'The Google execs, the journalists, plus Brit and US spybosses in a cosy mansion confab' A high-level private meeting between Silicon Valley execs, spies and others was held in the UK this month: on the agenda, the state of government surveillance, and what limits should be put on it. The attendee list is impressive. Key speakers apparently included former acting CIA boss John McLaughlin; former White House deputy …
Understanding that term is more used for the Lord of Darkness.
Since Mr. Ed Snowden has done more to promote openness and sharing and general bonhomie, can't we let him enjoy the freedom that is awaiting him? I'm sure all of the 5-Eyes group have festival cruises planned for him. Perhaps the Ecuadorian gent from Australia wanted by Sweden and holed up in Her Majesty's Kingdom would like to join.
Come on people - there are some real criminals out there that need to pay the price for their crimes. And I'm thinking of LIBOR, FOREX, IRAQ, banksters, crooksters. Can we have a discussion about how to dispose of these crooks?
Marketing Hack/elDog/Magic 8-ball,
Re all of those hooky, intellectually bankrupt crooks, what do you think the dark web with its dark pools of Alternative/Advanced/Alien Intelligence is for and all about? And do you not imagine that the smarter intelligence services cannot realise which side of the fence it is now safer to be on? Irregular unconventional versus establishment traditional? Novel dynamic versus stagnant terrified? And especially so nowadays that targeting is becoming ever more personalised and directed at systems figureheads rather than rank and file servants/lemming followers.
Who wrote the invite list, and what were the inclusion criteria? (And dang, that's some address book they have).
Face value, if crystallised around need, it suggests the Powers want what they can no longer so easily Take, but also that everything important here's in the hands of only a handful of new Players. Mobile Information Access.
Suprised Facebook's not there to be honest, or Microsoft.
I agree with Grizewald. I'm glad that some pro-civil liberties journalists were there, but I get twitchy when a bunch of the high-and-mighty get together in private to discuss my freedoms, and come away with something like "and we reached an agreement in principle". Especially when a bunch of the high-and-mighty are spooks who have a bad track record of being credible when they talk about what great supporters of privacy they are.
This post has been deleted by its author
Our chief concern here seems to be that the blanket Internet personal computer privacy of our mole-like resident Chinese, Persian-Muslim and Arabic-Muslim speaking residents inside Western countries who're busily probing our grids and infrastructures should not be infringed. This of course includes the guarding of the privacy of those of us here who are quietly plotting bombings and throat slitting on our streets.
But, rigid Internet access censorship procedures inside China, Iran, and Muslim controlled areas are really a non-"issue" for us, and are merely a domestic affaire of only those countries.
So, I.T. Security-Subject conclaves held by industry experts at fora inside Bletchley-like country houses concerned about our being penetrated here on our Home soil raise eyebrows and are material for the next Dan Brown novel.
Strange new world.
Here's a further 'at large' question on this 'privacy' question:
Go back to 1940 or so. Do readers here think that breaking the Enigma Code effort at Bletchley Park was an infringement of the Nazi Government's communications privacy?
Am not intending to be snarky here, just trying to extend this scurrilous thinking that the Publik's 'right to privacy' trumps a nation's physical security.
Is that the boys from the spying apparatus club stop claiming that their cameras are only ever used to hunt 'T's.... Instead they must admit that the technology is also used for economic and industrial espionage and the tracking and monitoring of anyone remotely affecting elite American interests!
Maybe Duncan feels this is progress.... But the first step 'the abusers' must take is to acknowledge past abuses and not just dismiss them away conveniently, by claiming that 'the victims tempted us with their data promiscuity'...
>All participants were bound by Chatham House rules;
>an agreement not to publicly attribute comments to particular participants.
I know it is often referred to in the plural, but there is only one rule. The Chatham House Rule.
http://www.chathamhouse.org/about/chatham-house-rule
The corps.
"If you steal all the data for free, how will we be able to mine it for profit?"
The organs (of state security)
If you're encryption and privacy are too good how will we ever catch terrorists/paedophiles/paedo-terrorists/drug barons/terrifying threat group de joure.
That Google, Apple, and others are taking part isn't necessarily bad news, but a sign that they might be asserting the rights of their users.
That Google and Apple users are exercising remote command and virtual control with devices in SCADA systems of administration/silent private executive orders/shadowy global governance circles is something else which they will be unable to share freely with y'all.
Such is the cross that they choose to bear though in service to the altar of secrecy which would presume to protect and maintain status quo elites as the only leading revolutionary force for power and energy delivery .... future intellectual property supply which be both explosively creative and disruptively destructive in and/or for perverse and corrupt organisations/conspiring cabals/bankrupt organisations.
Why is there no mention here of the presumed subject of those closed meetings: Muslim and Chinese cyber-warfare infiltration and subversion of our national grids and infrastructures? .... Sisyphus
One might assume that be such here, because it be recognised here as just being but one small piece of the jigsaw which spooked services are pimping/pumping/sub-priming, Sisyphus.
Why is there no mention here of the presumed subject of those closed meetings: Muslim and Chinese cyber-warfare infiltration and subversion of our national grids and infrastructures?
Because that emphatically isn't what is being discussed. Without question, what is being discussed is how to control us, the everyday citizens of western nations. Regardless of whether or not those citizens belong to an ethnic, religious and cultural group that has you terrified. And yes, that means they are discussing how to control you Sisyphus. They are not discussing how to keep you safe.
They don't give a rat's ass about keeping you safe, and they never, ever have.
Quite so, T_P. And here is one old and remarkably simple way in which it can be done for many/most folk ........
It is true, though, that in the Middle East, American domination took a different form. When American oil companies wanted Middle Eastern oil, they didn’t seize it; they bought it from the rulers of the peoples who live on top of it.And, if there weren’t rulers willing or able to sell, the Americans created them.
The House of Saud made out like bandits. For the oil companies, it was a small price to pay.
The U.S. got control of the oil without having to administer rebellious colonies. Meanwhile, local elites got rich. All they had to do for the money was give the Americans free rein and enforce the order that made American domination possible – with American help, of course, and with arms purchased from American corporations. ..... http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-05-25/how-saudis-wag-washington-dog
That is the magical power of virtually worthless paper money. It buys/sells dreams to dreamers and nightmares to schemers. And with IT and efficient enough global mainstream media control, is it a sticky sweet gem of a cyber command and control operation which is doomed to failure and bound to implode spectacularly and explode catastrophically in too big to fail alternative narrative joint ventures/dark web enterprises, should such missionary explorers so choose to wish and doggedly explore with magically empowered exploits.
….. but some other folk realise it is an inherent systemic vulnerability which is an ab fab fabless attack vector which if attacked itself leads to quicker failure and systems defeat.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
