I drink your milkshake

January 18, 2015 10:28 AM

The Digital Arms Race: NSA Preps America for Future Battle.
New Snowden documents show that the NSA and its allies are laughing at the rest of the world.
posted by adamvasco (75 comments total)

"What this power is I cannot say; all I know is that it exists and it becomes available only when a man is in that state of mind in which he knows exactly what he wants and is fully determined not to quit until he finds it."

-Alexander Graham Bell
posted by clavdivs at 10:34 AM on January 18, 2015 [2 favorites]

In related spy shit White House Approved CIA Hacking Of Senate Computers.
posted by adamvasco at 10:36 AM on January 18, 2015 [8 favorites]

NSA's 'Apology' For Backdooring Crypto Standard Really A 'Sorry We Got Caught' Kind Of Apology
posted by homunculus at 10:44 AM on January 18, 2015 [2 favorites]

Have they figured out yet how to watch us if we're not using a device?
posted by infini at 10:44 AM on January 18, 2015

Secret US cybersecurity report: encryption vital to protect private data. Newly uncovered Snowden document contrasts with British PM’s vow to crack down on encrypted messaging after Paris attacks
posted by homunculus at 10:45 AM on January 18, 2015 [1 favorite]

Let's keep this in mind the next time we are told that China has hacked a public urinal or puddle.
posted by Foci for Analysis at 10:47 AM on January 18, 2015 [7 favorites]

Have they figured out yet how to watch us if we're not using a device?

My most secure notebook uses ink as an input device.
posted by el io at 10:53 AM on January 18, 2015 [6 favorites]

It isn't really news that the United States and Britain can fuck shit up. They always have. What would be big news would be if they ever figure out what to do next.
posted by srboisvert at 10:54 AM on January 18, 2015 [6 favorites]

Have they figured out yet how to watch us if we're not using a device?

ayup
posted by Artful Codger at 10:56 AM on January 18, 2015

Have they figured out yet how to watch us if we're not using a device?

New TVs already do, cars are maybe 18 months away from being 'devices', and following that it'll be all domestic appliances.
posted by colie at 11:21 AM on January 18, 2015 [1 favorite]

Countdown to your local Sheriff outfitting one with Hellfire missiles begins.

My assumption is that everything electronic is monitored by someone.
posted by arcticseal at 11:22 AM on January 18, 2015

As he threatened to do in his Sony hacking speech, our President has proposed to Congress more severe penalties for computer hackers (which includes expanded criminal and civil forfeiture laws). It also expands the definition of computer crime to "we'll tell you if we see it."

It certainly will be a boon to three-letter-agency recruiting efforts, since soon the only way to perform security research without committing a felony will be to work for one of them. (Or work in another country, but our government has made it clear that their long arm extends everywhere)
posted by RobotVoodooPower at 11:26 AM on January 18, 2015 [3 favorites]

The Hypocrisy of U.S. Cyber Policy
posted by homunculus at 11:27 AM on January 18, 2015 [1 favorite]

Let's keep this in mind the next time we are told that China has hacked a public urinal or puddle.

Related thread, in case anyone missed it.
posted by homunculus at 11:27 AM on January 18, 2015

THE NSA AND GCHQ ARE CRACKING JOKES ABOUT PWNING EVERYONE

And since they've never been overconfident about their abilities we must be safe forever.
posted by justsomebodythatyouusedtoknow at 11:34 AM on January 18, 2015

At what point will they actually stop a terrorist attack somewhere? Or are they too busy chuckling and spending our tax money?
posted by brainimplant at 11:34 AM on January 18, 2015

The security services do not exist to 'stop terrorist attacks.'
posted by colie at 11:37 AM on January 18, 2015 [25 favorites]

In related spy shit White House Approved CIA Hacking Of Senate Computers.

