Slashdot Mirror


UK Government Destroys Guardian's Snowden Drives

An anonymous reader writes with revelations that the UK government has been pressuring the Guardian over its publication of the Snowden leaks for a while, and that it ultimately ended with GHCQ officials smashing drives of data to pieces. From the article: "The mood toughened just over a month ago, when I received a phone call from the centre of government telling me: 'You've had your fun. Now we want the stuff back.' ... one of the more bizarre moments in the Guardian's long history occurred — with two GCHQ security experts overseeing the destruction of hard drives in the Guardian's basement just to make sure there was nothing in the mangled bits of metal which could possibly be of any interest to passing Chinese agents. 'We can call off the black helicopters,' joked one as we swept up the remains of a MacBook Pro." The paper had repeatedly pointed out how pointless destroying the data was: copies exist, and all reporting on the Snowden leaks is already being edited and published from locations other than the UK.

508 comments

  1. Good! by camperdave · · Score: 5, Funny

    With the drives destroyed, and the leaks plugged, we can all get back to our normal lives under the new heightened levels of paranoia.

    --
    When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    1. Re: Good! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      ... thus solving the problem once and for all!

      But

      ONCE AND FOR ALL!

    2. Re:Good! by rwa2 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yep, sounds like what they wanted was a quick, symbolic victory, and they got it.

      Symbolizing what, though, will be the topic of many a journal article. I suppose it's a good time to be a journalist, if people are jumping up and down to help you make news?

    3. Re:Good! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      There is no better way to motivate a journalist than to tell them that they aren't allowed to to report on something. I mean, seriously, what do these governments think they are going to accomplish. Whistleblowers leak information because they are worried about a surveillance state. And journalists investigate things because they want to find a cover-up. Cranking down on the surveillance state and forcing a cover-up is only going to make them redouble their efforts. And since information can be mirrored around the world in seconds, what could they possibly accomplish? The number of whistleblowers willing to give information to reporters looking for a big story has just exploded, thanks to the kneejerk damage control response.

      In other news, another whistleblower has anonymously leaked information on PROTON, CLEARWATER and LEXIS-NEXIS, US government programs that are used to data-mine contacts for intelligence and criminal prosecutions because the government wanted to cover-up how they were getting probable cause to investigate DEA actions (with the bullshit DICE program). Read it and weep.

    4. Re:Good! by whoever57 · · Score: 4, Funny

      There is no better way to motivate a journalist than to tell them that they aren't allowed to to report on something. I mean, seriously, what do these governments think they are going to accomplish.

      Probably about the same as the senior officer of the Met who spent a day travelling to and from the Grauniad's Manchester offices in order to tell an editor that there was nothing in the stories of phone hacking by News International. I mean, how stupid do you have to be to go out of your way to tell a reporter that there is no story and expect the reporter to drop it?

      --
      The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    5. Re:Good! by Teancum · · Score: 2, Insightful

      With the drives destroyed, and the leaks plugged, we can all get back to our normal lives under the new heightened levels of paranoia.

      Of course the drives were mirrored all over the internet, so by destroying the data on the drives nothing was really accomplished other than an indirect fine charged to the Guardian.... who needed to replace this equipment at their expense so all of that data can be put upon new equipment.

      Really, it didn't accomplish anything at all other than making some low level bureaucrat think they accomplished a big deal that ultimately meant nothing at all.

    6. Re: Good! by gagol · · Score: 0

      But, copies remains on NSA servers, or maybe hosted on the cloud? WE HAVE TO BOMB THEM NOW!

      --
      Tomorrow is another day...
    7. Re:Good! by bratwiz · · Score: 2

      It'll be hilarious when tax time rolls around...

      Uh, you remember those drives you smashed to bits even though we told you not to...

    8. Re:Good! by dbIII · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The boss said "something must be done."
      So they did something.
      It wasn't effective, but it obeyed the order.

      See also the cold war conflicting requirements of needing missile launch codes and needing a system that the last enlisted person standing could use which resulted in a code of all zeroes. Ultimately a useless extra step, but an answer to "something must be done."

    9. Re:Good! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is no better way to motivate a journalist than to tell them that they aren't allowed to to report on something. I mean, seriously, what do these governments think they are going to accomplish. Whistleblowers leak information because they are worried about a surveillance state. And journalists investigate things because they want to find a cover-up. Cranking down on the surveillance state and forcing a cover-up is only going to make them redouble their efforts. And since information can be mirrored around the world in seconds, what could they possibly accomplish? The number of whistleblowers willing to give information to reporters looking for a big story has just exploded, thanks to the kneejerk damage control response.

      In other news, another whistleblower has anonymously leaked information on PROTON, CLEARWATER and LEXIS-NEXIS, US government programs that are used to data-mine contacts for intelligence and criminal prosecutions because the government wanted to cover-up how they were getting probable cause to investigate DEA actions (with the bullshit DICE program). Read it and weep.

      That reads like someone snarfed a bunch of acronyms from job postings and stitched together a rambling "story". ZOMG, the government uses Lexis Nexis, crazeeee, lots of people do.

    10. Re:Good! by Camael · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yep, sounds like what they wanted was a quick, symbolic victory, and they got it.

      Said victory is likely to prove pyrrhic in the long run. The only thing it did was to draw the public's attention to how the Terrorism Act 2000 can and has been abused against "enemies of the government". And how officers implementing said provisions can completely ignore the safeguards built into the statute- for example, that the powers be used only against suspected terrorists, of which David clearly is not.

    11. Re:Good! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They intimidated the journalist a bit. I can imagine that this is not all they can and will do. After all Al Capone was put in jail for taxes of all things. You may laugh of course but they have other means too. In UK they can invoke antiterrorism laws and size your equipment. You are still a journalist but how far can you go with pencil and piece of paper? That these laws are used instrumentally we already know - Iceland's banks assets were seized so. So the question is - what will the next step be. I think general public can be directly excluded from equation - if they ever had thoughts about value of privacy they forgot about them when they got an account at fb. So the actual struggle will be at courts me think.

    12. Re:Good! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Actually there are no safeguards. The law states that it can be applied without any suspicion that a person is a terrorist and that refusing to answer questions is a crime. The powers granted under that law can be used on anybody for any reason whatsoever. The law is that broad. The police didn't abuse the law. They simply followed a law that had its abuse built in.

      http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23757133

    13. Re:Good! by ImOuttaHere · · Score: 2

      ... oh... the warlocks and witches of global governance cast thy foul data into the furnace flames... thus erasing the truth from the minds of those who cackled, sang, and danced round and round the tall fires of forgetting and erasing... while, with raised hands and faces glowing red in reflected flame, the high lords of insanity admired their work... and proclaimed it good...

    14. Re:Good! by badfish99 · · Score: 5, Informative
      Indeed, it may draw attention to the fact that there is NO safeguard built into the statute: which states

      An examining officer may exercise his powers under this paragraph whether or not he has grounds for suspecting that a person falls within section 40(1)(b) [i.e. is a terrorist]

    15. Re:Good! by MrL0G1C · · Score: 5, Interesting

      No, they didn't 'simply followed a law' they chose to victimise somebody in a very deliberate manner, they made a legal choice and not a moral choice, they flouted the spirit of the law whilst sticking to the letter of the law.

      The law books didn't tell them to victimise the guy, their boss did.

      --
      Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
    16. Re: Good! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And all for the once! ... Merde, wrong nâtion!

    17. Re:Good! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      No, they didn't 'simply followed a law' they chose to victimise somebody in a very deliberate manner

      Yes, but they did it lawfully. I did note the news websites were all parroting the statement that the detention was "lawful" without making the tremendous leap of intellectualism to question why such a detention would be lawful in the first place. Which is basically the sort of piss poor journalism I've come to expect these days.

    18. Re: Good! by colordev · · Score: 4, Interesting

      But,...journalists are the new terrorists -right! Also they also put their family to risk by publishing material that the government doesn't approve. And think about their potential children, which they endanger by not obeying the rules. If all the journalists could be regularly waterboarded, maybe they would then reveal the evil secrets they know? Journalists are also often following funerals and weddings, maybe those unmanned drones could double tap some of those know gatherings of terrorist-journalists?

