back to article NSA dragnet mostly slurped innocents' traffic

NSA babbler Edward Snowden's latest drop alleges something that's been suspected ever since he went public during 2013: that spy agencies reach far beyond “persons-of-interest”, with data on ordinary internet users far outstripping that held over formal “targets”. According to The Washington Post, the latest set of documents …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.
  1. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Second leaker

    Some people believe this was not part of the Snowden trove, but for various reasons believe it originated with a second leaker.

    1. Mike Shepherd

      Re: Second leaker

      No citation? No evidence? Just "Some people believe..."?

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Second leaker

        Cory Doctorow and Bruce Schneier, to name a few. I figured most Reg readers would have already known this, I guess I give them too much credit.

        https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2014/07/nsa_targets_pri.html

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Second leaker

      Some people believe the Apollo moon landings weren't faked too.

  2. Captain DaFt

    Right! that's enough!

    Time for an intervention.

    Someone get Matt Paxton over to the NSA, ASAP!

  3. Shannon Jacobs
    Holmes

    Arguments in defense of the NSA

    (1) When you do the math, it turns out that keeping the data is free. You only incur a cost when you erase the information. Therefore the NSA is just trying to save money.

    (2) As the marginal cost of storing data declines, the cost of keeping your personal information is approaching zero. However, the cost of evaluating information to insure that it does not have any value and will never have any value is quite large, obviously much larger than zero. Therefore, even if they never looked at the information, the NSA can't afford to assess it for deletion.

    In conclusion, we are SO screwed.

    1. big_D Silver badge
      Holmes

      Re: Arguments in defense of the NSA

      On the other hand, if they didn't collect the information of "innocents" in the first place, it would be even cheaper und they wouldn't face their current debacle.

      In the past spy agencies had limited resources, so they had to be selective about targeting suspected bad guys, be they terrorists, other spies etc. The change in technology means that they don't have to be as selective, because they can pull in more information on more people.

      On the other hand, does that give them the right to slurp ALL data on every user of a service, just in case it could some day be useful?

      I think it is time to bring George out of retirement and send him back to the Circus to try and clean things up. Maybe the Americans should dig up Felix as well, I'm sure he would be turning in his grave... That said, I expect Hoover's coffin probably needs an extension and some Kleenex.

      1. LucreLout

        Re: Arguments in defense of the NSA

        "On the other hand, if they didn't collect the information of "innocents" in the first place, it would be even cheaper und they wouldn't face their current debacle."

        If you look for a needle in a haystack most of what you look at will be hay.

        I'm not saying its right to retain the data, but it is inevitable it will be collected.

    2. Fungus Bob

      Re: Arguments in defense of the NSA

      "In conclusion, we are SO screwed."

      Not at all - if the NSA can't afford to assess it, then they'll never look at it and it will eventually cause the entire United States government to collapse due to the escalating electricity cost for the data center(s).

      Well, I can dream, can't I?

  4. Gray
    Big Brother

    Too numb to care any longer ...

    "... we are SO screwed."

    Yes. But at the same time the American public is so enervated by endless revelations of privacy abuses that our screwing seems to be little more than a fait accompli.

    1. big_D Silver badge

      Re: Too numb to care any longer ...

      It isn't just 'Mericans.

      As a non-American, non-fundamentalist, non-Muslim, non-terrorist, non-bomb maker, non-spy, just a general nobody, I feel affronted that they are slurping my data "just because they can"...

      I wonder if the NSA filter strips off the "non"s above and when they will be knocking on my door...

      1. Mark 85

        Re: Too numb to care any longer ...

        Actually, they won't have to strip off the 'non"s. They'll just assume that since you're denying everything and doing it publically, you have something to hide.

  5. Chairo
    Joke

    That explains it

    men showing off their physiques and images in which “women model lingerie, leaning suggestively into a webcam or striking risque poses in shorts and bikini tops”

    The NSA is monitoring the Daily Mail!

    1. Fungus Bob

      Re: That explains it

      "The NSA is monitoring the Daily Mail!"

      Someone has to...

  6. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Or was it for political purposes?

    If you have followed the IRS scandal and the missing e-mails due to a crashed hard drive, you have to wonder if the emails were being searched for political content.

    Opponents of Obama would have the E-mails forwarded to the IRS for "checking" of their tax exempt status.

    1. Don Jefe

      Re: Or was it for political purposes?

      Yes. Using a covert, super enabled, state intelligence agency to investigate tax statuses is probably the first thing people think of once they are holding the reins of power. Of all the creative ways to abuse power, investigating civil infractions with a maximum penalty of $15,000 is definitely the ultimate reward: 'Ha! Choke on the Throbbing Manhood of vengeance you fool! Suck it all. The taste will be burned into your soul as you attend one 30 minute class on asking the IRS for assistance in populating forms. Watch your future slip away as your bank account is debited $125/month for the next decade. The echoes of your suffering will reverberate for ages and all will know the price of thwarting me'.

  7. Mark 85
    Facepalm

    They didn't need to slurp data <I> en masse </I> for this

    Quote: it's hardly surprising that the documents Snowden worked through with the Post included men showing off their physiques and images in which “women model lingerie, leaning suggestively into a webcam or striking risque poses in shorts and bikini tops

    Hell... letting the NSA play on Facebook would have been cheaper and probably have let them have the same pics. Ok. Maybe not.. add Tumblr and Reddit...etc.... and only slurp Snapchat via the backdoor.

  8. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    6 degrees of separation...

    ... means that we are all Thought Criminals.

    1. Gannon (J.) Dick

      Re: 6 degrees of separation...

      I agree.

      The NSA is playing meta data Roulette. They misunderstand this game of chance - Red, Black or Green, no Blue, Pink or Purple, a run of numbers don't mean shit.

      Dans les champs de l'observation le hasard ne favorise que les esprits préparés.

      (In the fields of observation chance favors only the prepared mind.)

      Louis Pasteur

  9. John Smith 19 Gold badge
    Gimp

    "We never make mistakes"*

    As Solzhenitsyn quoted of the KGB.

    To a data fetishist there is no irrelevant data, merely data that has not been linked to someone who has done something we are interested in yet.

    Once the cost per bit dropped low enough it was only a matter of time before some ethical vacuum would ask "why not?"

  10. Dan 55 Silver badge
    Unhappy

    Isn't it ironic?

    Extract from an e-mail from the Post article from someone in Afghanistan to his girlfriend (for want of a better word) in Australia...

    “look in islam husband doesnt touch girl financial earnigs unless she agrees but as far as privacy goes there is no room….i need to have all ur details everything u do its what im supposed to know that will guide u whether its right or wrong got it

    He was a fanatic. What does that make the NSA?

  11. Hargrove

    A small fly in the ointment

    Memory is cheap, but the operational costs of storing all of that unevaluated data is high.

    The presumption that the data cannot be deleted without evaluation implies that the NSA believe it MAY be relevant. That means that when they search the database for connections and patterns they would want to include this potentially relevant data.

    All this is just so much digital noise in the system increasing the number of potential false warnings generated. These have to be sorted out by human analysts, a labor-intensive and expensive process. It is also time consuming, increasing the time it takes for a response.

    This is why indiscriminate data collection is not just a threat to individual rights and freedoms. It is also counterproductive to the mission of the operation.

    1. Shaha Alam

      Re: A small fly in the ointment

      "All this is just so much digital noise in the system increasing the number of potential false warnings generated. These have to be sorted out by human analysts, a labor-intensive and expensive process. It is also time consuming, increasing the time it takes for a response."

      and the typical response to this. as always, will be higher budgets to employ more people to sort through more rubbish.

    2. Don Jefe

      Re: A small fly in the ointment

      The costs of storing all that useless data is nonexistent. That's the biggest perk of being a government that has zero qualms making the taxpayer pay for their own cavity searches. It's really nothing to worry yourself over though. Since this is all related to 'National Security' the actual costs are recorded on the first invisible page of the GAO annual spending report. A lot of work goes into making sure intrusive government surveillance programs don't cause you any anxiety.

      1. Hargrove

        Re: A small fly in the ointment

        @ Don Jefe

        Who wrote "It's really nothing to worry yourself over though. Since this is all related to 'National Security' the actual costs are recorded on the first invisible page of the GAO annual spending report. A lot of work goes into making sure intrusive government surveillance programs don't cause you any anxiety."

        A Washington Post's Investigative report "Top Secret America" provides some compelling support for Don Jefe's statement. The explosive growth in the number of functions for which the government now requires compartmented clearance runs counter to the most fundamental principles of information and operational security. Serious stuff, this.

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: A small fly in the ointment

      Actually, no. You are assuming no technological advances in automatic correlation of data which is not true. In fact, I really wonder why this hasn't been all fed to an iteration of IBM's Watson. Or perhaps that's what the fires are about at the Utah data-center.

      1. Hargrove

        Re: A small fly in the ointment

        @jackofshadows

        Technically, what Watson does in the way of data search and retrieval is very different in scope and intent from what so called "horizon scanning and risk assessment" systems are trying to do. The best and most accessible discussion of the problem of data classification (in the filtering sense) that I'm aware is in a couple of papers by Tom Fawcett, on something called ROC curves. ROC originally stood for "receiver operating characteristic", referring to the ability of a receiver to classify targets in noise. An analogous phenomenon occurs in pattern matching in digital data, where the term "relative operating characteristic" is used.

        Googling ["Tom Fawcett" ROC analysis] (without the brackets) should produce relevant results in the first few hits.

        Your comment on the advances in data correlation and retrieval is correct. However, much, if not most of that advance has been in hardware performance, and in improved algorithms to exploit those capabilities. The basic rules of probability and statistics haven't changed. That said, the reference to Watson is a very helpful addition to the discussion. While it may not address the general problem, it is probably ideally suited for looking for convenient facts about targeted individuals and deserves attention. .

        Another observation from an old man, for what it's worth

    4. LucreLout

      Re: A small fly in the ointment

      "The presumption that the data cannot be deleted without evaluation implies that the NSA believe it MAY be relevant."

      What is irrelevant today may not be so tomorrow.

      Today I'm just a tax paying grunt worker whose data would be irrelevant. Tomorrow I might bump into the PMs wife in Waitrose and start slipping her a length while Dave is out at PMQs. So tomorrow, all my data may be relevant.

      1. John Smith 19 Gold badge
        Gimp

        Re: A small fly in the ointment

        "Today I'm just a tax paying grunt worker whose data would be irrelevant. Tomorrow I might bump into the PMs wife in Waitrose and start slipping her a length while Dave is out at PMQs. So tomorrow, all my data may be relevant."

        The creed of every data fetishist in a nut(case)shell.

        1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
          FAIL

          Re: John Smith IQ of 19 Re: A small fly in the ointment

          ".....The creed of every data fetishist in a nut(case)shell." Which neatly ignores the very, very slim possibility of it happening. You sheeple are very quick to bleat "innocent until proven guilty" for your own, but as far as The Man is concerned, because you have been spoonfed the thought "it must be true!" You are basing your whole decision-making on wild speculation and paranoia because you want to baaaah-lieve.

      2. Bernard M. Orwell

        Re: A small fly in the ointment

        You may commit a crime tommorow.

        Best arrest you today then.

        1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
          Facepalm

          Re: Boring Bernie Re: A small fly in the ointment

          "You may commit a crime tommorow. Best arrest you today then." And this is happening where....? Oh, it's not. Carry on then.

    5. Hargrove

      Re: A small fly in the ointment

      A wee small correction/clarification on the following from my earlier:

      This is why indiscriminate data collection is not just a threat to individual rights and freedoms. It is also counterproductive to the mission of the operation.

      This reflected the thought that nations may have legitimate national security requirements for intelligence gathering and surveillance operations, including properly limited targeted and legally sanctioned surveillance of electronic communications on the internet.

      It has been bothering me since I posted that the italicized quote could be construed as an implied endorsement of operations currently being conducted. If so, the best response I can offer is the classic response of Baron von Trapp in the movie "The Sound of Music" to the Nazi Colonel's statement, "You flatter me!"

      How clumsy of me.

  12. JimmyPage Silver badge
    Flame

    And for every false positive ...

    the chances of a false negative *increase*. Not only are these asshats breaking the law, and pissing all over our privacy. They're also making themselves *less* likely to be able to protect us.

    1. Don Jefe

      Re: And for every false positive ...

      That has bothered me intensely since the Snowden stuff began. Yes, the assault on civil liberties and the 'justified disregard for the law' by lawmakers is revolting. I'm not sure it's possible for them to fail any harder at their jobs. But Christ on a cracker, do they have to curb stomp every principle of information science too?

      This is undergrad level stuff here, but the only part they seem to have gotten right is that the public would be upset if they knew the scope of this monument to poor education systems. Regardless of ones stance on the necessity and ethics of all this mess, I cannot see how a compelling argument can be made for ignoring the most basic of information management fundamentals.

      Enormous sums of money have been spent (hilariously, lots of it in the form of government grants) to develop better methods and processes for information discrimination in real time data. Obtaining information has never been a problem (spies, public 'secret police' and that nice man from Stasi have been around since day 1 to deal with that). The problem has always been in identifying what information has value. Most of The Register's target audience would be working in coal mines if only the information you wanted organized itself before it got to you.

      Half-assed work just pisses me off. If you're going to do something do it right or don't do it at all. That goes double if my tax dollars are being spent on it. Bunch of slackasses. As if it were needed, this is just more proof Douglas Adams was right: Anyone capable of getting into government should be automatically disqualified from government.

    2. John Smith 19 Gold badge
      Unhappy

      Re: And for every false positive ...

      "the chances of a false negative *increase*. Not only are these asshats breaking the law, and pissing all over our privacy. They're also making themselves *less* likely to be able to protect us."

      I like the phrase (not my own) that roughly goes "Looking for terrorists is like looking for a needle in a haystack. Undirected data slurping now gives you a field of haystacks to search."

      IRL of course analogy is a bit dumb as you'd use a metal detector, but what if you're looking for a piece of dyed hay in those haystacks?

      1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
        FAIL

        Re: John Smith IQ of 19 Re: And for every false positive ...

        Which ignores the fact this work by the NSA is finding terrorists.

  13. Matt Bryant Silver badge
    Big Brother

    OMGeeez!!! What a DISASTER!!! We're all DOOOOMED!!! Etc.

    The BBC had an article not his last week (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-28182494), though it seems to have been moved off the'US & Canada' page for not being hysterically sensationalist enough. Never mind, El Reg can always be counted on to make any NSA-related molehill into a mountain.

    Whilst El Reg tries to quickly gloss over the successful tracing and capture of two terrorists just from this one batch, the Beeb has a bit more detail on what was also found:

    "......However the paper says that the intercepted files also contained "discoveries of considerable intelligence value". These included "fresh revelations about a secret overseas nuclear project, double-dealing by an ostensible ally, a military calamity that befell an unfriendly power, and the identities of aggressive intruders into US computer networks", it said....."

    And then we get back to the perennial question the sheeple just never want to answer - what 'harm' was done? Did any of the innocent people accidentally caught up in the sweep even report any 'harm'. Of course not, because there was none. It was less inconvenient than a traffic stop, yet the shepherds need to make out it was some life-threatening 'invasion of privacy'. It seems the biggest invasion of privacy was actually by Snowjob and chums when they dumped this data out. Snowjob took data from a carefully safeguarded and regulated environment and gave it to journals to do with as they wish.

    The sheeple may now participate in the usual flock population census by clicking the down vote button (don't worry, Big Brother is not actually recording your downvotes, no matter how much you want to baaaah-lieve they are).

    1. Roo
      FAIL

      Re: OMGeeez!!! What a DISASTER!!! We're all DOOOOMED!!! Etc.

      "Snowjob took data from a carefully safeguarded and regulated environment"

      If the data was sufficiently safeguarded "Snowjob" (Matt Bryant's spelling) would never have been in a position to access the data, let alone leak it. The fact of the matter is that the NSA failed to safeguard the data.

      Hopefully the NSA are working on reducing the chances of collateral damage by narrowing their data capture & retention rather than doing fuck all and banking on Matt Bryant to deflect attention away from their inept information security practices.

      1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
        FAIL

        Re: Roominant Re: OMGeeez!!! What a DISASTER!!! We're all DOOOOMED!!! Etc.

