Gentoo Forums
Gentoo Forums
Gentoo Forums
Quick Search: in
Snowden: Obama expanded abusive programs
View unanswered posts
View posts from last 24 hours

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next  
Reply to topic    Gentoo Forums Forum Index Off the Wall
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Butts McCokey
Advocate
Advocate


Joined: 23 Apr 2004
Posts: 3313

PostPosted: Mon Jun 24, 2013 2:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

BoneKracker wrote:
Naib wrote:
BoneKracker wrote:
Naib wrote:
That's the price you pay for significantly editing the context of a post after submitting.

The point is if the only response to a criticism is 'they did it as well, and worse' then it isn't dealing with the topic at hand, a stark change in focus rather than face some topic which one may for some reason be taken too close to home

Tu quoque

I understand that's part of what you were trying to say. It's partly correct. It was tu quoque. On the other hand, as I said, comparison is valid here, given the subject matter, and I think Britain is a reasonable benchmark.


I would agree if the discussion was how fucked up is the special relationship between the uk and us that they will fuck over the privacy of their citizen's.
It however was in response to 'hat is america doing abt their problem'
Tu qouque

I answered that question, and I also made a comparison which we both agree can be called tu quoque but which I say is also a useful benchmark (in addition to being part of the very same problem). In short, the U.S. is doing something about the problem. So far, all the UK is doing is blindly accepting the bullshit excuses being given by the state (like cokehabit, quoting one of them like it answers the mail or something).

However, my point was simply that Snowden says the U.K. is worse, and there's the quote for you to make of what you will.
No, the question is about scope. If you think the scope of what the UK is doing is the same as the US then you are retarded - especially considering the British secret services has been using the PRISM mined info.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bones McCracker
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Posts: 1553
Location: U.S.A.

PostPosted: Mon Jun 24, 2013 3:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

cokehabit wrote:
BoneKracker wrote:
Naib wrote:
BoneKracker wrote:
Naib wrote:
That's the price you pay for significantly editing the context of a post after submitting.

The point is if the only response to a criticism is 'they did it as well, and worse' then it isn't dealing with the topic at hand, a stark change in focus rather than face some topic which one may for some reason be taken too close to home

Tu quoque

I understand that's part of what you were trying to say. It's partly correct. It was tu quoque. On the other hand, as I said, comparison is valid here, given the subject matter, and I think Britain is a reasonable benchmark.


I would agree if the discussion was how fucked up is the special relationship between the uk and us that they will fuck over the privacy of their citizen's.
It however was in response to 'hat is america doing abt their problem'
Tu qouque

I answered that question, and I also made a comparison which we both agree can be called tu quoque but which I say is also a useful benchmark (in addition to being part of the very same problem). In short, the U.S. is doing something about the problem. So far, all the UK is doing is blindly accepting the bullshit excuses being given by the state (like cokehabit, quoting one of them like it answers the mail or something).

However, my point was simply that Snowden says the U.K. is worse, and there's the quote for you to make of what you will.
No, the question is about scope. If you think the scope of what the UK is doing is the same as the US then you are retarded - especially considering the British secret services has been using the PRISM mined info.

What do you mean "no"? That's what Snowden said. Are you claiming to know more about this than he? Is that what you are asking us to believe? Or maybe you think that with a name like "Snowden" he just doesn't like British people or something? Why are you trying to quibble around with mush-words like "scope"; aren't scale and depth just as important as scope, or more to the point, due process, in defining the extent to which privacy is being violated?

Furthermore, the GCHQ isn't just using PRISM mined info. If that's what you believe, then you haven't bothered even give the situation a cursory examination. The GCHQ is capturing and storing its own raw data on a scale even larger than that which the NSA is doing, essentially copying everything that flows over the backbone and retaining it for X months to analyze and scrutinize as it sees fit.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bones McCracker
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Posts: 1553
Location: U.S.A.

PostPosted: Mon Jun 24, 2013 3:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Meanwhile, hypocritical Democrats stridently defend the new collectivist authoritarianism (just look at Chuck Schumer's vitriol-spewing face in this picture, as he talks about Snowden). :lol:

This is how we treat whistleblowers here in the U.S. If they float, they're witches!
Quote:
(NEWSER) – Edward Snowden is reportedly on the ground in Moscow, and American lawmakers wasted no time in lobbing threats at Russia for allowing the stopover, reports Politico. Chuck Schumer led off, blasting Vladimir Putin for sticking "a finger in the eye of the United States," an action which is "not how allies should treat each other" and which "will have serious consequences for the United States-Russia relationship." Rand Paul, who has supported Snowden's whistleblowing, was equally skeptical about the choice, saying, "if he cozies up to the Russian government, it will be nothing but bad for his name in history."

