Re: Ladies and Gentlemen...
To be fair, it *may* be that he has replied and had his post removed. Perhaps when he learns to post like an adult, we might actually get to see his words of wisdom again.
509 posts • joined 12 May 2010
To be fair, it *may* be that he has replied and had his post removed. Perhaps when he learns to post like an adult, we might actually get to see his words of wisdom again.
....Please be upstanding and give your applause to Matt Bryant who will now materialise and explain to all of us why and how this was a fair and reasonable judgment completely within the bounds of law and why everyone except Patreus got a harsher treatment than the very stern finger wag he was subject to....
Come along MB, lets hear it.
...and I wonder if they will actually pay non-contractual bonuses this year or find yet another way to say that they "targets haven't been met" as they did every year I worked for them.
I'm not surprised after being tasered twice and getting into a fist fight with the police, thilly!
You remember when you challenged myself and others to find actual harm caused by NSA activities? Well, this is the sort of thing I meant.
If this suspicion and trend continues, there will be measurable harm to the USAs technology economy and that will, inevitably, spread to other sectors.
I note that you've challenged others to answer the same question since, but you've added a keyword; "Personally". You ask people to produce evidence of "actual harm caused to them *personally*", neatly avoiding the evidence of more indirect harm caused to a nations political, legal, social and economic systems.
Now, your philosophy of "I'm all right, it doesn't affect me, so its not my problem" may suit your view of the world, but most of us think more broadly than that, so I would advise the dropping of the word "personally" from your question which would actually allow for a reasonable answer.
Feel free to post your usual invective, side-stepping answer or ignore this with a simple down-vote as you usually do with arguments you can't answer without demonstrating your signature total disregard for the welfare of others members of the human race.
When, and if, Thailand begins to take care of its abandoned "street children" issues, then I might begin to take it seriously.
Seems they have other poor victims in greater need of state protection....
Cardiff here. No problems last night with VM whatsoever. Slight hiccup resulting in 20 second outage in connection at about 4pm, nothing beyond that.
"At some point you're going to have to accept that a certain number of deaths through terrorism are unacceptable and require a surrender of part of your inviolable shield of privacy."
It won't stop the terrorists, will it? They'll keep coming regardless, won't they?
Well, in light of that, you can die on your knees if you want to. I'll face it standing, thanks very much.
Wait, I'm confused....are you saying Steve Coogan is funny?
I've said it before and I'll say it again; your actions, Julian, do not do the cause any good. Information openness and government transparency is one thing, but what you are doing is just bollocks.
Man up and get this over with.
"Master spook blabbermouth Edward Snowden should be granted safe passage to and from Switzerland if he testifies about surveillance, the country's attorney general has reportedly said."
I doubt the attorney general called him that. At least, not openly.
"...encoded seven symbols onto a combination of the orbital angular momentum..."
Lock chevron seven...
One more thing about FISA/FISC before we get carried away: Over the course of its life, FISC has presided over only around 34,000 cases (over around 30 years - thats not many per year). *If* all surveillance requests are passed through FISC, regardless of their authority and form, we can hardly call that blanket surveillance of the entire population, can we?
Are all instances of surveillance considered and approved by FISC?
MB is quite right, they did indeed refuse a massive 11 cases....out of tens of thousands. Trust him to obscure the numbers in favour of his BS argument. Here's some facts:
"It is also rare for FISA warrant requests to be turned down by the court. During the 25 years from 1979 to 2004, 18,742 warrants were granted, while just four were rejected. Fewer than 200 requests had to be modified before being accepted, almost all of them in 2003 and 2004. The four rejected requests were all from 2003, and all four were partially granted after being submitted for reconsideration by the government. Of the requests that had to be modified, few if any were before the year 2000. During the next eight years, from 2004 to 2012, there were over 15,100 additional warrants granted, with an additional seven being rejected. In all, over the entire 33-year period, the FISA court has granted 33,942 warrants, with only 11 denials – a rejection rate of 0.03 percent of the total requests" ~ (Wikipedia, FISC)
A rejection rate of a HUGE 0.03%. Woiw. That's clearly functional then.
