Slashdot Mirror


Samsung Says Their TVs Aren't Really Spying On You

lightbox32 writes "Samsung has finally responded to an article recently published by HD Guru titled 'Is your TV watching you?' [See this related Slashdot post] which discussed the fact that new features in Samsung's top 2012 models — including built-in microphones, HDTV camera, wireless and wired Internet connection, built-in browser with voice to text conversion, face recognition and more — could be used to collect unprecedented personal information and invade our privacy. Samsung has now provided their privacy policy, which may or may not lay the issue to rest." I vote for "not" — conspiracy theories about mandatory (or just secret) surveillance equipment in consumer electronics is just too persistent, even when the technical capabilities turn out to be a hoax; when the equipment is actually all in place and the user is protected only by a corporate honor policy, it's hard to be sanguine. (I recall there was a much rumored secret capability for law enforcement agencies to secretly and remotely turn on the internal microphones in PCs meeting the PC 97 spec, and this was an integral part of the plan. Since the government insists that telecom equipment have built-in backdoors, why should that sound all that crazy?)

42 of 171 comments (clear)

  1. Paranoid? by ottawanker · · Score: 5, Funny

    Well, if you're so paranoid, get some tape and cover over the camera and microphone, or take it apart and disconnect it.

    But, maybe even light bulbs have cameras and microphones in them now, using the powerlines to transmit the data back..

    1. Re:Paranoid? by anglico · · Score: 5, Informative
      FTFA

      "Should the TV owner choose not to use these features, the camera and microphone can be disabled. Users can check if the camera and microphone are activated from the TV’s settings menu. As an added precaution, the camera can be rotated and tucked into the bezel of the TV. Once tucked away, the camera only captures a black image."

    2. Re:Paranoid? by expatriot · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I presume that these features are part of the movement toward having TVs contain fully functional computers that can connect to the internet for viewing content or in the future Skyping other locations. That funtionality is in your laptop as well, but we expect it there. Sometimes the laptops spy on people, for example if it is stolen.

      A TV that can transmit is more frightening to some. Perhaps because of 1984, but perhaps because that TV has become a major part of people's reality and has so far only been one way.

      A totalitarian state, or even a demanding employer, could ask us to be available for conversation at any time. "Your choice, but if you have nothing to hide. We are only here to protect you from criminals." etc.

    3. Re:Paranoid? by epyT-R · · Score: 5, Insightful

      what about the mic? if the switch is software it can be remotely accessed. the switches need to be physical.

    4. Re:Paranoid? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      No. They said if you're paranoid about some spook dialing into your camera, it can be disabled in the menu. If you're even more paranoid than that, you can turn the camera so it doesn't even point into the room, as well.

      If you're any more paranoid than that... well then just don't buy one.

      I own a laptop with a camera and microphone in it. I didn't write the operating system or drivers I use, but I can watch my network traffic. I see no difference with this device.

    5. Re:Paranoid? by dgatwood · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Perhaps because of 1984, but perhaps because that TV has become a major part of people's reality and has so far only been one way.

      Or because TVs are more likely to be found in bedrooms and other places where people would very much not want to be seen by others. Unlike laptops (which can be closed and/or moved), those TVs are always pointed so that you can see them from the bed. This means that if it has a camera, it can watch you have sex, it can watch you watch porn (which, Slashdot readers notwithstanding, is more likely on a TV than a computer), and (if the angle is wide enough) it can watch you get dressed in the morning.

      A TV in a common room with a camera is potentially acceptable, but making it a standard feature of every TV would be a catastrophically bad idea. There are some places that cameras just do not belong. Like my bathroom.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    6. Re:Paranoid? by Panaflex · · Score: 2

      I actually do this with my kids toys. Snip the wire or throw in a resistor and suddenly it gets much quieter. Not paranoia, just hate loud noise.

      --
      I said no... but I missed and it came out yes.
    7. Re:Paranoid? by treval · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You are assuming the tape you put over the camera is not transparent at IR or UV light frequencies - think of the Sony 'night-vision' cameras that could see through clothes.

      You are also assuming the gain of the microphone can't be turned up remotely to hear enough. Some decent signal processing can remove a lot of the underlying noise to recover the what is being said.

      Ask yourself too, how many owners are going to keep the TV firmware updated to deal with the inevitable security holes that will be found?

