democrats. But you can't justify the wholesale spying on all Americans just because it's done under a Democratic administration. It is simply NOT RIGHT. It's against the fucking law, and it's a breach of our Fourth Amendment rights.

We cannot afford to wait until a fucking Republican is in office to set this straight. We can't take that chance.

[Marr]

114. This is a deceitful piece of bullshit you're pushing here.

I'm sorry if it hurt your feelings to have that pointed out. A website cookie is not at all comparable to NSA spying. To claim otherwise, you'd have to either be an utter fool, or someone who is fine with lying and misdirection on this topic (like the support you expressed for such yesterday in defending Clapper).

In either case, anyone making an argument like this doesn't deserve to be listened to.

[Whisp]

117. woah. hold on there, don't bust a gasket...

sheesh.

I would laugh but it might send you over some edge you got there going for you....

[Marr]

119. I've noticed you can never defend the positions you take. /nt

[Th1onein]

121. No, but he can stage a personal attack against you, implying that you're on edge.

It really is sad.

[Warpy]

87. yeah, the Guardian allows a lot of crap on their website

I've noticed that news media websites are among the worst for that stuff, often a list exceeding the height of the screen.

A few of the widgets allow people to view videos. Most of them are trackers, along with advertising and analytics.

The real surprise when I loaded Ghostery was how much of it was out there. I've turned much of it off and no longer see adverts on a lot of pages, so it does work. I set my browser to erase all cookies when I turn it off, so I've been civilly disobedient for some time.

I've always been a lot more leery of corporate tracking than government tracking.

[Cha]

90. Of course, he did. Wonder if the irony flew over

his tiny head?

I know I'm getting email from dkos.. simply from going there. I don't mind.. I'm not getting all UMBRAGED!

No way would I click on greenwald's snake infested site.

From your BI link, Whisp..

"Which begs the question: Why is it OK for private companies to snoop in the name of capitalism, but not for the government to do so in the name of security?"

I can see it now.. greenwald's response.. "but, this is different, I'm special BAD USA GOOD RUSSIA111!!! "

From Cesca's link..

"Yes, most web pages, including my article here on The Daily Banter, use analytics to determine who’s visiting the site. But we’re not pretending to be self-righteously above it all, nor do we claim to be a haven of personal privacy. We’re also well aware that concerned readers can easily opt out by blocking the trackers."

"More broadly speaking, you can opt out of everything, including NSA data collection, by taking basic measures against it: you can go entirely off the grid; you can install encryption software; you can buy prepaid phones; you can load ad-blocker extensions and you can attain other technology to hide your hilarious cat memes from Barack Obama. You can stop using Google, Facebook and Windows Live. Fact: your level of digital privacy is your prerogative."

Great articles, thanks Whisp!

[geckosfeet]

99. Ha. Web marketing companies do a lot of this nonsense - and you thought only the NSA sucked

[99th_Monkey]

113. The Guardian is NOT MY GOVERNMENT

MY GOVERNMENT rules (supposedly) by consent of the governed,
not by slight-of-hand chicanery in the private sector.

[Th1onein]

126. Absolutely, 99th_Monkey.

[Whisp]

176. of course not, it's in London.

*gasket busting devices.

[BumRushDaShow]

116. And this is the meat of the whole issue. Time for some folks to hit the

[xocet]

118. Today's talking points are in: Glenn Greenwald is a hypocrite due to the actions of the Guardian....

Government Surveillance Critics Willingly Accept Egregious Corporate Privacy Violations
By Bob Cesca · August 13,2013


The most popular article on The Atlantic yesterday was a sloppy-wet rant about how the National Security Agency (NSA) has “commandeered” the internet. Yes, commandeered it. The author of the post, Bruce Schneier, wrote that the government’s “surveillance apparatus” has taken over “vast swaths” of the internet just as the military commandeers ships and factories during wartime. But since we’re not at war (we’re not?) and this is peacetime (it is?), this commandeering is unacceptable.

...