        ".....If the data was sufficiently safeguarded "Snowjob" (Matt Bryant's spelling) would never have been in a position to access the data, let alone leak it....." Even Snowjob has had to admit he scarpered to China because the NSA did detect his unauthorised access and was closing in on him.

        ".....their inept information security practices." LOL! Don't worry, ickle Roominant, if there are pics of your tiny wheiner out there then they probably did not come from an NSA leak, more likely from skiddies and black hats.

        1. Roo
          FAIL

          Re: Roominant OMGeeez!!! What a DISASTER!!! We're all DOOOOMED!!! Etc.

          "Even Snowjob has had to admit he scarpered to China because the NSA did detect his unauthorised

          access and was closing in on him."

          The information was taken and published - the horse had already bolted... Which is precisely why I characterised the NSA's best efforts at information security as being 'inept'. Seems like we're in violent agreement on that point.

        2. Down not across

          Re: Roominant OMGeeez!!! What a DISASTER!!! We're all DOOOOMED!!! Etc.

          Even Snowjob has had to admit he scarpered to China because the NSA did detect his unauthorised access and was closing in on him.

          I think the previous poster was making the point that Snowden shouldn't have been able to access all that data in the first place.

          1. Roo
            Meh

            Re: Roominant OMGeeez!!! What a DISASTER!!! We're all DOOOOMED!!! Etc.

            "I think the previous poster was making the point that Snowden shouldn't have been able to access all

            that data in the first place."

            Exactly, perhaps I could have made it clearer, but it wouldn't have made much difference because Matt doesn't like facts and logic getting in the way of an argument.

            1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
              FAIL

              Re: Roominant OMGeeez!!! What a DISASTER!!! We're all DOOOOMED!!! Etc.

              "Exactly..." Yeah, 'cos that totally excuses Snowjob's criminal activities, right? Do you tell people that conmen shouldn't be prosecuted because their marks weren't careful enough? Now about the victims of muggings, are they just too dumb for sympathy? Snowjob is a criminal by his own admission, you just want to excuse him of the crimes because of your spoonfed socio-political baaaah-liefs.

              "....Matt doesn't like facts and logic getting in the way of an argument." You wouldn't know a fact if it cut through your tinfoil hat and climbed inside the empty space between your ears. And again, you still have no counter to the points I raised. Have another 'fail' icon to add to your massive collection.

              1. Anonymous Coward
                Anonymous Coward

                Re: Roominant OMGeeez!!! What a DISASTER!!! We're all DOOOOMED!!! Etc.

                > Do you tell people that conmen shouldn't be prosecuted because their marks weren't careful enough? Now about the victims of muggings, are they just too dumb for sympathy?

                That sounds incredibly caring considering it comes from the man who wrote:

                > anyone silly enough to send nude pics or sexts or racy emails to a partner or the person they are cheating with, over a consumer network, and expect it not to ever be read, is - TBH - a cluetard.

                1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
                  FAIL

                  Re: AC Re: Roominant OMGeeez!!! What a DISASTER!!! We're all DOOOOMED!!! Etc.

                  ".....That sounds incredibly caring..." So now you're saying you do care for those stupid enough to send sexts despite the massive amount of case evidence that doing so is highly likely to mean it ends up with those other than the intended recipient, but you don't care for those victims of crimes where they were simply unfortunate through no fault of hp heir own? Please do explain how a mugged grannies is at fault?

                  1. Anonymous Coward
                    Anonymous Coward

                    Re: AC Roominant OMGeeez!!! What a DISASTER!!! We're all DOOOOMED!!! Etc.

                    You obviously feel the strawman strategy is working out for you seeing you go for it at every turn:

                    > ".....That sounds incredibly caring..." So now you're saying you do care for those stupid enough to send sexts despite the massive amount of case evidence that doing so is highly likely to mean it ends up with those other than the intended recipient, but you don't care for those victims of crimes where they were simply unfortunate through no fault of hp heir own? Please do explain how a mugged grannies is at fault?

                    I was really only making fun of you but my opinion is that the vulnerable granny should be protected and so should be the sexters who aren't fully informed on how insecure their comms are, partly because encryption isn't wide-spread and partly because the NSA is subverting comms security as best as they can.

                    The NSA should work to make the net safer, to make encryption more wide-spread, always-on by default, to improve on the holes that various issues (certificate authorities come to mind) present, so that the uninformed can rightfully rather than foolishly put trust in the technologies they are using.

                    1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
                      FAIL

                      Re: AC Roominant OMGeeez!!! What a DISASTER!!! We're all DOOOOMED!!! Etc.

                      "....the NSA is subverting comms security as best as they can....." And here we get to the core of your naïveté and lack of understanding - that is their job, not keeping online idiots safe from their own stupidity. They are a spy agency, not Net nannies. But don't worry, as I pointed out before, we are galloping towards the type of regulated Internet where Net nannies will monitor your every communication anyway.

                      ".....The NSA should work to make the net safer....." Not their job. Their job is to intercept coms and provide the information that helps other governmental organisations (such as the CIA and FBI) keep members of the US public and those of their allies safe. The only bit of protection they are charged with is protecting US Government coms and those of a strategic or national importance, not those of the general public (though they have also passed on security advice to the public as a sideline). Your problem stems from a basic misunderstanding of what the NSA is there to do.

                      1. Anonymous Coward
                        Anonymous Coward

                        Re: AC Roominant OMGeeez!!! What a DISASTER!!! We're all DOOOOMED!!! Etc.

                        > ".....The NSA should work to make the net safer....." Not their job. Their job is to intercept coms and provide the information that helps other governmental organisations

                        If breaking up or redefining the NSA's brief is what's needed to achieve this, I'm probably the last one to object.

                        Planting security holes or allowing them to stay open/actively purchasing them on the market and subverting security standards just happens to make the net less safe for everyone, both foreigners and Americans. It's believed by many including me to not be good for business and it very obviously fucks up the privacy of people's online communications.

                        1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
                          FAIL

                          Re: AC Roominant OMGeeez!!! What a DISASTER!!! We're all DOOOOMED!!! Etc.

                          ".....If breaking up or redefining the NSA's brief is what's needed to achieve this...." Again, grasp a simple concept - NOT THEIR JOB!. The NSA are very good at their job, why would the US Government want to stop them doing it just because you sheeple have got your panties in a wad of deluded paranoia? Seriously, El Reg needs to institute an IQ and age test on the forum signup.

                          "..... I'm probably the last one to object....." Stupid people suggest stupid things every day based on misunderstandings and paranoia, it doesn't mean anyone has to listen. I'm sure your daily uttering supply many a case in point.

                          1. Anonymous Coward
                            Anonymous Coward

                            Re: AC Roominant OMGeeez!!! What a DISASTER!!! We're all DOOOOMED!!! Etc.

                            > Seriously, El Reg needs to institute an IQ and age test on the forum signup.

                            Yes, sure, Matt. It's all good. The grown-up way of dealing with your failure to argue your case is of course to resort to insults. Strike me as majorly grown up. Not to mention intelligent.

                            1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
                              FAIL

                              Re: AC Roominant OMGeeez!!! What a DISASTER!!! We're all DOOOOMED!!! Etc.

                              "....your failure to argue your case...." I argued my case and presented facts as evidence to support it, you did neither.

                              "...,is of course to resort to insults....." Pot meet 'fool' kettle.

                              "..,,Strike me as majorly grown up. Not to mention intelligent." I think you're just worried you'd fail such a test.

                              Now, why don't you try something useful, like helping Roo on his quest to find any evidence of the 'harm' you sheeple insist the NSA spying has done to us 'all', mmmkay?

                              1. Anonymous Coward
                                Anonymous Coward

                                Re: AC Roominant OMGeeez!!! What a DISASTER!!! We're all DOOOOMED!!! Etc.

                                > Now, why don't you try something useful, like helping Roo on his quest to find any evidence of the 'harm' you sheeple insist the NSA spying has done to us 'all', mmmkay?

                                I don't speak for Roo or anyone else here, and the great conspiracy you allege people on here believe in is not something I claim.

                                I consider the now apparent lack of privacy in online communications thanks to dragnet style surveillance (+ storage), the subversion of encryption products, standards and internet services as well as the support of a market in zero-day vulnerabilities as the main problems. Because it fucks up privacy and security, two things I value. Oh and what we've discussed here just now, of course. The fact that they are showing themselves incapable of protecting data from unauthorised access (see Snowden, LOVEINT).

                                1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
                                  FAIL

                                  Re: AC Roominant OMGeeez!!! What a DISASTER!!! We're all DOOOOMED!!! Etc.

                                  "I don't speak for Roo or anyone else here...." Dear paranoia junkie, I did not say you do talk to Roominant, I was suggesting you should as then you'd have about half a brain between you. That might make the pair of you mildly interesting. I would suggest against going near BoringGreen though as I think that sheeple has rabies!

                                  ".....and the great conspiracy you allege people on here believe in is not something I claim......" Yet your next paragraph clearly states you 'think' exactly that. BTW, that lovely little bit of denial and diversion still did not show any evidence of the 'harm' you insisted was so easy to prove. Add another 'Fail' icon to your collection and please try a lot hader.

                                  1. Anonymous Coward
                                    Anonymous Coward

                                    Re: AC Roominant OMGeeez!!! What a DISASTER!!! We're all DOOOOMED!!! Etc.

                                    > ".....and the great conspiracy you allege people on here believe in is not something I claim......" Yet your next paragraph clearly states you 'think' exactly that.

                                    How so?

                                    > still did not show any evidence of the 'harm' you insisted was so easy to prove.

                                    And where exactly have I said that?

                                    You're just making things up again, Matt. The vast distance you keep from reality is sad really.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: OMGeeez!!! What a DISASTER!!! We're all DOOOOMED!!! Etc.

      You cannot possibly state that no harm was done. The hoovering and subsequent actions of the people with access to the information are all secret.

      1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
        Facepalm

        Re: mooooooity Re: OMGeeez!!! What a DISASTER!!! We're all DOOOOMED!!! Etc.

        "......The hoovering and subsequent actions of the people with access to the information are all secret." Not so. The journos that Snowjob has been feeding these docs to claim they have been able to unmask a number of them, so it should be easy enough for the same journos to go and ask the 'victims' if they have actually been the sufferers of any 'harm'.

        On a side note, anyone silly enough to send nude pics or sexts or racy emails to a partner or the person they are cheating with, over a consumer network, and expect it not to ever be read, is - TBH - a cluetard. Our corporate firewall has a blacklist of thousands of sites where such pics and messages end up. The data gets there by three routes - jealous ex-partners sending old pics or ones they have intercepted off their cheating partners' phones/email; stolen by black hats and skiddies that have guessed or hacked the password for email, phone and/or social media accounts; and the admins that work for the network, ISP, hosting providers and social media companies. Oh, what, you thought the privacy agreement from your network provider and/or ISP and/or social media provider and/or hosting company was actually worth something? LOL! If your biggest worry is that the NSA might have a naughty pic of you then you're really not seeing the bigger picture.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: mooooooity OMGeeez!!! What a DISASTER!!! We're all DOOOOMED!!! Etc.

          ""......The hoovering and subsequent actions of the people with access to the information are all secret.""

          "Not so. The journos that Snowjob has been feeding these docs to claim they have been able to unmask a number of them, so it should be easy enough for the same journos to go and ask the 'victims' if they have actually been the sufferers of any 'harm'."

          You're not getting the point. The hoovering is secret. The people with access to the data are in secret jobs. Any actions they took (including passing nuggets of information to people who then made use of said nuggets to make decisions) wouldn't be widely publicised. Any 'victims' would know only that something went wrong. They would know only that they didn't get that job, for some reason; or that company X underbid them by precisely the right amount to score the contract; or that somebody suddenly decided that they didn't want a relationship. The victims would only know that the hammer had fallen; not who swung it or what caused it to start dropping.

          You cannot possibly state that no harm was done without considerably more information. That's just as speculative as my contention that quite possibly harm was done. My point of view is based on what I know of human nature -backed up by scientific studies of how people behave when they think they are anonymous (or at least won't get caught)- and I would say that it is eminently possible -even likely- that information has been misused.

          1. Dan 55 Silver badge

            Re: mooooooity OMGeeez!!! What a DISASTER!!! We're all DOOOOMED!!! Etc.

            Of course it's been misused, see LOVEINT.

            But at least Tyrant hasn't trotted out his usual argument that nobody is interested in the sheeple. This time he's actually said that the sheeple are having their data slurped so a year later and some progress has been made.

            1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
              FAIL

              Re: Dan 55 Re: mooooooity OMGeeez!!! What a DISASTER!!! We're all DOOOOMED!!! Etc.

              "Of course it's been misused, see LOVEINT...." Wow, so your sole evidence of The Great Conspiracy To Oppress Us All is loveint? Major fail.

              "....But at least Tyrant hasn't trotted out his usual argument that nobody is interested in the sheeple...." Not really sorry to break it to you but you are still of zero interest to anyone, you're just the 'no-data' retained for fine-tuning purposes, nothing more.

              1. Dan 55 Silver badge
                FAIL

                Re: Dan 55 mooooooity OMGeeez!!! What a DISASTER!!! We're all DOOOOMED!!! Etc.

                Well it's still one more piece of evidence than you've used to prove that Everything Is Hunkydory and it shows that analysts have the right to look up data on everyone, so people being what they are as mentioned above, more data has been misused.

                I've visited the Tails website so in theory that means my data is kept forever as I am of interest according to XKeyscore's configuration file.

                So that icon's for you.

                1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
                  Happy

                  Re: Dan 55 mooooooity OMGeeez!!! What a DISASTER!!! We're all DOOOOMED!!! Etc.

                  "Well it's still one more piece of evidence than you've used to prove that Everything Is Hunkydory...." I see you are still struggling with the difference between evidence and theory - what I have posted is reasoned theory. You have failed to post evidence of the 'harm' from The Great Conspracy you insist is out there. Indeed, all you do is shriek and attempt a diversion when requested to show such evidence, as seems par for the course with the sheeple here.

                  ".....I've visited the Tails website so in theory that means my data is kept forever as I am of interest according to XKeyscore's configuration file....." Aw, it's so cute that you really, really want to baaaah-lieve that someone finds you interesting. ROFL! You also failed to do your research before bleating - XKeyScore is a search tool, you can stick whatever you like in the 'config file' as a search filter, which is why what the TORists were claiming sounds like just so much male bovine manure.

                  ".....So that icon's for you." We don't have a 'ROFLMAO @ your stupidity' icon so I'll just have to go smiley for now. Enjoy!

                  1. Anonymous Coward
                    Anonymous Coward

                    Re: Dan 55 mooooooity OMGeeez!!! What a DISASTER!!! We're all DOOOOMED!!! Etc.

                    @Matt Bryant

                    You claim that no harm has been done by the retention of data; therefore the onus is on you to provide proof. I am calling "bollocks" on your argument both because it seems extremely unlikely that nobody involved has misused it and because 'victims' of any misuse will not necessarily know where their problems came from.

                    1. Don Jefe

                      Re: Dan 55 mooooooity OMGeeez!!! What a DISASTER!!! We're all DOOOOMED!!! Etc.

                      'Snowjob' is Trademarked by Hasbro as part of their GI Joe family of products.

                    2. Hargrove

                      Re: Dan 55 mooooooity OMGeeez!!! What a DISASTER!!! We're all DOOOOMED!!! Etc.

                      recent @moiety

                      Nicely put. One of my favorite quotes from Daniel Webster seems relevant.

                      “Good intentions will always be pleaded for every assumption of authority. . . . . There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters.”

                    3. Matt Bryant Silver badge
                      Happy

                      Re: Dan 55 mooooooity OMGeeez!!! What a DISASTER!!! We're all DOOOOMED!!! Etc.

                      ".....I am calling "bollocks" on your argument both because it seems extremely unlikely that nobody involved has misused it....." If The Man or any of The Minions have 'misused' the data then there would be some proveable 'harm', surely? If not, how could they have 'misused' it? You want to baaaaah-lieve in The Great Conspiracy To Oppress Us All, so show me some effect of the supposed conspiracy.

                      ".....and because 'victims' of any misuse will not necessarily know where their problems came from." I am not asking you to show conclusive proof that The Man 'harmed' them, just anything that these people underwent that you want to propose was caused by The Man. Then we can all have a good laugh at your paranoia. Come on, back your witless bleating up for once.

