Anonymous publishes more docs on government snooping

[AdamSmith]

Following on the Verizon and PRISM news, Anonymous has published additional documents that it says show government surveillance overreach:

http://thedocs.hostzi.com/

...prefaced by this memo:

_

/ \ _ __ ___ _ __ _ _ _ __ ___ ___ _ _ ___

/ _ \ | '_ \ / _ \| '_ \| | | | '_ ` _ \ / _ \| | | / __|

/ ___ \| | | | (_) | | | | |_| | | | | | | (_) | |_| \__ \

/_/ \_\_| |_|\___/|_| |_|\__, |_| |_| |_|\___/ \__,_|___/

|___/

Greetings Netizens, and Citizens of the world.

Anonymous has obtained some documents that "they" do not want you to see, and much to "their" chagrin, we have found them, and are giving them to you.

These documents prove that the NSA is spying on you, and not just Americans. They are spying on the citizens of over 35 different countries.

These documents contain information on the companies involved in GiG, and Prism.

Whats GiG you might ask? well...

The GIG will enable the secure, agile, robust, dependable, interoperable data sharing environment for the Department where warfighter, business, and intelligence users share knowledge on a global network that facilitates information superiority, accelerates decision-making, effective operations, and Net-Centric transformation.

Like we said, this is happening in over 35 countries, and done in cooperation with private businesses, and intelligence partners world wide.

We bring this to you, So that you know just how little rights you have. Your privacy and freedoms are slowly being taken from you, in closed door meetings, in laws buried in

bills, and by people who are supposed to be protecting you.

Download these documents, share them, mirror them, don't allow them to make them disappear. Spread them wide and far. Let these people know, that we will not be silenced, that we will not be taken advantage of, and that we are not happy about this unwarranted, unnecessary, unethical spying of our private lives, for the monetary gain of the 1%.

And now, the candy: http://thedocs.hostzi.com/

Mirrors:

http://t.co/XVlZQ53Zhp

http://t.co/JYUHrhi3Ue

http://t.co/qR9PRzySbq

http://t.co/yGw2sP976W

http://t.co/MrmBj4kma5

We are Anonymous

We do not forgive

We do not forget

and by now,

You should expect us

http://pastebin.com/MPpT7xaf

[Guest hitoallusa]

For the monetary gain of 1%, it is partly true. Anyways, I don't think this is a surprise. We know that some private contractors provide surveillance programs to government agencies through out the world and not sure why this is new? Funny thing is that when everybody has a same program, wonder something like The Lord of the Rings might happen. We might need Frodo to destroy one master ring.

As I have said before, it is not how much one has, what matter is how one utilize what little one has. It doesn't matter how many pieces of information one has, they need to be sorted and analyzed properly to make them useful. The Iraq war could have been prevented if the intelligence community had played its part well. It didn't. The intelligence community is very inefficient and some of their works overlap. Anonymous is similar in that sense, they can get into the system and open secret files, yes. But what they are doing is efficient in any way to bring real changes. I doubt that. But I'm optimistic that we will find ways to overcome this issue.

[TampaYankee]

That corporate sales-speak-gobbledygook really didn't say what GIG is.

We as a society really need to come to terms with what price we are willing to pay for security. We cannot engage in knee-jerk reactions one way or the other. I am still weighing those competing interests, to achieve a balance that we both can live with and that we can live with. It is not an immediately obvious balance given that administrations change over time as well as the specific nature of threats.

For me, my Bill of Rights side says do not read my mail or listen in to my conservations without due process as we have known it. That goes for internet communications as well.

My desire for safety and security says we have to demand and keep strong vigilance to forestall and interrupt terrorist acts or, if failing to do so, to apprehend terrorists carrying out or supporting such attacks.

This side of me says I have to make compromises to my/our privacy to give the government enough visibility to monitor and investigate suspicious activities. Else, I cannot really expect them to provide that level of safety and security I want. Thus I have to be willing to live with some level of privacy intrusion. Where to draw the line?

I guess it comes down to macro-inspection vs micro-inspection. Trying to recognize patterns of communication from anywhere to suspicious areas and all known or highly suspected target individuals, areas or sites seems a necessary and reasonable practice if we are really serious about proactive vigilance. Else, we must hope that all terrorists will be as hapless as the underwear and shoe bombers or we'll probably end up settling for keeping our first responders busy as well as our crime scene specialists.

The problem is trying to achieve that level of scrutiny for that purpose only and to preclude potential abuses for illegitimate activities. Therein lies the risk and the challenge to meet both our privacy and security needs.

It is proper to demand more transparency about these activities and to investigate how they are carried out, up to a point publicly anyway. It is appropriate to discuss the trades and compromises and sacrifices that may be part of it. What we expect our government to do about safety and security and what we are willing to pay for it.

We cannot engage in knee-jerk reactions one way or the other.

[AdamSmith]

Indeed. Sounds like taken directly from DoD or NSA literature, such as: http://www.nsa.gov/ia/programs/global_information_grid/index.shtml

[RA1]

One of the problems is the US depends too much upon technology for its' intelligence gathering. Crunching numbers, spy in the sky, drones and computer analyzing all have their place but I have to agree with Tom Clancy (and others) who suggest that nothing really can take the place of human resources. Kind of anti-whistleblowers.

