Feeds

back to article Tuesday declared 'The Day we Fight Back' against NSA et al

A broad coalition of technology companies and activist groups has declared Tuesday, February 11th 2014 has been “The Day We Fight Back Against Mass Surveillance”. Timed to co-incide with the first anniversary of Aaron Swartz's death, the day has attracted support from some unsurprising sources – the Electronic Frontier …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.

Page:

Bronze badge
Facepalm

"Upvote this post if you want to end government snooping on our private data"

See? I can do my bit for the cause too!

Sigh.....

21
4
Bronze badge
Happy

Re: "Upvote this post if you want to end government snooping on our private data"

Yes this will have NSA and GCHQ quaking in their boots. Well assuming that you can get boots for their slimy spy person web feet.

7
0
Bronze badge
Paris Hilton

Re: "Upvote this post if you want to end government snooping on our private data"

Now you and all 14 supporters of your subversive cause are now on a terrorist watch-list.

3
0
Silver badge
Thumb Up

Re: "Upvote this post if you want to end government snooping on our private data"

At least 15 now -- you convinced me to upvote

3
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: "Upvote this post if you want to end government snooping on our private data"

Notice how Obama is once again given a free pass despite his obvious guilt...

Here's a tip: if you don't point the finger at a particular person or politician, then this "protest" is a complete waste of time because no individual will feel their career is threatened.

1
3
Anonymous Coward

We can't really march on anything

".. actually seeing as we are online, we can't really march on anything .."

Start with giving respect to the anonymity. We want the right to show emotions El Reg! For today at least :)

2
2
Holmes

Re: We can't really march on anything

Ah, but you can already (if it's your right is another question altogether...)

0
0
Coat

Re: We can't really march on anything

You can if you have a treadmill workstation...

0
0
Silver badge

Re: We can't really march on anything

We want the right to show emotions

But emotions are revealing of your personality, therefore contrary to the aims of anonymity.

I think El Reg should go further and protect you from your revealing use of word constructs by automatically feeding your text through a translation cycle such as

[English -> Russian -> Welsh -> English]

before publication.

3
0

Re: We can't really march on anything

We want the right to show emotions

Мы хотим, чтобы право показывать эмоции

Rydym am gael yr hawl i ddangos emosiwn

We want the right to show emotions

Google is getting pretty good at this... :)

1
0
Silver badge

@Ben Bonsall - Re: We can't really march on anything

Yes Google is getting better, and simple sentences should survive intact. The whole of AC's para does get modified, though.

I put my post through the process and found it distorted much of the meaning. The first sentence, though, was nicely depersonalised :

But emotions are revealing of your personality, therefore contrary to the aims of anonymity.

became

But emotions reveal who you are, so contrary to the purposes of anonymity.

0
0
Coat

Re: We can't really march on anything

I think amanfromMars1 (among others) already does this...

2
0

Spread the word

All the social humps start and end their day on FB, Tweeter and yeah, Tumblr. I, for own privacy issues, don't peek inside.

May be I'll talk to my friends over the coffee machine.

PS: And I'd really appreciate a transparency report about NSA requests from El Reg as well. After all we talk here a lot.

2
2
Silver badge
Trollface

Re: Spread the word

Go on Facebook and Twitter to protest snooping into personal online communications.

BRILLIANT!!

Is it too late to harness the power of MySpace too?

6
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: Spread the word

Only if you know the URL without Googling.

[My Google said, "myspace.com" today is all about music and 2nd closest match is "myspace.ge", which is not the old real thing as per my guess.]

3
0
Bronze badge

<sigh>

Pet hate: "...share a pre-prepared meme..."

To "prepare" is to make something ready. By definition, it is done *before* you need/use it.

"Pre-prepare" is as stupid as "ATM machines".

2
0

Re: <sigh>

to share something pre-prepared is to share it before it's ready...

2
0
Bronze badge

Re: <sigh>

"Pre-prepare" is as stupid as "ATM machines".

You forgot the PIN number to go with your ATM machine.

0
0
Silver badge

Knock, Knock, Cheltenham ..... Is there Anybody Not Badly Programmed in there?

