Hero/Traitor/Leakey Man Edward Snowden had a heart-to-heart talk with the internet on Monday, via Glenn Greenwald and The Guardian. We considered liveblooging it, but decided that liveblogging someone else's liveblog would be just a little more meta than would be healthy. Still, for a bit over 90 minutes, Snowden answered some 18 out of several bejillion questions submitted through the Guardian website and Twitter. New details! Clarifications! Hints of what may come next! Douchey self-promotion! (Did he answer our tweeted question, "Have you even read Catch-22?" He did not! Glenn, man, you gotta set up another of these things!)
You are not reading me correctly, which is why it doesn't make any sense to you.
There&#039;s a big difference between &quot;natural language query&quot; and simply &quot;query&quot;. The NSA&#039;s search technology is highly unlikely to be more sophisticated than Google&#039;s was at the time the project started. It&#039;s <em>extremely</em> unlikely to be able to tell the difference between using the word &quot;bomb&quot; to refer to an explosive device, and using it to refer to a bad movie. Because the marginal utility of that (as in, the difference in utility between a system that does not do it, and one that does) is not large enough to justify the cost in dollars, calendar time and developer time of implementing it, especially when the first filter on any search is by search target.
I&#039;ve had to resurrect a legacy database. But it wasn&#039;t for the NSA, or any other intelligence service. It&#039;s pretty trivial to make what Snowden describes impossible for people like Snowden to accomplish. Microsoft have even <a href="http:\/\/msdn.microsoft.com\/en-us\/library\/cc278098%28v=SQL.100%29.aspx" target="_blank">published a how-to</a>.
Also, I told you I can&#039;t tell you why, but there is a reason I give the amount of credit I do. Uncontrolled access is not an acceptable concept for that type of customer.
So a press release from a product that came out <em>this year</em> proves that an NSA program that has been operational for at least seven years can do everything that the press release says the product is capable of? I&#039;m wondering whether you&#039;re at all familiar with the government procurement pipeline, or the configuration management requirements for systems handling classified information. Hint: it&#039;s slow.
Moreover, even the press release&#039;s discussion of semantics actually doesn&#039;t have anything to do with natural language comprehension, it deals with relating content keywords to its author and location. In that regard, I&#039;m actually more impressed by what (current-day) Google does in attempting to distinguish Taj Mahal the mausoleum in Agra from Taj Mahal the Grammy-winning blues artist.
With respect to access, you&#039;d do well to read chapter 8 of <a href="http:\/\/transition.usaid.gov\/policy\/ads\/500\/d522022m.pdf" target="_blank">DoD 5220.22-M</a>. What Snowden&#039;s asserting could only be true if the system was operating in dedicated security mode, which requires that a determination be made that every single user directly or indirectly connected to the system has (in decreasing order of plausibility) TS clearance, formal access authorization for all compartments stored and a need to know every single piece of information stored in the system. That stretches credulity to breaking point - Snowden didn&#039;t have a need to know the content of any of the captured emails, for example.
&quot;Being called a traitor by Dick Cheney is the highest honor you can give an American&quot;
Kind of the leaker&#039;s version of wrapping himself with the flag. A very versatile, all purpose cover, useful in all manner of predicaments. Also, nice use of redirection to duck the question. &quot;Well, here&#039;s what I have to say abou -- hey, look down there! Is that your car that someone is breaking into?&quot;
Natural language query is <em>very</em> hard, and it seems unlikely that the marginal utility to the NSA would justify the kind of effort that, say, Google puts into it, especially considering the overhead imposed when a government intelligence agency procures a system for handling top-secret data.
This thread is a reasonable search, because you have no expectation of privacy. Also, why bother shoving it in PRISM when it&#039;s in the Wayback machine?
Son #1 phoned the other day to say he&#039;d been home late with my car because he was at son #2&#039;s watching The Big Lebowski (again). I told my husband that we&#039;d obviously done something right.
You are not reading me correctly, which is why it doesn&#039;t make any sense to you.
There&#039;s a big difference between &quot;natural language query&quot; and simply &quot;query&quot;. The NSA&#039;s search technology is highly unlikely to be more sophisticated than Google&#039;s was at the time the project started. It&#039;s <em>extremely</em> unlikely to be able to tell the difference between using the word &quot;bomb&quot; to refer to an explosive device, and using it to refer to a bad movie. Because the marginal utility of that (as in, the difference in utility between a system that does not do it, and one that does) is not large enough to justify the cost in dollars, calendar time and developer time of implementing it, especially when the first filter on any search is by search target.
Me me me me me.
I&#039;ve had to resurrect a legacy database. But it wasn&#039;t for the NSA, or any other intelligence service. It&#039;s pretty trivial to make what Snowden describes impossible for people like Snowden to accomplish. Microsoft have even <a href="http:\/\/msdn.microsoft.com\/en-us\/library\/cc278098%28v=SQL.100%29.aspx" target="_blank">published a how-to</a>.
Also, I told you I can&#039;t tell you why, but there is a reason I give the amount of credit I do. Uncontrolled access is not an acceptable concept for that type of customer.
happy birthday doc. my dad&#039;s a gemini too - and was also an awesome dad.
So a press release from a product that came out <em>this year</em> proves that an NSA program that has been operational for at least seven years can do everything that the press release says the product is capable of? I&#039;m wondering whether you&#039;re at all familiar with the government procurement pipeline, or the configuration management requirements for systems handling classified information. Hint: it&#039;s slow.
Moreover, even the press release&#039;s discussion of semantics actually doesn&#039;t have anything to do with natural language comprehension, it deals with relating content keywords to its author and location. In that regard, I&#039;m actually more impressed by what (current-day) Google does in attempting to distinguish Taj Mahal the mausoleum in Agra from Taj Mahal the Grammy-winning blues artist.
With respect to access, you&#039;d do well to read chapter 8 of <a href="http:\/\/transition.usaid.gov\/policy\/ads\/500\/d522022m.pdf" target="_blank">DoD 5220.22-M</a>. What Snowden&#039;s asserting could only be true if the system was operating in dedicated security mode, which requires that a determination be made that every single user directly or indirectly connected to the system has (in decreasing order of plausibility) TS clearance, formal access authorization for all compartments stored and a need to know every single piece of information stored in the system. That stretches credulity to breaking point - Snowden didn&#039;t have a need to know the content of any of the captured emails, for example.
&quot;Being called a traitor by Dick Cheney is the highest honor you can give an American&quot;
Kind of the leaker&#039;s version of wrapping himself with the flag. A very versatile, all purpose cover, useful in all manner of predicaments. Also, nice use of redirection to duck the question. &quot;Well, here&#039;s what I have to say abou -- hey, look down there! Is that your car that someone is breaking into?&quot;
Thanks. I&#039;d almost managed to forget that stinker.
Global warming. They&#039;ve melted.
Natural language query is <em>very</em> hard, and it seems unlikely that the marginal utility to the NSA would justify the kind of effort that, say, Google puts into it, especially considering the overhead imposed when a government intelligence agency procures a system for handling top-secret data.
Wag the Dog. In case he wasn&#039;t already totally cynicalized.
I watched it with my sons, and we all enjoyed it. But then, at least one of them is a major Wes Anderson fan.
This thread is a reasonable search, because you have no expectation of privacy. Also, why bother shoving it in PRISM when it&#039;s in the Wayback machine?
Son #1 phoned the other day to say he&#039;d been home late with my car because he was at son #2&#039;s watching The Big Lebowski (again). I told my husband that we&#039;d obviously done something right.
I&#039;ve been having a craving to watch Brazil recently....
Also Long Days Journey Into Night, thats always a good one if you&#039;re in the mood for a downer.
Harrison and Cindy? gotta go with American Graffiti
I&#039;ve a feeling we&#039;re not in Kansas any more
spliff? Go full monty and drop some orange sunshine with the little bugger