skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Hacker news is the forth hit on Google for me...
Searching for Hackernews or hacker news I get this

It changed a few days ago... it was always the first one.

The Hacker News - Security in a Serious way
thehackernews.com/‎
The Hacker News is an IT Security and Hacking News Source, updates related to hacking, technology, malwares, vulnerabilities and cyber threat.
‎Tools Yard - ‎The Hacker News Magazine - ‎The Hacker News - Technology - ‎DMCA

Hacker News - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hacker_News‎
Traduzir esta página
Hacker News is a social news website about computer hacking and startup companies, run by Paul Graham's investment fund and startup incubator, ...
The Evolution Of Hacker News | TechCrunch

techcrunch.com/.../the-evolution-of-hacker-...‎
de Leena Rao - em 19.340 círculos do Google+
18/05/2013 – The idea of a VC having its own news aggregator was a bit outlandish in 2007. But Y Combinator was in an unusual position in those days ...

New Links | Hacker News
https://news.ycombinator.com/newest‎
+30 itens – Hacker News · new | comments | ask | jobs | submit · login.
| FB on the other hand, I would expect to see
| providing technical support to the FBI about
| how to use their in house tools to more quickly
| analyze the dumps...

According to Mark Zuckerberg:

"Having two identities for yourself is an example
of a lack of integrity"

I'm surprised that he didn't beg the government to peruse his data to weed out all these 'phonies' that are polluting his perfect system.

[Only half-joking]
Ask HN:  Have you ever helped a company build a back-door?
I think if any collection of people has experience with building highly available systems that scale to millions of concurrent queries that the NSA would need to get this kind of data it would be the crowd that frequents this forum.

Query:

Have you ever worked in any capacity on a feed that was designed to authenticate only a select number of users and could massively access core private data on an external level for one of these companies: Microsoft, Yahoo, Google, Facebook, PalTalk, AOL, Skype, YouTube, Apple?

For instance, if you were tasked at Apple with creating an API for iMessage that could access anyone's message history without direct access from that user. I understand that if it was used for nefarious purposes you might not be told but I'm curious if such software is even being written.

Before we jump to crucifying these internet companies it would be interesting to see if there are any engineers here that have even worked on such systems for one of the alleged companies.

An API that the NSA could call to get search queries by IP address or user from Google would require massive infrastructure, these kinds of systems are not built by Sergey Brin on the side but more often by large teams.
If you're interested in serious discussion, whether about religion, spiritualism, medicine (real or "alternative"), or any other topic, you should choose your terminology carefully and remain open to correction when others point out that you aren't using it right.
If there weren't a hard-document supporting the spying, it seems to be Verizon would deny any NSA ties, too. And it gets worse: there's a good chance that upper management at Verizon didn't even know about the NSA program, anyways, let alone spokespeople.
Top U.S. intel official challenges reports that spy agencies mined Internet data
I certainly wouldn't complain about option 3... but I'd be very weary of whether that would be /enough/ for Snapchat.
>Privacy advocacy is popular among the upper classes, because they really don't want anyone from the lower classes sticking their noses into their business.

I hope that this is either patently untrue or you're just misled.
"Door" implies something that is designed to occasionally be in some sort of "closed" state.
Are they required to deny it, or just not to divulge it?
Is that a single digit percent improvement you just pitched me on?
I guess you're right. Still seems out of place here.
> By comparison, what have we learned from the leaks of the diplomatic cables that was worth people getting arrested by dictatorial regimes or getting killed?

Sorry, are we talking about actual events or is this fiction? Because that didn't happen.

http://www.salon.com/2011/01/19/wikileaks_24/
404'd. Here, have some cached content:

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:www.dni...

http://pastebin.com/zRgpetMe
Create a Basic Flask Development Environment
I'm being sarcastic about the idea that 'the people in power' aren't going to relinquish it.

If the people in office get voted out, they leave. If they didn't, we might have a problem.
Nytimes op-ed the problems of overly tenant-friendly SF laws
Why did this 404? Wow.
Lets look at the issue more deeply.
Consider the other end of the spectrum: Say the govt collects no data, no surveillence at airports, no wiretaps, no monitoring of any online channels.
Are we ok having our 'privacy' at the cost of security? The sad reality of our world is that there are terrorists, and they need/use things like email/chat/online forums/regular phones for communication.

So the question is where do you draw the line on what is acceptable/not.

The question needs to be looked at a deeper level. Sure, collecting data and having machines do data mining on it is not an invasion of privacy. Thats what these companies do anyway! What defines invasion is the usage. The Fourth Amendment needs a revision to account for the new reality.

Only acceptable use of data should be for detecting patterns that correspond to national/international terror threats.