      Personally, I think it's not paranoid at all to question the pros and cons of these new 'features', inevitable as they may be.

      --
      Your attitude is infectious...
    8. Re:Paranoid? by Salgak1 · · Score: 4, Funny

      But, maybe even light bulbs have cameras and microphones in them now, using the powerlines to transmit the data back..

      Well, THAT certainly explains the Incandescent Bulb Ban, the installation of "Smart Meters", and that huge new NSA facility in Utah. But we need to connect it to HAARP, Chemtrails, and Obama's Birth Certificate for true conspiracy greatness. Extra points if you work in Black Helicopters, the Rothschilds, or the Tri-Lateral Commission.....

    9. Re:Paranoid? by DigiShaman · · Score: 4, Funny

      You dated my ex-gf didn't you? No joke! Her mother was your typical trailer trash alcoholic with a chain smoking habit. She was also bit wonky in the head. One day as my ex and I were sitting down on the sofa, I asked if her TV was broke or something. It's because she would cover the unit with a table cloth. Her response.

      "When I watch TV, they are watching me."

      The answer was in a serious tone. Talk about being ahead of her time. Not too far off.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    10. Re:Paranoid? by hamburger+lady · · Score: 4, Funny

      doesn't like every laptop now have a built-in microphone, an HDTV camera, a wireless and wired Internet connection, a browser and software with voice to text conversion, face recognition and more?

      we're gonna need a lot of tape.

      shit, maybe this story was a plant by Big Tape! 3M has deep pockets. that's the real conspiracy.

      --

      ---
      Is this the MPAA? Is this the RIAA? Is this the DMCA? I thought it was the USA!
    11. Re:Paranoid? by Frohboy · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Perhaps because of 1984, but perhaps because that TV has become a major part of people's reality and has so far only been one way.

      Or because TVs are more likely to be found in bedrooms and other places where people would very much not want to be seen by others. Unlike laptops (which can be closed and/or moved), those TVs are always pointed so that you can see them from the bed. This means that if it has a camera, it can watch you have sex, it can watch you watch porn (which, Slashdot readers notwithstanding, is more likely on a TV than a computer), and (if the angle is wide enough) it can watch you get dressed in the morning.

      A TV in a common room with a camera is potentially acceptable, but making it a standard feature of every TV would be a catastrophically bad idea. There are some places that cameras just do not belong. Like my bathroom.

      While I distlike the idea of TVs in bedrooms (unless you're a college kid whose only private space is the bedroom), I have to strongly disagree with the idea that a TV with a camera (that can watch you without your knowledge) in a common room is even remotely acceptable. Most of the time that I spend interacting with my child is in the living room, with the TV in plain sight, on standby (unless we're watching Sesame Street). I am strongly opposed to the very idea that someone could be watching or listening to what I'm teaching my children. (For what it's worth, I don't have anything to hide, assuming a secular upbringing loosely based on the "golden rule" isn't outlawed anytime soon, but if it were to be outlawed, I wouldn't want my TV ratting me out.)

      To be honest, I would rather have a camera in the bedroom. I don't particularly care about shadowy figures watching me have sex with my wife. (We enjoy it, but we're not especially camera-friendly, and we don't do anything that you couldn't find much more professional "amateurs" doing online.) The values that we instill in our children are personal and way more important than our naked asses.

    12. Re:Paranoid? by dutchwhizzman · · Score: 2

      Transparency does not mean it will allow anything even remotely close to a clear picture to be transmitted through. Ever tried looking through scotchtape? That's what's on the camera in my work laptop (employer provided, no admin rights).

      --
      I was promised a flying car. Where is my flying car?
    13. Re:Paranoid? by bmo · · Score: 4, Informative

      You misunderstand. I'm not saying that the government wants free porn. I'm saying that as soon as the cameras are there, your love life is only a quick hack away from people who do.

      Indeed. There are webcams all over the net that people have put in their houses as "more effective" baby monitors and such.

      And they are wide open to the internet.

      Are you bored?

      http://pastebin.com/fDkTWZGX

      Trendnet cameras. Wide open to the world. And so is your life.

      --
      BMO

    14. Re:Paranoid? by The+Snowman · · Score: 2

      Well, if you're so paranoid, get some tape and cover over the camera and microphone, or take it apart and disconnect it.