Any Big Thinkers and Virtual Tinkerers?

Nice to see El Reg doing its thing for AIMeritocracy and becoming an Informed Target of Advanced Interest to GCHQ Intelligence Community Enterprises, unpeopled and disinfested with MAD Muppet Master Blasters?

Do Special Information Services Secreting Sublimely Intelligent Sources lead with seconded third party politicians following prepared scripts or do they and the mad and the bad and the rad and the sad go rogue and renegade and wander off piste and reservation in search of personal enrichment and chaotic excitement elsewhere, and utilise media waves and communications chunnels to present an individually subverted and perverted future tomorrow which begins with the manipulated news of today ........ and would such SISSSIS be a national intelligence asset or internetional field force?

And that question to whoever is charged and/or presumes to supply Blighty and Britannia her leading intelligence community wares.

cc COBRA re Virtual Strike Force Engagement Fight Back and Fighting Back with Black Watch Servers in the Sunny Shade of Dark Web Shadow.

It never rains but it pours in a biblical flood and to fight the flow is to drown and be washed up ashore , useless and dead metaphorically and metaphysically to a new world order awash with fresh opportunities.

2
2
Silver badge

Re: Knock, Knock, Cheltenham ..... Is there Anybody Not Badly Programmed in there?

Here be a little something further and deeper on Virtual Strike Force Engagement Fight Backs which present quite magically all manner of alternative events, for the odd couple or two to dislike and vote down without probably knowing anything about what they be voting on. However, one would expect the likes of intelligent folk seeking intelligence for a living though to act completely differently and not tarry in a hurry if their concerns stretch to matters of interest to IARPA’s Uncle Sam.

A user knowledgeable about an intended MPC [MultiParty Computation] scenario, but not an expert in cryptographic protocols or MPC, could input application data into a future tool which will select or generate the definition of a cryptographic protocol and a proof of the protocol’s security or data that can be used to prove the security of the protocol. …. http://cryptome.org/2014/02/iarpa-rfi-14-03.pdf

Hmmm …. Input application data into a future tool which will select or generate the definition of a cryptographic protocol and a proof of the protocol’s security or data that can be used to prove the security of the protocol such as those which provide leading Special Information Services Secreting Sublimely Intelligent Sources with seconded third party politicians following prepared scripts, is a Multiparty Computation scenario which reveals untold and telling vulnerabilities in everything that tries to disprove it?

And the available more chaotic alternative for command and control with rogue renegade elements/constituents does present the facility and utility to create havoc and mayhem if prime first parties are inadequately addressed and poorly compensated for non-leading future participation in an adopted supporting role.

There’s a lot going on out there in the Cyber Domains of IntelAIgent Space, El Regers. And none of it bad whenever one is good and prepared to freely share, although that does not mean that things cannot turn suddenly catastrophic to ensure that things will be even better.

0
0
Alert

Re: Knock, Knock, Cheltenham ... MAD_Muppet_Madness_Blasters

Dear Sir,

I love your thinking.

Thank you!

wagonman, Thailand

0
0
Silver badge

It's about breaking a narrative

Currently governments spread the narrative that nobody cares about surveillance. This is about breaking this narrative. People do care.

2
1
Silver badge
Big Brother

Re: It's about breaking a narrative

Shame its too late...

I used to think 1984 was a great sci-fi, pure fiction and the UK would never go so far, and we were better off out of Europe to govern ourselves.

CCTV went up, I thought it was a good idea, police can direct their forces better, protect & serve the public.

But I am starting to worry.

First they disarm us as much as possible, then they take away out liberties, one, by one...

Every year there are more and more laws being brought in that curb our freedoms, we might not yet be as oppressed as 1984, but we are getting there.

So people need to take a stand, and protest for our rights, before we loose that right.

4
1
Bronze badge
Meh

Re: It's about breaking a narrative

"Currently governments spread the narrative that nobody cares about surveillance" - that's because nobody does. Well, at least for the same definition of "nobody" they used for the adventure game genre - "nobody" cares about those either; unsurprisingly that's actually true inasmuch as the valiant army of those who do is utterly and thoroughly dwarfed into insignificance by the ocean of those who really, really don't. Same thing here.

