Slashdot Mirror

It has been known for some time that the various intelligence agencies of the Anglosphere cooperated on various projects. Common enemies make for common cause. The annual support doesn't appear to be that significant - equivalent to about 10-15% the cost of a Eurofighter Typhoon per year. I have no doubt the support is welcome, but probably not vital. It looks like HM government are prioritizing spending for the intelligence agencies in any event.

George Osborne To Give MI5, MI6 And GCHQ Extra Money, As Other Budgets Are Cut

Chancellor George Osborne will today draw up the battle lines for the next general election as he sets out his final spending plans before the country goes to the polls in 2015....

It is reported that the intelligence agencies - MI5, MI6 and GCHQ - have emerged among the winners in the carve-up of expenditure with a real terms increase of more than 3% - reflecting continuing concerns over the threat of terrorism in the wake of the murder of Drummer Lee Rigby outside Woolwich Barracks, London..

I think there is less mystery here than the death of Gareth Williams and a few others. Williams mystery solved?

Well, here's hoping there will be no more 7/7 events.

Cheers

Here are some things we do know.

The Russian lawyer that has been speaking for Snowden for some time now is Anatoly Kucherena. Kucherena is head of public relations for the FSB, the successor to the KGB. So the KGB running interference for Snowden and his laptops full of stolen American secrets. John Walker must be jealous.*

Snowden's Choice For Russian Asylum Reveals His 'Mind-Boggling Naiveté'

David Francis' Fiscal Times write-up digs into Snowden for his "mind boggling naiveté":

He is asking for asylum in a country that continues to openly squash dissent, often using violent tactics. Putin runs the country with an iron fist, has jailed people who oppose him, and has chased others out of the country. Opponents have been known to meet early deaths, often under suspicious circumstances.

Francis notes the untimely, often gruesome deaths of several political opponents to Putin over the years...

To make matters worse, the person seemingly speaking for Snowden now — Russian attorney Anatoly Kucherena — also happens to be the head of public relations for the FSB.

Freelance reporter and intelligence expert Joshua Foust writes: "The involvement of known FSB operatives at his asylum acceptance ... suggests this was a textbook intelligence operation, and not a brave plea for asylum from political persecution."

"The Russians are very good at what they do," wrote Foust, referring to their simultaneous control of the "principal" — Snowden — and the public message.

WSJ/NBC Poll: Most Americans View Snowden Negatively - July 24, 2013

In the poll, only 11% of respondents said they viewed Mr. Snowden in a positive light, while 34% said they viewed him negatively. Nearly a third said they didn’t know who he was.

All in all, another impressive triumph for the KGB.

* John Walker so damaged American security by providing the Soviets stolen American cryptographic material that if an actual shooting war with the Soviet Union had occurred, the US Navy may have been defeated at sea. The Soviets would have been able to read their transmissions, know the locations of ships, and their orders. Snowden's damage may be as bad or worse.

One of the safest places in the world is a gun range

And yet people do get murdered at gun ranges. Do you have any evidence to back up your proposition that gun ranges are actually safer than average? I couldn't find any actual statistics as to whether you were more or less likely to be shot at the gun range, but my gut instinct says it's probably slightly higher than average because besides the occasional murders and suicides, there's also accidents to account for. It's simple mathematics, since the gun range has a much higher concentration of guns than most other places, the per-gun murder, suicide, and accident rates would have be substantially lower than other locations to balance out the higher concentration.

because you don't start a fight knowing that everyone is armed.

Often enough people do because they're angry, stupid and/or crazy. The problem when everyone is waving a gun around, how do you know which one to shoot?

I've read about several murders at them. "In the ongoing gun control debate, the same argument often comes up: nobody gets shot at the gun range. Here are five incidents of deaths, both accidental and intentional, at gun ranges across the U.S."

The real solution to that is ending the War on Drugs and finally recognizing that anything consenting adults want to do is NOT a crime.

There are certain words that seem to invite trouble, whether you are dealing with science or people. Among them are: impossible, always, never, and I'll include "anything" for the post. (I kind of wish I had never heard the news story on this ...)

The Castration Dungeon

You failed to explain why you consider this problematic. It works better than nit-picking semantics. I read your link and it sounds like everyone involved consented. So long as no one was ever forced to participate, I don't see the problem here. If you think what they did was fucked up (and I agree, it is) then all you have to do is not knock on their door and ask to participate. Isn't that simple? They got to choose and you get to choose, which is something actual victims don't get to do. I realize the state loves an excuse to use force, but there is no actual crime here.

So then: what activity among consenting adults do you believe would damage society and in what way would that damage occur? Note, the moment third parties are affected you fail the "consenting adults" criteria. (I.e. Drinking? Fine. Driving drunk? No, because now you are endangering others who did not consent to be endangered. That is a crime and deserves to be treated as such.)

The real solution to that is ending the War on Drugs and finally recognizing that anything consenting adults want to do is NOT a crime.

There are certain words that seem to invite trouble, whether you are dealing with science or people. Among them are: impossible, always, never, and I'll include "anything" for the post. (I kind of wish I had never heard the news story on this ...)

