Edward Snowden .. Enough allready?

edited January 2014 in Chit chat
It seems almost bi-weekly Edward Snowden reveals new insights into what the NSA were spying on.

However, its now getting to the point where I'm starting to think, some of it may now be plausible, but attention seeking ********.

It is possible to amass and retain that amount of information?
Post edited by Scottie_uk on
Calling all ASCII Art Architects Visit the WOS Wall of Text and contribute: https://www.yourworldoftext.com/wos
«1

Comments

  • edited January 2014
    Scottie_uk wrote: »
    It seems almost bi-weekly Edward Snowden reveals new insights into what the NSA were spying on.

    However, its now getting to the point where I'm starting to think, some of it may now be plausible, but attention seeking ********.

    It is possible to amass and retain that amount of information?

    Yup, the NSA has built a data centre in the Utah desert.
    There are articles on it out there.
  • edited January 2014
    and why would the us chase him.
  • edited January 2014
    I'd say, no, not Enough Already.

    The main reason being that the NSA and GCHQ have apparently done a LOT of spying that goes beyond what could be considered acceptable for the protection of National Security.

    For example bugging Angela Merkel's phone and those of other allies. And http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/25907502

    If all of this had come out at once we would not have been told the vast majority of it because the press would have just concentrated on the bits they found interesting and by now we'd be back to thinking that the NSA and GCHQ are just 'Decent folks doing a hard job to keep us safe' rather than sneaky spies who'll do anything to give their country an unfair advantage over others. In a time of genuine war you have to do whatever it takes and the whole Enigma/Ultra decoding stuff that went on during WWII was necessary, but we're not in any major open war at the moment and certainly not one against the Germans, other European allies and businesses that compete against US and UK interests.

    I remember there being a lot of fuss kicked up a while back about Chinese hackers doing industrial espionage for their government. We can't seriously complain about that while our 'side' is doing exactly the same thing!
  • edited January 2014
    Note: I accept the need for a security service in the same way that I accept the need for the military for defensive purposes. I'm not suggesting the security services should be so hamstrung with rules that they can't do the job they're needed for, but there needs to be decent oversight to stop them from becoming too intrusive on people's personal life and liberties. That has clearly failed and hopefully the revelations we've recently had will go some way to improving it and stop them abusing their positions of power.
  • edited January 2014
    I agree, even historically the British people are well known of blaming the messenger. :)

    Also, it's a very healthy attitude for people to treat all foreigners as potential terrorists. Who wouldn't agree that all British people are terrorists? Every time I drive on the highway and see those people driving with English licence plates, then you don't really need the NSA to tell you they are dangerous.

    And spying isn't really new. Communistic regimes do this for years, very effectively. And now that the USA is finally embracing communism, it's a good time to embrace spying too. (Although I do wish that those intelligence agency didn't have to lie so often, I mean, what's the point of an intelligence agency when the information they provide might be false?)
    </sarcasm, I think>
  • edited January 2014
    I find it quite amusing that everyone's up in arms about GCHQ and the NSA collecting data.

    Google do it for a living and everybody seems quite happy to let them know anything they want but if the government do it it's a big problem.

    Private companies have been amassing and selling data for years and make no secret about it and it has probably never been used to prevent an act of terrorism - get over it already.
  • edited January 2014
    keeping an eye on the germans isnt such a bad thing? :grin:
  • edited January 2014
    Saboteur wrote: »
    Google do it for a living and everybody seems quite happy to let them know anything they want but if the government do it it's a big problem.

    The difference is that Google admit they are doing it and make no secret of it.

    Western governments on the other hand chastise certain countries for behaviour of this type, but in reality they are also doing the things they say other countries shouldn't do, in other words "do as I say not what I do".
  • edited January 2014
    Saboteur wrote: »
    I find it quite amusing that everyone's up in arms about GCHQ and the NSA collecting data.

    Google do it for a living and everybody seems quite happy to let them know anything they want but if the government do it it's a big problem.

    Private companies have been amassing and selling data for years and make no secret about it and it has probably never been used to prevent an act of terrorism - get over it already.

    There is a very big difference. You are knowingly volunteering information to a private company when you buy something from them, look at stuff they offer or provide your details. You are in control of what they know about you. If you are like me and they ask for things that are not their business (dob, address if not sending anything, etc) they get incorrect information.

    The government has set up a spy apparatus that does whatever it wants without public scrutiny. It routinely breaks the law (ie the law doesn't apply to them) and actively attempts to hide its activities from the public. They do this because they know if the public knew what they did, they would be upset. So when some information comes out, they massage the public into acquiescence or apathy by vilifying the whistle blower or talking about how effective they are against threats they make up in their minds to scare you.