2
0

Tuesday? Clearly the anarchy youth of today needs Monday in bed.

1
0
Coat

How dare they?

Don't they know that this is Slashcott Week and we don't need any distractions or dilutions of public attention?

Mine's the one with the 4 digit UID label sewn into the collar.

3
0
Gold badge
Unhappy

Don't bother.

Write a real letter to your elected representative.

Keep it calm and polite and focused.

Depending where you you might like to point out

£2bn the govt say they will give ISPs to do their work.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/10/07/detica_interception_modernisation/

Snowden suggsts that GCHQ have probably implemented quite a lot of this without ISP assistance already.

Number of UK terror suspects watched by MI5 in 2007 2000

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6613963.stm

Number of UK terrorist deaths 2000-2012

52 victims of 7/7/5 bombings. 4 bombers

http://www.theinsider.org/news/article.asp?id=0472 only lists the victims.

Jean Charles de Menezes 22/7/5 Intelligence FUBAR.

Northern Ireland 2 8/3/9

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/mar/08/northern-ireland-soldiers-killed-antrim

Total 59 in 12 years..

Estimated value of a human life

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Value_of_life

$6m (US DoT)

$7.9 (US FDA)

UK average lifetime earnings at average UK salary 18-70 @ £26,244 £1 364 688

UK population 2010 62.3million

http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/npp/national-population-projections/2010-based-projections/sum-

So the UK govt plans to spend £1m each to watch these suspects. or they will spend £33.8m each to save 1 life.

Or it plans to watch *every* person in the UK because 0.0032% *may* actually do something that will endanger other peoples lives, possibly.

Average number killed each year in botched DIY or farm accidents c50-70 ROSPA

BTW IIRC the cost to keep a prisoner in a UK prison is about £38k/ year.

IOW. It's a f**k of a lot of money to get not a very great result,and you could guarantee to save more lives by spending less in other areas.

And for USAians I'd point out that all that unwarranted (as in no warrant) spying did not prevent the Chicago bombing and did get a women raided by the FBI when her husband lost his job and the boss checked his browser, see El Reg story.

7
1
Bronze badge
Thumb Up

Re: Don't bother.

Try ......

http://www.theyworkforyou.com

Saves a stamp at least :)

1
1
Anonymous Coward

Re: Don't bother.

Unfortunately MP's don't care about it, they just care about getting their expenses paid...

2
1
Silver badge

Re: Don't bother. @AC

That's really a low blow. For all the hassle they get, the constant travelling, the long debates that run into the evening/night, and the exposure they have to their constituents and their problems, most MPs are not in it for the money, and many of them care passionately about their constituents.

I don't know whether you follow your MP, but if you did, you would probably be surprised by how many days they don't get back home in the evening, or how readily they are prepared to talk to any of their constituents.

Rather than constantly being in hotels, they are allowed to have an expensed second residence. If their permanent residence is in their home constituency, then this second residence will be in London or the home counties. If they have been parachuted into a constituency, then it may be there (although I would like all MPs to actually live in their constituency).

Because they are often out of their constituency, they are normally allowed to run an expensed office with some staff there. Often, MPs top-up the running of their constituency office out of their own pocket, or have family members working for more hours than they are paid.

And like almost any other employed person, they are allowed to claim justifiable travel expenses and ad-hock accommodation costs when away from any of their residences.

So yes, they do claim high expenses, because they do things that need paying for. And, yes, sometimes the rules have been abused. But probably not too much now (cases in the media nowadays are mostly historical).

They do not join Parliament to make money, at least not while they are an MP. Mostly people do it because they want to make a difference, and precious few manage this against the political machine. If they get well known, they may make money afterwards by taking directorships or on the public speaking circuit, but I suspect that many MPs after they leave office either move into local government, find normal jobs or retire. Only a few make the really big bucks. Most just grow grey and disillusioned.