This seems like more of a big deal.
posted by Going To Maine at 11:43 AM on January 18, 2015 [14 favorites]

cars are maybe 18 months away from being 'devices'

We've definitely passed that point; any new car sold these days is basically a computer on wheels. Also note services like OnStar that explicitly provide remote access to your car.
posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 11:43 AM on January 18, 2015

"At what point will they actually stop a terrorist attack somewhere?"

So, the problem is, if we use information gleaned from intelligence activities to thwart a single terrorist attack (say an attack that costs 100 lives), then we suddenly reveal our capabilities. So it's very unlikely that even if the NSA had information that could stop a terrorist attack, that they would do so if it threatened the existence of their capabilities.

You might say, but given the Snowden revelations, we now know their capabilities... Well, sort of. We know more than we did, but the journalists disclosing this information aren't disclosing everything they know, and Snowden didn't grab everything there was to grab.
posted by el io at 11:50 AM on January 18, 2015

The stories coming out of the press about the NSA, etc. have been kind of weak lately. When the NSA and their friends have already been exposed spying on basically everyone, targeting both friends and enemies -- foreign and domestic, lying about it all under oath, collaborating with industry at every turn, giving all their information to foreign intelligence agencies, actively sabotaging the infrastructure of other countries, undermining any kind of democratic oversight, gobbling up bazillions of dollars in public funding... the fact that they are cracking some jokes amongst themselves about doing it basically registers as less than a 'so what?' on the importance-o-meter in comparison. Maybe I'm just experiencing surveillance disclosure fatigue.

So, the problem is, if we use information gleaned from intelligence activities to thwart a single terrorist attack (say an attack that costs 100 lives), then we suddenly reveal our capabilities.

I don't know what more impressive surveillance capability the government could have than "listening to everything, all the time," which they already essentially do. The idea that the NSA has some super-secret method that could stop all terrorist attacks that they just don't want to reveal is silly. If news breaks that the NSA can read people's minds, then you can prove me wrong.

I would second colie's comment above: "The security services do not exist to 'stop terrorist attacks.'" As it turns out, the best way to find a needle in a haystack is not by multiplying the hay.
posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 12:03 PM on January 18, 2015 [1 favorite]

The security services do not exist to 'stop terrorist attacks.'

Terrorist attacks are too useful in furthering their agenda to stop.
posted by entropicamericana at 12:04 PM on January 18, 2015 [8 favorites]

But they are much more useful when they occur in nations that are not totally allies/clients... like France?
posted by oneswellfoop at 12:33 PM on January 18, 2015

Related to "why we collect": DEA Discloses Bulk Surveillance of Americans’ International Phone Calls
posted by RobotVoodooPower at 12:34 PM on January 18, 2015 [2 favorites]

LATEST FBI CLAIM OF DISRUPTED TERROR PLOT DESERVES MUCH SCRUTINY AND SKEPTICISM
posted by bukvich at 12:43 PM on January 18, 2015 [1 favorite]

Makes me feel slightly proud, to be honest. Glad we have such smart people in the public sector. Now, how can we get such talent and effectiveness in, say, health and education?
posted by alasdair at 12:46 PM on January 18, 2015

&

Today, Washington’s Blog asked Binney whether this applied to the Paris attack as well. He responded that it did:

A good deal of the failure is, in my opinion, due to bulk data. So, I am calling all these attacks a result of “Data bulk failure.” Too much data and too many people for the 10-20 thousand analysts to follow. Simple as that. Especially when they make word match pulls (like Google) and get dumps of data selected from close to 4 billion people.

This is the same problem NSA had before 9/11. They had data that could have prevented 9/11 but did not know they had it in their data bases. This back then when the bulk collection was not going on. Now the problem is orders of magnitude greater. Result, it’s harder to succeed.


posted by bukvich at 12:47 PM on January 18, 2015 [1 favorite]

Y'know what I was just thinking... have we seen any documented evidence of high-up one-percenters trying to increase their influence over the security state, the way they secure influence over elected officials?