      Everyone who stops by my desk asks "why do you have electrical tape over your webcam camera?" My answer is "because MIS didn't say they wouldn't spy on me.

      Also, I tend not to wear clothes around the house. Even when I'm telecommuting. Although, putting the two together could be interesting given I have a female boss up a notch or two in the hierarchy. "Yeah, we need to talk about your telecommuting... forget business casual, please at least wear sweatpants at home."

      --
      24 beers in a case, 24 hours in a day. Coincidence? I think not!
    15. Re:Paranoid? by danomac · · Score: 2

      My brother has a laptop with a built in webcam. He was using his computer when the camera activated on its own. It's done this a few times. There's no malware that we can find. The only thing installed on it is the software from the laptop manufacturer, most of which was removed.

      His laptop just happened to have an indicator that the camera was being used. What about these TVs? It's even worse if you don't know if the things is working or not.

      I hate the idea of having something like that on a TV period. If you want to skype or whatever, make the damn camera/mic a factory addon that isn't present in any model as a default option.

      (My brother wound up putting a piece of electrical tape over the camera on his laptop, he didn't trust it any more.)

    16. Re:Paranoid? by maxwell+demon · · Score: 2

      But ... have you ever noticed that light bulbs emit light? You know what light is needed for? For optical recording! Every camera (with the exception of infrared, but then, light bulbs get hot which means infrared cameras won't work well in them) only gives useful images if there's light. So why do light bulbs emit light? Well, obviously to allow the built-in camera to record! ;-)

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
  2. Marketing Opportunity - Privacy Star Compliance by ohnocitizen · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Trust in corporate ethics is so incredibly low. Privacy expectations plummet every year. If I was a hardware manufcaturer, I'd fund an independent organization (like Consumer Reports) and say "use this money to investigate which new devices coming out violate consumer privacy, and issue ratings". If we can have Energy Star compliance, why not Privacy Star compliance? If all my tvs had Privacy Star stickers, and my competitors did not, +1 for me and my business.

    1. Re:Marketing Opportunity - Privacy Star Compliance by ColdWetDog · · Score: 2

      But you could never really do that. Energy use is easy - basically plug the machine into a Kill-a-watt and type up a sticker.

      To ensure that a complex electromechanical device does not do something is nearly impossible. Sure, the default configuration might allow you to shut the camera down and you could see that nothing from the camera is being transmitted, but you could always put the machine into a 'nasty' mode which surreptitiously turns the evil eye back on.

      Hard to do on a router. Hard to do on a TV. NOT having the physical capability is the only way to make sure it doesn't do something (other than nuking it from orbit, of course).

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    2. Re:Marketing Opportunity - Privacy Star Compliance by e9th · · Score: 2

      Would "Privacy Star" compliance be more trustworthy than Energy Star? Remember when Congressional auditors got, among other things, a Gasoline-powered alarm clock an Energy Star certification?

    3. Re:Marketing Opportunity - Privacy Star Compliance by doston · · Score: 3, Informative

      Trust in corporate ethics is so incredibly low. Privacy expectations plummet every year. If I was a hardware manufcaturer, I'd fund an independent organization (like Consumer Reports) and say "use this money to investigate which new devices coming out violate consumer privacy, and issue ratings". If we can have Energy Star compliance, why not Privacy Star compliance? If all my tvs had Privacy Star stickers, and my competitors did not, +1 for me and my business.

      Not to put too fine a point on this, but what you seem to be implying is that industry can regulate itself. I think the Banking sector, Oil industry, Pharma, Agriculture all prove that industry (the market, corporations...whatever you want to call it) cannot regulate itself. The reason for the success, which your post either deliberately or naively ignores, is that Energy Star was created by the EPA and the Department of Energy during the Clinton administration. What corporations are real good at is rolling back regulation...see the repeal of the Glass-Steagall act, which the banks worked to repeal for years, finally got their way, then began engaging in reckless behavior. Not to bash your post, be everyone is so indoctrinated that Goverment=bad, Corporations=good. Most what's left of the good life, the masses owe to organizing, unions, federal regulations and the court decisions of some "liberal activist" judges that they're supposed to hate now. Your plan sounds great, but don't forget who's going to have to implement it...Your Government.

