Does Siri...

[zulu]

Does Siri send any data back to Apple?


--
zulu

[nospam]

In article <J70zs.1120437$Ol2.9...@fx25.am4>, zulu

<zulu.romeo...@ntlworld.com> wrote:

> Does Siri send any data back to Apple?

sure does. what you say is sent to apple, where it's processed and the
results returned to you. very little is done on the phone itself.

[News]

Best to assume it is archived and personally identified.

[zulu]

"News" <Ne...@Group.Name> wrote in message news:kai4d4$egk$1...@dont-email.me...

Oh well..
They will now realise what an extensive command I have of English
vituperation!

:-)

[Alan Browne]

On 2012.12.15 09:50 , zulu wrote:
> Does Siri send any data back to Apple?

It is generally "good practice" to put the entire simple question in the
subject line.

"Does Siri send any data back to Apple?"

instead of

"Does Siri..."

That way those who are disinterested in the subject don't waste their
time on it.

And yes, using Siri sends your voice recording to Apple to be processed.
Once processed into words / phrase structure, Apple have a notion
about what you are curious about. What they do with that data is
supposedly benign(ish). But it is likely used for data mining/research
and possibly kept long term and connected to you. You just don't really
know what happens to data, do you?

And of course Apple (et al[1]) now have a great "voice print" of you.

http://www.technologyreview.com/news/428053/wiping-away-your-siri-fingerprint/

https://www.pcworld.com/article/256253/is_siri_spying_on_you_.html

http://www.apple.com/privacy/

(Pay attention to the "partners" part).

[1]As a non-US user it is a near certainty that the voice portion goes
to the NSA and that the reply data going to you also goes to the NSA.
They definitely tag everything to you and keep that data forever, cross
reference it in simple and complex ways.

To those Americans who believe the NSA is not spying on them ... sweet
dreams.

--
"There were, unfortunately, no great principles on which parties
were divided – politics became a mere struggle for office."
-Sir John A. Macdonald

[George Kerby]

On 12/15/12 9:44 AM, in article
r6qdnXImTqt5B1HN...@giganews.com, "Alan Browne"

<alan....@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:

> On 2012.12.15 09:50 , zulu wrote:
>> Does Siri send any data back to Apple?
>
> It is generally "good practice" to put the entire simple question in the
> subject line.
>
> "Does Siri send any data back to Apple?"
>
> instead of
>
> "Does Siri..."
>
> That way those who are disinterested in the subject don't waste their
> time on it.
>

Aw GAWD! There goes Browne again in his role of "NetCop"!

I am sure zulu is sorry for his crime Officer Alan.

He will repent for his sin, Father Browne...

[Davoud]

zulu:

> Does Siri send any data back to Apple?

Firstly, you should know that your iOS device lacks the computing power
to perform speech recognition. Anytime you use an application that
performs speech recognition your speech is transmitted over the
Internet to a data center (Apple or Nuance) to be converted to
machine-readable form. Nuance sez (and I am paraphrasing) that they use
your speech only for the purpose of improving their speech recognition
algorithms. They do not associate it with you, they say.

I am not responsible for the veracity of information released by Nuance
Communications, Inc.

Apple sez:
"When you use�Siri or Dictation, the things you say will be recorded
and sent to Apple in order to convert what you say into text and, for
Siri,�to also process your requests. [...]�By using�Siri or Dictation,
you agree and consent to Apple�s and its subsidiaries� and agents�
transmission, collection,�maintenance, processing, and use of this
information, including your voice input and User Data, to provide
and�improve Siri, Dictation, and other Apple products and services."

I am not responsible for the veracity of information released by Apple,
Inc.

Apple also sez:
"If Siri knows who you are, it can use your information to help you. To
make sure Siri knows who you are, select your contact information in
Settings > General > Siri > My Info."

The /implication/ is that Siri does not know who you are unless you
permit it to know that.

To iterate, I am not responsible for the veracity of information
released by Apple, Inc.

Apple also sez:
"To turn off the ability for Siri to use your location, go to Settings
> Location Services and set the switch for Siri to Off. Regardless of
how
Locations Services is set for Siri, information about your location is
not tracked or stored outside your device."

To reiterate, I am not responsible for the veracity of information
released by Apple, Inc.

--
I agree with almost everything that you have said and almost everything that
you will say in your entire life.

usenet *at* davidillig dawt cawm

[Wes Groleau]

On 12-15-2012 11:37, George Kerby wrote:

> <alan....@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>> It is generally "good practice" to put the entire simple question in the
>> subject line.
>>

>> That way those who are disinterested in the subject don't waste their
>> time on it.
>
> Aw GAWD! There goes Browne again in his role of "NetCop"!

Say, Officer Kerby, can you tell me what section of the
UUPC¹ prohibits making suggestions?