      Reporters without borders sure sounds like a global network of these terrorist-journalists - "douple tap" that too!

    19. Re:Good! by TrentTheThief · · Score: 1

      What fine? It'll be covered by business insurance or deducted from taxes.

    20. Re:Good! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, they followed the original "spirit" of the law: Abuse, fear and terror

    21. Re: Good! by Neil+Boekend · · Score: 0

      But clouds are big. We should nuke them. All the clouds all over the world.

      --
      Well, I might have a way, but it only works on a semi spherical planet in a vacuum.
    22. Re:Good! by inasity_rules · · Score: 1

      I am slightly saddened by the fact that you felt the need to link to the wikipedia pyrrhic article. Does anyone here seriously not understand the term?

      --
      I have determined that my sig is indeterminate.
    23. Re:Good! by gutnor · · Score: 1

      There a subtlety there ... you see if not answering question was a crime, they would allow a lawyer to be present. They don't and the reason is that it is a crime not to answer question related to terrorism, however it is fair game to refuse to answer non-terrorist related question.

      Even assuming you know you rights, that is not a game you want to play without a lawyer present to back you up in court.

    24. Re:Good! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, they didn't 'simply followed a law' they chose to victimise somebody in a very deliberate manner, they made a legal choice and not a moral choice, they flouted the spirit of the law whilst sticking to the letter of the law.

      The law books didn't tell them to victimise the guy, their boss did.

      Which makes a very good point.

      And will we ever get to find out who he/she was, and what motivated them to do that?
      Because if they're acting on our behalf, then we have a right to know.

    25. Re:Good! by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      The safeguard is that someone is appointed to oversee the use of these powers. It is an extremely weak safeguard and I expect we will see just how useless it is in the coming weeks and months. No-one will be fired, let along prosecuted.

      I agree with you about the abuse being built in. The law is designed to determine if someone is a terrorist, not to target people over whom there is already some suspicion. Therefore it can and will be used against anyone. Over 61,000 times last year, in fact. Of those abuses only 24 lead to actual arrests, less than 0.04%.

      Bored airport cops gotta have a hobby I guess.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    26. Re:Good! by jcupitt65 · · Score: 2

      There are safeguards. There are home office guidelines that the police must follow (they must only detain people suspected of involvement in terrorism, for example) and there's an independent reviewer who oversees the application of the law.

      At least after a quick glance it seems that the police ignored (or took a very broad interpretation of) the guidelines and that the independent reviewer will be holding a triple-cunting when he meets the Metropolitan Police Service. One can hope.

      Schedule 7 has been revised (no more than six hours of detention, "suspect" must have a lawyer) and the new version is going through parliament now, so that's something.

      http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23763625

    27. Re:Good! by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      What is the deal when the authorities destroy your stuff but you are innocent? I have tried to google this and got nothing.

      Note that the Guardian staff are innocent since there has not been a trial. More generally if the police take away your phone and computer to check it for illegal material and you lose money from not being able to run your business, then you get it back broken or wiped anyway (as the admin of Oink, another innocent person, did) is there any compensation?

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    28. Re:Good! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      When someone is shot do you blame the hand or the person to whom that hand belongs?

      The police are employees of the state and the state exists to serve the public. The people are where the fault lies. Had the people objected to this bad legislation a decade ago they wouldn't be slapping themselves in the face today.

    29. Re:Good! by drinkypoo · · Score: 3, Funny

      I am slightly saddened by the fact that you felt the need to link to the wikipedia pyrrhic article. Does anyone here seriously not understand the term?

      Oh man, I haven't got to say this in ages... You must be new here.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    30. Re:Good! by reboot246 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If "journalists" had been doing their job for the last few decades, we wouldn't be in this sorry state of affairs right now. There aren't many honest journalists left. Most have joined the dark side and are nothing more than propagandists for the groups in power.

    31. Re:Good! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, I think it's mostly that. Some guy knew that there was a copy of sensitive data within his reach, so he destroyed it so he could not be accused of doing nothing to stop this copy of sensitive data.

    32. Re:Good! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If the guy that wrote that really does consistently misspell "alot" as "allot", I'm sorry for him.

      Please, whistleblowers, be careful to spell-check your leaks. Alternatively, get someone to re-write your text.

    33. Re:Good! by pla · · Score: 2

      Symbolizing what, though, will be the topic of many a journal article.

      Well, in fairness, we haven't had a good ol' official (not counting the religious whackjobs putting money in JK's pockets just to brag that they warmed their hands over Order of the Phoenix) book-burning in quite a while. And really, doesn't smashing hard drives count as the modern equivalent?

      Dear governments - Don't play this game. We all know you have the ability to kill an awfully lot of us in the process, but you will lose. How about you just do the job we pay you to do, lose the paranoia, and we can all go home and enjoy life?

    34. Re: Good! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      'No, they followed the original "spirit" of the law: Abuse, fear and terror'

      And an almost fanatical devotion to the Pope.

    35. Re:Good! by mspohr · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'm so happy to hear that I can only be detained for 6 hours without cause. I was really worried about 9 hours and now that it is only 6 hours, I feel just fine.
      Also, it will be nice to have a lawyer there who will parrot the law and tell me that I will go away to jail for a long time if I refuse to answer questions... this removes any doubt I may have had about how screwed I really would be.
      Thank you UK for your enlightened terrorist laws.

      --
      I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
    36. Re:Good! by ak3ldama · · Score: 1

      The boss said "something must be done."
      So they did something.

      And then called the White House to say that they were able to do something. Everything else of substance left out, since we do not need to know the nature or substance of that conversation - merely that they were acting on their own and that they called - and that we (the office of the president) are not condemning their action under their laws.

      This is the best link I can find, this was in the news yesterday.

      --
      "but money is the God of Algiers & Mahomet their prophet." - Rich. O'Bryen June 8th 1786
    37. Re:Good! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The obvious from this is the British government seems to be in bed with the NSA and have been in bed with the US since the US was founded. What is just laughable over this, is the fact the BBC hasn't bothered to report any outrage by its own citizens over the US being in the back pockets of every advanced government. Including its own country stabbing it citizens in the back while they collect data for themselves or to report any suspected activity to the US on British citizens.

      GCHQ is trying to kiss the US's ass, and you have to wonder the extent of involvement US officials have had in this crack down, or if it is just Britain showing off to the world and US it has there backs.

    38. Re:Good! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The obvious from this is the British government...have been in bed with the US since the US was founded.

      You don't appear to be aware of the story of the founding of the USA, but certainly it was a contentious affair from the point of view of the British government. There was a period of disagreement. The relationship has been repaired over the course of many years of cooperation, mutual assistance, and such.

    39. Re:Good! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thank the TLAs for replacing the dreaded heightened state of terrorism with paranoia.
      That's is an odd way of winning the "War". If the US were a living person, I would say he/she is suffering from a major case of Leukemia.

    40. Re:Good! by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      "Abusing" a law does not mean breaking a law - it means operating within said law but in ways not "intended" when the law was written. Note the quotes, those are important.

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    41. Re:Good! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If a law is written that broadly, I don't think you can attach much of a sense of morality to it; naïveté, possibly.

    42. Re:Good! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem with your reasoning is that we don't have nearly the number of real reporters that we used to. The Newspapers are drying up and blowing away, while many that survive are reduced to putting out material that reads like a random blogger writing from home. Investigative journalism in this country is virtually dead and lost in a sea of white noise that is a bunch of people with nice teeth and tans reading from teleprompters.

      Hopefully you're right about the whistleblowers continuing to come forward, though.

    43. Re:Good! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Read it and weep

      Yes, "weep" is about right. I got about six paragraphs in before realizing I'd absorbed exactly no information. Indeed, all that I had learned was that the author loves to use those acronyms, never passing up an opportunity to type "HUMINT" even when it conveys no additional information and could easily be assumed even if it were relevant. So I tried harder to understand what I was reading, at which point I realized that a lot of it didn't even form complete sentences, and that which did form a complete sentence failed to convey any information. Then I noticed that "a lot" was spelled "allot" several times in a row. At that point I gave up because my brain was hurting.