  3. Winston! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    "The instructress had called them to attention again. 'And now let's see which of us can touch our toes!' she said enthusiastically. 'Right over from the hips, please, comrades. One-two! One- two! ...' "

    I can see why Americans are in outrage and upset about the prospect of mandatory exercise via the Televue screen :)

  4. In Soviet Russia television is watching YOU! by sourcerror · · Score: 5, Funny

    In Soviet Russia television is watching YOU!

  5. Of course... by Terrasque · · Score: 5, Funny

    Samsung Says Their TVs Aren't Really Spying On You

    Of course they'll be saying that. They'd be crazy NOT to say it.

    I mean, they have enough patent lawsuits from Apple already.

    --
    It's The Golden Rule: "He who has the gold makes the rules."
  6. Such an incredible opportunity... by Genda · · Score: 5, Interesting

    For someone to create a personal firewall that prevents unwanted access to your appliances and unwanted data transmission from your appliances. It should be reasonably easy to build such a device, sell it for a reasonable price and let everyone know that they now have complete control over what their appliance does and when. I'd buy one in a minute!

    The only way to prevent oher people from taking inappropriate advantage is to eliminate the opportunity.

    1. Re:Such an incredible opportunity... by techno-vampire · · Score: 2

      There already is a personal firewall that can do exactly that: iptables. Of course, you have to be running a real OS to take advantage of it.

      --
      Good, inexpensive web hosting
    2. Re:Such an incredible opportunity... by kangsterizer · · Score: 2

      the problem is that its not so simple since you've to figure where the data is sent to in order to block it and that it can have multiple addresses, that the name used can resolve to various ips and change over time, that updates can change it, that it be tied to whatever online service the tv needs to be fully functional (stores for example), and even so they could still hide it in legit-looking requests without afaik, (ianal), violating any law

    3. Re:Such an incredible opportunity... by Sepodati · · Score: 2

      How do you plan to identify a "good" packet from an unwanted one when they're both likely destined for Samsung?

    4. Re:Such an incredible opportunity... by Gaygirlie · · Score: 2

      How would you implement such? The devices would very be unlikely to transmit their data in human-readable text, so you'd need to know the binary layout of the data packets transmitted, and such details would not just be handed over when asked for. Then you have to take into account that different manufacturers wouldn't use the same protocol, and possibly not even one manufacturer would use one protocol among all of its products, so you'd have to reverse-engineer ALL your internet-connected appliances. Not to mention things like possible proprietary encryption and SSL.

  7. While Samsung denied any TVs were spying by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    They did confirm that an earlier line of their toasters might continue laughing at customers until the firmware was upgraded.

  8. Here I am... by Jawnn · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...brain the size of a planet and they ask me to spy on you through this crappy little camera in my bezel. Call that job satisfaction, 'cause I don't.

  9. Re:Cellphones.. by dgatwood · · Score: 2

    No, Orwell pretty much had it right. Only members of the party had telescreens. The proles couldn't afford them. This means members of the party probably (though it is not explicitly stated, IIRC) wanted them, at least at first. Oppression almost always starts out as something you want—safety, security, video chatting—that later gets abused by those who know how much you want it. First the carrot, then the stick, and all that.

    --

    Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

  10. PC97 by ledow · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Paranoid much?

    PC97 PC's? Seriously? Barely anybody had a network connection when that was out, let alone remote-access. And how would remote access to that microphone work through your firewall and without you noticing the traffic?

    Every time you come up with (or reiterate) a crap conspiracy theory, I mentally filter everything you say as if I was talking to the local nutter on the bus.

    1. Re:PC97 by AHuxley · · Score: 2

      http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/03/petraeus-tv-remote/
      Now more devices have network connections, firewalls are on average consumer junk sitting on consumer OS.
      Your "Internet of Things" is now open to the CIA inside the USA.
      The noticing the traffic would just be the usual data that that a new device sends back for recipes, extended warranty, new, exciting apps and all the data needed personalizes the experience.
      All that unique data might just flow back via a fed sever onto its usual ip - your fancy Linux/Mac/Windows firewall would see nothing.
      A log of faces, sound, location and temperature aware ads http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/03/23/google_mobile_ads_patent/.
      Then add in that browsing history, HTTPS URL that your telco or other client might have got via some small 3rd party to better understand their network... that shipped in every device.
      The FBI has used mobile phone mics as roving bugs http://news.cnet.com/2100-1029-6140191.html noted back in ~2003
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magic_Lantern_(software) hints at what some anti-virus companies would do to help :)

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
  11. It's not a new idea by n5vb · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I vote for "not" — conspiracy theories about mandatory (or just secret) surveillance equipment in consumer electronics is just too persistent, even when the technical capabilities turn out to be a hoax; when the equipment is actually all in place and the user is protected only by a corporate honor policy, it's hard to be sanguine.

