This is a tad concerning indeed, but hey, it's the world we live in, and I don't realistically expect it to get any "better."
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Intelligence Program Gives US Government Direct Access to Customer Data on Apple Servers [Update: Apple Denies]
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Not the least bit surprised by this. To be honest I would have been more surprised if we found out our government wasn't doing domestic spying.
It can easily be true they didn't hear of PRISM until the question was asked because it was classified.apple said:
It can easily be true they didn't provide any government agency with direct access to our servers.
It can easily be true that any government agency requesting customer data must get a court order. The court orders are real, are secret themselves, and part of the order is to not discuss them.
So the statement can both be true and the disclosures could have been widely made for a long time.
The problem being this program is under a different code section so denying it under one but operating it under another is misdirection.gubbment said:
Everyone involved are trained and skilled and backed by a large bureaucracy to engage in "suspended disbelief", "misdirection" and other techniques.
Bottom line is Echelon and its superceeding programs Hoover up all communications inside the USA and all around the world for constant automated analysis and human analysis of flagged items including looking back essentially since the program started. Sen. Reed admitted publicly in a press conference yesterday that goes back 7 years. The reality is closer to 14.
The current public debate involving Verizon is over "meta-data". Meta-data is sooo not the real or whole problem if you believe in The Constitution.
Rocketman
Last edited:
As far as I know all US companies are obliged to deny all cooperation with the NSA or other agencies concerning data access by them.
This way it's understandable that they all deny it, while some officials don't do so.
Oh please! Bush could have done everything that Obama's been caught doing, but he didn't:
3. Obama has broadened the scope of the Bush plan. Take phone record surveillance. Bush used it to unearth phone calls overseas with the specific goal of tackling terrorism and when his misdeeds were exposed he created a new programme with judicial oversight to appease liberals. By contrast, Obamas administration has been monitoring all Verizon domestic calls with an indiscrimination that is an abuse even of the authoritarian Patriot Act.
Finally, Michelle Malkin raises a very good question. On the one hand, Obama recently declared that the War on Terror was basically over. On the other hand, he has stepped up efforts to carry out domestic surveillance. So, why the contradiction? Malkin concludes that while its possible that the NSA has a counter-terrorism motive, its moral cause is undermined by the attacks on political enemies and the crazy scope of the snooping. Big government likes power and it wants more.
Finally, Michelle Malkin raises a very good question. On the one hand, Obama recently declared that the War on Terror was basically over. On the other hand, he has stepped up efforts to carry out domestic surveillance. So, why the contradiction? Malkin concludes that while its possible that the NSA has a counter-terrorism motive, its moral cause is undermined by the attacks on political enemies and the crazy scope of the snooping. Big government likes power and it wants more.
2012 is when Scott Forstall left too. Probably couldn't come up with an appropriate snooping skeuomorph.
When will you and your militia buddies be taking up arms against this tyranny?
----------
Probably true but this isn't a decision that is made by one man, it's made by the BoD.
People have short memories. During the 2008-9 crash the government was preparing for anarchy and totalitarian policies "just in case". When the government crashes the economy and money when the debt bubble is actually arrived at, this may still happen.
That was avoided under the current crisis by unprecedented involvement by The Fed (Federal Reserve) to provide several trillion dollars in liquidity and quantitative easing (asset purchases), including essentially all or most of this President's deficit spending!
One "whistleblower" on TV yesterday over Prism, Echelon and a couple other spying programs noted based on his own capabilities as director of one of them, the system is specifically designed to "switch to totalitarianism" with a single order.
This is hard news.
Rocketman
That was avoided under the current crisis by unprecedented involvement by The Fed (Federal Reserve) to provide several trillion dollars in liquidity and quantitative easing (asset purchases), including essentially all or most of this President's deficit spending!
One "whistleblower" on TV yesterday over Prism, Echelon and a couple other spying programs noted based on his own capabilities as director of one of them, the system is specifically designed to "switch to totalitarianism" with a single order.
This is hard news.
Rocketman
I like the idea that Apple has denied this. It makes me very happy that they would refuse all but a warrant.
However, this issue as a whole is deeply disturbing. It really has to get you thinking-- if terrorists are out to instill fear in the populace, isn't this it? Our own government has turned on us as it pertains to surveillance. Sometimes I have no doubt this is valid, useful, and prevents catastrophes. But you really have to wonder about some of these blanket requests. Terrorists are causing us to turn on ourselves and, even if it's not with bloodshed (thank goodness) it's with that uneasy feeling that big brother really is watching you, even if you're innocent.
I hope this gets sorted out soon enough. I really don't think the Patriot act is needed, I've always hated it, and I am wary of this whole concept. At the same time, I think we need modern tools to fight modern crime. The problem seems to be that all of this is happening in the shadows. Makes you feel like our civil liberties took a giant leap backwards.
Caveat- I am an Obama supporter and generally vote democrat. I consider myself moderate to liberal. But this stinks to high heaven.
However, this issue as a whole is deeply disturbing. It really has to get you thinking-- if terrorists are out to instill fear in the populace, isn't this it? Our own government has turned on us as it pertains to surveillance. Sometimes I have no doubt this is valid, useful, and prevents catastrophes. But you really have to wonder about some of these blanket requests. Terrorists are causing us to turn on ourselves and, even if it's not with bloodshed (thank goodness) it's with that uneasy feeling that big brother really is watching you, even if you're innocent.
I hope this gets sorted out soon enough. I really don't think the Patriot act is needed, I've always hated it, and I am wary of this whole concept. At the same time, I think we need modern tools to fight modern crime. The problem seems to be that all of this is happening in the shadows. Makes you feel like our civil liberties took a giant leap backwards.
Caveat- I am an Obama supporter and generally vote democrat. I consider myself moderate to liberal. But this stinks to high heaven.
