Journal Community


Explore Group

Is NSA surveillance of all Americans essential to national security or unreasonable search and seizure?


« »
Recommend a comment by clicking the recommendation icon

    Yes, and especially in religious circles. Some say certain religions are more prone to terrorists ... I say ALL should be looked into it is the place least expected. How about a Catholic church used by a terrorist ... and I might point out ... Catholic clergy have used the Catholic church to encourage rebels ... try Guatemala. And besides that ... maybe they can get a handle on the pedophile priests who have been shuffled from country to country. Yes, we certainly need someone checking in on us because there are those who abuse the system - and apparently they live undetected as our neighbors.




    Re: IRS Scrutiny of Non-profits, Freedom of the Press, Benghazi, ObamaCare, etc., etc…

    Overall surveillance is unconstitutional. It’s a way to steal trade secrets, inventions, creative ideas, future information about mergers that are in private discussion, advance information on securities before press release, etc., etc.

    2 Recommendations


      Large portions of Europe's government institutions and corporations have migrated away from Microsoft Windows towards Linux because their governments discovered that the US was capable of intercepting their communications and was passing along confidential information to US corporations.

      The Europeans were wondering how it was possible for US corporations to keep winning bids by seemingly knowing what the European bids contained. They assumed they had a leak and discovered the US was the agent involved.

      Linux is much more secure than Windows since the entire operating environment is open source and anyone can eyeball the code. It's tough to hide malicious code when the whole world has a chance to examine it.

      1 Recommendation


    this is antwaun stanfield i think so because we need that.thank you.


  • "In the name of National Security" is way overblown.

    How would you like to be sitting in front of a tribunal that opens your "hearing" with this statement..."

    "This is not a court of law, and strict rules of evidence are not applicable. However, the Board will exercise the right conferred by XXXX Department order to impose reasonable restrictions as to relevancy, competency and materiality of matters considered so that the hearing shall not be unduly prolonged.

    I wish to call you attention, Mr. XXX, to the fact that there is before this Board some confidential information which cannot be divulged for reasons of security. The Board will take into consideration to the best of its ability the fact that this information is not available to you and will weigh the evidence accordingly. It is our sincere wish to protect you from unfounded accusations, and the fact that you are unable to confront certain confidential informants will accordingly be taken into account in evaluating the charges. You and your counsel have the right to control the sequence of your witnesses."

    These are a direct quote from an official (obviously kangaroo) court transcript.

    What happened to the part about being able to confront ones accusers in a court of law?

    Cue George Clooney's "Good Night & Good Luck" scene where two Air Force goons are taking the position that Sgt Radulovich's (sp?) record/activities have been reviewed by "people who know." Clooney asks: "By whom?" The AF guys of course stone wall Clooney.

    5 Recommendations


      That's not very sporting of you.

      How do you expect the tyranny deniers to respond to this?

      We know they don't have a rational reason for their position, they just fear a mythical enemy when the real one is staring them in the face. Now you're trying to get them to look at something really ugly done by the supposed "good guys".

      Thank You very much!

      1 Recommendation

      • Bill -

        Thank you for the kind words.

        BTW... that "court" statement is from an actual transcript of a victim standing up & calling J Edgar Hoover a liar. With evidence to prove it. As is typical of any good bully, Hoover turned tail & looked for someone else to torment in the name of "national security."

        - Oliver

        2 Recommendations

  • File this under "searching for keywords"

    For a Robert Frost poem with 13 simple words, with an average of 10 meanings per word, this produces the need to probe 3.6 trillion combinations.

    When one adds jargon, slang, acronyms, cultural meanings, etc. the meanings per term skyrockets. So what does "bomb" mean? Something that kills people? Or what the opening night play was?



      I'm a professional software developer. I did "white hat" hacking for corporate accounts to test their security.

      If you're suggesting that the amount of computational power to do those combinations renders the attempt futile, you're incorrect. About $10,000 worth of hardware will zip through them.

      Hackers use such hardware to run through the combinations and permutations of the 26 letter of the alphabet, the ten digits and the symbolic characters on your keyboard plus hidden characters for a total of 255 unique items. It's done every day to crack passwords.

      It isn't necessary to use the brute force approach alone. Once a significant word is discovered, a subset dictionary is used to scan the remainder. That subset limits the next found word to place both in context towards a complete thought. A continual refinement quickly discovers the gist of the message and then flags it for a person to investigate.


      • Did you read "Ambiguous Words?"

        The nut of the challenge here is as you point out the "subset dictionary"... which I will take to mean context.

        How do I know that the context of the message generation side is same as the receiver? Does the receiver know the sender's context?

        How does the receiver detect sarcasm?

        While I've never dealt with cracking passwords, I expect it would be trivial compared to understanding messages.



      Just look at a Google search. They do what you're suggesting every day. They provide search in context, and also some junk you don't care to see, and they do it in under 1 second. If they wanted to they could take more time, and refine their guess as to what you want.

      Check out this article:


      • If that's what you see in Google, so be it.

        Google is working from a tremendous amount of context packaging surrounding the entires they return. Most of what Google gloriously returns to us is written by humans for human consumption. People & websites WANT to be found.

        How well does Google do when the context isn't available?


  • LIke watching Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy... spooks so involved in a game of espionage that simply does not matter... Intelligence? hardly - cluelessness - chasing their tails... waste of time, talent, treasure - Yes. Relevant? Negative. End of the day - these "communication officers" in our embassies simply know little more than where to get pastries and laté. Sad, pitiful - if the taxpayer had any clue...


  • @Bill -

    I do not equate cracking passwords & Google & pawing through phone records as similar efforts.

    For one, the output of a cracked password does not convey any expectation of meaning.

    For Google... how frequently do you go beyond the first page, ignoring the remaining 50,000,000 hits?

    Looking at phone records means you have to look at & (hopefully) understand everything. The last think you look at could prove or disprove the thesis of good guy or bad guy.


    • Mr. Graham, the other commenter [Bill Gradwohl] is essentially correct. The computers at NSA use a variety of algorithms and programs that provide the means to "read" through a volume of information at speeds virtually unimaginable by the casual person [and not only in English]. And that is not including the satellites and other sources so don't even assume we are speaking only of "computer postings" and similar activity.



      I gave my professional background.

      Cracking passwords was meant to show that the number of combinations isn't a problem provided you have sufficient processing power. I mentioned Google because its a well known resource.

      You are apparently not in the computer business. This topic is so immense that a post here and there can't do it justice. In a fraction of a second, computers can take apart a stream of data and classify it. That IS what Google does so well, only they stop very early in the process and hand you their results. What the NSA has is a refinement of the technique Google employs.

      Brute force computational horsepower coupled with known algorithms can decide what a data stream contains with amazing accuracy. The data center the NSA is constructing in Utah will have the computational power to get the job done. Make no mistake about it. I wish it were otherwise.


      • Try Googling VENONA.

        I do not dispute the brute force processing power.

        What I dispute is the ability to understand meaning & context.

        Did you read "Ambiguous Words?" Do you know who the author is? Without referring to the essay, what is his major contribution to the world of machine translation?


    • @Oliver Graham. Mr. Graham, if you are aware of Boolean algebra, or if you do some basic reading on the subject [not Wiki], then you will "get some idea" of how these systems work. But, keep in mind this is only basic. One of the most important careers at NSA is that of mathematician. What they do is well beyond the comprehension of most people.


      • @Wm Moss -

        Boolean algebra... is that related to bowling?

        Last I knew these guys put their pants on one leg at a time, just like everyone else.

        Let me come at this another way... are you familiar with the Son Tay Raid & why it failed? (not sure if Wikipedia edition say why it failed)... that'll take a bit more life experience.

