No, the NSA Isn’t Like the Stasi—And Comparing Them Is Treacherous


Jasper Rietman


Ever since Edward Snowden handed thousands of National Security Agency documents over to filmmaker Laura Poitras and writer Glenn Greenwald in a Hong Kong hotel room, the NSA’s mass surveillance of domestic phone calls and Internet traffic has been widely compared to the abuses of East Germany’s secret police, the Stasi.


The communist republic may have imploded in 1989, but it has nonetheless become synonymous with a smothering, all-knowing spy apparatus.


A year ago, President Obama himself cited East Germany as a “cautionary tale of what could happen when vast, unchecked surveillance turned citizens into informers and persecuted people for what they said in the privacy of their own homes.” He was responding to accusations that just such a vast, unchecked effort to collect data has metastasized on his watch.


It was no coincidence that Poitras chose Leipzig, a city in the heart of the former East Germany, for the recent German debut of her documentary Citizenfour, about Snowden and the NSA. “If the government is doing that kind of surveillance, it has a corrosive effect on democracy and society,” Poitras said after the premiere. “People who lived through it can tell you what it was like.”


Indeed. When it was revealed that the NSA had been listening to her cell phone calls, German chancellor Angela Merkel—who came of age in communist East Germany, under the Stasi’s watchful eye—told President Obama, “This is just like the Stasi.” In an interview last year, NSA whistle-blower and Poitras source William Binney likened the agency to “the Stasi on supersteroids.”


They’re wrong. In crucial ways, the two agencies are very different. In its effort to control East Germany, the Stasi made its presence felt in every sphere of life. Its power rested not only in the information its surveillance yielded but in the fear and distrust that collection instilled. The NSA, on the other hand, operates best in the dark, its targets unaware of its existence, let alone its dragnet data-gathering. Even Poitras, when asked, acknowledged a line between the two. “The NSA’s broad, mass collection is fundamentally different than what the Stasi did,” she said in Leipzig.


Calling the Stasi “secret police” is misleading. The name is an abbreviation of STAatsSIcherheit, or State Security. Founded in 1950 as the East German Communist Party’s “sword and shield,” it never hid the fact that it was spying. By the late 1980s, more than 260,000 East Germans—1.6 percent of all adults in the country—worked for the organization, either as agents or as informants. (If the NSA employed as many analysts to spy on 320 million Americans, it would have 5 million people on the payroll.) It wanted you to constantly wonder which of your friends was an informant and, ideally, tempt or pressure you into the role of snitch too.


At times, the scrutiny reached absurd proportions. Every apartment building and workplace had a designated informer. Spies used specially built equipment to steam open mail; a Division of Garbage Analysis was on the lookout for suspect trash. Stasi agents let the air out of targets’ bicycle tires and rearranged the pictures in their apartments in an effort to drive “class enemies” crazy.


Cooperation was often a prerequisite for career advancement, academic success, even a new apartment. The Stasi had the power to take your children away or keep you from getting into a university. Its visibility and ubiquity forced East Germans to make moral choices every day: Collaborate with an unjust, undemocratic system or suffer the consequences.


The NSA is a different beast. Until Snowden’s revelations, it was one of the best-funded, most powerful agencies that most Americans had never heard of. In contrast to the sexier CIA, the NSA—founded in 1952 in part to break foreign codes—preferred invisibility.


After the attacks of 9/11, a national security apparatus hungry for information and a Congress reluctant to push for oversight allowed the agency to metastasize into a monster, fed by more than $10 billion annually, largely out of the public eye. Few people felt or suspected its presence: Two years ago, an American complaining about NSA surveillance would have been dismissed as paranoid.


Yet even after Snowden revealed how the NSA had penetrated American phone and electronic communications, the public reaction was more bored yawn than outraged howl. Because the agency operates so deep in the shadows, the average citizen can claim ignorance of—and feel no responsibility for—the NSA’s activities. As Paul R. La Monica put it in a CNN Money column, “I have nothing to hide. I’m not a terrorist.”


The agencies’ technological capabilities differed too. The Stasi’s files—sometimes running to tens of thousands of pages on longtime dissidents—occupied 69 miles of physical shelf space. Despite the huge outlay of resources and energy, today much of the information gleaned from its giant network seems trivial: political leanings, sexual preferences, religious convictions, music tastes. Most people post as much on their Facebook page nowadays.


To sort and track everything, East Germany’s superspies relied on 40 million file cards and computer databases. Searches were made by hand, or with locally sourced Robotron computers the size of desks and years behind their Western equivalents. By the late ’80s, the collapsing East German economy forced the agency to recycle confiscated rock music cassette tapes to record tapped phone calls.


On the other hand, what we’ve learned about the NSA’s technological prowess boggles the mind. It has taken the agency just a decade to collect an estimated billion times as much data as the Stasi amassed in nearly half a century—potentially 5 zettabytes, or 5 billion terabytes. According to one leaked document, by 2006 the NSA was sucking up “one Library of Congress every 14.4 seconds.” Trillions of domestic call logs, hundreds of billions of cell phone location records, and untold billions of pages of web data give it access to even the most out-of-the-way corners of our increasingly digital lives.


To make sense of it all, the NSA reportedly has the 21st century’s fastest computers at its disposal. Snowden’s leaks show it’s able to sift through billions of data points and link scraps of seemingly trivial information to establish patterns of behavior and association. Its algorithms and extensive databases make the NSA far more effective than the Stasi ever dreamed of being.


That’s why the comparison is so treacherous. It diminishes the horror of the Stasi’s targeted oppression while downplaying the threat posed to our democracy by the NSA’s secretive surveillance. The NSA’s tactics and techniques may not be anything like the Stasi’s—yet. But its invisibility, technological expertise, and lack of oversight make it dangerous in a different way.


Right now the NSA’s domestic surveillance is indiscriminate and, we’re told, aimed solely at preventing another 9/11. But how do we know? And what guarantees that it will stay that way? To what end is all this data being collected, and how might it be used against us in the future? It’s clear that not even Congress knows the answers—and that’s scary.


With that much information at hand, the potential for abuse increases. If someone in power wanted to target and pressure Americans it saw as political enemies, the NSA’s digital storehouses of personal information would be a terrifyingly effective tool. Anyone who argues that only criminals have to fear the police and only terrorists have cause to encrypt their emails would do well to look back to Richard Nixon’s Enemies List or J. Edgar Hoover’s FBI, which used data on the sex lives of American politicians and civil rights activists to twist arms and end careers.


Omnipresent, if not omniscient, the Stasi was one of the most hated institutions in East Germany. In the end it was also one of the first to be swept away when the revolution came. Just days after the Berlin Wall fell, protesters peacefully occupied Stasi offices across the country, often catching agents in the midst of shredding and burning mountains of incriminating paper.


Twenty-five years later, Germany is one of the most privacy-obsessed countries on earth, thanks in no small part to the memory of the Stasi’s abuses. There was no role for Stasi tactics in the reunited German democracy. It’s up to us to make sure the NSA can never threaten ours.



Why Facebook Knows You Better Than Your Friends Do


facebook-experiments-inline

Getty Images



In the movie Her, Joaquin Phoenix’s character falls in love with his computer’s operating system, which through the magic of machine learning — and Hollywood — comes to know and understand him better than anyone else. It’s a futuristic critique of human reliance on technology. But according to one new study, it’s a future that may not be all that far away.


This week, researchers from the University of Cambridge and Stanford University released a study indicating that Facebook may be better at judging people’s personalities than their closest friends, their spouses, and in some cases, even themselves. The study compared people’s Facebook “Likes” to their own answers in a personality questionnaire, as well as the answers provided by their friends and family, and found that Facebook outperformed any human, no matter their relation to the subjects.


That’s a substantial finding, the researchers say, particularly given the fact that human beings are evolutionarily designed to have good personality judgement. It’s what keeps us out of danger and influences our relationships. But the realization that, perhaps, computers are better equipped to make these judgements than humans are could help cut through the natural bias that pervades human interactions. Never mind what this says about how much of power Facebook wields.


“We’re walking personality prediction machines,” says Michal Kosinski, a computer science professor at Stanford, “but computers beat us at our own game.”


“Likes” Predict What You’re Like


The researchers began with a 100-item personality questionnaire that went viral after David Stillwell, a psychometrics professor at Cambridge, posted it on Facebook back in 2007. Respondents answered questions that were meant to root out five key personality traits: openness, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness, and neuroticism. Based on that survey, the researchers scored each respondent in all five traits.


Then, the researchers created an algorithm and fed it with every respondent’s personality scores, as well as their “Likes,” to which subjects voluntarily gave researchers access. The researchers only included “Likes” that respondents shared with at least 20 other respondents. That enabled the model to connect certain “Likes” to certain personality traits. If, for instance, several people who liked Snooki on Facebook also scored high in the extroverted category, the system would learn that Snooki lovers are more outgoing. The more “Likes” the system saw, the better its judgment became.


In the end, the researchers found that with information on just ten Facebook “Likes,” the algorithm was more accurate than the average person’s colleague. With 150 “Likes,” it could outsmart people’s families, and with 300 “Likes,” it could best a person’s spouse.


What’s more, at times, the Facebook model could beat the subjects’ own answers. As part of the survey, the researchers also asked respondents to answer concrete questions such as how many drinks they have a week or what type of career path they’ve chosen. Then, they tried to see if they could predict how many drinks someone was likely to have in a week based on their answers to the personality test.


Once again, they found that Facebook Likes were a better indicator of people’s substance use than even their own questionnaires were. “When people take the questionnaire, they present themselves in a slightly more positive way than they really are,” Kosinski says. “This tendency to self-enhance makes computers slightly more objective.”


Computers Don’t Like (Or Dislike) Any of Us


While the researchers admit the results were surprising, they say there’s good reason for it. For starters, computers don’t forget. While our judgment of people may change based on our most recent — or most dramatic — interactions with them, computers give a person’s entire history equal weight. Computers also don’t have experiences or opinions of their own. They’re not limited by their own cultural references, and they don’t find certain personality traits, likes, or interests good or bad. “Computers don’t understand that certain personalities are more socially desirable,” Kosinski says. “Computers don’t like any of us.”


That said, there are limitations to what computers can understand, too. They can’t read facial expressions or take subtle cues like humans can. And Kosinski admits that a study like this is likely to be much more effective among a younger subset of people, who are more likely to share their personal information on Facebook.


Still, Kosinski rejects the notion that Facebook “Likes” reveal only the most superficial aspects of someone’s personality. “I think it’s the other way around,” he says. “I think the computer can see through the prejudice we all have.”


That, he says, could have implications far beyond Facebook. Sure, this trove of personality data could turn Facebook into more of an advertising powerhouse than it already is. But more importantly, Kosinski says, it could help all of us from being stereotyped or categorized based on other people’s biases. “Computers don’t care if you’re a man, woman, old, young, black, or white,” Kosinski says. “This gives us a cheap, massive, fake-proof algorithm to judge the personality of millions of people at once.”



Why Facebook Knows You Better Than Your Friends Do


Her

Warner Bros.



In the movie Her, Joaquin Phoenix’s character falls in love with his computer’s operating system, which through the magic of machine learning — and Hollywood — comes to know and understand him better than anyone else. It’s a futuristic critique of human reliance on technology. But according to one new study, it’s a future that may not be all that far away.


This week, researchers from the University of Cambridge and Stanford University released a study indicating that Facebook may be better at judging people’s personalities than their closest friends, their spouses, and in some cases, even themselves. The study compared people’s Facebook “Likes” to their own answers in a personality questionnaire, as well as the answers provided by their friends and family, and found that Facebook outperformed any human, no matter their relation to the subjects.


That’s a substantial finding, the researchers say, particularly given the fact that human beings are evolutionarily designed to have good personality judgement. It’s what keeps us out of danger and influences our relationships. But the realization that, perhaps, computers are better equipped to make these judgements than humans are could help cut through the natural bias that pervades human interactions. Never mind what this says about how much of power Facebook wields.


“We’re walking personality prediction machines,” says Michal Kosinski, a computer science professor at Stanford, “but computers beat us at our own game.”


“Likes” Predict What You’re Like


The researchers began with a 100-item personality questionnaire that went viral after David Stillwell, a psychometrics professor at Cambridge, posted it on Facebook back in 2007. Respondents answered questions that were meant to root out five key personality traits: openness, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness, and neuroticism. Based on that survey, the researchers scored each respondent in all five traits.


Then, the researchers created an algorithm and fed it with every respondent’s personality scores, as well as their “Likes,” to which subjects voluntarily gave researchers access. The researchers only included “Likes” that respondents shared with at least 20 other respondents. That enabled the model to connect certain “Likes” to certain personality traits. If, for instance, several people who liked Snooki on Facebook also scored high in the extroverted category, the system would learn that Snooki lovers are more outgoing. The more “Likes” the system saw, the better its judgment became.


In the end, the researchers found that with information on just ten Facebook “Likes,” the algorithm was more accurate than the average person’s colleague. With 150 “Likes,” it could outsmart people’s families, and with 300 “Likes,” it could best a person’s spouse.


What’s more, at times, the Facebook model could beat the subjects’ own answers. As part of the survey, the researchers also asked respondents to answer concrete questions such as how many drinks they have a week or what type of career path they’ve chosen. Then, they tried to see if they could predict how many drinks someone was likely to have in a week based on their answers to the personality test.


Once again, they found that Facebook Likes were a better indicator of people’s substance use than even their own questionnaires were. “When people take the questionnaire, they present themselves in a slightly more positive way than they really are,” Kosinski says. “This tendency to self-enhance makes computers slightly more objective.”


Computers Don’t Like (Or Dislike) Any of Us


While the researchers admit the results were surprising, they say there’s good reason for it. For starters, computers don’t forget. While our judgment of people may change based on our most recent — or most dramatic — interactions with them, computers give a person’s entire history equal weight. Computers also don’t have experiences or opinions of their own. They’re not limited by their own cultural references, and they don’t find certain personality traits, likes, or interests good or bad. “Computers don’t understand that certain personalities are more socially desirable,” Kosinski says. “Computers don’t like any of us.”


That said, there are limitations to what computers can understand, too. They can’t read facial expressions or take subtle cues like humans can. And Kosinski admits that a study like this is likely to be much more effective among a younger subset of people, who are more likely to share their personal information on Facebook.


Still, Kosinski rejects the notion that Facebook “Likes” reveal only the most superficial aspects of someone’s personality. “I think it’s the other way around,” he says. “I think the computer can see through the prejudice we all have.”


That, he says, could have implications far beyond Facebook. Sure, this trove of personality data could turn Facebook into more of an advertising powerhouse than it already is. But more importantly, Kosinski says, it could help all of us from being stereotyped or categorized based on other people’s biases. “Computers don’t care if you’re a man, woman, old, young, black, or white,” Kosinski says. “This gives us a cheap, massive, fake-proof algorithm to judge the personality of millions of people at once.”



Check Out These Jaw-Dropping Prints of Classic Nintendo Boss Fights


bossfight

Nick Derington/Nakatomi, Incorporated



Step 1: Walk into your living room. Step 2: Throw out that still-life you got from a 1989 Fingerhut catalog. Step 3: Replace it with these epic prints of iconic Nintendo bosses, and watch houseguests gawk in geeky awe.


Nick Derington, an artist based out of Austin, Texas, is the talent behind these hand-printed silkscreen pieces, which are also available in glow-in-the-dark versions.


Entitled “Boss Fight,” the set features Bowser, Ganon, and Mother Brain looking particularly horrifying (and Bowser looking rather undead), towering over their nemeses Mario, Link and Samus Aran. They’re captivating images, especially if you lived through these fights as a kid. Every piece is numbered and signed by Derington, and there’s only a hundred of each of the three prints available.


Each set of three measures 12 inches by 24 inches and sells for $100, with individual prints going for $40 each. (But don’t you want the full triptych?)


You may have seen Derington’s work elsewhere: He was the lead animator of the 2006 film A Scanner Darkly, has worked on graphic novels for DC and Marvel, and created a handheld statuette of H.P. Lovecraft’s creepy deity Cthulhu.


“Boss Fight” is on sale today over at Nakatomi, so pick up a few for yourself, or as a belated holiday gift for a friend—you can never be too late when it comes to nerdy home décor.



Check Out These Jaw-Dropping Prints of Classic Nintendo Boss Fights


bossfight

Nick Derington/Nakatomi, Incorporated



Step 1: Walk into your living room. Step 2: Throw out that still-life you got from a 1989 Fingerhut catalog. Step 3: Replace it with these epic prints of iconic Nintendo bosses, and watch houseguests gawk in geeky awe.


Nick Derington, an artist based out of Austin, Texas, is the talent behind these hand-printed silkscreen pieces, which are also available in glow-in-the-dark versions.


Entitled “Boss Fight,” the set features Bowser, Ganon, and Mother Brain looking particularly horrifying (and Bowser looking rather undead), towering over their nemeses Mario, Link and Samus Aran. They’re captivating images, especially if you lived through these fights as a kid. Every piece is numbered and signed by Derington, and there’s only a hundred of each of the three prints available.


Each set of three measures 12 inches by 24 inches and sells for $100, with individual prints going for $40 each. (But don’t you want the full triptych?)


You may have seen Derington’s work elsewhere: He was the lead animator of the 2006 film A Scanner Darkly, has worked on graphic novels for DC and Marvel, and created a handheld statuette of H.P. Lovecraft’s creepy deity Cthulhu.


“Boss Fight” is on sale today over at Nakatomi, so pick up a few for yourself, or as a belated holiday gift for a friend—you can never be too late when it comes to nerdy home décor.



Species of bird 'paints' its own eggs with bacteria to protect embryo

Researchers from the University of Granada and the Higher Council of Scientific Research (CSIC) have found that hoophoes cover their eggs with a secretion produced by themselves, loaded with mutualistic bacteria, which is then retained by a specialized structure in the eggshell and which increases successful hatching. So far this sort of behaviour has only been detected in this species of birds, and it is a mechanism to protect their eggs from infections by pathogens.



Through an experiment published in the Journal of Animal Ecology, scientists from several research groups precluded several female hoophoes from impregnating their eggs with this substance, which they produce themselves inside the so-called uropygial gland. The research groups involved in this project were the following: Animal Behaviour and Ecology, Microorganism-Produced Antagonistic Substances, both from the UGR, and Evolutive Ecology and the Behaviour and Conservation groups from the Dry Areas Experimental Station (Almería, CSIC)


By doing so they confirmed that the amount of pathogen bacteria that could be found inside the eggs which failed to hatch was higher in those nests in which they had experimentally precluded the females from using their secretion than in those where they were allowed to use this substance. They concluded that this secretion provides a barrier for the entry of pathogens towards the interior of the egg.


Presence of enterococci


On the other hand, not just the secretion as a whole, but particularly the bacteria that did produce bacteriocins (small antimicrobial proteins) in that secretion, the enterococci, are beneficial for the developing embryos, since successful hatches were directly related to the amount of these enterococci in the egg shells and in the secretions of the females. The more enterococci they had, the higher the rate in their successful hatching.


As UGR zoology professor, Manuel Martín-Vivaldi, one of the authors of this research underlines, during the last few years the field of evolutive ecology has acknowledged "the important role played by bacteria, not just as infectious agents capable of producing diseases, but also as allies of animals and other living creatures in their struggle against disease, due to their extraordinary capacity to synthesise compounds with antimicrobial properties"


In the case of the hoophoe's uropygical gland, scientists have confirmed that its components are very different from those of other birds. This is to a large extent due to the action of the bacteria present in this particular gland.


This research has also revealed that hoophoes have developed an exceptional property in their eggs -- which has not so far been found in any other species of bird. This consists in the presence in the surface of many small depressions that do not completely penetrate the shell, and whose function appears to be the retention of this bacteria-carrying secretion that covers the egg.


Bacteria in the eggshell


"With this experiment, we have been able to establish that if the females can use their secretion, towards the end of the incubation period, those tiny craters are full of a substance saturated with bacteria. If we preclude the use of this secretion, these tiny craters appear empty towards the end of the hatching process," said professors Martín-Vivaldi.


These results prove that in this particular species of bird, "its reproductive strategy has evolved hand in hand with the use of bacteria which may be beneficial for the production of antimicrobial substances, which they cultivate in their gland and then apply upon eggs which are particularly endowed to retain them"


These scientists are currently working to determine the specific composition of the bacterial community within the gland, how these symbionts are acquired, and the types of antimicrobial compounds which synthesize these bacteria, capable of protecting the embryos which are undergoing development.


Further research along these lines will facilitate a better understanding of the way in which mutualistic interactions function between animals and beneficial bacteria, and also to detect new antimicrobial substances with a potential to be used in medicine of for food preservation.


This study is the result of the following two projects: "Nests, parasites and bacteria: a multidisciplinary approach to the study of adaptation for breeding in high parasitism risk environments," funded by the Ministry of Science and Innovation, and "Biodiversity and acquisition mechanisms in the bacterial community within the uropygial gland of hoophoes (Upupa epops), funded by the Department of Innovation, Science and Business of the Junta de Andalucía (within the Programme of Incentives for Excellence in Research)




Story Source:


The above story is based on materials provided by University of Granada . Note: Materials may be edited for content and length.



Microsoft Turns to Verizon to Speed Up Its Video Delivery


Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella gestures while speaking during a press briefing on the intersection of cloud and mobile computing on March 27, 2014, in San Francisco.

Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella speaks during a press briefing on the intersection of cloud and mobile computing on March 27, 2014, in San Francisco. Eric Risberg/AP



Microsoft has made Verizon Communications the centerpiece of its effort to build out a worldwide network to speed up video delivery for users of its Azure cloud computing service.


To some, the move comes a bit of a surprise. Microsoft had been building out this network itself, according to observers, but now appears to have reversed course. When it comes to internet infrastructure, giant Web players like Microsoft typically build out their own offerings, rather than relying on service providers such as Verizon. And in recent years, these content delivery networks, or CDNs, have seen some big build-outs. When you’re Netflix and Google, it helps to have full control of your CDN, so that you can more efficiently deliver a significant slice of the internet’s Sunday evening data.


And Microsoft has already successfully built out a different CDN, to speed up delivery of its own web pages, videos, and monthly software updates. But the Azure network—built for customers rather than the company’s internal use—was a different type of project, says Dan Rayburn, a streaming media expert and blogger.


A Verizon spokeswoman confirmed to WIRED Monday that the company’s Digital Media Services CDN network is used by Microsoft and its Azure group, and according to Microsoft the traffic will be on the EdgeCast CDN, which Verizon purchased in 2013. Microsoft told WIRED, “We are happy to partner with EdgeCast to provide an integral component of the Azure Media Services workflow.”


But dumping its internal effort makes sense for Microsoft, says Rayburn, who who first broke the news of the Microsoft-Verizon deal. Azure’s biggest competitor, Amazon, has been offering CDN services—built on its very own delivery network—to cloud users for years. However, Microsoft was late to the game and offered a bare-bones product, Rayburn says. The Verizon deal, “gets them to market faster with a solution that has more capacity,” he says.


It also shows that there is constant flux, even in this era of do-it-yourself web giants.