Furthermore, whilst the FISC/FISA is indeed made up from qualified judges, the membership of FISC is at the very least questionable:
"In a July 2013 interview, Senator and privacy advocate Ron Wyden described the FISC warrant process as "the most one-sided legal process in the United States". "I don't know of any other legal system or court that really doesn't highlight anything except one point of view", he said. Later in the interview he said Congress should seek to "diversify some of the thinking on the court".
Elizabeth Gotein, a co-director of the Liberty and National Security Program of the Brennan Center for Justice at the New York University School of Law, has criticized the court as being too compromised to be an impartial tribunal that oversees the work of the NSA and other U.S. intelligence activities. Since the court meets in secret, hears only the arguments of the government prior to deciding a case, and its rulings cannot be appealed or even reviewed by the public, she has argued that: "Like any other group that meets in secret behind closed doors with only one constituency appearing before them, they're subject to capture and bias."
A related bias of the court results from what critics such as Julian Sanchez, a scholar at the Cato Institute, have described as the near certainty of the polarization or group think of the judges of the court. Since all of the judges are appointed by the same person (the Chief Justice of the United States), nearly all currently serving judges are of the same political party (the Republican Party), hear no opposing testimony and feel no pressure from colleagues or the public to moderate their rulings, group polarization is almost a certainty. "There's the real possibility that these judges become more extreme over time, even when they had only a mild bias to begin with", Sanchez said."
Yeah, ol' MB left out some inconvienient facts. As per usual.
Yeah, it's totally different in the US. There, they shoot you for putting your hands up then say it was fine and legal to do so.
All while the cameras are conveniently pointed the other way.
IIRC, Manning was disallowed from calling most of the defence witnesses, whilst the prosecution was allowed anything and everything they want. Interesting idea of fairness.
If you'd like a history lesson in what happens when revolutions fail in the UK, and why they do so, have a browse for something called the "Chartist Movement" of the 19th Century. I doubt it would be far different from that...
...before it comes to light that they've been spying on each other? Again.
"But then that is the real political problem - we're not in a "real war", and Obambi promised on the election trail that he would close Gitmo and give all the detainees trials. Only he found out when he got into office that wasn't actually either legally possible nor desirable from a security viewpoint."
here, we are entirely in agreement MB. I suspect we believe there are different motivations behind gitmo and its associated legislation, and Obamas failure to make good on his rather ambitious promise, but the resultant is the same - a legal mess that's near impossible to untangle in any elegant manner.
"Do you want to argue that we were wrong to lock up the likes of Oswald Mosely (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oswald_Mosley#Internment) on the grounds of "free speech"?'
Actually, yes. My natural inclination is not to "inter" anyone who hasn't actually committed a crime. The mere idea of an "internment camp" in the modern age gives me the shivers. Bear in mind that making violent threats, inciting violence, certain forms of racist/hate speech and a fair few other similar things are, and have long been, illegal in the UK. It should not, in my opinion, be illegal to speak critically against the country you reside in, no matter how misguided the stance you take may be. It's a fundamental example of the freedoms our version of civilisation provides and one of the very things we are "fighting" for in the "war on terror" surely?
The suspension of Habeas Corpus is, I believe, never a good thing.
Sticking a downvote is not a reply. Perhaps you'd rather not explain why you put out different opinions on different threads?
You're just a troll. Admit it.
Also, I didn't call them innocents. I just think they should be accorded legal rights so we can determine whether they are innocent or not.
"Seriously, you think anyone would be the slightest bit interested in you?" ~ Matt Bryant
"Anyone who believes that Snow boy's illegal disclosure of security ops is a good thing will be thinking much differently soon when their bank account is emptied, their credit cards compromised, their personal identity information is stolen and they end up going through years of headaches trying to sort it all out." ~ Matt Bryant.
