N.S.A. Collecting Millions of Faces From Web Images - NYT

[WillyT]

N.S.A. Collecting Millions of Faces From Web Images
By JAMES RISEN and LAURA POITRAS - NYT
MAY 31, 2014

<snip>

The National Security Agency is harvesting huge numbers of images of people from communications that it intercepts through its global surveillance operations for use in sophisticated facial recognition programs, according to top-secret documents.

The spy agency’s reliance on facial recognition technology has grown significantly over the last four years as the agency has turned to new software to exploit the flood of images included in emails, text messages, social media, videoconferences and other communications, the N.S.A. documents reveal. Agency officials believe that technological advances could revolutionize the way that the N.S.A. finds intelligence targets around the world, the documents show. The agency’s ambitions for this highly sensitive ability and the scale of its effort have not previously been disclosed.

The agency intercepts “millions of images per day” — including about 55,000 “facial recognition quality images” — which translate into “tremendous untapped potential,” according to 2011 documents obtained from the former agency contractor Edward J. Snowden. While once focused on written and oral communications, the N.S.A. now considers facial images, fingerprints and other identifiers just as important to its mission of tracking suspected terrorists and other intelligence targets, the documents show.

“It’s not just the traditional communications we’re after: It’s taking a full-arsenal approach that digitally exploits the clues a target leaves behind in their regular activities on the net to compile biographic and biometric information” that can help “implement precision targeting,” noted a 2010 document.

One N.S.A. PowerPoint presentation from 2011, for example, displays several photographs of an unidentified man — sometimes bearded, other times clean-shaven — in different settings, along with more than two dozen data points about him. These include whether he was on the Transportation Security Administration no-fly list, his passport and visa status, known associates or suspected terrorist ties, and comments made about him by informants to American intelligence agencies.

It is not clear how many people around the world...

<snip>

More: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/01/us/nsa-collecting-millions-of-faces-from-web-images.html?_r=0

[Uncle Joe]

1. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, WillyT.

[Shandris]

2. You didn't think our soon-to-be-droned police forces were going to get facial recognition...

...by asking door to door did ya? Nooooo! They just waited for everyone to voluntarily upload themselves to the internet.

I wish I could say any of this surprised me, but...if I did I'd be lying.

[buzzcola]

3. Amazing how anyone can defend the NSA.

[billhicks76]

20. 99% Dont.

It's just a vocal minority. I wouldn't be surprised if some are paid to do it. Welcome to The Beast.

[VanillaRhapsody]

25. 99% Don't....its just a vocal minority that like to claim that anyone who doesn't support Snowden

And Greenwald are supportive of the NSA.....when that is not even logical.

[rhett o rick]

64. The vocal minority that he is addressing rarely post in threads like this.

Seems they dont have opinions about NSA spying, which is very odd for political liberals.

[snooper2]

70. If we could get one image of you without the goatee that would be greatness

LOL

[rhett o rick]

73. That's cute. Now how do you feel about NSA spying? nm

[VanillaRhapsody]

95. Yes they do....you all just constantly dismiss them...

not the same thing...We can actually have 2 thoughts at once...funny that huh?

[rhett o rick]

98. I have posted in many anti-fracking threads, anti-TPP threads, anti-XL Pipeline threads, etc.

where not one single person of the very vocal "Group" posts. Is that a coincidence? Not one has an opinion about these important issues?

[VanillaRhapsody]

103. So you are reading their minds now? Are you also one who is taking notes on DUers?

[laundry_queen]

120. Most of us do have memories. It's not some spreadsheet conspiracy. nt

[VanillaRhapsody]

128. according to some there is. That is why the GG fans

Post polls so often. Some are not as dumb as you seem to think.

[laundry_queen]

133. Who said I thought anyone was dumb?

I'm saying it's total bs that every time from now on whenever someone remembers something, you're going to bring up that someone takes 'notes'. Guess what - welcome to the internet. Someone is always too invested in an online community to take notes. I'd be more shocked if there wasn't at least one person doing so. How many online communities have you belonged to? Doesn't mean everyone is doing so, and it's a personal insult that does nothing to further constructive conversation.

[VanillaRhapsody]

134. because its true...

you know why i know.....because you are protesting it

[laundry_queen]

137. lol wut?

You think I'm doing it? omfg. LOL. Yes, a single mom of 4, who is in school full time has shit tons of time to assemble spreadsheets. Or talk with those who do (LOL I wish you could see my PM inbox - full of juries and admin announcements and the odd personal message - last one was like a year ago - I rarely PM with DUers). I have no idea who is, but I'm not surprised, because I have participated on many online communities. You haven't answered my question - is this your first online community? Because you seem awfully naïve.

[VanillaRhapsody]

138. guilty conscience?

[laundry_queen]

139. omg you're killing me. LOL. nt

[VanillaRhapsody]

140. sure whatever......i would feign amusement tooo if I were you. ...pretty pathetic attempt to deflect

whatever gets you through the night

[laundry_queen]

141. If you knew, you would be so embarrassed at how off you are. nt

[VanillaRhapsody]

142. embarrassed? by you?

HARDLY!!!

[laundry_queen]

143. Yeah, I know, you are shameless. nt

[VanillaRhapsody]

144. how so?

Because i am a Democrat?

[VanillaRhapsody]

145. actually you don't know anything about me

Other than that

[laundry_queen]

146. And you know nothing about me

I could continue this all day but I have a statistics class to get to. One where we use excel and spreadsheets.

[VanillaRhapsody]

147. I didn't ever claim to did I?

I know you claim to be a "Democrat" that doesn't support the twice elected by majority vote Democratic President...I KNOW that...

[laundry_queen]

148. LOL I've never, ever claimed to be a Democrat

I'm a Canadian therefore I'm a NDPer - A New Democrat. A party with socialist leanings. I'm FAR left.

And if you would've been here in the primaries in 08, I was a very vocal supporter of Obama.