It seems like, from a one-percenter's point of view, influence over the security state may be more important going forward than influence over the democratic process.
posted by XMLicious at 1:02 PM on January 18, 2015 [11 favorites]

Oh yeah, and from the ramped-up rhetoric department:

“If we find evidence of a terrorist plot… and despite having a phone number, despite having a social media address or email address, we can’t penetrate that, that’s a problem,” Obama said.

He said he believes Silicon Valley companies also want to solve the problem. “They’re patriots.”

posted by RobotVoodooPower at 1:03 PM on January 18, 2015

In related spy shit White House Approved CIA Hacking Of Senate Computers.

Agreed, this is actually a massive huge deal. Not that the whole generalized spying thing isn't, but.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 1:08 PM on January 18, 2015

“If we find evidence of a terrorist plot… and despite having a phone number, despite having a social media address or email address, we can’t penetrate that, that’s a problem,” Obama said.

Yeah, well, let us know when you get a handle on the first part.
posted by rhizome at 1:12 PM on January 18, 2015 [2 favorites]

They have too much data to manage. Unfortunately, this seems to be a mostly solvable problem.
posted by double block and bleed at 1:14 PM on January 18, 2015

The price of 0-days on the grey markets have shot up considerably over the past few years mostly because govenments around the world are buying them up as they arm-up for the digital war of which Stuxnet was the opening salvo. Digital is the 5th battle space (land, air, sea, space and digital) and every advanced nation is working on it. Zero days are going for $50,000 to $200,000 though they will just keep increasing. Browser 0-days are the most coveted. Nations have the budget for it and they are competing with one another to buy them up.
posted by stbalbach at 1:18 PM on January 18, 2015 [2 favorites]

What's genuinely new is kinetic computer attacks, attacks that aim to physically destroy infrastructure - attacks that do the same thing as a bomb, though more subtly. Attacks that cause pipelines to leak and no one notices because the monitoring is hijacked. Generators to blow up, or to run at the wrong frequency and destroy other equipment and no one understands why. Nuclear facilities where equipment mysteriously keeps failing. Etc.. Or a massive assault on a countries entire infrastructure causing dams to open and not respond to commands, or grids to fail. Or airplane controls to fail. This is the reality of what they are doing. And it started with Stuxnet in 2010, the world's first kinetic cyber attack by one nation state against another. The forefront of computer security is now the Programmable logic controller which interface between computers and industrial hardware.
posted by stbalbach at 1:31 PM on January 18, 2015 [2 favorites]

Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but has The Grauniad completely dropped this story? Do they not still have the documents, have they ceased reporting on them, or am I somehow missing their reporting? It seems only Der Speigel and The Intercept are still doing original analysis, but I'm sure the Washington Post too has a good set of the original material.
posted by bigZLiLk at 1:53 PM on January 18, 2015

I think I understand the skepticism, distrust, concern and mistrust that is expressed in most of the preceding comments. But it is unclear to me what some of you see as the proper/appropriate role for the government (US, UK, Europe) in establishing sophisticated systems to deal with real/potential threats of cyber war/attacks/etc from real/potential enemies of these countries. It seems to me, as a reasonably informed layman, that there is an appropriate defensive and offensive role for the government in these matters. Sincerely asking the question. Thanks
posted by rmhsinc at 1:55 PM on January 18, 2015 [1 favorite]

and its allies are laughing at
Oh look, a drinks cart.

There may be a legitimate use, sure, but getting all jokey seems a bit much. It seems distracting to the workplace environment.
posted by clavdivs at 2:05 PM on January 18, 2015

rmhsinc, I think the concern is that the Five Eyes' actions are much like stockpiling nuclear weapons while also selling them to your enemies. Our governments have set up a worldwide surveilance system, are actively weakening and sabotaging our own IT infrustructure and are engaged as offensive forces for no other reason than they want to control or manipulate in their favor the economic and leadership systems of the world.

