Posts by Matt Bryant

Re: RobHib Re: @Matt Bryant -- You've Missed The Point!!

"You've completely missed the point!...." I'm guessing what you actually mean is 'no, I want you to baaah-lieve what I baaah-lieve'.

"....What the NSA, GCHQ, et al are doing with their blanket surveillance of video, audio, text etc. is blatantly violating that kind of privacy—it's as simple as that....." Except for the fact there is NO blanket surveillance. There is collection of data, that is then filtered by automation to sellect targets and those targets only are actually surveilled. The massive majority of the data that falls outside the filter is eventually just deleted. You are labouring under the idiotic misconception that (a) anyone has the ability to read everything flowing over the telecoms cables, and (b) anyone would actually WANT to read your demented dribblings or watch you take a dump. Seriously, try and get a clue, get some perspective, and get over yourself! Despite what your Mummy told you, in reality you are not that important.

"....And of course, those who really need to be caught will go to ground—they won't use the services or they'll assume different identities, put on masks, encrypt everything, use steganography, etc. etc...." Oh, so you're finally admitting there are actually 'bad guys' out there and that Snowdope's revelations (and Greenwald's self-serving hawking of them) are helping the 'bad guys' avoid detection?

You sheeple are just so full of fail it comes out your ears.

Re: Pstupidonymous Re: Mattie Boy - How al-Masri ruined YM for us all

".....They did not (do they now?) have automated non-human monitoring and that in your mind proves that no one was watching anyone and the GCHQ warning to staff was... just for a laugh?...." I assume that, just as with other coms that suddenly got pushed into the spotlight after 9/11, when the project kicked off they had to manually monitor sessions between targeted individuals. I also assume it's a safe bet that during development of the automated version they had to test it with live data to make sure it wasn't picking out your pimply arse as Osama bin Ladin. After automation (which is very much in-place for street cams in most cities in the World) they probably never needed to look again. Once again, you fail to understand that they don't have the time, resources or presonnel (or slightest inclination) to waste time watching your bizzarro sex antics. It is far more likely that full-time losers like the Anonyputzs, Lolztwats, etc. are the ones spending time intercepting webcam sessions for giggles.

All modern electronic coms come down to digital radio waves through the air, electrical signals in a wire, or optical signals in a telecoms cable, regardless of whether it's email, Twatter posts, web browsing, uploads, webcam sessions or whatever. We already know GCHQ is already tapping the telecoms cables, they are then taking the massive amount of digital noise and filtering it down to conversations between known individuals, connections between areas of interest, and connections to known sites. I'm sure there are also filters looking for key terms and face-recognition filters for video files and streams. Stuff that does not match the filter gets stored for a short term and then dumped to make space. I'm also pretty certain there is no-one (outside of probably the RSPCA) at all interested in your Internet dribbling or whatever floats your boat. Get over yourself, you're simply not as important as you want to baaaah-lieve.

Re: Mark 85

"...They get pics and vids. NSA only gets text and voice." You really think either stops there? They (along with the Fwench, Germans, Russians, Chinese, Australians - just about every country) are looking at ALL electronic means of communication. Phones, email, chat rooms, IRC, online games, Dropbox/FTP sites, etc., etc. The only limits are how much they can gather and how much they can automate filtering to ensure the right stuff ends up with the analysts. No-one is watching you or reading your email, it probably gets scraped straight into /dev/null by the GORMLESS_SHEEP filter at first pass. Seriously, get over yourself.

Re: Stupidononymous Re: How al-Masri ruined YM for us all

"....I bet the GCHQ staff have been celebrating al-Masri ever since for now getting paid to watch amateur porn....." Oh dear, you lot are so predictably quick to swallow what you are spoonfed. The GCHQ (and NSA) are trying to monitor as much as possible of ALL possible electronic communication media that AQ, spies, gangsters and the like might use. During ordinary phone monitoring I'm sure they trawl up plenty of sad phone sex. If you read the article you might have noticed (round the chip on your shoulder and the tinfoil hat) that GCHQ were developing face recognition tools for the project because they were AUTOMATING the monitoring. Which means NO-ONE was watching you pay Whiplash Sal to flagellate her pet ram for you.