    Considering that "viewscreens" that allowed The Party to watch people in their homes were an integral part of the story of Nineteen Eighty-Four, it's arguable that people who are familiar with that story are probably inclined to at least think briefly about the possibility. (In the book, the "viewscreens" couldn't be turned off, although it's fair to say that most pieces of modern tech aren't exactly ever "off" unless you completely disconnect all sources of power, so this may be 6 of one, half a dozen of the other.)

    Then again, in this age of the almighty corporation, how much is a simple corporate assertion of goodwill really worth?

  12. FTFY by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 3, Funny

    Your blue polka-dot boxers, the ones you wore this morning, may have a hole in them. We wouldn't know, since we're not spying on you.

    --
    #DeleteChrome
  13. Privacy policy is worthless by sqlrob · · Score: 2

    . We reserve the right to change this Privacy Policy at any time

    It also looks like they may not have even thought things through particularly well. I started seeing articles March 20th.

    This Privacy Policy is effective as of March 26, 2012,

  14. Re:Stop hiding, Samsung ? Load Brains First by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    This is why we need open source software. We are wasting our time with speculation if we could just look at the code.

    Please load your brains before you shoot your mouth off! But then again this is slashdot. Samsung does compete with Apple for the hearts and minds of non tech savy consumers most of which have no clue about the Busy-box and OSS and the Linux kernel which makes all this home tv tech possible.
    Samsung does provide the source. Read the eulas. If you do hack it and run a modded firmware you do so at your own peril. Some of the stuff that they do is interesting and can be hacked. I am sure that if they were to hide calls to enable camera and microphone function remotely from the net it will be discovered. But I cannot see them being that stupid.

    Just wish some of the smart people that actually read and write code would post what they find out about the java binaries that Samsung uses. I am sure that their functionality can easily be observed in an emulator, so if it is possible for some Russian mafia hackers to watch you make out by activating your camera remotely then someone will find out, until this actually occurs..please stop posting crap about how all corporations except for Apple are evil!

  15. The art and science of trust. by TapeCutter · · Score: 3, Informative

    This is why we need open source software. We are wasting our time with speculation if we could just look at the code.

    This is by far the lamest and most impractical meme slashdot has created to date. Have you looked at the size and complexity of any popular OSS application/library? A cleverly hidden back door could take you an eternity to find, and that's when you already understand the design (or lack thereof). Not only that, but you then have to build it to verify the binaries on the machine are the same as what you built from the source. When all is said and done and you have complete trust in the software you then run it on chips provided by the same company you don't trust.

    There is no surefire way to determine if these kind of devices (and the companies that supply them) are trustworthy, just as there is no surefire way to determine if a person is trustworthy. Trust is subjective, all anyone can really do is examine their reputation and track record, and perform random spot checks. Sure you can do more than spot check, you could sniff every transaction on the wire. But just as you can never be absoluely certain there are no bugs, you also can never be absoluely certain there are no back doors.

    Financial institutions primarily catch internal "cyber-thieves" by auditing the information trail they alter, not by reviewing the code they alter.

    --
    And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
  16. Re:Build you own? by The+Good+Reverend · · Score: 2

    Yes, that sounds MUCH easier.