Which is it? Are they interested in and/or protecting us as individuals or not? Your argument seems to be flaccid.
"Correct, so if it was anything at all to be worried about where are the hundreds of wrongly-convicted terrorists?"
" It's called due process and it does exist"
Not in Guantanamo it doesn't, as has been well documented.
They used to, but then they chucked out the impartiality and the public charter, then hired a science editor (david shukman), who, whilst possessing zero scientific qualifications and minimal experience, decided that "Minority" scientific views (anything that be refute AGW, for example) would no longer be given air-time on BBC TV or Radio. He also presided over the sham that was the BBCs "scientific panel review for AGW" which included so few scientists that it needed to be covered up and argued against in court
Yet, he allows this pile of cobblers to be aired.
Hey, Auntie Beeb, I think your agenda may be showing....
Get a grip! :D
In Wales they're rolling out .cymru and .wales too.
"However, hibernating in front of your TV for a weekend is just plain sad."
So, what did you do with your weekend and why was it better? Work? Sport? Drinking? Unless you were actively saving lives, or creating a great work of art or literature, I doubt your chosen activity was any more "worthy".
Life is to be enjoyed, not a drudge until we die.
... and found that if you have a PhD. in advertising and marketing then you are a grade-A wanker and of no value to society.
Think you mean Paranoid, don't you? :D
Now, everyone, as usual, chant after me: "There are no conspiracies. All conspiracy theorists are nutters."
This isn't revenge porn, surely. It's extortion isn't it?
Easy way to find out - publish a cartoon parodying Judaism or Israel.....
If you file a notice for copyright claims, then refute the claim of the originator of the material, then monetize that claim, are you not "obtaining monies by deception" and thus subject to criminal law (fraud) rather than civil law? In this case, surely the police/courts should be dealing with the crime, rather than you having to sue as a litigant?
After all, isn't our gov. making a big song and dance about dealing widespread, organised crime on the web? Looks like a prime example here....
"“No foreign nation, no hacker, should be able to shut down our networks, steal our trade secrets, or invade the privacy of American families, especially our kids."
'cos we've already got that covered....
.....which you can indeed trademark.
did you know that 3M plc. own the colour Yellow?
The problem is that the electorate, largely, don't know, don't care, don't want to know.
A fair slice won't understand the issue. Some won't even know what the word electorate means.
Those of us that do need to educate those that don't.
No government will admit that education is the key, nor will they invest in it. Instead they will dumb down our newsfeeds, restrict our ability to communicate and investigate and censor anything that they don't like the look of.
Because an informed public would realise, en masse, what a bunch of manipulative, lying morons the government are and maybe, just maybe, they would act.
Keep 'em separated. That's the gov. strategy.
Shhh MB, Shhh.. back to sleep. Nothing to see here.
I'd best have a chat with the Archbishop of Canterbury regarding the actions of Heavens Gate then!
This anon didn't say he was Muslim, just that his community and ethnicity had been slurred. Charlie Hebdo had a strong reputation for attacking just about everyone with their satirical publication, so this commentard might be anyone; gay, british, American, Chinese, disabled etc. etc. Let's not jump to conclusions about who the offended party is.
Secondly, to the commentard in question; these were *not* adolescents. They were both over 70 years old and had survived the worst of what much of the world can throw. They expressed this experience in art and words and were not targeting any specific group exclusively. I would hesitate to condemn their satire as frivolous or shallow.
Perspective and reason please, people.
Well damn! Citrix receiver and E:D don't get on?! That explains a few issues I've been facing! :P
Precisely this, MrPSB. I think Sabroni should graciously accept your well researched points.
I think someone forgot to attach an icon...
...Has become shit.
Oculus, LeapMotion & VoiceAttack on E:D
I've been in gaming since the very earliest of days and I've never experienced a game so immersive in all that time.
Yeah, its got teething issues but this is the stuff that I dreamt of in my childhood and now I get to do it. No complaints if it has a little hiccup or two.
Ok, so, let's take a little look at the GCHQ claims....
"Intelligence officers claim to be blind to more than a quarter of the actions of the UK’s worst crime gangs following changes by crooks in their communication methods, which spooks attribute to leaks by the former NSA contractor, the Daily Telegraph reports."
So, you knew how they were communicating prior to the Snowdon Revelations, and yet you failed to act on that intelligence? Good...well done. You knew who they were, so no need for mass surveillance to find them then? Excellent. Good job!
Also, only one quarter? Have the rest not changed their methods? Do you know who they are? If you don't know who they are, then it follows you don't know how many there are, in which case how do you know that you've lost one quarter of them? If you DO know who they are, see my points above. Again, no need for mass surveillance is there? Oh, and please turn in your budget because you've clearly been a colossal waste of money if this is the case.
"citing unnamed “senior security officials”.
hmm...I wonder if that would be a certain Home Secretary, as she is now the head of the NCA and associated security services.
"Communication suppliers – historically willing facilitators of wiretapping – are “refusing to hand over evidence on the likes of drug smugglers or fraudsters” because they do not pose a “direct threat to life”
That is, they are *obeying* the law as it stands and not breaching DPA, RIPA or The Communications Act. They wait, as they have been told to, for a warrant to appear. Good job ISPs!
"One unnamed major drug smuggling gang has supposedly been able to operate “unimpeded for the last year” after changing their operations last autumn"
Why haven't you arrested them previously? Lack of evidence? Using them as an asset to find "bigger fish"? Either way, not protecting the public or state much there are you. No need for mass surveillance to find them either. Again.
"We have specific evidence of where key targets have changed their communication behaviour as a direct result of what they have read.”
Ah...if you know what they are reading on the interwebs you *must* have the evidence after all. Why no arrest? What was your budget again?
"“They have moved to more secure forms of communication"
An advert for crims! There are things that GCHQ can't break that is simple enough that 25% of all crims have already figured it out and adopted it! Splendid. Not. So, you're not very *good* at your jobs either...about that budget....
"Law enforcement figures on both sides of the Atlantic have complained that plans by Apple and Google to build improved encryption into smartphones is a gift to criminals, particularly terrorists and paedophiles."
Well, a free market economy and capitalist philosophy providing a product for a nascent market? No one expected that! Ahem. It also appears to be a market you've created GCHQ/NSA. If you'd not been trawling everyone for everything that consumer need might not be so strong.
"“We have techniques that need to be protected,” the source told the Telegraph. “The choice is not to pursue a network and we have decided not to press ahead where there is a possibility of being detected.”
So, you've given up being our stalwart defenders? Again, budget.
GCHQ operations are one part of a broadening network of social control, along with the unaccountable secret police called the NCA and the Home Secretary. They shout TerrorPedos....sorry DRUGGIE TerrorPedos now, and we're all supposed to run to mummy for protection. They think we're pathetic, weak and stupid, but Snowden shows we're not powerless.
More power to him and others that may yet emerge from the shadowed ranks of bullshit.
"Anyone who believes that Snow boy's illegal disclosure of security ops is a good thing will be thinking much differently soon when their bank account is emptied, their credit cards compromised, their personal identity information is stolen and they end up going through years of headaches trying to sort it all out."
How many times did you bellow how the security services weren't interested in us as individuals? What makes you think they are now interested in helping me secure my data or bank account? Also, this is the sphere of the Stazsi....sorry, the NCA, these days and not GCHQ anyway.
Sloppy MB, very sloppy.
Yes, because White House Down, 24, The West Wing or any number of other action dramas never, ever depict the POTUS in any amount of danger, do they?
A downvote? Someone doesn't like evidence.
Because nooooo...there are never, ever dodgy conspiracies and deals done, are there?
LIBOR, Watergate, Iran-Contra, Toxic Debts, asbestos marketing, CoIntelPro....
No...it's fine we can trust the big media companies and a bunch of dodgy pirates to be telling us all the absolute truth. Yep. Ok.