microsoft and NSA

[doja]

Hi,

What do you say?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jul/11/microsoft-nsa-collaboration-user-data

[montag dp]

I say this makes me consider going through the trouble of switching away from my .msn email account, which I've used as my primary email for years.

[TNFrank]

I say because you used the word "NSA" the thread will be locked for being "political". IBTL:D

[mJayk]

makes me giggle because you can replace microsoft with any company and the story would be the same canonical, facebook, microsoft makes no difference.

[Bölvaður]

makes me giggle because you can replace microsoft with any company and the story would be the same canonical, facebook, microsoft makes no difference.
I see a big difference as we are in the Linux world. Can we not host our own servers to avoid Canonical's?
(I am not big on unity right now, isn't there something that sends your queries to their server?)

[sffvba[e0rt]

I say because you used the word "NSA" the thread will be locked for being "political". IBTL:D

When you stand close to the edge of a cliff, the smallest misstep can cause you to fall down to the bottom... Off course this isn't guaranteed to happen if you tread carefully ;)

As for the topic at hand. I haven't looked but I am pretty sure their has been some debate on this (or attempted debate) here before (I might even look for it). As I understand it, "back-doors" and "secret spying code on your puter" is no longer needed as indeed a number of goverments around the world are accessing the data streams from the net and voice etc. directly as it flows through their countries and having direct access to anything they desire. Moral of the story, don't connect to the internet and if you do make sure everything is encrypted (and prepare to communicate only with those that do the same)...

Or

http://www.keepcalmandposters.com/posters/116117.png


404

[Mikeb85]

makes me giggle because you can replace microsoft with any company and the story would be the same canonical, facebook, microsoft makes no difference.

Seeing as how Canonical is based outside the US, I doubt they're cooperating with the NSA (same goes for SUSE, Mandriva, etc...).

That being said, as not found mentioned, the NSA (and anyone else who spies on you) doesn't necessarily need direct access to collect your data.

[zer010]

I'm wondering if that "If you've done nothing wrong..." attitude is finally starting to dry up.

[1clue]

Actually, the NSA knowing stuff about me doesn't bother me nearly as much as everyone else who does.

We go nuts if the government tries to collect information, but we evidently don't care all that much that China, Russia, Nigeria and a hundred other countries are actively spying on us.

The NSA is constitutionally required to follow due process, even if they cheat a little bit on finding out who to chase they're not going to drain your bank account or use your identity to buy a house.

Who here has actually connected all the Internet-enabled devices in your household? Biggest count I had, my wife and I had 17 of them active at one time. For 2 people. Who makes these things? Samsung, LG, Canon, HiSense or whatever it is. I know what operating system is in all the computing devices and mobile devices, but I have no idea what's in the TV or BluRay. I don't know the details about the software in my phone. I KNOW Google collects all sorts of good stuff on me just for having their phone and using their search engine. I KNOW they sell that info to pretty much anyone who wants it.

So realistically speaking, what's scarier?

I think U.S.A citizens are way too worried about the guys who don't really matter that much, and not nearly worried enough about the scary guys.

[kurt18947]

The NSA is constitutionally required to follow due process

Perhaps not when their bosses had their fingers crossed when swearing to uphold the constition.

[Paqman]

Seeing as how Canonical is based outside the US, I doubt they're cooperating with the NSA (same goes for SUSE, Mandriva, etc...).


Canonical do have offices in the US. It may be difficult to avoid accommodating a government agency like the NSA if the request for data was done legally.

Is this really something to worry about though? As I understand it the NSA is the US government's foreign SIGINT agency. They can waste their time reading my mail as much as they like. It's probably a bit annoying if you're a very private person, but in terms of the actual harm that might come to you, it's pretty much zero. Better things to spend your fret cycles on IMO.

I kind of assume that the spies spend their days spying on stuff anyway. Is this stuff news?

[Elfy]

I say because you used the word "NSA" the thread will be locked for being "political". IBTL:D

The title isn't going to get the thread locked.