More Paul: "If (Snowden) goes to an independent third country like Iceland and if he refuses to talk to any sort of formal government about this, I think there's a chance he'll be seen as an advocate of privacy."
Dianne Feinstein: "I don't think this man is a whistleblower. Whatever his motives are, and I take him at face value, he could have stayed and faced the music. I don't think running is a noble thought."
NSA Director Keith Alexander: Snowden is "clearly an individual who's betrayed the trust and confidence we had in him. This is an individual who is not acting, in my opinion, with noble intent. When they betray that trust, well, then we have to push it over to the Department of Justice and others for the appropriate action."

http://www.newser.com/story/169935/schumer-putin-aiding-abetting-snowden.html
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Spent
n00b
n00b


Joined: 30 May 2004
Posts: 51
Location: Bawlmer Hon!

PostPosted: Mon Jun 24, 2013 9:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Isn't it ironic that Google was reprimanded and fined by the government for collecting wifi data from residents while mapping for Street View, yet the government thinks it's free to collect data and invade the privacy of whom ever it wishes and is appalled that we would actually complain about it.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Prenj
n00b
n00b


Joined: 20 Nov 2011
Posts: 10

PostPosted: Mon Jun 24, 2013 10:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

BoneKracker wrote:
Meanwhile, hypocritical Democrats stridently defend the new collectivist authoritarianism (just look at Chuck Schumer's vitriol-spewing face in this picture, as he talks about Snowden). :lol:

This is how we treat whistleblowers here in the U.S. If they float, they're witches!
Quote:
(NEWSER) – Edward Snowden is reportedly on the ground in Moscow, and American lawmakers wasted no time in lobbing threats at Russia for allowing the stopover, reports Politico. Chuck Schumer led off, blasting Vladimir Putin for sticking "a finger in the eye of the United States," an action which is "not how allies should treat each other" and which "will have serious consequences for the United States-Russia relationship." Rand Paul, who has supported Snowden's whistleblowing, was equally skeptical about the choice, saying, "if he cozies up to the Russian government, it will be nothing but bad for his name in history."

More Paul: "If (Snowden) goes to an independent third country like Iceland and if he refuses to talk to any sort of formal government about this, I think there's a chance he'll be seen as an advocate of privacy."
Dianne Feinstein: "I don't think this man is a whistleblower. Whatever his motives are, and I take him at face value, he could have stayed and faced the music. I don't think running is a noble thought."
NSA Director Keith Alexander: Snowden is "clearly an individual who's betrayed the trust and confidence we had in him. This is an individual who is not acting, in my opinion, with noble intent. When they betray that trust, well, then we have to push it over to the Department of Justice and others for the appropriate action."

http://www.newser.com/story/169935/schumer-putin-aiding-abetting-snowden.html

Keith Alexander is a funny guy indeed talking about "noble intent" as if their intent was noble somehow... what a bunch of delusional fucks.
_________________
“If You Meet the Buddha on the Road, Kill Him”
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Butts McCokey
Advocate
Advocate


Joined: 23 Apr 2004
Posts: 3313

PostPosted: Tue Jun 25, 2013 11:01 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

BoneKracker wrote:
cokehabit wrote:
BoneKracker wrote:
Naib wrote:
BoneKracker wrote:
Naib wrote:
That's the price you pay for significantly editing the context of a post after submitting.

The point is if the only response to a criticism is 'they did it as well, and worse' then it isn't dealing with the topic at hand, a stark change in focus rather than face some topic which one may for some reason be taken too close to home

Tu quoque

I understand that's part of what you were trying to say. It's partly correct. It was tu quoque. On the other hand, as I said, comparison is valid here, given the subject matter, and I think Britain is a reasonable benchmark.


I would agree if the discussion was how fucked up is the special relationship between the uk and us that they will fuck over the privacy of their citizen's.
It however was in response to 'hat is america doing abt their problem'
Tu qouque

I answered that question, and I also made a comparison which we both agree can be called tu quoque but which I say is also a useful benchmark (in addition to being part of the very same problem). In short, the U.S. is doing something about the problem. So far, all the UK is doing is blindly accepting the bullshit excuses being given by the state (like cokehabit, quoting one of them like it answers the mail or something).

