An honest question for legal and constitution minded

[funinspace]

But the idea that the NSA is watching everything you do is crazy.

And Im pretty sure you are wrong.

Obviously neither of us can prove our position.

But here is what we do know. We know there are massive data centers in Utah. We know that digital data storage has become extremely cheap.

What 'we' know seems to be different that what 'you' know.

It is estimated that there are over 200 billion emails (1st link) sent worldwide each day. If we assume that the average email is 50kb (which I think is probably a little small), then there is roughly 3.65 zettabytes (200 billion x 50kb x 365 days) of email traffic generated each year. The NSA Data Utah Center details are largely classified, but it is estimated to have a capacity between 3 and 12 exabytes (see 2nd link). That is only 0.1% to 0.4% of the total worldwide email generation last year. Even if these NSA numbers are off by a factor of 10, the NSA would still only has less than 10% of the capacity for last year ‘s email load. That doesn’t include Loren’s cabinet porn, or anything else like texting, message boards, ftp’ing data or even sftp’ing data around, or all the people who send encrypted shit to storage clouds. It takes a lot of CPU power to parse thru data looking for connections, relationships, key words et.al. FWIW, I have supported some quite hefty ETL/data warehousing projects over the years for some large enterprises, and that grinding thru data can really work big ass servers, or distributed load servers, hard. And what the NSA has to grind thru is likely thousands of times worse. Additionally, it takes far more CPU power to choose to hack a particular set of encrypted packets. When NSA storage capacity is certainly less than 10% of just 1 years’ worth of worldwide emails, and most probably less than 1% of the total worldwide data traffic, they literally can’t spy on everyone. Additionally, sorting thru all that data cannot be done in real time. So with so much to go thru, the US spy agencies cannot have everything to later sort thru. And this doesn’t even touch upon voice traffic…

https://www.radicati.com/wp/wp-cont...istics-Report-2015-2019-Executive-Summary.pdf
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utah_Data_Center

Spying on everyone is not a crazy idea considering where technology is today.

Yeah, it is a crazy idea, much like '911 was an inside job' is a crazy idea.

 

[coloradoatheist]

It also depends on what you mean by spying too. The government is going to have information on you. They'll have your SSN, where you live, where you work, how much you make, some of the things you've bought, etc. I would bet they probably have a score on you on how likely you are to be a terrorist or a foreign spy. Only if you score was high enough or set off some flags would they look more into you. They would also try and find the patterns that would suspect those things or the things people do for those things. They probably have rated this board on the likelyhood of that.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

That doesn’t include Loren’s cabinet porn,

Cabinet porn?? I was mirroring a production database. It's a lot easier to use copies of the real data for testing than to make up phony data.

 

[funinspace]

That doesn’t include Loren’s cabinet porn,

Cabinet porn?? I was mirroring a production database. It's a lot easier to use copies of the real data for testing than to make up phony data.

Thanks for the out loud laugh! Well, I see at least one person read thru my post, even if the humor wasn't recognized.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

That doesn’t include Loren’s cabinet porn,

Cabinet porn?? I was mirroring a production database. It's a lot easier to use copies of the real data for testing than to make up phony data.

Thanks for the out loud laugh! Well, I see at least one person read thru my post, even if the humor wasn't recognized.

Hmm... a folder called "encrypted data".

I just put those files in a folder called Bablyon 5. No risk of anyone looking there.

 

[Elixir]

Thanks for the out loud laugh! Well, I see at least one person read thru my post, even if the humor wasn't recognized.

Hmm... a folder called "encrypted data".

I just put those files in a folder called Bablyon 5. No risk of anyone looking there.

We gots a folder with a funny name too... guess it's time to hide it behind some encryption. What a PITA!

 

[bilby]

Thanks for the out loud laugh! Well, I see at least one person read thru my post, even if the humor wasn't recognized.

Hmm... a folder called "encrypted data".

I just put those files in a folder called Bablyon 5. No risk of anyone looking there.

We gots a folder with a funny name too... guess it's time to hide it behind some encryption. What a PITA!

Meh. If you want to try for security by obscurity, copy C:\WINDOWS\SoftwareDistribution into a folder called C:\WINDOWS\SoftwareDistribution_old, and then replace the contents of C:\WINDOWS\SoftwareDistribution_old\DataStore with your files. No casual inspection of the file system by a person using Windows Explorer will ever find them (unless they have read this post).