¹Uniform Usenet Posting Code

--
Wes Groleau

There are some ideas so wrong that only a
very intelligent person could believe in them.
— George Orwell

[George Kerby]

On 12/15/12 11:38 AM, in article kaicj8$525$1...@dont-email.me, "Wes Groleau"

<Grolea...@FreeShell.org> wrote:

> On 12-15-2012 11:37, George Kerby wrote:
>> <alan....@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>>> It is generally "good practice" to put the entire simple question in the
>>> subject line.
>>>
>>> That way those who are disinterested in the subject don't waste their
>>> time on it.
>>
>> Aw GAWD! There goes Browne again in his role of "NetCop"!
>
> Say, Officer Kerby, can you tell me what section of the
> UUPC¹ prohibits making suggestions?
>
> ¹Uniform Usenet Posting Code

;-)

[Wes Groleau]

My aging eyes thank you for boosting the font size
and color-coding with HTML.

To show my gratitude, I'll top-post and not snip.

--
Wes Groleau

Is it an on-line compliment to call someone a Net Wit ?

[zulu]

"Davoud" <st...@sky.net> wrote in message
news:151220121223264769%st...@sky.net...

> zulu:
>> Does Siri send any data back to Apple?
>
> Firstly, you should know that your iOS device lacks the computing power
> to perform speech recognition. Anytime you use an application that
> performs speech recognition your speech is transmitted over the
> Internet to a data center (Apple or Nuance) to be converted to
> machine-readable form. Nuance sez (and I am paraphrasing) that they use
> your speech only for the purpose of improving their speech recognition
> algorithms. They do not associate it with you, they say.
>
> I am not responsible for the veracity of information released by Nuance
> Communications, Inc.
>
> Apple sez:
> "When you use Siri or Dictation, the things you say will be recorded
> and sent to Apple in order to convert what you say into text and, for
> Siri, to also process your requests. [...] By using Siri or Dictation,

> you agree and consent to Appleıs and its subsidiariesı and agentsı

> transmission, collection, maintenance, processing, and use of this
> information, including your voice input and User Data, to provide
> and improve Siri, Dictation, and other Apple products and services."
>
> I am not responsible for the veracity of information released by Apple,
> Inc.
>
> Apple also sez:
> "If Siri knows who you are, it can use your information to help you. To
> make sure Siri knows who you are, select your contact information in
> Settings > General > Siri > My Info."
>
> The /implication/ is that Siri does not know who you are unless you
> permit it to know that.
>
> To iterate, I am not responsible for the veracity of information
> released by Apple, Inc.
>
> Apple also sez:
> "To turn off the ability for Siri to use your location, go to Settings
>> Location Services and set the switch for Siri to Off. Regardless of
> how
> Locations Services is set for Siri, information about your location is
> not tracked or stored outside your device."
>
> To reiterate, I am not responsible for the veracity of information
> released by Apple, Inc.

Thank you Davoud.
It's always a pleasure to hear from you!

I did suspect that Siri *phoned home* but had no idea that the speech to
text functionality was dependant on the Internet.
I just proved it to myself by depowering the modem and using the keyboard
microphone.

I must remember not to call Siri *SH!T FOR BRAINS* in future!

[TheQuickBrownFox]

On Sat, 15 Dec 2012 15:29:29 -0500, Wes Groleau
<Grolea...@FreeShell.org> wrote:

>Wes Groleau
>
> Is it an on-line compliment to call someone a Net Wit ?

Net wit *should* be a good thing. Net Nit-Wit is the one you want to
avoid getting tagged with.

[TheQuickBrownFox]

On Sat, 15 Dec 2012 20:40:55 -0000, "zulu"
<zulu.romeo...@ntlworld.com> wrote:

>I must remember not to call Siri *SH!T FOR BRAINS* in future!

Then call it a shitty implementation of a lot of brains.

[TheQuickBrownFox]

Remember the Capra film? "Meet John Doe"

They're "Heelots".

"A lotta heels..."

[Brian]

"zulu" <zulu.romeo...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> Does Siri send any data back to Apple?
>

Why not ask Siri : )

--
Regards Brian

[Todd Allcock]

At 15 Dec 2012 10:44:36 -0500 Alan Browne wrote:


> To those Americans who believe the NSA is not spying on them ... sweet
> dreams.
>

I have far too much confidence (unfortunately) in my Government's
incompetence to worry about their potential eavesdropping. The more data
they collect, they less likely they can use it against (or for) me.

It's like in a court case when the defendant is forced to turn over their
files to the plaintiffs. They turn over every possible piece of paper
they can, to make the haystack that hides whatever needle the plaintiff
is looking for so much more difficult to wade through. Spying on all
300,000,000 Americans makes it that much harder to find the actual bad
guys.

[Wes Groleau]

On 12-15-2012 19:28, Brian wrote:
> "zulu" <zulu.romeo...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>> Does Siri send any data back to Apple?
>
> Why not ask Siri : )

"Siri, are you sending my personal data to Apple?"

"I am hurt that you would even ask that. You don't trust me?"

"Siri, pleasee just answer the question."

"I'm afraid I can't do that, Dave."