4
1
Silver badge
FAIL

Re: Jon Smith IQ19 Re: Don't bother.

So you want to argue that the SUCCESS of the security services in the UK in preventing terror deaths is used against them? How completely moronic! You do realise that in the same period thousands have died as a direct result of terrorist action in countries which do not have the same safeguards?

By your argument, we should stop all of the annual billion dollar cancer research because, collectively, we can't prove it may save more than a few thousand people Worldwide every year. Indeed, one of the problems with research is there are many deadends which mean the money invested in that research actually ended up saving no-one. Research into child obesity? Scrap it, you say, because the LFFs can just be made to go running. HIV and AIDS research? I bet you think they had it coming so why spend millions a year when we can tell the victims to just realise it was all their fault in the first place for being junkies and pervs, right? How about road safety? Same for that as we've reached the point where adding road safety features in the UK may probably only save an extra dozen people a year, so why bother? Of course, I'm sure you'd change your tune if it was a relative or someone you actually care about, you mindless cluetard.

3
8
Facepalm

Re: Jon Smith IQ19 Don't bother.

Nice straw man argument Matt, but medical research and mass snooping by the government are not the same thing.

Could you please cite your sources that show how many lives have been saved by said surveillance intelligence? The US government has already admitted the intelligence they gather has been next to useless at actually stopping any attacks on their home soil.

http://theweek.com/article/index/254401/is-the-nsas-data-snooping-actually-effective

5
2
Bronze badge
Coat

Re: Jon Smith IQ19 Don't bother.

rational basis for allocation of resources.

Just saying, shouldn't be that hard to get a grip....

P.

1
0
Silver badge
FAIL

Re: killakrusty Re: Jon Smith IQ19 Don't bother.

"Nice straw man argument Matt...." So nice I see you just can't counter it? At what point do we decide saving a life is "too expensive", either medically or security-wise? Oh, sorry, you probably didn't want me to raise that point seeing as it tramples all over the moronic arguments of you sheeple.

"....medical research and mass snooping by the government are not the same thing...." Even a broken clock is right at least twice a day, now all you have to do is be right about one more thing and you'll prove it. Sorry, but, going on your post, I rate your chances as close to zero.

".....Could you please cite your sources that show how many lives have been saved by said surveillance intelligence?...." How's this for a simple comparison - the number of people killed by terrorists in the US and UK yesterday is zero, compared to the five people killed by Islamist terrorists (that would dearly love to kill Yanks and Brits) in Iraq alone. BTW, three of those five were videoed being beheaded by their AQ murderers. Now, YOU stop bleating for a minute and try and answer one simple question - if the security services aren't doing anything useful, why is AQ unable to mount attacks other than by lone-wolf nutjobs in the US or UK? Do you think they've changed their minds? Don't worry, the rest of us will give you a nice long pause to think about it seeing as thinking for yourself is obviously such a taxing and unfamilar task to you.

2
4
Gold badge
Meh

Re: Jon Smith IQ19 Don't bother.

"How completely moronic! You do realise that in the same period thousands have died as a direct result of terrorist action in countries which do not have the same safeguards?"

I wonder how many have died in countries with more pervasive security regimes

Probably at the hands of their own government?

But keep playing the strawmen. It's what your good at.

"By your argument, we should stop all of the annual billion dollar cancer research because, collectively, we can't prove it may save more than a few thousand people Worldwide every year. I"

Bring on the strawmen again Mattie.

As you'd know Mattie boy, if you've read my post you'll know there are values placed on human lives.

And they are not unlimited.

I'd say all of the causes you mentioned have saved more lives (in fact any of them) have saved more lives that your visceral love of mass surveillance.

In truth I can only think of 2 reasons for your frankly bats**t craze stance on this subject.

a)Your company has a big contract with some TLA and more snooping is good for business. "HP, our servers spy on more people than any other mfg on the planet" That also fits with the anorak level HP server wars you engage in.

b)You had some sort of childhood trauma and desperately seek the security that somehow you believe this sort of mass surveillance brings you. Like crime victims turning their houses into fortresses following following a mugging/burglary/rape

Which is just sad. It's like a shifted version of the data fetishist..

1
2

Re: killakrusty Jon Smith IQ19 Don't bother.

""Nice straw man argument Matt...." So nice I see you just can't counter it? At what point do we decide saving a life is "too expensive", either medically or security-wise? Oh, sorry, you probably didn't want me to raise that point seeing as it tramples all over the moronic arguments of you sheeple."

- Why would I bother trying to counter an invalid argument, other than pointing out that it is invalid. Not sure why you feel the need for name calling : (

""....medical research and mass snooping by the government are not the same thing...." Even a broken clock is right at least twice a day, now all you have to do is be right about one more thing and you'll prove it. Sorry, but, going on your post, I rate your chances as close to zero."

- I honestly have no idea what you are trying to communicate with your response?!?

"".....Could you please cite your sources that show how many lives have been saved by said surveillance intelligence?...." How's this for a simple comparison - the number of people killed by terrorists in the US and UK yesterday is zero, compared to the five people killed by Islamist terrorists (that would dearly love to kill Yanks and Brits) in Iraq alone. BTW, three of those five were videoed being beheaded by their AQ murderers. Now, YOU stop bleating for a minute and try and answer one simple question - if the security services aren't doing anything useful, why is AQ unable to mount attacks other than by lone-wolf nutjobs in the US or UK? Do you think they've changed their minds?"

- So basically, you believe that without mass state sponsored surveillance on it's citizens, the country would basically be overrun by sadistic religious nut-jobs. Yet your only evidence is to cite the number of "terrorist" killings in Iraq, a country still in the midst of a tribal/religious war? Please tell me more!!

"Don't worry, the rest of us will give you a nice long pause to think about it seeing as thinking for yourself is obviously such a taxing and unfamilar task to you."

- Actually the math is not that hard. If someone could prove to me with credible verifiable data that mass surveillance is value for money, and really saves a ton of lives, then I'd be all for it. Feel free to post those stats and make me a changed man.

3
1
Anonymous Coward

Re: Don't bother.

>Write a real letter to your elected representative.

Why?

One person I know, who had been e-mailing his representitive about the GCHQ JTRIG revelations (which went even further than DDoS'ing IRC) said a few days ago that his representitive had been fired/resigned.

Why? His representitive was the immigration minister, who had hired illegal immigrants to clean for him.

Hypocrites, the fucking lot of them.

0
0
Silver badge

Re: killakrusty Jon Smith IQ19 Don't bother.

@killakrust: If you haven't worked it out yet, Matt could start an argument in a vacuum - whether it be invalid or not. You know the type you used to meet at school who would argue away until you gave up as it was all pointless at which point they'd happily feel that they'd "won" thus justifying their position.

2
1
Silver badge

Re: Don't bother. @AC re: Hypocrites

This representative may have been a bit hypocritical. That does not mean they all are.

If you are talking about Mark Harper, then he resigned as a minister, not as an MP. And the statement from Downing Street says "there was no suggestion the 43-year-old Conservative MP for the Forest of Dean had knowingly employed an illegal immigrant". It looks like he was shown the required documents at the time (2007), but did not follow up by checking that the cleaner had an indefinite right to stay, and eventually ended up working beyond what her visa allowed. So she was a legal immigrant who overstayed her visa. Not the same thing as employing an illegal immigrant.

When he found out, he resigned on principal, not because he had to. He is exactly the type of MP I would want!

.

By saying that it is pointless to even try to engage, you are descending into apathy, unless you are advocating direct action, which may see you branded as a terrorist yourself, depending on the scale of your action.

"Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time." - Churchill.

2
0

Re: killakrusty Jon Smith IQ19 Don't bother.

@Mark 65: Cheers mate. I really should know better than feeding the troll. But sometimes I just can't help it.

2
1
Silver badge
FAIL

Re: killakrusty Jon Smith IQ19 Don't bother.

"....Why would I bother trying to counter an invalid argument...." Yeah, it's "invalid" when you can't argue against it, right? Why don't you start by saying why it is "invalid"? Maybe because you can't....?