However, my point was simply that Snowden says the U.K. is worse, and there's the quote for you to make of what you will.
No, the question is about scope. If you think the scope of what the UK is doing is the same as the US then you are retarded - especially considering the British secret services has been using the PRISM mined info.

What do you mean "no"? That's what Snowden said. Are you claiming to know more about this than he? Is that what you are asking us to believe? Or maybe you think that with a name like "Snowden" he just doesn't like British people or something? Why are you trying to quibble around with mush-words like "scope"; aren't scale and depth just as important as scope, or more to the point, due process, in defining the extent to which privacy is being violated?
you can use scope and scale interchangeably in that sense. As a contractor for the NSA I'd be willing to say he knows very little about the UK systems. A lot less than the person the Guardian talked to in response from Snowden's claims

BoneKracker wrote:
Furthermore, the GCHQ isn't just using PRISM mined info. If that's what you believe, then you haven't bothered even give the situation a cursory examination. The GCHQ is capturing and storing its own raw data on a scale even larger than that which the NSA is doing, essentially copying everything that flows over the backbone and retaining it for X months to analyze and scrutinize as it sees fit.
You need to get your facts right:

Where did I say they are just using the PRISM mined info?
How are GCHQ doing it on a larger scale?
Since when is the internet backbone in the UK?
Even the NSA presentation said
Quote:
much of the world's electronic communications pass through the United States, because electronic communications data tend to follow the least expensive route rather than the most physically direct route, and the bulk of the world's internet infrastructure is based in the United States
The GCHQ system just looks for keywords, the vast majority is just ignored

PRISM collects
  • email
  • Chat (video and voice)
  • Videos
  • Photos
  • Stored data
  • VOIP
  • File Transfers
  • Video Conferencing
  • Notifications of target activity (logins etc)
  • Online social networking details

Now you get what I mean by scope so next time instead of arguing semantics try to look at the facts
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
sikpuppy
n00b
n00b


Joined: 12 Jun 2012
Posts: 34
Location: Central Coast, NSW

PostPosted: Tue Jun 25, 2013 11:57 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

It stores ALL of that? From everybody? I think the aluminium from the DIY hat has affected your brain. Person of Interest is not a documentary. It's science fiction.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Prenj
n00b
n00b


Joined: 20 Nov 2011
Posts: 10

PostPosted: Tue Jun 25, 2013 12:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

sikpuppy wrote:
It stores ALL of that? From everybody? I think the aluminium from the DIY hat has affected your brain. Person of Interest is not a documentary. It's science fiction.

5 Zettabytes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zettabyte
_________________
“If You Meet the Buddha on the Road, Kill Him”
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
sikpuppy
n00b
n00b


Joined: 12 Jun 2012
Posts: 34
Location: Central Coast, NSW

PostPosted: Tue Jun 25, 2013 12:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Prenj wrote:
sikpuppy wrote:
It stores ALL of that? From everybody? I think the aluminium from the DIY hat has affected your brain. Person of Interest is not a documentary. It's science fiction.

5 Zettabytes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zettabyte

And that's enough for the entire internet, changes and all? If it is then the US is toast. The intelligence will have so much spurious data that weeding the wheat from the chaff will be nigh on impossible. Meanwhile, countries that mainly use social psychology to glean information will continue to have the edge.

Since Australia has a one 100Mb ZIP drive to store all intelligence I'll care more when you guys care more, as a nation.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Prenj
n00b
n00b


Joined: 20 Nov 2011
Posts: 10

PostPosted: Tue Jun 25, 2013 12:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

sikpuppy wrote:
Prenj wrote:
sikpuppy wrote:
It stores ALL of that? From everybody? I think the aluminium from the DIY hat has affected your brain. Person of Interest is not a documentary. It's science fiction.

5 Zettabytes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zettabyte

And that's enough for the entire internet, changes and all? If it is then the US is toast. The intelligence will have so much spurious data that weeding the wheat from the chaff will be nigh on impossible. Meanwhile, countries that mainly use social psychology to glean information will continue to have the edge.

Since Australia has a one 100Mb ZIP drive to store all intelligence I'll care more when you guys care more, as a nation.