What has happened here is the hacks have needed to make a story out of it to sell copy and advertising space, and just saying 'GCHQ intercepts webcam chats' wasn't enough. But sex sells, so they took the GCHQ warning to staff and blew it up into the ridiculous story that GCHQ staff were out looking for pr0n chats to watch. Seriously, stop and think for a sec - these guys have unfettered access to the deepest, darkest reaches of the Internet, do you seriously think that if they were that way inclined they'd be settling for watching you dribbling and play with yourself over Whiplash Sal?

Once again, the sheeple need to get over themselves.

Re: AC Re: Underage nudie pics?

"....at least now we know where all those pedi's are getting their pics from!" Yes, from Yahoo! Messenger webcam sessions, most probably.

Re: Anonymous Cluetard Re: Cue Matt Bryant's forceful explanation on how this is all necessary...

"....and how we would've been blown to shreds by them terrorists long ago...." In Iraq in 2010, when the CIA was hunting the local AQ leader al-Masri, rumours were that they had tried using hijacked email and chatroom accounts of other Egyptian militants to try and trick al-Masri out of hiding. They soon found out al-Masri did not trust 'blind' coms becuase he could not see the face of the people he was talking to. When he was traced to his hideout in Tikriit he was online using his webcam.... though I don't know if it was a YM session. Oh, sorry, did that info make your head hurt?

Re: Bill Gates

"....people are STILL WILLING to go with bitcoin because the huge positives about being able to get out from under their control are worth even more risk than this...." I take it Billy has some Bitcoins he wants to sell on.

Re: Mark 85 Re: What? No pitot covers?

In the UK at least, the RAF first introduced covers because they were often flying bombers at night, and whilst the engineer/navigator started checking the instruments the captain would do a walk around of the aircraft, checking that the control surfaces were moving freely, etc. This led to many accidents, a common one being the captain touching the pitot tube. How would that harm him? They were electrically heated to avoid icing up in flight. So the RAF started using canvas tube covers. In the Far East they ran into two new problems with the pitot tube. The canvas would become sodden and rot, and ordering new ones was beureacratic and might entail waiting months for delivery. If the covers were left off then local wildlife would invade the tubes (everything from bats to wasps and even small snakes!). The RAF had long used rubber gaiters for protecting gun barrels and the ground crew simply started replacing the canvas covers with easily replaceable condoms, which did raise a few Catholic eyebrows. It seems someone in Queensland needs to take a trip to their local chemists.

Re: Mad Wannabe Re: dogged Not quite the same @Mad Mike

"....Hence, you cannot possibly know which is true and which is false...." You mean what you want to baaah-lieve. The articles I linked to also don't discuss the unlikelihood that little green men live on Mars, do you want to insist they do? I have commented to and linked to articles that list both actual events and analyse the pattern of lies spread by Greenwald and co. You have just bleated a load of cobblers without any form of evidence to back your position. You lose, get over it.

".....So, even the police seem to back my position and disagree with yours!!" You really are getting desperate! The fact the coppers had to release him without charge due to lack of evidence after the nine hours DOES NOT MEAN they cannot ever arrest him should the little twerp ever be stupid enough to let his sugar daddy use him as an e-mule through UK territory again, especially now that they have EVIDENCE that he was carrying stolen documents. Seriously, just shut up and go talk about it to someone with half a clue, as you're just embarrassing yourself now.

Re:Mad Wannabe Re: Psyx Not quite the same

"....You have to stop and hold someone using legislation pertinent to the reason you're stopping them...." As explained, they did not just pick an excuse out of thin air, they had grounds for stopping him under anti-terror laws. Please just stop bleating for a minute and try actually READING what I posted.

".....but the original reason must stand scrutiny and be proportionate and correct for the offence or belief you are investigating....." Both the Home Secreatary and the Courts have ruled they DID have reasonable grounds. What you mean is you don't agree because you want to baaaah-lieve Snowdope, Greenwald and Miranda are some kind of Holy Trinity Of The Truth. As pointed out to you sheeple many, many, MANY times before, just because you desperately want to baaah-lieve in an alternate reality does not make it so. There are laws, there are people who sit in judgement on those laws, and they say you are talking out of your woollie backside.

".....They had to let him go as he had committed no offence....." Wrong. They released him because they did not believe they had sufficient evidence to pursue a charge at that point in time. It does not stop him being arrested at a later date now that the authorities have had time to gather said evidence from Miranda's kit. Whilst you can claim he is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, by his own admission Miranda broke the law. Listen, I really suggest that you go speak to those lawyers you mentioned as you very obviously know SFA about the law or how it operates. Oh, and you might want to make sure they are lawyers that work in government law rather than just those that deal with street crims on Legal Aid.

"....Given that he had the password on him, they could have decrypted well within 9hours...." Wrong again. They not just had to decrypt his devices, they also had to analyse the contents to ensure they were actually stolen documents. Just imagine if Miranda had been planning a sting and had been carrying an USB key filled with fake docs all marked 'GCHQ, Top Secret', just in the hope the coppers would arrest him and then have to apologise for jumping the gun. I am betting the devices also had to be taken to a secure unit and copied before work commenced on the copies, all of which would have taken time. I'm also betting there would have to have been considerable analysis before the authorities would want to play their hand, such as scanning for hidden volumes, let alone the time lost when Miranda initially refused to hand over the laptop password. It seems you know nothing about the law nor how sensitive evidence is handled nor about the actual chain of events in the Miranda case. Please STFU and go do a lot more reading.

Re: dogged Not quite the same @Mad Mike

".....How exactly has he demonstrated his intent to be a party to its disclosure? Can they even prove he knew what he was carrying? .....You're claiming all sorts of things without actually being able to prove them......" Whilst it is always amusing to see how the sheeple simply fail to read any background info before bleating their baaah-liefs, it's not surprising the poor little woollies are confused when Greenwald and co keep changing their stories. First of all they claimed Miranda was just an e-mule, then they claimed he was working for The Guardian, and then they claimed he was not just a journo but actually deeply involved in the Snowdope work. I suggest you read the original Guardian report linked below, then the second link on how Greenwald's story has evolved.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/19/david-miranda-interview-detention-heathrow

http://www.boilingfrogspost.com/2014/01/06/part-ii-david-mirandas-detainment-the-calico-kitten-in-wag-the-dog/

Re: Psyx Re: Not quite the same

".....Detention under the official secrets act would have been the way to go, rather than the anti-terrorism laws....." You are failing to understand that an eventual charge need have nothing to do with the original reason for a stop or search. For example, if a copper has a warrant to search your home for drugs and instead finds a ton of paedo material, they don't just go 'oh, sorry, we'll ignore that obvious crime because it's not what we were originally looking for.' If a traffic cop stops you for suspected drink driving and spots a loaded gun in your car you will be done for it. The coppers in the Miranda case used the anti-terror laws as it gave them a nine hour interrogation period and the powers to seize his electronic equipment. They justified it on the grounds that the information Snowdope was releasing was already leading terror groups to change their coms, meaning that there was a reason to believe any material on GCHQ techniques being carried by Miranda could also be of use to terrorists. The coppers had to let Miranda go after nine hours as they did not have enough to charge him by the end of that period, probably because they had not managed to decrypt and analyse his devices by then. Should Miranda be stupid enough to set foot on UK territory again he could very well be charged with both breach of the OSA and terror laws.

Re: IMG Re: @ I. Aproveofitspendingonspecificprojects A stunning lack of history

"....Germany could have invaded the UK...." You were doing so well, right up until that howler! Hitler lacked both the means and the will to invade the British Isles. The point at which he could have possibly successfully invaded Britain was right after Dunkirk, when the BEF were still unloading and the RAF was still getting ready for him. But Hitler didn't actually have a plan of what he was going to do after defeating France. And he had to tidy up France first anyway, which gave the British Army and RAF a few weeks respite. By the time he kicked off the Battle of Britain it was too late. And his Kriegsmarine (who would have had to carry the Panzers across the Channel) was too weak to face the Royal Navy without the Luftwaffe winning the BoB, so he instead chose the option of trying to starve Britain into defeat by U-boat war and instead went off to attack his former allie Stalin (after a detour to the Balkans to save Mussolini from humiliation in Greece). The Greeks (with some assistance from the Brits) held up Hitler for just long enough that his eventual drive into Russia was stopped before he could take Moscow, condemning the Wehrmacht to a long war of attrition in the East they could never win.

Even if Hitler had managed to invade Britain, it would not have meant the surrender of Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, or any of the other countries of the British Empire. Hitler simply did not have a plan for defeating the Empire, he simply assumed the UK would sue for peace if he knocked France out of the War.

Re: dogged Re: Not quite the same @Mad Mike

"Did you actually read any of that?...." I've actually read the Act and signed the acknowledgement more than once and been given advice on its content, so I can tell you it does apply as a LAW. All UK citizens ANYWHERE in the World are bound by it, and anyone of any nationality coming into contact with material covered by the OSA - regardless of whether they disclose it or INTEND to be a party to a dislosure - are also expected to follow the terms of the law, especially if on UK territory. You DO NOT have to sign anything and DO NOT have to be in a particular type of job. Miranda was knowingly carrying copies of restricted material through British territory, having demonstrated his intent to be a party to its disclosue, a really stupid act, and one his attention-seeking boyfriend should have known better than to commit him to do.

".....I work with lawyers a lot at the moment....." Not surprised, but you really should have asked them rather than trying to make the law into what you wanted to baaaah-lieve.

Re: Radbruch1929 Merkel plays the Yank bashing card again!

"...... I'm not concerned with whether Merkel fiddled with physics or chemistry...." But you tried to claim she had a good understanding of nuke power and electricity generation because you tried to claim she was a nuke physicist. And she has never worked in the power generation industry nor held a post in any government related to power generation. Fail on your part! Try actually reading a bit of background for some evidence to backup your claims before you bleat them, mmmkay?

".....And as for compromised nodes, Germans tend to be thorough...." Er, so what about Merkel's phone then? Didn't you need Snowdope to tell you about that? And I notice das Volk are getting a bit shirty about a suspected coms interception unit on the British Embassy roof in Berlin - surely if you're so 'thorough' you have nothing to worry about? And it's not like the GCHQ seem to have p0wned all your coms anyway - oh, but Snowdope said they did! Oops, looks like your thorough Germanic efficiency is just as big a load of cobblers as the rest of your post!

".....What she has done is reacted to the vast protests and overwhelming public opinion (which in large parts had been there well before Fukushima)..... Not sure what's wrong with bending to voter's will. Looks almost like a functioning democracy....." You are being simply too obtuse for words. Firstly, politicians are not there to just do what the voters want but what is actually best for the country. Often the two differ and the measures needed are unpopular with voters, but they will forgive a politician if they realise they are honestly doing what they think is best (or deselect them if they think they are not). If you ask anyone 'do you want to pay less taxes' and 'would it be nice to retain the current level of social services spending', then I can just about guarantee the answer to both would be 'yes', but if a politician just lowers taxes to win public favour without also adjusting spending then you get another Greece. Politicians need to have the guts to make unpopular decisions for the longer term good of the country, such as cutting spending in a recession or raising taxes to meet spending commitments. Merkel did not decide on de-nucleurisation because she thought it was the best thing for Germany, her decision was based on trying to stop a surge in support for the (even more loony) Greens.

Secondly, if the policy of de-nucleurisation had been overwhelmingly popular and popular democracy was the only correct gauge of rightness then the nuke power stations would never have been built in the first place. Instead, they were built due to NECESSITY. Dance around it all you like, but the fact remains that Merkel has made a mistake that will push up German electricity bills and saddle your kids with the same problem a few years down the road when she has retired, when the cheap coal and gas runs out and the only option is to go BACK to nucleur energy.

Merkel's moaning about the NSA is just as obviously about garnering votes seeing as her own security services have been happy to receive information on terrorists and Islamists in Germany shared with them by the NSA and GCHQ (hint - Yahooogle 'Germany BND used NSA information', read some of the many hits, then try THINKING). And it's not like the German Schroeder administration allegedly helped the CIA perform extraordinary renditions of German Islamists to Gitmo (Yahoogle 'Mohammad al-Zammar')......

Re: Radbruch1929 Re: Merkel plays the Yank bashing card again!

".....A PhD in physics with a thesis regarding nuclear decay (including some quantum mechanics)...." Wrong, she is actually a chemist, not a physicist, and her extensive experience working in the power industry is.... Oh, she hasn't! She did work for the former East German Communist government as a spokesperson, but nothing to do with either power generation or nuke physics. In fact, she has done SFA other than be another vote-chasing, opportunistic, European politician. She used the Fukishima event in a cynical attempt to reduce the impact the Greens were having:

http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/world/merkel-and-nuclear-energy-defeated-in-german-state-election-green-party-gains-53687.html

Even funnier, one of the biggest critics of her plans to shut down the German nuke stations are the Greens, because Merkel was forced to backdown on her stupid claim that wind power could replace the lost generating power. Instead, she will have to use more coal-fired stations, guaranteeing more pollution! And that's even before she had to admit her party had not correctly calculated the cost of the additional distribution network required for all those coal-fired power stations.

Merkel is the German Blair - saying whatever she thinks will get the audience of the day to vote for her. She has jumped on the anti-Yank sentiment of recent years in an attempt to garner votes, nothing more.

Re: AC

".....Explain Itanium then....." You do realise that, at launch, there were many Itanium server vendors, inlcuding IBM (who sold 10,000+ units to their customers despite the IBM salesgrunts pushing mainframes and their Power-AIX in preference) and Fujitsu, yet hp very quickly built up a 90% share of the Itanium market because they did it BETTER than IBM or Fujitsu. As part of Intel's strategy of attacking high-end computing from below with x86 and above with Itanium, Itanium killed competing designs such as MIPS, Alpha, PA-RISC and UltraSPARC. How long IBM continues with Power is very doubtful - where's the public roadmaps with actual commitmets? Itanium may be reaching it's end too, but it did what Intel wanted - got them taken seriously in the high-end, mission critical space.

"....more memory by adding more modules doesn't help with memory intensive applications as HP is still bound by the memory controller on the CPU...." So you missed the bit about the actual bandwidth available on each memory controller?

Re: BlueGreenLoser Re: Re:Pstupisonymous @Pseudonymous Coward

"....He does tend to 'invent'...." LOL, evade all you like, I see you're too scared to even acknowledge the question I posed, let alone 'invent' an answer. Why so scared of the question, does it go right to the root of your denial? In your version of reality do jihadis just not exist, or do you just not want people to realise the extent of AQ support in both the UK and USA? I'd like to think maybe you're just suffering from a particularly zealous and blinkered affliction of political correctness, but given your determination to dodge the issue I'd have to suspect you have another reason.

Re: Pstupidonymous Re: Re:Pstupisonymous

"Not evading, Matt. Just trying to ...." Evade. Again. It's OK, I didn't expect you to actually be able to manage independent thought when so many of your 'ideals' are so obviously spoonfed to you. But exposing your desperate attempts to avoid the subject does supply more than a wry smile. I suppose the real question is why are you so scared to think for yourself? Have you been told dreadful things will happen to you if you don't bleat in tune with the rest of the flock? Scared of the idea of maybe being ostracised by the 'cool' kids? LOL!