Unacceptable uses of private data:
- if you are evading tax and the government finds out, this data cannot be permissible as evidence in court and/or used to prosecute.
- if you committed/planning to commit a crime, this data cannot be used as evidence or to prevent it
- the data in general cannot be used as evidence in a court of law or for taking any form of civilian action against an individual

So there is a need to look past the blind 'down with big brother' attitude and decide as a society where to draw the line!
This is the best guess if you take both the leaked documents and the companies' denials as accurate. They can use a real prism to duplicate the fiber traffic before/after Google/Apple/Facebook's servers and their root certs to take a peek within.
Because minimum wage laws are regressive, giving even GREATER opportunities to the rich.
There are of course those who do not want us to speak. I suspect even now, orders are being shouted into telephones, and men with guns will soon be on their way. Why? Because while the truncheon may be used in lieu of conversation, words will always retain their power. Words offer the means to meaning, and for those who will listen, the enunciation of truth. And the truth is, there is something terribly wrong with this country, isn't there? Cruelty and injustice, intolerance and oppression. And where once you had the freedom to object, to think and speak as you saw fit, you now have censors and systems of surveillance coercing your conformity and soliciting your submission. How did this happen? Who's to blame? Well certainly there are those more responsible than others, and they will be held accountable, but again truth be told, if you're looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror. I know why you did it. I know you were afraid. Who wouldn't be? War, terror, disease. There were a myriad of problems which conspired to corrupt your reason and rob you of your common sense. Fear got the best of you, and in your panic you turned to the now president, Barack W Bush. He promised you order, he promised you peace, and all he demanded in return was your silent, obedient consent.
Your link appears to be broken.
Ask a lawyer; I'm sure they did.
The office of the DNI just officially changed the link to:
http://www.dni.gov/index.php/newsroom/press-releases/191-pre...

All within minutes. Check the difference on their twitter feed:
https://twitter.com/ODNIgov
I really liked this quote, "I was trying to find the elementary components of computation...try to pack the largest capability into the smallest number of primitives." It really captures his life's thesis.

He should be praised not only for his accomplishments, but his commitment and grit. It's not easy to stick with something for so long like he has and continue to improve it over time.
I cannot change the URL - can an admin do so on HN?
I read it as an attempt to get press on the coattails of his competitors and the stance as intending to seem "scrappy". Color me an optimist but I don't think the intent was to spew bile.
What they're actually saying is that there's now too many high-frequency traders competing for there to be much profit left in this money scraping business.
Even if this is true, what difference does it make? I mean, seriously. Is there anyone who still believes that the Federal government cares one whit about what the law and the courts say?

How many times will we repeat this cycle before people get a clue? Yes, they will do lip-service to this or that court decision, and close down one program, while simultaneously launching another, under a different moniker, doing the same or worse.

Governments make laws for the plebeians to follow. They do not make laws which they intend to follow themselves.
>newspapers have a long, successful history of defending their first amendment rights in the courts.

They are also dying. Newspapers make their money from advertising. The price you pay for the paper barely covers the cost of printing and delivering it. But print advertising has fallen off a cliff in the face of the web. You can hear all the old hands complaining about how it's all Google's fault (or whatever), but it isn't anybody's fault, it's just a fact. It's a fact that leaves newspapers without the level of resources they had thirty years ago to fight against government overreach.

And it's another fact that most of those "missing" advertising dollars have gone to the tech sector. Which means we have a responsibility to pick up the slack, one way or another.
These sorts of orders are all gag-ordered by default. They have to lie to everyone about their existence, including co-workers and spouses, or they go immediately to jail.

It's individual criminal liability for disclosing. They are literally required to dodge under federal law to stay out of jail.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_security_letter#Doe_v....
"Told ya".

http://techcrunch.com/2013/06/06/google-facebook-apple-deny-...
Nobody uses PGP.
This is one of the most cogent articles I've read today about this atrocious issue. At least, from a political standpoint. A lot of the technical details seems hokey:

> PRISM works well because it is able to handle several different types of data streams using different basic encryption methods, the person said. It is a "front end" system, or software, that allows an NSA analyst to search through the data and pull out items of significance, which are then stored in any number of databases. PRISM works with another NSA program to encrypt and remove from the analysts' screen data that a computer or the analyst seems to be from a US person who is not the subject of the investigation, the person said.

"handle different basic encryption methods": what does that even mean? Are they able to decode AES? Likewise, "remove from an analyst's screen"?? Seems exactly like technical mumbo jumbo to impress an illiterate journalist.

But the main point still stands: the administration is relying on more and more creative interpretations of words like "analyze" and "collect", and is not raising the specter of terrorism to cover their naked grab for power.
The terseness of each of these all but confirms it.
Buffett's insurance business took a $2.4 billion underwriting loss from the 9/11/2001 terrorist attacks. The insurance industry as a whole paid $33 billion in claims (in 2001 dollars).
Notwithstanding that the credibility of James Ball is questionable at best there just isn't any reasonable evidence that someone was arrested or killed in that piece. Surely it does not serve as the basis for your claim?
Not the same document.
I acknowledged that it was not an open and shut theory when I said that historians will debate this for decades. However I first heard about it from Teri Gross' interview with Bill Keller, at the time the executive editor of The New York Times.