      This is why no one believed things like Room 641A when we first heard about them. It's hard to take things seriously when everything you read about them has clearly been written by a moron. This is what made the Snowden leaks so important: It was the first time we were told what the government was doing by someone whom we were pretty sure wasn't next going to tell us about how NASA faked the moon landings.

    44. Re:Good! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If the guy that wrote that really does consistently misspell "alot" as "allot", I'm sorry for him.

      Please, whistleblowers, be careful to spell-check your leaks. Alternatively, get someone to re-write your text.

      He probably did, which is why he settled on "allot" which is actually a word, rather than "alot" which is not a word.

      It's "a lot", not "alot" or "allot."

    45. Re:Good! by Immerman · · Score: 1

      Courtesy of George Orwell, 1984:

      "The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake. We are not interested in the good of others; we are interested solely in power. Not wealth or luxury or long life or happiness: only power, pure power. What pure power means you will understand presently. We are different from all the oligarchies of the past, in that we know what we are doing. All the others, even those who resembled ourselves, were cowards and hypocrites. The German Nazis and the Russian Communists came very close to us in their methods, but they never had the courage to recognize their own motives. They pretended, perhaps they even believed, that they had seized power unwillingly and for a limited time, and that just round the corner there lay a paradise where human beings would be free and equal. We are not like that. We know that no one ever seizes power with the intention of relinquishing it. Power is not a means; it is an end. One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship. The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power."

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    46. Re:Good! by Immerman · · Score: 1

      No, there is not. If you like you could try filing a lawsuit against the police department, TSA, etc. and maybe, just maybe, get some sort of compensation. Don't hold your breath though, and be prepared for the possibility of reprisals.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    47. Re:Good! by Guy+Harris · · Score: 1

      In other news, another whistleblower has anonymously leaked information on PROTON, CLEARWATER and LEXIS-NEXIS, US government programs

      Yes, yes, and no. LEXIS, now apparently just called Lexis, and NEXIS, now apparently just called Nexis, are non-government online data search services, access to which, according to the Cryptome article, "all members of the Intelligence Community have", "all domestic law enforcement has", and "IRS, DOJ, Treasury, Local PD, Sheriffs Office all have".

    48. Re:Good! by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Wrong country, the TSA is a US perversion.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    49. Re:Good! by Immerman · · Score: 1

      Hence the etc. Doesn't really matter what the badge they wear is, or what country they work for, the abuse of authority to intimidate and inconvenience people seems to be a near-universal quality, and "collecting evidence" is one of the easy ways (in this case by intentionally destroying "evidence" they may have exposed themselves to a real backlash, but that's not relevant to the general case.

      But please feel free to offer evidence to the contrary, I could really use a ray of sunshine over here.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    50. Re:Good! by bingoUV · · Score: 1

      Come on, get real. Abuse is just use that the author of the word "abuse" doesn't like. End of story.

      If I don't like some use of law, I can perfectly cromulently call it abuse even if the corrupt legislators making the law intended that use.

      --
      Bingo Dictionary - Pragmatist, n. A myopic idealist.
    51. Re:Good! by Teancum · · Score: 1

      Of course the problem with filing a lawsuit against a government agency is that they can claim sovereign immunity, thus you get the lawsuit thrown out without even so much as a hearing much less being able to spend time before a judge at all.

      It really is a stupid thing, where you need to beg and ask the government for permission to sue the government. From time to time the government allows you to do that, but it becomes a joke as the government really doesn't need to follow its own rules, much less common sense.

    52. Re: Good! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I totally didn't expect that!

    53. Re:Good! by Guy+Harris · · Score: 1

      Yes, yes, and no. LEXIS, now apparently just called Lexis, and NEXIS, now apparently just called Nexis, are non-government online data search services, access to which, according to the Cryptome article, "all members of the Intelligence Community have", "all domestic law enforcement has", and "IRS, DOJ, Treasury, Local PD, Sheriffs Office all have".

      And LexisNexis, the corporation that offers those services, also offers other services, including, for example, "Identity Management Solutions" that "perform multiple core system data checks against our extensive public records and proprietary databases to ensure the contact's name and address match is valid." So whatever he's referring to when he speaks of "LEXIS-NEXIS", it's either 1) a private-sector program to which US government officials, among others, have access or 2) a government program that involves access to some service or services from LexisNexis and is, cleverly, codenamed "LEXIS-NEXIS".

    54. Re:Good! by Grumbleduke · · Score: 1

      The powers granted under that law can be used on anybody for any reason whatsoever.

      No! The powers can be used on (almost) anyone, but only for the specific reason of questioning them to determine if they are a terrorist. If they detained him to search him, to confiscate his computers, to intimidate him, to see if he had sensitive documents on him, to get information about Greenwald etc. they were breaking the law.

      Secondly, even if they did detain him for that reason, they still have to act proportionately, rationally, and compatibly with the European Convention on Human Rights. If they don't do all of that, even if they acted within the Terrorism Act 2000 powers, they still broke the law.

      Yes, this law is very broad and lacks checks, but there are other laws in place to provide them.

      [As an aside, they only people this power can't be used against are actual, known terrorists... there's case law on that.]

    55. Re:Good! by dobbshead · · Score: 0

      Yep, sounds like what they wanted was a quick, symbolic victory, and they got it.

      I reckon the symbolism of the "victory" can really go one of three ways:

      a) It symbolises that they are completely powerless, but being petty-minded bureaucratic idiots they behave like toddlers throwing a pointless tantrum when they've worked out they're won't get their way.

      b) It symbolises that they just don't understand how digital information works. This despite having spent the last 10 years making a copy of the whole of the internet. Maybe they're printing it out in hard copy, so they can store it safely, but the dot matrix printer can't keep up, so there's a bit of a backlog."

      c) Both of the above.

      Yes one of those classic British victories, like Dunkirk.

    56. Re:Good! by dobbshead · · Score: 0

      Yep, sounds like what they wanted was a quick, symbolic victory, and they got it.

      I reckon the symbolism of the "victory" can really only go one of three ways:

      a) It symbolises that they are completely powerless, but being petty-minded bureaucratic idiots they behave like toddlers and throw a pointless tantrum when they've worked out they won't get their way.

      b) It symbolises that they just don't understand how digital information works. This despite having spent the last 10 years making a copy of the whole of the internet. Maybe they're printing it out in hard copy, so they can store it safely, but the dot matrix printer can't keep up, so there's a bit of a backlog of data."

      c) Both of the above.

      So one of those classic UK government "victories", like Dunkirk.

    57. Re: Good! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As well as contract services, such as news data banks, to reporting organizations and newspapers

  2. Liveleak by Daas · · Score: 5, Interesting

    And we've been wondering what that 350 GB "insurance file" from WikiLeaks was...

    1. Re:Liveleak by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A publicity stunt. If WikiLeaks had the files, they would have gone public the next with as many as they could vet, and they wouldn't have been as responsible or through as the guardian. Also the timing on that is wrong, they posted that file ages ago.

    2. Re:Liveleak by lister+king+of+smeg · · Score: 5, Informative

      A publicity stunt. If WikiLeaks had the files, they would have gone public the next with as many as they could vet, and they wouldn't have been as responsible or through as the guardian. Also the timing on that is wrong, they posted that file ages ago.

      Since when does two days ago equal ages? https://www.facebook.com/wikileaks/posts/561927090509074. Its not a publicity stunt it just what it says it is insurance against Assange Snowden Greenwald Poitras etc being killed or disappeared to gitmo. If the US tries anything the key gets released and the stuff they have kept back because it is to dangerous inflammatory get published to the world. Could it be a bluff yes, is it likely not a bluff if you read the even the docs that have been released have been voluntarily redacted by Greenwald and co. Its You screw us we screw you worse device.

      --
      ---Saying gnome 3 is better than windows 8 not so much a compliment as it is damning with light praise.
    3. Re: Liveleak by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Wrong and wrong. Do try to pay attention. Wikilieaks has posted many insurance files through the years, the one in question was posted yesterday.

    4. Re:Liveleak by Teancum · · Score: 0

      It could just be a copy of Wikipedia. We won't know what is in that file until after the key is released.

      While it would be interesting if it was transcripts of Obama's conversations on September 11th, 2012 in the Oval Office and data dumps from the Pentagon on that day as well (look up the date if you don't know what I'm talking about), there is no proof that the data file means anything at all. As such, it really could just be a publicity stunt, even though the data file is real.

      Let's hope that the insurance file really is something worth reading and can't be found anywhere else.

    5. Re:Liveleak by SpaceLifeForm · · Score: 2

      Didn't you get the memo? It's a huge collection of cat pics. That mouse in your pocket was confusing you.

      --
      You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.
    6. Re:Liveleak by rmstar · · Score: 2

      Since when does two days ago equal ages? https://www.facebook.com/wikileaks/posts/561927090509074. Its not a publicity stunt it just what it says it is insurance against Assange Snowden Greenwald Poitras etc being killed or disappeared to gitmo.

      What is amazing (to me, anyway) is that these links are posted on facebook. Everyone who downloads these torrents will be registered. If they have facebook accounts, their names, birthdate, etc. will all be known. WTF?

      Why facebook, of all places?

    7. Re:Liveleak by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 1

      They should have leaked it in paper form to be read and stored on "human data media". It's a wee bit more difficult for governments to destroy "human data media" than hard disks.

      For the moment, anyway . . .

      Actually, they should have given it to my mom to read, and told her that it is secret for now, and not to tell anyone about it.

      The whole world would know everything about it faster than the speed of high frequency financial trading networks.

      --
      Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
    8. Re:Liveleak by 0ld_d0g · · Score: 1

      Everyone who downloads these torrents will be registered.

      No.

      Why facebook, of all places?

      Because Wikileaks is on Facebook. They are also on twitter. They also posted it there.

    9. Re:Liveleak by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why facebook, of all places?

      Because it's one of all places. (in case you've been living under a rock and didn't realise many can't or won't go to wikileaks direct or one of there mirrors).

      P.S. If that's over your 120 character attention span try Twitter too

    10. Re:Liveleak by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      You used your real name, real D.O.B., real location etc. on Facebook?

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    11. Re:Liveleak by TWiTfan · · Score: 1

      And we've been wondering what that 350 GB "insurance file" from WikiLeaks was...

      Looks like whoever called them to threaten them gave them just the lead time they needed. Good for him!

      --
      The cow says "Moo." The dog says "Woof." The Timothy says "Thanks, valued customer. We appreciate your input."
    12. Re:Liveleak by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why doesn't anyone question the fact that they used fucking facebook to distribute the file(s)? Isn't facebook the NSA's dog? It would seem like a good plan, to fill everyone's drives with a bunch of bunk. I didn't download the file because I don't have 350GB free space, and I'll bet that if anyone did download that stuff, they had to delete a lot, or get new drives.

      These are the days where you need to define exactly what you trust in people, and why. Then only trust people that exhibit such, and let all others pass silently.

    13. Re:Liveleak by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why did John Hancock sign his name Big and Bold on the Declaration of Independence, knowing full well that if the rebels lost the war with Britain said document would become the death warrant against all signers?

    14. Re:Liveleak by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Funny.. I've just accessed that with flushed cookies and no Facebook authentication.

    15. Re:Liveleak by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's the same it always is. The stuff they're going to leak next.

    16. Re:Liveleak by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If WikiLeaks had the files, they would have gone public the next with as many as they could vet, and they wouldn't have been as responsible or through as the guardian.

      Did you not see the long and careful process that wikileaks went through to publish the cables, including working with a handful of big print media outlets to get them out with the care that those outlets would give them? The floodgates only opened when a journalist working with wikileaks accidentally published the insurance file decryption key.

      You're just making things up. Poorly.

    17. Re:Liveleak by Richy_T · · Score: 1

      You think that makes a difference?

    18. Re:Liveleak by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      You're right, it could be. But do you think they would willingly risk that? Because if it was not a copy of Wikipedia or other such filler, it would hurt.

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    19. Re:Liveleak by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      Just so you all know, you can just put up the hash of the torrent (and at least one tracker URL) as well. The DHT (distributed hash table) can be used to work the torrent without you needing to grab the torrent file itself from anywhere. This is how magnet links work.

      Note you will STILL need trackers unless you (and others) use a client that supports trackerless communications.

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    20. Re:Liveleak by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's a wee bit more difficult for governments to destroy "human data media" than hard disks.

      Yeah, thank FSM that the US lacks armed unmanned aerial vehicles.

    21. Re:Liveleak by lxs · · Score: 2

      Everyone who downloads these torrents will be registered.

      So? Let them register everybody. If you think they are going to round up thousands of internet users worldwide for downloading an encrypted file then your paranoia meter needs calibration. Besides if they are connected to the tracker they already have the IP of everyone in the swarm.
      And it wouldn't hurt you to stick your neck out to do the right thing once in a while even if it does expose you to possible repercussions.

    22. Re:Liveleak by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly!

  3. Not pointless at all by plover · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The point was crystal clear: the friend of my enemy will get no end of crap thrown at them. The Grauniad can expect more such visits in the future, as well as any other news organization who dares publish That Which Must Not Be Published.

    --
    John
    1. Re:Not pointless at all by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Bravo on what is easily the most mangled spelling of Guardian in the history of the English language.

    2. Re:Not pointless at all by Zemran · · Score: 5, Insightful

      An AC who has obviously never read Private Eye...

      --
      I love stacking my barbecues in the shed at the end of summer - you can't beat a bit of grill on grill action.
    3. Re:Not pointless at all by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sounds more like a historical epic that way though. Kids all having to read The Grauniad in history class in the future.

    4. Re:Not pointless at all by c0lo · · Score: 1

      The point was crystal clear: the friend of my enemy will get no end of crap thrown at them. The Grauniad can expect more such visits in the future, as well as any other news organization who dares publish That Which Must Not Be Published.

      This.
      Comming from the epic saga of "Your tax money at work".

      --
      Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
    5. Re:Not pointless at all by zugmeister · · Score: 1

      He was using the handle "plover" but in real life he's actually Charles Dikkens spelled with two Ks, the well-known Dutch author.

    6. Re:Not pointless at all by Mathinker · · Score: 1

      Bravo (<sarc/>) to the UK for what is easily the most mangled libel laws of the entire globe!

    7. Re:Not pointless at all by bfandreas · · Score: 1

      And another earth-shattering revelation from the GCHQ:
      They don't only employ eggheads! They also have jobs for powertripping knuckle-draggers, too! A proper equal opportunity employer.

      --
      20 minutes into the future
    8. Re:Not pointless at all by SalafranceUnderhill · · Score: 0

      It's an olde englisch tradition, mate.

    9. Re:Not pointless at all by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      or know how to use Google before posting.

    10. Re:Not pointless at all by 91degrees · · Score: 4, Informative

      It's a long running joke. The Guardian is known for making a lot of typesetting errors so often gets called that. Similarly the Daily Telegraph is known to be very strongyl aligned to the Conservative Tory) philosophy so is nicknamed the Torygraph.

    11. Re:Not pointless at all by MysteriousPreacher · · Score: 2

      And the Daily Mail becomes "The Daily Heil", for its initial enthusiastic support for Hitler and chums. In later years the name applies due to its irrational and angry approach to pretty much anything that isn't a village green, with a game of cricket, or a duck pond occupied by British ducks.

      --
      -- Using the preview button since 2005
    12. Re:Not pointless at all by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Guardian, although a quality paper in many ways, is apparently somewhat famous for containing spelling mistakes. I thought this was just historical baggage but I've subsequently seen an obvious typo on their front page. It's therefore called the Grauniad, often by Private Eye. It's an ongoing source of pleasure to me that they seem to own grauniad.co.uk, which I often navigate to by preference. I vaguely hope someone's looking at the stats and seeing that lots of people keep going there.

    13. Re:Not pointless at all by Eunuchswear · · Score: 2

      An AC who has obviously never read Private Eye...

      Or the Grauniad.

      --
      Watch this Heartland Institute video
    14. Re:Not pointless at all by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's a long running joke. The Guardian is known for making a lot of typesetting errors so often gets called that. Similarly the Daily Telegraph is known to be very strongyl aligned to the Conservative Tory) philosophy so is nicknamed the Torygraph.