The Castration Dungeon

Murder isn't nearly as big a deal as telling secrets.

You break a code, you sink a battle fleet. It happened to Japan at Midway in WW2. If a war had broken out with the Soviet Union, it might very well have happened to the US fleet. Breaking the Enigma code may very well have been what prevented Britain from being starved into submission in WW2 by the German U-boats.

It isn't a trivial thing.

He's lying, or he's the worst traitor in the history of the United States. It can't be both.

So you think that traitors can't be liars too? Or that liars can't be traitors?

You must be new here. Welcome to earth.

Even if everything he has said has been a lie, and the document fabricated, he has caused enormous damage to the reputation of the United States and stirred up a political crisis that is an enormous distraction from addressing actual demonstrated political oppression in the United State - the IRS Scandal. It will take years for the controversy that Snowden kicked up to die down, if ever. If he hasn't lied, the damage is even worse because he disclosed actual secrets instead of going to Congress, who will have to address it in either case, or the Inspector General. It's hard to imagine how he could cause more extensive damage unless he was to go the route of the Walker spy ring.

Look at the lies told by the Soviet Union accusing the US of creating the AIDs virus. That is still believed around the world to varying degrees.

Soviets Sponsor Spread of AIDS Disinformation

In October 1985, the influential Soviet weekly Literaturnaya Gazeta (Literary Gazette) published an article alleging that the U.S. government had engineered the AIDS virus during biological warfare research. The story further claimed that the virus was being spread throughout the world by U.S. servicemen who had been used as guinea pigs for the experiments.

None of that is true but it is the crux of a vicious disinformation campaign by the Soviet Union. It now has appeared in major newspapers of over 50 countries, promoting anti-Americanism. Most unfortunately, it has also distracted attention from the all-important task of educating people on the origin and prevention of acquired immune deficiency syndrome, AIDS.

The fact that you might do something in the future. There are plenty of reasons for people to spy on you, but none of them justify the spying.

Never? Under any circumstances? You do know that Benjamin Franklin opened other people's mail during the Revolutionary War to obtain intelligence information to help the colonial government in its fight to obtain freedom from Great Britain? If Benjamin Franklin could do it, why not today?

If it was OK to use surveillance to obtain freedom, why not to maintain freedom?

Was it wrong for the US Federal government to conduct surveillance on German spies in America in the 1930s and 1940s?

Was it wrong for the US Federal government to conduct surveillance on Soviet spies in America in between 1917 and 1991?

Was it wrong for the US Federal government to conduct surveillance on Americans spying for the Soviet Union such as the Walker spy ring that provided the Soviets the means to read American codes? That damage of that in wartime could have been the defeat of the US Navy. Defeat of the Navy would almost certainly mean losing the war.

Is it wrong for the US Federal government to conduct surveillance on al Qaida members in America today?

Spying on innocent people is immoral.

Legally speaking, anyone that has committed a crime but is not yet convicted is innocent, even if they did in fact commit the crime. Are you suggesting that it is immoral to engage in surveillance of people who have committed crimes, but have not yet been convicted? The mafia? People in direct communication with al Qaida when plotting an attack?

If there is an indication that a criminal plot appears to be underway, how do you suggest proceeding? Conduct surveillance to see if it is true? Or wait until the crime has been committed, pick up the pieces, collect the bodies, and hope that you can catch the criminals?

Do you have a threshold for saying, "Yes, that appears to be potentially really dangerous, we need to take a look at that in case it really is a plot aimed at killing people?"

What if somebody is exchanging encrypted emails with a known al Qaida email address? Is it unreasonable to investigate that and possibly conduct surveillance?

Do you think it is reasonable for the intelligence services to conduct surveillance outside the United States?

Let me guess, the owner lent the vehicle to a friend

It was a company vehicle being driven by one of his employees, so not quite.

the law assumes the owner of the vehicle permitted someone else to drive it (and thus took responsibility for the usage of the vehicle) unless the owner reported it stolen.

That may very well have been the case, but it certainly wasn't presented that way. The law cited was read verbatim in the court room and it made no mention of secondary liability (or any liability for that matter.) Either the Judge was stretching the law to fit his decision, or the pertinent legalese was cut in the editing room.

I tracked down the episode name if anyone is interested in finding it and clarifying the situation.
Speeders Fight Back
Episode: Ticket Vacation

Not really surprising if you've lived there. There have been funny things happening in the police department for a loooong time... take that 1994 case where New Orleans police were taking out hits on other people. http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/gangsters_outlaws/cops_others/len_davis/index.html

Some billionare company will squish this....just like they did with these other technologies: http://www.trutv.com/conspiracy/in-the-shadows/the-18-most-suppressed-inventions-ever/gallery.all.html