Discussion of the politics of open source is permissible, but only the politics of open source.is allowed in http://ubuntuforums.org/forumdisplay.php?f=434

In here -
Also, discussions on religion and politics are not allowed

[Warren Hill]

I'm surprised that this is news.

All governments have spies and whether its the NSA in the US, GCHQ in the UK, the Russians, Chinese or any body else. Should we be surprised that they are monitoring the internet?

Shock horror !!

We have to be aware that the internet is a public place and much of what we do can be traced. If you want to send information securely encrypt it but there will still be a record of who talked to who even if nobody else knows what was said.

Can we really complain that someone may be monitoring our internet activities when we post on forums such as this or have a facebook or twitter account.

[Paqman]

Besides, there is a legitimate case for security agencies having the ability to tackle dangerous people using technical means to obfsucate their communications. There really are bad people out there in the world, who are the ones whose comms these organisations are trying to intercept. So we shouldn't be up in arms that they are able to do this, just if it's proven that they're abusing their powers and casting the net wider than their remit to keep us safe dictates.

[doja]

All governments have their spies that's true. And the article is really not
that surprising for people who knows how the internet works.

But the article is less about the spying itself, rather about a private company
allowing an open access for private data to a third party and claiming not doing
this.

Many here in discussion try to put a finger on other countries, but tolerate
such practices by the 'keeper of democracy'.

[mastablasta]

All governments have their spies that's true. And the article is really not
that surprising for people who knows how the internet works.

But the article is less about the spying itself, rather about a private company
allowing an open access for private data to a third party and claiming not doing
this.

Many here in discussion try to put a finger on other countries, but tolerate
such practices by the 'keeper of democracy'.

precisely.

and furthermore - why can they read my email without warrant (which means there is no justified reason to do that) while it is illegal for me to spy on others (wiretap them, hack and read their emails)? since our constitution for example says that all are equal in front of the law that would actually mean i can also do those things. i mean i wouldn't be limiting anyones freedom by doing that would i? ;-)

[Paqman]

and furthermore - why can they read my email without warrant (which means there is no justified reason to do that) while it is illegal for me to spy on others (wiretap them, hack and read their emails)?

Because:


They're subject to oversight.
They're dealing with specific threats, and have a mandate from the electorate to do so.


Your argument is a bit like asking why is it that the army are allowed to shoot people, but you aren't.

[Warren Hill]

I'm not condoning the activities of the NSA or any other organisation.

I have campaigned on human rights and civil liberties for a long time and I'm almost certain "I'm known" to UK authorities as having been active on a number of demonstrations.

I'm just saying that its obvious that to an extent we are all being tracked and as the technology improves this will increase. My bank know where I shop each time I use a credit or debit card and I have a supermarket loyalty card so they know what I buy for example.

When you are able to collect data so easily it's not surprising it's being abused.

As for companies allowing access to private data I doubt the companies really have much choice in the matter. Governments can and do have lots of opportunity to make things easy or difficult for a particular company. This is not right but it's naive to think otherwise.

[doja]

Because:


They're subject to oversight.
They're dealing with specific threats, and have a mandate from the electorate to do so.


Your argument is a bit like asking why is it that the army are allowed to shoot people, but you aren't.

sorry,
but I'm missing the point where a private company like Microsoft
get the permission offer an open access to private data.

And I wouldn't compare this staff with the ?'allowance'? (or justification) of the army to shoot people.
This is completely different and not that easy staff. And it doesn't belong to this disscusion

Always in peace

[Paqman]

sorry,
but I'm missing the point where a private company like Microsoft
get the permission offer an open access to private data.


From their Terms of Use (https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/legal/intellectualproperty/copyright/default.aspx#O10):

Microsoft reserves the right at all times to disclose any information as Microsoft deems necessary to satisfy any applicable law, regulation, legal process or governmental request, or to edit, refuse to post or to remove any information or materials, in whole or in part, in Microsoft's sole discretion.

By using the service, you have already agreed that's it's ok for Microsoft to hand over your data to the US government if they ask.

[doja]

Warren Hill pointed it right - it is difficult for a company to stand the pressure from the government.