"....I honestly have no idea what you are trying to communicate ...." Don't worry, I was merely trying to throw you a bone by highlighting the fact you actually got something right, a rarity for a member of the flock. Unfortunately, I used far too much sarcasm for your simple witts to follow. Aplogies for not realising the dismal depths of your crass stupidity.

"....So basically, you believe that without mass state sponsored surveillance on it's citizens, the country would basically be overrun by sadistic religious nut-jobs....." Did I say over-run? I said we would be suffering far more attacks. You have avoided answering the question as to why you think AQ have been unable to mount such spectaculars in the UK or US despite them being able to in such countries as Kenya. Don't worry, most of us have already worked out it's beacuse you want to avoid the question, that it probably makes your head hurt to consider.

"....Yet your only evidence is to cite the number of "terrorist" killings in Iraq, a country still in the midst of a tribal/religious war?...." We in the UK weren't in the grip of "tribal/religious war" when the London Tube bombings happened, and I'm pretty sure there wasn't any modern-day Crusade going on in the States on 9/11. But both countries have plenty of AQ sympathisers that would love to act. Oh, sorry, did you not want me to point out the incredibly obvious? Well, obvious to the non-baaah-lievers, anyway. Oh, and violence in Iraq, especially from AQ, was massively reduced under the Allies, but has risen since the US (and associated security services) reduced their role and left it to the Iraqis (who do not have Echelon-like capabilities). Maybe you want to pretend otherwise, but the simple fact is the security services ARE protecting even mindless numpties like yourself.

0
2

Re: killakrusty Jon Smith IQ19 Don't bother.

> I said we would be suffering far more attacks. You have avoided answering the question as to why you think AQ have been unable to mount such spectaculars in the UK or US despite them being able to in such countries as Kenya.

Iraq or Kenya vs the UK are not exactly ceteris paribus comparisons, are they, Matt? Is the level of comms surveillance the only difference here or could other contributing factors be

- large numbers of Sunnis and Shias in Iraq keen to do each other's heads in,

- similarly tribal hatred in Kenya,

- a higher number of willing terrorists native to the countries, poverty possibly contributing to radicalisation,

- an influx of terrorists, weapons and explosives from other, often neighbouring countries vs relatively decent border control on this island and in any country with a bit of a budget,

- a less corrupt and better equipped police force,

- a better chance to effect whatever change they want to in an already unstable country?

The presence of US/UK forces in Iraq again is likely to have an influence all on its own, even without comms surveillance.

In a nutshell, your whole comparison is ludicrous and pointless to start with.

1
1
Silver badge
FAIL

Re: Pstupidonymous Re: killakrusty Jon Smith IQ19 Don't bother.

"....Iraq or Kenya vs the UK are not exactly ceteris paribus comparisons...." They're just comparisons you don't want to make is what you actually mean.

"....large numbers of Sunnis and Shias in Iraq keen to do each other's heads in...." In the UK we have a massive Muslim population, both Shia and Sunni, from India and Pakistan, plus many Middle Eastern countries. We already know plenty of AQ sympathisers exist in the UK, as shown by 7/7, Anjem Choudray and his associates, plus the jihadis that are traveling by the dozen to fight for AQ in Syria and Somalia. Oh, sorry, I shouldn't have said 'we' as you are obviously very unaware. But the 7/7 events show you do not need a large number of Sunni and Shias trying to kill each other, so your point is completely moot. Were the 7/7 bombers or the 9/11 hijackers targeting Shias? No, they were targeting Brits and Yanks, and AQ put a lot of time, effort, cash and resources into those two attacks, so pretending the Sunni-Shia schism is the only reason for Islamic terror is stupid beyond words, and thinking (sic in your case) that we are safe because we are not Iraq is beyond putting your head in the sand.

".....similarly tribal hatred in Kenya...." WTF? The attack on the Westgate mall had NOTHING to do with tribal enmity!?! All the attackers were al-Shabaab Somalians, not Kenyans. Seriously, STFU and go do some reading you ignorant moron.