Tom, I'm a liberal that likes guns. This isn't such a black and white issue. I'm a liberal (moderate on some issues.) I think it's insane to allow guns in a city and support Bloomberg's position on gun safety. The sole reason for a gun in a city, unless you are on a range, is to kill someone. It isn't safe. We're packed in too close and the heat of an argument can be deadly.
With that said, I grew up with guns in rural upstate New York. Always used them safely with my friends from my early teens. Prior to that, I had a BB gun. I've shot pea shooter 22 hand guns and rifles, semi-auto and bolt action, all the way up to .306 calibre rifles, a .357 Magnum, and various shotguns. No machine guns, but a family friend has a small cannon that is pretty stellar. On the weekends we would go out and hunt small game. My father was a Drill Sergeant state-side during Vietnam and I learned to use a gun safely with plenty of target practice and training.
My point is that in the country where it's a recreational thing, we should have our firearms. It's not crazy, it's not scary, and as long as it's not some insane people killing gun, I say let's let people use them safely. Now that I live in a city, I understand why we shouldn't have them here. The issue is complex and nuanced, and it's not really fair to say socially liberal people don't think guns have a safe and protected role in our lives.
Osama Bin Laden himself said his attacks would have minimal loss of capital and persons, that his real goal was to be a sufficiently annoying gnat, that the USA would react by militarizing its society and substantially reduce freedoms. This was his scheme to reduce our growth as a society and as a political power.
It worked. The extent of the damage to WTC was unforseeable by him in his own words.
China Rising. He also got his wish for himself and his follower to see Allah while killing or maiming many "infidels".
Mission accomplished.
This talking point of the right wing is getting tiresome. As I posted earlier:
Obama broadened the expansion of the program? How do you (or Michelle Malkin for that matter) know that? No, you do not know that one bit. This is a top secret program and you have NO IDEA WHATSOEVER what Bush was doing with the information and NO IDEA WHATSOEVER what Obama is doing with it. And not one news story or government person has said anything about the program being expanded or not expanded. You only "think" its expanded because you are just hearing about it now. You cannot just make up accusations to fit your political view.
And he must get a pass for continuing to consciously support and implement terrible laws that strip you of your rights, amiright? Bush is responsible for the US in 2013 wholly and Obama, not one bit.
Guys PRISM has been around since 07. By my calculations Bush was president in 2007 and Obama
2008 onwards. That makes Obama more responsible by length of time of allowing this to happen does it not? And the fact that some are more tolerant of this horrendous policy, because it's Obama, and well, he's gotta have his good, well-intentions hidden somewhere in it. At the cost of losing all privacy ever, we must just blindly believe that Obama has our best interests at heart. Um..
I hold him accountable because pre-2008 election, all he campaigned for was to shoot down these invasive policies that Bush put in place, and that they were outrageous. I guess it was just fuel for his rallies, to get people to put him in office so he could do the same. He still thinks he's on an extended campaign to win over American's affection, in spite of the worst laws ever, and the joke is on him getting up at the podium and expecting people from anywhere to be fired up about his rhetoric without acting on anything. Did you not see the first presidential debate last year? He was a dial tone, without good writers, he is NOTHING.
He signed off on the Monsanto Act which allows the corporation immunity in the court system when people sue because GMO's and GE foods cause cancer as they know about it and don't care because genetically modifying things lowers costs and maximizes profits. So we are poisoning our foods and giving preference to the corporations that do this. He is a corporate puppet.
He signed off on NDAA, which allows indefinite detention of civilians without due process, for any one suspected of being a terrorist without any clarification, so granny with foreign object (a cane) could be a suspected terrorist and could be thrown into jail just because. Well, the law is used for terrorists, not for civilians. Same thing you have to say about Verizon? That there are millions of potential terrorists on that network (as well as other carriers, there's no way it's 'just Verizon' it's just Verizon is all you're hearing about for the most part right now since that's the latest piece of news). The most conniving thing is when this NDAA thing was becoming somewhat big news, he promised to veto it. Well, fast forward to New Years Eve, when nobody's paying attention to the news, most people are inebriated, and people only care about fireworks and the ball dropping, he signed it into effect. That doesn't seem very nice now does it?
Both bypass the court system, and neither for good reason.
I guess his hand is responsible for signing documents, not him as a person. Or Bush's legacy haunted him into being manipulated I suppose... Touché touché. Wait, what?!?!?!
Last edited:
oh that's cute, kids behind. I guess whatever frightening bill he is signing, MUST be for good cause!
Surely those children have read all the pages of the bill, and know in their hearts, Barack has their back.
As with the austerity measures imposed around the world, when people observe that it is not working, they are missunderstanding the point. Austerity reduces the power of labour and puts it even further in the hands of the few, well that is working fine. The US could stop terrorists threats if it wanted to immeadiatly, by quiting it's terrorising of others and it's unquestioning supprt for Israel. Terrorism serves the same function as commuinism in the past, it is something used to warrant unconstitutional actions by the government. It to is working. If you don't think that this is true, consider who the weapons that are being sent by the US into Syria are going to. Not secular freedom fighters but Al Qiada friendly fundimentalists.
According to Diane Feinstein, the court order must be renewed every 3 months. We don't know when the first warranty was issued.
But we know that it has continued under the Obama administration so he is by no means innocent. Also, if he is truly oblivious to all of this then he is the worst president in the history of the world...
First, ever? Where is the proof of that? I was just trying to show that the Obama administration is not innocent. Sometime, it has to take responsibility for its actions too.
It not just about that, its about hypocrisy - that the attacks are already being shaped like Obama started this whole thing (he didn't) or that he expanded it (we don't know that). As usual, when it comes to Obama critics, when he does the same things others have done, somehow its a million times worse.