Forget Snowden: What have we learned about the NSA? It has now been a month since Edward Snowden outed himself as the NSA whistleblower who has exposed much about the level of government and corporate surveillance in our society. The revelations aren't stopping, and neither should the debate, but it's getting sidelined by distractions of character not content. Snowden is …
"asked my postcode & last name. I was stunned when the assistant then identified my first name!"
Electoral register? There is an "edited" version and you can choose to have your details left off the edited version (which is, iirc, the one that is typically used commercially). Can't remember who is officialy entitled to the unexpurgated version.
"I went to a local tourist attraction and was asked my postcode & last name. I was stunned when the assistant then identified my first name!"
The oft-repeated claim that Snowden's intent is to harm the US is completely negated by the reality that he has all sorts of documents that could quickly and seriously harm the US if disclosed, yet he has published none of those. When he gave us the documents he provided, he repeatedly insisted that we exercise rigorous journalistic judgment in deciding which documents should be published in the public interest and which ones should be concealed on the ground that the harm of publication outweighs the public value. If his intent were to harm the US, he could have sold all the documents he had for a great deal of money, or indiscriminately published them, or passed them to a foreign adversary. He did none of that.
He carefully vetted every document he gave us, and then on top of that, asked that we only publish those which ought to be disclosed and would not cause gratuitous harm: the same analytical judgment that all media outlets and whistleblowers make all the time. The overwhelming majority of his disclosures were to blow the whistle on US government deceit and radical, hidden domestic surveillance.
My point in this interview was clear, one I've repeated over and over: had he wanted to harm the US government, he easily could have, but hasn't, as evidenced by the fact that - as I said - he has all sorts of documents that could inflict serious harm to the US government's programs. That demonstrates how irrational is the claim that his intent is to harm the US. His intent is to shine a light on these programs so they can be democratically debated. That's why none of the disclosures we've published can be remotely described as harming US national security: all they've harmed are the reputation and credibility of US officials who did these things and then lied about them.
For those who say that they wish there was more attention paid to the substance of the NSA stories than Snowden: here is the list of the NSA revelations we've published over the last month. Feel free to focus on them any time.
What about people who can be connected with questionable activities. Or they become the target of an investigation...... someday in the future?
Heaven help us then. The government has mountains of historical data on file right now.
I'm pretty sure I don't have anything to hide but.... I wouldn't want someone rummaging around in my history.
"I'm pretty sure I don't have anything to hide but.... I wouldn't want someone rummaging around in my history."
Never heart the one (allegedly attributed to Cardinal Richleau about "Give me 6 lines written by an honest man and I can find something to hang him" ?
The geniuses who think this s**t up never think about what happens if the government changes and they are on the watch list instead.
Surveillance systems are neutral. Once installed who you chase is simply a question of policy
".....Once installed who you chase is simply a question of policy." And FINALLY, Johnnie Thicko gets something right, even if he doesn't realize the connotations of what he said. It all depends on policy. What Johnnie Thicko has failed to show is that there is any policy that affects him or anyone other than criminals and terrorists. IIRC, simply being a paranoid, tinfoil-wearing sheeple is not illegal in the UK or US. If Johnnie Thicko or any of the other sheeple wishes to contend otherwise then please let them post details of the laws targeting them. And even if it was in some way, in democratic countries like the US and UK, if you don't like the policy or law, you can nag your local politician to get it changed or threaten to vote in new politicians. The problem for Johnnie and the other sheeple is that the vast majority of the electorate simply aren't as paranoid as the sheeple are. So whilst the media thrash out the sensationalist headlines and the sheeple bleat in frenzy, the collective reaction of the majority is just to shrug and go on with their lives.
"What Johnnie Thicko has failed to show is that there is any policy that affects him or anyone other than criminals and terrorists."
Do nothing and nothing happens, proving that nothing can happen, eh Mattie?
Feel free to keep up the abuse Mattie. Just remember that exercising your rights has consequences.
Now run along and calm down dear. That is basically you're attitude to this subject isn't it?
Don't feed the troll, his only arguments rely on simple minded ad hominem attacks. There is no point attempting a sensible, reasoned debate with one who lacks manners or reason, even when he's a well-spoken shill.
And yes, I know my criticism may be construed as an ad hominem itself; got to love the irony eh?
"....Do nothing and nothing happens, proving that nothing can happen, eh Mattie?...." As expected, when directly challenged to show how this affects him or any of the other sheeple, Johnnie ducks the issue. This is my surprised face, honest!
