Re: How much tracking of crims was being done before?
With approximately 58 million suspects under surveillance in Britain.
2259 posts • joined 18 Jun 2009
With approximately 58 million suspects under surveillance in Britain.
You left out warehouses--seems to be a lot of criminal masterminding going on in those places too.
A) British public safety figures haven't gone to Hell in a handbasket in the year-and-a-half that the Snowden revelations have been coming out.
B) That GCHQ is completely opaque on who they are targeting and why.
Then I have to wonder how much targeting of criminals was really being done by the GCHQ in the first place.
Seems like more "We're not actually going to provide the public with accountability on the shit we pull, but maybe we can scare them back into compliance" bullshit.
But's that's OK, we all feel a boob on occasion!!
I'm American, and I'm pretty sure that the American cheese that is served on fast food should NEVER qualify as cheese.
I'd think there is a greater danger that they and the Norks will compare notes on how to most efficiently penetrate the IT security at your average major corporation.
(And it's not like China really has a ton of influence over the Norks anyway. North Korea seems to be blackmailing Beijing with the prospect of "if you don't provide us with oil and other goodies, we'll collapse, and then you will have hundreds of thousands of refugees flowing into Manchuria and the South Koreans will come up from the DMZ and the next thing you know you will have a U.S.-allied united Korea on your northern border. You know, the outcome you jumped into the Korean War to avoid 60 years ago.")
Double feature with "Team America". It's about time the North Koreans understood the burdens their leadership has to bear, and how it is "so ronery" at the top. (Plus that movie explains why nobody ever hears from Hans Blix anymore!)
Certainly nobody wants to provoke a war on the Korean peninsula. Hell, the Norks sank a South Korean frigate and drowned 50-60 sailors a couple years back, and got away with that without a shot being fired.
And nobody really wants to withdraw whatever humanitarian aid is going to North Korea, because they don't want another potential famine there.
And you can't really declare a U.S. cyberwar against the Norks, because so little of their economy touches the internet anyway.
I suppose you could further tighten the sanctions on North Korea, but there's not much that is not hit by sanctions at this point.
So the biggest effect of this incident is that it further poisons the well on reducing sanctions if the North ever really did want to deal with the West. However, it's not like that well wasn't already pretty heavily poisoned before.
Or if they ever combine the navy shark drone with a navy laser turret, everyone seeing it swim by will simply shrug and think it makes perfect sense!
Or maybe the Terminator theme? I'm so confused!!
@ User McUser:
Don't use that drone off the coast of China, or you'll get it back with the fins cut off!!
"Still, no matter how much of an egomaniac he is, he doesn't deserve the situation."
Sure he does! Assange seems to be on the verge of being charged in Sweden (and quite possibly the only reason he hasn't been charged is that he has not been available for the interview Swedish cops perform before they make a decision to charge someone). To top that off he most definitely skipped bail in the UK, which means that the minute he steps outside the Ecuadorean embassy, Her Majesty is waiting to scoop him up and toss him in the slammer for violating his bail conditions.
Regardless of whether Sweden may or may not extradite him to the U.S., the guy has earned his place, spending precious years of his life couch-surfing in the Ecuadorean embassy
I don't know if this is more extreme corporate risk-aversion or just wanting to not appear to be piling on Sony Pictures during it's current tribulations, but Paramount Pictures has pulled "Team America: World Police" from distribution, after numerous theaters announced that they were going to show that as A) a ten-year anniversary celebration of the initial release and B) a substitute for "The Interview"
@ The Man who Fell to Earth
Probably another reason why cybersecurity should be moved out from under the NSA. They spend too much time figuring out how to hack everyone else, vs. protecting U.S. IT networks.
Unfortunately, we will probably now see other hacker collectives/state-sponsored hackers trying to stifle free speech and thought, now that The Interview has been forced out of the theaters.
You guys left out "Somebody who ultimately works for Rupert Murdoch" as an option!
I sense that Fort Meade is trying to retain disproportionate influence over the internet by making ICANN and this council look like a complete boondoggle hashed together so that the internet's new "secretariat" can fly first class, nosh on canapes and rub elbows with the rich and powerful!!