I think you're on to something here, the problem is, the wrongly interpreted information is gonna have impact on lot of innocent people. Which I think they are aware of, and it just proves the point that the it's not about catching "terrorists" but gaining leverage against would-be legit political opponents.
Anybody who is aware of the NSA spying and mapping things is gonna go organic and organize using different patterns (humans are more innovative, and algorythms are usually representation of existing and already observed patterns, but will always lag behind somewhat as long as there are programmers coding them). Those who don't do anything wrong (or imagine so) however, are the ones that are gonna get caught in the web, and then the information will be twisted and bent to suit the agenda.
_________________
“If You Meet the Buddha on the Road, Kill Him”
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
sikpuppy
n00b
n00b


Joined: 12 Jun 2012
Posts: 34
Location: Central Coast, NSW

PostPosted: Tue Jun 25, 2013 12:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Yeah, but I would have thought in my humble ignorance that getting targeted information is better. But I would say that's the argument against this massive invasion of privacy, that once it starts it can't be halted. Then, once it's under way more and more analysts will be required to parse the information gathered. The logical conclusion of this is the US becomes pretty fascist in it's treatment of citizens and has more government workers than private.

First, though, all this spycraft has to be affordable. It won't be while terrorists are rebranded freedom fighters and armed to the teeth. The cost of positioning one brand of wacky Islamists to take over from another is...the UKs job.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Prenj
n00b
n00b


Joined: 20 Nov 2011
Posts: 10

PostPosted: Tue Jun 25, 2013 12:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The question has to be asked if 99% of humanity is the enemy, then who is who and what is what? If the powers that be treat 99% of us as the enemy, are we The Enemy, or are they? :wink:
_________________
“If You Meet the Buddha on the Road, Kill Him”
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
sikpuppy
n00b
n00b


Joined: 12 Jun 2012
Posts: 34
Location: Central Coast, NSW

PostPosted: Tue Jun 25, 2013 12:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Prenj wrote:
The question has to be asked if 99% of humanity is the enemy, then who is who and what is what? If the powers that be treat 99% of us as the enemy, are we The Enemy, or are they? :wink:
Well, I think that 99% of humanity are not worth my attention, but I don't class that as hating them to the degree of calling them enemies. It is worrying that 99% of the free world are that interesting to the government, but they do love their statistics don't they.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Prenj
n00b
n00b


Joined: 20 Nov 2011
Posts: 10

PostPosted: Tue Jun 25, 2013 12:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

There are some who claim that the WW3 has been going on since the WW2 ended, and that is the war of first world against 2nd and 3rd. :wink:
_________________
“If You Meet the Buddha on the Road, Kill Him”
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
sikpuppy
n00b
n00b


Joined: 12 Jun 2012
Posts: 34
Location: Central Coast, NSW

PostPosted: Tue Jun 25, 2013 12:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Prenj wrote:
There are some who claim that the WW3 has been going on since the WW2 ended, and that is the war of first world against 2nd and 3rd. :wink:

Well, the cold war started pretty soon after the end of WW2. The majority of enemies of the US, if not the entirety, come from 2nd and 3rd world countries. Now the USSR is kaputski the real war is against all the piddling little Arab countries and, just quietly, China.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Prenj
n00b
n00b


Joined: 20 Nov 2011
Posts: 10

PostPosted: Tue Jun 25, 2013 12:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

sikpuppy wrote:
Prenj wrote:
There are some who claim that the WW3 has been going on since the WW2 ended, and that is the war of first world against 2nd and 3rd. :wink:

Well, the cold war started pretty soon after the end of WW2. The majority of enemies of the US, if not the entirety, come from 2nd and 3rd world countries. Now the USSR is kaputski the real war is against all the piddling little Arab countries and, just quietly, China.

What if the "Cold War" was just a pretext?
_________________
“If You Meet the Buddha on the Road, Kill Him”
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bones McCracker
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Posts: 1553
Location: U.S.A.

PostPosted: Tue Jun 25, 2013 3:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

cokehabit wrote:
BoneKracker wrote:
What do you mean "no"? That's what Snowden said. Are you claiming to know more about this than he? Is that what you are asking us to believe? Or maybe you think that with a name like "Snowden" he just doesn't like British people or something? Why are you trying to quibble around with mush-words like "scope"; aren't scale and depth just as important as scope, or more to the point, due process, in defining the extent to which privacy is being violated?
you can use scope and scale interchangeably in that sense. As a contractor for the NSA I'd be willing to say he knows very little about the UK systems. A lot less than the person the Guardian talked to in response from Snowden's claims

No, you can't use them interchangeably. Words have meaning, and those two don't mean the same thing. Nor do they mean the same thing as depth or due process. We are not talking solely about scope here; we are talking about Snowden's claims that GCHQ is "even worse", and that statement must be evaluated in all of those terms. You, by trying to narrow the discussion to "scope" alone are artificially trying to avoid discussing the fact that the GHCQ activities are egregious violations of trust in all of the other senses: in terms of scale, in terms of depth, and in terms of due process. In short, you are quibbling. They are capturing the entire content of the Internet backbone and retaining it for 30 days, and you're response is essentially, "Well at least they're not tapping phones and recording credit card transactions", which is pathetic (not to mention that it's quite probably wrong anyway).

cokehabit wrote:
How are GCHQ doing it on a larger scale?

Quote:
The paper said GCHQ was able to boast a larger collection of data than the US, tapping in to 200 fibre-optic cables to give it the ability to monitor up to 600 million communications every day.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23017108

cokehabit wrote:
Since when is the internet backbone in the UK?

For ages. Since the establishment of UUNet, I'd say. Apparently you don't quite grasp the concept.
Quote:
A Tier 1 network is one of the networks that together constitute the backbone of the modern global internet. In the early days of the Internet, NSFNet replaced ARPANET as the Internet backbone network, but has since been superceded by the Tier 1 networks. By definition, a Tier 1 network has connectivity with the entire Internet thanks to peering arrangements with each of the other backbone networks. Peering is essentially an agreement between two or more networks to carry each other's traffic without levying charges for the services they provide to each other. Such an agreement is known as transit free peering, because traffic from each network may transit the other networks that are party to the agreement free of charge.


cokehabit wrote:
You need to get your facts right:

No, you need to get your facts right. Your the one who doesn't even know what the internet backbone is.

One of the other reason Britain's activities are far worse is that you don't consider other Europeans to be your countrymen. From the European perspective, what you're doing would be like the NSA using facilities in Hawaii to conduct balls-out, unrestricted surveillance of all citizens in the other 49 states and claiming that's okay because they're not violating any State of Hawaii laws by doing so.
Quote:
GCHQ data-tapping claims nightmarish, says German justice minister
Allegations that the UK is gathering vast amounts of global communications data by tapping fibre-optic cables sound like a "Hollywood nightmare", Germany's justice minister has said.

"If these accusations are correct, this would be a catastrophe," Sabine Leutheusser-Schnarrenberger said.

Reports suggest GCHQ, the eavesdropping agency, is processing innocent people's sensitive personal information.

But GCHQ has said its compliance with the law was "scrupulous".

Reuters news agency, which reported Ms Leutheusser-Schnarrenberger's comments, also quoted leading German opposition MP Thomas Oppermann as saying: "The accusations make it sound as if George Orwell's surveillance society has become reality in Great Britain.

"This is unbearable... the government must clarify these accusations and act against a total surveillance of German citizens."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
eyoung100
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 23 Jan 2004
Posts: 1406

PostPosted: Tue Jun 25, 2013 3:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

After Reading this:
Russia rejects US demand for Snowden's extradition, and being an American, I am particularly disgusted at our Executive Branch for thinking that because their power(s) exist in a vacuum, that they should get away from this unscathed.

As a proof of double standard, our government created this:
Federal Whistleblower Protection Program. In my view, albeit probably wrong, Edward Snowden felt he would be protected to an extent by this. At most, he should be held legally responsible for the possible NDA he signed and broke, but not the information he disclosed, as the Whistleblower act is meant to prevent this. It irks me that the government thinks it's OK to violate their own law just because they now look bad. How disgraceful and double standardish

Just my 2 cents... Carry On
_________________
The Birth and Growth of Science is the Death and Atrophy of Art -- Unknown
Registerd Linux User #363735
Adopt a Post | Strip Comments| Emerge Wrapper
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Darth Marley
Tux's lil' helper
Tux's lil' helper


Joined: 25 Jan 2007
Posts: 105

PostPosted: Tue Jun 25, 2013 4:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

For the "whistleblower" protections to apply to Snowden, the matters he revealed would have to be demonstrated to be illegal acts. Even if you think FISA courts are a legal fiction, it makes the programs technically legal, thus he is not protected and will be sentenced for numerous espianage violations.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
eyoung100
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 23 Jan 2004
Posts: 1406

PostPosted: Tue Jun 25, 2013 4:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Darth Marley wrote:
For the "whistleblower" protections to apply to Snowden, the matters he revealed would have to be demonstrated to be illegal acts. Even if you think FISA courts are a legal fiction, it makes the programs technically legal, thus he is not protected and will be sentenced for numerous espianage violations.


