what do Americans think about the NSA scandal

[kandrathe]

Probably not, but it is part of the system that we live within.

Also, much of industry is branded, but running on hardware owned by the bigger ones. Windstream is derived and most likely resides on Verizon hardware assets. I'm not sure how many telecom companies run on Verizon, or AT&T switching equipment. It might just be that somewhere in the contract between Verizon, and Windstream there is a clause related to government FISA requests allowing Verizon to offer it as a service... doh. "You don't need to deal with the pesky government, we'll handle it for you."

Sort of like "who makes Pillsbury dough?" Not Pillsbury. They are just the brand, and often they sub contract with manufacturers to make their products.

[Mavfin]

Technically, Windstream didn't even have to sell you out.

An unlisted number, just means that your number isn't published PUBLICLY. Meaning, that your number isn't sold to companies, it isn't available in the public domain. As the IRS is part of the US Government, they aren't part of the public domain. And since Caller ID has been a standard feature for most since the 1990's, it's not illogical to think that the USG has better Caller ID, that removes the blocking restrictions of an unpublished number.

Knowing what I know about telecommunications and network security and programming, your theory is likely right on the money. The caller-id system is programmed to give information, not withhold it. By default, it will give your number. It only hides it when actively told to do so, or actively blocked by other parameters in the system. Do you imagine there's any blocking of caller-ID on IRS phones? Generally, blocking caller-ID at the entrance to a corporate VOIP system isn't necessarily by default. I've heard from my network cohorts of them having to call <big phone co> so that caller-id blocking actually worked on the internal VOIP phone system for customers who wanted it to.

That's not even sinister. It's just programmers wanting their code to work, and not thinking about how some customers wouldn't want it to work.

[shoju]

One of my favorite politically minded people on the internet has weighed in

My current signature is a quote from one of his "essays" (he likes to call them essays instead of blog entries. I think he hits the nail on the head here.

[kandrathe]

One of my favorite politically minded people on the internet has weighed in

My current signature is a quote from one of his "essays" (he likes to call them essays instead of blog entries. I think he hits the nail on the head here.

I agree with the general gist of it, of course.

I disagree with the perfect implementation of "rules" or "laws". The example would be in the middle of nowhere you come across a very long red light at 3am. Should you need to wait there 5 minutes until the robot box tells you it's your turn, or should you be able to stop, look both ways, then proceed on your way?

Or, no passing double lines... Do you follow the 5 mph tractor for 30 miles, just because on a winding road there is no good opportunity to pass? Or, do you let drivers determine the safest possible opportunity? Spirit of the law and letter of the law, and all that. Police officers can gauge motive, and forgive minor lapses, but they are also imperfect and not 24x7.

It works the other way too. When I was 18, I received a deserved speeding ticket when I was driving 55 in a 55 zone. It was pouring rain, and the rest of the traffic was crawling along at 20 mph. I was fearless, careless, and immortal -- the officer was right to give me that ticket, even though I was within the limit -- I was being unsafe.

And, perfection may be difficult for us. My police friends tell me that most every person breaks at least one law daily, if not more. Were you to be tailed by a cop all the time, you'd get ticketed all the time.

Also, I think there is more to my philosophy than merely the Lord Acton warning; there is also the concept of "need to know". We use this pretty simple data security practice where I work. We do not give people any detailed information they don't need. I frequently publish summarized information, but you cannot determine anything other than trends from it. It is common for me to make one e-mail post to my co-analysts, then forwarding the analyst level memo to management with the details redacted. When we transfer large amounts of sensitive information we use a secure drop box as an intermediary. So, until the NSA/FBI/DIA/CIA, etc determine that an e-mail address, or IP address, or phone number is related to a bad actor (with probable cause), I would say that there is no need to watch or record any data or metadata relating to that address, and then only that address, and potentially the ones with which it is in contact -- which should be enumerated in detail and reviewed by the FISA court.

Yes, that would remove the tool of being able to go back into your 6 year log file and cough up every bit that passed through that address. Imagine if you had 1 drone assigned per person, capturing 24 hours surveillance, just in case anything bad ever happened. We could also put black box type recorders in every car to GPS and capture RPM's and speed everywhere all the time (just in case something bad happened), and it could be produced in court if there were ever a reason. You don't need to look at it until after the fact, or you might be tempted to write some predictive analysis algorithm that highlights suspicious activities. Extreme examples? Sure. But if you asked me if a decade ago the worlds spy agencies would collaborate to MASTER THE INTERNET, I'd have bet against it.

[Occhidiangela]

1. Anyway, to the point, the only thing that surprises me is that people are surprised. I think the majority of Americans just figured that this couldn't or wouldn't be done, while anyone with a technical background likely expected this from the start because it's not hard to do if you have the resources. And the government has the resources...

2. I delight in the irony of how the US doesn't want to give up general control of the Internet because "us GOOD, them BAD" - and of course the US is the worst of them all.

Point 1: agreed.
Point 2: Worst at what? Worst about what?

Democracies seldom regress,

Do you know how to say that in Egyptian?

History isn't over, and the trend towards democracy is just that - a trend.

That's right. It is not a guarantee.

[Jester]

Democracies seldom regress,

Do you know how to say that in Egyptian?

Heh. Not looking so good there, although I hold out hope that it will get better rather than worse in the medium term. We'll see.

To defend my quote somewhat: I believe my next two words after that were "once established," by which I don't just mean there was something that looked democracy-ish for 15 minutes, before descending into chaos. I meant a system that had "established" a record of democratic rule and peaceful transitions of power, so that it was the norm rather than the exception. Not that those can't backslide too, of course. But it's rare, so far.

-Jester