".....Feel free to keep up the abuse Mattie....." What, you thought you were going to get praise for such moronic ranting? Sorry, I really have a hard time in seeing why you think anyone would do anything other than poke fun at your bleating. If anything, you should thank me for showing you how wrong you are before you really make an idiot of yourself (well, it may be a bit late for that).
"....Just remember that exercising your rights has consequences....." What, are you going to cry and think I'll feel bad if you do?
".....Now run along and calm down dear. That is basically you're attitude to this subject isn't it?" Pretty much. Once again, show me the harm done unto you, show me the crime committed, but until then you're just wasting bandwidth.
" Pretty much. Once again, show me the harm done unto you, show me the crime committed,"
Do you like living in France, Mattie, because the US legal system has effectively turned into the French one.
And BTW you're starting to crawl up the list from "occasionally worth listening to" through troll to full blown ar**hole I can ignore completely.
At which point I can just stick you on my ignore list, knowing I'm missing nothing worth reading.
The amount of signal in your noise is falling.
Whilst personally I think that Mr Bryant’s responses to your comments may have been overly robust and directly critical. He has also both responded to your discussion, and challenged you to prove statements that you have alleged in your comments.
All of the comments you have made contain many unsubstantiated statements which I personally believe to be untrue. Your failure to respond really does show up your lies.
"All of the comments you have made contain many unsubstantiated statements which I personally believe to be untrue."
No. Just too few hours in the day to deal with his BS.
"Your failure to respond really does show up your lies"
And this I find particularly irritating. I don't lie, but I've seen plenty of your comments that show a quite infantile trust in governments. You're the sort of person who talks about "The Nanny State," but in mattes of surveillance you don't think "Nanny" will ever do harm.
It's like hearing a toned down echo of Mattie which moves in lock step.
Again Titus, why do you bother to post? We've heard your cynicism. It's easy to articulate. Do you need to tell us about it over and over again?
"....No. Just too few hours in the day to deal with his BS......" It seems that others have plenty of time to post verifiable facts, but then I suppose it isn't quite as much of a challenge for them as it is for you.
Latest bit of hypocrisy from the Dickileaks camp - one of their "legal advisers" sent to aid Snowden in shooting himself in both feet is none other than Baltasar Garzon, head of St Jules' legal team. Garzon was a Spanish judge, right up until he was fired in 2012 for illegal wiretapping of the lawyers of those he was investigating. Now that's ironic!
Repeated statements that you have made that I consider to be untrue are:
1. That with an increasing amount of surveillance an increasing number of people will be detained
2. All (Senior - you added this afterwards) Civil Servants are obsessed with spying on everybody, assuming everybody is guilty, and detaining people without trial
3. Direct statements that GCHQ are beyond British Law and oversight
A quick Google search shows that the third statement is untrue. My own experience suggests that your first two statements are at best an exaggeration and at worst total falsehoods. Perhaps you would like to provide some credible evidence that this is happening?
"Do you like living in France...." If I did, why wouldn't I? After all, home to la Revolution, it's a socialist paradise, isn't it? Apart from the massive overspending and being Germany's beeyatch, that is. But teh wine is cheap, so I suppose I could attempt to inculcate a muzzy, befuddled outlook similar to your own.
"....because the US legal system has effectively turned into the French one....." That's just funny. For a start, the Fwench legal system still allows trial without jury for non-felony cases (or crimes likely to lead to less than 15 years in le clinque), whereas the US system uses trial by jury throughout. Do you actually know anything about the Fwench legal system or was that throw-away comment as shallowly researched as the rest of your bleatings?
"....And BTW you're starting to crawl up the list from "occasionally worth listening to" through troll to full blown ar**hole I can ignore completely....." It's a staple amongst sheeple (and other cultists) that they reject those that "blaspheme" against their cherished views, gradually ignoring those that might help them see reality, until all they ingest is The Truth as spoonfed to them by their herders. It helps them to deny the arguments rather than trying to reconcile their idiotic views with reality, denial being so much easier. In truth, it is with a certain wryness I have to admit I consider it mildly upsetting that I haven't actually managed to top your list yet. But I am not surprised that you would give up trying to counter ideals so challenging to your limited comprehension. Enjoy!
If you want to pass a law to take away their freedoms all you have to do is call it the PATRIOT act. How ironic.
Wouldn't happen here. There's plenty of goons trying to get the snooping laws in over here and they always fail. I think it's because the name is a lot shittier: IMP, no one here is dumb enough to vote for it. But in our country because we're free, if the government wants to do something and we're not voting, they'll just take away our right to vote, do it anyway, and promise that we can vote to remove the bad thing in the future (maybe). that's the British way of oppressing people.
"If you want to pass a law to take away their freedoms all you have to do is call it the PATRIOT act. How ironic."