In other ways the US takes the wrong tack. We do not permit profiling of airline passengers (and others) while we have an excellent example of how well this works as used by the Israelis. In the meantime the TSA strip searches babies and grandmothers while annoying everyone (except the terrorists).

I, for one, am not willing to give up the rights and freedoms we already have given up (temporarily I hope) for so called security. Security is an illusion as is freedom without sacrifice and fighting for it.

Best regards,

RA1

[lookin]

And they call me snoopy !

[RA1]

I am perfectly willing for any Beagle to head the NSA or any other government agency. However, most of them are over qualified to do so.

Best regards,

RA1

[AdamSmith]

[TampaYankee]

Indeed. Sounds like taken directly from DoD or NSA literature, such as: http://www.nsa.gov/ia/programs/global_information_grid/index.shtml

Thanks for that added info. Before that a gig, to me, was a pronged fork on a pole or trident used for harvesting frogs, mosty at night.

[TampaYankee]

Indeed. Sounds like taken directly from DoD or NSA literature, such as: http://www.nsa.gov/ia/programs/global_information_grid/index.shtml

Sounds pretty sinister.

[AdamSmith]

Sounds pretty sinister.

Verbal force projection. DoD web site and documents are loaded with these threateningly long sentences that carpet-bomb the reader with words. Like, from this GiG doc:

The GIG will be a net-centric system operating in a global context to provide processing, storage, management, and transport of information to support all Department of Defense (DoD), national security, and related Intelligence Community missions and functions - strategic, operational, tactical, and business - in war, in crisis, and in peace.

GIG capabilities will be available from all operating locations: bases, posts, camps, stations, facilities, mobile platforms, and deployed sites. The GIG will interface with allied, coalition, and non-GIG systems.

The overarching objective of the GIG vision is to provide the National Command Authority (NCA), warfighters, DoD personnel, Intelligence Community, business, policy-makers, and non-DoD users with information superiority, decision superiority, and full-spectrum dominance.

And so on and on and on.

[RA1]

I have found that verbiage usually is a cover for logic or good intentions.

Best regards,

RA1

[TampaYankee]

I have found that verbiage usually is a cover for logic or good intentions.

Best regards,

RA1

Maybe.

I've found that words are often architected into such edifices to make someone or some program seem extra specially important whether he or it is or not. They try to portray a comprehensive understanding of, and solution to the dragon to be slain, all in one sentence -- to give the customer the warm and fuzzies. Think of it more as a technocratic sales jingle. Unfortunately, these guys are not Barry Manilow.

[RA1]

Maybe.

I've found that words are often architected into such edifices to make someone or some program seem extra specially important whether he or it is or not. They try to portray a comprehensive understanding of, and solution to the dragon to be slain, all in one sentence -- to give the customer the warm and fuzzies. Think of it more as a technocratic sales jingle. Unfortunately, these guys are not Barry Manilow.

Are we both guilty of that? Some may think so.

Best regards,

RA1

[ihpguy]

GIG = Galeao - Antonio Carlos Jobim International Airport

Closest intercontinental airport for visits to New Meio Mundo, Clube 117 and Pointe 202

[RA1]

If this is a political post I may have to go into politics.

Best regards,

RA1

[AdamSmith]

Politicians do seem to get the good hookers.

...Just please don't write the book.

[RA1]

Would the book be fiction or fantasy?

Best regards,

RA1

[AdamSmith]

Straight reporting, one would hope.

So to speak.

[RA1]

I was thinking along the lines of "Clarifying Another's Child's Sexual Identity". I think my feet are about to get stuck in the muck.

Best regards,

RA1

[TampaYankee]

Are we both guilty of that? Some may think so.

Best regards,

RA1

I hope my contributions here rise above the level of a sales jingle. It seems obvious to me that my posts are too long and too convoluted to be classified as sales 'jingles', good or bad.

That being said, it was the lingua franca of the profession I worked in for 35 years. I walked the walk and talked the talk. To the extent that it may creep into my contributions at this site I'll leave for everyone else to decide. As with everything one reads, words and concepts need to be evaluated based on what is said and the facts and logic behind it, and on the motives of the author.

[RA1]

Of course. But do not some or us (or several) try to "solve or delineate" various problems in one sentence or one post? Few things are that simple but we can try, can we not?

Best regards.

RA1

[AdamSmith]

and on the motives of the author.

Absolutely. My company one time was consulting to a grizzled sharp old coot who had just stepped down as a U.S. undersecretary of defense, and was in the process of being hired by GM to oversee their supplier relations.

We happened to show him a memo we had gotten hold of, which GM had just issued to its suppliers dictating some very expensive and disruptive changes in some of their IT systems that would be mandatory for continuing to sell to GM, which of course had the supply base in an uproar.

He did not need to read the content. We watched his eyes: he just looked to see who the memo was (1) to and (2) from, then immediately explained to us the whole story of what must be going on.

[AdamSmith]

More on how PRISM actually works:

http://m.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/us-company-officials-internet-surveillance-does-not-indiscriminately-mine-data/2013/06/08/5b3bb234-d07d-11e2-9f1a-1a7cdee20287_print.html