Intelligence Program Gives US Government Direct Access to Customer Data on Apple Servers [Update: Apple Denies]

[Frenchjay]

Peter Thiel and Alex Karp are the CEO's of Palantir Technologies that may have supplied the software for PRISM, both are at Bilderberg 2013.

http://www.businessinsider.com/pris...billion-tech-startup-funded-by-the-cia-2013-6

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palantir_Technologies

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/pol...Balls-to-attend-Bilderberg-Group-meeting.html <--- list with names


This is where it gets interesting although they have denied supplying the PRISM software. Palantir once suggested doing a smear campaign against Glenn Greenwald that broke the story on the US spy programme and PRISM.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/andygre...ileaks-attack-proposal-cuts-ties-with-hbgary/


So, we can see that people attending the Bilderberg may directly be involved in the actual PRISM spy programme and they suggested a black propaganda plot on Glenn Greenwald from the Guardian.

 

[3282868]

You didn't lose your innocence... It's not like that particular medicine is the only option!

Very well stated, thank you. It is a shame we allowed our fears to dominate our senses, zealotry to quench our blood thirst, and politicians to strip away our rights. This isn't a partisan issue, not even an American issue, rather a global epidemic. We have allowed our elected officials to manipulate us through rhetoric, dividing us further until we have become so antagonistic towards one another we stopped paying attention. We need to work together, collectively, forgetting party lines and realizing we all want the same thing, let's find a way to get there.

P.S. if you're adopting, let me know. Or sponsoring, or have anyone who needs to get married. I love hockey and brooming!

 

[Nuvi]

Intelligence Program Gives US Government Direct Access to Customer Data on Ap...

After 9/11 the major problem intelligence agencies had with terrorists was their low tech approach towards communication. They don't use telephone or Internet instead they use couriers to deliver the message. Now suddenly government and intelligence community are saying programs like PRISM are here to protect the world from terrorism. I don't buy that. The only valid use for system like that is its dragnet approach of gathering information from ordinary civilians who have nothing to do with terrorism. Maybe they can use this information to gather vox pop from areas of interest but that's far as the information goes. Hell, they couldn't even stop few kids blowing a bomb in Boston so how the hell they think they suddenly can get anything useful out of their system.

 

[stylinexpat]

Big brother is always watching

Always lol..

Here you can see companies denying this..

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/...9551EU20130607

Here you can see the government basically thanking Facebook.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/...9550VW20130606

If you ask me, everything from calls,messages,emails and just about every platform and application is shared with the government in the US.

This guy would have been better off not having a Facebook account.

 

[seble]

Always lol..

Here you can see companies denying this..

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/...9551EU20130607

Here you can see the government basically thanking Facebook.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/...9550VW20130606

If you ask me, everything from calls,messages,emails and just about every platform and application is shared with the government in the US.

This guy would have been better off not having a Facebook account.

It would appear your links are invalid...

 

[tmoerel]

Piss off less people

The funny thing is all these kind of measures cost a fortune...as do 'wars' abroad.

How about the US tries to 'Piss off less people' by leaving the countries they have occupied, by being less of a global cop and by leaving other cultures and countries in their values.
When less people are pissed off with you then less people will want to piss you off!

But then again....it is all about money and US corporations so it will never change. The US are run by money and not by common sense!

 

[benthewraith]

Now Verizon just happened to be the lucky carrier that had the document leak but I wonder if AT&T, Sprint, T Mobile, and the smaller carriers are also complying with the NSA and handing over daily records on their users.

How do you feel?

This article from the Wall Street Journal confirms that, yes, the government is in fact monitoring AT&T and Sprint.

The disclosure this week of an order by a secret U.S. court for Verizon Communications Inc.'s VZ +0.54% phone records set off the latest public discussion of the program. But people familiar with the NSA's operations said the initiative also encompasses phone-call data from AT&T Inc. T -1.01% and Sprint Nextel Corp., S -1.36% records from Internet-service providers and purchase information from credit-card providers.

 

[progx]

By the way, why support a person who preaches "change" but does not commit to it, essentially lying to his base?