--
Wes Groleau

Nobody believes a theoretical analysis — except the guy who did it.
Everybody believes an experimental analysis — except the guy who did it.
— Unknown

[Michelle]

Wes Groleau <Grolea...@FreeShell.org> wrote:
> On 12-15-2012 19:28, Brian wrote:
>> "zulu" <zulu.romeo...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>>> Does Siri send any data back to Apple?
>>
>> Why not ask Siri : )
>
> "Siri, are you sending my personal data to Apple?"

"I can't find "Apple" in your contacts. To whom should I send it?"

Try it with a contact in your address book; the result is amusing.


--
Sent from my iPad

[Davoud]

Alan Browne:

> > To those Americans who believe the NSA is not spying on them ... sweet
> > dreams.

For those Americans who believe that the NSA is spying on them ...do
the math. Number of people required to monitor 300 million Americans,
listen to, read, transcribe, analyze, and report their communications:
approximately 1 billion people per eight-hour shift from 0600-1800,
about 600 million from 1800-0600 (not including support staff). NSA
does not have 2.6 billion employees in operations. In the course of my
career I visited NSA many times and worked there as a temporary
assignee for several extended periods. I live about seven miles from
NSA Hqs. They do not have software that can transcribe your voice
automatically and analyze what you said. They do not even have software
that can reliably analyze your written communications. Most
importantly, NSA has no interest in you and if you believe otherwise
you are flattering yourself. NSA doesn't know or care that you exist.
Given its limited resources and the enormity of the mission the people
have appointed the NSA to fulfill, the NSA has to limit itself to a
select few high-value targets and almost none of them is communicating
in English. Sorry, but you are way below the radar.

Todd Allcock:

> I have far too much confidence (unfortunately) in my Government's
> incompetence to worry about their potential eavesdropping. The more data
> they collect, they less likely they can use it against (or for) me.

Is that the same government that built the Interstate Highway System,
that conducts the Space Program, that funded the polio vaccine and the
Human Genome project, that runs the VA healthcare system, which is one
of the best on Earth?
<http://www.brookings.edu/research/papers/2000/12/11governance-light>

How easy it is to attack an organization that one knows /nothing/
/whatsoever/ about, and that one knows will not and cannot respond to
nonsensical allegations! NSA, the world's largest employer of computer
scientists, mathematicians, and linguists, and the world's largest and
most experienced developer and user of supercomputers and their
applications, is enormously competent at what it does. No private
enterprise has anywhere near the capability to do as much as NSA does
with the level of efficiency at which NSA performs its mission. It's
just that the mission that the American people have assigned to the NSA
is enormously enormous, and in deference to the American taxpayer, NSA
is constantly under-manned.

[Todd Allcock]

At 15 Dec 2012 23:08:32 -0500 Davoud wrote:

> Todd Allcock:
> > I have far too much confidence (unfortunately) in my Government's
> > incompetence to worry about their potential eavesdropping. The more
data
> > they collect, they less likely they can use it against (or for) me.
>
> Is that the same government that built the Interstate Highway System,
> that conducts the Space Program, that funded the polio vaccine and the
> Human Genome project, that runs the VA healthcare system, which is one
> of the best on Earth?
> <http://www.brookings.edu/research/papers/2000/12/11governance-light>

You forgot rural electrification.

Did I say government did no good whatsoever or was not beneficial?

> How easy it is to attack an organization that one knows /nothing/
> /whatsoever/ about, and that one knows will not and cannot respond to
> nonsensical allegations! NSA, the world's largest employer of computer
> scientists, mathematicians, and linguists, and the world's largest and
> most experienced developer and user of supercomputers and their
> applications, is enormously competent at what it does. No private
> enterprise has anywhere near the capability to do as much as NSA does
> with the level of efficiency at which NSA performs its mission. It's
> just that the mission that the American people have assigned to the NSA
> is enormously enormous, and in deference to the American taxpayer, NSA
> is constantly under-manned.

The government as a whole is an easy target to attack because it is
riddled with inefficiencies, bureaucracy, and had to bend to the will of
the political winds. I'm not singling out the NSA specifically, but I'd
be surprised if it were run that much differently than the agencies I'm
familiar with and have worked with. Redundant layers of management,
inefficient and archaic procurement procedures, and a ridiculous
review/reprimand system making it almost impossible to fire an employee
regardless of their inability to perform their job.


I'm not painting all federal employees with the same brush- I know many
dedicated civil servants as well, but they aren't the majority, and they
are often trapped in a system that neither appreciates or rewards their
efforts, or gives them the latitude to perform as well as they could.

[Bill]

In article <kajsog$2lh$1...@dont-email.me>,

This has really become off-topic, but I will say that I served 20 years
in the U S Navy, and found that organization to run pretty well, despite
its large size, diversity of missions, etc. I later worked in a large
and well-known commercial company, and discovered that the Navy was a
good deal better organized, better managed, and more comprehensible as
an organization than was the commercial company.

I point out that there is only one organization in the world that would
be permitted to operate a nuclear power plant inside a major
metropolitan area; that organization is the U. S. Navy.

There are inefficiencies, self-serving political maneuvering, and other
detrimental factors in any organization. The government may have more of
this because of the entirely political nature of the top layer, i. e.
the Congress and the President, but I am not sure even that is true. I
was witness to top-level political maneuvering that was very damaging to
the large commercial company I worked in, and it took the near collapse
of the company to get the Board of Directors to do anything to try to
remedy this.

[George Kerby]

On 12/15/12 8:13 PM, in article kajant$qlc$1...@dont-email.me, "Wes Groleau"

<Grolea...@FreeShell.org> wrote:

> On 12-15-2012 19:28, Brian wrote:
>> "zulu" <zulu.romeo...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>>> Does Siri send any data back to Apple?
>>
>> Why not ask Siri : )
>
> "Siri, are you sending my personal data to Apple?"
>
> "I am hurt that you would even ask that. You don't trust me?"
>
> "Siri, pleasee just answer the question."
>
> "I'm afraid I can't do that, Dave."

LOL!!!

[Alan Browne]

That claim would depend on two things:

- what parts of the Navy you worked in and

- what sort of company you worked for.

IOW the better of one and the worst of the other will generate different
comparisons.

Some people are very suited to military organizations - and esp. after
working there for 20 years might find the real world chaotic. You say
you "served" which to me implies you were enlisted or an officer (as
opposed to a civilian employee).

That reinforces "comfort" with a system structure that is very clearly
communicated and enforced - something that is much more fluid in
corporations as well as not necessarily well communicated when change
occurs.

> I point out that there is only one organization in the world that would
> be permitted to operate a nuclear power plant inside a major
> metropolitan area; that organization is the U. S. Navy.

The Russian Navy and civilian operators (icebreakers) also operate
shipboard reactors in city harbours.

Shipboard reactors are smaller and simpler than commercial power
reactors and rarely run at full power - most esp. when docked in a city.

While the US Navy has a fine nuclear safety record, it can't be compared
to much larger commercial reactors which run at 100% to be economical
(fuel is cheap, plant capital is not).

> There are inefficiencies, self-serving political maneuvering, and other
> detrimental factors in any organization. The government may have more of
> this because of the entirely political nature of the top layer, i. e.
> the Congress and the President, but I am not sure even that is true. I
> was witness to top-level political maneuvering that was very damaging to
> the large commercial company I worked in, and it took the near collapse
> of the company to get the Board of Directors to do anything to try to
> remedy this.

I've seen the same in companies and it can be ugly. But it's also
beneficial when it results in weeding. Where it's most ugly is when it
most political and not to the benefit of the co.

[Alan Browne]

On 2012.12.15 20:37 , Todd Allcock wrote:
> At 15 Dec 2012 10:44:36 -0500 Alan Browne wrote:
>
>
>> To those Americans who believe the NSA is not spying on them ... sweet
>> dreams.
>>
>
> I have far too much confidence (unfortunately) in my Government's
> incompetence to worry about their potential eavesdropping. The more data
> they collect, they less likely they can use it against (or for) me.

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/03/ff_nsadatacenter/

> It's like in a court case when the defendant is forced to turn over their
> files to the plaintiffs. They turn over every possible piece of paper
> they can, to make the haystack that hides whatever needle the plaintiff
> is looking for so much more difficult to wade through. Spying on all
> 300,000,000 Americans makes it that much harder to find the actual bad
> guys.

It's called "blinding them with paper." That's fine when it's paper.
When it's data, the mining possibilities are endless and quickly searched.

300,000,000 "subjects" is nothing in computer terms where the NSA is
concerned. If something in your data stream "triggers" - no matter how
innocently - then your personal nightmare can begin.

[Alan Browne]

On 2012.12.15 23:08 , Davoud wrote:
> Alan Browne:
>>> To those Americans who believe the NSA is not spying on them ... sweet
>>> dreams.
>
> For those Americans who believe that the NSA is spying on them ...do
> the math. Number of people required to monitor 300 million Americans,
> listen to, read, transcribe, analyze, and report their communications:
> approximately 1 billion people per eight-hour shift from 0600-1800,
> about 600 million from 1800-0600 (not including support staff). NSA
> does not have 2.6 billion employees in operations.

The NSA has been developing systems and software for decades to listen
to signals, detect information of interest and then develop intelligence
around it. There is no way they've ever relied on people to sniff and
parse it and never will.

They employ a massive network of signals gathering equipment. Whether
satellites, phone taps or radio intercepts they have been pulling in
oceans of data for many decades. They've never relied on humans for
front line snooping. That's what computers are for - the NSA employs
more computing power, collectively, than any other agency in the US and
most likely the world.

You can sniff around the web to get an idea of their current computing
fire power and how it is employed. You should pay attention to how
fibre optic lines coming into the US are tapped for voice and data.

Peruse the following as well.

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/03/ff_nsadatacenter/

[Davoud]

Todd Allcock:

> The government as a whole is an easy target to attack because it is
> riddled with inefficiencies, bureaucracy, and had to bend to the will of
> the political winds.

And it has few defenders, and is an easy target for the uninformed.

> I'm not singling out the NSA specifically,

You did, actually, by making it the very model of "incompetence."

> but I'd
> be surprised if it were run that much differently than the agencies I'm
> familiar with and have worked with. Redundant layers of management,
> inefficient and archaic procurement procedures, and a ridiculous
> review/reprimand system making it almost impossible to fire an employee
> regardless of their inability to perform their job.

The worst criticism I can think of concerning the government is that,
like the private sector, it is run by thinking, feeling human beings,
and not by mindless robots.

It is an urban myth that government employees can't be fired. In the
Intelligence Community in particular, including NSA, employees are
extremely easy to fire for cause. In CIA, officers can be fired without
cause and without appeal because the job is too important for screw-ups
and serving is a privilege, not a right. The courts have upheld this
repeatedly. Throughout the USG it is easy to fire an employee for poor
performance (though not out of the blue; the person must have received
warnings and failed to improve) and for malfeasance, dishonesty, or
other misconduct.

> I'm not painting all federal employees with the same brush- I know many
> dedicated civil servants as well, but they aren't the majority,

The competent and dedicated civil servants are the overwhelming
majority. It's why you have one of the most efficient government's on
Earth.

> and they
> are often trapped in a system that neither appreciates or rewards their
> efforts, or gives them the latitude to perform as well as they could.

They're not trapped at all. Skilled government workers are in high
demand in industry at higher wages than the government pays.

I reiterate: you made a cowardly attack on a soft target you know
nothing whatsoever about because you thought it was an easy one. What's
the proof that you don't know anything about the NSA or the
Intelligence Community in general? The fact that you haven't sent them
a thank-you card for the incredible missions they have accomplished to
protect you and your family; for those who gave their lives, for those
who survived but lost their families, for those who served for years in
places and circumstances that would have you peeing your pants every
day and crying for your momma at night. Who in this forum was going to
call you out and say you are dead wrong--besides one guy who spent 32
years in the Community--in the streets of the Middle East, East Africa,
and Southeast Asia--and who needs no lessons in competence or
dedication or sacrifice from ignoramuses. I never doubt that the
sacrifices were worthwhile except maybe for a second or two when I
encounter someone like you.

[TralfamadoranJetPilot]

On Sat, 15 Dec 2012 21:13:16 -0500, Wes Groleau
<Grolea...@FreeShell.org> wrote:

>On 12-15-2012 19:28, Brian wrote:
>> "zulu" <zulu.romeo...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>>> Does Siri send any data back to Apple?
>>
>> Why not ask Siri : )
>
>"Siri, are you sending my personal data to Apple?"
>
> "I am hurt that you would even ask that. You don't trust me?"
>
>"Siri, pleasee just answer the question."
>
> "I'm afraid I can't do that, Dave."

It is a conspiracy to distract us from the global warming threat. :-P

[DevilsPGD]

In the last episode of <151220121223264769%st...@sky.net>, Davoud

<st...@sky.net> said:

>zulu:
>> Does Siri send any data back to Apple?
>
>Firstly, you should know that your iOS device lacks the computing power
>to perform speech recognition.

Dragon NaturallySpeaking 7 ran nicely on a single core 500MHz P3 with
128MB of RAM. A modern iPhone could implement voice recognition if it
wanted, Apple simply chooses to not do so.

Android 4.1 shows an example of an online vs offline solution which runs
in devices slower and less powerful than an iPhone 5.

--
The nice thing about standards, there is enough for everyone to have their own.

[Todd Allcock]

At 16 Dec 2012 14:01:56 -0500 Davoud wrote:
> Todd Allcock:
> > The government as a whole is an easy target to attack because it is
> > riddled with inefficiencies, bureaucracy, and had to bend to the will
of
> > the political winds.
>
> And it has few defenders, and is an easy target for the uninformed.
>
> > I'm not singling out the NSA specifically,
>
> You did, actually, by making it the very model of "incompetence."

No, I said "government". The NSA, DHS, etc. are still underneath the
burdens of bureaucracy, of which many new layers were created post-9/11
making their work even harder. (You know you're in trouble as an agency
when someone gives you a "czar".)

> > but I'd
> > be surprised if it were run that much differently than the agencies
I'm
> > familiar with and have worked with. Redundant layers of management,
> > inefficient and archaic procurement procedures, and a ridiculous
> > review/reprimand system making it almost impossible to fire an
employee
> > regardless of their inability to perform their job.
>
> The worst criticism I can think of concerning the government is that,
> like the private sector, it is run by thinking, feeling human beings,
> and not by mindless robots.
>
> It is an urban myth that government employees can't be fired. In the
> Intelligence Community in particular, including NSA, employees are
> extremely easy to fire for cause. In CIA, officers can be fired without
> cause and without appeal because the job is too important for screw-ups
> and serving is a privilege, not a right. The courts have upheld this
> repeatedly. Throughout the USG it is easy to fire an employee for poor
> performance (though not out of the blue; the person must have received
> warnings and failed to improve) and for malfeasance, dishonesty, or
> other misconduct.

Spend some time over at Treasury.

