PDA

View Full Version : NSA: Our Systems Are Too Complex To Stop Deleting Evidence



PorkChopSandwiches
06-10-2014, 07:51 PM
The National Security Agency is making an ironic excuse for why it can’t stop deleting data evidence that could be used against it, despite receiving multiple court orders to stop – it doesn’t know how.

Technology focused privacy group Electronic Frontier Foundation, which currently has a case pending against NSA alleging the agency illegally intercepted client data, discovered through a Justice Department email slip-up last week that the agency was deleting evidence it had already been ordered to keep by multiple courts.

After failing to comply with an order to retain data collected under both executive authority and Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act authority, DOJ claimed in March it misunderstood the order to read it only had to keep data acquired under the former. Pointing to documents proving otherwise, a FISA Court judge accused the department of attempting to mislead the court, and again ordered the retention of data in both circumstances.

Upon learning the destruction of such data was still going on, EFF immediately filed a restraining order against NSA and DOJ, which California U.S. District Judge Jeffrey White issued against the government the same day along with a demand for an immediate explanation from the government for violating the March order.

The signals intelligence agency responded with a request for the court to immediately overturn its order, and that failing to do so would force the agency to shut down a significant portion of NSA’s surveillance apparatus.

“A requirement to preserve all data acquired under section 702 presents significant operational problems, only one of which is that the NSA may have to shut down all systems and databases that contain Section 702 information,” NSA Deputy Director Richard Ledgett wrote in the agency’s response, along with its intention to file a follow-up explanation.

According to Ledgett, NSA systems are too complex for such a request, and following through with the court’s order would have ”an immediate, specific, and harmful impact on the national security of the United States.”

“Communications acquired pursuant to Section 702 reside within multiple databases contained on multiple systems and the precise manner in which NSA stays consistent with its legal obligations under the [FISA Amendments Act] has resulted from years of detailed interaction” with the FISA Court and the Department of Justice.

The agency only successfully destroys data ”via a combination of technical and human-based processes,” Ledgett wrote.

FBD
06-10-2014, 08:02 PM
what a fucking joke, right

PorkChopSandwiches
06-10-2014, 08:16 PM
Nobody gives a shit, they just do what ever they want and nobody will even do anything about it other than file paperwork

KevinD
06-10-2014, 08:16 PM
CYA you mofos. We're gonna get you eventually.

Hal-9000
06-10-2014, 08:18 PM
*prays for the EMP*

Lambchop
06-10-2014, 09:51 PM
Sledgehammers are too complex? hohohoho

Destroy that shit you bastards

Acid Trip
06-10-2014, 09:53 PM
So are they saying they built Skynet and now they can't shut it down?

Hal-9000
06-10-2014, 09:59 PM
So are they saying they built Skynet and now they can't shut it down?


*touches nose*

That's what I'm reading too...ffs if you can't manage your own database in the days that precede AI, we're going to be in big shit when that happens

PorkChopSandwiches
06-11-2014, 12:20 AM
So are they saying they built Skynet and now they can't shut it down?

They conveniently can't stop the destruction of the evidence of their own wrong doing. but have no fear your personal data is still intact

Muddy
06-11-2014, 01:05 AM
So are they saying they built Skynet and now they can't shut it down?

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/501be618-efcf-11e3-9b4c-00144feabdc0.html#ixzz34HwBjwfu


June 10, 2014 6:57 pm

Thinking machines are ripe for a world takeover

By Anjana Ahuja
Tech visionaries are willing to spend to simulate human intelligence, writes Anjana Ahuja
If it looks like a duck and sounds like a duck, then it probably is a duck. That is the inelegant logic behind one of the challenges posed in artificial intelligence: the Turing test, which sets out to answer the question, “can machines think?”
The stroke of genius from Alan Turing, the second world war codebreaker, was to recognise that while actual sentience in machines is virtually impossible to verify, the illusion of sentience is absolutely testable. He proposed that if a machine could “converse” with a person so convincingly that the user thinks they are interacting with a real person, then that machine can be said to think.