While viewing Schneier’s article, I ran a browser privacy extension called Ghostery, which detects web bugs embedded in a page. The result? 33 different corporate trackers on Schneier’s page, including ads (one from Shell Energy) and numerous analytics services that ascertain detailed demographics and tracking information about my visit to the page: Google Analytics (one the companies that Schneier said had caved to NSA pressure), Google Adsense, Facebook (another tech company in cahoots with NSA), Chartbeat, CoreAudience, Integral Ad Service, NetRatings SiteCensus, Omniture, SimpleReach, Value Revenue and VoiceFive. (For what it’s worth, Glenn Greenwald’s XKEYSCORE article on The Guardian contained 27 trackers, including PRISM participants Google and Facebook.)

Yes, most web pages, including my article here on The Daily Banter, use analytics to determine who’s visiting the site. But we’re not pretending to be self-righteously above it all, nor do we claim to be a haven of personal privacy. We’re also well aware that concerned readers can easily opt out by blocking the trackers.

...

http://thedailybanter.com/2013/08/nsa-critics-in-ron-paul-jalopy-territory-trusting-corporations-more-than-government/

[matt819]

122. Oh, for crying out loud

First of all, there's no comparison between tracking cookies on the internet and what Greenwald has reported about the NSA.

Tracking cookies are not a surprise. If you browse, cookies are used. If you browse securely, they (probably) are not. This is not unlawful spying, and there are ways to deal with it.

Next, this is not Greenwald's doing. It is the Guardian website. If you read the privacy policy, which I haven't, you'll see how those cookies are used.

So cut the anti-Greenwald crap. It's beyond getting tired.

[Whisp]

123. if you are getting tired, take a nice little nappy. n/t

[Th1onein]

125. And there you have it, folks.

An indefensible position. And, now, nonsense.

[matt819]

144. You wasted your keystrokes on this brilliant reply? (nt)

[Th1onein]

145. He has nothing else. He lost the argument and is now just treading water.

[Warren DeMontague]

128. Leave the DEA alone!!!!

[Kolesar]

129. It's irony, ha ha ha ha

ha ha ha he

[last1standing]

161. They've been proved wrong about the lies and abuses...

so they're going to argue that it's just dandy to spy on us because companies use cookies.

Anything, and I mean ANYTHING, to protect a man who has lied to the American people.

[Phlem]

132. Uh oh

death by cookies.



-p

[Kelvin Mace]

136. Editorial needs to have a chat with marketing

I use Ghostery myself and it is currently blocking Google on THIS site from tracking me. It blocks 18 trackers at AmericaBlog, 9 at DailyKos, 12 at cracked.com, and much to my happy surprise, zero on ACLU.org and EPIC.org.

I doubt Greenwald or The Guardian staff are even aware of this, so I will be interested in seeing what they do now that they know. Oh, and I only show 3 trackers (I am using the latest version of Ghostery): 1 Ad tracker, and 2 analytical (traffic analysis). If I allow Javascript to run, the total trackers jump to 13 (which is why Javascript is OFF on my browser).

Be aware that IF you run a website and you use any Google/FaceBook/Twitter products then they WILL be tracking your readers.

Your choice is to use these "useful" tools to help share your story, or to not use them and reduce the reach of your stories.

I do not use FB and other "social" media and I block ALL cookies any site (like DU) attempts to set. But then, I a WAY more aware of this nonsense than your average citizen. I am considered "paranoid" by coworkers and family for these views.

So, my advice:

Use Ghostery or a similar cookie tracker tracker
Use NoScript (or turn off Javascript)

[ReverendDeuce]

137. And Business Insider has 20 bugs blocked... if I disable Ghostery, there are probably close to 60...

Par for the course.

Get Ghostery and install it.

[Demo_Chris]

142. Tracking cookies are not what we are concerned about. nt

[Spitfire of ATJ]

147. I refused to click on his article from the beginning....

I said I didn't want to help pay for his hair transplants.

[Babel_17]

155. This would mean more if there was a comparison

How do other web sites act?

[morningfog]

156. Bob Cesca......LOL. n/t

[Whisp]

157. Glenn Greenwad..... LOLzer. n/t

[last1standing]

159. Does the Guardian have a Constitution that makes it's snooping illegal?

That's the first of many flaws in your argument. It's a shame that you and your friends don't seem able to grasp that point.

