398 posts • joined 12 May 2010
"At one point, she noted that master NSA squealer* Edward Snowden had damaged the image of national security by exposing the scale of surveillance being carried out by spooks on both sides of the Atlantic."
Translation: "Oh god! We got caught! We're sorry we got caught! We'll make sure we don't get caught again! It was so bad of us to get caught! We look soooo bad because we got caught!"
*I doubt the minister used the word "squealer". I suspect that someone else applied that particularly choice term for some other, unbeknown reason.
Re: BlueGreenLoser ObnoxiousLiar Boring Bernie Pseudointelligence Coward
I agree entirely, Pseudo.
In the past I have enjoyed debate with Matt Bryant, even though he has opposite views to my own. He often appears quite well researched and on many occasions has caused me to question and inspect my own views and evidence. I come here for rational and reasoned debate and the Register forums rarely disappoint.
Recently, however, he has become aggressive, illogical and personally insulting and I can't debate anything with that.
Re: BlueGreenLoser ObnoxiousLiar Boring Bernie Pseudointelligence Coward
I've not been attacked by wolves recently either.
Gents, (I exclude Bryant from that collective), I suggest we stop feeding the troll as obvious troll is obvious.
I, for one, am no longer going to respond to his illogical, ill-informed, abusive ranting.
Care to join me in allowing him to piss into the wind alone from now on?
Re: Boring Bernie Pseudointelligence Coward @Matt Bryant "clutching your little red book"
Wow! yeah! they REALLY stopped him from carrying out his mission didn't they?! Let's take a look at the text of this news report....
"The 41-year-old, from Crawley in West Sussex, is *believed* to have carried out a suicide truck bombing in the city of Aleppo last Thursday."
So, our airport checks really worked well there. They must've forgotten to tell him to take his shoes off or let him take a bottle of water onto the plane headed for Syria! It's not like they had clues that he might be a suspect worth watching....
"The BBC understands the suspected bomber was part of a study circle in Crawley, which also included Omar Khyam, a man jailed for life in 2007 for a bomb plot."
I think even Scooby and Shaggy might've seen that one coming.
"Officials have not confirmed his identity, citing lack of DNA evidence.".
Couldn't find any in the house? couldn't scrape enough off the ground in the target site? Bravo, police, bravo!
"Anti-terror police are searching a house in Martyrs Avenue, Langley Green, as part of the investigation."
Martyrs Avenue? Really? Think GCHQ spooks may have missed a vital clue there. (Comedy value, rather than real observation.)
"The suspect is believed to have been responsible for a bomb attack at a prison in Aleppo that resulted in inmates escaping."
Believed? By whom? The newspaper? Citation please.
"The bombing, in the north of Syria, is thought to have been the first to be carried out in the country by a Briton"
We don't know who did it. We don't know if they were a Briton. We don't know if any Britons have done it before.
I'm so glad they are spending so much time and money on SigInt. For our safety. Pretty sure Lee Rigbys family would agree.
Got anymore examples or evidence of success, Matt? You might want to read the article first this time.
PS. I'm unfortunately unable to discuss my current job publicly so I can't answer your rebuttal as to my experiences as much as I would love to, but I will say that I am fairly certain I have more first (and second) hand experience of these things than most do, though I don't know what you do for a living so won't compare my experiences directly to yours nor make assumptions about them.
Re: Pstupidlyevaisve Reality check for Mr Snowden....
"So you want to try switching attention by suggesting spelling mistakes by highlighting a part of my post with no spelling mistakes?"
I think it was you that started that particular bun fight, Matt, with the quote below:
"please do check your "Idiots' Guide to being a Revolutionary" for the correct spellings of such terms as lackey, Imperialist running dog, etc."
Re: Reality check for Mr Snowden....
Shows that he is typing quickly; Probably with a sweat, flushed cheeks and occasional twitches in his chair.
Re: Pseudointelligence Coward @Matt Bryant "clutching your little red book"
I do enjoy it when you are called out on a point that you have trouble defending and have to resort to saying "Duhhh. I was being sarcastic" or "Duhhh. Don't you know when to take a joke."
My children do that too.
Re: What about Bus Lane cameras
What about *all* CCTV cameras? If you're recording me, my actions or my movements, even passively, then surely I should have a right to know who you are and what you are doing with my data? Or does this fall under the same "Expectation of Privacy" rules we apply to photographers?
I fear we can't have this both ways....
Is it just me.....
...that finds the idea of the NSA collecting Intel via an app wherein little black birds are propelled at buildings to demolish the defences of the fat, greedy piggies to be more than a little ironic?
Re: Can you ask VALVe about the State of SFS
It's clearly true...
