back to article NSA dragnet mostly slurped innocents' traffic

NSA babbler Edward Snowden's latest drop alleges something that's been suspected ever since he went public during 2013: that spy agencies reach far beyond “persons-of-interest”, with data on ordinary internet users far outstripping that held over formal “targets”. According to The Washington Post, the latest set of documents …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.

Page:

                                  1. BlueGreen

                                    Re: BleatingGreen AC Marsbarbrain OMGeeez!!! What a DISASTER!!! ...... @Plump & Bleaty

                                    Hello my fierce little plumpticle

                                    > The original challenge to show the 'harm' done by the NSA's activities in this article on the Bahaman wiretapping looking for drug-smugglers (http://forums.theregister.co.uk/forum/1/2014/05/19/latest_snowden_leak_claims_nsa_bugged_all_mobile_calls_in_the_bahamas).

                                    Naughty plumpkins, trying rewrite history again! Bad, bad plumpkins!

                                    No, the 'challenge' is, for the umpteenth fucking time, to show what you claimed I said. Again: "Just post the frigging link to where I (not another person) used the EXACT words 'harm' and 'everyone' in MY own words (not quoting someone else) IN THE CONTEXT OF NSA INTERCEPTIONS."

                                    The only use of 'harm' or similarly-stemmed words in that link are by you. Not me. You have failed to show that said what you claimed I said. You are still a liar. You can become not-a-liar by retracting your claim that I said it and acknowledge it was a mistake. I will accept that in good faith. Until you do you are a liar

                                    > Where it is pretty clear you have no evidence your paranoid delusions are actually happening, but you insist they still will, in the future, 'cos power corrupts (ROFL). Serious tinfoil stuff!

                                    Nice try to divert away from your lie.

                                    > Amusingly, whilst looking back through your posts, I also found this little nugget where you admit your technical incompetence when it comes to security

                                    Another attempt at irrelevant diversion, however, equally amusingly, this comes from the guy who doesn't know even at the basic level how URLs are handled "You are a complete fuckwit." - quote from yet another poor sod whose time had been wasted by Plump & Bleaty

                                    1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
                                      Happy

                                      Re: BleatingGreen AC Marsbarbrain OMGeeez!!! What a DISASTER!!! ...... @Plump & Bleaty

                                      ".....trying rewrite history again...." So you're going to deny that was when I made the challenge that you have been dodging ever since? Really strange that you would even try something so farcical given that I included the link so all could go see the original challenge (and have a good laugh at your evasive denials). Once again, just because you want to think repeating a lie again and again will change reality just because you want to baaaah-lieve it is not going to change anything (just make people laugh at you more). BTW, show me the 'harm', mmmkay?

                                      ".....The only use of 'harm' or similarly-stemmed words in that link are by you...." As I said, you and the other sheeple insisted the NSA was destroying privacy and other hysterical claims, that the 'victims' would be subject to some malicious injury due to the NSA's activities, and I challenged you to prove it by showing the 'harm'. You have failed to do so. Again, all you are doing is quibbling and trying to split hairs because you want to avoid the obvious fact you have no proof of 'harm'.

                                      "....Nice try to divert away from your lie...." Oh no, you misunderstood - exposing your paranoid delusions of The Great (yet strangely evidence-free) Conspiracy To Oppress Us All was a bonus laugh for the readers! Especially as it shows you lied when you said you did not baaaah-lieve in any Great Conspiracy. So, I take it you too baaaah-lieve in unicorns?

                                      ".....Another attempt at irrelevant diversion...." Maybe irrelevant to the thread, but very relevant in that it demonstrates you are talking male bovine manure about security, and also in that if is another bonus laugh! I'm not surprised you wouldn't want that one repeated when you try and pass yourself off as 'knowledgeable' and 'competent'. Were you too busy defending the existence of unicorns to read the manual?

                                      Cue more denials, evasions and childish insults from BoringGreen whilst he froths in a rage at being exposed for the lying, incompetent, conspiracy nutter he is!

                                      1. BlueGreen

                                        Re: BleatingGreen AC Marsbarbrain OMGeeez!!! What a DISASTER!!! ...... @Plump & Bleaty

                                        Hello again my enjoyably rotund little plumpgasm

                                        > So you're going to deny that was when I made the challenge

                                        No, *I* made the challenge; to prove that I said what you claimed I said. You cannot show I said it despite clearly looking through my posts ("Amusingly, whilst looking back through your posts..."). You have not retracted your claim.

                                        You remain demonstrably a liar

                                        > As I said, you and the other sheeple insisted the NSA was destroying privacy and other hysterical claims...

                                        Irrelevant attempt at diversion away from your evident lie.

                                        > Oh no, you misunderstood - exposing your paranoid delusions of The Great (yet strangely evidence-free) Conspiracy To Oppress Us All was a bonus laugh for the readers! Especially as it shows you lied when you said you did not baaaah-lieve in any Great Conspiracy. So, I take it you too baaaah-lieve in unicorns?

                                        I lied? Where? Post the exact link(s) that show this, liar.

                                        > Maybe irrelevant to the thread

                                        Correct. But funny, no? Have a free salt-lick for showing your utter misunderstanding of URLs and web servers, liar.

                                        Cue more denials, evasions [...] conspiracy nutter he is!

                                        MBZCC

                                        1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
                                          Happy

                                          Re: BleatingGreen AC Marsbarbrain OMGeeez!!! What a DISASTER!!! ...... @Plump & Bleaty

                                          "....No, *I* made the challenge; to prove that I said what you claimed I said...." No, you tried to evade because you could find no evidence of 'harm' to back up your comic baaaah-lief in The Great Conspiracy To Oppress Us All. Oh, and still no proof of that 'harm' I see, so all you're doing is still avoiding admitting your were lying and talking male bovine manure. What a sad little conspiracy loon you are! Does it make you feel less bad about yourself to imagine The Man is watching you?

                                          1. BlueGreen

                                            Re: BleatingGreen AC Marsbarbrain OMGeeez!!! What a DISASTER!!! ...... @Plump & Bleaty

                                            If I did not make such a claim then I do not have to justify it. You said I made the claim but will not back it up.

                                            You remain a liar

                                            1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
                                              FAIL

                                              Re: BleatingGreen AC Marsbarbrain OMGeeez!!! What a DISASTER!!! ...... @Plump & Bleaty

                                              "If I did not make such a claim..." The only thing you did not do was show proof of the 'harm' you claimed the NSA's actions were doing to all of us. You did do a lot of avoiding the question, lying, whining, and throwing out childish insults. So, stop being so Boring and self-limiting, try and peel off your ideological blinkers and answer the simple question honestly - where is the 'harm'?

                                              1. BlueGreen

                                                Re: BleatingGreen AC Marsbarbrain OMGeeez!!! What a DISASTER!!! ...... @Plump & Bleaty

                                                > the 'harm' you claimed the NSA's actions were doing to all of us

                                                you are a liar

                                                1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
                                                  Happy

                                                  Re: BleatingGreen AC Marsbarbrain OMGeeez!!! What a DISASTER!!! ...... @Plump & Bleaty

                                                  "you are a liar". You are unable to provide evidence to support your wingnut conspiracy theory seeing as it is only based on your paranoid delusions. That I have shown to be empirically proven by your own hilarious statements and your inability to supply the evidence of the 'harm' I asked for. You lose!

                                                  1. BlueGreen

                                                    Re: BleatingGreen AC Marsbarbrain OMGeeez!!! What a DISASTER!!! ...... @Plump & Bleaty

                                                    > and your inability to supply the evidence of the 'harm' I asked for.

                                                    Read this, plumpkins

                                                      1. BlueGreen

                                                        Re: BleatingGreen AC Marsbarbrain OMGeeez!!! What a DISASTER!!! ...... @Plump & Bleaty

                                                        > Still no evidence of 'harm',

                                                        That's your request, not mine, so just another attempted diversion.

                                                        But still no evidence to back up that I said what you claimed I said. Cat got your honesty, lambchop? Dish it out but can't take it, plumpkins?

                                                            1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
                                                              FAIL

                                                              Re: BleatingGreen AC Marsbarbrain OMGeeez!!! What a DISASTER!!! ...... @Plump & Bleaty

                                                              " all because I did not use use the EXACT words 'harm' and 'everyone' in MY own words (not quoting someone else) IN THE CONTEXT OF NSA INTERCEPTIONS which you claimed I did, so I'm not obliged to justify it....." Wriggle, wriggle, wriggle! Just admit it, you have SFA evidence to support your paranoid baaaah-liefs. Show the 'harm', it may help you ditch the tinfoil hat to admit your worldview is based in deceitful myths and paranoia.

                                                        1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
                                                          Happy

                                                          Re: BleatingGreen AC Marsbarbrain OMGeeez!!! What a DISASTER!!! ...... @Plump & Bleaty

                                                          "That's your request...." Yes it is, and you have been avoiding answering it for days across multiple threads, all because you know it destroys any lingering doubts that all you are pushing is just paranoid delusions. If you wish to prove otherwise, that your baaaah-liefs have any grounding in reality, then show me the 'harm'. Otherwise the forum readers will just come to the conclusion you are a deceitful, self-deluding wingnut. Enjoy!

                                                          1. BlueGreen

                                                            Re: BleatingGreen AC Marsbarbrain OMGeeez!!! What a DISASTER!!! ...... @Plump & Bleaty

                                                            Hello cottonbud,

                                                            > "That's your request...." Yes it is, and you have been avoiding answering it for days across multiple threads, all because ...

                                                            all because I did not use use the EXACT words 'harm' and 'everyone' in MY own words (not quoting someone else) IN THE CONTEXT OF NSA INTERCEPTIONS which you claimed I did, so I'm not obliged to justify it. Dishonest little lambkins.

                                                            Nice attempt at another diversion though, plumps.

                                                            Ewe tres boring now. More boring that plants vs zombies. Back later.

                                                    1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
                                                      Facepalm

                                                      Re: BleatingGreen AC Marsbarbrain OMGeeez!!! What a DISASTER!!! ...... @Plump & Bleaty

                                                      "Read this...." Still no evidence of 'harm', I see. Are you having problems with the whole concept of evidence, would you like me to use only short words to help you?

                  1. Roo

                    Re: BleatingGreen AC Marsbarbrain OMGeeez!!! What a DISASTER!!! ......

                    " Oh, and, BTW - SHOW ME THE 'HARM'."

                    By the same token Matt you should show the evidence backing up your claim that no harm has occurred, at present you have failed to show that, so your claim of "no harm" (which you made first) amounts to a baseless assertion. Also folks have shown harm occurring, but you have chosen to ignore it because it doesn't fit your whacky world view.

                    1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
                      FAIL

                      Re: Roominant Re: BleatingGreen AC Marsbarbrain OMGeeez!!! What a DISASTER!!! ......

                      "By the same token Matt you should show the evidence backing up your claim that no harm has occurred..." Proof of a negative? What a desperate attempt at denial! For a start, if there was any evidence of such 'harm' the same journos would be all over it! Once again, the lack of evidence of any 'harm' simply reinforces my argument and undermines yours.

                      ".....folks have shown harm occurring...." When? 'Loveint'? If that is the extent of the so-called 'mass invasion of privacy' then the sheeple can sleep soundly tonight. Your attempts to defend your paranoid delusional denial is just getting pathetic, next you'll be insisting the NSA Bogeyman is under your bed at nights.

                      1. Roo
                        Windows

                        Re: Roominant BleatingGreen AC Marsbarbrain OMGeeez!!! What a DISASTER!!! ......

                        "What a desperate attempt at denial!"

                        I'm not trying to deny anything, I am trying to understand your arguments and if necessary point out where I differ in opinion and why.

                        ""By the same token Matt you should show the evidence backing up your claim that no harm has occurred..." Proof of a negative?

                        You claimed that no harm occurred, so you would be required to prove a negative.

                        In essence you are basing your arguments on a factoid that you yourself can not prove. Then you have gone on to accuse other people of doing the same thing when they have asked you for actual evidence to back up your belief.

                        "For a start, if there was any evidence of such 'harm' the same journos would be all over it!"

                        That is just a statement of belief, it's not a fact or even a factoid. I am curious to see how you are going to go about proving that journalists miss nothing.

                        1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
                          FAIL

                          Re: Roominant BleatingGreen AC Marsbarbrain OMGeeez!!! What a DISASTER!!! ......

                          ".....You claimed that no harm occurred, so you would be required to prove a negative....." Simple - I can find no evidence to support your claim of 'harm'. Job done! Now, for you to prove your opposite claim, you need to provide proof of the 'harm', which you have not done. Ball's in your court, sunshine, now toddle off and find some evidence or just admit you can't, mmmkay?

                          ".....In essence you are basing your arguments on a factoid that you yourself can not prove......" No, it is you that cannot prove your assertion. I can very easily prove there is no proof of the alleged 'harm' simply because neither you nor I nor the journos involved can find such proof.

                          "....Then you have gone on to accuse other people of doing the same thing when they have asked you for actual evidence to back up your belief....." My belief is based on the simple and reasonable conclusion formed from the fact that (a) there is no evidence of 'harm', and (b) you cannot even find evidence of 'harm', and (c) neither could the journos despite being able to unmask the identities of some of the innocent parties. You, on the other hand, based your conclusion not on evidence but on what you want to baaaah-lieve.

                          ".....That is just a statement of belief, it's not a fact or even a factoid....." So you want to claim what, that the journos that were happy to leak the story then decided not to publish any subsequent proof of 'harm' to the people they identified? Do you want to pretend they went to all the trouble of identifying people but then decided they just couldn't be bothered to go ask those same people for any actual impact from the 'spying'? Either you seem to want to baaaah-lieve they are very inconsistent or simply bad journos! Please do explain what benefit you think the Washington Post, for example, would gain from not following up on the story?

                          "...... I am curious to see how you are going to go about proving that journalists miss nothing." I am curious as to how you manage to baaaah-lieve that journos not scared to leak Snowjob's docs would then pass up the opportunity to follow up on the story! But, if you want to pretend they are all just crappy journals, why don't you hurry off to Cryptome and get the same docs, trawl through them for the identities (after all, if such 'bad journos' could find them, it should be a doddle for such a 'clever' individual as yourself), then you can go get the proof of 'harm' you insist is out there! Good luck, bon voyage, and don't hurry back 'cos your 'contribution' won't be missed.

                          1. Roo
                            Windows

                            Re: Roominant BleatingGreen AC Marsbarbrain OMGeeez!!! What a DISASTER!!! ......

                            "".....You claimed that no harm occurred, so you would be required to prove a negative....." Simple - I can find no evidence to support your claim of 'harm'. Job done!"

                            No doubt you still close your eyes and believe that you are invisible.

                            "Now, for you to prove your opposite claim, you need to provide proof of the 'harm', which you have not done."

                            Actually I don't, because you haven't proven your claim, and besides you can't actually prove your claim. The credibility of evidence presented by the FBI & DEA has been irrevocably harmed. Defendants can quite reasonably claim the evidence presented against them has been fabricated, with all the extra expense and hassle that entails. That must make you very happy.

                            1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
                              FAIL

                              Re: Roominant BleatingGreen AC Marsbarbrain OMGeeez!!! What a DISASTER!!! ......

                              "....No doubt you still close your eyes and believe that you are invisible....." I see you're sticking with your usual level of non-factual 'evidence' to support your assertions. Good luck with that when you finally graduate school and try getting a job!

                              "....Actually I don't, because you haven't proven your claim, and besides you can't actually prove your claim...." LOL, you are such a stranger to logic! You're no different to the types that, when asked for proof of their god's existence, try and turn the question round by saying 'prove he does not exist'. You and many of the other sheeple posted claims that the NSA's spying program had 'harmed' them, yet none of you can show any evidence of 'harm' (though you all seem to have suffered a lot of educational 'harm' in your formative years).

                              ".....The credibility of evidence presented by the FBI & DEA has been irrevocably harmed. Defendants can quite reasonably claim the evidence presented against them has been fabricated....." And this is happening where, in what cases? Oh, it's not, because any evidence supplied by the NSA was used by those agencies to find more evidence to build a case around. Try again, little lamb!

                              1. Roo
                                Windows

                                Re: Roominant BleatingGreen AC Marsbarbrain OMGeeez!!! What a DISASTER!!! ......

                                "LOL, you are such a stranger to logic!"

                                In the real world, I am not a stranger to logic, far from it in fact. However I understand that in Matt Bryant's world (Rant On Dudes !) things are different from the real world.

                                "You're no different to the types that, when asked for proof of their god's existence, try and turn the question round by saying 'prove he does not exist'""

                                I haven't seen any proof either way yet, so I don't have a horse in that particular race.

                                As for whether harm has (or will) happen as result of the NSA's inept data collection+retention+security practices, Matt *believes* none will, but Matt can't prove it. The replies and down votes Matt's posts have attracted suggest that most people think that most of Matt's arguments are bollocks.

                                So in conclusion:

                                1) Logic indicates that Matt can't prove his claims, therefore his claims of "no harm" are bollocks.

                                2) Most of the posts by commentards indicate that Matt's claims of "no harm" are bollocks.

                                3) Historic precedent and the balance of probability indicates that Matt's claims of "no harm" are bollocks.

                                4) The majority of Matt's writing consists of personal attacks and straw men arguments, he rarely addresses the point at hand, choosing instead to ignore stuff that doesn't fit his churlish world view.

                                5) I think that Matt looks stupid because he is repeating the same claim of "no harm" over and over again with no evidence to back it up.

                                Ball is as ever in your court Matt, but that's because you play alone.

                                1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
                                  FAIL

                                  Re: Roominant BleatingGreen AC Marsbarbrain OMGeeez!!! What a DISASTER!!! ......

                                  ".....As for whether harm has (or will) happen as result of the NSA's inept data collection+retention+security practices, Matt *believes* none will, but Matt can't prove it....." So, to sum up and apply your 'argument' and it's flawed logic, unicorns and fairies must exist because no-one has conclusively proved they don't? LOL! The clear lack of evidence that such 'harm' is being done, as you sheeple insist, makes it very clear you are the one that is wrong. Just because you and your fellow sheeple want to baaaah-lieve otherwise is down to your socio-political faith and paranoid delusions, not reasoning, no matter how much you want to delude yourselves otherwise. You fail again, as usual.

                                  1. Roo
                                    Windows

                                    Re: Roominant BleatingGreen AC Marsbarbrain OMGeeez!!! What a DISASTER!!! ......

                                    "".....As for whether harm has (or will) happen as result of the NSA's inept data collection+retention+security practices, Matt *believes* none will, but Matt can't prove it....." So, to sum up and apply your 'argument' and it's flawed logic, unicorns and fairies must exist because no-one has conclusively proved they don't? LOL!"

                                    You are fabricating evidence again Matt, that is in fact your logic, as illustrated by the following quote in which you assert that a lack of evidence to the contrary supports your argument:

                                    "For a start, if there was any evidence of such 'harm' the same journos would be all over it! Once again, the lack of evidence of any 'harm' simply reinforces my argument and undermines yours."

                                    Given that you make up new names, strawman arguments and systematically misrepresent people you may have a bright future working in the DEA's evidence fabrication operation.

                                    1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
                                      Happy

                                      Re: Roominant BleatingGreen AC Marsbarbrain OMGeeez!!! What a DISASTER!!! ......

                                      "You are fabricating evidence again...." No, merely demonstrating the hilarious stupidity of your 'logic'. Oh crap - you don't really believe in unicorns do you? Good thing I didn't use Santa as the example, then, otherwise you'd probably slit your wrists!

                                      ".....as illustrated by the following quote in which you assert that a lack of evidence to the contrary supports your argument....." Not so, as the evidence is the lack of stories from the journalists shows they either (a) did not think to question the people they identified (unlikely), or (b) did but did not find any evidence of 'harm'. That is very different to your insistence there must have been 'harm' but cannot find any evidence to support that baaaah-lief. It is reasonable to presume the same journalists would have followed up on the leads, it is not reasonable (except in wingnut conspiracy land) to assume that the NSA's activities could be 'harming' us all yet there be no evidence of any harm. The simplest example would be yourself - if we are all being surveilled as you claim then we should also all be seeing 'harm' - show proof of your 'harm'. But you can't, because it only exists in your paranoid delusions.

                                      "....you may have a bright future...." I predict your future will be the usual failure, justified to yourself as not your fault but all due to you 'daring to talk out against The Great Conspiracy To Oppress Us All'. I suggest you save some time and just look in the mirror for the source of all your problems.

                          2. Roo

                            Re: Roominant BleatingGreen AC Marsbarbrain OMGeeez!!! What a DISASTER!!! ......

                            ""...... I am curious to see how you are going to go about proving that journalists miss nothing." I am curious as to how you manage to baaaah-lieve that journos not scared to leak Snowjob's docs would then pass up the opportunity to follow up on the story! "

                            My curiosity is sated, it turns out that you will not prove that journalists miss nothing, maybe you should quit claiming no harm seeing as it's just a belief.

                            1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
                              FAIL

                              Re: Roominant BleatingGreen AC Marsbarbrain OMGeeez!!! What a DISASTER!!! ......

                              "My curiosity is sated...." I suspect because you simply are too confused to follow the facts.

                              ".....it turns out that you will not prove that journalists miss nothing....." Who said I was going to prove another negative? I simply asked you as to why you 'thought' the journals would ignore the obvious next step in their investigation. It is you that has failed to answer that question.

                              "....maybe you should quit claiming no harm seeing as it's just a belief." You are the one with the baaaah-lief in the 'harm' caused by NSA spying, and the one that has failed to show any evidence to back up your paranoid delusions. So, you fail again.

              1. Anonymous Coward
                Anonymous Coward

                Re: AC Marsbarbrain OMGeeez!!! What a DISASTER!!! We're all DOOOOMED!!! Etc.

                > ".....There is only stuff that he is bound by law and the love for his country not to disclose." The US is not my country.

                I know!!

              2. Anonymous Coward
                Anonymous Coward

                Re: AC Marsbarbrain OMGeeez!!! What a DISASTER!!! We're all DOOOOMED!!! Etc.

                "There's lots I don't know, but the difference between me and the sheeple is I try and fill in the gaps with a little research rather than hysterical conjecture."

                Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

    1. Chairo
      Meh

      Re: OMGeeez!!! What a DISASTER!!! We're all DOOOOMED!!! Etc.

      don't worry, Big Brother is not actually recording your downvotes, no matter how much you want to baaaah-lieve they are

      The function of that button is to tell, if people value your opinion. Obviously there are lots of people that don't agree with yours.

      Calling people with other opinions "sheeple" is a bad habit. It doesn't help your position, devaluates your statement and proves your immaturity.

      I can only talk for myself, but one of the reasons I read El Reg is to get other opinions and arguments in the comment section. You want to swim against the current? Piss Run against the wind? OK, fine, do it! Just try to accept that others think different! You might learn something.

      You obviously spend some time and effort to write comments here. Why do you damage your statements yourself?

      1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
        FAIL

        Re: Chairo Re: OMGeeez!!! What a DISASTER!!! We're all DOOOOMED!!! Etc.

        ".....Obviously there are lots of people that don't agree with yours....." Yes, there are a lot of posters her that don't want to agree with what I post, who downvote with alacrity, yet seem unable to post a reason for their disagreement. That implies their disagreement is not based on facts or reasoning, but on emotional baaaah-liefs.

        "....Calling people with other opinions "sheeple" is a bad habit....." I don't call people that can explain their differing opinion sheeple, just those that don't have an opinion of their own. You can spot them pretty quickly because they substitute passion for reasoning and facts.

        ".... It doesn't help your position....." Such people do not want to hear reason, they do not want to have to admit their cherished baaaah-liefs are not based in reality, so there is no point in trying to educate them or change their point of view. It is much better to simply expose their blind devotion to help others realise how shallow and unrealistic their claims are. And it's also more fun to laugh at them, and since I'm not being paid to re-educate the sheeple why should I do it unless I get some fun? Sorry, but I'm not a teacher or your parent, so I really don't care if your feelings get hurt by a little reality. TBH, grow up!

        ".....You want to swim against the current?...." When are the sheeple going to realise you are not the majority, you are not the 99% you claim to be. Put your ego back in the box and try using your brain, starting with actually answering the points I raised. Or, is it that you can't and so are just falling back on a good whine?

        ".....Just try to accept that others think different!...." You might want to have a word with your fellow flock members then seeing as they get very upset by any dissenting POV. Shame your whole post has no actual relevance to the thread, but then I wasn't expecting much else.

        1. Chairo

          Re: OMGeeez!!! What a DISASTER!!! We're all DOOOOMED!!! Etc.

          Yes, there are a lot of posters her that don't want to agree with what I post, who downvote with alacrity, yet seem unable to post a reason for their disagreement. That implies their disagreement is not based on facts or reasoning, but on emotional baaaah-liefs.

          Think about it - I'd say about 75% of your downvotes are directly because of your attitude. Those downvoters will never answer, anyway. Another 25% don't agree with your statement and facts. They might answer your post and explain the downvote, but that's much more effort than just pushing the downvote button and hoping someone else might explain it to you.

          Anyway - you have a good point insofar as my whole post had no actual relevance to the thread.

          Let's change that:

          If The Man or any of The Minions have 'misused' the data then there would be some proveable 'harm', surely? If not, how could they have 'misused' it? You want to baaaaah-lieve in The Great Conspiracy To Oppress Us All, so show me some effect of the supposed conspiracy.

          In a dragnet data collection of Stasi or Gestapo style, it is completely irrelevant if the data is misused or not. The very fact the data is collected, already creates a feeling of uncertainty and pushes the subjects to preemptive obedience. That's why oppressive systems never hide the fact, that data is collected. Obviously the NSA tried very hard to hide their data collection. So probably no conspiracy here. Move along, nothing to see.

          ".....and because 'victims' of any misuse will not necessarily know where their problems came from." I am not asking you to show conclusive proof that The Man 'harmed' them, just anything that these people underwent that you want to propose was caused by The Man. Then we can all have a good laugh at your paranoia. Come on, back your witless bleating up for once.

          Now, unfortunately there have been incidents with people, that were put on "No Fly Lists". Once your name is on such a list, your are in trouble. There is virtually no way to get you cleared. I would say this counts as harm. Accidential harm, perhaps, but nevertheless. Apart from that, the fact that it is now known that all this data is collected, will certainly have some negative influence on our society. The terrorists' goal is to fight our liberal society, our freedom to do, think and believe as we wish. The actions of the NSA damaged our society far more than any terrorist bomb could have ever done. Just by creating a feeling of fear and uncertainty. I would call that harmful behaviour.

          Another point is that once such a organisation is set up and working, it can be easily turned into an instrument of oppression. The Gestapo didn't just appear from out of nowhere. Neither did the Stasi. Democracies are very fragile things. People tend to flock around strong leaders and leaders tend to strife for as much power as possible. And you know what - it's always the other ones that are the sheeple...

          1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
            FAIL

            Re: Chairo Re: OMGeeez!!! What a DISASTER!!! We're all DOOOOMED!!! Etc.

            ".....I'd say about 75% of your downvotes are directly because of your attitude...." And you have figures to back that up, or were they just pulled out of your rectum along with the rest of your post?

            ".....creates a feeling of uncertainty and pushes the subjects to preemptive obedience...." Yeah, that's called 'paranoia'. What you are admitting is that you have no real facts to base your fears on, it's just you prefer to baaaah-lieve. You are now just desperately taking Snowjob's 'revelations' and trying to justify your paranoia with them.

            "....Obviously the NSA tried very hard to hide their data collection...." Yeah, because telling crooks and terrorists how you are looking for their coms would be such a good idea, right? Are you just trying to be funny or just not realise how stupid you sound?

            "......there have been incidents with people, that were put on "No Fly Lists"...." Firstly, you failed to show that anyone on the 'no-fly' list was there because of the NSA's activities. The majority were actually already on the FBI's lists of people to be watched prior to 9/11 due to their associating with extremists. If you wish to claim otherwise, please do show an example of someone put on the list as a result of the NSA's activities, and then show their inclusion was not justified. Secondly, out of a population of 350-odd million, there has never been more than 10,000 names, and that includes non-US citizens. As a Great Conspiracy To Oppress Us All it seems to be having a very narrow, non-all effect. Try again!

            ".....The actions of the NSA damaged our society far more than any terrorist bomb could have ever done...." Really? So please do list the American buildings reduced to flaming rubble by the NSA? Or please do list anyone killed in the continental US as a result if the NSA? Ever heard of '9/11'? You should have thought before that bit of melodramatic, hysterical bleating. You fail again.

        2. Roo

          Re: Chairo OMGeeez!!! What a DISASTER!!! We're all DOOOOMED!!! Etc.

          "I don't call people that can explain their differing opinion sheeple,"

          Actually, you do call people that explain their differing opinion sheeple, so you are telling a big fat lie there. If you genuinely crave evidence to support that statement of fact, this comment section has plenty.

          "just those that don't have an opinion of their own. You can spot them pretty quickly because they substitute passion for reasoning and facts."

          That description fits yourself perfectly - in fact many of your posts start with personal insults before any attempt at conveying a point.

          1. Matt Bryant Silver badge

            Re: Roominant Re: Chairo OMGeeez!!! What a DISASTER!!! We're all DOOOOMED!!!....

            "....you do call people that explain their differing opinion...." No, you lot post an opinion but then fail to provide facts to back up your opinion. Options that cannot change in the face of facts are not based on reasoning, they are faith-based. The inevitable response of the sheeple when their faith is challenged is to resort to whining.

            ".....many of your posts start with personal insults before any attempt at conveying a point." If you go back and look through this post and many others you would find that I post either in reply to blatantly stupid posts or to posts where the sheeple kick off with zero facts but a post implying I would say something. The difference is I post reasoned arguments and facts, you sheeple just resort to whining when you cannot disprove them. A perfect example is the post I responding to now - zero content relevant to the thread, no facts, no counters, no fresh arguments, just whining. Grow up, TBH.

  1. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Nine of 10 account holders found in a large cache of intercepted conversations … were not the intended surveillance targets but were caught in a net the agency had cast for somebody else

    So 10% signal, 90% noise? Bet internally they were pretty chuffed with those numbers.

    1. Gannon (J.) Dick

      the word "internally" makes all the difference

      "Nine out of Ten" to one significant figure means 90% noise and 10% fanatical true believer psychosis interfereing with the reception of the other 10% noise.

    2. Don Jefe

      Of course they were happy with those numbers. That's simply good management. Here's where we are, here's where we came from, here's where we have to get to. Riding on the negative creates way too much work and is wholly self defeating now that beating your staff is apparently 'abuse'. But management philosophy is another issue.

      At issue here are the variety of ways in which performance metrics can be legitimately be modified while doing absolutely nothing differently in your operations (for those who aren't aware, the key to the big promotions and raises is in your ability to identify ways in which metric criteria can be modified and, most importantly, that you are able to give the final decision maker rock solid justification with lots of stats and charts he can use to cover his ass). In a normal commercial environment there are limits on how far you can go with your metric criteria 'updates'. Either somebody is going to be unhappy with where a bunch of money is, or isn't, or some guy named Hank who works for the SEC will come round asking for an explanation. It's much the same with the (more) transparent parts of a government.

      But checks and balances for a Metrics Magic go off the rails entirely when there's no external oversight. Neither Hank, nor the President, Prime Minister or fucking Queen have input on those criteria. Due to the fact that everyone in a bureaucracy always wants a promotion, you can rest assured lots of people will be busting their ass to 'do more with less'. That's Human nature, not subject to regulation or decree.

      Seeing as how the PR idiots with the NSA and GCHQ have gone way out of their way to justify all the intrusive spying they can't do the sensible thing and reduce the noise level. They'd be 'risking our safety' you see. The only way to improve those metrics is reclassify some portion of the noise as good signal. There's nowhere else for them to go. It (probably) won't matter immediately. If you look for illegalities hard enough in any grouping of people you'll find something. A surprising number of murders, rapes, child porn traders and (bad thing) go unsolved, those people have to be out there somewhere and it's obviously not where you might expect them.

      But finding those people still doesn't justify treating everyone like a suspect or justify a primary action with secondary results. In case anyone missed it, Iraq is not better off because of that kind of stupid fucking kindergarten level security policy. Our lives won't be any better for it either. We're no safer and sooner or later someone you know is going to be a winner in Metric Magic Monday and since you know them, you'll be a winner too...

  2. lucki bstard
    WTF?

    @Matt Bryant

    'And then we get back to the perennial question the sheeple just never want to answer - what 'harm' was done?' - Well ensuring that if I read the comments on an interesting article I have to wade through your verbal diarrhea, that’s harm enough.

    Combined with the positive proof that there really are people out there who spend their days wondering about the size of men's dicks. ' LOL! Don't worry, ickle Roominant, if there are pics of your tiny wheiner out there then they probably did not come from an NSA leak, more likely from skiddies and black hats'

    If you work for a living Matt why don't you focus on your job as you are paid to do rather than spend your time speculating on the size of peoples dicks?

    Or maybe post posts with original thoughts in them?

    1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
      FAIL

      Re: lucki rtard

      Another shining example of the limitations of sheeple thought. Not one counter argument, not one fact, just outrage that someone would dare to question The Truth. Seriously, it must be past his bedtime.

      1. BlueGreen

        Re: lucki rtard

        Another shining example [...] past his bedtime

        MBZCC

        1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
          Facepalm

          Re: BoringGreen Re: lucki rtard

          "Another shining example [...] past his bedtime

          MBZCC"

          Another perfect example of the limitations of the sheeple - another bleat with no facts, no arguments, no counters, just a whine. You guys really make this far too easy. You all insist you really, really care passionately about the subject, but when challenged by a few facts your resolve disintegrates into whining about name-calling.

          1. BlueGreen

            Re: BoringGreen lucki rtard

            > Another perfect example of the limitations [...] disintegrates into whining about name-calling.

            MBZCC

  3. Mephistro
    Facepalm

    Oh, well...

    We all seem to be forgetting an important point in this discussion.

    Those mountains of data the NSA and their chums are slurping & keeping are not only being accessed by three letter agencies. They are being accessed by tens of thousands of analysts (~80,000*, from what has been stated in other articles) under quite lax security rules, as has been proved without doubt by the Snowden leaks and the LOVEINT report.

    Now, please consider this:

    Of those 80,000 (or whatever is the exact number) analysts, how many can be blackmailed/bribed/coerced by third countries secret services? How many of them have been/can be 'turned' by said secret services? How many of them are cheating on their partners? How many have committed serious crimes? How many are closet homosexuals? How many have relatives or beloved ones that can be used as 'hostages'? How many are degenerate gamblers?...

    From what we know about human nature, I'd be really surprised if there weren't several hundred analysts already working for third parties, be it state actors, private companies or criminal groups.

    Actually, the NSA and their pals are making things easier for Russia, China, the Norks, Israel, the Mafia, [Insert your favourite baddies names here]. These third parties have/can gain access to already filtered and classified data for peanuts, compared with the expenses of setting up and maintaining the NSA operations.

    As an example, consider carefully what this means in the context of witness protection programs.

    Note*: Or whatever the real number is. I've read articles stating that the real number is 60,000 and others claiming ~100,000.

    1. Bernard M. Orwell

      Re: Oh, well...

      To be fair, and speaking as one who has undergone such a process, these kind of risk are normally very carefully managed and each analyst will be subject to an extensive vetting process that will determine their independant level of risk. Duties are normally assigned in accordance with those findings.

      1. Mephistro

        Re: Oh, well... (@ Bernard M. Orwell)

        I had figured out that much, but the vetting process is very subjective, and prone to lots of false negatives and false positives.

        Another issue is that people changes over time. They acquire new relationships, new relatives, new vices and even new mental issues. In order to counter that, the vetting process should be continuous, and include all the vetted analyst's family and relationships. Which sounds like just another recursive security nightmare. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

        In my opinion, due to these and other circumstances, mass data slurping can't be made 'safe enough'. The guys that set up this massive surveillance system should have known better. Or maybe they just didn't give a shit.

  4. lucki bstard
    Paris Hilton

    @Matt Bryant

    Matt what do you do for a living?

    Either you are an outstanding genius, or unemployed. Most certainly under employed, anyone who is willing to take the time to post so many times as yourself (unpaid as well) combined with being an expert on so much and still hold down a full time job..

    Your just so impressive.

    1. John Smith 19 Gold badge
      Happy

      Re: @Matt Bryant

      "Either you are an outstanding genius, or unemployed. Most certainly under employed, anyone who is willing to take the time to post so many times as yourself (unpaid as well) combined with being an expert on so much and still hold down a full time job.."

      Indeed.

      Lightning fast typist? Really good voice recognition system? Fake ID for a group? Trollbot?

      I just can't decide.

      1. Roo
        Windows

        Re: @Matt Bryant

        "Lightning fast typist? Really good voice recognition system? Fake ID for a group? Trollbot?"

        Well whatever Matt really is, he comes across as a Crusading Contrarian.

      2. Matt Bryant Silver badge

        Re: John Smith IQ of 19 Re: @Matt Bryant

        "....Fake ID for a group?....." You really think it would require a group's efforts to debunk the fluff posted by you sheeple? Two minutes on Google is usually enough. Face it, the average sheeple's post here is free of any arguments or counters and merely consists of a free random insults and a whine about name-calling - hardly a challenge! Your post is a perfect example - not one argument relating to the thread topic, just whining and paranoia ('group' being The Man and another part of The Great Conspiracy To Oppress Us All, no?).

        "....I just can't decide." Well, that's what happens when you rely on your opinions being spoonfed to you, you lose the ability to formulate your own.

    2. Matt Bryant Silver badge
      Facepalm

      Re: lucki rtard Re: @Matt Bryant

      "Matt what do you do for a living?...." What, you seriously think I'd post that info with the number of bleating skiddies that frequent this site?!?!? Let's just say I currently work for one of those global corporations that the sheeple love to hate so much and leave it at that.

      ".....Either you are an outstanding genius, or unemployed....." What, you really think it takes either that level of intelligence or time to debunk the bleatings of your fellow sheeple? More like a coffee break is all that is needed. It's so easy when, just like your response, the average sheeple's bleating post contains no facts and nothing to do with the topic of the thread. Please do take the time to actually formulate and post an actual argument, then responding would actually be more of a challenge. If you seriously believe the posts of your fellow sheeple really do require extreme intelligence to deal with then I would have to say it is highly unlikely you are in gainful employment!

      ".....unpaid as well...." Usual sheeple classiness - insinuate that the only reason anyone would disagree with The Truth is because they are being paid to do so.

      ".....Your just so impressive." Now, I can either credit you with sarcasm - unlikely, given the low intellect displayed in the rest of your posts - or surmise that you actually are impressed, which would be a lot more relevant if you were not of a state where a mildly coherent five-year-old would impress you.

      So, until you have something actually relevant to the thread, haven't you got some burgers to flip?

Page:

This topic is closed for new posts.

Other stories you might like