You know Americans. Want to do something really despicable just tell them it's your patriotic duty to support it.
Don't forget THE PATRIOT act is all part of the backcronym.
Seems to be the point at which the majority of the public think "well not much to do/worry about there then" and switch off, whereas it should be the point we all get really, really pissed and start breaking things. I'm pretty sure carting people off to Abu Ghraib on a whim and connecting them to the mains intermittently was quite legal in Iraq, as indeed was arresting people in the UK outside party conferences for wearing T-shirts with anti-government slogans, or reciting the names of dead soldiers at the cenotaph.
"Legal" merely means there is a law permitting something; not that it is justified, proportional or properly democratically accountable in implementation. Using it as a justification suggests you're a bit short of worthwhile arguments.
This is often the "patriots" argument, and, if you look back over certain posts in this very thread (and many others by the same shills), you will see it used quite liberally throughout; the concept that what is legal is the same as what is right, just or moral.
Legal is not necessarily an indication of Right.
"....the concept that what is legal is the same as what is right, just or moral....." Actually, it is. You see, in democratic countries, the laws are created by democratically elected politicians who answer to the wishes of the people. They enact the majority's will, what the majority perceive as right, moral and necessary (hence the war on drugs as the majority view the drug-trade as immoral). Old laws that do not reflect the change in the stance of the moral majority get changed (e.g., emancipation, homosexuality). So, for you to declare that it is "immoral" merely shows your conceit in thinking that you represent the moral majority. Please get over yourself.
".....Legal is not necessarily an indication of Right." And yes it is. By the same token as above, what the moral majority decide is legal then makes it right in a deomcracy. At the time when homosexuality was criminalised in the UK, the majority thought laws against homosexuality were moral and right, only that perception changed with time until the majority view was that discriminating against homosexuals is immoral and wrong and led to changes in the law. On the other hand, paedophilia is still viewed as immoral and wrong, and I'm sure even you would not contend that it could be "moral and right" just because society declares it illegal. You may choose to disagree as is your right in a democratic nation, but until you presuade the majority to vote the same way as politicians that share your convictions, and get those politicians to change the laws, the laws decide right and wrong. Enjoy!
Mr. Bryant, Unfortunately, you are dead wrong about "Legal being the same as what it is Right" and extraordinarily naive about the process of electing politicians.
Politicians are not actaully elected, they are appointed to their candidacy by the rich people and organizations that support them. Of that small pool of people, we get several who can perhaps be elected but the main selection of candidates has never been performed by "The People".
The average person cannot ever be elected because the process takes too much money. Then we get the ridiculous platinum spoon type candidates we have seen recently that have no idea what the people are about but sure know how to take care of their political and business cronies. "Elections" do not happen by the power of the voter but by the power of the gerrymandering political machine and the electoral college.
Our elected representatives no longer represent the will of the people, they ONLY represent the will of those who put them in power. The laws are then decided by the plutocracy/aristocracy and enacted by the puppet regime without any involvement or review of the "People".
This is how we got the NY Safe Act here in NY State (Bloomberg et al) and conversely the recent changes in abortion laws in Texas and Virginia.
"The People" have been replaced by "The Corporations" and are now our owners, until such time as we are able to take the country back from the plutocracy.
".....they are appointed to their candidacy by the rich people and organizations that support them...." LOL, sorry to interupt your hatred of The Rich, but how do you explain the decade-plus of NuLabour in the UK, funded by our unions, supposedly representing "the workers"?
".....The average person cannot ever be elected...." I get quite sick of this constant whine that "poor" people or women or "blacks" can't get into Parliament (never heard of Diane Abbot?). FFS, we have a black POTUS, isn't it about time you stopped whining and realised there are no practical barriers except those you erect to keep yourselves down. Grow a backbone and get involved if you really want to change something, but sitting and whining accomplishes NOTHING. Major, epic fail driven by victimhood mentality.
No victimhood, only a statement of political fact. No hatred of the rich, only those who seem to want to rule the world by stepping on the necks of avrage people.
No average person without "connections" has been elected to the Presidency of the US since shortly after it's inception. Show me one that did not have the backing of powerful interests beyond the scope of an average man. Once you get in then they call in the favors so you lose all honest men in the first round anyway.
And how could you ever think you could use "Nu Labour" as any example? Don't you know what union leaders get paid (both above and below the table)?? Britain and the US are hardly any different there, unions are as crooked as the day is long.
And who actually runs the US Labor Unions? Clue, they didn't kill Jimmie Hoffa because they were nice guys. Are you kidding me "representation" of "the workers"?? What are you taking? DeludeAll?
And exactly how does a black President say anything about what political machine chose him and got him elected? Could have thought of any number of people that would have been a better choice but the Democrats played the race card and will play the gender card in the next election.
Obama is a dirty Chicago politician and frankly no longer has any credibility and was bought and paid for years ago.
Backbone has nothing to do with it. A corrupt system cannot be easily fixed and our system is as corrupt as it can get without being "obvious".
FACT:
THERE ARE NO AVERAGE PEOPLE THAT CAN BE ELECTED TO PRESIDENCY.
"......No average person without "connections" has been elected to the Presidency of the US.... Show me one that did not have the backing of powerful interests beyond the scope of an average man...." Jimmy Carter the peanut farmer and only POTUS to ever have lived in subsidised public housing. Oops, did that blow another big hole in your arguments? Try again.
You mean how he oversold himself to everyone to get their support and then couldn't make the promises happen? That he used his political offices as Senator and Governor to become a candidate and then the President and pissed off quite a few people in the meantime? That guy? You really need to get a better handle on the word "average".
"You mean how he oversold himself to everyone to get their support and then couldn't make the promises happen?....." The point was not whether he was a good POTUS or even a good politician, the point was that he came from quite humble background and quite connection-free, which you insisted had never happened. Nice attempt to avoid admitting you were wrong, but still nil points!
laws are created by lobbyists, not by elected representatives. Lobbyists represent capital enterprise mostly, not social groupings.
Law is not created with the good of the people in mind, only the good of profit and capital gain. If you believe that law is still just in that light then you probably also believe that profit is the single measure of good.
I believe elsewise.
This post has been deleted by its author
"....Do you really, truly believe that? That shows a level of naivety I didn't expect from you, Bryant....." yet you are unable to prove otherwise. Indeed, if the voters had no say, why do the political parties keep throwing so much cash and time at elections if it was all a foregone conclusion? Fail!
"....Oh, and by the way, accusing people, even indirectly, of supporting/being paedophiles and/or terrorists, .....It also prompts a formal complaint to the Moderators....." I think it just shows another example of your lack of reading comprehension - please do show where I accused anyone of being a terrorist or paedo, even indirectly? I assume the moderators simply laughed as much as I did at your stupidity.
Once again, I note you have posted a completely argument-free post, full of bleating and shrieking and righteous fury, and yet without a single fact to back up your paranoid outlook. FAIL!
Enjoy!
"There is clearly no point in engaging with you....." What is clear is that you cannot engage with anyone that does not merely parrot the same load of male bovine manure as you have been spoonfed.
"......What a waste of space you are." Yeah, still no room for any form of diversity in the flock, I see. So funny to see you retreating at speed, makes me wonder how you can ride your moral hobbyhorse so fast with your tail between your legs. I would suggest you try learning the art of debating, it will help you with future encounters with those with views unacceptable amongst the sheeple. You may have to develop the ability for independent thought first, though.
I see that Baltasar Garzon is not officially a member of Snowden's legal team, which raises the interesting point of legal protection should the US pursue charges of aiding and abetting Snowden in a criminal act under the Espionage Act. I'm sure the US authorities would love to limit St Jules' lawyer ability to travel.
".....whereas it should be the point we all get really, really pissed and start breaking things......" So you are advocating actually breaking the law - "breaking things" - as a means of changing the authorities behaviour? That may work in Egypt, it is very unlikely to work in the US or UK, despite whatever anarchist fantasy you've been jacking off to.
".....Using it as a justification suggests you're a bit short of worthwhile arguments." Except it was the argument-free sheeple that were stating it was "illegal" without any form of corroboration or legal argument to back up that claim. Thanks for pointing out their desperation.
"Except it was the argument-free sheeple that were stating it was "illegal" without any form of corroboration or legal argument to back up that claim. "
You use the word "sheeple" a lot Mattie.
I don't think you know what it means. If you did you'd only have to look in the mirror to see one.
"....You use the word "sheeple" a lot Mattie. I don't think you know what it means...." Well, if we take a possible definition of someone that mindlessly repeats "hip'n'trendy" socio-political views but - when challenged on them - cannot provide any form of meaningful argument, preferring to argue over the definition of the term "sheeple", then I would have to suggest you are the perfect example. Enjoy!
"we're going to have to deal with the issue of how far we are willing to let government agencies monitor our online life and under what circumstances."
That is a rather pointless issue to address, more importantly we should be asking "how can we enforce our wishes in this area", because quite clearly voting isn't working and it won't work either because the folks who instigate and run this stuff have just demonstrated that they are beyond the law, and therefore unaccountable by definition.
As Eadon might have put it : EPIC ACCOUNTABILITY FAIL.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