So everything you think you know is wrong, imagine that. Guess you need a spreadsheet.

[VanillaRhapsody]

149. That explains ALOT!

I can ignore what YOU say about American politics now....just like you would IF I tried to tell you about Canadian politics...I suggest you worry about your own back yard!

[laundry_queen]

150. LOL you DO realize that

some of your 'buds' are Canadian too right? LOLOL.

ETA: Like I haven't heard 'worry about your own backyard' here before. Anything the US gov't does affects me almost as much as it affects you, if you understood Canada at all. I have every right to comment on whatever I want, along with all the other non-americans here, unless you are prepared to tell all the Canadians, Aussies and Brits that they aren't welcome here either. I expect you'll discount all my opinions on feminism as well, since I agree with you on that subject matter, because I'm Canadian.

[VanillaRhapsody]

151. I dont have "buds" snd this is a site thst IS

For the purpose of electing more Democrats....

[VanillaRhapsody]

152. Buds would be the Rightwingers Anarchists and

Libertarians here to stir up shit

[laundry_queen]

153. That's not the sole purpose of the site

and I've always supported more Democrats getting elected. You think I've been here since '04 promoting other parties? LOL. I've even gone on to some of my other message boards that are non-political and urged them to support Democrats. I've done the same with other US friends I have. I was a staunch advocate of Kerry and Obama. I'll do the same with whoever is the nominee in '16. I think I'm okay here.

[VanillaRhapsody]

154. oh yes it is....you better read the TOS

Before you speak

[laundry_queen]

155. I have. But thanks. nt

[VanillaRhapsody]

156. apparently not lately

[rhett o rick]

130. It's obvious. Here is a current thread that should be of some interest to

politically liberal posters. http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025034655

Of the many DU posters that are obsessed disparaging Snowden, not one will discuss the NSA or security state. One way or other I would think they would have an opinion. It is glaring and I am just curious.

[VanillaRhapsody]

131. because some of us do not find them synonymous and some of us can walk and chew gum at the same time

[rhett o rick]

132. Yes walk, chew gum, and disparage whistle blowers and protestors, but nary a word about Wall

Street corruption.

[VanillaRhapsody]

135. he is only a whistle blower if he produces those emails

otherwise he is just a common thief

[VanillaRhapsody]

136. only to those with preconceived notions

[JJChambers]

45. I'm neutral to the NSA and I'm happy to support them for an extra paycheck

Where do I sign up?

[L0oniX]

52. Only traitors, enemies of the people support the NSA.

The security the US government wants is for themselves, their jobs, their money and their power. We are all suspects now.

[Pholus]

79. And only "libertarians" oppose it.

Because true Democrats can't possibly think that anything could be wrong with an out-of-control surveillance apparatus.

Or so I have been told by the keepers of the conventional wisdom...

[L0oniX]

81. Hmmm ...yeah ...what does Ron Paul say about the NSA?

[Pholus]

83. Honestly I don't know off the top of my head.

He's anti-gubmint so I suppose it would be bad in his eyes. Considering how many times I have been accused of being a Paulite troll over my NSA disgust I suppose I should break down and read their shit sometimes.

[L0oniX]

85. heh yeah ...I was just wondering what the accusers have to compare me with ...thought it would be RP

[CoffeeCat]

4. Oh yeah...well...

...No one looks like their FB photo. So, if they're using Facebook profile pics as benchmark photos for facial recognition---good luck with that!

But seriously...when I hear crazy surveillance information like this--it makes me wonder if we aren't headed toward a "V For Vendetta" situation--where everyone is spied on, tracked, and every keystroke/picture is matched up with an owner. Then, the data is catalogued. And if you are determined to be a threat or if you get out of line--you are arrested.

It's not just pictures--it's everything that is being tracked. Phone calls. Of course all internet communications. Why track all of that unless you are categorizing the data and creating dossiers and profiling nearly everyone?

[buzzcola]

5. Spying is done to intimidate the domestic population. Virtually an axiom of political science.

[newthinking]

13. For those in charge. For the employees it perpetuates and expands for job security.

[RKP5637]

77. Yep! n/t

[laundry_queen]

121. +1 nt

[billhicks76]

21. V For Vendetta

Such a great movie and you are correct...this is exactly what is going on. These are powerful tools for Evil to finally gain control. Sickening.

[L0oniX]

53. Mega V.

[Leme]

49. yep, everything

and I am somewhat confident they are going through print media photos ,newspaper archive photos also.
-
I wonder if they do it with paintings?

[blkmusclmachine]

6. And Facebook, and whenever you use your iPhone, or an ATM machine, or renew your drivers license or

passport, and soon, whenever you watch television (cameras/microphones to be hardwired into television sets..).

[longship]

7. Lots of iPhone ear pictures, I suppose.

But NSA probably has that new fangled ear recognition software. I think I'll check if they have an App for that in the App Store. iEars, or iLobes, or iWax, or something. It's gotta be the wax. Everybody has unique ear wax.

[Maedhros]

8. Who knew there were that many millions of terrorists, right here under our noses?

Thank God the NSA is keeping us safe!

[grasswire]

9. bigger haystack than we thought nt

[Aerows]

16. And the needle

seems to get bigger and bigger. Suddenly, a knitting needle is the person that doesn't go with the flow.

[billhicks76]

22. Drug War

Right now most of the resources and time are directed at the drug war on US citizens. When things get heated and instability hits here it will be directed mostly at peoples political and social views. I expect roundups and internment camps when that occurs as history has shown.

[Leme]

50. I wonder if they know the avatar you use here(btw... I don't..and do not care)

but perhaps they link that avatar to something...and now you are linked to the avater, thus making you a suspicious character... and a new file.