FBD
06-11-2014, 02:05 PM
I think the concept of a computer "thinking" is utterly ridiculous. Computers process fkn pre programmed algorithms and nothing more.


Porky is spot on here. They wont get rid of illegal US citizen data, but they can unwittingly and accidentally and UNCONTROLLABLY delete evidence of their wrongdoings?!?!?! Who the fuck are they kidding?

Acid Trip
06-11-2014, 02:09 PM
I think the concept of a computer "thinking" is utterly ridiculous. Computers process fkn pre programmed algorithms and nothing more.


Porky is spot on here. They wont get rid of illegal US citizen data, but they can unwittingly and accidentally and UNCONTROLLABLY delete evidence of their wrongdoings?!?!?! Who the fuck are they kidding?

NSA spokesman says "Oh yeah, what the fuck are you gonna do about it?"

Hal-9000
06-11-2014, 03:04 PM
I think the concept of a computer "thinking" is utterly ridiculous. Computers process fkn pre programmed algorithms and nothing more.


Porky is spot on here. They wont get rid of illegal US citizen data, but they can unwittingly and accidentally and UNCONTROLLABLY delete evidence of their wrongdoings?!?!?! Who the fuck are they kidding?


I'm sorry Dave, I don't agree with you :)

FBD
06-11-2014, 03:15 PM
Sorry Hal, you're a pre programmed algorithm, and the moment I say something beyond your programming, you are stumped :razz:

Hal-9000
06-11-2014, 03:20 PM
IF THIS, THEN ...WHAAA? :confused:



How about this....cutting edge PC's can be programmed with a variety of responses to the above, rather than one. Then the pc can choose the best operator from a host of choices..based on other factors

Muddy
06-11-2014, 05:22 PM
Sorry Hal, you're a pre programmed algorithm, and the moment I say something beyond your programming, you are stumped :razz:

Just because you can start fire with your nipples doesn't mean you are smarter than Hal..

PorkChopSandwiches
06-11-2014, 05:25 PM
:rofl:

FBD
06-11-2014, 05:56 PM
:lol:

FBD
06-11-2014, 06:00 PM
IF THIS, THEN ...WHAAA? :confused:



How about this....cutting edge PC's can be programmed with a variety of responses to the above, rather than one. Then the pc can choose the best operator from a host of choices..based on other factorsProgramming algorithms can be decently rich and complex, so really, how "smart" the computer is is merely reflective of the group that wrote the processing code.

I know about the argument about what constitutes being sufficient for sentience, but a complex problem solving algorithm dont cut it in my book, sentience goes way beyond the ability to do some problem solving. "Life" isnt necessarily just the ability to mitigate some choices in front of you, and sentience doesnt necessarily mean you're good at it either :D

Hal-9000
06-11-2014, 06:12 PM
Just because you can start fire with your nipples doesn't mean you are smarter than Hal..


:dance: feelin the love, thx

Hal-9000
06-11-2014, 06:15 PM
Programming algorithms can be decently rich and complex, so really, how "smart" the computer is is merely reflective of the group that wrote the processing code.

I know about the argument about what constitutes being sufficient for sentience, but a complex problem solving algorithm dont cut it in my book, sentience goes way beyond the ability to do some problem solving. "Life" isnt necessarily just the ability to mitigate some choices in front of you, and sentience doesnt necessarily mean you're good at it either :D

Certainly, I understand the limitations...I'm merely saying that pc's will start a more complex decision making process as opposed to the old - if this, then that scenario. The machine will start making choices rather than choice...and that is one of my biggest fears btw. We can't classify it as true sentience and therein lay the problem.

They will make 'hal choices' based on preprogrammed info, even if the choice harms someone.

Lambchop
06-11-2014, 06:22 PM
I hope they upload my *personality* onto a server filled with Japanese schoolgirl porn and German schiesser movies one day. That would be truly wonderful.

Hal-9000
06-11-2014, 06:25 PM
I hope they upload my brain functions into a Japanese schoolgirl's body....then Imma murder that vagina with all sorts of foreign objects...