But

'...necessary to satisfy any applicable law, regulation, legal process or governmental request...'

is different then: ' the US government has an unlimited access to our data bank ..'.

But I admit that in this case nobody would use the services of MS.
Therefore, I 'm happy for such articles like the above which use a plain language.
And if in the US the NSA or governement don't need any justification for their doing
then it isn't a right democracy for me.

[t0p]

Lot of people missing a lot of points here.

There is no legal oversight for this. The PRISM program allows the NSA to access communications info directly from the companies involved. No warrants. No oversight. Snowden's leaks demonstrate that the NSA (and by association the FBI, CIA, and other countries' intelligence and law enforcement) can simply bypass oversight. And this is illegal in the USA, and in many other countries too. The NSA are breaking the law. Microsoft actively help them, then lie about it.

PRISM allows direct access to people's comms with no warrant, with no prior cause, on fishing trips. And they won't just ignore anything they're not actively hunting for. They pass info to the FBI (who have no jurisdiction outside the USA) or the CIA (who aren't supposed to operate domestically). The people doing this are not elected, they are appointed by their elected friends. Then they can pass info to their friends. So, for instance, if you expect your business to hit a rocky patch, and you email your colleague about this, a friend of an FBI staff-member can use that info to destroy your company and profit from it because of the illegal comms interception. If anyone else does it, it's insider trading and illegal and people go to jail. But the PRISM system allows that info to be collected secretly and anonymously and illegally. I have couched this in financial terms because that's what most people seem to care about the most. But consider it in a political light.

Apathy will destroy any notion of free society. If you are not willing to defend your rights, you soon won't have any.

[Xtyn]

"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin

[Bölvaður]

I come from a country that strives for human rights and freedom, and some views in this thread shocks me. I dont know but it looks like there are people which are against human rights if it can be justified in some way. If I would be given the choice to be spied on or not, I choose not to be spied on.
I do not feel slightly unsafe with companies having fractions of information about me, worse when someone has most of those fractions. If I would be a nerd that could be picked on by bullies, I would not want to provide the school bullies with records of my internet usage. They'll always find something to use against a nerd. But more so, I would not want them to have that access on anyone else either.

Not all countries have these kind of programs. In fact most countries are not wanting to trample on the rights of the people.

I wouldn't compile a program and insert an uplink to NSA or any other agency. If I would see in the code my data is uploaded on their servers I would comment that part out before compiling.

[Xtyn]

They can waste their time reading my mail as much as they like. It's probably a bit annoying if you're a very private person, but in terms of the actual harm that might come to you, it's pretty much zero.
Except if you make jokes like this guy: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-23188875
And then, you'd end up in jail, no harm done, right?

[Paqman]

"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin

There's no loss of liberty at stake here, because it's entirely voluntary to use a service like Outlook.com. They're not infringing on any of your rights, because you've signed up to a service that doesn't guarantee your privacy.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not super-happy about this Prism shenanigans, but there's been a lot of righteous indignation that's misplaced IMO. About the best way to sum it up was a line I heard from a comedian: "We know you guys haven't done anything illegal to get this data, but doesn't it worry you that you didn't have to".

[Xtyn]

There's no loss of liberty at stake here, because it's entirely voluntary to use a service like Outlook.com. They're not infringing on any of your rights, because you've signed up to a service that doesn't guarantee your privacy.
Oddly enough, I don't blame M$ for doing what it does, although I dislike M$ just on principle. :)
I don't fancy the whole Big Brother thing. The USA should calm down before it becomes a sort of soviet USA, this is getting out of hand.

I'm going to combine 2 memes that I like:

http://i.imgur.com/NCU02MT.png

[Warren Hill]

History is full of attempts by the state to grab more information on its citizens and hence more power. We have to be constantly vigilant to keep this in check but no government would ever voluntarily give away its ability to monitor and control unless it thought it had no alternative.

We live in an age where we are increasingly giving out information on our selves and it's not surprising this data in being mined both by governments and by companies for their, not our needs.