[Eleanors38]

84. It's all in my name.

[L0oniX]

65. That's how we know that the NSA is NOT all about finding terrorists.

[newthinking]

10. Are we really surprised at this point? Budgets run amuck. People need work. Constitution is ignored

This is all about the enormous money and growth of the industry. In this economy, when you expand budgets dramatically, as we have with security budgets since 2001, people don't want to risk not being seen as essential (and thus losing their job), so they will continue to look to create new programs irrespective of whether it is really appropriate or not.

I am an advocate of the good things government does. But the Security State is a clear example of the way that bureaucracy and throwing money at the wrong departments can not only be innefficient, but can actually harm the people it is meant to protect.

[Aerows]

14. That is the most cogent and pointed comment I've ever seen

"Budgets run amok."

That is exactly what is happening!

[RKP5637]

78. Well said! n/t

[Aerows]

11. K&R

And a hearty welcome back, my friend!

[snot]

12. So guess what;

Us activists, who believe we have nothing we should feel we have to hide, will be exhaustively documented.

Actual terrorists, to the extent same exist, will make sure no photos of their faces are posted.

[grasswire]

15. Be sure to read the whole article.

It's terrifying to the very end.

[Aerows]

17. It is.

I don't know what to say after that.

[dixiegrrrrl]

18. Florida man's mugshots will confuse them.

And his twitter site.

Here are a couple news stories about him:

Florida Man Tries to Remove Face Tattoos With Welding Grinder

Florida Man Seen Walking Around Nursing Home Naked With T-Shirt on His Head

Florida Man Hits NY State Trooper With Truck, Blames “Time Warp

https://twitter.com/_FloridaMan

I hope N7S7A7 has good luck infiguring out that twitter feed.

[FuzzyRabbit]

19. Gum up the works by giving wrong names to photos

From now on I am going to label any photos I post with a wrong name. Maybe if everyone did this it would confuse the facial recognition programs.

[Tsiyu]

36. Too funny

Yes, I think it's time to play with their heads.

Years ago, a talk show host with whom I worked - we'll call him Gus - found out my stalker soon-to-be ex was tapping my phone.

Gus said, "Oh, let's have some fun with this."

He would call and say stuff like "The cocaine's in. Meet me at such-an-such place."

When I spoke with him about testifying on my behalf he said "And I will never tell them about that guy you killed in Alabama."

He made me laugh.

I want you to know when I had to go for depositions, ex's goober attorney asks "Ma'am, have you ever been to Alabama?"

In the midst of the horror of that day, I wanted to die laughing.

They asked all kinds of stupid questions, wasting their time, based off Gus' messing with them.

So I say let's all make up shit while we're talking and trade facebook identities and send them on a crazy wild goose chase.

[Leme]

51. problem is

such fooling around may prevent you from getting a job, a professional license, a loan, or worse

[Tsiyu]

57. Well you could just make up identities on facebook

And have a linked-in profile for your professional stuff.

[Leme]

74. huh?

a face is a face whether on Facebook or Linked.

[Tsiyu]

91. You're ever so correct

we were just having a little fun

Heaven forbid we should do such a thing

[Jackpine Radical]

116. These days, you'd probly get a visit from a SWAT team

with flash-boom grenades & machine guns.

[Tsiyu]

118. Yeah but it was illegal to tap in GA

unless at least one party consented. I was worried at first, but his attorney nor him wanted to admit to breaking the law.

It still makes me laugh when I think about how stupid his lawyer was - even though he won.

In court, he came walking up behind my attorney and my atty started talking to him before he even came into view.

"How'd you know it was me?" Goober asked.

"I could smell you," said my guy.

[L0oniX]

56. Tag all your photos with "Satan" ???

[Kablooie]

23. Oh boy! I wonder if they will recognize ME?

[Thinkingabout]

24. Wow, imagine that, NSA uses web sources to obtain images of those they are seeking information.

Seems like lots of us use the web to get information, guess we are all spies.

[treestar]

69. That was my first thought

Another non-scandal. They really thought this would stir up the outrage in the skeptical (of their claims the NSA is Big Brother on ordinary people). ?

I can get millions of faces off the web myself.

Facial recognition technology is worth doing. Sheesh. They can have all of my photos I put up on the web. Anyone can.

[Jackpine Radical]

124. I was stationed in the States for my last 6 months in the Army

after returning from Vietnam. Since they had no great need of infantrymen, they belatedly recognized some of my better qualities & made a clerk of me. They were always circulating pictures taken at demonstrations, asking if we recognized any of our fellow-soldiers at them. Anyone found demonstrating would be subject to court-martial. The picture was generally sufficient evidence for the prosecution.

Nice to know that they can now just scan those pics with FR & automate the whole process.

[villager]

26. And undoubtedly, there will be "millions of apologists" for it...

...here at the "Underground"

[closeupready]

27. You gotta wonder, how profitable is it to service the US government's

espionage thirst? And also, is it really so profitable that, one day after you've made some money at it, you can look in the mirror and be proud of yourself? How can it be, when the money must be spread so thin, over all government contractors seeking a share of that largesse?

Wasn't it Gunter Grass' The Tin Drum in which the child asked of his father, "Daddy, what did you do during the war?" Same here. How would you respond? Would you respond??

[DJ13]

28. Here I am NSA, have fun

[Tsiyu]

38. I need a new keyboard

[Pholus]

80. Please stand by. Your predator service call is enroute....

But I have to admit that for some time my habit has been to try to salt any communications that might become part of any permanent record in Utah. Long skype conversations might be enhanced by the addition of certain filters....

[DeSwiss]

29. K&R

- Who was that masked man?


ANTI-SURVEILLANCE MASK Lets You PASS AS SOMEONE ELSE

[cantbeserious]

30. Thank You For Sharing

eom

[PowerToThePeople]

31. You freely gave your information to them to add to the database

didn't you know?

time 2:20 for the good stuff.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/fingerprints_biometrics/ngi

[Dark n Stormy Knight]

88. "As an individual I think about it..." But as a greedy coporate pig I don't give a shit about

any of other people's rights.