                      1. Chairo

                        Re: Dan 55 mooooooity OMGeeez!!! What a DISASTER!!! We're all DOOOOMED!!! Etc.

                        Then we can all have a good laugh at your paranoia.

                        I think that's what they might have said as well in the good old Republic of Weimar, after their newly elected chancellor installed the GeStaPo, after some terrorists put fire on the national assembly building. Pre-Nazi Germany was very much a democracy, you know. They eventually stopped laughing of course.

                        That's why separation of power is needed. Once you give legislative, judicial and executive power in one hand you are done for good.

                        And once your government turns against you, there is fuck nothing you can do about it.

                  2. Dan 55 Silver badge

                    Re: OMGeeez!!! What a DISASTER!!! We're all DOOOOMED!!! Etc.

                    Okay, so...

                    1) Your "reasoned theory" conveniently ignores statements on record which have been found to be false later on or facts from the Snowden documents. Other people's "evidence" is dismissed however. You seem to think your conjecture is the absolute truth or you're under the impression you're speaking for the NSA. In the infinitely improbable chance that you are speaking for them, your ramblings can be safely dismissed as they're probably as truthful as other statements from them which have found out to be false.

                    2) You've confused the configuration file with the search parameters in the user interface.

                    3) "We"? Is there more than one Matt Tyrant? What a horrible thought.

                    1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
                      FAIL

                      Re: dan 55 Re: OMGeeez!!! What a DISASTER!!! We're all DOOOOMED!!! Etc.

                      "......Your "reasoned theory" conveniently ignores statements on record which have been found to be false later on or facts from the Snowden documents....." Please do tell! Oh, you mean the Snowjob docs that also don't reveal any actual 'harm'? If you wish to contend otherwise, please do point to the Snowjob doc where he demonstrated the 'harm' done to an US citizen whose data was inadvertently slurped.

                      "....Other people's "evidence" is dismissed however....." What evidence? You have posted SFA evidence, and zero evidence of the 'harm' you insist must be happening due to the eavesdropping!

                      "....You seem to think your conjecture is the absolute truth....." No, just that I have at least one foot in reality, whereas you would need to take at least a bus ride to get close to reality.

                      "...,or you're under the impression you're speaking for the NSA....." No, I speak for myself. Hard as your blinkered outlook and limited intellect makes it for you to accept, not everyone is a member of the flock and some of us have zero problems with what the NSA and GCHQ are doing.

                      "....In the infinitely improbable chance that you are speaking for them....." Yeah, we get it - everyone that opposes The. Truth must be a Minon of The Man. Seriously, loosen up the tinfoil.

                      "....your ramblings can be safely dismissed....." Well, I'd prefer it if you developed the ability to at least try to form some kind of counter argument before you just accept what the flock tells you, but then I'm an optimist, even in the face of near impossibility.

                      "....You've confused the configuration file with the search parameters in the user interface...." No, the TORists have bleated that they have a copy of the XKeyScore application coded to look only for TOR - this flies in the face of what we already know about XKeyScore in that it is just a search tool for databases of already slurped data, not a proactive tool for targeting sites (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/08/01/xkeyscore_leak_challenged/). Try reading before bleating.

                  3. Bernard M. Orwell

                    Re: Dan 55 mooooooity OMGeeez!!! What a DISASTER!!! We're all DOOOOMED!!! Etc.

                    If we're of no interest, then they can stop gathering data on us.

                    Pretty simple.

              2. Hargrove

                Re: Dan 55 mooooooity OMGeeez!!! What a DISASTER!!! We're all DOOOOMED!!! Etc.

                With regard to the assertion:

                "Not really sorry to break it to you but you are still of zero interest to anyone, you're just the 'no-data' retained for fine-tuning purposes, nothing more."

                As a practical matter the overwhelming majority of us are of zero interest to the rest of the world, including national intel agencies. The problem is what access to the data allows if the government (or for that matter a private entity having access) to target an individual, for whatever purpose. I may be, and you may be, but not everyone is beneath notice.

                On the use of data for fine-tuning, I don't believe that it would be done that way for a couple of practical reasons. On the other hand if you (Matt Bryant) are an insider and have first hand knowledge that this is how those developing the algorithms actually do it, it would explain the e-mail adverts for Cohibas and sports bras I keep getting. ;-)

              3. Anonymous Coward
                Anonymous Coward

                Re: Dan 55 mooooooity OMGeeez!!! What a DISASTER!!! We're all DOOOOMED!!! Etc.

                Don't need to believe that there's a Great Conspiracy to be of the opinion that there's a value to privacy and that dragnet-style surveillance is neither necessary nor good value for money, Matt.

                > "Of course it's been misused, see LOVEINT...." Wow, so your sole evidence of The Great Conspiracy To Oppress Us All is loveint? Major fail.

                LOVEINT is pretty strong stuff actually, since it is pretty sinister abuse and it confirms what a fantastically juicy pile of data there is available. No wonder you desperately try to shrug it off. Lots of orgs/people are keen to get their fingers on that and mission creep sets in, too:

                "DEA and IRS agents are told to lie to judges and defense attorneys about their use of NSA data, and about the very existence of the SOD, and to make up stories about how these investigations started so that no one will know information is coming from the NSA’s top secret surveillance programs." --> http://www.forbes.com/sites/jennifergranick/2013/08/14/nsa-dea-irs-lie-about-fact-that-americans-are-routinely-spied-on-by-our-government-time-for-a-special-prosecutor-2/

                Seeing LOVEINT and Snowden happened, what assurance do I get that the data the NSA has collected by hacking and cracking and generally fucking up data security is safe with them?

                1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
                  FAIL

                  Re: AC Re: Dan 55 mooooooity OMGeeez!!! What a DISASTER!!! We're all DOOOOMED!!! Etc.

                  ".....dragnet-style surveillance is neither necessary nor good value for money....." Apart from the fact this 'dragnet' turned up terrorists, the hilarious thing is you loons actually baaaah-lieve that unjustified paranoia is good value for money!

                  ".....LOVEINT is pretty strong stuff actually..." Now you're just getting desperate. Even the Leftest of journos had to admit there were only a handful of cases over a decade. So, how many people's lives were ruined, how many companies forced into toeing The Man's line? None. As the Wall Street Journal's article on the matter admitted: "Most of the NSA violations were self-reported, and each instance resulted in administrative action of termination." (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2013/08/24/loveint-when-nsa-officers-use-their-spying-power-on-love-interests/) 'Termination' hardly sounds like some government-approved Great Conspiracy To Oppress Us All. Please do explain how it is 'strong stuff' to those of us residing outside of Paranoiaville, Tinfoil County?

                  ".....DEA and IRS agents are told to lie to judges and defense attorneys about their use of NSA data...." That's simply to hide the source of the data so the mechanism remains effective in catching more crooks (and terrorists). At least it would have if Snowjob hadn't decided to do a traitorous Walter Mitty. And evidence of how the DEA and FBI used data from the NSA to successfully prosecute criminals is not evidence for loveint being 'strong stuff', it is actually evidence for the effectiveness of the work. Thanks for completely destroying your own argument!

                  1. Anonymous Coward
                    Anonymous Coward

                    Re: AC Dan 55 mooooooity OMGeeez!!! What a DISASTER!!! We're all DOOOOMED!!! Etc.

                    Me> > Don't need to believe that there's a Great Conspiracy...

                    Matt> ... hardly sounds like some government-approved Great Conspiracy To Oppress Us All. Please do explain...

                    Another great example of Matt engaging with a strawman. Not that there's any lack of those.

                    Matt> As the Wall Street Journal's article on the matter admitted: "Most of the NSA violations were self-reported, and each instance resulted in administrative action of termination."

                    Yes, the NSA state there were only very few cases and most of them were self-reported. You don't notice anything strange there, do you? Remind me, which independent body is providing checks and balances here?

                    The article also points out that it's standard procedure for this type of abuse to occur with local law enforcement: "There are plenty of cases in which local law enforcement officials have been accused of abusing their access to databases to acquire information about potential romantic interests." And that's my point: Just put up a juicy source of data of org's/people's secret details and everyone with access will stick to it like flies to shit.

                    Also from your preferred article: "An NSA audit dated May 2012 that was obtained by The Post last week counted "2,776 incidents in the preceding 12 months of unauthorized collection, storage, access to or distribution of legally protected communications" -- most of them unintended."

                    I rest my case.

                    Matt> And evidence of how the DEA and FBI used data from the NSA to successfully prosecute criminals is not evidence for loveint being 'strong stuff', it is actually evidence for the effectiveness of the work

                    For someone who claims they research and read oh so much you should perhaps make an effort to read the posts you respond to a tad better. I said that "mission creep sets in, too", introducing this additional point rather than using that quote to support the previous point as you are trying to misrepresent it.

                    The NSA's job is now to find tax dodgers and drug sellers? Well, of course, that makes sense. While they rummage through everyone's data they might as well sprinkle a bit of common law enforcement in there. Don't you feel they should inform gullible individuals of their partner's infidelities while they're at it? Or should they just keep it to actual crimes?

                    1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
                      FAIL

                      Re: AC Dan 55 mooooooity OMGeeez!!! What a DISASTER!!! We're all DOOOOMED!!! Etc.

                      ".....Yes, the NSA state there were only very few cases and most of them were self-reported. You don't notice anything strange there, do you? Remind me, which independent body is providing checks and balances here?...." You are simply posting evidence of your denial. You have wound yourself into such a circle of paranoid denial you can only see a conspiracy to deceive you at every turn. You cannot accept the evidence of the NSA's own investigation because you have already made the mental decision that you cannot trust anything the NSA says simply because you don't want to. In short, it would not matter to you if there was an independent body that had verified the NSA's report, all you would do is automatically accuse the independent body of being nothing more than a cover up because it would not be providing the result you want to reinforce your pre-formed conclusions and paranoid baaaah-liefs. You cannot admit the absolute irrelevance of 'loveint' because you so desperately want to baaaah-lieve in The Great Conspiracy To Oppress Us All. The FISC, the Senate Oversight committees, the NSA's own internal safeguards and regulations, none of them matter because you want to baaaah-lieve.

                      "....Just put up a juicy source of data of org's/people's secret details and everyone with access will stick to it like flies to shit...." Apart from the fact the likelihood something might happen does not mean it has happened? I could murder someone tomorrow, I have the knowledge and the means, but that doesn't mean I am definitely, beyond all reasonable doubt, bound to do so. By the same token, you could probably do the same but I cannot state that you are certainly going to do so. Possibility is not certainty. You are also ignoring three facts that have already been presented here - firstly, the employees are not your average bod working in the average office, they are screened and extensively monitored; secondly, where they have broken the rules, the staff involved have been fired; thirdly, you still have not shown any 'harm' to the general population from the surveillance you lot insist is happening to 'all of us' - even the cases of 'loveint' are rare and so minor as to make the idea of The Great Conspiracy laughable to anyone with half a working brain. The fact you still choose to ignore the facts and bleat your paranoia means I have to question your mental abilities.

                      ".....I rest my case...." 2,776 incidents? Mostly 'unintended' and not an orchestrated program? And you want to say that somehow is evidence of The Great Conspiracy? I know the maths is probably beyond you, but there happen to be around 7 billion people on the planet, so 2,776 doesn't even make a rounding error in a percentage of the people that may have been affected! And you still have not shown any harm to anyone, let alone the 2,776 mentioned! Your case is nonexistent outside of Paranoiaville, Tinfoil County.

                      ".... I said that "mission creep sets in, too"...." So you can't show any evidence of 'harm' now so your denial mechanism automatically flips to the idea that 'harm' in the future is inevitable due to vague and vacuous 'mission creep'? All you are doing is providing more evidence for the fact that your whole case is based on nothing but paranoia.

                      1. Anonymous Coward
                        Anonymous Coward

                        Re: AC Dan 55 mooooooity OMGeeez!!! What a DISASTER!!! We're all DOOOOMED!!! Etc.

                        > because you so desperately want to baaaah-lieve in The Great Conspiracy To Oppress Us All

                        I've already explained - right at the start - that I don't believe in a great conspiracy, you just keep re-erecting strawmen.

                        > "....Just put up a juicy source of data of org's/people's secret details and everyone with access will stick to it like flies to shit...." Apart from the fact the likelihood something might happen does not mean it has happened?

                        But it has happened, Matt, one of the examples your article links to is this:

                        "every single cop in the state has done this. Chiefs on down." [...]

                        "You used to look up people without even a second thought," says Jim McKnight, a former officer with St. Paul police. "You'd look up old friends from high school or just someone you used to know."

                        [...] There's a term for this kind of misuse, according to Ryan Calo, director of privacy at the Stanford Center for Internet and Society. "'Mission creep' is the idea that you give people a set of tools to fight crime and they start using it for other reasons." [...]

                        --> http://www.citypages.com/2012-02-22/news/is-anne-marie-rasmusson-too-hot-to-have-a-driver-s-license/full/

                        Since then the lady has been awarded $1 million in court: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/07/anne-marie-rasmusson-cop-lawsuit_n_2088239.html

                        People are nosy, Matt. And the cops who have done this are, just like your beloved NSA employees "not your average bod working in the average office, they are screened".

                        > So you can't show any evidence of 'harm' now so your denial mechanism automatically flips to the idea that 'harm' in the future is inevitable due to vague and vacuous 'mission creep'?

                        Read the article again, this is not a future scenario. It has happened. Quite possibly continues to happen.

                        1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
                          FAIL

                          Re: AC Dan 55 mooooooity OMGeeez!!! What a DISASTER!!! We're all DOOOOMED!!! Etc.

                          ".....I don't believe in a great conspiracy....." So now we're finally getting down to the brass tacks - so what exactly is your fear about hp this data collection? If you want to deny what your sheeple friends claim - that we are all being 'spied on' to build a great database to oppress us (by some undefined method) - what exactly is the 'harm' (of which you can provide no evidence) that you insist either is now or will befall either you or anyone else? If not you then who will be the 'unfairly targeted' individuals you insist must be due untoward and 'illegal' attention?

                          ".....But it has happened, Matt, one of the examples your article links to is this...." You evidence is of alleged (because there is no way anyone can claim they know what all cops have done) widespread examples of cops accessing their own databases, not the NSA doing so. That's like me saying that just because all marked police patrol cars have flashing lights then all cars owned by the NSA also do - it simply does not follow. And Jim McKnight also does not prove the claim that the NSA operatives are all doing the same, he can only infer from the example of the cops, which is nothing more than wishful thinking. You then try and claim an example of a case which has nothing to do with the NSA as some form of proof? Clear fail! You are really are going to have learn the difference between evidential proof and baaaah-lief.

                          "....this is not a future scenario. It has happened. Quite possibly continues to happen." Except you have no evidence of it having happened, no evidence of 'harm', and nothing other than baaaah-lief that it will ever happen.

                          1. Anonymous Coward
                            Anonymous Coward

                            Re: AC Dan 55 mooooooity OMGeeez!!! What a DISASTER!!! We're all DOOOOMED!!! Etc.

                            > You then try and claim an example of a case which has nothing to do with the NSA as some form of proof? Clear fail!

                            Oh, Matt. Just read, you fool. LOVEINT is the NSA example. I made the point that if you put that kind of juicy data up and give people access to it, they will abuse it and I provided the cop DB access as an illustrative example which you then claimed was purely hypothetical so I provided you with the link that shows it isn't.

                            In the cop case the abuse seems to have been rampant and their data is likely nowhere near as juicy as the Yahoo nakedness and all the other crap the NSA collects.

                            Make that sort of data available to people and they'll abuse their access is my point. Shown to be true in both cases.

                            > "....this is not a future scenario. It has happened. Quite possibly continues to happen." Except you have no evidence of it having happened

                            Huh? What planet do you live on? LOVEINT has happened, so has the copper data abuse story and so has the NSA-(DEA|IRS) data share. For the latter just read the Forbes article I've linked to.

                            1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
                              FAIL

                              Re: AC Dan 55 mooooooity OMGeeez!!! What a DISASTER!!! We're all DOOOOMED!!! Etc.

                              ".....LOVEINT is the NSA example...." And as I already said, if LOVEINT is all you have then you're just desperate as well as deluded. You also then used the example of Anne Marie Rasmusson which has NOTHING to do with the NSA as a supposed example of the 'harm'! In short, you proved, nothing other than what a completely deluded moron you are. Try and grasp the simple concept - cop database and coppers, NOT the NSA's database or the NSA's personnel! Maybe you should get the help of a responsible adult, preferably not someone from the same challenged gene-pool, to help you with that simple fact. Until such help is found you are just wasting bandwidth.