  17. Everybody sees the potential for evil by __aaltlg1547 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    but there is also potential for good And I claim the patents! (or at least establish the obviousness of the following applications)

    • Save power by detecting that all viewers have left the room and turning off the video.
    • Save even more power by detecting that nobody's watching in quite some time and turn off the set.
    • Save mindshare by telling advertisers that nobody is watching their stupid ads. (So they're motivated make more interesting ads.)
    • Save sanity by telling channels that nobody is watching their stupid programs. (So they're motivated to not air such complete garbage.)
    • Eliminate remotes. TVs can respond to verbal commands or gestures to change the channel, turn off the TV, change the volume, search for shows, enter credit card numbers Okay, that's evil, but it's my idea. This would reduce the amount of time spent digging in my couch.
    • Feed back info to local news channels that tell them nobody's interested in their damned "human interest" fluff pieces.
    • Video calls to grandma. How can you not approve of video calls to grandma?
    • Detect that there are kiddos in the room and automagically block porn.
    • Detect that there are nekkid kiddos in the room and automagically block the distribution of kiddie porn.
    • Detect that there are kiddos in the room and target them with ads for stuff their parents hate but won't be able to resist buying when the ids whine for it. Okay, evil again, I know.
    • Detect that there are kiddos in the room and skip the viagra and liquor ads.
    • Detect that there are no pets or kids in the house and skip the ads for cat litter and kids' junk.
    • Detect that there are no women in the room and skip the ads for feminine hygiene products and other stuff that men don't even want to think about.
    • Detect that you are sitting on a threadbare couch and wearing cheap clothes from Wal-Mart and skip the ads for stuff you can't afford.
  18. Ah but you don't get paranoia by SmallFurryCreature · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Note that typical Timothy insanity in the summary. PC's meeting the PC97 spec and their internal mic. I have motherboards that meet that spec, even entire PC's. None of them have a mic. Most don't even come with a speaker. You can plug a mic in but I would be highly intrested in how some spook can instruct my PC to go out, buy a mic, plug it in and start recording me, all without me noticing it.

    "But AHA! How do I know there isn't a mic", the true paranoid asks me.

    "Well because I can't see any", I reply.

    "How do you know what one looks like, nano genetic engineered cyber tech can make things very very small, they can put mic's inside chips and camera's inside pixels", the paranoid rants.

    And... he has a point. There are certainly occasional press releases about screens that can see and you could certainly mistake a PC on a chip new story as it including a microphone and camera. Am I that certain that the needs of either a mic or a camera preclude it from being to small, or indeed being covered by a cooling fan? Yes, I am but I have not always been right (Once I thought I was wrong and I was wrong about that).

    I can certainly see how those for whom tech is close to witchcraft and who have a limited understanding of how government works that and have guilty conscious might get worried.

    Take the old, the TV is watching me, that has now been revived. People have believed this since the days of cathode ray tube tv's with rabbit ear antenna's. How would such a device possibly watch you? There is no technical way, you would have to believe the government has immensely advanced tech that nobody else knew about to hide a camera in there without it being obvious OR just plain not understand how TV works. Never mind how the hell the signal is supposed to get back to the spy headquarters.

    With modern electronics and computers, this will only get worse. You can reason out why an old TV can't send anything back. But how can you proof a laptop visibly equipped with the tools to spy and the means to transmit them, isn't doing it? You could measure the network connection but how do you proof that there isn't a hidden signal that goes unreported? The led beside the camera is probably software controlled, at least that is what a paranoid could claim, so how do you proof it isn't recording when it isn't? Take it apart and measure electric flow but that is far to techy to satisfy the paranoid. If you believe lightbulbs can record and transmit a mere No current will not satisfy you.

    A lot of people believe the moon landings never happened. An AWFUL lot of people. Not just ignorable people in trailer parks. That the moon landings really did happen is beyond obvious, the most simple proof is that the Russians never even bothered to cast doubt on it. If you think the Russians and Americans are in cahoots on this... well... that is the nature of paranoia, secret world government and every government on the world IS working together after all. See how neatly it all fits when you don't need actual evidence and facts?

    It doesn't help that there are real spy projects like Echelon that show that some governments are willing to sift through a huge amount of drivel for... well... god knows what... it certainly doesn't seem to have given the US any intelligence to stop them blundering so often on the world stage.

    When a population who doesn't trust their government meets a government that can't be trusted, you have the end of democracy.

    It is like with doctors, at a simple basic level, you got to trust your doctor. If you don't, how can you take your medicine? Ask for a second opinion? How do you know that doctor is not in cahoots with the first? At a basic level, we should trust our government. And to ensure this, come down like a ton of brick on any in government that break this trust. But that would have required a lot of US presidents to hang from a rope during their term. And you can't have that can you?

    So people cover their TV to stop it watching them, and get to vote on the next leader they don't trust. Long live western democracy.

    --

    MMO Quests are like orgasms:

    You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.