This reporting moves the appropriate analogy of the Five Eyes partners from 1984 toward Dr Strangelove territory. They're mad with power and disinterested in public interest or safety.
posted by bigZLiLk at 2:13 PM on January 18, 2015 [2 favorites]

I think all this tech skulduggery and lack of public transparency is making the world too complex for our limited abilities to manage. The politicizing of basic access and control over the internet is making it less and less valuable while amping up social paranoia. It's also creating complex new kinds of problems that are further taxing and exhausting the human resources needed to deal with the primary problems the tech is supposed to be helping us solve. There's really no guarantee the kinds of sophisticated tech futures the NSA and various technoutopianists see as inevitable are actually going to be sustainable or workable on a long term basis. There is a real chance people are going to abandon tech if its continued adoption comes at too high a social cost and keeps disrupting our lives. People may very well start scapegoating computing itself in the near future for our continuing economic and political challenges. It won't be rational, but it could happen, and if it does, the whole field could collapse a lot more quickly and spectaculary than some visionaries are capable of envisioning. It would be a tragic overreaction, but it's a risk I really feel is growing based on the kinds of concerns I'm hearing from people outside the tech world.
posted by saulgoodman at 2:13 PM on January 18, 2015 [4 favorites]

People may be expressing concern, but I haven't heard of one person giving up Facebook in direct response to the revelations.
posted by bigZLiLk at 2:21 PM on January 18, 2015

Well yeah. A lot of people keyed in to this sort of news avoid Facebook to begin with. Kinda hard to give up something you knew was going to do this from the start.
posted by CrystalDave at 2:38 PM on January 18, 2015 [2 favorites]

Facebook? Meh. Let me know when people start abandoning Metafilter in response to one of these revelations.
posted by happyroach at 2:41 PM on January 18, 2015 [1 favorite]

The security services do not exist to 'stop terrorist attacks.'
It seems more like the security services are creating these plots.
It is going to to be so fucking ugly when the empire implodes.
posted by adamvasco at 2:47 PM on January 18, 2015 [4 favorites]

I think the more immediate likelihood is that people just won't be as keen to buy networked versions of consumer devices. Less willingness to adopt new consumer tech like Google Glass, for example. I definitely won't be replacing my appliances with smart appliances because I don't want security admin responsibilities over my crisper drawer. It's just too much work to keep all this stuff secure, given the increasingly marginal benefits and the drawbacks.
posted by saulgoodman at 3:03 PM on January 18, 2015 [6 favorites]

saulgoodman: “It's just too much work to keep all this stuff secure, given the increasingly marginal benefits and the drawbacks.”

Agreed. It's exhausting to try and keep actual servers safe from mere vandals and hooligans, let alone government agents. I can't imagine adding appliances, thermostats, lighting, etc. to the mix.

Like I always say: Oh, how I loathe the 21st century.
posted by ob1quixote at 3:17 PM on January 18, 2015 [3 favorites]

The NSA does not monitor Metafilter.
posted by NSA at 3:55 PM on January 18, 2015 [18 favorites]

imagine dick nixon with internet.
posted by quonsar II: smock fishpants and the temple of foon at 4:41 PM on January 18, 2015 [2 favorites]

Der Spiegel reports that the intelligence agencies are working towards the ability to infiltrate and disable computer networks — potentially giving them the ability to disrupt critical utilities and other infrastructure.

Funny, I was always under the impression that this is the kind of thing terrorists might do.
posted by quiet earth at 4:43 PM on January 18, 2015 [5 favorites]

I think all this tech skulduggery and lack of public transparency is making the world too complex for our limited abilities to manage.

And I think the horrifyingly massive reach of this shit is exactly why people don't care. It is too terrifying and enormous to think about, so we don't.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 4:47 PM on January 18, 2015 [2 favorites]

The security services do not exist to 'stop terrorist attacks.'
posted by colie

It was interesting to watch, after 9/11, how prevention and security was prioritized. Near Ground Zero, in downtown Manhattan, for over a year all trucks and vans were inspected on entry and other special security measures were put in place. There were no inspections for trucks in Times Square, for instance.

I guess that's because nobody can be blamed when something happens for the first time, and you will only be blamed if the exact same thing happens twice.
posted by StickyCarpet at 4:52 PM on January 18, 2015

Facebook? Meh. Let me know when people start abandoning Metafilter in response to one of these revelations.

Ok, but how will we get in touch with you
posted by clockzero at 5:01 PM on January 18, 2015

Facebook isn't a reliable enough channel for important communication anymore anyway since they started implementing limits on organic reach and isolating some users from others to conduct illegal psychosocial experiments on people. If I didn't have to use it for shameless self promotion for my own short term needs, I'd have dumped it already and probably will in another year or so if I can get what I need to out of it by then. In one case, when FB was running their little illegal experiments on users, they reportedly deliberately prevented at least one from learning about a relative's death, and it's sometimes even a crapshoot if direct personal messages get through to their intended recipients in a timely fashion. Most people aren't going to be able to afford cell phone service in about 20 years if we continue down the path we're on economically, and most recreational travel will be a luxury of the wealthy, so I imagine people will get in touch with each other using any one of probably thousands of low tech human methods for keeping in contact with each other that predate the internet entirely.
posted by saulgoodman at 5:46 PM on January 18, 2015

"In one case, when FB was running their little illegal experiments on users"

Unethical, perhaps. Illegal? I've seen no evidence that suggested that was the case. My understanding regarding their 'experiment' is that for the first time the included an outside researcher in what is a common thing to do in all online social services (change them to see what affects they had on how their users were using them).

Personally, I'd be pretty pissed if a relative of mine counted on me reading a facebook post to learn about the death of a closer relative. Hell, email would upset me as a way to communicate this to me. Any communication failure in that case (which I'm unfamiliar with) should lie with the family.

I don't want to start getting into the business of defending facebook, or their practices; hell, I don't have a facebook account (another reason I would be upset if a relative was telling everyone about a death in the family via facebook without calling me up).

As far as the cost of cell phone service; it's cheaper than it was 10 years ago (with a modest plan). Very poor people get a government subsidized cell phone (called an 'obamaphone' by both its recipients and its critics).

Facebook/linkedin/google+ are useful to intelligence agencies because they build helpful graphs of who-knows-who. This news story has more information about the usefulness of Facebook to the CIA/intelligence community.
posted by el io at 6:06 PM on January 18, 2015

I was being colorfully acrid, not literal about the experiments being illegal, but I think in different times, we might have considered many of these misleading and unaccountable business practices fraudulent according to the mores of the times. We have at different times in our history been more or less willing to apply principles-based legal reasoning to penalize new variations on older, more abstract kinds of offenses that might not strictly satisfy the narrower definitions that are established and revised in law by precedent. Occasionally we have actually had the guts to penalize new forms of fraud that manage to technically stay on the right side of the law. I'm not holding my breath, but we have occasionally exercised that kind of good judgment in the application of law in the past.
posted by saulgoodman at 6:30 PM on January 18, 2015

Please note: The computer security problem can be fixed... the solution has been available since about 1972, and is called multilevel computer security. Old timers might remember the rainbow books.

A multilevel secure computer never trusts things at lower levels of privilege. There have been successful commercial Operating Systems such as KeyKos and CapROS that implemented this model since then, but they had a very limited audience.

The Genode project in Germany is a modern approach to this problem, and when they are eventually done, will offer truly secure computing to the masses, at which point all these exploits become worthless.

Until then, I'm out of the IT field, and into a new career as a machinist, where I'm not subject to the whims of any hacker with a grudge, anywhere on the internet.
posted by MikeWarot at 6:36 PM on January 18, 2015 [1 favorite]

I'm okay with non-private communications channels forms like metafilter existing, well multiparty anonymity is quite challenging, as the mpOTR people discovered.

Imho, the terrible part is : Almost no channels for private correspondence exist.

To me, a channel is suitable for private correspondence if (a) it's always end-to-end encrypted and forward security/secrecy, and (b) servers do not know both the sender and recipient, i.e. resistance to traffic analysis.

Encrypted email fails at forward security but OTR and TextSecure pass.

About the only establish protocol that provides any resistance to traffic analysis is Pond (previously), but the new DP5 announced at 31c3 is very promising.
posted by jeffburdges at 6:44 PM on January 18, 2015 [1 favorite]

I think the more immediate likelihood is that people just won't be as keen to buy networked versions of consumer devices. Less willingness to adopt new consumer tech like Google Glass, for example.

I called this years ago, but the next "hipster" thing in 5-10 years is going to be refurbished ipods. Like replaced batteries, maybe upgraded storage. But literally, just vintage ipods.

People might even start buying powerbook G4s and stuff to sync them with, and store all their music on that are airgapped from the internet.

Originally i thought it would be a combination fashion statement/"shit's gotten too complicated now maaan" thing as a lot of smartphone stalwarts were over the past few years... but now i think it's going to be a much more punk rock laws off my body "track this assholes!" kind of thing.

I can definitely see now there being a specifically like, "unconnected" movement. Where people seek out non networked devices both mobile and for home, buying older stuff if that's what it takes. I bet the resale value of a number of things is going to go up over the next few years...
posted by emptythought at 7:50 PM on January 18, 2015 [3 favorites]

As an over-the-hill tech illiterate, I find myself now treating any activity on a device equivalent to coming on the public stage. Its all a reality show or performance art.

If those who listen to skype, dig into gmail or drafts, pull out PDFs and docs and whatnot that goes on regularly to non citizens or in more technocratic societies, believe that they are receiving authentic data then more power to them.

Their challenge, going forward, won't be 'how to sift through mounds of data' but also 'how to sift through mounds of contaminated data manufactured by cynics' or 'how to get off this flypaper of a honeypot'. No pretence required nor any great degree of tech knowledge of how to encrypt and protect.

You are most welcome to drink my mlkshk, I spat in it.
posted by infini at 8:44 PM on January 18, 2015 [2 favorites]

“If we find evidence of a terrorist plot… and despite having a phone number, despite having a social media address or email address, we can’t penetrate that, that’s a problem,” Obama said.

He said he believes Silicon Valley companies also want to solve the problem. “They’re patriots.”

Yes, Silicon Valley companies are happy to thwart terrorist plots. All of them will fully comply with a warrant signed by a judge to look at any individuals information that they are storing.

Unless Obama has a different definition of 'patriot' that requires them to break the law and look at all information from all of the customers. Or maybe even Obama (and every administration) has a different definition of 'terrorist'.

A few threads ago I gave the Obama administration kudos for adopting less insane forfeiture rules. I continue my thanks to this administration on that subject. On this subject, fuck President Obama. Give me back candidate Obama, I liked that guy.
posted by el io at 8:46 PM on January 18, 2015 [2 favorites]

alasdair: "Makes me feel slightly proud, to be honest. Glad we have such smart people in the public sector. Now, how can we get such talent and effectiveness in, say, health and education?"

People want to be cool and all shadowy, you know, splies...

Make it sleek, sexy, dangerous, like spies... like us...
posted by symbioid at 11:43 PM on January 18, 2015 [1 favorite]

Unless Obama has a different definition of 'patriot' that requires them to break the law and look at all information from all of the customers.

Oh, you. He'll be more than happy to pixie dust away any inconvenient laws that would constrain them from supplying this information to the government.
posted by rhizome at 12:30 AM on January 19, 2015

I can definitely see now there being a specifically like, "unconnected" movement. Where people seek out non networked devices both mobile and for home, buying older stuff if that's what it takes.