          2. Matt Bryant Silver badge
            Happy

            Re: mooooooity OMGeeez!!! What a DISASTER!!! We're all DOOOOMED!!! Etc.

            ".....You're not getting the point......" And here comes the predictable denial.

            ".....The hoovering is secret. The people with access to the data are in secret jobs. Any actions they took (including passing nuggets of information to people who then made use of said nuggets to make decisions) wouldn't be widely publicised....." Great, so you can agree that, if anything resulted from their data being intercepted, it would be a safe is bet that it would have to be The Man's fault.

            "...,,Any 'victims' would know only that something went wrong....." Fine, so you show some evidence 'that something went wrong' for the people identified, then that would be 'harm'. Come on, you lot insist there is some Great Conspiracy, show some actual evidence of its dastardly actions. Oh, you can't, because the Great Conspiracy only exists in your minds and on wingnut websites.

            I know it's going to upset you sheeple, that's partly why you're getting the heads-up, but we are galloping towards a regulated and policed Internet. Behind all the popularist politicians bleating about 'privacy' and enacting laws to keep data locally are official systems trying to catch up with the NSA. The only thing stopping such attempts today is the sheer volume of data and the budgetary limits, but it is quite possible that, within twenty years, you will have no chance of hiding anything on the Internet. If you don't like it then get off the Grid and let the rest of us use the bandwidth for something useful.

            1. Amorous Cowherder

              Re: mooooooity OMGeeez!!! What a DISASTER!!! We're all DOOOOMED!!! Etc.

              MattBryant :- "If you don't like it then get off the Grid and let the rest of us use the bandwidth for something useful."

              Such as?

              1. LucreLout
                Pint

                Re: mooooooity OMGeeez!!! What a DISASTER!!! We're all DOOOOMED!!! Etc.

                "Such as?"

                Cat videos FFS. It'll just be more feckin' cat videos.

            2. Mark 85

              Re: mooooooity OMGeeez!!! What a DISASTER!!! We're all DOOOOMED!!! Etc.

              Sayeth the MB: I know it's going to upset you sheeple, that's partly why you're getting the heads-up, but we are galloping towards a regulated and policed Internet.

              And you truly believe the NSA will be part of all this? Maybe the policing but not the regulating part. And since they have (or maybe had is a better word choice) a charter that limited their scope of operations to non-domestic targets (can't stomp on the FBI's toes) then the USA portion will remain that wild and unregulated jungle?

              1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
                Facepalm

                Re: Mark 85 Re: mooooooity OMGeeez!!! What a DISASTER!!! We're all DOOOOMED!!! Etc.

                "And you truly believe the NSA will be part of all this?...." No, worse! What you will end up with is a load of individual states with the capability of the NSA (but probably not the oversight), each state having their own Internet laws and regulating bodies, and each happily spying on each other. On top of this you will have some awful UN-mandated fudge-up that will impose 'international laws' at a snail's pace, and to which you will have zero redress. It will the be a competition between the UN body and the individual local bodies as to which is the more corrupt. That is what you will get, regardless of he he NSA.

    3. Graham Marsden

      Re: OMGeeez!!! What a DISASTER!!! We're all DOOOOMED!!! Etc.

      > Even data that the NSA has decided is irrelevant is retained by the agency

      But I've been *ASSURED* that nobody is interested in us because we're just not important so *why* are they retaining this unimportant data?

      Is this just the Precautionary Principle that "well you might be of interest to us later?" Perish the thought that there might be False Positives where some poor innocent sap gets caught up in the dragnet and then faces an accusation of a crime in a Kafka-esque secret court where he's not even allowed a proper defence because his legal team is not allow to actually examine the evidence against him.

      Still, that's not harmful to Rights and Freedoms and Civil Liberties, is it?

      1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
        Facepalm

        Re: Marsbarbrain Re: OMGeeez!!! What a DISASTER!!! We're all DOOOOMED!!! Etc.

        "....so *why* are they retaining this unimportant data?...." At a guess, for filter development. When developing such filters you want to be able to look at how much 'no-data' was returned and why, as well as the hit ratios. Why do you need to baaaah-lieve there is some dastardly reason for it being retained? It's not like it is going anywhere other than a secure cache.

        1. Graham Marsden
          FAIL

          The laughable fundamental flaw with Matt Bryant's arguments...

          I find it ironic (well, absolutely hilarious, actually) that Matt Bryant keeps calling us "sheeple" yet his arguments boil down to him actually saying that he *wants* us to be obedient sheeple, to not question, to accept the State snooping into our private business, to let them do whatever they want because they're the "shepherds" and they're doing it for our own good and to protect us from all those nasty wolves which are out there.

          Well, thank you, Matt, but frankly I'm not falling for that nonsense and neither are most of the rest of us on here. So you feel free to keep baaa-lieving that it's all to make you safer and knuckle under to the power of the State and that you're not at any risk because you're not important enough for them to worry about and that it doesn't matter that your data and information is being stored and recorded and kept on file but some of us won't be sheep and won't simply, blindly accept this sort of thing, but will stand up for our Rights and Freedoms that people have fought wars to protect.

          Oh and the final ironic flaw: Shepherds? Sheep? Lambs to the slaughter...?

          ROFL!

        2. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Marsbarbrain OMGeeez!!! What a DISASTER!!! We're all DOOOOMED!!! Etc.

          ""....so *why* are they retaining this unimportant data?...." At a guess, for filter development. When developing such filters you want to be able to look at how "

          Translation. Matt Bryant does not know. But he's sure it's nothing bad.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Marsbarbrain OMGeeez!!! What a DISASTER!!! We're all DOOOOMED!!! Etc.

            > Translation. Matt Bryant does not know. But he's sure it's nothing bad.

            You fool. There is nothing Matt Bryant does not know. There is only stuff that he is bound by law and the love for his country not to disclose.

            1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
              Facepalm

              Re: AC Re: Marsbarbrain OMGeeez!!! What a DISASTER!!! We're all DOOOOMED!!! Etc.

              ".....There is nothing Matt Bryant does not know....." There's lots I don't know, but the difference between me and the sheeple is I try and fill in the gaps with a little research rather than hysterical conjecture.

              ".....There is only stuff that he is bound by law and the love for his country not to disclose." The US is not my country.

              1. BlueGreen

                Re: AC Marsbarbrain OMGeeez!!! What a DISASTER!!! We're all DOOOOMED!!! Etc. @Plump & Bleaty

                Hi my little lanolin-dripper, you being a fucking nuisance again? Well I'm back!

                > but the difference between me and the sheeple is I try and fill in the gaps with a little research rather than hysterical conjecture

                A little research, a some 'inventing' (shall we say) of 'facts', dismissals of other's posts when inconvenient, quite a bit of dropping in false trails to mislead, repeated misrepresentations of what others have said, and a whole lot of your very special opinion on top.

                Here's why the other guy's conversation with you continues - they take a strong civilised position by not insulting you, and assume that what you post is done in good faith. I don't. They should treat you the way you treat them. Until they do, I shall.

                So, shall I post some links to when I caught you out 'inventing' facts, & your inability to acknowledge when you're wrong? Yes or no. If you say no then I shan't, if you don't answer a clear no then I shall. Do you want them brought up again?

                Sheeple, sheepl, sheeple, ewe so original but deep down you know you are the plumpest, bleatiest, wooliest, scuttliest, most obedient little sheep around, and you just love it when Farmer looks after you.

                "I did not mean that Conservatives are generally stupid; I meant, that stupid persons are generally Conservative" - J. S. Mill

                1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
                  FAIL

                  Re: BleatingGreen Re: AC Marsbarbrain OMGeeez!!! What a DISASTER!!! ......

                  ".....A little research, a some 'inventing' (shall we say) of 'facts',...." If you wish to claim I am lying or fabricating facts then please do post an example of such, or admit that - as usual - you simply cannot counter the facts I post. Oh, and, BTW - SHOW ME THE 'HARM'. You seem to crawl off into a corner and sulk in every thread when challenged to do so.

                  1. BlueGreen

                    Re: BleatingGreen AC Marsbarbrain OMGeeez!!! What a DISASTER!!! ...... @Plump & Bleaty

                    Hello my little plumpgasm, I shall indeed post examples of all your little frolics shortly. But I note you not replying to my specific post so as to carefully not include your delightful and hard-eared moniker of Plump & Bleaty (without deliberately stripping it off *this* time, unlike last time when you claimed you had to because the reg website was making you, you little fibber you).

                    And again because it's true - "I did not mean that Conservatives are generally stupid; I meant, that stupid persons are generally Conservative" - J. S. Mill

                    1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
                      FAIL

                      Re: BleatingGreen AC Marsbarbrain OMGeeez!!! What a DISASTER!!! ...... @Plump & Bleaty

                      ".....I shall indeed post examples of all your little frolics shortly...." <Yawn> yeah! it's not like you've used that delaying tactic and then not supplied anything before. You directly accused me of fabricating facts, now show it or shut up and admitting you have been caught out lying again.

                      Oh, and someone wake up Gaz, he seems completely and conveniently blind to his fellow sheeple's continual repetition of the same boring insults. Wouldn't want anyone thinking there was a double standard applied.....

                      1. BlueGreen

                        Re: BleatingGreen AC Marsbarbrain OMGeeez!!! What a DISASTER!!! ...... @Plump & Bleaty

                        Hello plumpling, well, quick example, you claiming that Matt Bryant was a nom de plum. Oh dear. You're not that smart. The idea of all the notice you're attracting by inflammatory posting going to a pseudonym would be unbearable.

                        And you going silent when challenged about being on linkedin. How curious.

                        Dishonesty, well, you claiming that I said there was 'harm' happening to 'everyone' <http://forums.theregister.co.uk/forum/3/2014/06/11/snowden_whistleblowing_big_brother_state_not_1984_just_yet/#c_2215408> but went into bullshit mode, dodging and diving when challented to show I'd said that, because you couldn't, because I hadn't. There's you making shit up.

                        More later lambchop

                        1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
                          Happy

                          Re: BleatingGreen AC Marsbarbrain OMGeeez!!! What a DISASTER!!! ...... @Plump & Bleaty

                          ".....you claiming that Matt Bryant was a nom de plum...." It's 'nom de plume', and the forum rules do not prohibit the use of such, so how is that 'lying'? Once again, when challenged to provide proof of your ridiculous claims, you again come up empty. You have again been shown to be nothing but a melodramatic, hysterical, hyperventilating, lying bleater.

                          ".....And you going silent when challenged about being on linkedin...." I think we all had a good laugh the last time you load of deluded twits tried accusing me of being this or that account on Faecesbook or LinkedIn. Whilst I did have a specific reason for the choice of pen name, it is also conveniently common (4,800 LinkedIn search results!). Please do insist in hurling abuse at them, I'm sure it won't be long until one of them decides on a legal response, and you will still not have come close. Before you do, you may also want to go and read up on what a nom de plume is.....

                          ".....you claiming that I said there was 'harm' happening to 'everyone' ....." You did make both statements - that we all are being spied on, plus that it was destroying privacy and causing 'harm'. I simply challenged you to provide any proof to the claimed 'harm', which you have not done and have avoided ever since. So, it is you that is being dishonest again. The really amusing bit is, despite all your bleating to the contrary, you know you cannot show any 'harm', hence your lying little dance of denial. You are not just lying to the rest of us, you are lying to yourself.

                          And the really, really funny bit is how you carry on these lying denials rather than admit you cannot counter the points that I raise in these threads! None of your posts ever contain a counter, just more hysterical lying and bleating.

                          1. BlueGreen
                            Gimp

                            Re: BleatingGreen AC Marsbarbrain OMGeeez!!! What a DISASTER!!! ...... @Plump & Bleaty

                            Hello lambchop, sorry for the delay in getting back, 'pooter problems took me all day to fix

                            > it's 'nom de plume'

                            my typo

                            > and the forum rules do not prohibit the use of such

                            by such a statement you're trying to imply that it is. Well, I'm finding it a touch difficult to believe that Matt Bryant is a nom de plume. Whereas you claim that it is: "Hey, I'm quite happy to put my name (well, nom de plume) to a statement..." And your next para of this post for that matter. Yeah. You chose it because it was (IIRC) the 2nd most common surname, is that right?

                            > I think we all had a good laugh the last time you load of deluded twits tried accusing me of being this or that account on Faecesbook or LinkedIn

                            Again diversionary but not a denial. Which is somewhat honest compared to what is about to follow so I won't raise the matter again, just remember that if you value your privacy then so do we, hence the NSA shitstorm.

                            Now, onto what you just posted:

                            "

                            ".....you claiming that I said there was 'harm' happening to 'everyone' ....." You did make both statements - that we all are being spied on, plus that it was destroying privacy and causing 'harm' [Plump & Bleaty quote]

                            "

                            And as I said here Just post the frigging link to where I (not another person) used the EXACT words 'harm' and 'everyone' in MY own words (not quoting someone else) IN THE CONTEXT OF NSA INTERCEPTIONS.

                            I'm still waiting, because I didn't, did I. I'm asking again, to show me, because you didn't manage last time. Post a link. Because I'm calling you a liar on this.

                            Now as for misrepresenting people, same thread as last link given, you said about my post "I have clicked the abuse button when I see comments that contain abuse" [plump & bleaty quote]

                            However when I removed that so-called abuse (even when the moderator slapped your fluffy arse for reporting it as abuse when it wasn't), you then said this "You make the assumption that I clicked the 'abuse' button for your drivel, when the reality is I would have clicked a button for 'laughable stupidity' if that was available. Or a button for 'constant repetition' which is against the house rules." [moar plump & bleatiness]

                            It has to be full of abuse, or laughable stupidity, or anything to prevent you from addressing my point. Because you are a liar. Now post the link to where I said what you said I said, and I'll apologise and retract.

                            > And the really, really funny [...] hysterical lying and bleating

                            MBZCC

                            what plump sheep get up to in the bedroom ---------------------------------------------------->

                            1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
                              FAIL

                              Re: BleatingGreen AC Marsbarbrain OMGeeez!!! What a DISASTER!!! ...... @Plump & Bleaty

                              ".....by such a statement you're trying to imply that it is....." No, once again you are confusing what you want to baaaaah-lieve with a simple statement reminding you of the forum rules. No hidden implications, no Great Conspiracy for you to get paranoid about, just a simple statement. It might help if you loosened up the tinfoil.

                              ".....I'm still waiting, because I didn't,...." Yes you did, but please don't fall back on your equally childish fellow-flock-member's 'yes you did','no I did not' routine as that would just be extra Boring. Oh, and just for once, try and post something vaguely to do with the thread and not just more of your lies, evasions and male bovine manure.

                              Once again, show me the 'harm' you insisted was being done or just admit you can't, and stop being such a childish little liar.

                              1. BlueGreen

                                Re: BleatingGreen AC Marsbarbrain OMGeeez!!! What a DISASTER!!! ...... @Plump & Bleaty

                                > ".....I'm still waiting, because I didn't,...." Yes you did

                                I did not say these things. You claim I did and I proved that by providing quotes and links showing you saying so (if the above quote wasn't enough...)

                                I believe I did not say this, so show me proof I did. A link please - show me where I said these things.

                                I'm calling you a liar because I don't recall saying them and you won't show where I did.

                                All my posts are available by clicking on my handle so you can find where I supposedly said it.

                                I am calling you a liar. Prove me wrong.

                                1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
                                  Happy

                                  Re: BleatingGreen AC Marsbarbrain OMGeeez!!! What a DISASTER!!! ...... @Plump & Bleaty

                                  The original challenge to show the 'harm' done by the NSA's activities in this article on the Bahaman wiretapping looking for drug-smugglers (http://forums.theregister.co.uk/forum/1/2014/05/19/latest_snowden_leak_claims_nsa_bugged_all_mobile_calls_in_the_bahamas/). Was after your many, many, dull and boring insistence a that the NSA and chums were spying on us all and listening to everything we say/email/text (which really underlines the fact you just don't understand what metadata is). So, you like to insist the NSA is destroying privacy, yet you are completely unable to show the 'harm' done to anyone, you just dodge the question.