(Some would say that I am being paranoid, and ICANN has simply decided that the internet provides a great opportunity to cash in and become a member of an international gentry where you get to be called "your excellency", fly around between meetings at exclusive locations, nosh on canapes, mingle with the plutocracy and congratulate eachother on how important you are. But frankly, I find that conclusion is A) less interesting and B) more depressing.)
"Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR) said that there was no safe way to build backdoors into phones, tablets, computers and software without exposing them to hackers to exploit."
One Senator "gets it"--only 99 more to go!!
(Then we can start on the 435 guys and gals in the House of Representatives)
Are we exchanging the Montana mountain bunker complex for a secluded cottage out on a moor somewhere?
(If so, watch out for werewolves! Movies say the moors are full of em'!)
"Air traffic services are run by a relatively small IT team with knowhow and support from Lockheed Martin. Common-or-garden tech is outsourced to Serco, Capgemini, Amore Group Attenda, BT and Vodafone."
I bet that the real reason half of England's airspace is restricted is because all the circular finger-pointing between the group listed above has created a dangerous cyclonic rotation over the southern UK :)
I think that the GSMA meant to say that CARRIERS do just fine in the U.S. with 4-5 competitors in the market. There are a few more if you just want personal/family service, but if you use your phone for business then you probably want AT&T, Verizon, Sprint or T-Mobile.
"Cisco, Intel, IBM, others happy to grow their sales to ISP industry if families and small businesses pay for it"
@ MyBackDoor and Eddy Ito
No, Comcast stole the slimy cork board, brutally beat a sweet, cookie-baking grandmother with it, then used the bloodied, splintered remains to burn some orphan's Christmas presents >:)
“privatised law enforcement, suspicion-less mass data retention, cross-border pulling of data by law enforcement and global surveillance”.
When he's done with Uncle Sam, he's going to need a shipping container full of handcuffs to slap onto government types in London, Paris, Berlin, Rome, etc.
Meh, if there are really Martians they will just end up needing our women, or siphoning off our blood to inject into their anemic bodies. All things considered, it doesn't sound like a good deal to my ears....
"Yes, Mr. Pitt, welcome to the Ritz. We received the email with your travel riders from a Ms. Kim Jungun in Sony Pictures' travel department, detailing your usual room arrangements. Accordingly we have put you in a smoking suite facing the parking lot and freeway, because Kim's email said you're a car enthusiast. Per Kim, we've also booked you under the name Hugh Jass and placed signage and a basket of turnips with that name in your suite. Also, Kim was very specific about your aversion to air conditioning and love of humidity, so we have turned off the A/C and had a space heater and humidifier going in there since last night."
"A possible future option will be to host servers in a jurisidiction that will not demure to the US, China maybe ??"
Exit frying pan, enter fire...
This would play badly if it were a foreign government trying to seize the data of an American citizen here in the U.S. Not sure how it would play if (for example) the Irish were trying to extra-territorily seize data in the U.S., but for prosecution of an Irish resident.
"expansion of the act’s powers to include snooping on journalists goes into "areas that it was never intended that people should have authorisation for.”"
Oddly enough, that's what Jim Sensenbrenner (one of the fathers of the PATRIOT Act in the U.S.) was saying about the NSA's mass snooping.
The fact is that if you give bureaucracies various powers, then they inevitably push those to the limit looking for terrorists/water wasters/people who are suspicious about immigration/tax cheats/obese people/hunting enthusiasts/animal rights advocates/etc.
These pols pass their laws, and then they fail to perform the administration to keep the actual machinery of government from running roughshod over the people the laws are supposed to help.
But Pluto is not a planet! Or if it is, then it is just a Mickey Mouse planet! /rimshot
Scientists discover that lapdogs seldom bight the hand that feeds them!!
Your analysis of the marketplace is incomplete. You should have mentioned lobbyists and money at least 2-3 more times!
Knowing Comcast and hearing what I hear about Time Warner Cable, I expect that they would promise the game based on the 1975 original, and then deliver the 2002 remake :)
(Viewing will still be mandatory though!)
But then I have a weakness for stories featuring a dystopian future where people scurry like mice for cover from a heartless mega-corporation that has the power to control the very perception of reality.
Maybe Comcast/Time Warner will start featuring "Rollerball Night in America" on channel 1. Required viewing for all citizens!!
For no other reason than it might be hacked, break down or start going it's own way, and compromise important infrastructure in the process.
"then said GCHQ feels the internet has become “the command centre for criminals and terrorists.”
I guess the GCHQ's public relations person had the day off. Does Professor Hawking have a juicy contract from the MoD or something??
Parliament would concern itself more with that, but then where would it's members get practice on how to treat British voters??
Sadly, the alien overlords are pretty adventurous sexually, so no you won't see them in Britain. Maybe San Francisco or Tijuana though....
I'm not a proponent of net neutrality because I love Netflix or the way they do business, I am doing it because I want there to be room for other, smaller companies to improve upon or supplant Netflix, thereby driving Netflix to improve it's business.
Plus, basically what was described as being problematic by the FCC is Netflix's use of a CDN. Hardly new technology, nor a technology that is only used by the internet's great and powerful.
What I don't want to see is a world where Netflix and maybe Hulu are the only real streaming video offerings, because they have deep enough pockets to pay for the fast lane when everyone else doesn't. Plus creating a fast lane for some content means that other content necessarily gets a slower lane than it would have normally, because network bandwidth is not immediately scalable.
The Fifth Amendment right to not self-incriminate does not extend to search warrants. If a cop comes to your home with a warrant, you can't grab your diary and throw it in the fireplace and then say "Letting you read that would have resulted in me being incriminated by my own writings". The amendment means that you cannot be forced to testify in court or make a confession, and any information that is forced from you after you invoke your right (or sometimes before, depending on circumstances) is inadmissable.
As for property and possessions covered by a warrant, if the cops seize your diary stating "Dear diary--I beat up a nun today", then chances are the prosecution is going to use that as an exhibit in the trial.
@ Matt Bryant
I won't spend much time trying to reason with you, because you have the general reputation of not being very reasonable. However,
1) Needing to search a person's possessions or communications is why we have search warrants. These warrants allow law enforcement to enter physical or digital property and remove or impound designated materials that they think might have data that could be relevant to an investigation. What you are positing as something to be avoided ("they would announcer to the suspect that his/her data is 'of interest'") is something that I view as a positive. If we did as you asked then basically you are giving law enforcement the right to read someone's documents in secret by compromising their security at the device level--which can be replicated for other searches. I think that we can understand phone tapping, or even reading a person's mail if a warrant is issued, or impounding hard drives, mobile devices, etc. But a court order that could be used to break encryption for a class or model of devices is not OK with me.
2) A warrant requires that law enforcement say what violations the person be investigated is guilty of and what materials might be seized in the pursuit of that investigation. Giving them access to someone's encrypted device without a warrant means that authorities can potentially go fishing for anything they can find.
3) And yes, there may be other evidence of wrongdoing that is lost, but that happens all the time anyway. Just because the cops pick someone up for dealing crack doesn't mean that they know about the heroin stash that person has in another place, or the rival drug dealer he killed last year.
Speaking solely for my own person, I am delighted to see our constabulary endeavoring to decipher the contents of these strange voltaic contraptions. Who knows what knavery that rapscallions, lusty rogues and the odd charlatan might otherwise accomplish! If such affrontery is allowed to run rampant, we risk the impairment of the high public morals that are the keystone to a harmonious society. Why, just yesterday my footman Ceasar had the cheek to ask me that I not sell his children to another planter in the next county! It pained me greatly, but I saw no recourse but to have the varlet horsewhipped. My wife was greatly distraught by this, and I had to remind Mrs. Marketing Hack that it was not a woman's place to understand or judge these matters and she had best get back to her sewing, lest I cuff her as well. Alas!, such are the measures that forstalling anarchy forces upon my gentle soul!
Indeed, as a man of these United States, I stand forthrightly with the efforts of our federal bailiffs to enforce decency and upright behavior amongst the citizenry. I am sure that their employment of such laws will preserve our young nation's golden reputation for modernity and liberty!!
(Dear Feds--how about you get a warrant, sworn out by a judge, requiring that a subject of an investigation/prosecution is required to provide his password for any devices, and throw him in jail for contempt of court if he refuses to give it? Oh wait, that takes some effort and means you have to let people know that you are accessing data on a device, and prevents you from accessing whole classes of devices in secret. Forgive my insistence that you actually act to preserve public freedoms rather than undermine them.)