[OnyxCollie]

32. Hi NSA!

[URL=.html][IMG][/IMG][/URL]

[SoapBox]

33. eh....

They can collect away...I've done nothing wrong.

What SHOUlD be scaring this living shit out of people are the Pay-to-Play, Data Collection companies...they know virtually everything, that's EVERTHING about you and are willing to sell it!

That is what should have people mad as hell...but no, NSA, NSA, NSA...it's as lame as Benghazi!

[Savannahmann]

34. Indeed.

Can you tell me what part of the 4th Amendment says that Corporations can't gather information on me, you, and all the other customers?

I'll wait while you try and figure out what the Fourth Amendment is.

Then tell me why I should be upset about a Corporation that is going to use the information to try and sell me shit is more dangerous than a Government than can use information to persecute people. Because me getting a flood of advertisements crafted to me personally might be annoying, but certainly not as annoying as having jobs, or even freedoms denied me because the party in power finds me unacceptable.

But please, let me know about that 4th Amendment thing regarding Corporations. I'm waiting of course.

[Leme]

54. puzzles me why you would ask about the 4th amendment when it was not mentioned. nt

[Savannahmann]

75. Well the reason should be obvious.

But I'll go ahead and explain if you like. The reason that many of us, myself included, are so upset about the FBI/NSA/CIA/DHS/GCHQ spying is that the Constitution specifically prohibits such actions by our Government. The Fourth Amendment is the part of the Constitution that says the Government should not do that. There is nothing in there about corporations gathering information to target advertising to my personal preferences.

Now, I am not thrilled about Google and the rest of them doing it. I try and leave as shallow of a footprint as I can when I walk the net. However, the user agreements that many of us sign electronically allows for the collection of such information, including here at DU.

DU uses that information to get a better understanding of their users, and to find out if someone is using multiple accounts in violation of the user agreement. We've seen people here tombstoned for the violation of the user agreement of having multiple accounts. I'm not saying that DU is wrong for doing that by any stretch of the imagination. I'm merely saying that it happens even at this site.

Now, there is no Fourth Amendment prohibition against that. I limit what information anyone can get by using several different browsers. I use Chrome to access DU and other types of news and discussion sites. I use Firebird to access my financial institutions, and only them. I use IE to shop at Amazon and other places. This way, the cookie data they can gather is somewhat more limited.

But what protections can I take to prevent the NSA from learning as much about me as they like? Can I use a different phone for conversations with political allies? A burner phone perhaps in case the Administration shifts to the RW and I want to learn about protests? Should I have burner email addresses for similar activity? The Fourth Amendment is not a little vague in this matter, it is absolute. To me, a Civil Rights activist, the Fourth Amendment is one of the anchors of my core beliefs.

But, you tell me my friend. What should I be more upset about. Someone gathering information with my permission (Use of the site) or without merely because I am breathing. My personal view is that I should end that which is clearly a violation of the Constitution before I get myself worked into a similar lather about that which is not. Sometimes, at irregular intervals, I encrypt this following text and send it from one email address to another.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized

In the society of today, documents are digital. Papers are PDF, or DOC, or DOCX, or WP. The letters you sent a generation ago are emails today. Why should those protections be tossed aside because it's inconvenient for the Government to obey this highest law of our nation?

[Leme]

93. I probably agree with much you wrote

but I do not see why you asked Soapbox? Because of his apparent lack of concern?

[Savannahmann]

105. Bingo

Soapbox was unconcerned about the NSA, but absolutely apoplectic about the Corporations. So I asked him a couple questions about it. Before I go after the Corporations, or should I adjust that to read before I become fixated on the corporations, I am going to continue the fight to get the Government out of my daily business. When I start to win that battle, I'll shift a tad of my attention to Google and start blasting them more frequently. But the NSA is Google times a million as far as gathering information on me.

For example, with the GPS chip in my phone, federally mandated I might add, the NSA could tell where I'd been, and what stores I just returned from. They can access my bank card and determine what I purchased. They know who I called, and what texts I sent, and where I sent them from.

Google doesn't know squat about any of that. Now, PetsMart know I bought some cat food, but that's about all they know about me. They could sell that information to Walmart and I'd get fliers about cheap cat food as a worst case scenario. Or they could sell it to Google and assuming that they could match me to the customer, I'd get cat food pop up ads on the webpages I visit. Worst Case scenario right there.

So which is more intrusive? Which is the one that is a violation of the 4th Amendment? Google might be able to tell what kind of videos I like on You Tube (Police Brutality videos are the most often viewed). But what can they do besides show me links to more police brutality videos? I am not going to buy a Buick because they are the sponsored advertisement on the page.

Want to have fun with the corporations? Here you go. When you go to bed, leave the webpage up on Audi, Mercedes, or some other luxury car company, like Porsche. Then all the advertisements you see will be Porsche, or Audi etc. It cost those companies money, and unless you are far more wealthy than I, the odds of you buying one of those cars is pretty slim. Try it sometime, and smile knowing that Ferrari is paying a lot of money to get on the webpages you visit.

[Leme]

106. I am sort of aware of which you speak ( or well aware)

but SoapBox had some stuff right... I didn't think your approach would help him.
Confused me a little
-
he stated:
-
"What SHOUlD be scaring this living shit out of people are the Pay-to-Play, Data Collection companies...they know virtually everything, that's EVERTHING about you and are willing to sell it!"

[Tsiyu]

35. Imagine if all this time and effort

were spent reforming prisons, setting up better services for veterans, cataloging abuses and exploitation by employers and large corporations, and collecting data on the corrupt banks and insurance companies and police forces.

Rather than helping the citizen, all this is just a massive waste of time, paid for by the citizen.

We pay for our own surveillance! We pay for the erosion of our very rights. OUR DOLLARS go for this.

And what good will it all do? NONE.

Look at all the data collected pre-911. They decided not to hire any translators to even determine what the data they collected said. They let the WTC go down like a mad cow, despite the massive data they had warning of such a thing.