The F in FISA stands for Foreign. Since when is American Soil Foreign to it's own citizens?? See the Bolded section below

FISA Entry on Wikipedia wrote:

2013 NSA controversy[edit]
In June 2013 a copy of a top secret warrant, issued by the FISA court on April 25, 2013, was leaked to British media. That warrant orders Verizon's Business Network Services to provide a daily feed to the National Security Agency containing "telephony metadata" – comprehensive call detail records, including location data – about all calls in its system, including those that occur "wholly within the United States, including local telephone calls"

FISA Courts

While I agree that he will be sentenced, which wasn't part of my original thought process in my post, I do believe he will get the short end of a very long stick.
_________________
The Birth and Growth of Science is the Death and Atrophy of Art -- Unknown
Registerd Linux User #363735
Adopt a Post | Strip Comments| Emerge Wrapper
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bones McCracker
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Posts: 1553
Location: U.S.A.

PostPosted: Tue Jun 25, 2013 4:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Darth Marley wrote:
For the "whistleblower" protections to apply to Snowden, the matters he revealed would have to be demonstrated to be illegal acts.

This is incorrect.

But, even if it were correct, a gross violation of the Constitutional rights of citizens is certainly illegal, even if somebody claims they've got a law that arguably authorizes it.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Muso
l33t
l33t


Joined: 22 Oct 2002
Posts: 655
Location: The Holy city of Honolulu

PostPosted: Tue Jun 25, 2013 4:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ron Paul wrote:
My understanding is that espionage means giving secret or classified information to the enemy. Since Snowden shared information with the American people, his indictment for espionage could reveal (or confirm) that the US Government views you and me as the enemy.

_________________
“If the words 'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" don't include the right to experiment with your own consciousness, then the Declaration of Independence isn't worth the hemp it was written on.” ~ T. McKenna
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Prenj
n00b
n00b


Joined: 20 Nov 2011
Posts: 10

PostPosted: Tue Jun 25, 2013 4:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Muso wrote:
Ron Paul wrote:
My understanding is that espionage means giving secret or classified information to the enemy. Since Snowden shared information with the American people, his indictment for espionage could reveal (or confirm) that the US Government views you and me as the enemy.

Exactly. It is a show of intent (the 99% bit I wrote about)
_________________
“If You Meet the Buddha on the Road, Kill Him”
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Butts McCokey
Advocate
Advocate


Joined: 23 Apr 2004
Posts: 3313

PostPosted: Tue Jun 25, 2013 6:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

BoneKracker wrote:
cokehabit wrote:
BoneKracker wrote:
What do you mean "no"? That's what Snowden said. Are you claiming to know more about this than he? Is that what you are asking us to believe? Or maybe you think that with a name like "Snowden" he just doesn't like British people or something? Why are you trying to quibble around with mush-words like "scope"; aren't scale and depth just as important as scope, or more to the point, due process, in defining the extent to which privacy is being violated?
you can use scope and scale interchangeably in that sense. As a contractor for the NSA I'd be willing to say he knows very little about the UK systems. A lot less than the person the Guardian talked to in response from Snowden's claims

No, you can't use them interchangeably. Words have meaning, and those two don't mean the same thing. Nor do they mean the same thing as depth or due process. We are not talking solely about scope here; we are talking about Snowden's claims that GCHQ is "even worse", and that statement must be evaluated in all of those terms. You, by trying to narrow the discussion to "scope" alone are artificially trying to avoid discussing the fact that the GHCQ activities are egregious violations of trust in all of the other senses: in terms of scale, in terms of depth, and in terms of due process. In short, you are quibbling. They are capturing the entire content of the Internet backbone and retaining it for 30 days, and you're response is essentially, "Well at least they're not tapping phones and recording credit card transactions", which is pathetic (not to mention that it's quite probably wrong anyway).
What is wrong with you? Stop thinking what I meant is what you mean. You can use them interchangeably in the way I meant and you were the one that mentioned depth or due process, not me.

You fail again. They are not "capturing the entire content of the Internet backbone and retaining it for 30 days". For a start that would be impossible. The Guardian already interviewed a guy from GCHQ and I posted that on here. In fact I got it from the original article of one of your links so go back and read before writing your drivel

Quote:
cokehabit wrote:
How are GCHQ doing it on a larger scale?