....he loves fishsticks.
Re: Boring Bernie None of this...
It is highly naive to believe that our "current situation" is driven by any need other than profit.
But I expect nothing less from you MB.
None of this...
...requires any deep "conspiracy theory"
During the Cold War, spying was big business. A lot of money was spent by nations in the interests of "national security". Whole entities came into being as a result; GCHQ, MI6, NSA, etc etc, along with a vast industry to provide and support those services.
With the end of the Cold War, those financial interests were staring at The Wall and seeing their end in sight. With the events of 9/11 it was easy for those interests to create lobbying to convince a weak and ill-informed government that the threat was much larger and more cohesive than it appeared. Systems, technologies and methods were sold on the basis of that threat.
As time passed more systems were created, threats were expounded upon by NGOs, lobbyists and public groups that had all bought into the expertly created "null scenario" and the market expanded. New investment opportunities appeared and new business was created to take advantage. In an era of financial instability ANY new business was good business, even if it were founded upon complete nonsense. What was important was that money could be made.
Not only was it a "good day to bury bad news" but also a good day to turn a profit. Create a new tech, lobby the government to buy the tech, convince everyone that they need the tech to keep them safe, get the gov. to buy new, better tech and keep up the tales of imminent destruction and the need for security, pay for "research" to support that market, develop new tech..... repeat ad nauseum.
This is not without precedent, take a look at the drug industries and see how they "remap" pharmaceuticals every year to expand potential markets without the need to create new drugs. They just create new "conditions" that old drugs, it just so happens, treat.
No conspiracy required, no evil cabal plotting world domination, just day to day business-as-usual. Everything is exactly as it always is and all is driven the Great Good that is Profit.
Re: skelband Anyone remember "Freedom is the right to be uncomfortable."
So deeply retarded a response I can't even be bothered to downvote it.
Your standards are dropping, MB.
Re: Boring Bernie Yawn
Well, I am very happy that the methods created by the NSA are working so well, as you have explained.
No need for any MORE measures to limit our freedoms then.
P.S. Could you learn to use paragraphs please? It'd make your nonsense easier to read, if not digest.
Re: An Alien XSSXXXX Concept or SMARTR App .... for Clouds Hosting Advanced Operating Systems*
I'm almost willing to pay to see a debate between AMfM and MB....
...they are about as coherent as each other. Of course, AMfM is far more polite.
Re: codeusirae Dear NomNomNom ..
"Producer3: "I know - Kim Chung- whatshisface, that guy from North Korea!"
Controller: "OK, fits the anti-Yank agenda and definitely scores high enough on the weirdo scale, but does anyone know if he's available? And cheap."
Producer1: "Could be a problem - last time his dad asked for thirty cases of Courvoisier and total dominion over Wales."
I oft don't agree with MB on things, but that was bloody funny. Still chuckling now! :D
Also, it is a matter of record (from the capture of Bin Laden) that the "terrorists" did not use the internet, or even permanent mobile phones, for communication for the very reason that they believed such would be intercepted. For this very reason, runners and "trusted men" were used to carry spoken, and rarely written, missives from one "cell" to another.
It is by the intelligence forces own admission that this is they reason, they say, that it took so long to capture Bin Laden and track down other "Significant Targets".
It's been a while since I saw any blue elephants stampeding down my high street.
I guess the surveillance, monitoring and spying on me protects us from those too. Well done GCHQ!
Re: @Will Godfrey - Yawn
I agree with you - they didn't fight for Privacy; that's a relatively modern jingoism.
They fought to retain *our* liberty from oppressive would-be totalitarian masters. And its that that we are giving away today without a beat, in return for shiny apps and social toys.
It's not *just* privacy, we are also giving up our will and our intellect.
....And the government has ensured that parents have access to, and have been informed of the existence of, the tools to make an informed decision of their own.
They haven't introduced a "national firewall" or retained the power of censorship for themselves, just forced every parent, and by extension every internet user, in the UK to actually think about it and make a decision.
Isn't this what HUNDREDS of posts on El. Reg. have been yelling for for some years now, or are we so filled with hubris that we think non-technical parents have to actually figure out the entire technical solution for themselves from scratch?
Personally, I'm in favour of "Hey! Parents! Here are the tools. Read this webpage. Make a choice. You can change your mind later, and if you want you can even adjust the level of filtering to suit your own point of view. Yours, government."
Surely, it could've been a lot worse? (Remember what Wacky Jacqui wanted to do!).
[Caveat: I expect scope-creep and am basing my opinion solely on the premise that the system proposed will work as described. I take no stance on the future evolution of the system until such a time as it, inevitably, mutates into Something Hideous.]