But somebody makes a nice living off it, no matter how useless the effort

[randome]

37. "...suspected terrorists and other intelligence targets..."

I am truly amazed how some are blind to certain phrases that don't support predetermined conclusions. Right there in front of you, too!
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Birds are territorial creatures.
The lyrics to the songbird's melodious trill go something like this:
"Stay out of my territory or I'll PECK YOUR GODDAMNED EYES OUT!"[/center][/font][hr]

[Tsiyu]

39. Unless you are bright enough to realize

that the Habersham County Sheriff whose Special Response team just blew a baby's chest wide open JUSTIFIED THIS ACTION BY CALLING THE FAMILY TERRORISTS.

You smoke a little weed? You are a terrorist.

Your buddy gives you one of his hydros because you've got a sprained ankle? You're now a felon and he's a terrorist for giving it to you.

The definition of a terrorist is all-encompassing and fluid these days.

[randome]

40. I'm going by what the article clearly states.

Although, as usual, they bury the key information near the center of the article so as not to confuse the narrative that the NSA is 24/7 evil.

That dumb-assed county Sheriff should be fired simply for his ignorant remarks if not for the horrific and negligent event he and his officers are responsible for.

But that has nothing to do with what the article states.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Birds are territorial creatures.
The lyrics to the songbird's melodious trill go something like this:
"Stay out of my territory or I'll PECK YOUR GODDAMNED EYES OUT!"[/center][/font][hr]

[Tsiyu]

41. You do that

But "drug dealers" are the new terrorists. Our law enforcement and DEA gotta make enemies to use all of the new powers and the new toys they have.

If you can't see it I would say you MIGHT live in a dream world...but YMMV

[msanthrope]

42. Drug dealers can and do terrorize the decent people who are forced to live around them.

I'm for decriminalization for end users, but let's not forget that some very, very horrible people are involved in the drug trade. It's possible to despise the violence without thinking that anyone is a hero.

[Tsiyu]

44. Let's not forget that some very, very horrible people are involved

in all sorts of endeavors, from attorneys to legislators to corporate CEOs to law enforcement.

But if you want to buy the propaganda that every Joe selling some pills and every granny growing a pot plant is a terrorist, buy that noise.

"Terrorist" is a catch-all phrase, to include OWS protesters and street peddlers of heroin.

I refuse to be baited.

[msanthrope]

46. Absolutely. And being a criminal defense attorney...i.e. someone who actually has been

around criminals who deal drugs, I agree there is a wide variety of offenses. It's not necessary, though, to decry the excesses of law enforcement (any there are many) by elevating drug dealers to victimhood.

[Tsiyu]

47. What?

How am I "elevating drug dealers to victimhood?"

Can you say "strawman?"


What I am saying is that "terrorist" today means a lot more than some Al Quaida operative.

And you should know that the biggest drug dealers on the planet are the huge Pharmcos, which we never call to account for the huge numbers of deaths of users of their perfectly legal prescription painkillers.

They can make bejillions addicting the masses. But the small-time dealer is the "terrorist."

If that sits well with you, so be it.

I refuse to accept we have to blow babies' faces off because "Terrorism"

And "Terrorism" is exactly the justification Habersham County Sheriff Joey Terrell used for throwing a flash grenade in a baby's crib.

That's a fact, not speculation. You may draw from the facts whatever narrative fits your protecting the NSA and law enforcement.

But don't ask me to buy what you're selling

[msanthrope]

55. Look..that sherriff needs firing, no doubt about it. And your post proves my

point.....it's not an either/or proposition. One can still think Snowden is full of shit and think the NSA needs tight control. One can see the value of effective drug interdiction while still being horrified when children are abused.

[Tsiyu]

60. Snowden?

How did he come up?

I believe drug addiction is a health issue, not a criminal one.

I believe all drugs should be legalized.

Addiction covers alcohol, legal prescription pills, food, shopping, and even the internet ( addict here )

When we have two schemes of justice - one for "legal" addiction and one for "illegal" addiction we are fools, we are bigots and we are wasting a lot of money.

The new scheme is to call drug dealers terrorists, invoking Patriot Act invasions of privacy and erosion of due process. THAT IS THE NEW REALITY.

That is what led to a baby fighting for its life in Grady's Burn Unit with a gaping, charred hole in its chest. The baby's cousin was a "terrorist" so throwing a concussive grenade in the baby's crib is AOK.

THOSE ARE FACTS.

[msanthrope]

67. The thread is about the NSA. Snowden isn't that far a stretch.

I agree with you nearly completely about drugs...I think decriminalization of end users is how we should go.

[treestar]

71. Geez that is really determined

to excuse violent people.

[Tsiyu]

90. Is that how you follow the logic

of calling all drug dealers terrorists? So the Habersham County Special Repsonse Team that called a young man a terrorist in order to justify the violent maiming of a small child -these people were not violent?

You also say they are justified because TERROR TERROR TERROR?

So the corporations that destroy our environment and commit all sorts of atrocities overseas are not violent?

So the cops that beat people, scald them in hot showers, spray bullets into crowded areas and kill innocent bystanders are not violent?

REALLY?

The Judge who let the DuPont heir walk after raping his own three-year-old did not aide and abet violence?

If that's how you read it, please do so.

I laid out a logical argument that excuses no one from violence.

Where your argument stems from I can only guess.

[Rex]

109. That is standard for about 4 or 5 people here.

They absolutely refuse to see your point. I think they have a completely separate agenda. Has nothing to do with sincere discussion.

[Tsiyu]

110. I can see what you're saying

A hasty post and run

I guess it makes the poster feel better about something or other, but I'll be damned if I can tell what that something is

good to see ya Rex

[Rex]

111. I gave up talking to a few of them, what was the point?

Like over the years, you and I probably have agreed on a few things a disagreed on some things as well. However, I do try and see your point and I know you try and see mine. TO pretend that the other never made a main point in an argument is disingenuous and I've only seen a handful of people here do it over and over...to the point of making discussion useless.

Good to see you too! It will be interesting to see who cries wolf when The List is released. Should be even more interesting if Congress makes the cut!

[Tsiyu]

96. So you accuse me of the heinous attempt to excuse violence

You accuse me online of something horrible, and then you disappear?

lay out your case, treestar

You have insulted me and now you run away?

Stand up for the insult you posted here.

I didn't alert your ugly post as I should have

Why not stand up for it since you're brave enough to throw insults around like an internet tough guy?



THIS SPACE WAS LEFT BLANK

So I could say: yeah, that's what I thought. No response.....

[L0oniX]

59. ...but tax evading corporations ...are not terrorists. Whew ...guess they dodged that one.

[Tsiyu]

63. It's sad

to be living in 2014 and dealing with so much corruption and protection of the TRUE THIEVES AND TERRORISTS by the highest level of government.

Money buys a lot of protection from the consequences of one's actions.

[L0oniX]

66. When people are kicked out onto the street ...who's the terrorist? Homeless people!

I know the cops terrorize the local homeless community ...I used to help feed them and know many of them and heard all about the terrorism they experience ...some daily. Terrorism is subjective.

[Tsiyu]

68. "Terrorism is subjective"

That says it all right there.

You're a terrorist if you're poor, if you grow a pot plant, if you protest corporate or government abuse.

[treestar]

72. They aren't violent

And there are people employed there and good or services being produced. Sheesh. I mean, there are abuses, but terrorists and criminals are not excused by that. What about their on the spot victims of violence?

[Tsiyu]

94. Hmmmmmm

http://www.slideshare.net/mruesch/corporations-and-their-role-in-violent-conflict-presentation


http://what-when-how.com/interpersonal-violence/corporate-violence/

Victims of Corporate Violence

There are several categories of victims of corporate violence, such as individuals, groups of individuals (e.g., employees and consumers), and the natural environment. Several case studies conducted by scholars of corporate violence illustrate the harms caused to these categories of victims.

One case that illustrates violence against workers is the Imperial Food Products fire in Hamlet, North Carolina. In this instance, 25 workers died in a fire at the Imperial Foods processing plant when plant managers locked the fire escapes to prevent employees from stealing chicken nuggets. Other forms of violence against workers can result when companies do not follow Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) laws, thus failing to protect workers.

For example, with the deaths of several miners in recent years, attention has been given to the subject of unsafe working conditions. However, those who study corporate violence have noted that there is a long history of some corporations in the mining industry failing to adequately protect workers (e.g., “black lung” disease, collapsing mines, fires and explosions). Finally, some corporations have been accused of conspiring with paramilitary death squads in economically undeveloped countries to prevent unionization through acts of violence directed toward union organizers and/or employees.

Consumers have also been victimized by corporate violence, which has been documented in a substantial body of research. One example is the crash of ValuJet Flight 592 in 1996 where 105 passengers (and 5 crew members) were killed as a result of ValuJet’s failure to follow Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regulations. Other groups of consumers who may have been victims of corporate violence include those killed or injured because of fires in Ford Pinto cars resulting from design flaws, women who were harmed by the Dalkon Shield (an IUD birth control device known to be the cause of uterine infections, blood poisoning, and the deaths of 12 women), children born with birth defects because their mothers had taken thalidomide (a drug used to offset morning sickness), those who have died or have serious illnesses caused by the effects of products sold by major tobacco companies, and those involved in accidents linked to unsafe tires.






http://multinationalmonitor.org/hyper/issues/1987/04/formula.html

From the above link:

Today, dioxin is known as one of the most deadly synthetic chemicals. Three ounces of dioxin placed in the New York City drinking water supply could wipe out the city's entire population. "Dioxin is the most poisonous small molecule known to man. It is alone one of the most powerful carcinogens known," says Mathew Meselson professor of biochemistry at Harvard. "We have not yet found any dosage at which it is safe, at which it has no observable effect."

Dioxin also appears to have a cumulative effect, Messelson said. "It is quite stable and is soluble in fat but not water, and will build up in body fat."

An estimated 130 pounds of dioxin was dumped on Vietnam before 1970, and some of that was inevitably brought home by the more than two million GI's who sprayed or patrolled the dense jungle forests of South Vietnam. When these dioxin-contaminated individuals lose weight, the dioxin breaks down and is carried into the blood stream, says Professor Barry Commoner, at Queens College.

Many Vietnam veterans have reported the now classic symptoms of dioxin poisoning: irrational emotional outbursts, numbing of the hands and feet, an acne-like rash covering the entire body, and sharp stomach pains.







http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3169238/

The above is a great article on resource extraction, explaining why we had to, for example, bomb Iraq to smithereens for oil.

https://www.galtung-institut.de/network/groups/anything-galtung/forum/topic/understanding-galtungs-violence-triangle-and-structural-violence/

Cultural violence is the prevailing attitudes and beliefs that we have been taught since childhood and that surround us in daily life about the power and necessity of violence. We can consider the example of telling of history which glorifies records and reports wars and military victories rather than people’s nonviolent agitation, movements, rebellions or the triumphs of connections and collaborations. Almost all cultures recognise that killing a person is murder, but killing tens, hundreds or thousands during a declared conflict is called ‘war’ or killing of innocent people by the security forces are often declared as caught in the crossfire.

Structural violence exists when some groups, classes, genders, nationalities, etc are assumed to have, and in fact do have, more access to goods, resources, and opportunities than other groups, classes, genders, nationalities, etc, and this unequal advantage is built into the very social, political and economic systems that govern societies, states and the world. These tendencies may be overt such as Aparthied or more subtle such as traditions or tendency to award some groups privileges over another. Constitutional privileges of Job reservations and financial supports in the name of the welfare of the “tribes or backwards” and non-uniform land law, which bans one group to own landed property in their own land while other groups are free to own landed property wherever they want are also examples of structural violence.