I like Obama's personality. He has a calm demeanor. I like what he stood for until the Democrats, and some Republicans, started to take advantage of him. My favorite example is Obamacare, his initial idea was an auxiliary government healthcare system in place for people who could not afford it. He believed in reevaluating teachers and their performances, but like all good things, change is what Democrats and Republicans don't want because it affects their money flow.

Let's say, I had an eye opener six months into his first term, why did I elect a "change" candidate when no one around him wants to do it themselves? Both parties have neutralized him. The president does NOT have the authority to make changes by himself. He needs support from Congress, which is resisting everything these days. Aside from spending less, attempting to initiate change for healthcare, getting us out of Iraq and nailing Osama, he won't be the change candidate we hoped for because we didn't give him any backup on the hill.

----------

What is there to support?

Good question. Jill Stein and Gary Johnson were the only two other options I found

 

[Josh125]

On the same day Obama insisted that the secret programes were subjected "not only to congressional oversight but judicial oversight" his administration employes the state secrets privilege. I can't imagine how anyone can defend him at this point.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/07/us-government-special-privilege-scrutiny-data

 

[undies1993]

I like Obama's personality. He has a calm demeanor. I like what he stood for until the Democrats, and some Republicans, started to take advantage of him. My favorite example is Obamacare, his initial idea was an auxiliary government healthcare system in place for people who could not afford it. He believed in reevaluating teachers and their performances, but like all good things, change is what Democrats and Republicans don't want because it affects their money flow.

Let's say, I had an eye opener six months into his first term, why did I elect a "change" candidate when no one around him wants to do it themselves? Both parties have neutralized him. The president does NOT have the authority to make changes by himself. He needs support from Congress, which is resisting everything these days. Aside from spending less, attempting to initiate change for healthcare, getting us out of Iraq and nailing Osama, he won't be the change candidate we hoped for because we didn't give him any backup on the hill.

Even though he does NOT have the authority to make changes by himself, you give him the credit for initiating a healthcare bill, getting us out of Iraq (which we aren't by the way) and nailing Osama… makes sense.

The Republicans and Democrats have one thing in mind, money. If they can work together to separate the country they can keep the money in their pockets.

 

[scoobydoo99]

Yeah, I read that quote on another comment after posting my comment and immediately started doubting myself. Still, if the NSA is really looking into our personal data, what can we do? Anything below a revolution seems redundant. A protest/signature-campaign may get the NSA to say, "We'll shut it down" but there's no guarantee they actually would.

True. I have no expectation that anything will change. The people will continue to allow it under the "If you don't have anything to hide, who cares?" mantra. One day - whether in 50 years, 100 years, or whatever - the time will come for those in a position of power to seize absolute power. At that time, all the surveillance, technology, social media databases, facial recognition databases, etc will be used with ruthless precision on the population.

And we allowed it to start now.

 

[undies1993]

The funny thing is all these kind of measures cost a fortune...as do 'wars' abroad.

How about the US tries to 'Piss off less people' by leaving the countries they have occupied, by being less of a global cop and by leaving other cultures and countries in their values.
When less people are pissed off with you then less people will want to piss you off!

But then again....it is all about money and US corporations so it will never change. The US are run by money and not by common sense!

Besides the US is imperialist.

 

[Eraserhead]

On the same day Obama insisted that the secret programes were subjected "not only to congressional oversight but judicial oversight" his administration employes the state secrets privilege. I can't imagine how anyone can defend him at this point.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/07/us-government-special-privilege-scrutiny-data

The Republicans wouldn't do any different.

Frankly I think it is the people's fault. Look at the hysteria over the non-incident in Boston which killed so few people you can count them on one hand. To put it in perspective about as many people die in road accidents every 90 minutes.

 

[Josh125]

The Republicans wouldn't do any different.

...but they aren't in the office. A President who campaigned on transparency is.

Frankly I think it is the people's fault. Look at the hysteria over the non-incident in Boston which killed so few people you can count them on one hand. To put it in perspective about as many people die in road accidents every 90 minutes.

I agree with your point but disagree with how you got there. Terror attacks on the public /= car accidents.

