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.
Related Stories
The Guardian is reporting that...
Two gunmen have been killed and a security guard injured during what appeared to be an attack on a contest for cartoon depictions of the prophet Muhammad in a Dallas suburb.
The gunmen drove up to the Curtis Culwell Center in Garland shortly before 7pm on Sunday where the American Freedom Defense Initiative (AFDI) were hosting the exhibition and contest.
According to city authorities an unarmed guard at the event was shot at before the men were engaged and killed by police.
Further...
A bomb squad was called in after reports of a possible incendiary device at the scene of the incident. Police said a "bomb container trailer" had also been deployed in which to place any suspect device.
A police spokesman said two males had been killed and their bodies were still lying outside their car hours later.
"Because of the situation of what was going on today and the history of what we've been told has happened at other events like this, we are considering their car (is) possibly containing a bomb," Officer Joe Harn, a spokesman for the Garland Police Department, said.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by kaszz on Tuesday May 05 2015, @09:44PM
The incident actually happened. So how would more "powers" help anything? Police stationed at the location prevented escalation, not sneaky listening.
(Score: 0, Disagree) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 06 2015, @12:31AM
If they had the right tools (or power) they could have found out sooner and renditioned / given them a vacation at Gitmo instead of having the trigger-happy-Texans plug them.
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Wednesday May 06 2015, @11:18PM
They seem to miss the right data for all the chaff data that comes in. Besides, the real purpose is not preventing terrorism.
(Score: 2, Funny) by Dr Spin on Tuesday May 05 2015, @09:52PM
If their word recognition is on a level with the stuff used for the subtitles on TV News, I think our privacy is quite safe!
Warning: Opening your mouth may invalidate your brain!
(Score: 3, Interesting) by frojack on Tuesday May 05 2015, @10:23PM
Reminds me of Barry trying to get Siri to work [youtube.com] with his speech impediment.
However, I have to say, Google's speech recognition is almost perfect for my midwestern english. I've seen google voice mail transcriptions of voice mails i've left on my wife's phone and they are nearly perfect.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by TheB on Wednesday May 06 2015, @04:54PM
+1 on Google voicemail speech recognition quality. It is the best I've ever seen. YouTube's CC and Android voice recognition are total crap compared to it. Haven't seen it make any mistakes this year. Even handles parts numbers well.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Fauxlosopher on Tuesday May 05 2015, @10:24PM
Authoritarians claim they want to "split the baby [wikipedia.org]" of freedom and privacy's entwined nature. If you have no privacy, you are not free. Eliminating privacy without due process is eliminating freedom.
One of the weaknesses of a free society is increased vulnerability to people who are willing to take advantage of freedom to try to harm others. Imposing slavery to protect freedom is just as ludicrous as it sounds, and for the USA at least, unlawful to attempt.
As recognized in Marbury vs Madison [umkc.edu] and Norton vs Shelby County [findlaw.com]:
(Score: 4, Insightful) by frojack on Tuesday May 05 2015, @11:06PM
As recognized in Marbury vs Madison and Norton vs Shelby County :
An unconstitutional act is not a law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; it affords no protection; it creates no office; it is, in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed.
As I've pointed out to you in the past, until declared unconstitutional, (a task reserved STRICTLY to the courts), its still the law, and you can be arrested, tried and convicted, and maybe even executed for breaking a law that is, at some later date, declared unconstitutional. Such executions have already happened.
So while your quote is quite grandiose, it is for naught, because YOU don't get to decide what is or is not unconstitutional. The founding fathers wisely left that to the courts in the constitution. So you see, the line you draw in the sand with the rolled up constitution is erased by that very same constitution.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Fauxlosopher on Tuesday May 05 2015, @11:44PM
... and in my past response [soylentnews.org] to you [soylentnews.org], I pointed out that your claim is in direct contradiction to the findings in the Norton vs Shelby County [findlaw.com] case. Apparently, you never took me up on my recommendation to read more than my small quote from Norton decision. Here's a very relevant additional piece:
You're incorrect. The Founders didn't create the Constitution; they won the Revolutionary War. The Framers created the Constitution, and it said the Supreme Court was the court of last resort for inter-State disputes. The concept of USSC judicial review [wikipedia.org] originated in 1803, interestingly enough, through one of the court cases I referenced. Within Marbury vs Madison, the court in one breath claimed authority not granted to it by its authorizing law, and in the next opined that law repugnant to the Constitution is void.
The mere fact that things are done by government agents by no means that such things are done lawfully. Examples: Second Prohibition, civil forfeiture, domestic NSA spying, USSC judicial review, etc.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Wednesday May 06 2015, @12:14PM
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
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 06 2015, @01:38PM
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
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
You're welcome!
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 05 2015, @11:54PM
The founding fathers wisely left that to the courts in the constitution.
There is no such single tribunal.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 05 2015, @10:49PM
computer programs designed to analyze and "extract" the content of voice conversations, and even use sophisticated algorithms to flag conversations of interest
They've been doing this for over a decade and now we find out.
Throw away the mobile spying device.
If you cannot trust the phone line, do not say anything important, or any business details, or any business ideas. These criminals do not just gather and sort data, they also conduct espionage at all levels. They happily send all "our" data to their friends in the middle east, who now know more about us than we do ourselves. Stop helping them.
Log out of Google, Facebook, .......... forever.
Stay away from "plastic" money as much as possible. Use hard cash, so it is somewhat difficult to track you. Have a stash, and refill your stash at random times (not equally-spaced) so they have difficulty tracking where you spent the withdrawn amount.
Look inside your house, apartment, car for spying devices. You will probably find at least a dozen. And of course lots of spying software on all your computers.
Learn history and see who the real enemy is. He does not mind being called a liar, thief, swindler, parasite, profiteer. But call him by his real name and you will be astonished at how much he is injured.
Discuss real issues, give advice to others, act on it yourself, and do not let them get you. Arm yourself with knowledge. You know they are after people with knowledge who could be a threat, people who are thinkers AND doers. It is possible that some time in the future anyone not a regular visitor of facebook will be put against a wall and shot.
Nobody even talks about how Michael Jackson died any more. He found out about this and more, and was going to tell the world, so he had to die. Therefore, never look like a threat, although you may very well be. Note their actions, keep a close eye on them, while appearing to play a game with your "facebook friends" on a mobile spying device. They are watching you. Are you watching them?
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 05 2015, @11:43PM
So far so good I can agree with this statement. Quack-o-meter registers mild.
*BEEP* *BEEP* *BEEP* Up goes the needle. Oh no this is a conspiracy theorist isn't it?
*boop* *beep* Hmm, it's gone down a bit. Sound advice although delivered with an unneeded finality. Google and Facebook both base their business model on your information, one hoards it jealously and the other sells it away to the highest bidder. Of course plastic money is more traceable than cash, but don't think that your paper money is completely untraceable! Did you know that American Dollars in any other denomination other than $1 have a very fine metal wire embedded in them? So large amounts of cash set off metal detectors.
*BEEP* *BEEP* *BEEP* It's too loud! Define spying please? That public facing unencrypted default-passworded wifi security camera you hooked up to monitor your baby doesn't count. Doubtfully anyone who takes the time to read this has any legitimate espionage devices in their residence.
*BEEP* *BEEP* *BEEP* WHY WON'T IT STOP? The real enemy is human ignorance. That and organized religion, or was that what you where talking about?
Finally, it stopped! Ignore all else and read the above line!
*BEEP* *BEEP* *BEEP* Didn't stop for long. I think we'd have to start seeing executions for traffic stops before executions for lack of Facebooking would happen. I'd rather see this happen TO Facebookers not non-Facebookers.
*BEEP* *BEEP* *BEEP* it's going to blow! Similar has been said about Elvis Presley, John Lennon, and Kurt Cobain. The only thing that anyone had any question about was whether MJ's Doctor should be in jail or not.
*KABOOM* You owe me a new meter! I'm personally NOT afraid of government spying, I'm afraid of corporate spying. At least government spying will (eventually, many many many years later maybe) be legally challenged!
(Score: 3, Informative) by takyon on Wednesday May 06 2015, @12:16AM
It's an exaggeration, but not entirely:
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/11/nsa-americans-personal-data-israel-documents [theguardian.com]
http://chicagomonitor.com/2014/09/nsa-spying-on-palestinian-americans-for-israel-and-for-the-u-s/ [chicagomonitor.com]
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 06 2015, @12:40AM
The real enemy is human ignorance. That and organized religion, or was that what you where talking about?
I think it comes from:
The Jew is immunized against all dangers; one may call him a scoundrel, parasite, swindler, profiteer. It all runs off him like water off a raincoat. But call him a Jew and you will be astonished at how he recoils, how injured he is, how he suddenly shrinks back: "I've been found out!" --Joseph Goebbels
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 06 2015, @12:53AM
So in a way, yes he was.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Tuesday May 05 2015, @10:52PM
Story pretty much restates what most have suspected all along.
The NSA claims (falsely it turns out) that all they get is pen register data from phone calls. In actual fact they can full take almost any phone call they want in real time. Not the same as taking ALL calls in real time. Land line phones on the same exchange, which never leave the local telco's system are probably reasonably safe. (Depending on where that telco is located obviously).
I would imagine, (but don't really know) that some cell conversations are harder, since cell voice quality can be absolute crap some times, and perfect other times.
Still voice recognition has come a long way since ten years ago. For many years google was using voice mail messages from their Google Voice service to train their software. (They admitted this in the opt-in. Although how they judged transcription quality is anybody's guess).
If the NSA is half as good as Google I suspect they would have no problem transcribing most phone calls. They've been listening to skype calls ever since Skype was purchased by eBay, and even more so with Microsoft since Microsoft pushed call connection attempts through their central servers, (although the call itself does not necessarily go through Microsoft, all connections are set up through them. Any account someone is interested in is thus easily recorded for CALEA Compliance [wikipedia.org] ).
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by goodie on Wednesday May 06 2015, @12:17AM
I just heard this on the radio this morning: http://www.cbc.ca/radio/thecurrent/the-current-for-may-5-2015-1.3061292/deep-learning-godfather-says-machines-learn-like-toddlers-1.3061318 [www.cbc.ca]
The guy was actually interesting and able to talk in laymen's terms pretty well.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Wednesday May 06 2015, @12:36AM
It's coming [soylentnews.org]
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by Geotti on Wednesday May 06 2015, @07:04PM
Can anyone recommend a good, Free voice recognition library or software with an API that can effectively turn it into a library? It's ok if you have to train it, but the recognition rate should be somewhere in the 4th quartile.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 06 2015, @08:15PM
Perhaps here http://voxforge.org/ [voxforge.org]
(Score: 2) by Geotti on Thursday May 07 2015, @03:16AM
This is nice, thanks. Somehow I missed this place.
Actual recommendations from experience still very welcome though ;)