What I don't entirely get is why the DMCA doesn't protect TPB in the same way it does for Google et al.
Under Title II of the DMCA act (Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act) OSPs/ISPs are rendered immune from prosecution for content uploaded or distributed by the providers users. It's this specific clause that allows services like YouTube and Google to continue to link to copyright material and not be prosecuted for doing so.
What is it that TPB is doing differently (and wrongly) that causes them to be an exemption to this exemption?
"BT said that subscribers could use the default settings or police the content themselves by adding websites to a block list on the service...."
So, you'll be able to see "the list", and amend it, when the service is rolled out.
Personally, I'm not that unhappy with being presented with a screen that says "untick this box to remove filters"....
Re: All tech specs and religious tendencies aside...
Same company which decided that "windows 8" was an appropriate name for an OS that wasn't in it's eight iteration by any measure.
"The activist attack would appear to be a coincidence and its supposed deep impact takes some believing, especially in the face of a denial from Redmond."
Because Microsoft always tell the truth and never hide failures in their security and software.
Re: Clever Nanny!
"Only the adult account holder will be able to change the filter settings."
Ok, lets chew this over. Those of you that may have read any of my other posts on this particular subject will know I am rabidly anti-government censorship, ID Cards, Nanny state, privacy invasion etc. etc. but this...this is interesting.
It's clear, at least as far as porn-blocking goes, that the gubmint is placing the control over that filter in the hands of the end user - Us. They aren't going for mass-censorship or some kind of "great wall" filtering, they're just making sure the tools in question are shoved under the nose of everyone and that we make a choice, informed or not, as to whether that censorship is in place for us. If we change our minds, in either way, we can change the settings at any time.
Now, for us techie types, that might be a no-brainer exercise, but for the average Daily Mail reader type installing and understanding such software is often some sort of techno-sorcery that should be consigned to the devil immediately. How often, on these very pages, have I read the argument that the responsibility for protecting children online should reside with the parents? Well, surely here is our Gov. ensuring that that is precisely the case? Aren't they just saying "Here, unwashed masses, here is the tool you need, make sure you make a choice and don't blame us when Little Johnny goes looking at Teh Pr0n because we took the action that you asked for."
The introduction of filtering in this manner neatly sidesteps the more fascist methods favoured by groups such as MumsNet and their sophist arguments whilst as the same time taking some sort of positive action.
If they then extend that filtering to other types of sites that some people find undesirable but it remains our choice whether and when to implement that filtering then I have to say I think the gov. have taken an appropriate level of action.
....Now, I need a stiff drink whilst I wait for the downvotes.
Conservative blue rinse brigade. They get scandalised so easily.
Re: "ASCII art pornography"
Be careful now....a drawing or depiction of someone in a compromising or provocative position can be deemed as pornography under UK law, even as extreme (illegal) pornography if the illustration can be "interpreted to depict someone under the age of 18". The ASCII art isn't quite so innocently annoying anymore.
Please YouTube, won't someone think of the chillerns?!
Careful! I'm not sure you want to be typing that into a browser under any circumstances!
I own an oculus rift and it's marvelous fun, but a constant problem I have with it is people creeping up behind me in the real world and scaring the bejesus out of me, as once I have my headphones on too my peripheral senses become nonexistent.
It's usually the wife who thinks that its funny to make me scream in surprise.
I dread to think what the screaming would be like if I added one of these to my...ahem...rig.
Wouldn't it be ironic, amusing, karmic and just if the ACTUAL legal owners of the copyright now sued Prenda Law in the same court for piracy and breach of IP law?
Re: Jail time would be more appropriate.
A sentence of death is appropriate for fraudulent activity?
Wow. Just wow.
Because Prenda Law is being held liable and Prenda Law is a "Legal Person" under US law. The whole point of being an LLC is to avoid the company liabilities becoming personal liabilities. Of course, its impossible to lock up a company so a fine is levied instead.
Do yourself a favour and watch "The Corporation", which can be found, for free, on YouTube or many other sources.
Re: SteveB299 Why on Earth...?
You've not met our resident troll before? He goes by the name of Matt Bryant. You'll like him.
Re: That's Theresa May for you.
Yeah, that's right mate....you can vote for anyone you like... Eton OR Oxbridge!
A country gets the politicians its allowed to vote for.
Re: do you mean ID or do you mean Proof of Age?
POID vs POA - I hadn't thought about it that way. You raise a good point!
I could, actually, get behind a voluntary ID scheme provided two specific things were discussed and planned for:
First, anti-fraud/ID theft mechanisms. It has to be shown that the data cannot be easily stolen and doesn't provide a "one stop shop" for fraudsters. Last thing we need is a situation where a criminal can take a single card from you and then masquerade as you in *all* regards.