Quote:
The paper said GCHQ was able to boast a larger collection of data than the US, tapping in to 200 fibre-optic cables to give it the ability to monitor up to 600 million communications every day.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23017108
*sigh* Not again. Let me reiterate once more:
Quote:
The documents reveal that by last year GCHQ was handling 600m "telephone events" each day, had tapped more than 200 fibre-optic cables and was able to process data from at least 46 of them at a time.
Quote:
The source said that although GCHQ was collecting a "vast haystack of data" what they were looking for was "needles".

"Essentially, we have a process that allows us to select a small number of needles in a haystack. We are not looking at every piece of straw. There are certain triggers that allow you to discard or not examine a lot of data so you are just looking at needles. If you had the impression we are reading millions of emails, we are not. There is no intention in this whole programme to use it for looking at UK domestic traffic – British people talking to each other," the source said.

He explained that when such "needles" were found a log was made and the interception commissioner could see that log.

"The criteria are security, terror, organised crime. And economic well-being. There's an auditing process to go back through the logs and see if it was justified or not. The vast majority of the data is discarded without being looked at … we simply don't have the resources."
Quote:
Tempora allowed the agency to set up internet buffers so it could not simply watch the data live but also store it – for three days in the case of content and 30 days for metadata.


Quote:
cokehabit wrote:
Since when is the internet backbone in the UK?

For ages. Since the establishment of UUNet, I'd say. Apparently you don't quite grasp the concept.
Quote:
A Tier 1 network is one of the networks that together constitute the backbone of the modern global internet. In the early days of the Internet, NSFNet replaced ARPANET as the Internet backbone network, but has since been superceded by the Tier 1 networks. By definition, a Tier 1 network has connectivity with the entire Internet thanks to peering arrangements with each of the other backbone networks. Peering is essentially an agreement between two or more networks to carry each other's traffic without levying charges for the services they provide to each other. Such an agreement is known as transit free peering, because traffic from each network may transit the other networks that are party to the agreement free of charge.
Fail :lol: :lol: :lol: Looks like I'm not the one who needs to grasp the concept:
  • AT&T Inc. - USA
  • CenturyLink (formerly Qwest and Savvis) - USA
  • Deutsche Telekom AG (now known as International Carrier Sales & Solutions (ICSS)) - Germany
  • XO Communications - USA
  • Telecom Italia Sparkle (Seabone) - Italy
  • GTT (formerly Tinet) - USA
  • Verizon Business (formerly UUNET) - USA
  • Sprint - USA
  • TeliaSonera International Carrier - Sweden/Finland
  • NTT Communications (formerly Verio) - Japan
  • Level 3 Communications (formerly Level 3 and Global Crossing) - USA
  • Tata Communications (formerly Teleglobe) - India
  • Zayo Group formerly AboveNet - USA
US=8, UK=0

Quote:
Quote:
cokehabit wrote:
You need to get your facts right:

No, you need to get your facts right. Your the one who doesn't even know what the internet backbone is.
I think you should revise your statement... :lol:

One of the other reason Britain's activities are far worse is that you don't consider other Europeans to be your countrymen. From the European perspective, what you're doing would be like the NSA using facilities in Hawaii to conduct balls-out, unrestricted surveillance of all citizens in the other 49 states and claiming that's okay because they're not violating any State of Hawaii laws by doing so.
Oh THAT'S why it's worse eh? I'm so glad to see you have your priorities straight and are so pro-Europe :lol: :lol: :lol:

Research. Understand. Post. Next time do them in *that* order rather than back-to-front. Capisci?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Darth Marley
Tux's lil' helper
Tux's lil' helper


Joined: 25 Jan 2007
Posts: 105

PostPosted: Tue Jun 25, 2013 10:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

BoneKracker wrote:
Darth Marley wrote:
For the "whistleblower" protections to apply to Snowden, the matters he revealed would have to be demonstrated to be illegal acts.

This is incorrect.

But, even if it were correct, a gross violation of the Constitutional rights of citizens is certainly illegal, even if somebody claims they've got a law that arguably authorizes it.


So, do you suggest that the charges brought against Snowden can be affirmatively defended based on whistleblower protections?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Reply to topic    Gentoo Forums Forum Index Off the Wall All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Page 3 of 5

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum