Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by janrinok on Tuesday May 05 2015, @09:35PM   Printer-friendly
from the we-might-be-listening-a-bit dept.

The Intercept has released an article entitled, "The Computers Are Listening: How the NSA Converts Spoken Words Into Searchable Text":

Top-secret documents from the archive of former NSA contractor Edward Snowden show the National Security Agency can now automatically recognize the content within phone calls by creating rough transcripts and phonetic representations that can be easily searched and stored. The documents show NSA analysts celebrating the development of what they called "Google for Voice" nearly a decade ago.

Though perfect transcription of natural conversation apparently remains the Intelligence Community's "holy grail," the Snowden documents describe extensive use of keyword searching as well as computer programs designed to analyze and "extract" the content of voice conversations, and even use sophisticated algorithms to flag conversations of interest.

The documents include vivid examples of the use of speech recognition in war zones like Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as in Latin America. But they leave unclear exactly how widely the spy agency uses this ability, particularly in programs that pick up considerable amounts of conversations that include people who live in or are citizens of the United States.

Recently, Chancellor Angela Merkel defended German intelligence (BND) spying on behalf of the NSA. Former Director of the NSA Michael Hayden has taken the opportunity to use the failed Garland, TX attack to advocate preserving or extending NSA surveillance:

Public wishes about how to balance privacy and security will have to be evaluated in light of the shooting deaths of two men outside a "Draw Muhammad" free-speech event in Garland, Texas, on Sunday, former CIA and NSA director Gen. Michael Hayden tells Newsmax TV. "You've got this difficult decision to make: when does free thought and free speech cross the line into something that's actionable by American law enforcement?" Hayden said Monday on "Newsmax Prime," hosted by J.D. Hayworth. The "totality of circumstances" should determine where the line is drawn between privacy and security, Hayden said. "We may actually discover that we're drawing the line too conservatively and that we should be more forward-leaning with our action," he said. "We'll let the facts take us there if they will."

Despite criticism of NSA overreach from some quarters, the agency's former boss doesn't see anything wrong with how information is collected, he told Hayworth. He understands the concerns, Hayden said, but added: "Of all the times when we might want to make it more difficult or more cumbersome to find the terrorists in the United States, this is not that time because of the kind of things that happened in Texas yesterday."

ISIS just claimed responsibility for the Garland attack. What does this all mean for the USA FREEDOM Act, the bill that could place some small limits on the U.S. surveillance state? According to the New York Times, the NSA may be willing to sacrifice elements of domestic telephone spying in order to preserve "more vital" programs.

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by FatPhil on Wednesday May 06 2015, @12:14PM

    by FatPhil (863) <pc-soylentNO@SPAMasdf.fi> on Wednesday May 06 2015, @12:14PM (#179465) Homepage
    "The Founders didn't create the Constitution; they won the Revolutionary War. The Framers created the Constitution"

    That piqued some interest, an opportunity for a non-USian to learn something, so I ran off to the internet to find out more, and swiftly found http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Framers

    Which says:
    """
    Framers may be referring to:

            * The Founding Fathers of the United States, who are also known as Framers.
    """

    Erm, OK, ...
    --
    Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 06 2015, @01:38PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 06 2015, @01:38PM (#179491)

    Therein lies the rub with relying solely on an encyclopedia. Here's some rough, basic history of the USA and its founding, each major piece of which can easily be independently verified.

    The people who signed the Declaration of Independence [ushistory.org] are not all the same people who created the US Constitution at the Philadelphia Convention [archives.gov]. The Declaration was signed on July 4th, 1776; the Articles of Confederation were put into effect in 1781; the third and current version of the USA was created via the Constitution in 1789.

    The term Founders specifically refers to the individuals who signed the DoI (and perhaps also those who participated in the American War for Independence), whereas the term Framers specifically refers to the individuals who "framed" or built the US Constitution itself. Note that the two lists of names differ. Some individuals are on both lists (notably Benjamin Franklin), whereas some Founders are absent from the lists of Framers (notably Thomas Jefferson and John Hancock). Patrick Henry, usually included as a Founder noted for his famous "give me liberty, or give me death! [wikipedia.org]" speech, did not participate in the framing of the Constitution because as he said, "I smelt a rat".

    A number of the Framers are viewed by some Americans to have been devious weasels, who were seeking advantages for themselves since the hard work of winning a revolution had already been done. One such notable figure was Alexander Hamilton, a big fan of central banking and other schemes often used to grow rich at the expense of others.

    The creation and imposition of the US Constitution was a very contentious subject, and many "letters to the editor" are contained in books [thefederalistpapers.org] titled The Federalist Papers, The Anti-Federalist Papers, or some combination thereof. The totality of the Papers in my view, combined with the fact that the Constitution's creation was shrouded in secrecy, and that the creating Convention itself was originally intended to add amendments to the existing Articles, does suggest to me that the Constitution was the result of a bait-and-switch scam. The good news is that, should US governments be held to the standard of the Constitution, it would eliminate a great many problems at home for the USA, and abroad as almost all of its current interventionalist and imperialistic activities are unlawful.

    • (Score: 2) by FatPhil on Wednesday May 06 2015, @08:54PM

      by FatPhil (863) <pc-soylentNO@SPAMasdf.fi> on Wednesday May 06 2015, @08:54PM (#179672) Homepage
      > specifically ... (and perhaps ...)

      Thanks for specifying that so specifically!
      --
      Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 08 2015, @03:27AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 08 2015, @03:27AM (#180174)

        Thanks for specifying that so specifically!

        You're welcome!