Speakeasy forum

General discussion

NSA demands to follow you across the internet, always.

by James Denison / July 4, 2014 6:28 AM PDT

NSA labeling Linux Journal, TOR, and TAILS linux operating system as "extremist". Basically this means NSA and judges who enable them legally to subvert the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution. Would that be the "NSA Amendment"? Or the "Homeland Security Exemption" to the Constitution? NSA wants ability to follow everyone who is on the internet anytime they choose and not be impeded in that whatsoever. Is this what we call "freedom" now? What does "liberty" in America mean anymore?

"The Linux Journal, a Linux user community website, has been flagged as an "extremist forum" by the United States' National Security Agency (NSA), while its users have been flagged as "extremists" under the agency's XKeyscore program, according to leaked source code......"

This part is deliberately misleading because they just pick it up on the other end that isn't in one of the defined exempt areas.

"However, the source code also reveals that users residing within the 'Five Eyes' — the international alliance comprising the UK, Australia, New Zealand, the US, and Canada — are exempt from surveillance under the XKeyscore program."

Although USSID 18 did and maybe still does protect US citizens from such spying, if the citizen is using proxy servers in the targeted areas, then they will be tracked anyway, when they can, by NSA. After the Snowden leaks and revelations, can we really trust them to respect USSID 18 and the Fourth Amendment, or the back pocket judges they keep on speed dial?
Discussion is locked
You are posting a reply to: NSA demands to follow you across the internet, always.
The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. Please refer to our CNET Forums policies for details. All submitted content is subject to our Terms of Use.
Track this discussion and email me when there are updates

If you're asking for technical help, please be sure to include all your system info, including operating system, model number, and any other specifics related to the problem. Also please exercise your best judgment when posting in the forums--revealing personal information such as your e-mail address, telephone number, and address is not recommended.

You are reporting the following post: NSA demands to follow you across the internet, always.
This post has been flagged and will be reviewed by our staff. Thank you for helping us maintain CNET's great community.
Sorry, there was a problem flagging this post. Please try again now or at a later time.
If you believe this post is offensive or violates the CNET Forums' Usage policies, you can report it below (this will not automatically remove the post). Once reported, our moderators will be notified and the post will be reviewed.
Collapse -
Remember who set up Homeland Security and the NSA?
by Diana Forum moderator / July 4, 2014 6:39 AM PDT

Of course we can't trust them. They're the government. Wonder if we can get this forum declared extremist and really have fun - don't have to play nice. Wink


Collapse -
I enjoy reading Linux Journal
by James Denison / July 4, 2014 7:50 AM PDT

they have some good articles at times. I'm a little curious why an online magazine would be a focus on NSA. It's not like they are keeping secrets as much as writing about them.

Collapse -
by TONI H / July 4, 2014 8:35 PM PDT

Homeland Security: Bush 43 because of 9-11

NSA: Pretty much FDR....because of Pearl Harbor


Although the NSA existed prior to Pearl Harbor it didn't have much of a role because we also had the National Security Council.....things began to incorporate and merge then, but even then most of the agencies, both civilian and military, didn't share information. If I remember correctly there was a report that came out of 9-11 that pointed the finger of blame directly at the agencies NOT sharing so even though intel was there, some had more information than others and nothing was coordinated enough to realize the real threat from the chatter.

HLS and the new directives for NSA by Bush forced the sharing.....then NSA got blamed publicly for not being politically correct enough because we were using many of the same methods Israel uses for security and was accused of targeting Muslims (or people who were believed to be Muslim because of their skin hues). That led to EVERYONE being scrutinized in order to be more PC, and continues today, especially at airports.

BO actually expanded the NSA into areas that Bush didn't even go into....and got caught and had to supposedly back down 'somewhat'. The only domestic extremists now that need constant surveillance is this administration it seems. If they would treat terrorists like terrorists instead of common criminals, our intel would be much better than it is.....intel is for the FUTURE....and we aren't gathering anywhere near enough because we are, again, too PC for our own good. "For OUR own good" is the key to national security....not "THE TERRORIST'S OWN GOOD".

Collapse -
RE: we aren't gathering anywhere near enough because we are,
by JP Bill / July 4, 2014 9:00 PM PDT
In reply to: Origins....
we aren't gathering anywhere near enough because we are, again, too PC for our own good. "For OUR own good" is the key to national security....not "THE TERRORIST'S OWN GOOD".

Exactly WHERE does "OUR own good" end when the line the terrorist stops at is always moving? (If there is a line)Technology and innovation in a changing world.

Try it, you might like it?

He point out that his country overcame two dictatorships. He says Germans know how much impact government could inflict by having reams of personal information on its populace. "So that's why we're so skeptical if a single person or state knows so much about you," he adds.

BTW Did you get a solution to blocking the unwanted emails you were receiving? Devil
Collapse -
The line moves as well, JP
by TONI H / July 4, 2014 10:41 PM PDT

You constantly target terrorists....and you backtrack THEIR communications to others here in the US, including radicalized people living here. I don't care if that means constant surveillance on Muslims since that's where most of those terrorists are coming from. Stop the PC madness....if Muslims don't like being targeted they should be willing to come out against the radicals, and they don't go in that direction. They stay mum and allow their silence to be interpreted as approval. If they get targeted, too bad....

Collapse -
RE: I don't care if that means constant surveillance
by JP Bill / July 4, 2014 11:51 PM PDT
I don't care if that means constant surveillance on Muslims since that's where most of those terrorists are coming from.

And when this happens?

19-year-old Arvada woman, Shannon Maureen Conley, charged with aiding ISIS terror group, FBI says

You have no problem with "constant surveillance on" 19 year old female Americans and all of their friends....guilt by association"?

Do you think people that are continually complaining about the way government operates helps to push the impressionable over to the other side?

Something is making them look for something different.

Non-Muslims Carried Out More than 90% of All Terrorist Attacks in America

All Terrorists are Muslims...Except the 94% that Aren't

come out against the radicals,

Tea Party?
Collapse -
About the 2400 attacks
by Steven Haninger / July 5, 2014 12:48 AM PDT

I don't see where it states what is considered a terrorist attack. Does it only mean such that did or intended to cause death or physical injury to humans? Could spray painted threats on someone's property be considered a terrorist attack? Does an attack on one person count the same as flying planes into buildings? Under the religion category, does beard cutting count? The pie chart also shows left wing extremists but not right wing extremists. I thought Timothy McVeigh was referred to as a right winger. I imagine that if the chart was re-done using death or serious injury as the criteria, the pie pieces would look differently.

Collapse -
I never said all Muslims
by TONI H / July 5, 2014 1:12 AM PDT

are terrorists.....I said they should all be monitored....because their faith is our biggest national security threat. If that's not PC enough for you, too bad.

As for Conley....she was actually turned in to be checked on by a pastor of the church she 'belonged' to. She ASKED for that interrogation and VOLUNTEERED to agents what she intended to do.

Collapse -
Re: I never said all Muslims
by JP Bill / July 5, 2014 3:04 AM PDT

you also didn't say "some" Muslims.

You said

I don't care if that means constant surveillance on Muslims

It's like when someone says

Canadians are polite....It doesn't mean all Canadians are polite.

Collapse -
Yes...and you are parsing words
by TONI H / July 5, 2014 3:18 AM PDT

I believe that ALL Muslims here in the USA should be monitored....I DIDN'T say that all Muslims are terrorists. If they don't want to be monitored, they should be vocal about condemning all RADICAL Muslims, which only a handful are willing to do at this point, even so many years after their war against us began.

Popular Forums

Computer Newbies 10,686 discussions
Computer Help 54,365 discussions
Laptops 21,181 discussions
Networking & Wireless 16,313 discussions
Phones 17,137 discussions
Security 31,287 discussions
TVs & Home Theaters 22,101 discussions
Windows 7 8,164 discussions
Windows 10 2,657 discussions


Your favorite shows are back!

Don’t miss your dramas, sitcoms and reality shows. Find out when and where they’re airing!