    I hope you realize this information is not being used just for counter-terrorism but for everything else they can think of, because there is no control over how that information can be used when it's all hidden. This is plainly demonstrated over and over again when some incident gets reported in the news. The US was illegally tapping its own phone lines for half a decade and when that news broke, no one cared, they just changed the law when they were found out. It also turns out that your medical information is shared between amongst english-speaking security agencies. If you have ever sought help for thoughts of suicide, you can be denied entry to visit the US. Snowden's "reveal" was just showing the extent and abuse of this information gathering that has been carefully hidden from the public, the same one that is supposed to grant the authority for such data collection and use.
  • edited January 2014
    Yup, the NSA has built a data centre in the Utah desert.
    There are articles on it out there.

    No I mean how could Eward plausibly have that much information on their activities. I know the NSA etc are spying on us on massive scale, but the amount Edward seems to know and keeps churning out is starting to make me skeptical.
  • edited January 2014
    No I mean how could Eward plausibly have that much information on their activities. I know the NSA etc are spying on us on massive scale, but the amount Edward seems to know and keeps churning out is starting to make me skeptical.

    Well, he did apparently manage to get his hands on the thick end of 2 million classified documents, so there could be a lot more yet to come.

    Still, you'd think that somewhere like the NSA really ought to be restricting the access of individual operatives rather than letting them have a free-for-all with that much data.
  • edited January 2014
    There is a very big difference. You are knowingly volunteering information to a private company when you buy something from them, look at stuff they offer or provide your details. You are in control of what they know about you. If you are like me and they ask for things that are not their business (dob, address if not sending anything, etc) they get incorrect information.

    The government has set up a spy apparatus that does whatever it wants without public scrutiny. It routinely breaks the law (ie the law doesn't apply to them) and actively attempts to hide its activities from the public. They do this because they know if the public knew what they did, they would be upset. So when some information comes out, they massage the public into acquiescence or apathy by vilifying the whistle blower or talking about how effective they are against threats they make up in their minds to scare you.

    I hope you realize this information is not being used just for counter-terrorism but for everything else they can think of, because there is no control over how that information can be used when it's all hidden. This is plainly demonstrated over and over again when some incident gets reported in the news. The US was illegally tapping its own phone lines for half a decade and when that news broke, no one cared, they just changed the law when they were found out. It also turns out that your medical information is shared between amongst english-speaking security agencies. If you have ever sought help for thoughts of suicide, you can be denied entry to visit the US. Snowden's "reveal" was just showing the extent and abuse of this information gathering that has been carefully hidden from the public, the same one that is supposed to grant the authority for such data collection and use.

    So your saying you gave permission for google (for example) to surveil your house from the air and street level and post that online ?

    Also you consented to them collating your browseing history etc and then to sell that on to howevers got the dollars, or that you gave them permission to use that information to profile you and target advertising at you specifically ?

    I'd line to see that form so i could opt in or out.

    However, most companies do it by default and then give you the option to opt out when there caught.
  • edited January 2014
    No I mean how could Eward plausibly have that much information on their activities. I know the NSA etc are spying on us on massive scale, but the amount Edward seems to know and keeps churning out is starting to make me skeptical.

    Apologies, misunderstood your question.
  • edited January 2014
    Saboteur wrote: »
    So your saying you gave permission for google (for example) to surveil your house from the air and street level and post that online ?
    They don't need your permission to do that.
    Saboteur wrote: »
    Also you consented to them collating your browseing history etc and then to sell that on to howevers got the dollars, or that you gave them permission to use that information to profile you and target advertising at you specifically ?
    Yes. Either implicitly by running their scripts and downloading files from their servers, or explicitly by agreeing to their terms and conditions when downloading their software or using their services.
  • edited January 2014
    No I mean how could Eward plausibly have that much information on their activities. I know the NSA etc are spying on us on massive scale, but the amount Edward seems to know and keeps churning out is starting to make me skeptical.

    Think what you can fit on a single 2TB hard drive. Half a million large PDFs? 50 million text documents?
  • edited January 2014
    Saboteur wrote: »
    So your saying you gave permission for google (for example) to surveil your house from the air and street level and post that online ?

    Did they hide it from you? Does the public have control over whether that data can be collected or retained?
    Also you consented to them collating your browseing history etc and then to sell that on to howevers got the dollars, or that you gave them permission to use that information to profile you and target advertising at you specifically ?

    Yes you volunteered all that information to them. Every time I visit a webpage, I am aware that I am communicating information to someone at the other end (and maybe to anyone in between!).

    More importantly, you (the public) can scrutinize just how much information they should be allowed to retain and record. Didn't Europe just pass a law requiring users to opt into cookies because they thought this sort of tracking was too intrusive?

    In contrast, the government does what it wants when it wants. It collects information through legal and illegal means. It uses that information legally and illegally. They are above the law and they are able to do this because they are opaque. Don't underestimate this -- it is a yielding of *all* (not some) civil liberties to the government that has occurred. There was hundreds of years of struggle for the general population to attain those rights and they have been removed within a decade, due to apathy and public ignorance.

    This is not an over-reaction, it is a reality. You may not feel it in your personal life or those of your nearest but that is only because the government does not choose to go after you. They have the power to watch whoever they want, however they want, put them in jail without charges or recourse to a trial, even send them to 3rd countries to be tortured. All without ever having their decisions scrutinized for legality or justification by anyone. That is the reality we live in. Just being able to do it with impunity means your rights are meaningless.
  • edited January 2014
    Just being able to do it with impunity means your rights are meaningless.

    Well let's be honest, all rights are meaningless and always have been. Who has the most power dictates what "rights" anyone has. Unlike physical laws they are all made up by squishy bags of water. Specifically the squishy bags of water who have the power to enforce those rules on others.
  • edited January 2014
    No I mean how could Eward plausibly have that much information on their activities. I know the NSA etc are spying on us on massive scale, but the amount Edward seems to know and keeps churning out is starting to make me skeptical.

    More importantly, why not just release them all. What's the purpose of trickling them out if not to keep the attention focused on him?
  • edited January 2014
    AndyC wrote: »
    More importantly, why not just release them all. What's the purpose of trickling them out if not to keep the attention focused on him?

    Well he dumped loads on the guardian etc, and they are trickling it out.
    The purpose is precisely to keep attention. If you release everything in the form of "NSA and GCHQ did this really bad thing, and also lots of other really bad things" then they can get on with making up excuses and the story soon dies because there's nothing else to reveal.
    Far better to release a story "NSA does bad thing" then let them squirm about making excuses, then release another that contradicts the excuse they just gave so they have to make an excuse for that, then do it again, etc etc.
  • edited January 2014
    guesser wrote: »
    Well let's be honest, all rights are meaningless and always have been. Who has the most power dictates what "rights" anyone has.

    Well yes that is true. But our system of government does have public input and an expectation from the public that democratic will preveils. No one in the West has tried to ignore that completely yet, though they do their best to rule top-down by hiding things (this surveillance business), shaping public opinion or managing the topics that are discussed in the public.
  • edited January 2014
    Well yes that is true. But our system of government does have public input and an expectation from the public that democratic will preveils.

    Our current and relatively recent system does true :)
  • edited January 2014
    mile wrote: »
    keeping an eye on the germans isnt such a bad thing? :grin:

    Agreed. We could actually learn something from them if we even pay attention.
  • edited January 2014
    Indeed, you can learn a recipe for a meal including Sauerkraut, just ask me nicely.
  • edited January 2014
    XTM of TMG wrote: »
    Indeed, you can learn a recipe for a meal including Sauerkraut, just ask me nicely.

    Big sausages and beer please! :D
    Every night is curry night!
  • edited January 2014
    Saboteur wrote: »
    So your saying you gave permission for google (for example) to surveil your house from the air and street level and post that online ?
    That's illegal in some countries. In fact, some European countries had fined google for that. The UK government didn't, that's very likely because their citizens had no problems with it. ;)
    Also you consented to them collating your browseing history etc and then to sell that on to howevers got the dollars, or that you gave them permission to use that information to profile you and target advertising at you specifically ?
    Well, if you want to, I won't stop you. If you seriously think it's the better option, do it. There are other options too, like using a search engine that do promise not to do it. It's certainly not my problem if you don't choose that option.
    I'd line to see that form so i could opt in or out.
    Easy, just google it. :)
  • edited January 2014
    Timmy wrote: »
    That's illegal in some countries. In fact, some European countries had fined google for that. The UK government didn't, that's very likely because their citizens had no problems with it. ;)

    It's because it's not illegal. People certainly did have a problem with it.
    (mainly because they're closed minded idiots who don't understand how reducing everyone's freedom to stop someone doing something that makes you uncomfortable is a bad idea in the long run.)
  • edited January 2014
    I don't mind the surveillance if it saves lives. If the surveillance became a tool to condemn innocent civilians to prison, life in prison or even the death penalty, I would be against it.

    My grandparents grew up in a much less friendlier Portugal where people could go to jail or "disappear" just for saying the wrong thing about those in power. That's the type of surveillance that I'm against.

    Surveillance that keeps this country and my family safe and can mean the difference between life and death... no problem. Doesn't bother me.
  • edited January 2014
    I think a new video game is called for


    Chase GCHQ

    like chase HQ, but you play the part of Edward Snowmobile, trying to evade the the NSA - nasty snow authorities

    erm

    maybe not
  • edited January 2014
    If you have ever sought help for thoughts of suicide, you can be denied entry to visit the US.

    Is it really that depressing over there?
Sign In or Register to comment.