I have every reason to believe that his opinion was highly informed. Certainly it is more so than mine. And if he gives Wikileaks credit, then Wikileaks likely deserves some credit.
These sorts of orders are all gag-ordered by default. They have to lie to everyone about their existence, including co-workers and spouses, or they go immediately to jail.

It's a matter of individual criminal liability. Stop thinking of a corporation as a single entity for a second.
Pretty sure you misinterpreted what OP meant by "power". Sure Bush left office when his term ended, but Obama continued a lot of the policies we thought were going to be ended, keeping the NSA in a greater position of power than it should be. That's the power that hasn't been relinquished.

> If the people in office get voted out, they leave. If they didn't, we might have a problem.

No, as evidenced by the our current situation, we still have a problem.
I have authorized Google to do that. For my secret communication I maintain my own mail server.
That's a possibility, but can you use it to build programs that can be posted on a web page? I really wish there was something that felt like writing C# in Visual Studio Express, but produced JavaScript apps.

(He has a Mac, so we'd more likely wind up with Eclipse... not as polished, but similar idea.)
I'm with you. The article assumed that making leaks easier is a good thing. I contend that it should be hard to leak stuff -- you should, at the very least, have to convince an editor whose own credibility (and potentially their job) could be on the line. That sort of process makes it less likely that you'll recklessly endanger people over minor issues.
Much less info, if that's supposed to be accomplishing the same thing. In particular, this implicit acknowledgement that they're Hoovering up a lot of telephone connection metadata:

"By order of the FISC, the Government is prohibited from indiscriminately sifting through the telephony metadata acquired under the program. All information that is acquired under this program is subject to strict, court-imposed restrictions on review and handling. The court only allows the data to be queried when there is a reasonable suspicion, based on specific facts, that the particular basis for the query is associated with a foreign terrorist organization. Only specially cleared counterterrorism personnel specifically trained in the Court-approved procedures may even access the records."

Given that they aren't disposing this data, that their searches today are, at least officially, narrow, is of little reassurance.
>but the style of journalism that it promotes is obviously a Good Thing.

I very much disagree.

The type of editorializing Wikileaks engages in fundamentally undermines their credibility as an information clearing house. When the raw information takes a back seat to the editorial content, it makes it easier for those that would seek to suppress that information to discredit them as a source.

It simply comes down to trust, and I have personal issues trusting a source that has a stated goal of editing and framing the information they release to suit their agenda.

The Collateral Murder release really is a great example of some of the many issues with Wikileaks' approach. It deliberately presents the footage out of context with post-hoc commentary that frames the entire thing in a pretty misleading light, all wrapped up in an intentionally incendiary title.

And the real tragedy of that?

The story behind the footage is tragic enough that it doesn't need that sort of spin to be effective. Wikileaks tried to tack on claims of deliberate maliciousness to what is, in reality, a clear illustration of the brutal, wasteful, and confusing nature of war in the real world. And, by doing so, Wikileaks made it easier for their critics to dismiss them as propagandists since that's essentially what they were engaging in.

I want an information clearing house that I can trust to simply perform the role of disseminating information while protecting themselves and their sources. I simply don't believe that such a clearing house can be trusted and taken seriously while also pushing an editorial agenda.
You are absolutely right my bad - was haste of me. Still another interesting document. Wonder why the first is gone.
So, sadly true. I was sending a friend an email today about this entire thing and for the first time ever I questioned whether my email would be eavesdropped on by my own government. It was a horrible feeling.
> NTSB is a big bureaucracy

Of 400 employees.

If PRISM only really costs $20M/year (per the slide deck), it has to be the greatest bang-for-buck IT project in Federal history. I'd let it go if we can get rid of all those multi-billion satellite projects and 3/4ths of the staff.

Damage to perceived 'rights' is OK, as long as it is done efficiently.
Funny thing, while talking about donating to EFF I just came to know two of my friends here in India who donate to many causes in the USA and Turkey, which is of course commendable but never to any cause back here at home!

When I simply asked, why(curiosity)? One of them said, "well, you know..hmm..whatever man. It's just a choice". He stopped at that. And then countd a few Indian charities he had donated to and that included INR 51000 at an Andhra temple(his home state) and then was quick to add "that temple does a lot of charity work". I guess it was one of those US Visa God temples.

Another was clearer in her response. She said, "I've done my masters there and plan to settle there".

I guess I'll start actively donating to AAP[1] now, along with WikiLeaks and WikiPedia and few others.

[1]https://www.google.co.in/search?q=aam+aadmi+party
How about Aptana Studio? http://www.aptana.com/
Why would they have a form to ask for records on yourself when they don't publish which records they have. This is like a game of Go Fish but with personal data.
Starcraft II World Championship RO16
MB SD Compact 4 Software Dell D630 HDD Latest Version 2013.03
Functions:

7) Xentry Stop Software for quick close xentry
8) HHTwin stop software for quick close HHT
9) Support the software to be quickly Recovery
10) Support Online technical service
You can't query this much data with clustering it, indexing it, analyzing it first somehow.
Does end-to-end encrypted, locally stored email exist?
I've been familiar with the NSA's data gathering program for a few years now, but I thought it was only Verizon and ATT which were sharing information. However it seems that facebook, google, and just about everyone else who matters is also sharing our information with the NSA, and that sucks, to say the least.
What is Science and Why Should We Care?
>Are we ok having our 'privacy' at the cost of security?

Yes. Security is fiction, the government cannot make you secure. All the government is doing is to make empty promises and spend your money on security theater and surveillance programs that make you less secure by drastically increasing your exposure against malicious governments, which have killed orders of magnitude more innocent people than any terrorists.

Your argument is a straw man. No one is suggesting that the government should be unable to conduct lawful surveillance subject to a warrant based on probable cause "and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." What people are suggesting is that we not have totally unchecked government surveillance power or be forced to design our technological infrastructure with dangerous security vulnerabilities.
Ironically, hackers have been monitoring unencrypted drone streams for years.

That, plus knowing what we know about big data projects, I have a suspicion this "system" has very limited functionality.
I will second Mission Beach.

We rented a beach house there and it had great high speed via Comcast and a nice flat screen TV. Great coffee shops nearby if you want a change of scene.

One thing though, you will need a car to get around and parking is a total bitch! Beyond that, I would go back anytime for a week of coding. My wife and I were even contemplating getting a vacation home there if we ever strike it rich.
>is the information under your personal control or did you voluntarily give access to and possession of that information to someone else?

You are saying that by making a phone call, you are voluntarily giving information to someone else (the carrier), and so the government should able to access that data at will. And, I'm being ridiculous?

>who generated the information? The NSA is collecting information generated by AT&T about activity on AT&T's private network

The caller generated the data. AT&T simply collected and indexed it. There would be no data or metadata without the caller. You acknowledged this yourself in the first paragraph when you asked, "is the information under your control or did you voluntarily give possession of that information to someone else?" How could I give AT&T information that it supposedly generated? Once again, you're all over the place.

And, your ridiculous argument that because AT&T offers the pipes, they should be able to do what they please with the data that is generated is tripe. You could just as well extend that to make warrantless wiretapping on all calls legal. It is all merely data on AT&T's private network, right?

>The intent of the protections was to guard against the invasive physical searches of homes and persons that had occurred under the British

Funny how you're so willing to update government powers based upon evolving technology, however, when it comes to the rights conferred by the Constitution to the people, you want to limit those to the technology of that day. In this case, you are literally limiting those protections to redcoats (or similar) showing up at your door and rifling through your papers. I can't believe you expect to be taken seriously.
Easy to say...

Hard to do...

The original PATRIOT Act passed the Senate by a vote of 99 to 1 I think. The Senator from Wisconsin was the only one to vote against it. Feingold I believe.

He was replaced by a more "law and order" type Senator. I still think to this day it was because he threw wrenches into all of these programs whenever he had a chance. (And sometimes even if he didn't have a chance, he would sabotage the machinery.)

The thing is ... the people of Wisconsin voted him out. Now you can argue that they didn't understand what they were doing... but you can't argue the vote. And this illustrates the problem.

In a nutshell...

There is little political profit in fighting these programs.

THAT, is what we need to find some way to change.

EDIT:

BTW, just a point of fact I think may be relevant here...

Wyden voted YEA for the PATRIOT Act.

Just Sayin'.
The Paradox of Imperialism
Suddenly a phone conversation is looking like the most private way to communicate (short of self-hosting, encrypting, and being an all-around crypto-anarchist). At least then it's apparently just the “metadata”.
No direct access to servers is needed when you can sniff it all up at the wire on premises. Nice play on words...
Well, I suppose that settles that.
But did Facebook have direct access to a NSA data dump, to which they were required by law to send data?
Sad panda that you do not seem to have any contact info in your profile :(
Ask HN: How much more is there to Google the company than meets the eye?
How do you think they compare to defense contractors, et al. in terms of secret initiatives, black box projects, whatever?

Asking due to Assange-Schmidt transcript and the Assange NYT op-ed, but might prefer answers which avoid Assange and focus on Google (or MS or whoever).
Exactly. This loss of trust and credibility is a big deal. Once it's lost, I'm not sure what the government does to get it back.