It'll be like a tech version of the '60s commune/intentional communities movement, but instead of physically journeying to another place (a beautiful place out in the country) to be with other like-minded people, we'll participate inside, alone by staring at our screens, as always.
posted by Sonny Jim at 1:40 AM on January 19, 2015 [2 favorites]

In related spy shit White House Approved CIA Hacking Of Senate Computers.

Agreed, this is actually a massive huge deal. Not that the whole generalized spying thing isn't, but.

I'm actually okay with this. Because the only time Congress gives a shit about privacy is when it's their privacy that's being violated. (See also: video rental privacy act)
posted by dances with hamsters at 5:29 AM on January 19, 2015

I don't have the heart to read up on the new forfeiture rules. The cynic in me suspects they were changed because someone got wise to a way to use them against larger targets.
posted by vicx at 5:31 AM on January 19, 2015

Do you think that NSA and CIA spy on each other?

:D
posted by infini at 5:58 AM on January 19, 2015 [1 favorite]

> And I think the horrifyingly massive reach of this shit is exactly why people don't care. It is too terrifying and enormous to think about, so we don't.

See also: Climate Change
posted by The Card Cheat at 7:45 AM on January 19, 2015 [2 favorites]

Why is the real world becoming more like EVE Online? Why?
posted by SPrintF at 10:19 AM on January 19, 2015 [1 favorite]

I have little doubt that various governments can/could shut down internet connectivity and the vast majority of sites.

Remember: the first thing you want to capture in a revolution or war or take over--even before boots on the ground--is communication.

Today, and in the future, the internet is communication for most on this planet.
posted by CrowGoat at 1:14 PM on January 19, 2015

Have they figured out yet how to watch us if we're not using a device?

Adding an "ayup":

New police radars can 'see' inside homes [USA Today]

At least 50 U.S. law enforcement agencies have secretly equipped their officers with radar devices that allow them to effectively peer through the walls of houses to see whether anyone is inside, a practice raising new concerns about the extent of government surveillance.

Those agencies, including the FBI and the U.S. Marshals Service, began deploying the radar systems more than two years ago with little notice to the courts and no public disclosure of when or how they would be used. The technology raises legal and privacy issues because the U.S. Supreme Court has said officers generally cannot use high-tech sensors to tell them about the inside of a person's house without first obtaining a search warrant.
posted by ryanshepard at 8:10 AM on January 20, 2015

A good deal of the failure is, in my opinion, due to bulk data. So, I am calling all these attacks a result of “Data bulk failure.” Too much data and too many people for the 10-20 thousand analysts to follow. Simple as that. Especially when they make word match pulls (like Google) and get dumps of data selected from close to 4 billion people.

The Charlie Hebdo murderers appear to have eluded detection at least partly through some simple sleight of hand [NYT]:

“It’s the lesson that every gangster learns when they land in prison. They go through a kind of ‘lessons learned,’ ”Louis Caprioli, a former counterterrorism official, said. “When they are freed, they’ll make sure to keep a low profile. They’ll refrain from using their phones. They’ll avoid behaving like Islamic extremists.”

Investigators have since confirmed that Chérif and Mr. Coulibaly most likely spoke hundreds of times in recent months on phones belonging to their wives.
posted by ryanshepard at 8:19 AM on January 20, 2015

"most likely"
posted by rhizome at 9:48 AM on January 20, 2015

UK Legislators Hoping To Rush Through New 'Snooper's Charter' In The Wake Of The Charlie Hebdo Attacks
posted by jeffburdges at 3:37 AM on January 26, 2015

Secret ‘BADASS’ intelligence program spied on smartphones
posted by jeffburdges at 1:50 AM on January 28, 2015

Relevant article from last August :
Edward Snowden reveals NSA's MONSTERMIND program
It automates the decision to fight back in particular.
posted by jeffburdges at 6:20 AM on January 29, 2015

British securocrats try to sneak in Snooper’s Charter yet again
posted by homunculus at 4:44 PM on January 31, 2015