Theories of structural violence explore how political, economic and cultural structures result in the occurrence of avoidable violence, most commonly seen as the deprivation of basic human needs (will be discussed later). Structural theorists attempt to link personal suffering with political, social and cultural choices. Johan Galtung’s original definition included a lack of human agency; that is the violence is not a direct act of any decision or action made by a particular person but a result of an unequal distribution of resources.

Here, we must also understand “institutional violence”. “Institutional violence” is often mistaken for structural violence, but this is not the case. “Institutional violence” should be used to refer to violence perpetrated by institutions like companies, universities, corporations, organisations as opposed to individuals. The fact that women are paid less at an establishment than men is an act of direct violence by that specific establishment. It is true that there is a relationship with structural violence as there is between interpersonal violence and structural violence. And Structural violence is the most problematic area to be addressed for conflict transformation







http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Foreign_Policy/TruthBehindUSForeignPol.html


But this is the only area in which the corporations wish an emasculated government. Without a bloated military budget, not only would Boeing, McDonnell Douglas, Grumman, Raytheon and Lockheed-Martin be in trouble, but the automobile companies as well, plus the oil companies, the majority of hi-tech firms, and the major suppliers of all these firms.

And the corporations need much more. Profits would be much lower if they had to build and maintain the roads, electric, water, and sewage lines to their plants, run a public transportation system for their workers (or customers), and so on, and were not consistently the recipients of tax breaks.

At the international level, US corporations need the government to ensure that target countries are "safe for investment" (no movements for freedom and democracy), that loans will be repaid, contracts kept, and international law respected (but only when it is useful to do so). It is also the task of the US government to create and maintain markets overseas for US goods, and to protect the corporations from genuine competition from abroad whenever it is feasible to do so.

Finally, the US government must remain on constant standby to rescue US corporations when their mismanagement becomes conspicuous, from consistently subsidizing agribusiness, to the Chrysler bailout, to a bill currently before the House to provide a $1.5 billion loan guarantee to steel corporations that are not competitive with Japan or Taiwan, even though the wage differential is slight (and in the case of Japan, favors the US).


I can provide many, many more examples if you need them

[Pholus]

82. Remember your oft-repeated mantra -- it's just metadata!

The agency intercepts “millions of images per day”

Hmmm, really.

“It’s not just the traditional communications we’re after: It’s taking a full-arsenal approach that digitally exploits the clues a target leaves behind in their regular activities on the net to compile biographic and biometric information”

But, ONLY for bad guys. No need to make a database of law-abiding citizens, right?

Given the N.S.A.’s foreign intelligence mission, much of the imagery would involve people overseas whose data was scooped up through cable taps, Internet hubs and satellite transmissions.

You can drive a battleship through the hole in the reasoning given that the word "would" means a big old assumption.

And the Department of Homeland Security is funding pilot projects at police departments around the country to match suspects against faces in a crowd.

But remember, we live in a free country. No chance of an error made by some fuckwit Fatherland security flunky EVER calling a SWAT team to come knocking my doors down. Besides, it's not like they are armed to the teeth or anything. Ask the mayor of Berwyn Heights, Maryland how his dogs are and if he got that package he wasn't expecting.

She added that the N.S.A. did not have access to photographs in state databases of driver’s licenses or to passport photos of Americans, while declining to say whether the agency had access to the State Department database of photos of foreign visa applicants. She also declined to say whether the N.S.A. collected facial imagery of Americans from Facebook and other social media through means other than communications intercepts.

So, one flat denial because that would lead to an immediate lawsuit and several refusals to comment. What an HONORABLE group of people!

The government leads the way in developing huge face recognition databases,

But only for bad guys, right? Must be a lot of them!

Oh well, a billion here and a billion there into the pockets of billionaire beltway bandits is nothing to worry about.

[randome]

97. If you don't know the difference between American citizens and...

foreign individuals, I'm not sure what to say. Again, it says right there in the article "...tracking suspected terrorists and other intelligence targets..."

I'll save my outrage for something clearly illegal. Gathering intelligence data about suspected terrorists and other intelligence targets is not.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]The truth doesn’t always set you free.
Sometimes it builds a bigger cage around the one you’re already in.[/center][/font][hr]

[Pholus]

113. Even knowing that there IS a difference makes me one up on the NSA.

Worrying about ONLY terrorists and intelligence targets would not make you one of the largest facial database customers in the world.
It ain't hard to realize that under NSA "redefinitions of common words" that all US citizens potentially could be considered suspected terrorists or intelligence targets.

Holding virtual automated lineups for police departments is hardly an activity only involving bad guys. One fuckup and you're going to get a visit.

Nor are the consequences small in our age of militarized police departments. Again, ask the mayor of Berwyn Heights how much common sense went into that raid on his private home. Or how willing the task force cops were to say it was their mistake.

And frankly I have known a lot of techies, not a single one of them is perfect (or even nearly as good as they think they are).

I figure the ones lapping up billions in homeland insecurity dollars on fat no-bid contracts are even less trustworthy.

[Union Scribe]

117. And I am shocked you'd be in this thread

defending the NSA! Shocked!

[questionseverything]

126. plus 1

k&r

[marmar]

43. K&R ...... Those dystopian future sci-fi flicks are becoming reality.

[Jefferson23]

48. Holy shit, it's everyone.

K&R

[rhett o rick]

58. I alerted on this thread twice to welcome you back.

JK

[L0oniX]

61. ^^^this^^^

[Jefferson23]

62. lol

[WillyT]

100. LOL !!!

[Octafish]

76. Hi, General!

[Pholus]

86. I guess I have to find a face to feed into my skype calls...how bout this one?

[Jamastiene]

87. That actually makes me want to post my after graduation picture

where I was in my cap and gown and flipping my middle finger at every camera my family had pointed at me. I have one around here somewhere, lol.

