Privacy and the State

[Thropplenoggin]

Let me start off by welcoming GCHQ and the NSA to this thread. :smiley:

Congratulations to The Guardian for engaging in what appears to be the dying trade of investigative journalism, and to the whistleblower who has bravely come forward with this information. Clearly, all this snooping didn't stop Boston or Woolwich, but hey, they're doing this to protect us from the constant threat they seem to think we all live under.

So, reading around this topic, I came upon this riveting video, from a NSA whistleblower, William Binney. It dates to 2012 but provides a really interesting background to the current news story: http://www.democracynow.org/2012/4/2...blower_william

Pressing play on the video will start it off at the appropriate point: 13'05.

I entreat those reading in GCHQ and the NSA to watch it, too. You might just learn something about democracy. :winkeye:

--

I should add that all those first-time voters who backed Obama in 2008 will now be experiencing what's known as a Bliar Moment. Rage, confusion, disgust and political apathy are sure to follow.

[Word]

Let me start off by welcoming GCHQ and the NSA to this thread. :smiley:

:biggrin:.

I suspect that if Steve Jobs were alive he'd still be telling the US government to get lost: http://thenextweb.com/insider/2013/0...ys-yahoo-1912/ :sadface:

[jayne lee wilson]

Yes, riveting read in the Guardian today, more to come...!
Thanks to the Throstle-Thrush for highlighting it, and may I also extend a warm welcome to our Anglo-American, governmentally-sanctioned hackers!

[scottycelt]

Frankly, I'd have been astonished if some internet and phone traffic was not being monitored by the security services. Woolwich and Boston may not have been prevented, but we are regularly told that many other plots have been foiled due to such surveillance.

On every occasion we use the internet and phone our data is in corporate hands. It can never be wholly private. With cameras everywhere we have been a Big Brother society for years, so what's so remarkable about these 'revelations', especially when we consider the particular newspaper involved in the story? Still, it''s surely yet another cosy, time-wasting committee opportunity for Keith Vaz, and indeed he seems to be bidding for that already! :smiley:

Of course there are genuine concerns about 'internet snooping' but I tend to get more irritated by the way Amazon software regularly monitors my shopping habits than any government or security service simply trying to ensure that innocent citizens, including forum members, don't get blown to bits.

It's really all a question of our personal priorities, I suppose.

[Mr Pee]

Frankly, I'd have been astonished if some internet and phone traffic was not being monitored by the security services. Woolwich and Boston may not have been prevented, but we are regularly told that many other plots have been foiled due to such surveillance.

On every occasion we use the internet and phone our data is in corporate hands. It can never be wholly private. With cameras everywhere we have been a Big Brother society for years, so what's so remarkable about these 'revelations', especially when we consider the particular newspaper involved in the story? Still, it''s surely yet another cosy, time-wasting committee opportunity for Keith Vaz, and indeed he seems to be bidding for that already! :smiley:

Of course there are genuine concerns about 'internet snooping' but I tend to get more irritated by the way Amazon software regularly monitors my shopping habits than any government or security service simply trying to ensure that innocent citizens, including forum members, don't get blown to bits.

It's really all a question of our personal priorities, I suppose.

:ok:

[ahinton]

Frankly, I'd have been astonished if some internet and phone traffic was not being monitored by the security services. Woolwich and Boston may not have been prevented, but we are regularly told that many other plots have been foiled due to such surveillance.

On every occasion we use the internet and phone our data is in corporate hands. It can never be wholly private. With cameras everywhere we have been a Big Brother society for years, so what's so remarkable about these 'revelations', especially when we consider the particular newspaper involved in the story? Still, it''s surely yet another cosy, time-wasting committee opportunity for Keith Vaz, and indeed he seems to be bidding for that already! :smiley:

Of course there are genuine concerns about 'internet snooping' but I tend to get more irritated by the way Amazon software regularly monitors my shopping habits than any government or security service simply trying to ensure that innocent citizens, including forum members, don't get blown to bits.

It's really all a question of our personal priorities, I suppose.

No, it isn't because none of us has that choice. You're right in some of what you write here, but the alternative to raising, debating and acting accordingly on the national and international legalities of such surveillance, be it for "security", marketing or any other purpose, is just ignoring it, accepting that technology makes it possible for every item of data everywhere to be collected, stored, sifted through and, if someone decides to, acted upon; if that's OK with you, so be it, but it's not for most of us, although I do not anticipate anything being done about it except that the bar and the stakes will probably be raised so that more such data is collected, stored and sifted through because any and all protests against this kind of behaviour must by definition justify it, according to the governments involved.

"If you've done nothing wrong, you have nothing to fear", as the old and now long since threadbare cliché has it, conveniently ignoring the fact that, as all of us have done something wrong at some time or another, we all have everything to fear - so we'd better all just shut up and get used to it.

[teamsaint]

Thanks indeed to Noggo for posting this, and making himself public enemy no 1 in the process.
(If i was in charge he would scare me !):smiley:
The over arching question is really about where the real threats lie.

I am a lot more worried about those meeting near Watford , and their power and agendas, than I am about the plots that "we are told" , to quote scotty, that are regularly foiled.
All a bit Mandy Rice Davies that.

[Frances_iom]

anyone with any connection to telecommns industry was well aware of the 'wire tapping' - you don't build enormous centres such as GCHQ to monitor a couple of old dears exchanging family photos - the Guardian brought the story into the public gaze but various courtcases have been attempted in USA only to see them slapped down under 'security' notices - in UK we cannot even hold an inquest without security D notices being slapped on it - does anyone think that parliament will produce anything other than a whitewash..
The UK might well be be legal mechanism that allows the US gov to snoop on its citizens even tho their constitution would appear to prevent it - likewise with American companies handling most internet traffic the USA is in a position to see much communication including commercial traffic which in past it has shown no difficulty in giving to US companies to allow them a commercial advantage in deals (eg Boeing vs Airbus of a few years ago)- any company that uses USA commns companies and is in competition with USA companies has effectively nailed one foot to the ground - likewise we saw various credit card companies told to ban payments to wikileaks etc after they had caused some embarrassment to US.
Obama has done nothing to undo the police state set up under Bush - its 'war on terror' (aka an oil grab) has made the world even more dangerous for most civilians - Blair in joining in gained nothing for the UK (apart from deaths of over 1000 soldiers - totally wasted merely to prop up a couple of corrupt regimes) + a waste of a large amount of resources better spent at home

[amateur51]

I wonder who's next on Obama's hit-list after bin Laden? :erm:

Be afraid, but be very angry too

Where is the satirist who can reveal all this for what it is :erm::whistle:

[Serial_Apologist]

I wonder who's next on Obama's hit-list after bin Laden? :erm:

Be afraid, but be very angry too

Where is the satirist who can reveal all this for what it is :erm::whistle:

Yes, Rory Bremner has become very quiet of late - possibly because, Boris excepted, today's politicians consciously suppress satiriseable personal quirks* - and he was about as radical as comment ever got on mainstream peek time TV.

*(Apols to Pauline for possible misunderstandings)

[amateur51]

Yes, Rory Bremner has become very quiet of late - possibly because, Boris excepted, today's politicians consciously suppress satiriseable personal quirks* - and he was about as radical as comment ever got on mainstream peek time TV.

*(Apols to Pauline for possible misunderstandings)

You're right, S_A - I'm missing him
Has the need for austerity made us all a bit more serious? Or is the situation so crazy & complex, and yet it's major players are so dull, that it's beyond satire?

Has anyone read John Lanchester's book 'Whoops!"? It's nearly 3 years old buy this and things have moved on but the Amazonians seem to like it

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Whoops-Why-everyone-owes-one/dp/014104571X/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1370690342&sr=1-1&keywords=Whoops

OT, I apologise :smiley:

[teamsaint]

in related news

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/internet/10107784/Web-inventor-Berners-Lee-warns-forces-are-trying-to-take-control.html

But its probably all for our own good, to save us from ourselves.:erm:

[amateur51]

"Law-abiding" citizens have "nothing to fear" from the British intelligence services, the foreign secretary says.

William Hague said reports that the UK's eavesdropping centre GCHQ had circumvented the law to gather data on British citizens were "nonsense". But he refused to confirm or deny claims GCHQ has had access to a US spy programme called Prism since June 2010.

Mr Hague confirmed he would give a statement to Parliament on the allegations on Monday.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22832263

so ... "Law-abiding" citizens have "nothing to fear" ... that's most reassuring :whistle:

[Nick Armstrong]

Meanwhile in other conspiracy news rendering parody superfluous, this is bizarre - the last minute is extraordinary

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22832994

[Serial_Apologist]

Meanwhile in other conspiracy news rendering parody superfluous, this is bizarre - the last minute is extraordinary

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22832994

Nevertheless the programme was the usual supercilious Andrew Neil charade, in which this time it was Bilderberg being treated like some sort of joke.

I've for too long watched this farce week in week out for lack of anything better to do my ironing by. BBC unbiassed? Tell me another.

:grr::grr::grr::grr::grr: