Snowden to warn Brits on Xmas telly: Your children will NEVER have privacy Celebrity whistleblower Edward Snowden will hit Britain's TV screens tomorrow to warn families: "A child born today will grow up with no conception of privacy at all." The ex-NSA sysadmin – temporarily exiled in Russia after leaking documents about the US and the UK's massive internet surveillance operations – will give this …
"Actually he had this freedom before the "security" services were able to snoop all and everything...." A freedom that was guarded before by security services that simply used the means available to them. The NSA and GCHQ are just examples of those same services, only now they have far superior tech. Guess what, dumbie - spying existed long before the NSA or GCHQ or even before the existence of the USA. It is your inability to see that round your "cool" blinkers that is the really funny part of the tragedy. You are like a wind up toy - "today I want you to bark about the NSA" - and off you go. To be honest, the predictability of you and the other sheeple is getting pretty yawntastic.
".....All the attacks foiled in the UK....." Apart from the fact I seriously doubt you even know a fraction of what goes on, you are also desperate to deny the effectiveness of such work is in that it also STOPS nutters like Bin-bag Laden communicating easily and effectively with his followers.
"..... Look at the murder of Lee Rigby....." oh, you want to cherry pick the example where there was no external communication, just two sad jihadi nutters? Smart choice of example - not! Why don't you stop and ask yourself how the drones keep finding the AQ and Talebint leaders despite them trying to hide out in Pakistan, Yemen, Sudan and Somalia? Oh, sorry, that would require you to do some actual independent thought, obviously not your strong point. One can only hope they cover it on Oprah for sheeple like you.
".....But people like you Matt, you're a Christmas gift to SIS and the politicians...." Aw, does it hurt that not everyone shares your "enlightened POV"? We must all just be very stupid not to see "The Truth" like you do, right? Well, there must be a lot of us stupid people because every election shows you're just the tiny and tinny minority. But you can always take comfort in the fact you're probably keeping tinfoil companies afloat.
You either are a troll or a complete idiot.
Quick look through your post history reveals that you mostly get down-voted on your comments, yet you just keep talking. The things that you have said before (not just here) reek with ignorance of an overwhelming proportion and mostly lack intelligence. You have been mostly down-voted in your comments since as far back as 2008.
Do us all a favour, since your comments aren't contributing much, please just shut up mate.
"You either are a troll or a complete idiot....." Gee, you provide such a detailed argument for either - not! It obviously really upsets the sheeple to hear a dissenting voice, you lot really prefer the idea of everyone bleating in unison.
".....Quick look through your post history reveals that you mostly get down-voted on your comments....." So what you're saying is you base your analysis of an argument not on the intrinsic points of the message contained, but instead you default your independent thought and only place value on the votes for or against and insist that everyone should do the same. In short, you are admitting you are the epitome of a sheep, just following the herd. That is just sad. Consider that most sites will contain a core of "like thinkers" that huddle together for the sense of belonging, that different sites will attract different core groups, and that if you desperately ignore those outside the core then all you will end up with is a bleating herd of sheeple, not actual debate, conversation or real discussion. But then I suspect sheeple like you just don't feel comfortable with real debate, it upsets you to think what you have been told is The Truth might actually not be so. You would prefer to hide away from any such discomfort, lest your fragile bubble be popped.
"....The things that you have said before (not just here) reek with ignorance of an overwhelming proportion and mostly lack intelligence....." Yet I note, whilst you most obviously disagree, you are unable to post any form of counter. In short, you have the unquestioning baaaaah-lieve of the typical sheeple. It does you zero favours to even try and discuss ignorance when your attempt at a response is so easily shown to be nothing more than spittle and bleating. After all, if we look at YOUR rather short list of posts, we find such delightful eloquence as this:
"Posted in US DoJ: Happy b-day, Ed Snowden! You're (not?) charged with capital crimes
Posted Sunday 23rd June 2013 22:08 GMT Serge 2
Re: Not exactly...
I hope you get aids"
Such stunning eloquence, brimming with insight and rationality - not! I can only guess the target of your playground shrieking thought it was far funnier and illuminating as to your limited mental capacity to not complain about your obnoxious ranting, and instead leave it on record for everyone to laugh at. I suppose you can take some comfort from the thought that, despite your failings everywhere else, at least you managed to provide unintended humour.
"....Do us all a favour...." Who is "us"? Are you really so arrogant in your stupidity as to think you really speak for all the readers? I would suggest you do yourself a favour, get over yourself, and then try really hard to actually formulate some type of argument. For a real challenge, you could even forego your inevitable attempt to regurgitate something you have been told is "cool" to say. Then again, maybe that should wait - baby steps and all.
We must all just be very stupid not to see "The Truth" like you do, right?
We don't all think you're stupid Matt, we do however wonder about how you fit the pieces (which have so far been revealed) together in your head?
For example, you have no doubt heard Mr Clapper stating about how the NSA/GCHQ deal is about searching for a needle in a haystack. That doing so is of no value if they don't have the complete haystack.
How does that fit together in your head?
Do you:
Assume they're only matching details of known bad guys and trying to link them to other bad guys? Assume they don't even bother to analyse all the information which doesn't link directly to a known bad guy?
If so how does this mass surveillance provide any protection against all the bad guys they don't know about, and can't link to a known bad guy?
Do you:
Assume that brief contact with a classified bad guy doesn't make you a surveillance target? That information on you will be disposed off because you've only ever had one brief point of contact with a known target?
If so how does this mass surveillance provide any protection against bad guys who aren't already known but who might have irregular brief contact with an already known about bad guys?
Can you see how this all has to work?
That the only way for the haystack to be of any value is for all the information to be analysed, and for a 'big picture' of everyone to be established. So that when a brief contact between an unknown and a known bad guy happens, the unknown can be 'checked' to establish if this new contact is more than an incidental contact. Without that ability the haystack cannot provide any value.
By virtue of that, this is a mass surveillance program, which HAS to be aimed at baselining EVERYONE, EVERYWHERE.
Mr Bryant from Britain wants to fly to China on a US Air Plane. US Air is required to report that to Homeland Security, who pass it along to the NSA, where they can check he isn't a known bad guy, or a contact of a known bad guy, or someone a known bad guy buys a newspaper from on every second Friday (dead drop like). Mr Bryant did what? To have his entire life mapped/tracked like that?
We all know Mr Bryant isn't a risk to society, Mr Bryant himself maintains that he poses no risk to anyone else, that he has no plans to commit any violent acts against anyone. That he won't be acting to overthrow the government of any nation.
Why do NSA/GCHQ need to know the name/DOB/Marital status of everyone Mr Bryant has emailed in the last 30 days?
Why do NSA/GCHQ need to know the name/DOB/Marital status of everyone Mr Bryant has in his email client address book?
And it's no good trying to argue that they don't need to know it, because if they don't know it how can they possibly know if you've had any contact with a bad guy? How can they know if your brief wrong number telephone conversation with the known bad guy, wasn't him issuing you orders to blow up a US flight to China? So they have to know it, and they have to keep track of it... of you, of everyone you are in contact with, of every phone call you make, of every email you send, of every internet site you visit.
Their electronic record of Mr Bryant is of no value at all if they don't have that information, because they could easily be missing the one point of contact you previously had with a known second bad guy. They know that... that's the business they're in.
Protestations about how they don't need to keep such a record of you are meaningless, because if they don't they know they will have no way to identify/check you should a brief contact happen.
And it's not just you, it's everyone you know, everyone you care about, everyone you talk to, everyone you email.... Lest they miss you getting orders to blow up that US Air flight on it's way to China...
That's the surveillance society you're supporting Matt. If you're OK with that, good for you... I'm not.
".....Assume they're only matching details of known bad guys and trying to link them to other bad guys?...." I suggest you don't give up the day job, intelligence (both the field and the characteristic) is obviously not for you. Firstly, it is very obvious that they will be watching the known players to see if they lead them to fresh players, then checking who those new players have talked to, etc., etc. That is simple police work and is how ordinary police build up a picture of a criminal organisation.
"....this is a mass surveillance program, which HAS to be aimed at baselining EVERYONE, EVERYWHERE......" There is no doubt the secret services will also be screening ALL coms for certain phrases, this is how they turn up leads on new players. The wheat is sorted from the chaff and the chaff - which in this case probably represents 99.99999% of conversations or messages - is discarded without ever having even been examined by a human being. There is no need to build a "baseline" on idiots like you that think your trendy baaah-lieves make you such rebels. Don't worry, your online dribblings are safe, they most definately fall in the chaff category.
".....That's the surveillance society you're supporting Matt....." Once again, I'll try and use an analogy even a moron like you can understand, if you concetrate real hard and get an adult to help you with the long words. A Bobbie walking his beat observes hundreds of perfectly harmless human activities and interactions whilst he is looking out for a criminal activity, some of which may be embarassing to the citizens but which do not constitute a crime. You are suggesting that the Bobbie is thererfore "spying" on us all with the express intention of later blackmailing us all with those embarassing events, and should be blindfolded until and only when a verified crime is happening right in front of him. How you expect him to see the crime and remove the blindfold in time to catch the criminal is beyond you, you simply insist that his "spying" is such a threat to your privacy that it is more important than actually catching criminals. In short, you have given in to the fear of the non-existant "privacy invasion" and failed to see the reason the Bobbie is walking the beat in the first place - to protect you. Indeed, you have so crippled yourself with that fear that you now ignore all evidence to the effectiveness of the Bobbie in reducing crime and instead bleat that the Bobbie must be removed from the beat, leaving the criminals unopposed. Even a complete cretin like yourself must surely be able to see that removing all the Bobbies from their beats might not be a good idea?
"There is no doubt the secret services will also be screening ALL coms for certain phrases, this is how they turn up leads on new players. The wheat is sorted from the chaff and the chaff - which in this case probably represents 99.99999% of conversations or messages - is discarded without ever having even been examined by a human being. There is no need to build a "baseline" on idiots like you that think your trendy baaah-lieves make you such rebels. Don't worry, your online dribblings are safe, they most definately fall in the chaff category."
But they can't discard the information after just one screening because it may well be that what was once considered an innocuous phrase becomes a keyword for the bad guys that's only discovered after work elsewhere uncovers a connection. So the information has to be retained for a considerable length of time in order to REscrape it for new connections that weren't known before the fact.
"....So the information has to be retained for a considerable length of time in order to REscrape it....." Apart from the fact we already know it is held only for a very short time (six months to two years in the EU at the tracking level by EU directive, which is actually WORSE than the US), once again the data is not actually read by a human unless it proves not to be chaff, and will be discarded if it is chaff. So all you have done is highlight the fact it still will not be read and will still be discarded UNLESS it actually proves to be a lead. Thanks for undermining your own weak argument.
I could respond by calling you names in return, however I grew up and developed the ability to discuss things with reasoned arguments, so I don't feel any need to call you names.
Do feel free to keep behaving like a six year old towards anyone who dares to challenge something you say though, if for no other reason than it clearly demonstrates the level you are capable of engaging in discussion at.
Now back to the points of discussion.
There is no doubt the secret services will also be screening ALL coms for certain phrases, this is how they turn up leads on new players. The wheat is sorted from the chaff and the chaff - which in this case probably represents 99.99999% of conversations or messages - is discarded without ever having even been examined by a human being. There is no need to build a "baseline" on idiots like you that think your trendy baaah-lieves make you such rebels. Don't worry, your online dribblings are safe, they most definately fall in the chaff category.
You don't need to worry your little head about how I'm sitting here worrying about the intelligence services gathering my information, I served my time, and demonstrated my allegiance, so I have no such worries.
You really don't seem to have grasped how this intelligence is being used.
As you have all the answers though explain this. If they're not profiling everyone everywhere, why do they need to collect the contact lists from everyones online email accounts? And why keep re-collecting them?
According to your stated opinion, they don't need to do this, because they know all you ever post is drivel, and that it can safely be discarded, without them ever needing to track who you're in contact with.
".....That's the surveillance society you're supporting Matt....." Once again, I'll try and use an analogy even a moron like you can understand, if you concetrate real hard and get an adult to help you with the long words. A Bobbie walking his beat observes hundreds of perfectly harmless human activities and interactions whilst he is looking out for a criminal activity, some of which may be embarassing to the citizens but which do not constitute a crime. You are suggesting that the Bobbie is thererfore "spying" on us all with the express intention of later blackmailing us all with those embarassing events, and should be blindfolded until and only when a verified crime is happening right in front of him. How you expect him to see the crime and remove the blindfold in time to catch the criminal is beyond you, you simply insist that his "spying" is such a threat to your privacy that it is more important than actually catching criminals. In short, you have given in to the fear of the non-existant "privacy invasion" and failed to see the reason the Bobbie is walking the beat in the first place - to protect you. Indeed, you have so crippled yourself with that fear that you now ignore all evidence to the effectiveness of the Bobbie in reducing crime and instead bleat that the Bobbie must be removed from the beat, leaving the criminals unopposed. Even a complete cretin like yourself must surely be able to see that removing all the Bobbies from their beats might not be a good idea?
Now that has to be the all time most stupid statement I think I have ever seen you make. If I were you I would email El-Reg and ask them to remove the statement where I compared the fallible human memory of a man, to a permanent computer record, seriously you should be fucking embarrassed to make such a stupid argument as that on a tech site.
I should just spend some time covering this very specific claim of yours.
How you expect him to see the crime and remove the blindfold in time to catch the criminal is beyond you, you simply insist that his "spying" is such a threat to your privacy that it is more important than actually catching criminals. In short, you have given in to the fear of the non-existant "privacy invasion" and failed to see the reason the Bobbie is walking the beat in the first place - to protect you
You see I know the bobby on the beat doesn't give a fuck about protecting me or mine, I know full well he doesn't give a fuck about detecting or solving crime.
I know from very personal experience.
I know what it means to have scum skulking around gathering your personal details to use "however they like". And I use the term scum because that's what those who believe they have a right to gather your personal details are. I know I've been stalked.
I know full well that the only person who I can trust with my (and my childrens) safety is me.
I know the only person who is interested in crime being committed against me is me.
I know te bobby won't do fuck all about it even when you put it right in front of his face, with the relevant section of criminal law which shows it is a crime.
I also know that those who chose to act like scum stalkers (skulking around) gathering the personal information of others, deserve to be treated like the nasty little scum that they are. That's why when I'm good and ready I shall take a knife to the individual who decided she could stalk me.
Now why don't you tell me again about how that bobby is there to protect me?
"....You see I know the bobby on the beat doesn't give a fuck about protecting me or mine, I know full well he doesn't give a fuck about detecting or solving crime....." And there we have it, the exact type of bitter, shrieking statement you expect from the typical sheep. "All coppers are bent", etc. Classic fail of the bitter paranoid.
"....I know from very personal experience....." Don't tell me, they busted you for being drunk and disorderly one night and you've harboured a grudge ever since? Don't tell me, you're convinced the NSA had the pub bugged and tipped off the coppers that you'd had one too many Babychams?
"....I know full well that the only person who I can trust with my (and my childrens) safety is me....." Posted from your bunker in Montana? ROFLMAO!
"....I know te bobby won't do fuck all about it even when you put it right in front of his face, with the relevant section of criminal law which shows it is a crime....." Details, please, just so we can all have a laugh at your backstreet lawyer take.
".....That's why when I'm good and ready I shall take a knife to the individual who decided she could stalk me....." You do realise that posting a threat of violence, even if not directed at the post's audience, can still be an offence, right? Duh! Seriously, I suggest you stop now and go seek professional help, you obviously have a lot of issues you need to work through.
such as demonstrating in your post of 03:31GMT on 27th Dec that you don't understand how they can use patterns of communication to trace out networks
Aha I get it now, you have a reading comprehension problem. I defintely covered that in my posts, in fact I covered it in quite a bit of detail, all about how they have to track you, and eevryone else, so that they can trace out communication networks.
Seriously, I suggest you stop now and go seek professional help, you obviously have a lot of issues you need to work through.
Do have fun trying to get the Police interested won't you, I long for the day when they get to stand in the dock and explain why they choose to ignore the crimes which were committed against me.
As for you and your belief that those you support are entitled to stalk any damned one they please be wary of the consequences of such beliefs... they can have consequences, I can assure you of that. For me it's a personal one to one thing, but history alone should make you wary of granting unlimited powers such as those you defend, to government.
"....I defintely covered that in my posts...." No you didn't. You also failed to give any MOTIVE for the NSA or GCHQ to do what you claim they are doing for any other reason than to fit in with your narcissistic and paranoid delusions. Get over yourelf, you're simply not interesting, either to the security services, the politicians or probably to the majority of readers of this thread. If you do want to maintain that your are THE Most Important Person in the World, and that by intercepting your comms the security services somehow gain some incredible insight that lets them seize all power in the universe, please do explain your fantastical abilities. Please note that THINKING you are the centre of the universe is not going to be enough.
"....I long for the day when they get to stand in the dock and explain why they choose to ignore the crimes which were committed against me....." If you think you have a case then go to a solicitor and take it up with them, they can open a public case even if the Police and CPS don't think there is grounds. My betting is you won't because you're happier wallowing in self-pity and blaming it all on "The Man" rather than having to realise you dug the hole you're sitting in.
".....granting unlimited powers....." <Yawn> yeah, it's like they can CONTROL me just by seeing who I texted last week! Not. Seriosuly, get a grip and seek help.
No you didn't.
Yes I did... oh hang on it's panto season... so that should be "Oh, yes I did!"
If you think you have a case then go to a solicitor and take it up with them...