The problem with firing, (at least in non-security related agencies,
apparently,) is, as you said, that it requires multiple warnings and
failure to improve. IME, this is harder than it sounds, because many
managers are loathe to give warnings to employees who have been given
glowing reviews by other managers, since, if challenged, the manager
giving the less than stellar review now has to defend his or her review
against the prior body of evidence, often in a formal EEO setting. Not
pretty, making the path of least resistance to give an average review and
hope you or the employee transfer somewhere else before they drive each
other nuts.

If you want an anecdote, how about a recent new hire who sold his office-
provided laptop on eBay, claiming he thought it was a hiring bonus and
sold it because he already owned a better one. He was retained because it
was *possible* his manager didn't make it clear enough that the office
equipment, including laptops with big blue and silver "Property of US
Government, serial #xxxxxx" security stickers, actually belonged to the
office itself, not the employee residing in it.

Again, you are absolutely correct, I have no experience on the
intelligence/DHS side (except once as a vendor, but we'll get to that
soon) so I'm prepared to accept your word they handle this better than
other agencies in the interests of national security.

> > I'm not painting all federal employees with the same brush- I know
many
> > dedicated civil servants as well, but they aren't the majority,
>
> The competent and dedicated civil servants are the overwhelming
> majority. It's why you have one of the most efficient government's on
> Earth.

You might just have a higher level of faith in your fellow man than I.
I'm not convinced the majority of private sector workers are competent
either, but they're easier to get rid of when that becomes apparent.

I used to own a very small cell phone and satellite TV retail store in
Missouri.

We were awarded a large (large for us, very, very, small for them!)
contract to install a satellite TV and broadcast antenna system at a DHS
office building in Lee's Summit. This was shortly after 9/11, when, if
you remember, NY local broadcast television was disrupted by the collapse
of the WTC tower that housed the local broadcast transmitters on its roof.

In, what will undoubtedly set you off on another rant, I'll call a
"typical government kneejerk reaction", the powers-that-be decided all
DHS offices needed multiple redundant systems to monitor TV news in the
event terrorists disabled parts of the broadcast TV infrastructure either
intentionally or accidentally, so all offices were required to contract
locally for broadcast reception antennas, satellite TV and cable TV.

Seems reasonable enough so far, and my company was lucky enough to submit
the low bid for the broadcast antenna and satellite portion of the job
(Not really "lucky", actually, I underbid the job intentionally, partly
due to a sense of patriotism and duty you'll probably have trouble
believing given the context of this thread. I supplied all of the
equipment at our cost. Looking back, I'm surprised I did that myself,
but then again, it was shortly after 9/11, and we all acted a little
crazy back then.)

Now we get to what we can call the punchline. After the job was done, we
were talking to the procurement guy who hired us. I admitted that I had
no idea DHS had a building in this sleepy little suburb of Kansas City,
and asked what they did there. He told me "we handle the DHS payroll,
but the directive was that ALL offices get outfitted with cable and
satellite."

So, I was contracted to supply a satellite TV system to a few dozen
offices (and all breakrooms) so mission-critical DHS *accountants* could
watch CNN if terrorists brought down broadcast TV in Kansas City, Missouri.

Now, perhaps I'm being unfair. Maybe payroll is their cover, and they
have an ultra-secret installation below-ground only accessible through a
false door in the back of Del Floria's tailor shop around the corner,
that only opens when the tailor blasts two puffs of steam on his presser,
and I was only led to believe the payroll department has an urgent need
to watch CNN in an emergency.

This is, of course, the same government who also put men on the moon, dug
a trench through Panama, cured polio, and gave us the Internet, Tang, and
Global Positioning Systems. I get that. It still doesn't mean that
there aren't institutional issues of inefficiency that need addressing,
like Al Gore's unbreakable "ash receivers, tobacco, desk type".

> > and they
> > are often trapped in a system that neither appreciates or rewards
their
> > efforts, or gives them the latitude to perform as well as they could.
>
> They're not trapped at all. Skilled government workers are in high
> demand in industry at higher wages than the government pays.

Some, you might agree, are trapped by a sense of civic duty to work in
civil service.

However, while some specialists may be "in demand" by the private sector,
the rank-and-file in middle management are shunned by the private sector
due to the reputation (deserved or not) government workers have as a whole.
I know a helluva lot more private sector employees that have gone public
than the other way around.

> I reiterate: you made a cowardly attack on a soft target you know
> nothing whatsoever about because you thought it was an easy one. What's
> the proof that you don't know anything about the NSA or the
> Intelligence Community in general? The fact that you haven't sent them
> a thank-you card for the incredible missions they have accomplished to
> protect you and your family; for those who gave their lives, for those
> who survived but lost their families, for those who served for years in
> places and circumstances that would have you peeing your pants every
> day and crying for your momma at night. Who in this forum was going to
> call you out and say you are dead wrong--besides one guy who spent 32
> years in the Community--in the streets of the Middle East, East Africa,
> and Southeast Asia--and who needs no lessons in competence or
> dedication or sacrifice from ignoramuses. I never doubt that the
> sacrifices were worthwhile except maybe for a second or two when I
> encounter someone like you.