Secondly, data ownership - It must be the case that the State does not own the metadata generated by the system and that data controllers (those you hand the data too) have no right to retain that data indefinitely. The data ownership must remain with the individual who is the legal holder of the card and that data cannot be changed without the card and cardholder both being present and the consent of the cardholder being implicitly given, much like we would use a debit/credit card now. Furthermore any data handed over should come with a specific lease from the legal owner; a data on which that data MUST be deleted by the data controller, perhaps at the end of a contract or immediately after a transaction has been made and authorised. If you get on a plane then your data is verified and immediately deleted (this can be done by certs. held on the card, in a similar way to SSL certs, for instance, requiring no "central authority" to constantly check against but instead using a hashing algorithm). If you're renting a property then the landlord could be legally permitted, even possibly required, to retain the leased data for the duration of the tenacy and a given period afterwards.
Take the system out of the hands of the government and the "secret database" fans and we might, just might, be able to cut a deal.
Why all the ID?
I can understand the need for ID when going to places that sell alcohol; thats a legal requirement and a sensible one at that, but I also think the retailers should be obliged, if not mandated, to use the IDAware system too. I can also see the use of positive identification in other situations - when dealing with a financial transaction for instance, or claiming for a benefit or other legal right. But, as for the rest, booking hotels, renting property and taking internal flights etc. I have to question why we need to present ID in those cases. I don't need to present my papers when getting on a bus, or hiring a cab, I don't need a passport if I get on a train so why for internal flights? As for renting and hotels, well surely the immigration & border services should be sufficiently funded and resourced to render this additional scrutiny unnecessary? If not, why not?
If this data isn't contributing to a reduction in crime, illegal immigration or some database intended to track movement then what is it even for? If it is for one of these things, can we see some evidence that it helps in some way?
In the meantime "papers please, citizen" will be met with "no".
Re: I don't know about you...
Yet another pillock who thinks they can get their way through violence. I don't want to live in your version of the world.
Missed the point...
One cab driver, who was stuck in the middle of the protest at Parliament Square, told El Reg: "They don't seem to know what they're protesting about. They all seem to be here for different reasons."
Ooh. A london cab driver, that well known source of all political wisdom. Still, let's answer him, ad hominem aside.
You've missed the point, mr. Cabbie and, by extension, mr. Journalist; here you have a LOT of people who are VERY upset by a LOT of different things.
I think the Government, if it truly was working for the betterment of all Britain, should be paying attention, talking to the protestors and taking notes for consideration at the very least.
'Course, it isn't so it won't.
Re: I don't know about you...
Well, we can give you a uniform, a couple of days training, a stick and a bit of gaffa tape to cover your badge number and you can smash all the noses you want.
The thing you aren't understanding is that this is called "democracy" and "liberty" and you wanting to use violence to get your way is exactly what these people are standing against.
Live with it.
Re: BOFFINS: BILLIONS OF EARTH-LIKE LIFE-FRIENDLY ALIEN WORLDS IN GALAXY
Erm.... sorry old chap, but it is English...
from the OED - "late Middle English (denoting a bung for the vent hole of a cask, or a tap for drawing liquid from a container)" - French origins, but widely used in English since the 16th Century.
Gotta be careful with this "Proper English" thing as most of our language is German, French, Greek or Latin in origin if you go back far enough. See what I did there?
I'm afraid your unusual grammar and spelling gave your identity away partly.
Which version of which bible are you referring to? When was it written and by whom? (Please, don't say the holy spirit wrote it). The reason I ask is that the tale of the Nephilim and the Order of Heaven that you refer to are part of the Apocrypha and are pretty much "banned" from any contemporary version of the bible; they are certainly not recognised by the Catholic, Protestant and Judaic faiths and, as far as I recall, are not part of Islam either.
I'm afraid your bible cannot be trusted as a source of evidence of any kind, as its provenance is unclear and dubious at the very least. If you wish to test this, I'd be interested in your proof of demonic/satanic activity on earth which you have claimed is easy to prove. If that's so you might want to pick up the large monetary prizes offered by people such as James Randi for any substantial evidence of supernatural agency and make yourself rich.
Finally, a question; do you believe in the phenomenon of Alien Abduction and if not then why not, as there would appear to be just as much, if not more "evidence" (testimony, by religious standards) than there is for any actual deity or supernatural power.
You may, of course, choose to believe what you will, but stating such beliefs as facts, especially in a science-oriented forum like this, will require extraordinary proof to back up your extraordinary claim.