It was you who stated "posting threats online is an offense". Maybe you should tell that to the Police, they seemed to think it was my responsibility to hide away from those who choose to threaten my life online. The entire conversation between two of them where they were planning to have me killed was of no interest to them at all. Like I said, have fun trying to get them interested.
As for me attempting to get the system which was so uninterested in protecting me, involved in doing something about the threats which were made against me, that they advised me to run away and hide from the nasty men... yeah right... I'd rather deal with it myself, thanks. That way I know it'll be dealt with. There's no wallowing, just an acceptance that the justice system doesn't serve justice or have any interest in doing so. It's sole purpose is to serve the personal interests of the officers of the court.
<Yawn> yeah, it's like they can CONTROL me just by seeing who I texted last week! Not. Seriosuly, get a grip and seek help.
I want to see you say that to the face of one of the blokes who was snatched from the streets of Britain, spirited away to another country and tortured by the CIA/MI6.... or do they not matter because they're not you?
Is that it Matt, is it just down to the fact that as long as it isn't going to be you who gets your entire life fucked by this kind of spying, then it doesn't matter worth a jot to you? Civil Society, the rule of law, innocent until proven guilty by due process... are all of those of no value to you whatsoever? Because you're alright Jack!
".....Yes I did...." No, you didn't, you just made a load of unfounded and alarmist claims, without a shred of evidence to back them up. Probably just like your claims of being stalked and "plotted against". Like I said, if you have any real evidence then take it to a solicitor and they can advise you how to raise a case and complain to the relevant authorities if you really have been ignored by the Police. Just don't be too upset if the solicitor laughs at your paranoid fantasies.
"....I want to see you say that to the face of one of the blokes who was snatched from the streets of Britain, spirited away to another country and tortured by the CIA/MI6...." As I recall, that would be a big, fat no-one. All the sheeple's usual bleating points refer to Islamist numpties caught in Afghanistan. Please do provide details of anyone snatched from the streets of the UK that claims to have been "tortured" by the CIA or MI6.
No, you didn't, you just made a load of unfounded and alarmist claims, without a shred of evidence to back them up
Ooohhhh Nooooo I didn't...
That was you... it was you who claimed that the intelligence services weren't misusing the data... that they weren't even accessing most of it.
I only pointed out how that must be completely wrong, otherwise they wouldn't be insistent upon having the entire "haystack" available.... as per the evidence given to parliament and the US congress.
So come on then Matty-boy, where is your evidence to support the claims you've made about how the security services aren't using most of the data?
"....I only pointed out how that must be completely wrong, otherwise they wouldn't be insistent upon having the entire "haystack" available...." Having the metadata available in the "haystack" is a long, long way removed from the all-encompassing intrusion you and the rest of the sheeple are insisting on bleating about. You have scared yourselves so stupid you can't even see the difference.
"....where is your evidence to support the claims you've made about how the security services aren't using most of the data?" There is NO EVIDENCE the security services ARE reading even actually reading the tiniest fraction of the actual content. So go stick your head back in the herd, have a natter with the rest of the sheeple, and see if you can actually put enough braincells together to understand the maths - tiny fraction DOES NOT EQUAL most.
Having the metadata available in the "haystack" is a long, long way removed from the all-encompassing intrusion you and the rest of the sheeple are insisting on bleating about. You have scared yourselves so stupid you can't even see the difference.
Correct, metadata can be far more damaging than the actual content. It's use relies upon interpretation.
There is NO EVIDENCE the security services ARE reading even actually reading the tiniest fraction of the actual content. So go stick your head back in the herd, have a natter with the rest of the sheeple, and see if you can actually put enough braincells together to understand the maths - tiny fraction DOES NOT EQUAL most.
Correct again, you haven't produced a single piece of evidence to support your claims, because there is none. You're just out here ranting your pet theories against anyone who dares challenge your personal views.
"....Correct, metadata can be far more damaging than the actual content...." WTF? You make less sense with every post! You moan about privacy intrusion but then claim the metadata, which does not contain any actual information on what you said or did, is somehow MORE damaging than the content!?!?!? Seriously, go take a chill pill and try THINKING it through.
"....Correct again, you haven't produced a single piece of evidence to support your claims, because there is none. You're just out here ranting your pet theories against anyone who dares challenge your personal views." Pot meet kettle, the only two differences being you don't actually have any theories of your own you're just being led round by the nose like the rest of the herd; and you are a paranoid pot that is letting your fears completely cloud what little rational ability you may have (and, going by your posts, I'm being very genearous in suggesting you have any rational ability).