P.S.--Many thanks to thesaurus.com in writing the first section of this post
Is how British security services can explain away not maintaining surveillance on two "low threat" persons who previous surveillance had not found anything incriminating, and then argue that they need more surveillance on people who are even lower threat levels (namely you and I).
And with the wide range of areas that the government might be willing to consider "terrorist" or "anti-social", asking Facebook/Twitter/whoever to report on speech in those areas is going to cause a serious infringement on the right to free speech.
Hey, don't forget the terrorist children!!
Murdoch's newspapers involved in phone hacking scandal--as the victims!!
Wait, we have invisible forcefields and unsafe elfs??
I'm thinking passageway into Narnia!!
Is it safe?
Or taking repurposed movie lines one step farther, are users in danger of "NiFi phone home!"
"But with all that the Facebook, apparently, is to blame."
Oddly enough, Facebook is the only one who was not in the room at the time these conclusions (damning Facebook) were arrived at. Funny how that works.
"They knew these criminals, they had been alerted before they came back to uk. They picked them up and let them go."
So the British security services already knew about these guys and had them in custody, and let them go? And then the Brit spooks have the temerity to say "we could have saved that soldier if you just give us access to everything on Facebook, or force Facebook to crawl through everything their members are posting/sharing."?? SERIOUSLY, DID THAT HAPPEN??
This is just like the Boston Marathon bombers, where the elder Tsarnaev brother/bomber went to Chechnya, met with Chechen radicals, had this meeting reported to the U.S. by the Russians, came home and got interviewed by the FBI about what he was up to in Chechnya, and then was let go. And of course he went on to bomb the marathon with his little brother.
Now, I am not suggesting that we take people like the Rigby murderers or the Tsarnaev brothers off the streets if they can't be charged, but these are the very people who this huge surveillance apparatus should be looking at. If a guy raises all these flags, then get a warrant and look at what he is doing online or through email/Skype/whatever. Don't build this huge fuckin' sigint vacuum cleaner to suck up everyone's activity, and then drop the guys who actually might be doing something, and then complain that you need even more of everyone's communications because you failed to "keep your eye on the ball" that you knew was coming!!
If you read through my posting history, you will quickly figure out that I'm not a huge fan of government agencies in general. Frankly, crap like this is the reason why. Government agencies seem to possess a culture where mistakes like this are tolerated, so they keep happening. Frankly, sometimes I wonder if these agencies could find shit in an outhouse.
Next week, everyone gets an RFID chip implanted in their butts, because I heard this girl from Sheffield got kidnapped.....
What happened to Lee Rigby was barbaric, but its pretty damn disproportional to say that social media and IM providers should be tapped in order to (and this is total bullshit that it will work) prevent that from happening again. And of course, the 5 Eyes being what it is, if the GCHQ or some other agency in Britain is given this power tomorrow, then the day after tomorrow the security establishment in Canada/U.S./Australia/New Zealand will all effectively have it too, through their good buddies in the GCHQ or Whitehall.
Because the Irish throw the biggest boozeouts, and somebody in the shadows wanted to know where the next party was being held?
More seriously, possibly the shadowy "they" are watching all this corporate revenue being moved through Ireland for tax purposes.
Or (less seriously--I hope) maybe because the Irish stood on the sidelines during WW2 and the Cold War, the lot of them must be nazi/commie sympathizers!! By that logic, these days the Irish must be the "have a wee drink" arm of Al Qaeda!!
Considered "should we do this" is not the nature of bureaucracies. After awhile the expansion of the bureaucracy and its powers becomes a goal in itself to keep generating larger budgets, more opportunities for employees, more happy customers who owe the bureaucracy.
That's one of the things that I really credit America's founding fathers with, is a very clear understanding of the nature of governmental agencies who are initially "here to help". If left unchecked, before too long they start "helping" themselves to this or that at your expense.
And if you doubt what I'm saying, think of the last time you saw a big bureaucracy that of it's own accord came to the conclusion that "we are doing too much, and we really need to cut back our activities".