Should companies be gathering data on surfers without informing them? Of course not, but you seem to be making the opposite claim. You act as though since companies do it, the US government should as well. That you find this funny says something very sad about you.

Instead of laughing at all of us naïve fools who still think the Constitution is there to protect our basic rights, maybe you should think about joining us in demanding that everyone stop spying on us whether it's for corporate or criminal purposes.

[drventure]

160. BEWARE: They are an advertising technology company that collects & sells your data

http://venturebeat.com/2012/07/31/ghostery-a-web-tracking-blocker-that-actually-helps-the-ad-industry/

And they are pushing for self regulation in the industry, which experience in other industries has proven to be untrustworthy.

I would think twice about using them.

Had to finally join, as a privacy freak, I thought it my duty to contribute, for a change, and considering all the chatter about our fundamental rights of privacy, it is more important than ever to speak up today.

In other words... use them, or lose them!

Ghostery: A Web tracking blocker that actually helps the ad industry
Read more at http://venturebeat.com/2012/07/31/ghostery-a-web-tracking-blocker-that-actually-helps-the-ad-industry/#pZBUsXAzrkuliHyM.99

It is also important to recognize that every site is logging your surfing activity on their site, including DU, even if you are a star member.

Mostly this is used to improve the site's user experience, troubleshooting and/or marketing, however it is important to make sure the site has a good privacy policy that you are comfortable with. Some will say that you have no privacy online, or even worse that the internet is not private by it's very nature, both claims are not only wrong but insidious as they only serve to undermine our rights even further, and to make you think that the NSA spying can not be helped.

There is a big difference between doing business online and spying on all of your internet activities, including your content and location, and don't let anyone try to convince you otherwise.

[Corruption Inc]

162. So does every website you go to, so according to your logic...

Glen Greenwald must control the entire internet, LOL!

[Whisp]

163. why isn't he having shitfits about corporate spying?

hummmmm?

Has he even mentioned the private side of spying and data gathering?

Oh, that's right, he's a Ron Pauler and whatever is good for big biz corps (like Citizens United) is good for The People!, LOL! Let the market decide how intrusive corporations can be!

[Hissyspit]

166. Because corporations are not the government.

...to begin with.

[Th1onein]

173. BECAUSE THAT'S NOT WHAT HE IS REPORTING ON! AND ITS NOT THE ISSUE!

He found out that our government was spying on us, Whisp. OUR GOVERNMENT. Breaking the law; hoovering all of our data, all of our emails, all of our phone calls, our texts, etc. That's a BIG story, Whisp! COOKIES are NOT.

Oh my Gawd, this is getting blisteringly stupid.

[Whisp]

175. can you say that again, I didnt hear you...

[Th1onein]

180. I'm sorry, Whisp. Didn't mean to yell.

[Whisp]

182. That's okay, I know I've done that once in a while. n/t

[Th1onein]

183. TOO MUCH COFFEE!

Lol, just kidding.

[Whisp]

184. NOT ENOUGH BEER!

and I'm not kidding.

heh.

[RetroLounge]

164. Really? THIS OP is what you have been reduced to?

RL

[Marr]

171. I know-- arguing that a website cookie is at all comparable to NSA spying...

Simply idiotic.

[MNBrewer]

165. When The Guardian can put me in jail, I might care.

[donheld]

168. I hope NSA likes the same kind of Gay Porn I do.

[Hissyspit]

169. Oh, good god...

Bob Cesca used to be good.

Embarrassing.

[ProSense]

172. Firefox browser to move ahead with ‘Do Not Track’ option

Firefox browser to move ahead with ‘Do Not Track’ option
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023047818

[David Krout]

181. That websites use cookies is as far as Bob Cesca will ever get to a bombshell story

One wonders how many hours of research it took for Cesca to figure this out.

[gulliver]

186. Customers who will believe anything are a premium.

The Guardian (and Fox News) must get a bundle for the info they collect on visitors.