 

[Eraserhead]

A President who campaigned on transparency is.

Which I suppose makes him a hypocrite which the Republicans probably aren't as they would generally be more straightforward about it.

I agree with your point but disagree with how you got there. Terror attacks on the public /= car accidents.

I agree that the Boston Marathon bombing deserved greater coverage than an average road accident.

 

[Josh125]

Which I suppose makes him a hypocrite which the Republicans probably aren't as they would generally be more straightforward about it.

The point I'm trying to make is the man in power today, right now, not years ago, is committing one of the worst civil rights infringements in the history of the United States. This has nothing to do with what the Republicans might have done, better or worse. I'm not disagreeing with you, I'm simply stating it is irrelevant.

 

[Eraserhead]

The point I'm trying to make is the man in power today, right now, not years ago, is committing one of the worst civil rights infringements in the history of the United States.

That's not true. This has been going on since 9/11 at the very least.

And the Republicans control the House - so they aren't exactly not in government.

 

[old-wiz]

No surprise.

I think we've reached a state where the government can find out pretty much anything about us, whether they get the info legally or not.

Just think of the opportunities for the government from the Microsoft Xbox 1 with the required kinect camera and microphone! Imagine if the government could get ahold of that feed perhaps through a backdoor. They could see what you were doing in the living room and what you were saying. that is scary!

 

[aerok]

On the same day Obama insisted that the secret programes were subjected "not only to congressional oversight but judicial oversight" his administration employes the state secrets privilege. I can't imagine how anyone can defend him at this point.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/07/us-government-special-privilege-scrutiny-data

People will defend him the same way people will critisize him no matter what.

 

[undies1993]

It is just the day after this news came out, and no one seems to care...

----------

I guess everyone believes it when Clapper said, “It continues to be one of our most important tools for the protection of the nation’s security.”

 

[SeaFox]

It is just the day after this news came out, and no one seems to care...

What would you have people do?

 

[undies1993]

What would you have people do?

Stop electing representativs so blindly. Demand that one's political party provides better options.

 

[rdowns]

What would you have people do?

Um, hello, well-organized militia ring a bell? I fully expect them to take up arms over this tyranny.

 

[SeaFox]

Stop electing representativs so blindly. Demand that one's political party provides better options.

Yes, they can all withhold their votes until a meaningful candidate presents himself... except then what happens is the few people who do vote are either on the side of wanting the police-state or too stupid to know the candidates are poor options.

So the tyrant gets elected anyway. The only difference is the polls report record low turnout.

Not voting for the wrong people requires:

1. There is a "right" person -- and keep in mind this means being able to tell a good leader from a person who promises to be a good leader and then does something completely different once he's in office.
2. There is a minimum number of votes required to win. Since things are currently all percentage-based, all not-voting does is makes things easier for the wrong person to win. You can do a write-in vote, yes. But without all those write-ins directed to the same person you might as well not vote at all as to how it effects the election. Evil Candidate A with 25% of the votes still wins if the 75% others are all directed to different people.

Um, hello, well-organized militia ring a bell? I fully expect them to take up arms over this tyranny.

Okay! When are you headed to the front lines?

Oh, you can't? Why not?

And you think other people don't have the same reason?

 

[undies1993]

Yes, they can all withhold their votes until a meaningful candidate presents himself... except then what happens is the few people who do vote are either on the side of wanting the police-state or too stupid to know the candidates are poor options.

So the tyrant gets elected anyway. The only difference is the polls report record low turnout.

Not voting for the wrong people requires:

1. There is a "right" person -- and keep in mind this means being able to tell a good leader from a person who promises to be a good leader and then does something completely different once he's in office.
2. There is a minimum number of votes required to win. Since things are currently all percentage-based, all not-voting does is makes things easier for the wrong person to win. You can do a write-in vote, yes. But without all those write-ins directed to the same person you might as well not vote at all as to how it effects the election. Evil Candidate A with 25% of the votes still wins if the 75% others are all directed to different people.

1. How do we get a right person?
2. Write ins don't count ever.

So now I ask you, what can we do? I would hope that scandals would kill a party and make them provide better candidates, but they still get away with it.