While I wouldn't consider the comment down-vote worth as someone else deemed it, I find one part I have to respond to.
"if you're not from the US, I feel like you should have known that was a possibility."
Known exactly what was a possibility? In another comment I brought up Endgame Systems, here is some of their offerings:
'There are even target packs for democratic countries in Europe and other U.S. allies. Maui (product names tend toward alluring warm-weather locales) is a package of 25 zero-day exploits that runs clients $2.5 million a year. The Cayman botnet-analytics package gets you access to a database of Internet addresses, organization names, and worm types for hundreds of millions of infected computers, and costs $1.5 million.'
When you say 'foreigners' should have known the NSA "doing their thing" so to speak is a possibility, does that include them being exploited, or their stolen financial/personal information on botnets being used by the NSA?
I think the idea that you can trust any country that is not your own to be up to no good on the internet should be the default state of mind, even the countries that are, in other aspects, considered allies. This should be the mindset for every country and this should be communicated to their users frequently and explicitly: "If you store your data outside our borders, you probably will get screwed in some way."
NOTE: Where I said "foreigners" I probably should have written "foreign countries". The term "foreigners" reads a bit offensively on review.
As for the "stolen financial/personal information" bit, that's part of the information gathering (and technically, it's not stolen - see the whole argument on copyright). As long as the data is being used for analysis, that's a fair use for a government organization dedicated to spying. If it's being used for financial gain, that's a very grey area dependent on current laws, and if it's being turned over to or collected by private entities operating without oversight, that's just out-of-bounds.
Ultimately, the point was that one should be able to trust one's own government to be operating in one's own best interest, but never assume that another government or it's framework of laws will ever be of any help to you. If it is, then you got lucky.
"Realistically these companies don't have much choice"
Of course they do. They can comply or not. If they do not comply they may face court. Of course it is impossible to say how that court would go since none of them are making a choice to stop being co-conspirators.
"I know it for the same reason I know unicorns and leprechauns don't exist - there is no credible evidence supporting it."
Of course there is no credible evidence when evidence is known to be actively suppressed. See: 'Intel Laundering.'
Also the US boasts that spying resulted in thwarted attempts. Where are those court cases? More importantly, where are the bodies of those involved? Sure is easy to not have credible evidence when all evidence aside from one sided snippets and meaningless statistics is never published.
edit: diminoten sure shifts goal posts around a lot. Changing persons to US persons, etc.
So you're arguing that there is no evidence because the NSA is so good at what they do, they've successfully hidden all operational evidence from the public for their entire time of existence?
Is Snowden the first mistake the NSA has ever made, in your eyes, then?
edit: Tried to respond below but have been "submitting too fast" while submitting nothing for far too long to care to wait more.
I am not saying the NSA has flawless execution, you are the one repeating it for whatever reason.
I'm saying the NSA/Administration when pushed had to put out something that showed the spying was 'working.' In response they said multiples of domestic plots were foiled. Given the lack of full disclosure as to what the US's secret laws are secretly doing, we are forced to parse the headlines and the body count of the population for information on what has happened, where people went.
Problem is there is only a handful of incidents revealed to the public. The Boston bombers don't count because even though they fit NSA criteria for observation they apparently had no clue about their actions. The Al-Shabaab money provider was explicitly mentioned, so that is one.
Since we know the US kidnaps and tortures people, then makes every attempt to have the guilty escape[1], we don't require further evidence to ask the questions:
Where are the bodies, living or dead, of the others involved in domestic cases the NSA said they helped foil? The NSA says the program is for terrorists, the US government is known to rendition their victims away to be tortured under claims of them being terrorists. This has been documented enough to appease you.
If the NSA's spying program is not meant to result in the kidnapping and torture of others, what is it for? Bringing people to court?
Again, where are those involved in the domestic incidents cited as being foiled by the NSA?
So why, exactly, is there no evidence that US citizens on US soil are being "renditioned" or otherwise extrajudiciously held as a result of NSA data collection?
Because, if you'll recall, that's what we were talking about.
"Because, if you'll recall, that's what we were talking about."
This thread is called 'The NSA Is Commandeering the Internet.' Throughout it you have been attempting to diminish or shift the subject to "US citizens on US soil."
Please stop.
edit: I just noticed you took the subject of CIA renditions and attempted to turn it into a "US citizens on US soil" subject as you have done to the others in this thread. While completely ignoring the subject you made the response to.