[Octafish]

89. Hi, Admiral!

[SidDithers]

92. This is a travesty!! I'm going to go post about this on Facebook right now!!...nt

Sid

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

99. Thank you, again, Edward Snowden.

Every thing secret degenerates, even the administration of justice; nothing is safe that does not show how it can bear discussion and publicity. Lord Acton

Whenever the people are well informed, they can be trusted with their own government; that whenever things get so far wrong as to attract their notice, they may be relied on to set them to rights.

 Thomas Jefferson

[Octafish]

101. Whaddya think Big Brother's doing with them all?

FRIENDing everybody?

More what Hannah Arendt found, I bet:

The Last Gasp of American Democracy

By Chris Hedges
TruthDig.org, Posted on Jan 5, 2014

EXCERPT...

The most radical evil, as Hannah Arendt pointed out, is the political system that effectively crushes its marginalized and harassed opponents and, through fear and the obliteration of privacy, incapacitates everyone else. Our system of mass surveillance is the machine by which this radical evil will be activated. If we do not immediately dismantle the security and surveillance apparatus, there will be no investigative journalism or judicial oversight to address abuse of power. There will be no organized dissent. There will be no independent thought. Criticisms, however tepid, will be treated as acts of subversion. And the security apparatus will blanket the body politic like black mold until even the banal and ridiculous become concerns of national security.

I saw evil of this kind as a reporter in the Stasi state of East Germany. I was followed by men, invariably with crew cuts and wearing leather jackets, whom I presumed to be agents of the Stasi—the Ministry for State Security, which the ruling Communist Party described as the “shield and sword” of the nation. People I interviewed were visited by Stasi agents soon after I left their homes. My phone was bugged. Some of those I worked with were pressured to become informants. Fear hung like icicles over every conversation.

The Stasi did not set up massive death camps and gulags. It did not have to. The Stasi, with a network of as many as 2 million informants in a country of 17 million, was everywhere. There were 102,000 secret police officers employed full time to monitor the population—one for every 166 East Germans. The Nazis broke bones; the Stasi broke souls. The East German government pioneered the psychological deconstruction that torturers and interrogators in America’s black sites, and within our prison system, have honed to a gruesome perfection.

[font color="green"]The goal of wholesale surveillance, as Arendt wrote in “The Origins of Totalitarianism,” is not, in the end, to discover crimes, “but to be on hand when the government decides to arrest a certain category of the population.” And because Americans’ emails, phone conversations, Web searches and geographical movements are recorded and stored in perpetuity in government databases, there will be more than enough “evidence” to seize us should the state deem it necessary. This information waits like a deadly virus inside government vaults to be turned against us. It does not matter how trivial or innocent that information is. In totalitarian states, justice, like truth, is irrelevant. [/font green]

The object of efficient totalitarian states, as George Orwell understood, is to create a climate in which people do not think of rebelling, a climate in which government killing and torture are used against only a handful of unmanageable renegades. The totalitarian state achieves this control, Arendt wrote, by systematically crushing human spontaneity, and by extension human freedom. It ceaselessly peddles fear to keep a population traumatized and immobilized. It turns the courts, along with legislative bodies, into mechanisms to legalize the crimes of state.

CONTINUED...

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/the_last_gasp_of_american_democracy_20140105

Via Chris Hedges, a reporter who has not allowed Them to intimidate him.

[WillyT]

102. Thank You For That !!!

[Warren Stupidity]

104. Exactly. And our own authoritarians are cheering it on, again, as usual.

[cantbeserious]

107. Thank You - Well Worth The Read

eom

[Blue_Tires]

108. LOL...Poitras gets a NYT byline for this?

Can we finally have a real discussion of how gigantic of a overhyped bait-and-switch fraudulent piece of shit "The Intercept" has been? Can we admit the critics calling it a con were 100% spot-on in that prediction?

I've never seen the "founding editors" of a supposed $250 million news outlet which was supposed to change the face of journalism contribute so much content to the conventional, old-school media they used to publicly loathe so much...The WaPo, NYT, Guardian, NBC News, etc. are supposed to be your fucking competitive rivals you morons...

[Flying Squirrel]

112. I wonder how many penises they've collected

[carolinayellowdog]

114. The highest-rated comment is well worth a read-- 293 recs on the NYT site

Ken H. Athens, Alabama 13 hours ago
Data lives forever, is loyal to no master, and grows like a cancer. Whether data on hundreds of millions of individuals was gathered legally or illegally, or by our government or another government, is irrelevant. It moves and finds new uses and new places to reside. If it is capable of identifying the associates of known terrorists today, then it will be equally capable of finding the members of a political party or protest movement or religious denomination tomorrow.

Criminal activity is not some universally recognized set of behaviors: it is whatever a government says it is. In some countries it is homosexuality, in some it is belonging to a particular religion, and in others it is driving a car if one is a woman. Our privacy laws protect both criminals and non-criminals precisely because any exercise of individual freedom could at some time and in some place be defined as criminal.

Sadly, those wonderful protections against an invasive government now are meaningless. Data found can never be retrieved, and data kept by anyone for any purpose now can be found. Our only possible defense is to guard zealously what is defined as criminal, and under what circumstances a person can be detained or punished as a threat to security. If we cannot limit the existence of data, then we must limit its use.

This is not a partisan or national issue. It either threatens every one of us now, or could in the future.

[840high]

115. ...

[Octafish]

123. Thank you, carolinayellowdog!

And thank you, Mr. Ken H. of Athens, Alabama.

[woo me with science]

119. Thank you for this post. K&R

[Hekate]

122. Is this where the "faceless masses" come in?

[raouldukelives]

125. K&R nt

[Armstead]

127. James and Laura -- meet the Bus

The one that you may soon be seeing the underside of, fcourtesy of those who believe that such revelations are disloyal and libertarian.

[Oilwellian]

129. Perhaps I should post a moon shot with my name on it