Of course, this will be of exactly zero help against a thorough inspection by a competent person, or by one who believes that you are hiding something. It's the electronic equivalent of hiding the housekeeping money in the pantry in a jar labeled 'Sugar', or putting a spare front door key under the mat.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

We gots a folder with a funny name too... guess it's time to hide it behind some encryption. What a PITA!

Meh. If you want to try for security by obscurity, copy C:\WINDOWS\SoftwareDistribution into a folder called C:\WINDOWS\SoftwareDistribution_old, and then replace the contents of C:\WINDOWS\SoftwareDistribution_old\DataStore with your files. No casual inspection of the file system by a person using Windows Explorer will ever find them (unless they have read this post).

Of course, this will be of exactly zero help against a thorough inspection by a competent person, or by one who believes that you are hiding something. It's the electronic equivalent of hiding the housekeeping money in the pantry in a jar labeled 'Sugar', or putting a spare front door key under the mat.

A college aged kid asked me for advice on marriage. I told them find a woman who isn’t very computer savvy, but knows how to operate a home theater system.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Actual CIA oath of office:

I, _________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the
United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and
allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reserva-
tion or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of
the office I am about to enter; so help me God [or similar].​

https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/document/0005657492

In defending the Constitution, they are defending liberty of American citizens as well as lives--to include the liberty and bill of rights as applied to the President.

The WikiLeaks thing I think was not proof the NSA and CIA were violating their oath but that someone did a study on how to get past certain technologies to spy. Of course, they COULD be watching you through your TV or computer or listening to you through ALEXA or they could be doing that under extreme circumstances with a warrant or they could be compromising between two extremes by filtering en masse for keywords and using advanced algorithms of the keywords to flag messages for follow-up. If doing such listening en masse to American citizens as suggested by the op author, it would mean they are not taking their oath to defend liberty of the individual seriously, i.e. not defending the Constitution.

So, now, if so, does the op author claim CIA and NSA agents don't care about the liberty aspect of their oath but are all fanatical about just the phrase "the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic?" That's a bit contradictory.

In any case, these intelligence agencies did look at traffic flow and foreign I.P.'s, what they targeted, etc without violating the liberty aspect of their oath. They put together an intelligence report about it. Even the most partisan Republicans high up in the agencies agreed to the report findings. Otherwise, it would not have been reported.

https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/ICA_2017_01.pdf

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Isn't the main charter of the NSA, CIA, etc to protect the nation from all enemies both foreign and domestic?

See above post.

 

[beero1000]

The arguments from infeasibility I'm seeing aren't really convincing. They might be enough to show that the NSA isn't keeping track of most people, but of course they selectively target well-known individuals, people who have traveled to (or received money from) specific countries, their network of acquaintances, etc.

And they might not be able to directly break well-implemented encryption remotely, but there are ways around that. To paraphrase this article - if they want to get you, there is no defense from the Mossad doing Mossad things with your email account.

 

[funinspace]

The arguments from infeasibility I'm seeing aren't really convincing. They might be enough to show that the NSA isn't keeping track of most people, but of course they selectively target well-known individuals, people who have traveled to (or received money from) specific countries, their network of acquaintances, etc.

And they might not be able to directly break well-implemented encryption remotely, but there are ways around that. To paraphrase this article - if they want to get you, there is no defense from the Mossad doing Mossad things with your email account.

That is all well and good, but for the first sentence; as most all of the responses to what RVonse has been suggesting, have been about something else:

How can anyone (including the democrats and Nancy Pelosi) possibly believe the Russia scandal is real? The NSA would have had him in irons before he even took the oath of office if a Russia threat was real wouldnt they? What am I missing here?

Spying on everyone is not a crazy idea considering where technology is today.

 

[beero1000]

That is all well and good, but for the first sentence; as most all of the responses to what RVonse has been suggesting, have been about something else:

Spying on everyone is not a crazy idea considering where technology is today.

Then I would say you are focusing on the wrong part of the question. No, the NSA is not reading every bit sent electronically, but that has no relevance on the actual heart of the post - they most certainly are trying to read every bit sent electronically by people in contact with entities that are of national security concern.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

That is all well and good, but for the first sentence; as most all of the responses to what RVonse has been suggesting, have been about something else:

Spying on everyone is not a crazy idea considering where technology is today.

Then I would say you are focusing on the wrong part of the question. No, the NSA is not reading every bit sent electronically, but that has no relevance on the actual heart of the post - they most certainly are trying to read every bit sent electronically by people in contact with entities that are of national security concern.

It would be inadmissible in a court.