Talk about soft-targets! God help anyone who criticizes any part of the
God-fearing US of A in any fashion or capacity when all such attacks are
immediately redirected as attacks on "the troops" or the intelligence
community. Well played, sir. Ignore the fact that many agencies (including,
perhaps, the top of those you're defending) are run by redundant pencil
pushers bitching their annual raises have slowed because of that pesky
rule that no one in the Executive branch is allowed to earn more than the
President does.

But don't worry, if Alan Browne is correct, the NSA has already read this
thread, and it's only by the grace of god, or a good word from a top-
level DHS operative posing as an accountant, that I haven't yet been
hauled off to GitMo
to answer for my treasonous comments...

Sorry if I offended you. My "attack" (which was mostly a joke, but I
couldn't miss an opportunity to reply to such sanctimony) was mostly
towards the institution, rather than the personell. I have no doubt there
are talented professionals in defense, yet institutional blunders, like
the well-documented failure of intra-agency communication pre-9/11, still
happen to the best of governments, including ours.

Having said all of the above, kudos and thanks to you and others like you
for your years of service protecting the rights of the undeserved such as
I to make the type of comments I just have.

[ChairmanOfTheBored]

On Sun, 16 Dec 2012 20:41:34 -0700, Todd Allcock
<elecc...@AnoOspamL.com> wrote:

>Talk about soft-targets! God help anyone who criticizes any part of the
>God-fearing US of A in any fashion or capacity when all such attacks are
>immediately redirected as attacks on "the troops" or the intelligence
>community. Well played, sir. Ignore the fact that many agencies (including,
>perhaps, the top of those you're defending) are run by redundant pencil
>pushers bitching their annual raises have slowed because of that pesky
>rule that no one in the Executive branch is allowed to earn more than the
>President does.
>
>But don't worry, if Alan Browne is correct, the NSA has already read this
>thread, and it's only by the grace of god, or a good word from a top-
>level DHS operative posing as an accountant, that I haven't yet been
>hauled off to GitMo
>to answer for my treasonous comments...
>
>Sorry if I offended you. My "attack" (which was mostly a joke, but I
>couldn't miss an opportunity to reply to such sanctimony) was mostly
>towards the institution, rather than the personell. I have no doubt there
>are talented professionals in defense, yet institutional blunders, like
>the well-documented failure of intra-agency communication pre-9/11, still
>happen to the best of governments, including ours.
>
>Having said all of the above, kudos and thanks to you and others like you
>for your years of service protecting the rights of the undeserved such as
>I to make the type of comments I just have.
>
>

Hmmm... Interesting observation(s).

+unsure

[Wes Groleau]

On 12-16-2012 08:41, Bill wrote:
> This has really become off-topic, but I will say that I served 20 years
> in the U S Navy, and found that organization to run pretty well, despite
> its large size, diversity of missions, etc. I later worked in a large

I spent thirteen years in the U.S. Navy and I disagree. Every time a
C.O.'s two-year rotation is up, the next guy changes stuff for no reason
unless it's to prove he has the right. And then the next one changes it
back.

And I could laugh--or fume--for hours telling sea stories about idiots
and dingbats in middle management.

But I'll admit it could have been worse. It obviously wasn't bad enough
for me to bail when my first enlistment was up.

There was one decision that finally did get me out. I was _the_ guy
sailors called when they had trouble fixing a particular sonar system.
I was good at that and knew I was good at it, but the detailer didn't
believe me. I chose to leave rather than become a senior pencil-pusher
on a single ship--something I knew I would NOT be good at.

And both GE Aerospace and Raytheon wanted me to do what I was good at
for twice the pay.

--
Wes Groleau

There ain't no right wing,
there ain't no left wing.
There's only you and me and we just disagree.
(apologies to Jim Krueger)

[Todd Allcock]

At 16 Dec 2012 18:40:33 -0800 DevilsPGD wrote:
> In the last episode of <151220121223264769%st...@sky.net>, Davoud
> <st...@sky.net> said:
>
> >zulu:
> >> Does Siri send any data back to Apple?
> >
> >Firstly, you should know that your iOS device lacks the computing power
> >to perform speech recognition.
>
> Dragon NaturallySpeaking 7 ran nicely on a single core 500MHz P3 with
> 128MB of RAM. A modern iPhone could implement voice recognition if it
> wanted, Apple simply chooses to not do so.

I think most of it is the expectation of what the voice recognition
should accomplish. I've used Microsoft's "Voice Command" going back to my
circa-2003 Dell Axim Pocket PC running a 400-Mhz ARM. The problem isn't
the recognition, IMO, but what the device is able to do after being told.
I can ask my phone to "Call Mom," or "Play the Beatles," because that
exclusively uses commands and objects understood by the phone, and the
user must speak in a 70's era text adventure game syntax (verb/noun, with
optional modifier, e.g. "Call Dave at Work"), or a specific preset phrase
("What is my battery level?")