You make less sense with every post! You moan about privacy intrusion but then claim the metadata, which does not contain any actual information on what you said or did, is somehow MORE damaging than the content!?!?!? Seriously, go take a chill pill and try THINKING it through.
Matt, do try to get a handle on what it is your defending here old chap. Metadata can be far more damaging than actual content, just about everybody who isn't associated with a spy agency, or the governments who run them, agrees on that.
Pot meet kettle, the only two differences being you don't actually have any theories of your own you're just being led round by the nose like the rest of the herd; and you are a paranoid pot that is letting your fears completely cloud what little rational ability you may have (and, going by your posts, I'm being very genearous in suggesting you have any rational ability).
My post history on this subject says otherwise.
You need to get past the idea that the only people who might object to mass survellience are people with something to hide, and they're being driven by fear. You couldn't be more wrong, many of us who object don't have anything to fear, and have happily given our private information to the relevant authorities when required to do so.
Our objections are based on ethics. I for example have at times had access to vast swathes of personal information on individual people from my country. I work in IT so it's hardly a surprise that I might have been in a position at some point to access such information.
Ethically obtaining access to information you have absolutely no reason to access, is wrong... I don't care if you're a spy, a bank IT worker, a medical receptionist, or a binman.
If you require access to an individuals personal communications we have a perfectly good system for obtaining it, one where you demonstrate reasonable cause to a judge and he issues you a warrant. A system which was specifically designed to stop the state embarking upon fishing expeditions into the private and personal lives of citizens.
".....just about everybody who isn't associated with a spy agency, or the governments who run them, agrees on that......" Really? So please do list these "everybodies" and point to where they say metadata is more dangerous than the content of any communications. Oh, and whilst you're at it, please do link to proof the NSA or GCHQ are collecting and analysing message content on everyone as you sheeple claim.
".....My post history on this subject says otherwise....." Yeah, whatever you want to baaaah-lieve.
".....You need to get past the idea that the only people who might object to mass survellience are people with something to hide....." YOU need to get past this rediculous idea that mass surveillance is taking place, because even Snowdope's own statements make it very clear the metadata collection is NOT mass surveillance or interception but TARGETING information for very limited surveillance of specific individuals. Before you do so you probably need to see a specialist about that irrational paranoia of yours.
".....one where you demonstrate reasonable cause to a judge and he issues you a warrant...." So you were simply too blinded by your paranoid fears to read about the FISC? Your silly paranoia is so easy to debunk it's almost childish, so I have to say your claim of having "worked in IT for years and handled lots of private data" (what, as a tape monkey?) is obviously just another fantasy.
"I could respond by calling you names in return, however I grew up and developed the ability to discuss things with reasoned arguments, so I don't feel any need to call you names...." What, you're older than six?!? I would have been ashamed to post such mindless bleating aged six as you posted! And what arguments, you posted SFA other than regurgitated baloney.
".....You really don't seem to have grasped how this intelligence is being used....." But the fact is YOU don't know, all you have a wild accusations, such as demonstrating in your post of 03:31GMT on 27th Dec that you don't understand how they can use patterns of communication to trace out networks. In fact, you completely fail to supply anything other than fantastical paranoia.
"....Now that has to be the all time most stupid statement I think I have ever seen you make...." So I would assume it would be easy for you to debunk then? Oh, but you don't, instead you just bleat and whine some more. Maybe you need the help of a six year old?
""..... I certainly don't get anything in return." You get the freedom to spout your tinfoil-attired claptrap. I just feel sorry for any NSA or GCHQ employee that has the misfortune to read your dribblings."
Many thanks for offering us so many opportunities to down vote you.
Truly a generous Christmas spirit.
No, you can't choose not to use them. Every 'like' button you see, every twitter icon or... er, whatever google+ uses. They are all little tracking bugs. Even if you've no account with them, you can be confident they still have a profile on you. Even if it is a comparatively sparse one, no more than a list of websites visited.
You really think Google gives you option? Try Lightbeam add-on in firefox to peek into how hundreds of these advertising b**ards chase you on any site you visit.
Also, please read EULA of any such site if you really have option to opt out of data-gathering :)
Also, these companies are neither better nor worse than NSA, because at the end both promise goodwill but no accountability.
And once again I repeat the point that Facebook, Google, et al. are VOLUNTARY and COMMERCIAL services. That means that you don't have to use them, and if you do then you can quit if you are dissatisfied at any time and if enough people quit with you, these companies suffer badly and even go out of business.