        Or... even better, have your read "The Cuckoo's Egg?"


    • Mr. Graham, I am familiar with the Son Tay Raid and the intelligence failure. However, given the time frame [1970] one cannot compare that situation with what would have been available today with "real time" intelligence using satellite imagery and/or other assets.

      As for the book The Cuckoo's Egg, no, I have not read the book and am not able to comment accordingly. However, I fail to see how the Son Tay Raid, and perhaps the book, relate to the issue at hand.

      I'm also unsure if you are serious about the Boolean algebra part but assuming you are, it is a mathematical model used by Google and others to narrow a selection using qualifiers. Thus, the more terms you enter into a Google search the narrower the search results. Time to move on; best wishes Mr. Graham.


      • Mr Moss -

        Evidently you're unfamiliar with why/how the Son Tay raid failed?

        WHY Son Tay failed has not changed one iota from then to today. SR-71s or satellites... makes no difference.

        The underlying theme I think I detect here is that since the IC has massively powerful computers, plus magical algorithms, they will be able to arrive at reasonably accurate answers, perhaps because they have Massive Data?

        Why would you assume that?



    Our letters are our busines, our e-mails, sms, skipes, also are our busines; but marxists administrations don't konw de Word "private", and Obama's kingdom rules no different.


  • Getting straight answers from the government should top the list. But maybe this will help stimulate your thoughts:



      How can you tell when a politician is lying?

      You know the answer. We all know the answer and yet people insist on electing one liar after another. Very few see that we need to get rid of the system that forces us to accept these sociopaths and even hail them as "leaders" when in fact they are the worst the society has on offer.

      I want the idea of government to vanish. It is the concept of government that is the problem. Once you allow a con artist to "rule" over you. you've handed him/her your life.

      1 Recommendation

      • Are you aware the FBI had (has?) training to teach agents to lie effectively when they're on the stand & under oath.


      • Bill, Government can't 'vanish'. 300,000,000 people in this country doing whatever they pleased would lead to death, destruction on an unimaginable scale.

        Government is ESSENTIAL. Its' scale, breadth, and intrusiveness are what must be managed. The RULE OF LAW (not rule by career politicians) is essential too.

        Even a single term limit on all elected offices would be a start, but politicians are so enamoured with power, that the odds of them passing such a measure are zip. Our system is broken, and I don't know how to fix it.

        1 Recommendation

    • Not funny at all is that he was either lying in 2007 when he made this speech, or his beliefs have changed 100% since then, or he's lying now, or he's just a puppet mouthing whatever appears on the teleprompter...

      Not even sure which prospect I find scariest...

      1 Recommendation


        @ C. J. HALL

        I've heard it said before that government is absolutely necessary and I don't believe a word of it.

        Most of the people I've dealt with in my life are reasonable individuals. Yes, some I wouldn't trust in a business deal, but not one of them seemed the type to become an ogre. That there would be thugs and criminals is an absolute certainty, and I'm equally as certain that street justice would take care of them quickly as in the old west days.

        A form of government would arise naturally. Everyone would be armed and dangerous. That's as it should be. There would be no over powering force (swat team) as there is today simply standing around waiting for some event. The community would be the police. There would be no need for a standing army as the nation as a whole would be that army and no one in his right mind would consider attacking the US. The USSR's documents showed that even with the limited number of weapons controlled by the US populace, the red army was loathe to invade as they knew they couldn't hold territory.

        Government is an outgrowth of religion and mysticism. Today, people are more educated and can see for themselves that government inevitably leads to what we have now.


  • Interesting the survey above says 17% believe this is essential to National Security...
    About the same percentage as believe Elvis is still alive.

    1 Recommendation

« »
To add a comment please
Create an Account

Your real name is required
for commenting.

  • Clear
  • Post
Your Profile Here…

Set up your profile to connect with members of Journal Community.


Your Groups Here…

