[tor-talk] EFF "Who Has Your Back" report

[Joe Btfsplk]

On 5/21/2014 7:41 AM, krishna e bera wrote:
> A recent EFF report [0] purports to show that many companies are
> becoming more proactive in defence of internet users' privacy.  It rates
> companies on how well they protect data from government requests.  This
> makes some of these companies *such as Google look very good for privacy*.
"Google looking good for privacy" is hilarious (comment not aimed at the 
OP).
> ... Further, it [the report] narrowly focuses on government requests, omitting to consider that companies may have standing offers to sell data and metadata to governments or other entities....
Thanks for the links.  PBS' Frontline recently aired a very in depth, 
2-part show on the NSA's general surveillance activities (&  other 
related issues) since the 9/11 attacks.  Best I remember, they didn't 
contain much new, ground shaking news (beyond what's been reported, over 
a long, drawn out period), but did a pretty good job at creating a 
timeline for who knew / said what, when.  It did show several powerful 
people, incl. NSA officials & U.S. president, lying like dogs to 
Congress & the press / American public.  Shows aired on PBS are often 
available online, for free.

A seldom mentioned fact is, even if companies aren't regularly "selling" 
user data to a gov't (they *absolutely* are selling it to other, 
non-gov't entities),  they often charge requesting LEAs large sums to 
gather & assemble the requested data (make reports). Some of the actual 
invoices for fees charged for these services are public (were released 
by the companies) & available for inspection.  I've seen invoices from 
say, major mobile phone providers, like Verizon, Sprint.  They aren't 
just getting "a few bucks to cover costs" when they gather the requested 
data & prepare reports; it is quite costly.

That income (from data requested in criminal proceedings or "National 
Security Letters", etc.) may be a small portion of their bottom line.
As Krishna mentioned, no one knows (yet) what other transactions may be 
occurring.  Some of Snowden's released NSA documents show that sometimes 
the NSA just takes (hacks, acquires, monitors... steals) what it wants 
for the Googles, Yahoos - so why pay large sums?  It would only make 
sense if paying the companies was far less expensive & faster, than 
secretly "borrowing" the data.  But if companies have an agreement to 
sell data, an agency like NSA must worry about secrecy (even if only a 
couple people at each company know about it).

If after the Snowden released documents, anyone thinks that the wildest 
imaginable "conspiracy theory" about any gov't activity isn't completely 
possible, there's something wrong.  (Some diehard "W" supporters still 
believed there were WMDs in Iraq, yrs into the Iraq war, despite massive 
intelligence to the contrary.  *"I've made up my mind, don't confuse me 
with facts."*

Soon, the public will forget(1) that Snowden exposed - as absolute 
truth, the formerly "crazy, conspiracy theories" about gov't 
surveillance (gov'ts all over the world possibly do the same things at 
varying levels).   Things previously thought to be *so impossible* w/ 
current technology, ...or so illegal / impossible to do under current 
laws & the constitution, that anyone suggesting them was immediately 
labeled a nut.  But everything imagined about secret gov't activities - 
& more - *beyond our wildest dreams, turned out to be fact.*

And, as incredible as everything that Snowden obtained is, it very 
likely only scratches the surface of all the surveillance & data 
gathering activies (same goes for other gov'ts).
Even so, any new theories about (any) gov'ts activities or capabilities 
will once again be labeled as conspiracy theories.

(1) Just as the illegal collection of internet data *did not stop* after 
the exposure - many yrs ago - of AT&T sharing it's internet traffic w/ 
NSA, the release of Snowden's documents won't stop most of the exposed 
programs & activities.  But avg citizens & a fair number of intelligent, 
suspicious citizens will believe (assume) that just because the 
activities & programs were exposed - using the gov'ts own documentation 
- that the activities will largely stop.

Why would anyone assume that the general internet surveillance stopped 
after Mark Klein, a former AT&T technician, 1st exposed it in 2004 - 
later confirmed by journalists & others?  Is it because that's what 
always happens when illegal gov't activities are exposed?  It shouldn't 
be, because their tactics often don't change, just because they were 
exposed.  Being exposed is a mere bump in the road, to a 500 lb gorilla, 
that "sleeps anywhere it wants."

Articles from *way back* in 2005 - 2006, on the initial claim of AT&T 
sharing internet users' data w/ the NSA.
http://www.salon.com/2006/06/21/att_nsa/  _Is the NSA spying on U.S. 
Internet traffic?_
http://www.sanfranciscosentinel.com/?p=6762  _SAN FRANCISCO AT&T OFFICE 
OPENED TO NSA SURVEILLANCE PROGRAM, former AT&T technician this week 
tells Washington DC lawmakers_
Note:  dozens of articles are available on internet, by reputable 
journalists reporting on this incident; and an official Congressional 
investigation into it.  All that was soon forgotten & *? SOMEHOW ?* 
Congress & the public were surprised at revelations of Snowden's 
documents.  Given the historical record of many world gov'ts in similar 
situations (in principle), *why was anyone surprised by the information 
in the Snowden documents?*


>    
>
>