".....a higher number of willing terrorists native to the countries....." So what is the critical number you think we need before AQ would act in the UK? The 7/7 bombings were just four Islamic nutters, do you seriously want to pretend there aren't four more AQ sympathisers in the UK? Even 9/11 actually only required 19 actual hijackers. I'm guessing you simply don't know that the are currently 200+ UK citizens fighting in Syria alone, the majority for AQ. Every dribbling post you make simply exposes more of your willful ignorance.

".....vs relatively decent border control on this island and in any country with a bit of a budget..." Please, stop it, your desperation is looking downright childish! Thanks to the EU, we threw away the majority of our border controls years ago! It is actually INTELLIGENCE which leads to the majority of seizures of drugs, people smuggling, weapons smuggling, etc., etc. So what you are moaning about - US and UK eavesdropping - you actually ADMIT is a factor in STOPPING terror attacks in the UK. Face it, you are so full of the brown stuff you really don't have a clue what you're dribbling about.

"....- a better chance to effect whatever change they want to in an already unstable country?...." Very much avoiding the fact one of the reasons it is an unstable country is BECAUSE they no longer have access to the US-led intelligence gathering that the Allies had when they were securing Iraq. The US is being very restrictive over what intelligence material they pass on to the current Iraqi administration and the results are easy to see - no intel, more terrorism. Oh, I mean easy to see if you're not a blinkered dolt, crippled by your socio-political failings.

".....The presence of US/UK forces in Iraq again is likely to have an influence all on its own, even without comms surveillance....." An influence as in giving the jihadis the excuse they crave, the very rallying cry bin Ladin used in Saudi and Afghanistan and Iraq, i.e., expel the 'Crusaders' from Islamic lands? You obviously do not know that bin Ladin and his nutty crew think they need to 'purify' all Islamic countries of any Western influences. The return of the Allies would act as a magnet to AQ sympathisers all over the Middle East, as seen by their prior rush to support and fight for Saddam prior to the 2003 invasion. Your arguments are not just lame, they are counter to the very points you try to make. In a nutshell, you claim our security services do nothing to combat terrorism, then claim the reason we are not seeing the same level of attacks as Iraq is because our security forces are stopping terrorists for operating effectively in the UK or US..... Way to make my point for me!

0
0

Re: Pstupidonymous killakrusty Jon Smith IQ19 Don't bother.

It's quite simple and obvious, Matt. It's much easier for terrorists to operate in unstable countries with worse border control and higher levels of corruption such as Iraq and Kenya than in the UK.

That alone does suffice to make your comparison non-ceteris paribus and gone is your point. Your verbosity illustrates how much that bothers you but it does not detract from the facts.

0
1
Silver badge
FAIL

Re: Pstupidonymous killakrusty Jon Smith IQ19 Don't bother.

"It's quite simple and obvious, Matt. It's much easier for terrorists to operate in unstable countries with worse border control and higher levels of corruption such as Iraq and Kenya than in the UK....." So you want to admit terrorists like AQ are finding it hard to act in the UK due to it being "stable", but desperately want to deny that "stability" is due in any way to the GCHQ monitoring? Wow, you really have taken denial to a new level!

".....That alone does suffice to make your comparison non-ceteris paribus...." And now you're bleating in Latin! I'd be impressed if I hadn't already explained EXACTLY why, all things actually being equal, the comparison was a load of cobblers.

"..... Your verbosity illustrates how much that bothers you...." You're bleating illustrates exactly how much you are despearte to avoid the actual points of the discussion. And how you are still evading the issue of providing any proof of how your rights have been infringed and you have been "harmed" by the NSA or GCHQ actions. Oh, what, were you hoping I'd just forget about that? Sorry to break it to you but us non-sheeple have attention spans longer than the goldfish-levels of your flock. So, where's your proof?

0
1

Re: Pstupidonymous killakrusty Jon Smith IQ19 Don't bother.

> So you want to admit terrorists like AQ are finding it hard to act in the UK due to it being "stable", but desperately want to deny that "stability" is due in any way to the GCHQ monitoring?

