Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Prankster Calls NSA To Restore Deleted E-mail

timothy posted about a year ago | from the how-to-talk-sideways dept.

Government 221

First time accepted submitter manu0601 writes "Since the NSA snoops, intercepts and store our e-mails forever, why not use it as a backup service? It just lacks the API to restore files, therefore this guy [YouTube video] called the NSA to ask for a backup restoration. Guess what? It did not work." After all, why should we have to pay twice for services already performed with tax dollars?

cancel ×

221 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

First Post (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44747391)

First. Yeah!

No service. (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44747429)

I'm telling you, the government just isn't providing service. So what are we paying them for, anyway?

Re:No service. (4, Funny)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about a year ago | (#44747515)

So what are we paying them for, anyway?

To be allowed to live... To avoid 'detainment'. These are the things you pay for. I don't know why people are so repulsed when the mafia does these kinds of things.

Re:No service. (5, Insightful)

h4rr4r (612664) | about a year ago | (#44747589)

I thought it was to build roads, sanitation and the basics of civilization. Your local mafia does that?

Re:No service. (5, Funny)

davester666 (731373) | about a year ago | (#44747657)

Well, they do the actual building...

I thought.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44747863)

they just took really long coffee breaks and beat up people, who pissed that the work wasn't getting done, came over and attempted to do it themselves :)

They put stuff IN the cement. They dont make it. (5, Funny)

Marrow (195242) | about a year ago | (#44747995)

Becoming part of the foundation of a building is not considered construction.

Re:No service. (2)

JMJimmy (2036122) | about a year ago | (#44747971)

I thought the mafia was quite good at 'disposal' tasks. Rum runners were quite good at creating transportation routes... I think you're on to something ;)

Re:No service. (1)

Dunbal (464142) | about a year ago | (#44748103)

Yes they do, actually. If you don't take care of your area, someone else will take it from you. It's called husbandry, and any good business owner must understand it. Anyway if you want a direct answer to your question I have two words for you: Las Vegas.

Re:No service. (1)

cod3r_ (2031620) | about a year ago | (#44748537)

Federal government doesn't do that either... the local county governments are doing a piss poor job I might add especially with the roads. Don't get me started with how bad the education system is.

Re:No service. (0)

Entropius (188861) | about a year ago | (#44748563)

They did help out in Japan after the earthquake...

What are we paying them for? (5, Insightful)

Overzeetop (214511) | about a year ago | (#44747685)

Is the water you drink clean?
Is your food supply safe?
Do the lights come on when you flip a switch?
Can you travel through the air at nearly the speed of sound for a few hundred dollars?
When you turn on the radio in your car, do you hear voices/music coming out of the speakers?
Can you read this message?
Are you speaking English?

Because if you are, you can be assured that your government is doing at least some things you find useful. There are places - quite a few actually - for which the above do not all apply. The taxes there are exceptionally low, and you may wish to consider relocating to take advantage of the savings and buy the above items yourself. Note: if you form a group to provide such services, that's cheating. another word for that kind of cheating is called "Government."

Re:What are we paying them for? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44747803)

All of what you described is provided by the private sector, ie nothing to do with government. So moot.

Anonymous Troll (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44747861)

Wrong. Water IS provided by the government. And the rest of the items OP listed are either regulated or subsidized BY THE GOVERNMENT.

You know nothing.

Re:Anonymous Troll (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44747931)

Why do you equate the government "regulating" useful things with the government doing useful things?
"Government regulation" of something usually refers to restrictions being placed on it. In other words, the opposite of providing that thing.

Re:Anonymous Troll (3, Insightful)

NatasRevol (731260) | about a year ago | (#44748101)

The opposite of providing that thing ... poorly.

See water, food, electricity.

Re:Anonymous Troll (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44748705)

govt, doesn't provide food water or electricity... what socialist country do you live in?

Re:Anonymous Troll (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44748317)

Don't worry there is always someone willing to suck the governments C*ck, SD seems to have a lot of them. What this jerk isn't telling it, all the things listed for the most part were done by GASP rich people who paid for road development and other things.

Re:Anonymous Troll (1)

Dunbal (464142) | about a year ago | (#44748193)

Water is provided by the water cycle, by nature, by evaporation and by geography and geology. The government only decides the ALLOCATION of water. It does not "provide" water. In fact, its job is to DENY certain people water, in order to control.