 

[dismal]

Then I would say you are focusing on the wrong part of the question. No, the NSA is not reading every bit sent electronically, but that has no relevance on the actual heart of the post - they most certainly are trying to read every bit sent electronically by people in contact with entities that are of national security concern.

It would be inadmissible in a court.

This is a seriously silly point. If they have some sort of proof Trump is an actual traitor they just need to send it to one of the myriad Trump-hating newspaper reporters out there.

 

[beero1000]

Then I would say you are focusing on the wrong part of the question. No, the NSA is not reading every bit sent electronically, but that has no relevance on the actual heart of the post - they most certainly are trying to read every bit sent electronically by people in contact with entities that are of national security concern.

It would be inadmissible in a court.

This is a seriously silly point. If they have some sort of proof Trump is an actual traitor they just need to send it to one of the myriad Trump-hating newspaper reporters out there.

A smear campaign would be nearly worthless and is totally counter to what the NSA actually does. They do data collection and analysis. What they really would be doing is collecting intelligence for the investigation. Just because it's inadmissible in court doesn't mean it isn't incredibly useful in finding more evidence that is admissible in court. Since the investigation hasn't released anything yet, we have no idea if they are actually doing that or not.

My guess is that they are.

 

[funinspace]

That is all well and good, but for the first sentence; as most all of the responses to what RVonse has been suggesting, have been about something else:

Spying on everyone is not a crazy idea considering where technology is today.

Then I would say you are focusing on the wrong part of the question. No, the NSA is not reading every bit sent electronically, but that has no relevance on the actual heart of the post - they most certainly are trying to read every bit sent electronically by people in contact with entities that are of national security concern.

It was RVonse's heart of concern (whatever you or I might think it is); and he has had plenty of chances to clarify/refocus the point, if I (or others) took his intent incorrectly. He hasn't chosen to clarify towards your point that I haven't argued against.

 

[beero1000]

Then I would say you are focusing on the wrong part of the question. No, the NSA is not reading every bit sent electronically, but that has no relevance on the actual heart of the post - they most certainly are trying to read every bit sent electronically by people in contact with entities that are of national security concern.

It was RVonse's heart of concern (whatever you or I might think it is); and he has had plenty of chances to clarify/refocus the point, if I (or others) took his intent incorrectly. He hasn't chosen to clarify towards your point that I haven't argued against.

Not really. His heart of concern seems pretty clear to me. The question was basically "If the NSA has the correspondence showing Trump's crimes, then why isn't he in prison already". The whole point of the (unnecessary) "The NSA knows what I had for breakfast" bit was to argue that the NSA has the correspondence showing Trump's crimes.

The heart of the matter isn't best answered by arguing that the NSA wouldn't know it if you snuck in an extra slice of bacon. If you were relevant enough that they'd want to know how many slices of bacon you had, they'd probably know.

 

[dismal]

This is a seriously silly point. If they have some sort of proof Trump is an actual traitor they just need to send it to one of the myriad Trump-hating newspaper reporters out there.

A smear campaign would be nearly worthless and is totally counter to what the NSA actually does. They do data collection and analysis. What they really would be doing is collecting intelligence for the investigation. Just because it's inadmissible in court doesn't mean it isn't incredibly useful in finding more evidence that is admissible in court. Since the investigation hasn't released anything yet, we have no idea if they are actually doing that or not.

My guess is that they are.

Sending actual concrete facts proving Trump is a traitor to a reporter is not "a smear campaign". And if you are in possession of these facts, you don't need to use them to gain other facts that would help in the investigation.

When you have proof the need for investigating is over.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

This is a seriously silly point. If they have some sort of proof Trump is an actual traitor they just need to send it to one of the myriad Trump-hating newspaper reporters out there.

Thanks Devil Advocate. The trouble is, we already know that European intelligence picked up on this before the FBI started investigating it. We know a few things.

- Several Trump campaign officials met with people Europeans were monitoring as Russian assets
- A Trump campaign official bragged about Russians to an Aussie Ambassador
- Three senior Trump campaign officials met with Russians (linked to a Russian corporation that was being investigated for money laundering... and having connections with the Kremlin) in Trump Tower regarding anti-Clinton intel for the campaign

Of course, dismal then says, 'but if there was intel that was damning to Trump we'd know it by now'. What in the heck in the stuff above?! And that didn't require the NSA. The sources were European Intel, the Aussie Government, and someone in the White House who picked up on the modifications to Kuschner's security clearance docs.

Then we know that Russian affiliates hacked emails and we are likely certain they leaked these to Wikileaks. These leaks occurred after the Trump Tower meeting. But you know... nothing to see here.