It's good that we are having this discussion. We will never stop those in power wanting more power; but if we are all more aware we may be able to limit the worst excesses.

E-mail as sent over the internet is plain text any internet host that happens across the IP packet can read the contents. If you want to ensure that nobody can read it then we need encryption.

[Xtyn]

E-mail as sent over the internet is plain text any internet host that happens across the IP packet can read the contents. If you want to ensure that nobody can read it then we need encryption.
When I enter my e-mail, it says this:

http://i.imgur.com/Cgry5ct.jpg

[Warren Hill]

When I enter my e-mail, it says this:

http://i.imgur.com/Cgry5ct.jpg

That's as may be. The connection between your PC and your mail server may be encrypted but the connection to it from the next server is almost certainly SMTP which is not encrypted at all for details see RFC5321 (http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc5321/)

[synaptix]

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
- Benjamin Franklin, 1775
(source (http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Benjamin_Franklin#Quotes))

[1clue]

I think a lot of you guys are after a combination of things which are mutually exclusive. You have a right to privacy, but simply using a cell phone or an Internet connection pretty much voids that. The cell phone tells the cell company pretty much exactly where you are by the very technology that allows the phone to work wherever you go. The security of your communications, to where? Facebook? The better-than-google repository of everything you do? Half of the crimes we hear about on the news were somebody posting something stupid on Facebook. You can say your comments are friends only, but only one of those friends has different settings than you and suddenly the whole thing is public.

There's exactly one thing about Snowden that's at all surprising: That people are even slightly surprised by anything at all that he said. In the general sense he revealed absolutely nothing that we shouldn't have taken for granted. The details might be troublesome, but that the NSA does what he says, well that's pretty much exactly what they're there for. I'm pretty bent that he blabbed details. Every "bombshell" he dropped, I responded by, "Of course they do."

The nature of the Internet: This shouldn't be a surprise to anyone here, but the very idea was created by Arpa, which turned into Darpa, which is United States of America military. It's not nearly as ... homogeneous? ... as people seem to think. Individual segments of it are corporate property, meaning your ISP is probably a commercial entity. They own the equipment, they charge for its use. But it's available to the public, so in the physical sense it's akin to walking through a shopping mall. The public has certain rights (visitors to web sites, etc) some parts are members only, but still it's not truly private property. In the physical sense, a police officer does not need a warrant or probable cause to walk into a mall, or into any store. They need a warrant to invade something which is conceptually private property, like your safe deposit box, your bank accounts, that sort of thing. They certainly don't need a warrant to walk the halls.

Another physical analogy, the US Postal Service doesn't open your mail, but they do put everything past a chemical sniffer to detect anthrax or explosives or whatever. I seriously doubt they need a warrant to open or give special handling to something they believe to be malicious or harmful.

All of this is the same as a cop driving down your street. They don't get to trespass, but if you leave something in your yard and they see it, there was no law broken. If you left your window open and they see something from outside, there was no law broken. If you're walking down the sidewalk, or in the mall, and you're talking on your cell phone, and somebody hears that, then there was no law broken. If you say something in your house and the window was open, and somebody on a sidewalk heard you, there was no law broken.

International borders and the Internet: I believe all the access points to the USA through the Internet are owned by the federal government. Certainly crossing those borders constitutes a border crossing, so even if they're privately owned the government (of USA or any other country) has every right to at least look at metadata.

Again, I don't find the idea that my government is watching me nearly as disturbing as the idea that foreign governments and private entities are doing so, without even a slight premise that it's in my interest that they do so. Nobody seems to care about that.