Re:Anonymous Troll (3, Insightful)

clovis (4684) | about a year ago | (#44748741)

Well, sort of. one government service is protecting water rights.
I cannot dump my sewage in the stream upstream of you, nor can I dam up the stream and keep all the water for myself while you die.
Nor can I dump the waste from my factory or hog farm into the watershed.
This is a problem going back for millennia, and one of the reasons that people formed governments.

It has to do with what economists call "tragedy of the commons", a problem that governments are probably the only workable solution.

Re:Anonymous Troll (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44748417)

What a strange thing to say. Where I live (in the US) water is provided by a small co-op. They recently had a huge rate hike to comply with new government regulation... for some reason they don't even get subsidized. Now who knows nothing?

Re:What are we paying them for? (4, Insightful)

internerdj (1319281) | about a year ago | (#44748181)

My electricity is provided by a government corporation because the private sector failed to reliably do so. Just because the private sector can, doesn't mean they will.

Re:What are we paying them for? (5, Insightful)

butchersong (1222796) | about a year ago | (#44747849)

Most of those services are provided by state and county government. The federal government does not educate you for instance... Several of them (like electricity) are typically provided by private companies though there are a few large federal projects left over from earlier last century. The stuff you cited that does apply to the federal government applies to regulation. The vast overwhelming (pretty much all) majority of our taxes do not go to anything in this list.

Most of what the Federal Governement does... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44748245)

You would be hard pressed to find in the US Constitution the permission ("enumerated power") for much of what the Federal government does.

That is not to say that what they are doing isn't "legal", it is, because they say so.

Re:What are we paying them for? (0)

ackthpt (218170) | about a year ago | (#44748301)

Most of those services are provided by state and county government. The federal government does not educate you for instance... Several of them (like electricity) are typically provided by private companies though there are a few large federal projects left over from earlier last century. The stuff you cited that does apply to the federal government applies to regulation. The vast overwhelming (pretty much all) majority of our taxes do not go to anything in this list.

If you aren't learning anything from the government about how the government prioritizes or carries out its duties then you are the problem. Claiming to learn anything from Faux Nooz, the political blowhards of the airwaves or your local Tea Party goobers isn't education either, though to know your enemy you should pay attention to how people continue to buy into their garbage without doing some thinking of their own.

Most of the things which the Federal Government does spend on have ensured our quality of life, directly or indirectly. Think DoD, FDA, Dept of Interior, Department of Ed, etc. It could probably do things more efficiently, but it usually has to deal with an increasingly ornery populace who do not truly understand why they are ornery.

Re:What are we paying them for? (1)

ColdWetDog (752185) | about a year ago | (#44748801)

You will note that Overzeetop stated that 'goverment' provided the enumerated services. Not the "US Federal Government", not the Taliban, not the Federation. Perhaps he should have used 'Government' to imply a broader sense of the term but his initial position still stands. Without a functional civil governing system - which can have multiple levels and even some, gasp, redundency, you end up sitting in a dusty field dying of thirst and an number of other unpleasant circumstances.

Mankind has never come up with a good system of governing large numbers of humans that is equitable, sustainable and marginally effecient. But if you'd like to dump the whole process and wither away in Somalia, be my guest.

So save your libertarian rants for Reddit.

Re:What are we paying them for? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44747865)

Is the water you drink clean? NO
Is your food supply safe?NO
Do the lights come on when you flip a switch?YES
Can you travel through the air at nearly the speed of sound for a few hundred dollars?YES
When you turn on the radio in your car, do you hear voices/music coming out of the speakers?YES but it's licenced to makemoney not provided by gov't
Can you read this message? YES,but it's not a gov't servoce
Are you speaking English? NO I live in Miami USA

Re:What are we paying them for? (1)

tom229 (1640685) | about a year ago | (#44747871)

None of that is provided for you by the federal government. All of that is paid for by the state, property taxes, etc. I'd like to reiterate the question and see if you can answer it: What are we paying [the federal government] for?

If you can come up with anything outside of the Military, and interest to private banks, I'll be impressed.

Re:What are we paying them for? (1)

Zordak (123132) | about a year ago | (#44748331)

If you can come up with anything outside of the Military, and interest to private banks, I'll be impressed.

I'm pretty sure that the U.S. Federal Government is the single biggest supplier of pork in the entire world.