What I'm saying is that from a comparison of the number of terrorist attacks in Iraq and the UK "yesterday" it does not follow that the difference is down to that GCHQ monitoring alone if at all, so your point is nada. That's so obvious, it saddens me that you need this explained over and over again.

> And how you are still evading the issue of providing any proof of how your rights have been infringed and you have been "harmed" by the NSA or GCHQ actions.

When have I spoken of rights infringement or harm caused to me? You're once more confused as to who you are talking to, Matt. That's something I reckon you may have discussed with killakrust but don't take my word for it. Your homework to find out really.

1
1
Silver badge
FAIL

Re: Pstupidonymous killakrusty Jon Smith IQ19 Don't bother.

"....What I'm saying is that from a comparison of the number of terrorist attacks in Iraq and the UK "yesterday" it does not follow that the difference is down to that GCHQ monitoring alone if at all, so your point is nada...." Why is it 'nada'? And you can't just say because you want to baaaah-lieve it is so. It seems a very simple comparison - AQ obviously feel better able to act in Iraq, as shown by the killings where there is no matching surveillance, than they do in the UK, as shown by the lack of killings and we know they know the GCHQ and NSA are looking for their sympathisers online here in the UK. It follows one of the factors crippling their ability to act is their fear of discovery, and very obvious given their previous reliance on email and other electronic coms that they are now have problems communicating with their sympathisers and probable activists here in the UK. It seems a very simple and obvious logical statement, but then I suspect you prefer not to use logic but instead give precedence to your petty paranoias and sad socio-political outlook. As I have asked before, and as you have constantly failed to answer, why do you think AQ have not been able to repeat their 9/11 and 7/7 successes, what factor do you think has stopped them? Do you want to pretend it was that they all had a change of heart?

Oh, and BTW, we already know that the terrorists are scared of detection and have tried changing their coms since Snowdope's treasonous jaunt (http://www.theregister.co.uk/Print/2013/11/07/terrorists_switching_ccmms_techniques_because_of_sncwden_leaks_claims_gchq_chief/).

"....When have I spoken of rights infringement or harm caused to me?...." You insisted all your own emails and Internet activity was being intercepted and analysed, you stated this was an invasion of your privacy and trampled on your rights, yet you seem to be unable to show any harm (or any actual proof your coms were analysed at all). It just seems to be your paranoid and egotistical fantasises talking. As suggested before, get over yourself, you are simply of no interest to anyone.

0
1

Re: Pstupidonymous killakrusty Jon Smith IQ19 Don't bother.

>> When have I spoken of rights infringement or harm caused to me? You're once more confused as to who you are talking to, Matt. That's something I reckon you may have discussed with killakrust but don't take my word for it. Your homework to find out really.

> You insisted all your own emails and Internet activity was being intercepted and analysed, you stated this was an invasion of your privacy and trampled on your rights...

Should be easy enough to quote me then. The stage is all yours.

1
1
Silver badge
FAIL

Re: Pstupidonymous killakrusty Jon Smith IQ19 Don't bother.

"....The stage is all yours." Oh, what, so you can wriggle out of answering the points raised yet again? You have posted numerous times stating (a) your coms are being intercepted (you dribbled about your packets being analysed), (b) that the NSA and GCHQ activities cause 'harm', and (c) that you continue to maintain they are 'illegal' long after they have been shown to be completely legal. Now, do you want to try and answer the points I raised or do you just want to carry on playing avoidance games? Don't worry, we all know it's the latter - you simply don't want to face facts.

0
1

Re: Pstupidonymous killakrusty Jon Smith IQ19 Don't bother.

It's neither news nor a surprise that you struggle to keep track, Matt.

> "....The stage is all yours." Oh, what, so you can wriggle out of answering the points raised yet again? You have posted numerous times stating (a) your coms are being intercepted (you dribbled about your packets being analysed), (b) that the NSA and GCHQ activities cause 'harm', and (c) that you continue to maintain they are 'illegal' long after they have been shown to be completely legal.

If I had it'd be the simplest thing to quote. Stage is all yours. Still.

1
1

Page:

This topic is closed for new posts.