On-device voice recognition would be useless for stuff like "will I need
an umbrella Thursday?" or "what's the most viewed video on YouTube?"
because voice recognition and actually parsing speech are two wildly
different things. As long as you need connectivity to get the results of
a request (Google, Wolfram Alpha, Yelp, etc.), you might as well use it
to try and decode "naturall speech as well.


The alternative (which Apple and Google both use, AFAIK) is a hybrid
system that leaves the low-hanging fruit ("Call Mom" to the device
itself, and sends the hard stuff ("where's the closest Ethiopian
restaurant") off to the interwebs for processing and fetching results.

> Android 4.1 shows an example of an online vs offline solution which runs
> in devices slower and less powerful than an iPhone 5.

The only problem with hybrids is that they can confuse users when they
lose connectivity. ("Why can Siri still play 'Men at Work's Greatest
Hits' for me, but can't give me directions out of this damned Australian
National Park?")

[Wes Groleau]

On 12-16-2012 22:41, Todd Allcock wrote:
> The problem with firing, (at least in non-security related agencies,
> apparently,) is, as you said, that it requires multiple warnings and
> failure to improve. IME, this is harder than it sounds, because many
> managers are loathe to give warnings to employees who have been given
> glowing reviews by other managers, since, if challenged, the manager
> giving the less than stellar review now has to defend his or her review
> against the prior body of evidence, often in a formal EEO setting. Not
> pretty, making the path of least resistance to give an average review and
> hope you or the employee transfer somewhere else before they drive each
> other nuts.

Sorry to have to tell you the same thing is out here in the private
sector. Insufficient CYA like as not results in a lawsuit from the
dismissed employee.

--
Wes Groleau

“Beware the barrenness of a busy life.”
— Socrates

[Wes Groleau]

On 12-17-2012 10:40, Michelle Steiner wrote:
> There's a story which may be apocryphal that at Ford Hood Texas, the
> commanding general's secretary (a civilian) told the incoming CG, "I'm not
> going to change the filing system for you. You'll be gone in three years,
> but I'll be here after you leave. The system works, and there's no need to
> change it. And I'll tell your successor the same thing in three years."
> This supposedly, and may actually, have happened in the 1970s.

Could have happened. Though in my experience the changes tended to be
more visible. Assume it happened. Results could have gone two ways:
1. The C.G. is worthy of his stars, and the matter is dropped.
2. The C.G., like so many others, "earned" his stars by not getting
caught being stupid, but the civilian is moved into a job that the C.G.
thinks will punish him for his cheek.

I spent six months as "secretary" to the flightiest O-4 I had ever seen.

That was my "punishment" for taking advantage of a regulation to remove
myself from a volunteer program that was preventing me from
accomplishing necessary maintenance on equipment critical to the ship's
safety.

This LCDR was a real piece of work. I had to constantly rescue
classified materials from the trash and soda cans from the burn bag.

His subordinates would call and ask if he was there. If I said "No"
they'd say, "I'll be right up!"

One day I filled out five or six requisitions for office supplies and
set them back on top of the box of blanks. When I came back, he had
signed all five hundred forms in the box--the half dozen completed ones
and 490+ blanks.

--
Wes Groleau

You always have time for what you do first.

[Alan Browne]

On 2012.12.17 22:41 , Wes Groleau wrote:

> One day I filled out five or six requisitions for office supplies and
> set them back on top of the box of blanks. When I came back, he had
> signed all five hundred forms in the box--the half dozen completed ones
> and 490+ blanks.

Obviously a time to fill in some wacky requests over his signature.

Ships Captain: "He approved WHAT?!"
Quartermaster: "500,000 ft of Monster Cable to 'improve the efficiency
and quality of the ship PA system', Sir."

[DevilsPGD]

In the last episode of <kame7h$1jg$2...@dont-email.me>, Todd Allcock

<elecc...@AnoOspamL.com> said:

>On-device voice recognition would be useless for stuff like "will I need
>an umbrella Thursday?" or "what's the most viewed video on YouTube?"
>because voice recognition and actually parsing speech are two wildly
>different things. As long as you need connectivity to get the results of
>a request (Google, Wolfram Alpha, Yelp, etc.), you might as well use it
>to try and decode "naturall speech as well.

Sure, while data is available it makes sense to use it. However, I'd
rather see the phone give it a shot and only send up to Apple's servers
if the local device either can't transcribe the words, or can't answer
the query.

>The alternative (which Apple and Google both use, AFAIK) is a hybrid
>system that leaves the low-hanging fruit ("Call Mom" to the device
>itself, and sends the hard stuff ("where's the closest Ethiopian
>restaurant") off to the interwebs for processing and fetching results.

Siri doesn't even try if there isn't data available.

>The only problem with hybrids is that they can confuse users when they
>lose connectivity. ("Why can Siri still play 'Men at Work's Greatest
>Hits' for me, but can't give me directions out of this damned Australian
>National Park?")

This is an existing problem, except that right now Siri is completely
ineffective without data. Being partially useful for simple queries
would be better than nothing.