      Shall we call you 19seegred from now on? :o)

    15. Re:Not pointless at all by 91degrees · · Score: 1

      I missed a braket too.

      I think there's a law somewhere that any post commenting on typographical errors will have at least one error itself.

    16. Re:Not pointless at all by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Daily Heil sounds like a still running joke. Many jokes have been ceased to circulate and run at these troubled times.

  4. Small Potatoes by SuperKendall · · Score: 3, Funny

    The U.K. thinks it can join the fascism club just because it smashes a computer or two?

    The U.S. arrested a filmmaker a year ago just for making a movie. Are those reporters in jail? Don't think so. You're going to have the step up the game U.K. to join the big boys.

    Bonus points for all the cameras though.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:Small Potatoes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The U.S. arrested a filmmaker a year ago just for making a movie.

      Who? What movie? What was the context?

    2. Re:Small Potatoes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      He is referring to the creator of the "Innocence of Muslims" youtube movie. He was arrested for parole violations, and in fact was arrested only after voluntarily turning himself in because he feared for his safety.

    3. Re:Small Potatoes by TubeSteak · · Score: 5, Informative

      The U.K. thinks it can join the fascism club just because it smashes a computer or two?

      The U.S. arrested a filmmaker a year ago just for making a movie.

      Are you talking about Nakoula Basseley aka Sam Bacile?

      He got busted for violating the terms of his probation, pled guilty to 4 charges, and accepted 1 year in jail + 5 years of probation.
      I don't think this is the example you should have used.

      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
    4. Re:Small Potatoes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Don't bother, SuperKendall is a Benghazi truther.

    5. Re:Small Potatoes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Hey hey. Don't let the truth get in the away of America bashing.

    6. Re:Small Potatoes by mysidia · · Score: 0

      P.S. Free speech or making an offensive movie are parole violations. Or at least..... well, other things that would otherwise be overlooked become parole violations, after the exercise of said free speech.

      You don't like someone's political views? Get them arrested on same fake charge; get them parole.

      But if they dare speak out again against our overlords, you can be sure it will be a parole violation

    7. Re:Small Potatoes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You spoken too soon.

    8. Re:Small Potatoes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He was on parole for committing widespread bank fraud years before he made "Innocence of Muslims". Are you claiming the government somehow predicted him making this back when Bush was in office and arrested him for unrelated charges just so they could bust him on parole violations if he happened to decide to make an inflammatory youtube movie?

    9. Re:Small Potatoes by lister+king+of+smeg · · Score: 1

      The U.K. thinks it can join the fascism club just because it smashes a computer or two?

      The U.S. arrested a filmmaker a year ago just for making a movie. Are those reporters in jail? Don't think so. You're going to have the step up the game U.K. to join the big boys.

      Bonus points for all the cameras though.

      those film makers did not have a 400 gigabyte insurance file on every torrent site in the world.

      --
      ---Saying gnome 3 is better than windows 8 not so much a compliment as it is damning with light praise.
    10. Re:Small Potatoes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Informative

      You omitted a few facts:

      1. He was previously busted in the 90s for making crystal meth.

      2. The production of the film itself was an exercise in fraud and deception--many scenes were edited/spliced together in a manner that bore little or no relation to the scenes as they had been shot, and a large portion of the film was overdubbed with dialogue completely different to what was actually spoken by the actors. The cast and crew have all since gone on record to disavow the finished product.

      3. The dissemination of the video on YouTube, etc., certainly did spark protests, many of them violent, by Muslims in a number of countries (with some egging on by an extremist cleric or two). Which is hardly surprising, since the version that was shown was clearly intended to offend Muslims in most ways imaginable to anyone with even a cursory knowledge of Islam.

      CAPTCHA: irrigate

    11. Re:Small Potatoes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He was not arrested for making the film, but rather for using multiple aliases in an attempt to conceal his identity and whereabouts, which certainly does constitute a parole violation. When you're on parole, you're not allowed to hide from the authorities, regardless of your motives.

      CAPTCHA: narrowly

    12. Re:Small Potatoes by Mashiki · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Don't bother, SuperKendall is a Benghazi truther.

      How does one become a "truther" over a factual event? We know that Obama, and the Obama administration directly lied to the public over what caused it. We know the administration lied and said there was no available military assets, but there were. Including exfil teams standing by 24/7 for instances just like that. We know that one person managed to hold out for 12 hours on the roof of the embassy *after* the guys who were defending the embassy had died. We know that someone within the administration told them to stand down and *not* defend. We also know that it was al qaeda affiliated, it wasn't spontaneous, and that the ambassador had requested more protection--but the administration turned it down. After all, blowing $150k on battery powered cars and charging stations for embassies in europe was more important.

      And we also know that right up until it came out, that the administration refused the truth of the matter. This isn't anything new, it's the continuing pattern of the administration. Much like Fast and Furious(the gun walking scandal), much like Ft. Hood was really a Jihadi attack--but they're trying their best to make it "work place violence."

      And we also know that in the case of the first two scandals, if the media actually did their job and factually reported it, instead of bending over backwards to kiss his ass. He wouldn't be president right now.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    13. Re:Small Potatoes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Modding up stuff like this is a good way to lose your ability to mod.

    14. Re:Small Potatoes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I read this stuff and I just have to rant here. There are plenty of valid complaints to make about President Obama. *cough, drones* Why on Earth *cough, arrest all whistle blowers*, do people need to make-up crazy things to complain about!? Not born in the US? Lying about Benghazi? Really? Really!?.

      According to the NSA, someone in this very post recently mention things like:
      Extra-Judicial killings from sky robots
      The Executives Branch extreme punishing of all whistle blowers
      not to mention
      Extra-Judicial imprisonment
      Required voluntary rape to travel (currently travel by plane, but in the process of moving to other forms of public and private transport near you)
      and, oh yeah, the NSA spying on the basically the entire internet (*wave*, Hi guys!)

      If your going to be loony-tunes, why not pick something worth being loony-tunes about?

      /rant

      I feel better now, where is my coffee?

    15. Re:Small Potatoes by PraiseBob · · Score: 1

      We know the administration lied and said there was no available military assets, but there were. Including exfil teams standing by 24/7 for instances just like that.

      Right, they could have sent a team of guys in on a cargo plane, to land at an unsecure airport, to fight their way through an unknown number of assailants (at least dozens, maybe hundreds) that had unknown amounts of firepower and possible heavy weapons (and stinger missiles), rescue these guys, then fight their way back out to the airport, then hopefully they could find enough fuel to leave on the cargo plane, or they could possibly hijack a caravan of cars and leave.

      Clearly having hesitation and deciding against that plan indicates a vast conspiracy. Much better to throw a bunch of special forces guys into a situation where there is almost zero situational intelligence, and just assume they can Rambo their way through everything.

      And yet you wonder why people don't take Benghazi trolls seriously?

    16. Re:Small Potatoes by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      Right, they could have sent a team of guys in on a cargo plane, to land at an unsecure airport, to fight their way through an unknown number of assailants

      I realize that this is difficult to understand for people, including Americans who don't have a clue. But they actually violate the airspace and land wherever they want, or do paradrops to exfil ambassadors in the event of danger. That's why said teams exist. As you might remember, embassies are sovereign territory of the nation that they represent.

      There are two different teams, one from Africom, and a second in Europe. And yes, actually they do *throw special forces guys* into an unknown situation, they walk up and say: "I need X men for an operation" and they're briefed in the air and on-route to the situation. Very difficult to understand isn't it?

      And yet you wonder why people don't take Benghazi trolls seriously?

      Perhaps you should actually become more informed on the issue then. There's plenty of factual information on this, and there wasn't any BS in my sentence, the only BS is coming from the administration who sat by and didn't let the teams roll out. And the people who believe what the uniformed media keeps trying to pass off as truth.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    17. Re:Small Potatoes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You don't like someone's political views? Get them arrested on same fake charge; get them parole.

      Would inventing a time machine count as a fake charge?

      You might want to check what the original offense was, and when it occurred, idiot.

  5. Well, you know what they say... by dyingtolive · · Score: 4

    You can't stop the signal, Mal.

    --
    Support the EFF and Creative Commons. The war is coming, and they're supporting you...
    1. Re:Well, you know what they say... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      what we're finding now though is if you cant stop the signal, simply increase the noise and it amounts to the same thing.

    2. Re:Well, you know what they say... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or more like. "Whos the overseas colony now bitch?"

  6. Wow nice... by Mashiki · · Score: 5, Insightful

    They pretty much ensured that data dumping will ensue, on levels never before seen. It's going to be pretty damned interesting considering that Greenwald is a hell of a leftist, and is railing like never before.

    --
    Om, nomnomnom...
    1. Re:Wow nice... by shentino · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Personally I hope someone sues over destruction of personal property.

    2. Re:Wow nice... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Greenwald was actually pretty libertarian/non political, but as a constitutional law litigator, he got sick of what he felt were a series of abuses by the prior and then current administration post 9/11. The truth is that most whistleblowers are generally conservative.

    3. Re:Wow nice... by mtrachtenberg · · Score: 2

      Yes, it's exactly the stupidest thing they could possibly do, with the possible exception of burning all issues of The Guardian for the next week or two.

      But thugs just can't resist being thugs, just like snakes can't resist being snakes. Sure, there are copies, but that's all the more reason to smash this drive to smithereens.

    4. Re:Wow nice... by jovius · · Score: 1

      Maybe it's time to grow up from the arbitrary divisions like left and right?

    5. Re:Wow nice... by lister+king+of+smeg · · Score: 1

      Maybe it's time to grow up from the arbitrary divisions like left and right?

      arbitrary except they are ideologically opposed in every way with the exception of destroying our rights and spying on our every move.

      --
      ---Saying gnome 3 is better than windows 8 not so much a compliment as it is damning with light praise.
    6. Re:Wow nice... by Teancum · · Score: 1

      Because there are other dimensions of political philosophies. Both "conservatives" as well as "liberals" can be strong statists.... people who think the government should get as large as possible and the only distinction is where that money ought to be spent. Others (both "left" and "right") want to push back and tear down the size of government.

      There are other dimensions of political thought as well, which is why the distinction is just silly as it was based upon the seating arrangements of the French Parliament in the 19th Century. Don't you think a few new political ideas have been developed over the past century alone?

    7. Re:Wow nice... by Omestes · · Score: 1

      arbitrary except they are ideologically opposed in every way with the exception of destroying our rights and spying on our every move.

      So the question is; do they actually exist? Are there people who are "Liberal", and people who are "Conservative"... Or are there range of people who encompass various points within these blanket dogmas? I'm guessing there might be some who are purely one or the other, but I think we call these people the "lunatic fringe", or at very least the "vocal minority".

      Case and point, I'm pretty far to the left socially, so far that I am a social libertarian (small "L", of course). I agree with Libertarians about everything, except the economy. Then again, I was for the war in Afghanistan, against banning guns (some flavor of control, perhaps, but not elimination, or much more than we have already... more enforcement of current laws than anything). I'm not a dove, and adhere to some level of neo-con inspired "realpolitik". My stances on abortion are muddled, and a bit contradictory, and definitely not along the liberal lines (even if the end result is, it isn't my place to tell anyone what to do, no matter my ethical or moral stance).

      My dad is a lifelong union supporter, and subscribes to communist papers, but thinks we should force all illegal immigrants out at gun point, and is somewhat on the fence about social tolerance. My mom is much the same, but goes further and thinks we don't have enough capital punishment, and perhaps we shouldn't let gay people cook our food because of diseases. One of my friends is a capital L Libertarians, who with a couple drinks in him is in favor of gun control, and perhaps stronger welfare laws (more, not less).

      Politics aren't binary. They aren't even the magical 2 axis thing Libertarians love. They are scattershot, various issues can be pigeonholed, but this has nothing to do with what people actually believe. We pick and choose, for the most part. Some things we get socially, some we are brought up with, some we muddle out on our own, and some are handed to us from churches, or Government propaganda.

      --
      A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
    8. Re:Wow nice... by korbulon · · Score: 2

      Maybe it's time to grow up from the arbitrary divisions like left and right?

      There's more to the political spectrum than Left and Right? I hope you're not serious, because I'm just a Caveman. I fell in some ice and later got thawed out by your scientists. Your world frightens and confuses me. Sometimes the honking horns of your traffic make me want to get out of my BMW and run off into the hills or whatever. Sometimes when I get a message on my fax machine, did little demons get inside and type it? I don't know. My primitive mind can't grasp these concepts.

    9. Re:Wow nice... by Charliemopps · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Personally I hope I get democracy back.

    10. Re:Wow nice... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      So you need a multi-party political system to represent all those flavours with the best achievable granularity.

    11. Re:Wow nice... by lexman098 · · Score: 1

      Freedom and democracy are not the same thing. Obama was elected fairly (more or less).

    12. Re:Wow nice... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They pretty much ensured that data dumping will ensue, on levels never before seen. It's going to be pretty damned interesting considering that Greenwald is a hell of a leftist, and is railing like never before.

      I no, right? I am a proud leftist and I am cautiously reaching for a bag of metaphorical popcorn over this.

    13. Re:Wow nice... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Typo: I meant, "I know..."

    14. Re:Wow nice... by terrycarlino · · Score: 1

      Obviously not correct, as it doesn't correspond to reality. Is a Libertarian a conservative? If a conservative believes that the government should be allowed to collect information on its citizenry in order to carry out military objectives such as anti-terrorist activities does that not make that conservative a statist? That person would surely not be a libertarian, but in the United States at least they could certainly be considered a conservative. And they would want a larger more intrusive government. Many of the so-called big government programs the exist in the U.S. were pushed by conservatives originally, from the Interstate system to the military-industrial complex. Hence the present confrontation in both parties about the NSA. Far left and far right are against the constitutionality of NSA snooping while conservatives and liberals of more centrist bent are for it. The far lefties are the anarchists and radical socialitst and the rightist are the libertarians.

    15. Re:Wow nice... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then fight for it!

    16. Re:Wow nice... by Guy+Harris · · Score: 1

      Greenwald was actually pretty libertarian/non political, but as a constitutional law litigator, he got sick of what he felt were a series of abuses by the prior and then current administration post 9/11.

      I'd go more for "non-political" than "libertarian", based on his preface to "How Would A Patriot Act".

      As for Greenwald's current political views, see his Frequently Told Lies" blog post, where he explicitly answers claims that he's a "right-wing libertarian" with some pretty good indications that he's not one (I suspect few "right-wing libertarians" would strongly advocate a "public option" for health insurance, for example).

      The truth is that most whistleblowers are generally conservative.

      "Conservative", or libertarian? "Conservative" is used in multiple different ways, few if any of which are equivalent to libertarian.

    17. Re:Wow nice... by Teancum · · Score: 1

      Again, I think you mistaken the "far left" and "anarachists" as the same thing. They really aren't. I would define "far left" as those who espouse Communism and desire a big government welfare state, and of course Fascists (or variations of that) who want a big government that sponsors large monopoles for various sectors of the economy that are quasi government agencies in themselves even if they make a profit from their products.

      This is a far oversimplified version of things, but I suggest there are two wings of libertarianism: those who emphasize the 2nd Amendment and those who emphasize legalizing marijuana. They mostly support each other's overall goals though and if you ask one group or the other they think the government needs to simply stay out of their lives, even though both groups often are "converts" from more traditional "conservative" or "liberal" political groups.

      I'll also point out that sadly in the U.S. Congress, most of those who hold office are clearly statists and not libertarians. It is about time they get labeled as such and the voters be made aware of that fact.

    18. Re:Wow nice... by Charliemopps · · Score: 1

      Sorry, you're wrong. No-one wins in a 2 party system.

    19. Re:Wow nice... by lexman098 · · Score: 1

      Uh, case in point?

    20. Re:Wow nice... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I suspect few "right-wing libertarians" would strongly advocate a "public option" for health insurance, for example

      As opposed to non-optional public insurance for all. That is surely a libertarian viewpoint in the EU area. Not that is matters in practice as many use their legislated work related health care services and private insurances anyway for the routine cases.

    21. Re:Wow nice... by Xylene2301 · · Score: 1

      There never was democracy. What you had was Big Brother but he was so poorly organized that you thought you were free.

  7. Wow... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

    The UK is such a fucking authoritarian dictatorship.

    The only difference is you get to vote which dictator you want to fuck up the country even further.

    Fuck the UK!

    1. Re:Wow... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Greenwald for PM, eh?
      Baah-hah-hah-hah-hah!!!

  8. Amazing by xQx · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It really is amazing that we (ANZUS+UK+Canada) can lecture the rest of the world about the virtues and freedoms of democracy, chastise China for censoring the Internet and making up economic figures and pass laws like the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (mandating whistle-blowing for corporations); while we are so openly censoring our "free" press.

    I do expect a certain level of hypocrisy and self-serving behavior from our governments, but am I alone in noticing this has really stepped up a notch recently?

    1. Re:Amazing by Neo-Rio-101 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Australia and the UK have never really had free speech provisions.
      If Her Majesty so requests, she is more than capable of instructing her secret agents to trample on anyone at any time for saying anything.

      (Not saying that she did, or anything....but if she did, she sure as hell wouldn't want anyone to find out!)

      This is the price we pay for having a benevolent dictator who allows us a democracy.

      --
      READY.
      PRINT ""+-0
    2. Re:Amazing by FuzzNugget · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I like to think that, in Canada, there is a large enough percentage of us who really lose our shit whenever we get even a hint that something oppressive or corrupt is going down.

      I mean, a senator and high ranking official just lost their jobs because of ... wait for it ... $90,000 of questionable expenses. It was a huge deal and all over the news here. US government officials wipe their asses with that kind of money and nobody blinks.

    3. Re:Amazing by cold+fjord · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The world is a big place with a lot happening.

      China Admits Selling Prisoners’ Organs

      As far as things being "stepped up a notch recently" ... that also applies to the massive theft of state secrets of multiple countries which are being distributed like party favours to one and all, including enemies and adversaries. (When you make something available without discrimination, your enemies and adversaries get it too.)

      There are people out there just waiting to exploit that sort of information to slip by unnoticed: Al-Qaeda 'targeting European rail network'

      Things will get figured out in some form eventually.

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    4. Re:Amazing by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      Yeah my copy of the Australian constitution is amazingly short on detail beyond "The Queen may allow...".

    5. Re:Amazing by shadowofwind · · Score: 5, Insightful

      From my standpoint the degree of dishonesty hasn't increased, events have just made it a bit more obvious to many of us than it has been at other times in the past.

      People in the US were crowing about freedom back when blacks were still getting lynched for seeking basic civil rights. I could go on with numerous other examples, from every period. The pretexts for abuse are more obviously lies at some times than at others, but always they are largely pretexts.

      I'm not saying that the US is worse than other countries, and its a lot better than a great many. But there has been a persistent fascist streak from the beginning.

    6. Re:Amazing by FuzzNugget · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I've been kind of wondering about this for a while myself. Are things really worse today than they used to be? Or have things always been more or less the same and we are just more aware of it because of the Internet's prevalence?

      In either case, we desperately need to work towards more openness and freedom.

    7. Re:Amazing by kermidge · · Score: 1

      When I read the story the term "bloody-minded" arose; a term coined, I think, just to describe the Brits.

    8. Re:Amazing by aliquis · · Score: 2

      Let's all move to Iceland.

      Maybe one should write new ones.

      1) You've got the right to be you.

      2) You've got the right to speak.

      3) You've got the right to think.

      3a) You've got the right to think that others shouldn't have the right to think, speak or be themself.
      2a) You've even got the right to express how you don't think others don't have the right to think, speak or be themself.
      1a) However, don't assume that any of the shit mentioned in 3a or 2a matters and if you'd even try to enforce that then fuck you.

      There. Short, simple and efficient.

    9. Re:Amazing by c0lo · · Score: 1

      The world is a big place with a lot happening.

      China Admits Selling Prisoners’ Organs

      And this is relevant to the current topic... exactly how?
      (unless the topic is somehow the world's hypocritical pissing championship and I failed to see it as such).

      --
      Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
    10. Re:Amazing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Guess I should had written point 1a somewhat different but it's late and I should sleeve <3ish hour.

    11. Re:Amazing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As far as things being "stepped up a notch recently" ... that also applies to the massive theft of state secrets of multiple countries which are being distributed like party favours to one and all, including enemies and adversaries.

      Here is a translation of your above bullshit for those who might not be clever enough to see
      through your weasel-word attempts at propaganda :

      Recently, various governments have been caught engaging in flagrant abuses and
      now those governments are very nervous indeed because they know that their people
      are not going to tolerate such abuses. Of course they have all read their Machiavelli,
      so they assume that force and intimidation are the best methods to use. In so doing they
      are doing what amounts to pouring gasoline on a fire.

    12. Re:Amazing by xQx · · Score: 1

      Is it because they have big noses?

    13. Re:Amazing by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      Australia had its own day of 'cleansing' over a book, Axis of Deceit.
      http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22library%2Fprspub%2FN16J6%22
      "...then watched them do it with a special little disk-breaking hammer. They graciously followed up this service with a customer satisfaction form"
      ".... also had their hard drives cleansed around early September 2004, several months after the amended book had gone on sale"

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    14. Re:Amazing by cusco · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Because we're all sure that Al Qaeda couldn't possibly find any rail lines in Europe without leaks and whistle blowers.

      Seriously, unless you believe that the US has an impervious border (at which point you have issues that can't be solved simply by education) then it should be obvious that al Qaeda isn't what we're being told it is for the simple reason that WE'RE NOT BEING ATTACKED. A dozen guys armed with second hand deer rifles, working as landscapers and dishwashers, driving old beater cars, could take down the entire US electrical grid. No suicide attack necessary. If they work at the Tyson plant they could poison thousands or tens of thousands with biological agents that can be grown in home beer fermentation kits. They can make iron oxide and aluminum powder and burn out railroad bridges with simple thermite. And yet none of these things are happening. Instead we have a Shoe Bomber who forgets to bring matches with him, and the Underwear Bomber.

      Be afraid. Be very afraid.

      --
      "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
    15. Re:Amazing by smash · · Score: 1

      Hasn't really stepped up a notch, it's merely in the media due to the leaks.

      --
      I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
    16. Re:Amazing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Neither has Canada. Quite a few hate speech laws here too. Its one of the funny items on the list of things that is illegal to import.

    17. Re:Amazing by Teancum · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Israel had a real persistent terrorist problem with at one point daily bombings in its cities. Ditto for Norther Ireland. Nothing like that has remotely happened in the United States.

      If anything, I'd say that Al Qaeda has been completely ineffective and unable to carry on operations that even the Symbionese Liberation Army was able to accomplish (an otherwise no-name group of idiots who managed to pull off a couple of stupid "terrorist" operations prior to 9/11 in the USA). The only place that Al Qaeda seems capable of destroying is Iraq and Afghanistan... mainly killing their own supporters for the most part (and makes you wonder why they have support?)

    18. Re:Amazing by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      That's like a constitution an 8 year-old would write. Or a 20 year old stoner.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    19. Re:Amazing by Teancum · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Stuff like this used to be mainly done on a local level, where you could always "vote with your feet" and go elsewhere if you didn't like the attitude of a particular county sheriff towards your family (whatever skin color or ethnicity you might have). Quite a few people did pack up and leave, moving from one area to another from time to time.

      What is different today is that it is the federal government that is doing stuff like this, where as before they were such a small part of American life that they couldn't do anything like what is happening today. It wasn't that long ago (still in the 20th Century) when the total number of federal employees, including the military and the post office (by far the largest department at the time) numbered just over 100,000 people in a republic of over 200 million. America was governed very well at the time too.

      If you want to leave America, where do you go? Edward Snowden has gone to Russia, but is that a realistic option?

    20. Re:Amazing by DrSkwid · · Score: 1

      When you say "we" you talk like that means something.

      --
      There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
    21. Re:Amazing by aristotle-dude · · Score: 3, Interesting

      And yet you voted Paul Harper back for another go-round? Oh well. It isn't good that Scott Walker is not on the media radar currently, so maybe that is 2016 for the US.