                                  Your paranoid delusions of The Great Conspiracy were clearly exposed in this post (http://forums.theregister.co.uk/forum/1/2013/12/31/nsa_weapons_catalogue_promises_pwnage_at_the_speed_of_light/):

                                  ".....The point about power corrupts - read this carefully, I'm going to spell it out for you - is that this interception is a kind of power and this power will be subverted from 'finding terrorists' to 'finding violent criminals and peedos' to ''finding domestic criminals' to 'trawling for potential criminal behaviour' to 'trawling for political dissent'. That's what you don't 'get'. That's what you'll never 'get', I think....." Where it is pretty clear you have no evidence your paranoid delusions are actually happening, but you insist they still will, in the future, 'cos power corrupts (ROFL). Serious tinfoil stuff!

                                  Amusingly, whilst looking back through your posts, I also found this little nugget where you admit your technical incompetence when it comes to security: ".... A few years ago I started using GPG in thunderbird to a mate in german, out of principle and because he had enough tech understanding to do it .....Frankly I found it confusing and hard to understand what's going on.... and I soon stopped using GPG." (http://forums.theregister.co.uk/forum/1/2013/11/08/watch_out_spooks_standards_groups_are_fighting_back/). All too funny considering how you whine and bleat about security and The Evils of The Man! ROFLMAO!

                                  1. BlueGreen

                                    Re: BleatingGreen AC Marsbarbrain OMGeeez!!! What a DISASTER!!! ...... @Plump & Bleaty

                                    Hello my fierce little plumpticle

                                    > The original challenge to show the 'harm' done by the NSA's activities in this article on the Bahaman wiretapping looking for drug-smugglers (http://forums.theregister.co.uk/forum/1/2014/05/19/latest_snowden_leak_claims_nsa_bugged_all_mobile_calls_in_the_bahamas).

                                    Naughty plumpkins, trying rewrite history again! Bad, bad plumpkins!

                                    No, the 'challenge' is, for the umpteenth fucking time, to show what you claimed I said. Again: "Just post the frigging link to where I (not another person) used the EXACT words 'harm' and 'everyone' in MY own words (not quoting someone else) IN THE CONTEXT OF NSA INTERCEPTIONS."

                                    The only use of 'harm' or similarly-stemmed words in that link are by you. Not me. You have failed to show that said what you claimed I said. You are still a liar. You can become not-a-liar by retracting your claim that I said it and acknowledge it was a mistake. I will accept that in good faith. Until you do you are a liar

                                    > Where it is pretty clear you have no evidence your paranoid delusions are actually happening, but you insist they still will, in the future, 'cos power corrupts (ROFL). Serious tinfoil stuff!

                                    Nice try to divert away from your lie.

                                    > Amusingly, whilst looking back through your posts, I also found this little nugget where you admit your technical incompetence when it comes to security

                                    Another attempt at irrelevant diversion, however, equally amusingly, this comes from the guy who doesn't know even at the basic level how URLs are handled "You are a complete fuckwit." - quote from yet another poor sod whose time had been wasted by Plump & Bleaty

                                    1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
                                      Happy

                                      Re: BleatingGreen AC Marsbarbrain OMGeeez!!! What a DISASTER!!! ...... @Plump & Bleaty

                                      ".....trying rewrite history again...." So you're going to deny that was when I made the challenge that you have been dodging ever since? Really strange that you would even try something so farcical given that I included the link so all could go see the original challenge (and have a good laugh at your evasive denials). Once again, just because you want to think repeating a lie again and again will change reality just because you want to baaaah-lieve it is not going to change anything (just make people laugh at you more). BTW, show me the 'harm', mmmkay?

                                      ".....The only use of 'harm' or similarly-stemmed words in that link are by you...." As I said, you and the other sheeple insisted the NSA was destroying privacy and other hysterical claims, that the 'victims' would be subject to some malicious injury due to the NSA's activities, and I challenged you to prove it by showing the 'harm'. You have failed to do so. Again, all you are doing is quibbling and trying to split hairs because you want to avoid the obvious fact you have no proof of 'harm'.

                                      "....Nice try to divert away from your lie...." Oh no, you misunderstood - exposing your paranoid delusions of The Great (yet strangely evidence-free) Conspiracy To Oppress Us All was a bonus laugh for the readers! Especially as it shows you lied when you said you did not baaaah-lieve in any Great Conspiracy. So, I take it you too baaaah-lieve in unicorns?

                                      ".....Another attempt at irrelevant diversion...." Maybe irrelevant to the thread, but very relevant in that it demonstrates you are talking male bovine manure about security, and also in that if is another bonus laugh! I'm not surprised you wouldn't want that one repeated when you try and pass yourself off as 'knowledgeable' and 'competent'. Were you too busy defending the existence of unicorns to read the manual?

                                      Cue more denials, evasions and childish insults from BoringGreen whilst he froths in a rage at being exposed for the lying, incompetent, conspiracy nutter he is!

                                      1. BlueGreen

                                        Re: BleatingGreen AC Marsbarbrain OMGeeez!!! What a DISASTER!!! ...... @Plump & Bleaty

                                        Hello again my enjoyably rotund little plumpgasm

                                        > So you're going to deny that was when I made the challenge

                                        No, *I* made the challenge; to prove that I said what you claimed I said. You cannot show I said it despite clearly looking through my posts ("Amusingly, whilst looking back through your posts..."). You have not retracted your claim.

                                        You remain demonstrably a liar

                                        > As I said, you and the other sheeple insisted the NSA was destroying privacy and other hysterical claims...

                                        Irrelevant attempt at diversion away from your evident lie.

                                        > Oh no, you misunderstood - exposing your paranoid delusions of The Great (yet strangely evidence-free) Conspiracy To Oppress Us All was a bonus laugh for the readers! Especially as it shows you lied when you said you did not baaaah-lieve in any Great Conspiracy. So, I take it you too baaaah-lieve in unicorns?

                                        I lied? Where? Post the exact link(s) that show this, liar.

                                        > Maybe irrelevant to the thread

                                        Correct. But funny, no? Have a free salt-lick for showing your utter misunderstanding of URLs and web servers, liar.

                                        Cue more denials, evasions [...] conspiracy nutter he is!

                                        MBZCC

                                        1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
                                          Happy

                                          Re: BleatingGreen AC Marsbarbrain OMGeeez!!! What a DISASTER!!! ...... @Plump & Bleaty

                                          "....No, *I* made the challenge; to prove that I said what you claimed I said...." No, you tried to evade because you could find no evidence of 'harm' to back up your comic baaaah-lief in The Great Conspiracy To Oppress Us All. Oh, and still no proof of that 'harm' I see, so all you're doing is still avoiding admitting your were lying and talking male bovine manure. What a sad little conspiracy loon you are! Does it make you feel less bad about yourself to imagine The Man is watching you?

                                          1. BlueGreen

                                            Re: BleatingGreen AC Marsbarbrain OMGeeez!!! What a DISASTER!!! ...... @Plump & Bleaty

                                            If I did not make such a claim then I do not have to justify it. You said I made the claim but will not back it up.

                                            You remain a liar

                                            1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
                                              FAIL

                                              Re: BleatingGreen AC Marsbarbrain OMGeeez!!! What a DISASTER!!! ...... @Plump & Bleaty

                                              "If I did not make such a claim..." The only thing you did not do was show proof of the 'harm' you claimed the NSA's actions were doing to all of us. You did do a lot of avoiding the question, lying, whining, and throwing out childish insults. So, stop being so Boring and self-limiting, try and peel off your ideological blinkers and answer the simple question honestly - where is the 'harm'?

                                              1. BlueGreen

                                                Re: BleatingGreen AC Marsbarbrain OMGeeez!!! What a DISASTER!!! ...... @Plump & Bleaty

                                                > the 'harm' you claimed the NSA's actions were doing to all of us

                                                you are a liar

                                                1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
                                                  Happy

                                                  Re: BleatingGreen AC Marsbarbrain OMGeeez!!! What a DISASTER!!! ...... @Plump & Bleaty

                                                  "you are a liar". You are unable to provide evidence to support your wingnut conspiracy theory seeing as it is only based on your paranoid delusions. That I have shown to be empirically proven by your own hilarious statements and your inability to supply the evidence of the 'harm' I asked for. You lose!

                                                  1. BlueGreen

                                                    Re: BleatingGreen AC Marsbarbrain OMGeeez!!! What a DISASTER!!! ...... @Plump & Bleaty

                                                    > and your inability to supply the evidence of the 'harm' I asked for.

                                                    Read this, plumpkins

                                                      1. BlueGreen

                                                        Re: BleatingGreen AC Marsbarbrain OMGeeez!!! What a DISASTER!!! ...... @Plump & Bleaty

                                                        > Still no evidence of 'harm',

                                                        That's your request, not mine, so just another attempted diversion.

                                                        But still no evidence to back up that I said what you claimed I said. Cat got your honesty, lambchop? Dish it out but can't take it, plumpkins?

                                                            1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
                                                              FAIL

                                                              Re: BleatingGreen AC Marsbarbrain OMGeeez!!! What a DISASTER!!! ...... @Plump & Bleaty

                                                              " all because I did not use use the EXACT words 'harm' and 'everyone' in MY own words (not quoting someone else) IN THE CONTEXT OF NSA INTERCEPTIONS which you claimed I did, so I'm not obliged to justify it....." Wriggle, wriggle, wriggle! Just admit it, you have SFA evidence to support your paranoid baaaah-liefs. Show the 'harm', it may help you ditch the tinfoil hat to admit your worldview is based in deceitful myths and paranoia.

                                                        1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
                                                          Happy

                                                          Re: BleatingGreen AC Marsbarbrain OMGeeez!!! What a DISASTER!!! ...... @Plump & Bleaty

                                                          "That's your request...." Yes it is, and you have been avoiding answering it for days across multiple threads, all because you know it destroys any lingering doubts that all you are pushing is just paranoid delusions. If you wish to prove otherwise, that your baaaah-liefs have any grounding in reality, then show me the 'harm'. Otherwise the forum readers will just come to the conclusion you are a deceitful, self-deluding wingnut. Enjoy!

                                                          1. BlueGreen

                                                            Re: BleatingGreen AC Marsbarbrain OMGeeez!!! What a DISASTER!!! ...... @Plump & Bleaty

                                                            Hello cottonbud,

                                                            > "That's your request...." Yes it is, and you have been avoiding answering it for days across multiple threads, all because ...

                                                            all because I did not use use the EXACT words 'harm' and 'everyone' in MY own words (not quoting someone else) IN THE CONTEXT OF NSA INTERCEPTIONS which you claimed I did, so I'm not obliged to justify it. Dishonest little lambkins.

                                                            Nice attempt at another diversion though, plumps.

                                                            Ewe tres boring now. More boring that plants vs zombies. Back later.

                                                    1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
                                                      Facepalm

                                                      Re: BleatingGreen AC Marsbarbrain OMGeeez!!! What a DISASTER!!! ...... @Plump & Bleaty

                                                      "Read this...." Still no evidence of 'harm', I see. Are you having problems with the whole concept of evidence, would you like me to use only short words to help you?

                  2. Roo

                    Re: BleatingGreen AC Marsbarbrain OMGeeez!!! What a DISASTER!!! ......

                    " Oh, and, BTW - SHOW ME THE 'HARM'."

                    By the same token Matt you should show the evidence backing up your claim that no harm has occurred, at present you have failed to show that, so your claim of "no harm" (which you made first) amounts to a baseless assertion. Also folks have shown harm occurring, but you have chosen to ignore it because it doesn't fit your whacky world view.

                    1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
                      FAIL

                      Re: Roominant Re: BleatingGreen AC Marsbarbrain OMGeeez!!! What a DISASTER!!! ......

                      "By the same token Matt you should show the evidence backing up your claim that no harm has occurred..." Proof of a negative? What a desperate attempt at denial! For a start, if there was any evidence of such 'harm' the same journos would be all over it! Once again, the lack of evidence of any 'harm' simply reinforces my argument and undermines yours.

                      ".....folks have shown harm occurring...." When? 'Loveint'? If that is the extent of the so-called 'mass invasion of privacy' then the sheeple can sleep soundly tonight. Your attempts to defend your paranoid delusional denial is just getting pathetic, next you'll be insisting the NSA Bogeyman is under your bed at nights.

                      1. Roo
                        Windows

                        Re: Roominant BleatingGreen AC Marsbarbrain OMGeeez!!! What a DISASTER!!! ......

                        "What a desperate attempt at denial!"

                        I'm not trying to deny anything, I am trying to understand your arguments and if necessary point out where I differ in opinion and why.

                        ""By the same token Matt you should show the evidence backing up your claim that no harm has occurred..." Proof of a negative?

                        You claimed that no harm occurred, so you would be required to prove a negative.

                        In essence you are basing your arguments on a factoid that you yourself can not prove. Then you have gone on to accuse other people of doing the same thing when they have asked you for actual evidence to back up your belief.

                        "For a start, if there was any evidence of such 'harm' the same journos would be all over it!"

                        That is just a statement of belief, it's not a fact or even a factoid. I am curious to see how you are going to go about proving that journalists miss nothing.

                        1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
                          FAIL

                          Re: Roominant BleatingGreen AC Marsbarbrain OMGeeez!!! What a DISASTER!!! ......

                          ".....You claimed that no harm occurred, so you would be required to prove a negative....." Simple - I can find no evidence to support your claim of 'harm'. Job done! Now, for you to prove your opposite claim, you need to provide proof of the 'harm', which you have not done. Ball's in your court, sunshine, now toddle off and find some evidence or just admit you can't, mmmkay?

                          ".....In essence you are basing your arguments on a factoid that you yourself can not prove......" No, it is you that cannot prove your assertion. I can very easily prove there is no proof of the alleged 'harm' simply because neither you nor I nor the journos involved can find such proof.

                          "....Then you have gone on to accuse other people of doing the same thing when they have asked you for actual evidence to back up your belief....." My belief is based on the simple and reasonable conclusion formed from the fact that (a) there is no evidence of 'harm', and (b) you cannot even find evidence of 'harm', and (c) neither could the journos despite being able to unmask the identities of some of the innocent parties. You, on the other hand, based your conclusion not on evidence but on what you want to baaaah-lieve.

                          ".....That is just a statement of belief, it's not a fact or even a factoid....." So you want to claim what, that the journos that were happy to leak the story then decided not to publish any subsequent proof of 'harm' to the people they identified? Do you want to pretend they went to all the trouble of identifying people but then decided they just couldn't be bothered to go ask those same people for any actual impact from the 'spying'? Either you seem to want to baaaah-lieve they are very inconsistent or simply bad journos! Please do explain what benefit you think the Washington Post, for example, would gain from not following up on the story?

                          "...... I am curious to see how you are going to go about proving that journalists miss nothing." I am curious as to how you manage to baaaah-lieve that journos not scared to leak Snowjob's docs would then pass up the opportunity to follow up on the story! But, if you want to pretend they are all just crappy journals, why don't you hurry off to Cryptome and get the same docs, trawl through them for the identities (after all, if such 'bad journos' could find them, it should be a doddle for such a 'clever' individual as yourself), then you can go get the proof of 'harm' you insist is out there! Good luck, bon voyage, and don't hurry back 'cos your 'contribution' won't be missed.

                          1. Roo
                            Windows

                            Re: Roominant BleatingGreen AC Marsbarbrain OMGeeez!!! What a DISASTER!!! ......

                            "".....You claimed that no harm occurred, so you would be required to prove a negative....." Simple - I can find no evidence to support your claim of 'harm'. Job done!"

                            No doubt you still close your eyes and believe that you are invisible.

                            "Now, for you to prove your opposite claim, you need to provide proof of the 'harm', which you have not done."

                            Actually I don't, because you haven't proven your claim, and besides you can't actually prove your claim. The credibility of evidence presented by the FBI & DEA has been irrevocably harmed. Defendants can quite reasonably claim the evidence presented against them has been fabricated, with all the extra expense and hassle that entails. That must make you very happy.

                            1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
                              FAIL

                              Re: Roominant BleatingGreen AC Marsbarbrain OMGeeez!!! What a DISASTER!!! ......

                              "....No doubt you still close your eyes and believe that you are invisible....." I see you're sticking with your usual level of non-factual 'evidence' to support your assertions. Good luck with that when you finally graduate school and try getting a job!

                              "....Actually I don't, because you haven't proven your claim, and besides you can't actually prove your claim...." LOL, you are such a stranger to logic! You're no different to the types that, when asked for proof of their god's existence, try and turn the question round by saying 'prove he does not exist'. You and many of the other sheeple posted claims that the NSA's spying program had 'harmed' them, yet none of you can show any evidence of 'harm' (though you all seem to have suffered a lot of educational 'harm' in your formative years).

                              ".....The credibility of evidence presented by the FBI & DEA has been irrevocably harmed. Defendants can quite reasonably claim the evidence presented against them has been fabricated....." And this is happening where, in what cases? Oh, it's not, because any evidence supplied by the NSA was used by those agencies to find more evidence to build a case around. Try again, little lamb!

                              1. Roo
                                Windows

                                Re: Roominant BleatingGreen AC Marsbarbrain OMGeeez!!! What a DISASTER!!! ......

                                "LOL, you are such a stranger to logic!"

                                In the real world, I am not a stranger to logic, far from it in fact. However I understand that in Matt Bryant's world (Rant On Dudes !) things are different from the real world.

                                "You're no different to the types that, when asked for proof of their god's existence, try and turn the question round by saying 'prove he does not exist'""

                                I haven't seen any proof either way yet, so I don't have a horse in that particular race.

                                As for whether harm has (or will) happen as result of the NSA's inept data collection+retention+security practices, Matt *believes* none will, but Matt can't prove it. The replies and down votes Matt's posts have attracted suggest that most people think that most of Matt's arguments are bollocks.

                                So in conclusion:

                                1) Logic indicates that Matt can't prove his claims, therefore his claims of "no harm" are bollocks.

                                2) Most of the posts by commentards indicate that Matt's claims of "no harm" are bollocks.

                                3) Historic precedent and the balance of probability indicates that Matt's claims of "no harm" are bollocks.

                                4) The majority of Matt's writing consists of personal attacks and straw men arguments, he rarely addresses the point at hand, choosing instead to ignore stuff that doesn't fit his churlish world view.

                                5) I think that Matt looks stupid because he is repeating the same claim of "no harm" over and over again with no evidence to back it up.

                                Ball is as ever in your court Matt, but that's because you play alone.

                                1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
                                  FAIL

                                  Re: Roominant BleatingGreen AC Marsbarbrain OMGeeez!!! What a DISASTER!!! ......

                                  ".....As for whether harm has (or will) happen as result of the NSA's inept data collection+retention+security practices, Matt *believes* none will, but Matt can't prove it....." So, to sum up and apply your 'argument' and it's flawed logic, unicorns and fairies must exist because no-one has conclusively proved they don't? LOL! The clear lack of evidence that such 'harm' is being done, as you sheeple insist, makes it very clear you are the one that is wrong. Just because you and your fellow sheeple want to baaaah-lieve otherwise is down to your socio-political faith and paranoid delusions, not reasoning, no matter how much you want to delude yourselves otherwise. You fail again, as usual.

                                  1. Roo
                                    Windows

                                    Re: Roominant BleatingGreen AC Marsbarbrain OMGeeez!!! What a DISASTER!!! ......

                                    "".....As for whether harm has (or will) happen as result of the NSA's inept data collection+retention+security practices, Matt *believes* none will, but Matt can't prove it....." So, to sum up and apply your 'argument' and it's flawed logic, unicorns and fairies must exist because no-one has conclusively proved they don't? LOL!"

                                    You are fabricating evidence again Matt, that is in fact your logic, as illustrated by the following quote in which you assert that a lack of evidence to the contrary supports your argument:

                                    "For a start, if there was any evidence of such 'harm' the same journos would be all over it! Once again, the lack of evidence of any 'harm' simply reinforces my argument and undermines yours."

                                    Given that you make up new names, strawman arguments and systematically misrepresent people you may have a bright future working in the DEA's evidence fabrication operation.

                                    1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
                                      Happy

                                      Re: Roominant BleatingGreen AC Marsbarbrain OMGeeez!!! What a DISASTER!!! ......

                                      "You are fabricating evidence again...." No, merely demonstrating the hilarious stupidity of your 'logic'. Oh crap - you don't really believe in unicorns do you? Good thing I didn't use Santa as the example, then, otherwise you'd probably slit your wrists!

                                      ".....as illustrated by the following quote in which you assert that a lack of evidence to the contrary supports your argument....." Not so, as the evidence is the lack of stories from the journalists shows they either (a) did not think to question the people they identified (unlikely), or (b) did but did not find any evidence of 'harm'. That is very different to your insistence there must have been 'harm' but cannot find any evidence to support that baaaah-lief. It is reasonable to presume the same journalists would have followed up on the leads, it is not reasonable (except in wingnut conspiracy land) to assume that the NSA's activities could be 'harming' us all yet there be no evidence of any harm. The simplest example would be yourself - if we are all being surveilled as you claim then we should also all be seeing 'harm' - show proof of your 'harm'. But you can't, because it only exists in your paranoid delusions.

                                      "....you may have a bright future...." I predict your future will be the usual failure, justified to yourself as not your fault but all due to you 'daring to talk out against The Great Conspiracy To Oppress Us All'. I suggest you save some time and just look in the mirror for the source of all your problems.

                          2. Roo

                            Re: Roominant BleatingGreen AC Marsbarbrain OMGeeez!!! What a DISASTER!!! ......

                            ""...... I am curious to see how you are going to go about proving that journalists miss nothing." I am curious as to how you manage to baaaah-lieve that journos not scared to leak Snowjob's docs would then pass up the opportunity to follow up on the story! "

                            My curiosity is sated, it turns out that you will not prove that journalists miss nothing, maybe you should quit claiming no harm seeing as it's just a belief.

                            1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
                              FAIL

                              Re: Roominant BleatingGreen AC Marsbarbrain OMGeeez!!! What a DISASTER!!! ......

                              "My curiosity is sated...." I suspect because you simply are too confused to follow the facts.

                              ".....it turns out that you will not prove that journalists miss nothing....." Who said I was going to prove another negative? I simply asked you as to why you 'thought' the journals would ignore the obvious next step in their investigation. It is you that has failed to answer that question.

                              "....maybe you should quit claiming no harm seeing as it's just a belief." You are the one with the baaaah-lief in the 'harm' caused by NSA spying, and the one that has failed to show any evidence to back up your paranoid delusions. So, you fail again.

              2. Anonymous Coward
                Anonymous Coward

                Re: AC Marsbarbrain OMGeeez!!! What a DISASTER!!! We're all DOOOOMED!!! Etc.

                > ".....There is only stuff that he is bound by law and the love for his country not to disclose." The US is not my country.

                I know!!

              3. Anonymous Coward
                Anonymous Coward

                Re: AC Marsbarbrain OMGeeez!!! What a DISASTER!!! We're all DOOOOMED!!! Etc.

                "There's lots I don't know, but the difference between me and the sheeple is I try and fill in the gaps with a little research rather than hysterical conjecture."

                Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

    4. Chairo
      Meh

      Re: OMGeeez!!! What a DISASTER!!! We're all DOOOOMED!!! Etc.

      don't worry, Big Brother is not actually recording your downvotes, no matter how much you want to baaaah-lieve they are

      The function of that button is to tell, if people value your opinion. Obviously there are lots of people that don't agree with yours.

      Calling people with other opinions "sheeple" is a bad habit. It doesn't help your position, devaluates your statement and proves your immaturity.

      I can only talk for myself, but one of the reasons I read El Reg is to get other opinions and arguments in the comment section. You want to swim against the current? Piss Run against the wind? OK, fine, do it! Just try to accept that others think different! You might learn something.

      You obviously spend some time and effort to write comments here. Why do you damage your statements yourself?

      1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
        FAIL

        Re: Chairo Re: OMGeeez!!! What a DISASTER!!! We're all DOOOOMED!!! Etc.

        ".....Obviously there are lots of people that don't agree with yours....." Yes, there are a lot of posters her that don't want to agree with what I post, who downvote with alacrity, yet seem unable to post a reason for their disagreement. That implies their disagreement is not based on facts or reasoning, but on emotional baaaah-liefs.

        "....Calling people with other opinions "sheeple" is a bad habit....." I don't call people that can explain their differing opinion sheeple, just those that don't have an opinion of their own. You can spot them pretty quickly because they substitute passion for reasoning and facts.

        ".... It doesn't help your position....." Such people do not want to hear reason, they do not want to have to admit their cherished baaaah-liefs are not based in reality, so there is no point in trying to educate them or change their point of view. It is much better to simply expose their blind devotion to help others realise how shallow and unrealistic their claims are. And it's also more fun to laugh at them, and since I'm not being paid to re-educate the sheeple why should I do it unless I get some fun? Sorry, but I'm not a teacher or your parent, so I really don't care if your feelings get hurt by a little reality. TBH, grow up!

        ".....You want to swim against the current?...." When are the sheeple going to realise you are not the majority, you are not the 99% you claim to be. Put your ego back in the box and try using your brain, starting with actually answering the points I raised. Or, is it that you can't and so are just falling back on a good whine?

        ".....Just try to accept that others think different!...." You might want to have a word with your fellow flock members then seeing as they get very upset by any dissenting POV. Shame your whole post has no actual relevance to the thread, but then I wasn't expecting much else.

        1. Chairo

          Re: OMGeeez!!! What a DISASTER!!! We're all DOOOOMED!!! Etc.

          Yes, there are a lot of posters her that don't want to agree with what I post, who downvote with alacrity, yet seem unable to post a reason for their disagreement. That implies their disagreement is not based on facts or reasoning, but on emotional baaaah-liefs.

          Think about it - I'd say about 75% of your downvotes are directly because of your attitude. Those downvoters will never answer, anyway. Another 25% don't agree with your statement and facts. They might answer your post and explain the downvote, but that's much more effort than just pushing the downvote button and hoping someone else might explain it to you.

          Anyway - you have a good point insofar as my whole post had no actual relevance to the thread.

          Let's change that:

          If The Man or any of The Minions have 'misused' the data then there would be some proveable 'harm', surely? If not, how could they have 'misused' it? You want to baaaaah-lieve in The Great Conspiracy To Oppress Us All, so show me some effect of the supposed conspiracy.

          In a dragnet data collection of Stasi or Gestapo style, it is completely irrelevant if the data is misused or not. The very fact the data is collected, already creates a feeling of uncertainty and pushes the subjects to preemptive obedience. That's why oppressive systems never hide the fact, that data is collected. Obviously the NSA tried very hard to hide their data collection. So probably no conspiracy here. Move along, nothing to see.

          ".....and because 'victims' of any misuse will not necessarily know where their problems came from." I am not asking you to show conclusive proof that The Man 'harmed' them, just anything that these people underwent that you want to propose was caused by The Man. Then we can all have a good laugh at your paranoia. Come on, back your witless bleating up for once.

          Now, unfortunately there have been incidents with people, that were put on "No Fly Lists". Once your name is on such a list, your are in trouble. There is virtually no way to get you cleared. I would say this counts as harm. Accidential harm, perhaps, but nevertheless. Apart from that, the fact that it is now known that all this data is collected, will certainly have some negative influence on our society. The terrorists' goal is to fight our liberal society, our freedom to do, think and believe as we wish. The actions of the NSA damaged our society far more than any terrorist bomb could have ever done. Just by creating a feeling of fear and uncertainty. I would call that harmful behaviour.

          Another point is that once such a organisation is set up and working, it can be easily turned into an instrument of oppression. The Gestapo didn't just appear from out of nowhere. Neither did the Stasi. Democracies are very fragile things. People tend to flock around strong leaders and leaders tend to strife for as much power as possible. And you know what - it's always the other ones that are the sheeple...

          1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
            FAIL

            Re: Chairo Re: OMGeeez!!! What a DISASTER!!! We're all DOOOOMED!!! Etc.

            ".....I'd say about 75% of your downvotes are directly because of your attitude...." And you have figures to back that up, or were they just pulled out of your rectum along with the rest of your post?

            ".....creates a feeling of uncertainty and pushes the subjects to preemptive obedience...." Yeah, that's called 'paranoia'. What you are admitting is that you have no real facts to base your fears on, it's just you prefer to baaaah-lieve. You are now just desperately taking Snowjob's 'revelations' and trying to justify your paranoia with them.

            "....Obviously the NSA tried very hard to hide their data collection...." Yeah, because telling crooks and terrorists how you are looking for their coms would be such a good idea, right? Are you just trying to be funny or just not realise how stupid you sound?

            "......there have been incidents with people, that were put on "No Fly Lists"...." Firstly, you failed to show that anyone on the 'no-fly' list was there because of the NSA's activities. The majority were actually already on the FBI's lists of people to be watched prior to 9/11 due to their associating with extremists. If you wish to claim otherwise, please do show an example of someone put on the list as a result of the NSA's activities, and then show their inclusion was not justified. Secondly, out of a population of 350-odd million, there has never been more than 10,000 names, and that includes non-US citizens. As a Great Conspiracy To Oppress Us All it seems to be having a very narrow, non-all effect. Try again!

            ".....The actions of the NSA damaged our society far more than any terrorist bomb could have ever done...." Really? So please do list the American buildings reduced to flaming rubble by the NSA? Or please do list anyone killed in the continental US as a result if the NSA? Ever heard of '9/11'? You should have thought before that bit of melodramatic, hysterical bleating. You fail again.

        2. Roo

          Re: Chairo OMGeeez!!! What a DISASTER!!! We're all DOOOOMED!!! Etc.

          "I don't call people that can explain their differing opinion sheeple,"

          Actually, you do call people that explain their differing opinion sheeple, so you are telling a big fat lie there. If you genuinely crave evidence to support that statement of fact, this comment section has plenty.

          "just those that don't have an opinion of their own. You can spot them pretty quickly because they substitute passion for reasoning and facts."

          That description fits yourself perfectly - in fact many of your posts start with personal insults before any attempt at conveying a point.

          1. Matt Bryant Silver badge

            Re: Roominant Re: Chairo OMGeeez!!! What a DISASTER!!! We're all DOOOOMED!!!....

            "....you do call people that explain their differing opinion...." No, you lot post an opinion but then fail to provide facts to back up your opinion. Options that cannot change in the face of facts are not based on reasoning, they are faith-based. The inevitable response of the sheeple when their faith is challenged is to resort to whining.

            ".....many of your posts start with personal insults before any attempt at conveying a point." If you go back and look through this post and many others you would find that I post either in reply to blatantly stupid posts or to posts where the sheeple kick off with zero facts but a post implying I would say something. The difference is I post reasoned arguments and facts, you sheeple just resort to whining when you cannot disprove them. A perfect example is the post I responding to now - zero content relevant to the thread, no facts, no counters, no fresh arguments, just whining. Grow up, TBH.

  14. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Nine of 10 account holders found in a large cache of intercepted conversations … were not the intended surveillance targets but were caught in a net the agency had cast for somebody else

    So 10% signal, 90% noise? Bet internally they were pretty chuffed with those numbers.

    1. Gannon (J.) Dick

      the word "internally" makes all the difference

      "Nine out of Ten" to one significant figure means 90% noise and 10% fanatical true believer psychosis interfereing with the reception of the other 10% noise.

    2. Don Jefe

      Of course they were happy with those numbers. That's simply good management. Here's where we are, here's where we came from, here's where we have to get to. Riding on the negative creates way too much work and is wholly self defeating now that beating your staff is apparently 'abuse'. But management philosophy is another issue.

      At issue here are the variety of ways in which performance metrics can be legitimately be modified while doing absolutely nothing differently in your operations (for those who aren't aware, the key to the big promotions and raises is in your ability to identify ways in which metric criteria can be modified and, most importantly, that you are able to give the final decision maker rock solid justification with lots of stats and charts he can use to cover his ass). In a normal commercial environment there are limits on how far you can go with your metric criteria 'updates'. Either somebody is going to be unhappy with where a bunch of money is, or isn't, or some guy named Hank who works for the SEC will come round asking for an explanation. It's much the same with the (more) transparent parts of a government.

      But checks and balances for a Metrics Magic go off the rails entirely when there's no external oversight. Neither Hank, nor the President, Prime Minister or fucking Queen have input on those criteria. Due to the fact that everyone in a bureaucracy always wants a promotion, you can rest assured lots of people will be busting their ass to 'do more with less'. That's Human nature, not subject to regulation or decree.

      Seeing as how the PR idiots with the NSA and GCHQ have gone way out of their way to justify all the intrusive spying they can't do the sensible thing and reduce the noise level. They'd be 'risking our safety' you see. The only way to improve those metrics is reclassify some portion of the noise as good signal. There's nowhere else for them to go. It (probably) won't matter immediately. If you look for illegalities hard enough in any grouping of people you'll find something. A surprising number of murders, rapes, child porn traders and (bad thing) go unsolved, those people have to be out there somewhere and it's obviously not where you might expect them.

      But finding those people still doesn't justify treating everyone like a suspect or justify a primary action with secondary results. In case anyone missed it, Iraq is not better off because of that kind of stupid fucking kindergarten level security policy. Our lives won't be any better for it either. We're no safer and sooner or later someone you know is going to be a winner in Metric Magic Monday and since you know them, you'll be a winner too...

  15. lucki bstard
    WTF?

    @Matt Bryant

    'And then we get back to the perennial question the sheeple just never want to answer - what 'harm' was done?' - Well ensuring that if I read the comments on an interesting article I have to wade through your verbal diarrhea, that’s harm enough.

    Combined with the positive proof that there really are people out there who spend their days wondering about the size of men's dicks. ' LOL! Don't worry, ickle Roominant, if there are pics of your tiny wheiner out there then they probably did not come from an NSA leak, more likely from skiddies and black hats'

    If you work for a living Matt why don't you focus on your job as you are paid to do rather than spend your time speculating on the size of peoples dicks?

    Or maybe post posts with original thoughts in them?

    1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
      FAIL

      Re: lucki rtard

      Another shining example of the limitations of sheeple thought. Not one counter argument, not one fact, just outrage that someone would dare to question The Truth. Seriously, it must be past his bedtime.

      1. BlueGreen

        Re: lucki rtard

        Another shining example [...] past his bedtime

        MBZCC

        1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
          Facepalm

          Re: BoringGreen Re: lucki rtard

          "Another shining example [...] past his bedtime

          MBZCC"

          Another perfect example of the limitations of the sheeple - another bleat with no facts, no arguments, no counters, just a whine. You guys really make this far too easy. You all insist you really, really care passionately about the subject, but when challenged by a few facts your resolve disintegrates into whining about name-calling.

          1. BlueGreen

            Re: BoringGreen lucki rtard

            > Another perfect example of the limitations [...] disintegrates into whining about name-calling.

            MBZCC

  16. Mephistro
    Facepalm

    Oh, well...

    We all seem to be forgetting an important point in this discussion.

    Those mountains of data the NSA and their chums are slurping & keeping are not only being accessed by three letter agencies. They are being accessed by tens of thousands of analysts (~80,000*, from what has been stated in other articles) under quite lax security rules, as has been proved without doubt by the Snowden leaks and the LOVEINT report.

    Now, please consider this:

    Of those 80,000 (or whatever is the exact number) analysts, how many can be blackmailed/bribed/coerced by third countries secret services? How many of them have been/can be 'turned' by said secret services? How many of them are cheating on their partners? How many have committed serious crimes? How many are closet homosexuals? How many have relatives or beloved ones that can be used as 'hostages'? How many are degenerate gamblers?...

    From what we know about human nature, I'd be really surprised if there weren't several hundred analysts already working for third parties, be it state actors, private companies or criminal groups.

    Actually, the NSA and their pals are making things easier for Russia, China, the Norks, Israel, the Mafia, [Insert your favourite baddies names here]. These third parties have/can gain access to already filtered and classified data for peanuts, compared with the expenses of setting up and maintaining the NSA operations.

    As an example, consider carefully what this means in the context of witness protection programs.

    Note*: Or whatever the real number is. I've read articles stating that the real number is 60,000 and others claiming ~100,000.

    1. Bernard M. Orwell

      Re: Oh, well...

      To be fair, and speaking as one who has undergone such a process, these kind of risk are normally very carefully managed and each analyst will be subject to an extensive vetting process that will determine their independant level of risk. Duties are normally assigned in accordance with those findings.

      1. Mephistro

        Re: Oh, well... (@ Bernard M. Orwell)

        I had figured out that much, but the vetting process is very subjective, and prone to lots of false negatives and false positives.

        Another issue is that people changes over time. They acquire new relationships, new relatives, new vices and even new mental issues. In order to counter that, the vetting process should be continuous, and include all the vetted analyst's family and relationships. Which sounds like just another recursive security nightmare. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

        In my opinion, due to these and other circumstances, mass data slurping can't be made 'safe enough'. The guys that set up this massive surveillance system should have known better. Or maybe they just didn't give a shit.

  17. lucki bstard
    Paris Hilton

    @Matt Bryant

    Matt what do you do for a living?

    Either you are an outstanding genius, or unemployed. Most certainly under employed, anyone who is willing to take the time to post so many times as yourself (unpaid as well) combined with being an expert on so much and still hold down a full time job..

    Your just so impressive.

    1. John Smith 19 Gold badge
      Happy

      Re: @Matt Bryant

      "Either you are an outstanding genius, or unemployed. Most certainly under employed, anyone who is willing to take the time to post so many times as yourself (unpaid as well) combined with being an expert on so much and still hold down a full time job.."

      Indeed.

      Lightning fast typist? Really good voice recognition system? Fake ID for a group? Trollbot?

      I just can't decide.

      1. Roo
        Windows

        Re: @Matt Bryant

        "Lightning fast typist? Really good voice recognition system? Fake ID for a group? Trollbot?"

        Well whatever Matt really is, he comes across as a Crusading Contrarian.

      2. Matt Bryant Silver badge

        Re: John Smith IQ of 19 Re: @Matt Bryant

        "....Fake ID for a group?....." You really think it would require a group's efforts to debunk the fluff posted by you sheeple? Two minutes on Google is usually enough. Face it, the average sheeple's post here is free of any arguments or counters and merely consists of a free random insults and a whine about name-calling - hardly a challenge! Your post is a perfect example - not one argument relating to the thread topic, just whining and paranoia ('group' being The Man and another part of The Great Conspiracy To Oppress Us All, no?).

        "....I just can't decide." Well, that's what happens when you rely on your opinions being spoonfed to you, you lose the ability to formulate your own.

    2. Matt Bryant Silver badge
      Facepalm

      Re: lucki rtard Re: @Matt Bryant

      "Matt what do you do for a living?...." What, you seriously think I'd post that info with the number of bleating skiddies that frequent this site?!?!? Let's just say I currently work for one of those global corporations that the sheeple love to hate so much and leave it at that.

      ".....Either you are an outstanding genius, or unemployed....." What, you really think it takes either that level of intelligence or time to debunk the bleatings of your fellow sheeple? More like a coffee break is all that is needed. It's so easy when, just like your response, the average sheeple's bleating post contains no facts and nothing to do with the topic of the thread. Please do take the time to actually formulate and post an actual argument, then responding would actually be more of a challenge. If you seriously believe the posts of your fellow sheeple really do require extreme intelligence to deal with then I would have to say it is highly unlikely you are in gainful employment!

      ".....unpaid as well...." Usual sheeple classiness - insinuate that the only reason anyone would disagree with The Truth is because they are being paid to do so.

      ".....Your just so impressive." Now, I can either credit you with sarcasm - unlikely, given the low intellect displayed in the rest of your posts - or surmise that you actually are impressed, which would be a lot more relevant if you were not of a state where a mildly coherent five-year-old would impress you.

      So, until you have something actually relevant to the thread, haven't you got some burgers to flip?

      1. Roo
        Joke

        Re: lucki rtard @Matt Bryant

        Matt: Note the Joke Alert icon.

        ""Matt what do you do for a living?...." What, you seriously think I'd post that info with the number of bleating skiddies that frequent this site?!?!? Let's just say I currently work for one of those global corporations that the sheeple love to hate so much and leave it at that."

        Don't despair lucki, he goes on (and on):

        "I get headhunted to be in a position to advise on hiring."

        And he drops another claim:

        "Some of are old enough to have done real study, not toy exams like GCSEs, and a lot more than basic secondary education."

        Surely that narrows it down a bit, but you should keep in mind that Matt has expressed the opinion that fabrication of evidence and perjury are harmless, and he has made unprovable claims in recent history.

        1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
          FAIL

          Re: lucki rtard @Matt Bryant

          "....Matt has expressed the opinion that fabrication of evidence and perjury are harmless...." I have not claimed anything of the type. If you wish to claim so, please do post where I have made such a statement. All this is is another desperate attempt to divert from the fact you cannot show any evidence of 'harm' to the general public from the NSA's activities. I'm assuming this claim is just another from your paranoid delusional state, that everyone that opposes The Truth of The Great Conspiracy To Oppress Us All, as spoonfed to the sheeple, must be just a liar, right? Was it from hp voices in your head?

          Once again, show the 'harm' or just admit you are a liar.

  18. Roo
    FAIL

    "I can very easily prove there is no proof of the alleged 'harm' simply because neither you nor I nor the journos involved can find such proof."

    Being unable to find proof is not the same as proving there is no proof. The FAIL is for you, because you just failed elementary logic.

    1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
      FAIL

      Re: Roominant

      "Being unable to find proof is not the same as proving there is no proof....." And again, you are trying the 'prove my faith is wrong' argument common amongst the religious. Which is what your sheepleness really is, just a religion, based on faith and whimsy and fear.

      "....The FAIL is for you, because you just failed elementary logic." LOL, you have no idea how logic works. You insist I prove a negative, which you know is silly, because you don't want to admit you can't prove a positive, that the NSA spying did 'harm' to anyone as you claimed. So quit trying to be clever (it really doesn't suit you) and just man up and admit your whole conspiracy theory bleating is just based on your paranoia.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Roominant

        " you have no idea how logic works. You insist I prove a negative, which you know is silly, because you don't want to admit you can't prove a positive, "

        No he's asking you to prove an assertion and in fact IIRC the only negative that cannot be proved is that there is no God.

        As you would know if you used logic, instead of just talking about it.

        1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
          Happy

          Re: Anon Cluetard Re: Roominant

          I see the new sheeple debating tactic is to fall back on that tried and tested child routine of "Yes you did", "No you didn't", "Yes you did", etc., etc. Whilst quite age-appropriate for the average sheeple's' mental capabilities, it is not going to impress those more mature (as in having graduated junior school).

          These diversions and denials don't hide the fact that you have supplied zero evidence to backup your claims that the NSA's spying did 'harm', they just serve to show how desperate you are to cling to your One True Faith regardless of the evidence piling up against it. Enjoy!

          1. Roo
            Windows

            Re: Anon Cluetard Roominant

            Anon:

            "No he's asking you to prove an assertion and in fact IIRC the only negative that cannot be proved is that there is no God."

            ...

            Matt:

            "I see the new sheeple debating tactic is to fall back on that tried and tested child routine of "Yes you did", "No you didn't", "Yes you did", etc., etc"

            Matt the Anon understood my argument about proof correctly, but I am surprised that you appear not to have understood the point because it is one of the first things I learnt about proofs when I studied my GCSEs. Unfortunately it didn't occur to me that you might be ignorant of how formal proofs work until you posted that response complaining about Sheeple. Sorry about that.

            1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
              FAIL

              Re: Roominant Re: Anon Cluetard Roominant

              "....the Anon understood my argument about proof correctly....." So you're saying the Anon also baaaah-lieves unicorns exist because no-one has proved the negative that they don't exist? Is this a simple way of detecting sheeple? Thanks, it could save a lot of time weeding out the mentally deficient at interviews.

              "....one of the first things I learnt about proofs when I studied my GCSEs...." Some of are old enough to have done real study, not toy exams like GCSEs, and a lot more than basic secondary education. And then some of us also went out and got a lot of World experiences rather than being fresh out of school. Come back when you're old enough to have grown some pubes and gotten some actual experience.

              1. Roo
                Windows

                Re: Roominant Anon Cluetard Roominant

                Ah, more personal insults, and bullshit about unicorns...

                "Some of are old enough to have done real study, not toy exams like GCSEs, and a lot more than basic secondary education."

                In actual fact I sat both forms of exam, I took some O-Levels a year early - but the ones I sat didn't cover logic, and nor did yours by the looks of it - because you are still assuming lack of evidence is proof of the inverse.

                As it happens, where I could compare directly, I found the O-Level papers easier because they were narrower in scope and I could simply regurgitate answers from previous papers with different numbers/keywords. By contrast the GCSE papers tended to have much broader scope and you didn't have the luxury of being able to memorize past papers. YMMV.

                "Come back when you're old enough to have grown some pubes and gotten some actual experience."

                Ah, Matt has failed at rational debate, insults and lying so he is now giving orders. Quite happy to ignore that order thanks Matt, besides I already have plenty of pubes and quite frankly I think I'd like a bit less experience of people like yourself who can't think their way out of a simple logic problem.

              2. Roo

                Re: Roominant Anon Cluetard Roominant

                "....the Anon understood my argument about proof correctly....." So you're saying the Anon also baaaah-lieves unicorns exist because no-one has proved the negative that they don't exist? Is this a simple way of detecting sheeple? Thanks, it could save a lot of time weeding out the mentally deficient at interviews"

                My recommendation is that you should start by weeding yourself out of the interview process given that you are the one with the unicorn fixation who believes that stuff is true because there is no evidence to the contrary. It must be tough being interviewed by someone so long on opinion and so very short on understanding.

                1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
                  FAIL

                  Re: Roominant Anon Cluetard Roominant

                  "My recommendation...." What, you think I should put weight in the opinion of someone that baaaah-lieves in unicorns????

                  ".....is that you should start by weeding yourself out of the interview process....." Waaaaay too late for that - I get headhunted to be in a position to advise on hiring.

                  "....given that you are the one with the unicorn fixation who believes that stuff is true because there is no evidence to the contrary......" You mean like not baaaah-lieving that the NSA is 'harming' us all because you could not provide a single case of such 'harm' as evidence to support your baaaaaah-lief, let alone 7 billion cases? I'm guessing none of your GCSEs were on science subject given your complete misunderstanding of the concept of proving a theory through empirical evidence.

                  "....It must be tough being interviewed by someone so long on opinion and so very short on understanding." OK, seeing as you are obviously inexperienced in how such things work, I will try and explain how a professional approaches such a task. Firstly, they establish a set of criteria, a job spec if you want, derived from the business's requirements. The criteria for interviews might be 'find the person that both matches the required skills set, has good experience, and can demonstrate a capability to engage on a pertinent subject in a professional manner'. These are the traits valued by the business. TBH, showing 'understanding' to those that believe in unicorns is not going to appear on that list any time soon because there is no business driver to wasting time on such self-deluded people. Are you now beginning to understand why you always get those rejection letters?

                  1. Roo

                    Re: Roominant Anon Cluetard Roominant

                    ""My recommendation...." What, you think I should put weight in the opinion of someone that baaaah-lieves in unicorns????""

                    With all due respect accusing people of believing in unicorns is pathetic. It's the kind of thing a deranged pre-teen wannabe troll resorts to.

                    "I get headhunted to be in a position to advise on hiring."

                    Crikey, the Brony Mafia are taking over.

                    1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
                      Happy

                      Re: Roominant Anon Cluetard Roominant

                      ".....accusing people of believing in unicorns is pathetic...." And now you get upset when I simply use your own logic? Does that mean, 'with all due respect', that you are calling yourself pathetic? That doesn't sound very understanding, another reason to be angry with yourself. Someone go give Roominant a cuddle as he's going to be on a real downer soon.

                      ".....Crikey, the Brony Mafia are taking over." So your immediate and reflexive justification for the success of others whilst you continue to fail is another conspiracy theory about a shadowy organisation, a 'Mafia'? And not only that, you have fixated on the fans of another imaginary quadroped, the 'bronies'. Tell me, just for laughter value, in your twisted version of reality, do the 'bronies' represent the Dark Force oppressing the unicorns?

  19. Roo
    Windows

    "".....The NSA asked the DEA hide their source when presenting their evidence in court, this is why I stated that the DEA and NSA *conspired* to fabricate evidence." LOL, if you backpedal any faster you'll go back in time!"

    Matt, according to The Register I wrote the following two days ago:

    "I (and others) have already made references to relevant evidence (DEA conspiring with the NSA to secure convictions using falsified evidence), yet you have consistently avoided acknowledging, accepting or engaging in a rational discussion about the evidence."

    You actually quoted that post as well Matt. In this instance Matt it is in fact you that is lying and back-pedalling.

    That same post contained the following snippet that you yourself quoted:

    "I think that the most likely outcome will be that you will continue to ignore all evidence of harm and that the moderators will continue to indulge you in behaving like a 4 year old spoilt brat in a public forum."

    And you are still cutting and pasting:

    "You are a liar that desperately wants to baaaah-lieve in paranoid delusions and conspiracy theories, I have proven that with your own statements. Now quit the lying and evasions and show me the 'harm'."

    You are still behaving like an infantile dullard as well, so my prediction has panned out.

    1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
      FAIL

      Re: Roominant (the proven liar)

      You are a liar that desperately wants to baaaah-lieve in paranoid delusions and conspiracy theories, I have proven that with your own statements.

      "..... In this instance Matt it is in fact you that is lying and back-pedalling....." No, because you did not provide any proof that the NSA was even asking the DEA to hide the source of any such evidence, let alone show evidence that the NSA was fabricating evidence, as you claimed, nor have you shown any evidence of 'harm' caused by this alleged or any of the other alleged NSA activities, as you claimed you could. In short, you have gone beyond your usual deceitful evasions into just desperate lying. You cannot show any proof of the 'harm' you claimed existed because it only exists in your self-deluding, paranoid fantasies.

      1. Roo
        Windows

        Re: Roominant (the proven liar)

        Matt is a liar that desperately wants to baaaah-lieve in paranoid delusions and conspiracy theories, as evidenced by his repeated ravings about Sheeple and Unicorns. He also behaves like an infantile dullard spoilt brat in public forums, as evidenced by his habit of attacking people before attacking arguments.

        Anyone can insult and lie, not everyone can back it up with the fact this entire sub-thread came about because Matt told a big fat lie when he claimed the NSA had caused no harm.

        Like I said earlier, Matt lost his point long ago, all that is left is mud-slinging and bullshit.

        1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
          Happy

          Re: Roominant (the proven liar)

          You are a liar that desperately wants to baaaah-lieve in paranoid delusions and conspiracy theories, I have proven that with your own statements.

          ".....Anyone can insult and lie....." But your parents really raised the bar to unmatched heights when they 'raised' you as such a paranoid delusional moron. That truly was an insult to all of society!

          ".....not everyone can back it up with the fact this entire sub-thread came about because Matt told a big fat lie when he claimed the NSA had caused no harm....." And there is your next lie - it was you (and your equally stupid sheeple buddies) that tried to claim the activities of the NSA were and are 'harming us all', yet when challenged to prove that statement you have monumentally failed to do anything other than fail, whine, fail, bleat, fail, evade, fail, lie and whine some more. Just admit it, you cannot backup your claim of 'harm' with evidence, because to do so would destroy your carefully constructed and paranoid view of the World. You are wrong, just grow up, quit posting desperate and childish evasions and admit it.

      2. BlueGreen

        Re: Roominant (the proven liar) @Matt Bryant

        Hi Matt,

        Perhaps if you take on board the faint possibility that posts here come from real people that simply hold different views often for good reason; that they aren't just condensations out of the ether, then we could get along better. Honestly, watching you impotently rage at the world and working yourself up further is a bit worrying.

        We see the world differently, so our values and expectations are different. What concerns us is different from what concerns you. We may reach an agreement or just agree to differ if we understand your position and you try to understand ours, so how about laying out your assumptions on this subject and we can take it from there?

        1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
          Happy

          Re: Boring Re: Roominant (the proven liar) @Matt Bryant

          "Perhaps if you take on board the faint possibility that posts here come from real people that simply hold different views often for good reason...." No, I accept there are people with different views, what I object to is when those morons (like you) insist on trying to force them on the rest of us. At that point you had better be able to back up your views with some facts and arguments, otherwise you're going to get a new one ripped. So far, you and the rest of sheeple are strong on bleating, completely devoid of facts. So, quit the diversionary moralising and just supply the evidence of 'harm' from the NSA's activities you insisted you could provide.

          ".....that they aren't just condensations out of the ether...." Your so-called viewpoint is based on just emotional garbage, paranoid delusions, and 'what you have been told', which you unquestioningly accept. The only time you do try and question is when anyone presents a dissenting view that doesn't match up with what you have been told is The Truth. It hurts you even more to realise those opposers can present facts, whilst your argument it is completely devoid of facts, so it must as just well be just ether.

          ".....Honestly, watching you impotently rage at the world...." Firstly, I know that people like you want to baaaah-lieve that the majority that don't share your views are just 'raging', it makes it easier for you to ignore those troubling inconsistencies and holes in what you have been spoonfed. After all, why accept the words of someone if you can just deny them by claiming he is raging? You just find it easier to remain huddled up with the rest of the sheep, all bleating as one, because it makes you feel like you belong, like others 'think' like you. Secondly, the truth is you are the minority, as shown by the complete lack of real action either here or in the US regarding the GCHQ or NSA. THE TRUTH IS THE VAST MAJORITY DON'T THINK LIKE YOU. So, even if I was 'raging', it would not be against 'the World', but it is you that is the impotent minority, bleating so loudly because the majority ignore you and your paranoid delusions. And thirdly, as I have stated many, many times before, your trivial attempts at constructing any form of argument are so easy to debunk it simply doesn't get much above mildly amusing. You are mostly just boring.

          Now, seeing as I have just dealt with another of your boring and deceitful evasions, when are you going to post evidence of that 'harm' you insisted it would be so easy for you to show? After all, you and your fellow sheeple posted about it days ago but have shown SFA actual evidence to back up your bleatings. Or are you going to admit you actually have no evidence, it's just you unquestioning swallowed what you were told, rebleated it, and now find yourself desperately scrabbling for anything to post to avoid having to admit you were just stupidly wrong?

          1. BlueGreen

            Re: Boring Roominant (the proven liar) @Matt Bryant

            Hmm. Not the response I was hoping for. Let's try again.

            Please lay out your assumptions regarding NSA interception and whether those who have access to said interceptions (ie. a very few) will always be immune to the lure of using such power for personal or political gain (ie. abusing it).

            Is it credible that they will always use it correctly?

            Do you even accept that it can be abused?

            How likely is it that they will abuse it?

            (edit: and could you keep it absent of insults please)

            1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
              FAIL

              Re: Boring Roominant (the proven liar) @Matt Bryant

              ".....Please lay out your assumptions regarding NSA interception and whether those who have access to said interceptions (ie. a very few) will always be immune to the lure of using such power for personal or political gain (ie. abusing it)......"

              You claimed it was not an assumption, you stated it was happening, was affecting 'us all', and that you could prove it. It is you that needs to show evidence to back up this claim, it is you that has failed to do so, and it is you that is now merely trying a new diversion by attempting to hide your failure by trying to turn the question around. You insisted you could prove 'harm', so quit the childish games and simply admit you can't.

              1. Roo
                Windows

                Re: Boring Roominant (the proven liar) @Matt Bryant

                "".....Please lay out your assumptions regarding NSA interception and whether those who have access to said interceptions (ie. a very few) will always be immune to the lure of using such power for personal or political gain (ie. abusing it)......"

                You claimed it was not an assumption, you stated it was happening, was affecting 'us all', and that you could prove it."

                Err, Matt you've just indulged in a deceitful evasion, please provide the requested evidence to support your position.

              2. BlueGreen

                Re: Boring Roominant (the proven liar) @Matt Bryant

                > You claimed it was not an assumption, you stated it was happening

                I do not recall saying that it was happening, and I'd like you to show where I did. However, I am deeply *concerned* that it is happening and it will get worse because personally I believe that power corrupts and very few indeed are immune. You may not share my belief, hence my questions, which I'd like you to answer so I know what your basic assumptions are. If these assumptions are so different from mine we'll both realise there's little to be gained by debating and we can politely agree to disagree. So, again

                1) Is it credible that [NSA + their controllers] will always use [this interceptionfacility] correctly?

                2) Do you even accept that [this interceptionfacility] can be abused?

                3) If (2) = yes, how likely is it that they will abuse it?

                1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
                  Facepalm

                  Re: BoringGreen Re: Boring Roominant (the proven liar) @Matt Bryant

                  OMGeeez, you are just so desperate not to admit you can't find any proof of the so-called 'harm'!

                  If we ignore your paranoid claim that power corrupts, did you miss the bit about internal controls at the NSA? In the article on so-called 'LOVEINT', what happened to the very few people that abused the system? They got fired. The fact they got caught or felt compelled to own up before getting caught simply highlights the safeguards and procedures put in place. And then there is the FISC and the Senate Oversight, plus the very simple and obvious fact that, if widespread corruption or blackmail was taking place, it would have hit the papers years ago. The fact that it hasn't just goes to show it is all in your mind.

                  Now, quit evading and show me your evidence to back up your proof of 'harm'.

                  1. BlueGreen

                    Re: BoringGreen Boring Roominant (the proven liar) @Matt Bryant

                    Dear Matt, I'm getting really, really tired of being hosed down by your bullshit, being misrepresented (e.g. "your paranoid claim that power corrupts" - I did not 'claim' that, I said "personally I believe that power corrupts", a very different thing), of having you sidestep when I ask you to prove that I said what you claimed I said, of avoiding answering straightforward questions like mine above (an attempt to work out where fundamentally we differ), of general simian level responses of turd-throwing from you.

                    I've tried a couple of times being polite, it's pointless. I find it hard to believe anyone on the reg would be given the amount of leeway you have without being spanked harder or outright banned. Your most recent posts are mainly raw insults. Screw this. I'd like the reg moderators to do *something* to bring a saner life for us all. Mods, can I have your view on this, including me dampening down my own posts if you think they need it.

                    Roo or anyone else, would you please report this as abuse to bring it to the attention of the mods. Matt, if you wish to do the same, that would be great.

                    1. Anonymous Coward
                      Anonymous Coward

                      Re: BoringGreen Boring Roominant @Matt Bryant

                      I think mods should indeed remove any post brought to their attention that addresses others as "moron", with "STFU", belittles their IQ or otherwise just aims to insult.

                      But if you want a saner life, why don't you just ignore Matt. It is an option. I understand it's difficult because he does his best to make it sound like whatever person he's responding to is a complete idiot but then a large number of readers are aware of his style (lack thereof that is). On an ancient post like this there's no one checking back apart from perhaps 3-4 people. You really don't need to give a shit.

                    2. Roo
                      Windows

                      Re: BoringGreen Boring Roominant (the proven liar) @Matt Bryant

                      "Roo or anyone else, would you please report this as abuse to bring it to the attention of the mods. Matt, if you wish to do the same, that would be great."

                      I have some sympathy for your point of view BG having shared a similar train of thought on more than one occasion. There are factors that stay my hand though, in no particular order:

                      + Matt behaves like a narcissistic contrarian. If that is his true nature then he really can't help himself. Expecting decent behaviour from Matt would be akin to expecting a Hippo to put on a hat and tails and nip over to Covent Garden to take in an opera.

                      + Sometimes an opposing view is actually useful and even valid (OK, Matt doesn't score particularly well on this front - but it's *technically* possible even if it's very unlikely).

                      + Matt clearly invests quite a lot of time and anger into his posts, it would be churlish to deny the poor chap an audience.

                      + Matt is doing a fantastic job of embarrassing himself, why stop him when the record is there for anyone who cares enough about Matt Bryant to take a look ?

                      The downside of all that is that real Matt Bryants (Matt asserts that he is using a pseudonym), will look like a bunch of arses as well, but if it really does hurt their interview chances they may be able to find redress within the courts. It's not as if Matt hasn't had it explained to him that he might be shafting real Matt Bryants with his abusive rubbish so I wouldn't be too upset if that chicken came home to roost.

                      1. BlueGreen

                        Re: BoringGreen Boring Roominant (the proven liar) @Matt Bryant

                        @AC: But if you want a saner life, why don't you just ignore Matt

                        If it were just me that would be fine; I'd walk away, but if you look back over the the threads he got involved in you'll see it's actually quite a lot of people he's pissing on. I guess it's their call too but I think he drags in a lot of well-meaning newbies who dont' realise what they're dealing with until they're deep in it.

                        @Roo: Sometimes an opposing view is actually useful and even valid

                        A good skeptic is of real value. Matt doesn't present arguments with the integrity needed for that. Not even near.

                        I guess you're both right, roll it up and move on. So I shall. Thanks all.

                        1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
                          Facepalm

                          Re: BoringGreen Boring Roominant (the proven liar) @Matt Bryant

                          And, finally, BoringGreen runs away rather than admit he can't provide the evidence of 'harm' he claimed. True to form, though, he has to get another whine in before he slinks away.

                      2. Matt Bryant Silver badge
                        Happy

                        Re: Roominant Re: BoringGreen Boring Roominant (the proven liar) @Matt Bryant

                        <Yawn> And yet another post where Roominant provides not a shred of the evidence he claimed he could provide. Just more evasions, whining and pretences of moral superiority.

                        Oh, and since the moderator seems to have woken up, I clicked the abuse button for your time-wasting, childish post.

                    3. Matt Bryant Silver badge
                      Facepalm

                      Re: BoringGreen Boring Roominant (the proven liar) @Matt Bryant

                      And still another post from BoringGreen where he still avoids admitting he has no proof of the 'harm'. Not really a surprise.

                      ".....e.g. "your paranoid claim that power corrupts" - I did not 'claim' that, I said "personally I believe that power corrupts", a very different thing....." So you believe power corrupts, I am saying that I think that you believe that out of paranoia seeing as you cannot provide any evidence of the alleged corruption.

                      "....I've tried a couple of times being polite....." All you have tried is avoiding admitting you cannot provide the evidence of 'harm' you claimed. Just another boring evasion.

                  2. Anonymous Coward
                    Anonymous Coward

                    Re: BoringGreen Boring Roominant (the proven liar) @Matt Bryant

                    > If we ignore your paranoid claim that power corrupts, did you miss the bit about internal controls at the NSA? In the article on so-called 'LOVEINT', what happened to the very few people that abused the system?

                    I wonder how you can claim to know that those caught or admitting to it were the only ones that abused the system. Don't you agree it would be more accurate to phrase this as "the very few people who have been established to have abused the system"?

                    Just like the tinfoilists have no proof that there was even a single case more, NSfAnbois such as yourself have no proof that there weren't a whole lot more.

                    1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
                      Facepalm

                      Re: AC Re: BoringGreen Boring Roominant (the proven liar) @Matt Bryant

                      ".....I wonder how you can claim to know that those caught or admitting to it were the only ones that abused the system....." Gee, is that another sheeple attempt to get me to try proving a negative? You lot really need to come up with some new ideas. Apart from the safeguards already mentioned, any grand act of misuse would be bound to come to public attention. Any misuse extensive enough to cause the 'harm' claimed by others here would have been front page news.

                      1. Roo

                        Re: AC BoringGreen Boring Roominant (the proven liar) @Matt Bryant

                        "".....I wonder how you can claim to know that those caught or admitting to it were the only ones that abused the system....." Gee, is that another sheeple attempt to get me to try proving a negative?"

                        No Matt, that is actually a person pointing out the massive hole in your argument. Instead of addressing that hole you have decided to insult them instead, presumably because you think that makes you look better at their expense. Here's a clue for you: the fact you attacked the person rather than the argument draws attention to the fact that you have no valid point to make.

                        Service as usual from Mendacious Matt Bryant the identity thief.

          2. Roo
            Windows

            Re: Boring Roominant (the proven liar) @Matt Bryant

            ""Perhaps if you take on board the faint possibility that posts here come from real people that simply hold different views often for good reason...." No, I accept there are people with different views, what I object to is when those morons (like you) insist on trying to force them on the rest of us."

            That's funny Matt because we feel exactly the same way when you make a post telling us what to think (ie: most of your posts).

          3. Roo
            Windows

            Re: Boring Roominant (the proven liar) @Matt Bryant

            Matt I had a look at post to see if I could find any sentence that had any evidence supporting it and didn't contain an insult. I couldn't find any, the closest was this.

            "And thirdly, as I have stated many, many times before, your trivial attempts at constructing any form of argument are so easy to debunk it simply doesn't get much above mildly amusing."

            I let you get away with the "easy to debunk" and "mild amusing" because they are purely subjective in their nature. At present, in the context of this thread, there is no evidence that you are able to construct a statement of fact backed by evidence.

This topic is closed for new posts.

Other stories you might like