Aside from the details that show the NSA having employees in companies install monitoring hardware worldwide? Or those that assist in providing data in return for some themselves?
None of that counts to you because "there's just no reason to believe such a thing." You are essentially saying you don't believe anything you may have read in the past few years counts as control.
What IS control then, other than the ability to control others, which the US/NSA has attempting to keep on top of since the shift in data traffic trends in the 1990s.
Did you just ask "What is control, other than the ability to control others"? Do you honestly not recognize the shell-game you're playing with that question?
You're responding to all of the things I said with tricks and games. You don't want to talk facts, so I don't want to talk with you. I'm done, unless you want to stop drawing conclusions and start painting a real picture.
Aside from the people who control the hardware, and the NSA/others seem to have control over those people, getting them to install monitoring hardware.
"I also don't like this, "us vs. them" rhetoric"
I am able to be prosecuted for creating "hacking tools" while Endgame Systems has the NSA pay them a million+ a year to access data from those "hacking tools."
'There are even target packs for democratic countries in Europe and other U.S. allies. Maui (product names tend toward alluring warm-weather locales) is a package of 25 zero-day exploits that runs clients $2.5 million a year. The Cayman botnet-analytics package gets you access to a database of Internet addresses, organization names, and worm types for hundreds of millions of infected computers, and costs $1.5 million.[1]'
In this environment of immunity granted to profiteers while my friends and I are prosecuted, it is "us vs. them."
Stop attempting to blow out meaningless opinions like "The NSA is on our side" in response to articles showing the opposite.
The US military uses weapons citizens are not allowed to own or create on a regular basis. Is Lockheed Martin or Boeing not on our side because they make fighter jets that only the US government can buy?
It's only "us vs. them" in your head. You're why we can't get jack shit done in congress - people like you get time of day from congressmen and women and then when someone like me wants to talk the same conversation (except, you know, rationally), I get lumped in with crazies like you.
Deciphering the doublespeak is tough. "Touches" implies, at least to me, data that passes through hardware controlled one way or another by the NSA or it's corporate affiliates.
It's affiliates..
That brings me to "The reality is the NSA has no physical ability to touch 1/4 of the basketball court." As we know the NSA hires corporations like Booz Allen, another such corporate entity is Endgame Systems[1]. In terms of courts Endgame dabbles in collections and offensive operations that cover the entire court:
"There are even target packs for democratic countries in Europe and other U.S. allies. Maui (product names tend toward alluring warm-weather locales) is a package of 25 zero-day exploits that runs clients $2.5 million a year."
"The Cayman botnet-analytics package gets you access to a database of Internet addresses, organization names, and worm types for hundreds of millions of infected computers, and costs $1.5 million."
The use of malware, most probably the very malware others are prosecuted for, gives the NSA a limited but as cgshaw noted valuable foothold into otherwise dark neighborhoods of the net.
That was a reasonable principle up to about a century ago, when statutory law started growing out of control and drowning out other more stable and sensible sources of law.
When legislatures churn out volumes and volumes of bills every single year, "ignorantia juris non excusat" non excusat.
On top of that, what ever happened to mens rea being a necessary element of culpability? Why are all of these malum prohibitum laws strict liability offences?
Go read it in a book, or consult a lawyer and pose questions to him/her. Most cities and countries operate free law libraries where you can peruse these topics in as much detail as you care to. Like most things these days, it's incredibly easy to look it up online if you don't feel like going to a library.
An excellent question. Basically, the law is absurd and horrible in almost every conceivable way, and designing a system of law that is otherwise is nontrivial.
He never promised to end drone strikes. In fact I believe he emphasized drone strikes even then in order to shift away from American "boots on ground" and the then-current policy of using JDAM bomb strikes (which are even more dangerous w.r.t. collateral damage).
"if you're not from the US, I feel like you should have known that was a possibility."
Known exactly what was a possibility? In another comment I brought up Endgame Systems, here is some of their offerings:
'There are even target packs for democratic countries in Europe and other U.S. allies. Maui (product names tend toward alluring warm-weather locales) is a package of 25 zero-day exploits that runs clients $2.5 million a year. The Cayman botnet-analytics package gets you access to a database of Internet addresses, organization names, and worm types for hundreds of millions of infected computers, and costs $1.5 million.'
When you say 'foreigners' should have known the NSA "doing their thing" so to speak is a possibility, does that include them being exploited, or their stolen financial/personal information on botnets being used by the NSA?