[coldraven]

After Vista and it's DRM shenanigans I stopped trusting Microsoft, that's why I now use Linux.
I stopped using Skype when Microsoft bought it.
That's why I am not surprised by the recent news that Outlook has a backdoor.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/07/11/snowden_leak_shows_microsoft_added_outlookencrypti on_backdoor_for_feds/

[mehaga]

It may be ok for Americans to say 'so what?', but what about the rest of us? :/

[llanitedave]

It's really not OK for anyone to say "so what?". Privacy is not just a personal convenience, and government spying (or any other kind, for that matter) doesn't just threaten to embarrass you in front of your facebook friends. Privacy is a vital part of maintaining a democratic system, and of having the freedom to have your voice heard. (Yes, I know they sound contradictory, but they are not). If the government can freely track all your movements, no matter how inconsequential, and all your communications, no matter how irrelevant, it can easily start categorizing every individual as to whether they are a "threat", and IT gets to define what "threat" means. This data is a real treasure trove for anyone who might come into power and decide they need an "enemies list". You as the new tyrant can now round up anyone who has ever spoken out, publicly or privately, in disapproval of your actions, agenda, or body odor.

While one of the most fundamental purposes of the state is to protect us, it has been a founding principle of the US that we also as individuals require and deserve protection from an unjust state, and that need is no less now than it was in 1790.

[Linuxratty]

It may be ok for Americans to say 'so what?', but what about the rest of us? :/
American here...I'm sure not taking this lightly.I find it as disturbing as you do.

[1clue]

It's really not OK for anyone to say "so what?". Privacy is not just a personal convenience, and government spying (or any other kind, for that matter) doesn't just threaten to embarrass you in front of your facebook friends. Privacy is a vital part of maintaining a democratic system, and of having the freedom to have your voice heard. (Yes, I know they sound contradictory, but they are not). If the government can freely track all your movements, no matter how inconsequential, and all your communications, no matter how irrelevant, it can easily start categorizing every individual as to whether they are a "threat", and IT gets to define what "threat" means. This data is a real treasure trove for anyone who might come into power and decide they need an "enemies list". You as the new tyrant can now round up anyone who has ever spoken out, publicly or privately, in disapproval of your actions, agenda, or body odor.

While one of the most fundamental purposes of the state is to protect us, it has been a founding principle of the US that we also as individuals require and deserve protection from an unjust state, and that need is no less now than it was in 1790.

So why is it different when the state does that than when a company does it?

For example, Facebook, Google, etc. are in the business of selling the information that passes through their systems. If they do it, and I go buy a collection of people who have searched on certain terms, is that any different than when the government goes to the same agency and buys a collection of people who have searched on certain terms? No. Not even a little bit. You, by using the search engine or the social network, have given permission for the company to sell that information as they choose. In the case of Facebook, it's in a terms of use that you clicked yes on, whether you read it or not. In the case of Google, it's easily accessible and publicly acknowledged as their business model.

[1clue]

I used to be a pretty rabid privacy advocate. I can't afford to be that way anymore, it's hypocrisy to have an online life and expect any sort of privacy. They are mutually exclusive. More so, you don't even have to post information on Facebook. Your wife, or husband, or kids, or friends, or the guy down the street will do it for you.

If you want privacy, go live in a remote forest without access to the Internet, and without neighbors. Even the traffic lights have cameras on them now, and you can be sure they don't send a guy around every day to change the film. They're networked.

My point isn't that the government should be able to do whatever it wants. I think the government should be strongly limited in what sorts of ways it can use information. My point is that information is being collected in more ways than any of us can imagine, and the NSA having it is the least scary part. They're not likely to drain my account or buy a house with my personal information. What about the Nigerian with millions of dollars who just needs to borrow my account to get money into the USA, and he'll give me half? What about the guy in some other third world country who hacks into my TV set, sniffs the network and gets the password to my online bank account?

[llanitedave]

Ah, the old "You CHOSE to become subservient to me when you inhaled in my presence!" ploy.

No, I don't buy it. I don't accept that the 4th amendment is only valid when the technology to violate it ubiquitously doesn't exist. I don't accept that my right to a secret ballot is only valid as long as nobody is able to hack the voting machines. The fact that I use modern technology and participate in society does NOT invalidate my rights under the constitution. The Bill of Rights was never intended to apply only to hermits.

If that's the scope that you'll accept for it, then you're part of the problem, not part of the solution.

[QIII]

Thanks for your input, everyone.

This thread has drifted over the edge of the cliff not found mentioned and has become pretty much a general political discussion.

Closed.