Interesting post in an otherwise duff discussion thread full of awful stereotyping. Yes, I believe in the brain's ability to rewire itself. Born without empathy? Some of them will discover that this is why their life sucks so badly, and train themselves empathy. And I mean genuine empathy, not learning how to fake it. It's probably not the easiest thing to do, going by testimonies of people forced to rewire part of their brain after an accident, but a lot can be done with perseverance. As a much more extreme case study, I give you the well-published story of Mary Bell: at very young age, a heinous archetypical psychopath - just reading about the things she did makes your hair stand up. Now, reportedly, a 55 years old grandmother who has an unremarkable life and carpingly raised a daughter who is now ~28 years old and has a child of her own that should be ~4 years old by now.
http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/notorious_murders/famous/bell/index_1.html (very long read but it's really worth it)
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1110123/Child-killer-Mary-Bell-grandmother-51-But-I-left-grief-says-victims-mother.html

Granted, not all of them do change and those that don't should probably be kept away from positions of power. All I'm saying is that having a childhood diagnosis of Autism, Asperger's or Psychopathy does not necessarily doom these people to harm others and live at odds with society. This is also why I am against the dead sentence: the person you'd be executing today is not necessarily the same person you'd be releasing 12 years from now.

violent crimes in the USA are largely committed by certain few subcultures

Do you have the balls to outright name these "subcultures"? The police subculture maybe? Or perhaps Rich people?

Please clear this up, I fear you're making a thinly veiled racist statement about blacks and hispanics, or a classist statement about poor people. Crime doesn't fit any subculture; every culture has honest people, peaceful people, thieves and murderers.

No matter how much criticism you'll hear about him, I wonder how many white American men, ages 21 to 45, wouldn't trade places with him right now.

...let's see... ...a guy actively destroying his job, hanging out with a pair of wannabe actress chicks that he calls "goddesses", and burning through what little reputation he has left in his industry. Oh, and about to face a legal evisceration, courtesy of his ex wife.

Umm, no thanks - you can have it. Even with the chicks? Your pecker will eventually go limp and sore from overuse and boredom, and the girls likely don't come cheap*. Besides, odds are perfect that they will likely desert him once the camera points somewhere else - and will definitely bail on him about a nanosecond after one of his checks bounce.

Sorry 'mano, but it doesn't take Miss Cleo to figure out where that boy is going to end up - broke, constantly in court, and toxic to any potential employer in the industry he lives in. Maybe they can warm up a guest MC slot for him in World's Dumbest, but I suspect that's about it for his future prospects.

* take the pun as you will. :)

Would you rather have your children around a pedophile that has an outlet or one that doesn't?

I REALLY hate false choice scenarios. I, of course, would rather have my children not be around ANY pedophile.

Your question also suggests that if someone has child porn they will not become a predator. Many of the pedophiles arrested had collections of child porn or erotica. Many studies have suggested this not to be the case with male->female rape. Example.

Actually in practice you do have to prove your innocence or at least afford a good lawyer to find a loophole.
This is one of the reasons that the American prison system is full of poor people who co

No, the reason the American prison system has the highest incarceration rate in the world is because of the stupid War on Drugs and mandatory sentencing guidelines. "We now imprison more people for drug law violations than all of Western Europe, with a much larger population, incarcerates for all offenses". Substance Abuse Treatment and Public Safety [pdf] by the Justice Policy Institute says:
"U.S. prisons or jails have been convicted of a drug offense. The United States incarcerates more people for drug offenses than any other country. With an estimated 6.8 million Americans struggling with drug abuse or dependence,4 the growth of the prison population continues to be driven largely by incarceration for drug offenses."

Others in gael or prison though not convicted of drug offenses are there because they committed another crime such as theft to support their dru8g habit. Re-legalization and taxing drugs would do a lot to reduce the prison population in the US. With drugs being legal the prices will be lower thus reducing crimes such as the above theft, or more importantly murder. It seems that almost daily the news talks about murder Mexico, especially Ciudad Jaurez, Mexico, right across the border from El Paso, Texas. Almost all of these murders have something to do with drugs. Legal drugs being legal to import, as well as legal to grow your own, would significantly reduce violent crimes.

If drugs were taxed then the money collected used for treatment of those who asked for it then drugs abuse and addiction would decline. There are no drugs that are so addictive that people can not be "cured" of their addiction. The Rat Park study showed that in enriched living conditions rats were not addicted to drugs, when given a choice between water with and without the drug they avoided the water laced with the drug. The hypothesis of the test was that living conditions and not drugs cause addiction.

Of course so called Drug Warriors and the prison-industrial complex don't want to hear that.

Falcon

Tony Cimo, Rudolph Tyner and Pee Wee Gaskins about smuggling.

http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/serial_killers/predators/gaskins/1.html

Somehow, I think that integrating WOW and the "real world" might not exactly be the best idea. Having to play a character 24/7 because people are constantly calling you "Balkor" instead of "Billy," being part of a "quest" even when you're just going to 7-11, etc, would just serve to further blur the lines between fantasy and reality.

Even if it didn't lead to a new spike in game-related (or game-blamed, at any rate) deaths like the Vampire: The Masquerade stuff back in the day this guy.

Not that I'm anti-game, its just that games are for escaping from reality, not merging with it and driving people insane to the point where they go to WORK for escapism.