Re:What are we paying them for? (1)

rea1l1 (903073) | about a year ago | (#44747913)

All of those costs require a tiny percentage of what we pay them for.
My water isn't clean (flouride)
My food isn't safe (full of chemicals/GMO),
the lights do indeed come on - no complaints there
I can travel through the air so long as I'm not randomly selected as a terrorist)
When I turn on the radio in my car sounds do come out - I immediately turn it off because the sounds are brainwash pop media bullshit that's been playing in a loop over and over again for the last 2 years..
Education in the most populous state is the 2nd worse of all 51 states.
Yo hablo espanol.

There are some useful things in there, no doubt. I bet about 10% of taxes collected is actually used in a constructive manner. The rest is given away to the wealthy, one way or another, probably to heads of corporations, which overcharge our government for massive quantities of weapons used to deconstruct other civilizations.

Re:What are we paying them for? (1)

njnnja (2833511) | about a year ago | (#44748633)

Education in the most populous state is the 2nd worse of all 51 states.

Usually I can tell the difference between ignorance and sarcasm (or even meta-sarcasm), but I must admit, you have me stumped here. Well played.

Re:What are we paying them for? (1, Insightful)

drinkypoo (153816) | about a year ago | (#44747963)

Is the water you drink clean?

Yes, but that's because it's a well on an underground river, which I then run through a series of three filters before it's allowed to come into the house, and which then goes through four more filters before it is used for food or drinking water.

Is your food supply safe?

Yes, but that's only because I don't just eat anything that the government approves, and cook most of my food myself.

Do the lights come on when you flip a switch?

Yep. Working towards doing it on a totally off-grid solar system.

Can you travel through the air at nearly the speed of sound for a few hundred dollars?

Only after ritual sexual abuse.

When you turn on the radio in your car, do you hear voices/music coming out of the speakers?

Only if I play an mp3. I don't listen to the dirty, dirty radio. Commercials are disgusting. Literally.

Can you read this message?

Snicker snort.

Are you speaking English?

This then is a feature?

Because if you are, you can be assured that your government is doing at least some things you find useful.

You mean like preventing me from being able to purchase carbon-neutral 1:1 replacements for gasoline? Wait, that's not useful. You mean deciding what I'm allowed to put into my body? Hmm, I'm not a big fan of that. I do appreciate national defense, but I would prefer it to be less offensive...

There are places - quite a few actually - for which the above do not all apply.

At this point, I feel like I'd especially like to live in one of those places where the last item on that list is not the case.

The taxes there are exceptionally low, and you may wish to consider relocating to take advantage of the savings and buy the above items yourself. Note: if you form a group to provide such services, that's cheating. another word for that kind of cheating is called "Government."

Why is government cheating? This government is shitty. It has grown well past its original mandates and has perveted many of those. That doesn't mean government is a bad idea, it just means you have to be vigilant. Americans weren't and it went off the rails even as far as we went, let alone anyone else in the world.

Re:What are we paying them for? (0)

rvw (755107) | about a year ago | (#44748759)

Is the water you drink clean?

Yes, but that's because it's a well on an underground river, which I then run through a series of three filters before it's allowed to come into the house, and which then goes through four more filters before it is used for food or drinking water.

Hey, if you live up to your name, drinkypoo, why clean it at all?

Re:What are we paying them for? (3, Interesting)

PraiseBob (1923958) | about a year ago | (#44748011)

Is every phone number you call stored in a big database, to be used against you later?
Is every word you type into the internet carefully saved, to be used against you later?
Is your participation at a religious worship service documented, to be used agaisnt you later?
Do citizens get a free dronestrike for talking to the wrong people, saying the wrong thing, and going to the wrong church?

Thank you tax dollars!

Re:What are we paying them for? (1)

ciderbrew (1860166) | about a year ago | (#44748621)

Is every word you type into the internet carefully saved, to be used against you later?
They guy tried to test that bit out and didn't get any help. So he'll have to wait until the court case. If he actually gets one.

Re:What are we paying them for? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44748081)

You are an idiot.

Is the water you drink clean? Yes, because I pay my city municipality every month to supply me with clean water.
Is your food supply safe? Nope. My food supply would be safer without the government allowing companies like Monsanto to operate.
Do the lights come on when you flip a switch? Yes, because I pay the power company every month to provide electricity to my home.
Can you travel through the air at nearly the speed of sound for a few hundred dollars? Yes, because I pay an airline to take me where I want to go.
When you turn on the radio in your car, do you hear voices/music coming out of the speakers? Yes, because advertisers pay the radio stations to play their ads, thus providing profit and income for the station and its employees.
Can you read this message? Yes, because I pay for internet service every month and this site is available for free.
Are you speaking English? Yes, because I was raised by English-speaking parents.

The government provides none of that to me. So, what are we paying them for?

Re:What are we paying them for? (1)

micahraleigh (2600457) | about a year ago | (#44748159)

I didn't know the government cleans my food for me. And my taxes don't seem to allow me to travel through the air at the speed of sound for a few hundred dollars. Did my parents teach me English or the government?

Huh?

Are these things supposed to be worth paying 1/3 to 1/4 my paycheck for?

And what if I don't want the money I earned to go towards paying for baby murder?

Re:What are we paying them for? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44748641)

Are these things supposed to be worth paying 1/3 to 1/4 my paycheck for?

Odd. Usually people start with the lower value. you know, like it will cost $5 to $10. Sounds strange the other way around. Paying 33% to 25% of my paycheck. Hm. Maybe a negative comment about the government run education system is in order...

Re:What are we paying them for? (1)

Dunbal (464142) | about a year ago | (#44748173)

Learned English from my mother, before I was school age. I could be pedantic and argue a few other points. If we're still alive in 2013 then obviously all our ancestors had no trouble finding clean water to drink and adequate food to eat, for the past billion years or so since life started. So government is not "responsible" for that, they just make you think they are. Electricity, now there's a funny one. One could argue that government interference in the generation of electrical power has caused the energy market to be far less efficient than it could be. Monopolies are only the ideal case if you're the monopoly. No, sorry, I don't buy the "I owe the government so much" excuse. I live in the 3rd world, where the government is more corrupt and more impotent than in the US and guess what - life is possible - even MORE enjoyable down here. I am more free than you. Of course I have a greater chance of being mugged, but that's a risk I am willing to take to be free.

Re:What are we paying them for? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44748187)

Were all of those things possible before the government was in place? You put way too much faith in the government. And let's think about these for a moment.

Is the water you drink clean? According to who? The government? Why of course it is. Those chemicals in ppm are really no big deal after all.
Food supply safe? Of course except for mad cow, saminilla, aviary flu, and who knows what else. Just because it's regulated doesn't make it safe. It just means more palms need to be greased to look the other way.
Lights come on? Yes. Whatever would we do without the government to regulate electricity? After all those pesky power companies don't really like to sell electricity and would make more money if it were completely unreliable. (In case you're confused that's sarcasm).
Travel through air for a few hundred dollars? Without all of the governement regulation it would proabably be cheaper and safer if all other government intervention was any indication.
Hearing sound from a radio? If it weren't regulated we'd probably have way more choices than a handful of clearchannel variants.

The government does not teach people to write or speak english. In fact, they've historically had a bad track record there. It's parents who do that which is why when parents don't speak english their children have a much tougher time and usually graduate from high school (a public funded entity) without knowing how.

All your examples are bunk if they're meant to point to government success.

Re:What are we paying them for? Not much! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44748441)

Clean water? The Federal Government doesn't do this. State and local governments do this.
Lights? The Federal Government does not supply electricity to homes. Local governments, usually through public corporations, and some private companies do this. (The TVA did sell directly to large manufacturers in the 2000's but I don't know if they are still doing this--regardless, manufacturers are not houses.)
Air Travel? The Federal Government doesn't do this--they only "regulate" it. Airlines are privately owned.
Radio? The Federal Government doesn't do this--they only "regulate" it. Local radio stations are privately owned.
Reading? The Federal Government doesn't do this. Parents, siblings, teachers do this. I was taught by my mother and teachers--before the Federal Government turned the Public School into the Government School. With social promotions and "being there" promotions, very little reading happens.
Speaking English? The Federal Government doesn't do this--they require "bi-lingual" education which obstructs the speaking of English. I learned English from family members, reading books and some teachers.

The Federal Government of the USA has done very little to enable my pursuit of happiness. In fact, the Federal Government has taken definite and effective steps to disable my pursuit of happiness. The situation is atrocious now compared to when I was growing up and even more from when my father grew up. I love my country, America, but I fear the Federal Government.

Re:No service. (1)

redneckmother (1664119) | about a year ago | (#44748113)

I'm telling you, the government just isn't providing service. So what are we paying them for, anyway?

They ARE providing service - the kind a bull provides to a cow.

First Post (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44747433)

Yeah Baby!!!!

Re:First Post (5, Funny)

3vi1 (544505) | about a year ago | (#44747517)

Damn you, XKCD. See what you did?

Lawyers already trying that (1)

cold fjord (826450) | about a year ago | (#44747435)

Lawyers are trying to do that for evidence in ordinary criminal court cases. Not likely to work.

Although if people are interested, I'm sure the government could start that service. Just like google they would probably reserve the right to scan your email. If you want it, write your legislators.

Re:Lawyers already trying that (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44747711)

Lawyers are trying to do that for evidence in ordinary criminal court cases. Not likely to work.

Depends on which side you're on, and how you use it. For example, if your client is accused of destroying documents, you could argue that they merely deleted redundant copies of documents, knowing that all of those documents had been backed up by a third party, the NSA. You don't actually have to convince the NSA to produce the documents for your side of the case--in fact, the success of this argument hinges in part on the fact that they would not produce them (for the prosecution to use against your client).

CoS (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44747447)

Perhaps the NSA could restore all of the sites the Church of Scientology has brought down over the years. You know the NSA is monitoring them since they act like domestic terrorists.

Hmmm ... (2, Insightful)

gstoddart (321705) | about a year ago | (#44747449)

It's funny, but could you get yourself into legal trouble with this?

I'm sure they could come up with some trumped up charges under the Patriot Act or something.

At least then you know who's the bad guy (1)

Arduenn (2908841) | about a year ago | (#44747503)

If, for the sake of retribution and showing muscle, the NSA feels the need to waste tax money on bullying this Iranian/Dutch young man by intimidating him, at least the rest of the world knows who can't be trusted with spy tools that are meant for protecting the Ustated Nites of America.

I already know the NSA is the bad guy (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44748007)

http://www.volokh.com/2013/09/01/illegal-sell-anti-nsa-shirts-bearing-nsa-logo/

Re:Hmmm ... (2)

barlevg (2111272) | about a year ago | (#44747523)

Haven't watched the video. Is it a recording of a phone call? Because if the person on the other end didn't consent to being recorded, I'm pretty sure it's illegal [junkyardwillie.com] to make the recording, and doubly so to broadcast it.

Re:Hmmm ... (1)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | about a year ago | (#44747567)

Fortunately the dude's name is Nicholas S. Adams - so he's covered by a broad FISA declaration.

Re:Hmmm ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44747607)

He made a skype vid call so there is implied consent and since he posted the permission would be needed from the NSA.

no, no fucking irony to be found there (1)

Thud457 (234763) | about a year ago | (#44747629)

SHUT UP Alanis!

Re:Hmmm ... (5, Informative)

Arduenn (2908841) | about a year ago | (#44747689)

He made the recording in the Netherlands. It's legal to record anyone there, on film and on tape. It's illegal to publish those recordings without the subjects consent, if they can be recognised in those publications. So the guy is in the clear (in the Netherlands). Then again, he can be extradited upon US request. Because it's on YouTube, which means it's published physically on US soil. I guess they could catch him at customs too, when he enters the US. But then again again, he's Dutch, of Iranian decent, so they'll do a total body cavity search at customs no matter how well he behaves.

Re:Hmmm ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44748637)

Nah, that's too much effort for the US. I bet the NSA is just checking that lots of windmills won't be a problem for drones before launching them.

Re:Hmmm ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44747809)

Double standards, double standards everywhere...

Re:Hmmm ... (1)

redneckmother (1664119) | about a year ago | (#44748357)

Double standards, double standards everywhere...

... and how our freedoms shrink. Double standards, double standards everywhere, they now know what you think.

Re:Hmmm ... (1)

khellendros1984 (792761) | about a year ago | (#44747911)

If the guy that posted the video was in the U.S., then it would depend on which state he was in. Federal law provides for 1-party consent, where only one side of the conversation would need to consent, in order to record the entire conversation. 38 states have adopted that law as state law. The remaining 12 states require 2-party consent. Then again, the guy isn't in the US anyhow, so it's a moot point.

Re:Hmmm ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44748051)

If it's illegal to record a phone call without consent, how come the NSA is allowed?

Ironiception (4, Funny)

mcrbids (148650) | about a year ago | (#44748143)

Why does getting jailed for recording a call to an agency known for recording everybody's calls without legal oversight, in order to get a recording of a conversation (even if by email) strike me as just a tad ironic?

Re: Ironiception (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44748505)

It's like raaaaaaaaiiiiiiiiiiiiiaaan on your wedding day!

Re:Hmmm ... (1)

cold fjord (826450) | about a year ago | (#44747627)

I doubt that you would get into much legal trouble directly - perhaps over some sort of nuisance law or complaint to the phone comany. You could draw the attention of the national security apparatus to yourself, however. Since this sort of prank most likely seems like a good idea when you are high, that is probably a bad idea since people that get high tend to do so more than once. Resupply efforts might be ... regrettable... once that attention has been gained. You could try a similar experiment by calling (select as appropriate) 911 | 112 | 000 | 999 and telling them that the pharmacy has Prince Albert [wikipedia.org] in a can [wikipedia.org] and they won't punch holes for him to breath - he might be dying.

Re:Hmmm ... (1)

khellendros1984 (792761) | about a year ago | (#44748021)

Wrong Prince Albert. The tobacco is named after his son [wikipedia.org] , who was originally named Albert Edward.

Re:Hmmm ... (1)

Pharmboy (216950) | about a year ago | (#44748635)

Jesus Christ, the signal to noise ratio has gone insane at /.

In the US, the law is dictated by where the call is generated. Some states allow recording, some states do not, some states allow for "single party consent" (as along as ONE of the parties know) and some require notification before the call starts or beeping tones every $x seconds.

He called from outside of the US, so US law is irrelevant here.

Cant help you, give me your information (5, Interesting)

dadelbunts (1727498) | about a year ago | (#44747459)

I love how the lady kept trying to get this guys information even tho they supposedly couldnt help him. WE HAVENT BEEN KEEPING TRACK OF YOUR EMAILS BUT WE SURE WOULD LIKE TO.

Re:Cant help you, give me your information (1)

guttentag (313541) | about a year ago | (#44748319)

At first I thought she was just trying to keep him on the phone so they could complete the trace. I was sure that after about 30 seconds she would cut him off and say:

"Mr. Mohammadi? Mr. Mo... OK, OK, Masood? We're not going to be able to help you over the phone, but if you'll drive over to the Delta terminal at JFK we'll have someone meet you there. No, no need to pack a bag. No, it should only take you 23 minutes. There's no traffic on Van Wyck, but just avoid Lefferts and Sutter because there's a traffic jam there. I can guide you, but you must do exactly as I say. OK? The street outside your house is empty... go now."

Even though he stayed on the line long enough for them to trace it through multiple countries she still kept asking... which makes me think the video is a fake.

Re:Cant help you, give me your information (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44748425)

At first I thought she was just trying to keep him on the phone so they could complete the trace. I was sure that after about 30 seconds she would cut him off and say:

That's a Hollywood plot device. A real phone trace takes a fraction of a second.

Re:Cant help you, give me your information (1)

Pharmboy (216950) | about a year ago | (#44748597)

Citation needed. I can't even get most webpages to load that fast.

Re:Cant help you, give me your information (3, Insightful)

girlintraining (1395911) | about a year ago | (#44748339)

I love how the lady kept trying to get this guys information even tho they supposedly couldnt help him. WE HAVENT BEEN KEEPING TRACK OF YOUR EMAILS BUT WE SURE WOULD LIKE TO.

Well yeah... it's like the guy that called the BATF to ask which assault rifle would be better to use for destroying his computer, which he was upset with. The agent dead panned with a reply of, "Well sir, that depends... how much have you had to drink?"

But I will admit... if someone rang me and wanted to restore deleted e-mails, and I was a law enforcement officer, I'd want to know what kind of e-mail could be so important it'd compel people to call me too. If nothing else, I'd want to investigate the guy just to make sure he really was just another harmless drunk, and not one of the perenially stupid people who buzz the police to complain about being ripped off by their drug dealer, or who gave money to a prostitute who then left without rendering service. Take enough phone calls from the general public, and you will have no faith left in humanity to speak of... at which point you just dutifully take down the information, be as polite as possible, and then file it under "Yet Another Probably Drunk Person, But Since It Could Be A Really Stupid Terrorist, Please Sign This Search Warrant" and move on to the next idiot caller.

attention whores get raped (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44747477)

I don't envy the hell that (s)he has unleashed on their self

Boring (2, Insightful)

Acid-Duck (228035) | about a year ago | (#44747481)

Rather boring and uneventful. How did this ever get posted anyways?

Re:Boring (1)

Brian (2887359) | about a year ago | (#44747553)

Agreed...saw this a few days ago elsewhere (no surprise), don't get why it ever showed up here.

Re:Boring (2)

Zero__Kelvin (151819) | about a year ago | (#44747757)

They obviously forgot to contact you and ask you if you had seen it before before posting it! I am as outraged as you are. I'm sure that, now that you have complained, they will consult you before posting links and deny all the people who haven't seen a particular article, news item, or video the opportunity if you personally have already had said opportunity.

Maybe Dice could spin Slashdot off and create a separate website where all they do is post links to articles nerds might be interested in along with a summary of what the link points to. I hope you are listening Dice!

Re:Boring (1)

Brian (2887359) | about a year ago | (#44748589)

ha ha ha. I simply never expected to see this on slashdot. It's not even an article with any sort of a followup...just a link to youtube. Ugh.

Re:Boring (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44748393)

Seriously, what is it that you expect from such a childish 'above it all' posting? Psychologically, what do you get out of such behaviour?

Re:Boring (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44748559)

I'd reply that you must be new here but your UID + silly twitter icon already demonstrate that.

Re:Boring (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44747649)

Rather boring and uneventful. How did this ever get posted anyways?

An endless, lustful thirst to invent new reasons to hate all them thar gumbermints, or at least some way to keep dragging the old reasons around? Overeagerness to indulge in a narrow-minded, black-and-white "them versus us" attitude cultivated by a generation of pop culture indoctrination? Cultural addiction to snideness and uncreative sarcasm coupled with a desire for, though only cursory understanding of, irony? The constant glorification of people disrupting the lives and jobs of low-level grunts in a horribly misguided belief that doing so "sticks it to The Man"?

Re:Boring (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44747973)

Rather boring and uneventful. How did this ever get posted anyways?

An endless, lustful thirst to invent new reasons to hate all them thar gumbermints, or at least some way to keep dragging the old reasons around? Overeagerness to indulge in a narrow-minded, black-and-white "them versus us" attitude cultivated by a generation of pop culture indoctrination? Cultural addiction to snideness and uncreative sarcasm coupled with a desire for, though only cursory understanding of, irony? The constant glorification of people disrupting the lives and jobs of low-level grunts in a horribly misguided belief that doing so "sticks it to The Man"?

!!DING DING DING!! We have a winner!

"I forgot my bank account number so I called the Securities and Exchange Commission and they refused to give it to me! This proves they're even more evil than we thought!"

"Millions of Americans have been KIDNAPPED and thrown in dark dungeons where they are forced to wear orange uniforms and get assraped daily! People are MURDERED for refusing to go!"

"We are bombing al-Qaeda for NO REASON!!! Support the legitimate resistance of the poor al-Qaedean people! END THE OCCUPATION!"

Same shit, same idiots, same reason.

Re:Boring (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44748061)

Motherfucking brilliant. Agree 100% Mod parent up +5 insightful.

Re:Boring (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44748629)

Republican rant about how OP is wasting taxpayer dollars that could be better used to destroy more liberties here

TL;DR.

Re:Boring (1)

PolygamousRanchKid (1290638) | about a year ago | (#44748003)

How did this ever get posted anyways?

The NSA posted it. Slashdot was forced to comply with a Secret Court ruling, and give the keys to the editor desk to the NSA. They posted this so no one else tries it, as it is a waste of their secretary's time.

So we all know that the NSA can read our email. That's no big deal, given a fistful of Secret Court rulings.

But can they read Bashar al-Assad's email? Probably not. They're too busy recording calls made by Presbyterian grandmothers in Ohio.

Frankly, I wish that they would spend a wee bit of effort trying to gather intelligence on the world's serious security threats, instead of picking the easy fruit of US telecommunications providers.

customer service (5, Funny)

Toast or Rice (2766955) | about a year ago | (#44747527)

Great demonstration of great telephone manner and customer service for a challenge customer, Respect NSA. I for one welcome our new customer service overloads!

Re:customer service (1)

Zero__Kelvin (151819) | about a year ago | (#44747785)

I'm not sure a receptionist counts as a customer service representative. That being said, I'm sure she gets out of line whenever she can be sure that nobody is listening in on her calls.

Freakin Hilarious!! (1)

JoeyJam (845213) | about a year ago | (#44747537)

We should all call in to obtain copies of our emails. Maybe even offer to typographically error correct them. But I wonder what would happen if everyone created fake suspicious emails to themselves and bombarded the NSA's systems? Would it become a "white noise" to the search algorithms?

Re:Freakin Hilarious!! (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44747721)

The real problem is that even if you did get your email back it would be heavily redacted. :-)

Now on the No-Fly list... (3, Insightful)

tekrat (242117) | about a year ago | (#44747555)

Just wait until this individual attempts to travel in the near future. If you phone the NSA and acknowledge that they have your email, they will retaliate.

After all, the government right now is persecuting a "leaker" who they "claim" is lying because after all, they swore up and down that they weren't reading email and listening to phone calls of average Americans. And the government wouldn't LIE, now would they? So the leaker has to be wrong. And yet, they pursue him like he has some relevant information that can cause damage.

Re:Now on the No-Fly list... (1)

aggemam (641831) | about a year ago | (#44748083)

I wonder how this scenario would go;

"Hello, NSA. Ma'm, my name is , I'll be flying in to LAX on Sep 16 and just wanted to see if this very call would put me on the no-fly list or otherwise bring me in for questioning. You could say this is some kind of media stunt. Thanks, see you, bye!"

Re:Now on the No-Fly list... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44748153)

They didn't lie about 9/11, so why would they lie about this??

Bad response. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44747705)

If I was the NSA, I'd reply back saying his life is too pedantic and boring to record entirely, so they get filtered out ;)

Naturally, they now DO have that video logged (1)

the grace of R'hllor (530051) | about a year ago | (#44747747)

It's on Google's Youtube, he mentions Iran, he mentions the NSA. If it didn't trip flags, their system isn't working.

thank you for bringing this to our attention (2)

Thud457 (234763) | about a year ago | (#44747827)

As a future convenience, you have been added to our service, all at no charge to you.

Our whole goddamned civilization is going to collapse under the irony. It's all lolcats from here on out. Damn, the alienz are going to be dumbfounded when they finally stop by to check up on us.

Re:Naturally, they now DO have that video logged (5, Funny)

PPH (736903) | about a year ago | (#44748015)

So, we have to enable the backup service first? No problem:

al Qaida, Jihad, Backpack, Pressure Cooker, Fourth Amendment.

There. That should do.

FOI (1)

lkcl (517947) | about a year ago | (#44747801)

tsk tsk - he should have put in a freedom of information request instead.

10/10; would pay for this service (2)

Narcocide (102829) | about a year ago | (#44747875)

Once, in a previous life before becoming an enlightened free software user, I had a windows 95 install that got infected with a virus and died. For reasons that are obvious or easily guessed I probably deserved it but I also lost valuable data when I sanitized the harddrive. If the NSA could retrieve a pre-infection copy of my clipart folder from 1997 I'd pay up to a 5$ service charge without hesitation. I can't imagine I'm the only one who might actually have a legitimate use for my own intercepted data, either.

NSA Email Backups (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44747901)

This individual might consider a non-contra deal with the Oliver North School of Back-Up Management.

From the safety of Holland (1)

wjcofkc (964165) | about a year ago | (#44748171)

The first thing I though when I read the headline was that it was someone in the US doing this. The second thing I thought was that this person has probably already been arrested. Then I watched the video and heard the guy is in Holland so I doubt he will be getting in trouble. Surely the long arm of the NSA doesn't reach so far as to have a citizen of Holland physically detained for abusing their phone line? Not yet anyway. I am wondering precisely what number he called. I would not expect the NSA to have a publicly posted customer service number, it would be bombarded with calls like this - but maybe I'm wrong. Really, I am curious to know the nature of the number he called.

My IP, my right (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44748335)

Hey, the Patriot Act law (with 99% Republican approval) let them copy my Intellectual Property. Surely I have the right to demand at least a copy of my own product!!!
Oh, wait, not in a Police State.
Thanks Bush. Thanks Republicans. From 2006 to infinity...AND BEYOND!!

This was a prank, but what happens with a subpoena (1)

Beryllium Sphere(tm) (193358) | about a year ago | (#44748527)

They'd have trouble arguing that something was a deep black national intelligence secret after sharing it with the DEA. A prosecutor or someone in discovery in a civil suit can make legal demands for information.

The resulting case would be educational, in that it would put more than one lawyer's kid through college.

user on watch list (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44748713)

an anonymous source writes: "this user is now on an official watch list"

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>