The NSA/GCHQ on the other hand will NEVER go out of business, unless they upset their political masters to a shocking degree (how many government agencies can you name that were actually closed outright? Not many I bet). That's because you are FORCED to pay their budgets through your taxes, under threat of fines, liens and prison. And unlike Facebook and Google, you have no ability to remove your data or stop supplying new data to the NSA or GCHQ and you can't find the NSA/GCHQ privacy policy anywhere, nor can you find out nearly as much about what the NSA or GCHQ do with your data as you can pick up from Facebook and Google. Also, the NSA and GCHQ have many friends in law enforcement, security and other parts of government, and if you end up on their shit list they can shut you down financially, politically or criminally. All FB or Google can do is delete your posts or block your emails on certain subjects or to certain other users.
So tell me more about how Google and Twitter are out of control, but the GCHQ and NSA are comparatively benign in comparison.
"....the NSA and GCHQ have many friends in law enforcement, security and other parts of government, and if you end up on their shit list they can shut you down financially, politically or criminally...." So please do provide some examples of this mythical tyranny in operation, or can we just assume it is all trendy male bovine manure?
Well Mr. Bryant (I won't sink to your level and call you an obscenity rather than address the substance of your arguments).
1) How about the people who are getting picked up for drug violations based on the NSAs cooperation with the DEA in the U.S.? Did ALL those "random traffic stops" and raids (that were actually instigated by warrentless communication intercepts) actually involve truly guilty individuals? How much cash and property were taken via civil forfeitures that the now cash and property-deprived defendents did not have the resources to fight? We also know from the Snowden leaks that the NSA has links with the U.S. Treasury Department (think: IRS) and the FBI and Justice Departments. Plus of course they have links with the White House and many Senators and Congressmen on Capitol Hill.
2) We had to find out 1) above from the Snowden leaks. That's because the NSA is a secret organization. And because its a secret organization its links with law enforcement, etc. are secret (the DEA in the case above specifically instructed its agents to withhold or lie about the source of their probable cause for their enforcement activities). So your answer to this secrecy is to ask me to prove that secret exchanges of information intentionally conducted outside the public's knowledge are happening? That would be a Kafkaesque joke, if it weren't for the Snowden file releases.
".....rather than address the substance of your arguments...." Well, you post something with actual substance rather than paranoid whimsy and I'll return the favour.
"....Did ALL those "random traffic stops" and raids (that were actually instigated by warrentless communication intercepts)....." And again you're talking out of your rectum - all intercepts were authorised under the FISC, so they WERE warranted. Also please provide PROOF of any claimed information transfer which was unwarranted. Most drug dealers, like most other criminals, get caught through usual causes - doing stupid things which draw attention to themselves or consorting with other known criminals already being watched.
".....We had to find out 1) above from the Snowden leaks...." Snowdope revealed nothing of the kind. Indeed, he only revealed anything to those that simply didn't know much, the majority of his revelations have been public knowledge or educated conjecture for years. Don't bitch at me because you simply fall in the clueless camp.
On the subject of Snowden's internal protests to bosses, NSA spokeswoman Vanee Vines told the Post: "We have not found any evidence to support Mr Snowden’s contention that he brought these matters to anyone’s attention."
And now that they have been brought to everyone's attention, VV? Bury your empty, as in intellectually challenged, head in the sand and do nothing better and make everything worse?
Is that AIMadness, as defined by Einstein ........ "Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."
If that be the case and the planned course of future action for the NSA/CSS, then are they in serious immediate need of New and Better Beta Intelligence for Remote Virtual Command and Control of Human Perception and ITs Media Hostings and Presentations of Realities, and be failing spectacularly in their prime mission directive .... Survival/Provide and Protect Vital Information for the Nation without which America would cease to exist as we know it
*NEUKlearer HyperRadioProActive IT for Universal Virtual Forces with Immaculately Resourced Assets ... [which be what Dr Richard Haass and Harvard professor Meghan O'Sullivan be presently missing for progress in their currently, quickly-going-nowhere-intelligent-with-nobody-deliberations with primitive beings and primed natives/the ignorant and arrogant of orders in ancient wannabe lead worlds]
""Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."
Thing is, when you do the same thing over and over and ACTUALLY GET a different result, you're praised for your persistence.
Ok, heres a nice Christmas-time conspiracy theory to reflect on while recovering from lunch...
- governments are increasing surveillance of, err, everybody
- the financial authorities are bringing in new rules about the treatment of bank deposits, to make it clear that they are to be treated as unsecured assets of a bank should it collapse
- some banks are transferring (very) large trading liabilities to their retail arms
Now, if you regard the financial market economy as being a mostly separate entity from the 'real' economy (they have, after all, become increasingly disconnected), then large losses in the former can be tolerated provided they are balanced by matching gains. So, a major bank collapsing need not bring down the rest of the financial world provided it has significant assets that can be used, immediately, to compensate its secured creditors (i.e. other financial institutions). Since governments have done nothing to separate the different types of banking operation, the best approach would be to assign highest risk liabilities to the retail bank part since that is where most of the realisable assets exist, Its also the main mortgage seller within the overall bank, which means it could also foreclose on mortgages (especially the taxpayer-backed ones) if that makes it easier to raise cash for said creditors.
The only flaw is that back in the other world some people may object to losing all of their savings, so it would be best to have measures in place to keep any eye on them - the government guarantee would not apply, partly because it relies on nobody actually claiming on it and partly because the depositors would receive shares to a matching value in the reconstructed bank (which might never actually be created).
Hence the finance world can clear up the cloud of debt still hanging over it in a controlled manner with a manageable amount of damage (to itself), and the impact on the 'other' economy will provide new areas of opportunity.
Ridiculous, of course.
Oh, did you see the comments from the IMF praising the Cyprus operation that took a percentage of all bank deposits and recommending it to other governments for consideration ?
Finance has reached a point where it is so heavily abstracted from reality that it's impossible for a non-specialist to have the foggiest idea what is going on. Non-finance experts can just about get the idea of a 'share' - but beyond that, it may as well be magic.
It's no wonder people are looking at gold or bitcoins. A sort of financial nostalgia, for times when money was money, and not actually a representation for something going on in an incomprehensibly complex network of debts.
Because he is of no real importance, like a cockroach Snowden keeps popping up with his self serving wisdom for the world. Thankfully he will soon be exterminated like any other cockroach
Do you extend the same degree of relevance to the opinions of others? You know, for example to those who think it would be OK to exterminate, nasty little fascist spys who have deluded themselves into thinking they are entitled to invade the lives of other people (like cockroaches).
One more time!! Facebook and Google--your involvement is voluntary and can be terminated if you aren't happy. If these organizations piss off the citizenry, they go out of business
NSA/GCHQ--funded in perpetuity by taxes we are forced to pay, so they can piss off as many citizens as they want and stay in operation, as long as the budget-minders in DC or Whitehall are kept happy. Their access to your data is also mandatory.
".....Their access to your data is also mandatory." Their interest in your data is nonexistent. Seriously, I know marketing is all about spinning a tale to suspend reality, but I think you really need to leave the IT discussions to those with at least one foot in reality, mmmkay?
If the NSA's interest in my data is so non-existent, why are they fighting so hard to keep my data in their "haystack" in the face of now TWO outside reviews (Pres. Obama's panel and DC circuit court judge Leon) who both say that their 10 year-old counter-terrorist haystack hasn't actually countered any terrorists?
That makes it either a waste of money or an intrusive extension of government, perhaps both. Why not shut the metadata snooping program?
"....why are they fighting so hard to keep my data in their "haystack"...." They are not fighting to keep the metadata indefinitely so please stop fantasising that they are.
"....and DC circuit court judge Leon...." Judge Leon's judgement has been countered by that of another federal judge in striking down the inevitable ACLU case (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/25529677). Judge Pauley ruled that the NSA surveillance was a valid, legal and valuable tool in fighting Al Quaeda. And Obambi's announcement of a review is just window dressing for his Faithful. You really need to pay more attention.
First my posts end up going through their lame moderators who take their sweet time posting. (Especially over a holiday... )
To your point:
"One more time!! Facebook and Google--your involvement is voluntary and can be terminated if you aren't happy. "
You do realize that if I happen to be at a friend's party, and they take my photo and post it on FB without my permission, I have no recourse to force FB to take it down? They may have decided to use FB, I didn't.
As to Google... Look at every web page and see the hooks to Google's analytics? Do I have a choice there?
Or communicating with someone who has a google gmail account? Or if their company uses Google?
Or if I talk to someone who has an android phone? Sorry, no freedom on my part there.
As to the NSA, they have a mandated purpose. Spying on you, noting that you're wearing day old tidy whites that aren't so white, isn't high on their list of things to do.
I am new to this group. I joined to enlarge my comprehension, scope and depth of the problems at hand.
This conversation thread has done none of those things, it has in fact made me wonder whether I could ever get that from a group with people like these contributors as it's members.
Please stop.
Now.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
