I suppose one way to fight back against government eavesdropping . . .

[foolsguinea]

@GIGObuster

I think this is just about the best time to go for the super cynical solution:

Get a congress critter to propose a bill to use the spy systems to look for money laundering, tax evasion and other financial issues inside the banks and Wall Street.

I think we will get whiplash by the sudden change of course that will be demanded by the powerful once they are affected more directly.

This is brilliant, actually.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@BrainGlutton

. . . would be an Internet campaign to get millions of people to call and email and text each other and discuss completely imaginary conspiracies to rob, murder, assassinate, bomb, etc. Making it impossible for the eavesdroppers to treat every such instance seriously, which in practice makes it impossible for them to treat any seriously, which defeats the whole purpose.

And it would be fun.

But there are many conceivable scenarios where it might turn ugly.

I think you are confusing the PRISM program which stores electronic data and provides metadata to the NSA in case we ever want to access user specific stored data with the “raptor program” from swordfish.

[Magiver]

@Smapti

According to the agent who interviewed me, they weren’t listening in on AOL chatrooms - but someone who was in the room at the time had reported my statements to AOL, which passed them on to the Secret Service.

that was my guess before you posted it. Someone tipped off the SS. That has nothing to do with computers sifting through internet background noise. What BrainGlutton is suggesting is that messages be sent point to point and not as open discussions.
The problem with this is 2 fold. One, you wouldn’t know if you pinged anyone. You would just get bumped up a notch on a rating scale. Second, you would need to know what computers are looking for. What Brainglutton suggested is a single layer of trigger words. I suspect what a computer would be doing is looking for that combined with other information.

Imagine a trigger word such as “bubblegum” is sent to a person who just made last minute travel arrangements to Seattle Washington where a convention of bubblegum aficionados are arriving via last minute travel arrangements. Many of the conventioneers have recently purchased similar items unrelated to the event.

It can’t be based on a few words because they are repeated in conversation over and over. It has to be a connection of data that would flag out [IMO].

[BrainGlutton]

@RadioActiveRich

In addition to the fact that you’d be slowing what might be a useful investigation into actual terrorism, thereby putting innocents at risk . . .

Well, that goes right to the heart of it, doesn’t it? Everybody seems to object to the level of government surveillance we recently have learned is going on. But, everybody seems to approve of the purpose of it. Which raises the question: Is this machine worth monkeywrenching or not?

[Marley23]

@BrainGlutton

Which raises the question: Is this machine worth monkeywrenching or not?

Shouldn’t that question come well after “what’s actually going on?” and “are we OK with it?” So far a lot of people seem to have misunderstood what’s happening and are reacting based on those misunderstandings. Then there’s the question of whether the monkeywrenching would work. The answer appears to be an emphatic, “No, of course not, are you kidding?”