      That's Stephen Harper and he kicked that Senator out of his party because is is a real "Conservative". I'd like to see either Republicans or Democrats have the guts to kick out a Senator or Representative for wrong doing. Never going to happen.

      --
      Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
    22. Re:Amazing by DarkTempes · · Score: 1

      Didn't the various organized crime organizations do a bunch of car bombings (and other stuff) in the 60s and 70s? And obviously other periods too.

      I remember reading about Cleveland being called the car bomb capital of America at one point.

    23. Re:Amazing by isorox · · Score: 2

      Australia and the UK have never really had free speech provisions.
      If Her Majesty so requests, she is more than capable of instructing her secret agents to trample on anyone at any time for saying anything.

      (Not saying that she did, or anything....but if she did, she sure as hell wouldn't want anyone to find out!)

      This is the price we pay for having a benevolent dictator who allows us a democracy.

      How's that u.s constitution working out?

    24. Re:Amazing by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      Same attitude prevails in Australia and the UK, high ranking politicians are regularly brought down on corruption charges for relatively minor misdemeanours. There are aspects of the Westminster system that in my opinion are better at dealing with corruption and wasteful pork than the US system. Even the politicians I despise in my own country seem to genuinely believe in the system and generally abide by it's rules. I'm sure there are plenty of examples that demonstrate how wrong I am but for the most part, when push turns to shove most Aussie politicians abide by the spirit of democracy.

      I am also not an absolutist on the free speech issue, in my opinion Fred Phelps and his crew have a right to their opinion but should not have the right to harass mourners at a funeral. Voicing one's opinion in public is not the same thing as shoving it down the throat of a grieving parent who is burying their child, this is why in London the nutters are asked to stand on a soap box in Hyde park, they get their message out to a large audience from around the globe who turn up daily to listen, laugh, argue, heckle, and take photos.

      The world's a messy place, and (unlike Charlie Sheen) you're not going to win every hand you're dealt. People (particularly young men) need a way to vent these frustrations without unduly pissing off the rest of us, Hyde Park is the grandaddy of free speech venues where anyone and everyone can "vent", the invention of the internet has rendered it somewhat redundant but no less important.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    25. Re:Amazing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Israel has a persistent terrorist problem in much the same way than South Africa used to.

    26. Re:Amazing by sFurbo · · Score: 1

      Iceland, the land that has outlawed stripping and is trying to outlaw online porn? Yes, a bastion of personal liberty.

    27. Re:Amazing by TapeCutter · · Score: 2

      When you make something available without discrimination, your enemies and adversaries get it too.

      What on Earth gave you the idea that freedom of the press was cheap? - Morals and principles have always been expensive and always will be.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    28. Re:Amazing by Raenex · · Score: 1

      I mean, a senator and high ranking official just lost their jobs because of ... wait for it ... $90,000 of questionable expenses. It was a huge deal and all over the news here. US government officials wipe their asses with that kind of money and nobody blinks.

      Ted Stevens: "The prosecution charged that Stevens lied on his Senate financial disclosure forms, in effect concealing $250,000 worth of gifts and home renovations from a wealthy oilman, Bill Allen, and his oil services company, VECO.

      During the trial Stevens defense lawyers argued that Stevens paid $160,000 for the home renovations and did nothing wrong."

      That's a difference of $90,000.

    29. Re:Amazing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Democrats pretty clearly kicked out Anthony Weiner. No laws broken, just questionable actions.

    30. Re:Amazing by Raenex · · Score: 1

      And yet none of these things are happening.

      So you're trying to give the idiots better ideas?

      Instead we have a Shoe Bomber who forgets to bring matches with him

      I've never heard that. He had matches and tried to light the fuse. He failed because he had a flight delay (due to security screening being suspicious) and sweated through his shoes.

    31. Re:Amazing by Phrogman · · Score: 1

      I think we are just more aware of it due to the Internet. Our western society has always been more or less free and equal around the edges, as long as the powerful and influential types are able to remain in control. When they can't, it shows its ugly side.
      We live in a very polite, nice, and mostly peaceful Police State which has pretty iron control over things.

      --
      "The first time I got drunk, I got married. The second time I bought a chimpanzee, after that I stayed sober" Arian Seid
    32. Re:Amazing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i think that was referred to in Kill The Irishman movie.don't know if many people were actually hurt or killed.it all comes down to some people being bent on killing or hurting other people.ideology,revenge, maybe insanity.

    33. Re:Amazing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's true to some extent, but we're also pretty complacent about some things. I'm almost certain that the same kind of overreaching communications surveillance goes on here (somewhere in the basement of CSIS or DND). The same kind of legislative enablers as are in our laws as in the Patriot Act in the US. There are also indications that the same kind of program has been started. More precisely, it was *re*-started in 2011 after an earlier program was stopped because of privacy and legal concerns. Furthermore, I assume that practically all Canadian communications traffic is monitored by the NSA because it is foreign, and knowing our government, it's probably done with complete cooperation. I've yet to see signs of the same kind of outrage as has occurred in the US because of it.

    34. Re:Amazing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hang on. These sound familliar.

      " that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness"

      Of course this is not from our constitution, but it is the document that led to the constition and forms the basis for the laws contained in it.

      Hence I give you

      http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html

      Which provides for what you seek. How about we just start to actuallt follow the constitution for a change? I think that would work out better that moving to Iceland.

    35. Re:Amazing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The only place that Al Qaeda seems capable of destroying is Iraq and Afghanistan... mainly killing their own supporters for the most part (and makes you wonder why they have support?)

      They seemed to have poisoned the well and destroyed my freedoms pretty effectively. We've changed laws, buildings, technologies, economies and many future plans. I guess you could even give them extra points for accomplishing their goals with so little damage in so few years!

      So I have to ask who is really winning this war?

    36. Re:Amazing by Arker · · Score: 1

      It may (or may not) be true that Au is somehow more likely to bring your politicians down for accepting bribes. I suspect the occasional case you see is truly the tip of the iceberg, but at any rate, what shocked me when I lived in Au and followed the politics was just how brazen they were in their attempts to bribe the voters. In the US there is still some shame left over that particular practice, and the politicians are usually pretty careful not to acknowledge it.

      --
      =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
      Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
    37. Re:Amazing by khallow · · Score: 1

      The Democrats pretty clearly kicked out Anthony Weiner. No laws broken, just questionable actions.

      Until Weiner destroyed himself by lying about going back to sexting, he was set to become the next mayor of New York City. That's a lot of sting on that wrist slap. My take is "kicked out" means that politically, the person is persona non grata, not that he moves on to yet another big political office once the heat is off.

    38. Re:Amazing by cold+fjord · · Score: 0

      Because we're all sure that Al Qaeda couldn't possibly find any rail lines in Europe without leaks and whistle blowers.

      You've missed the point, as have the moderators (apparently). The question in this case isn't "can they find rail lines," which is silly, but "can they avoid detection long enough to attack them in the way they prefer?" The leaks from the "whistle blowers" provide information that helps them avoid detection from the security services.

      Seriously, unless you believe that the US has an impervious border (at which point you have issues that can't be solved simply by education) then it should be obvious that al Qaeda isn't what we're being told it is for the simple reason that WE'RE NOT BEING ATTACKED

      Can you think of any other reasons besides having an "impervious border" that they haven't been attacking? I'll give you a couple. Al Qaida has called off attacks in the past because they felt the number of casualties they would produce is below the level they deem acceptable for their reputation. (Example: NY subway attacks) They have been foiled in various ways by infiltrators. The security services have killed their leaders and planners. Their plans have been intercepted and counter-measures taken that make the plan infeasible or useless for various reasons. Individuals or groups that were planning attacks have been detected and arrested. Much of this relies upon good intelligence, which is being compromised and may become ineffective.

      And maybe you haven't noticed, but the US, UK, and a number of other European countries have all had a number of incidents of varying severity which have led to arrests, trials, and convictions. In a number of those cases the planned attack could have caused mass casualties.

      All of this could change for the worse if al Qaida and its affiliates decide to change tactics, and/or the security services become ineffective in detecting them for various reasons. Providing them with detailed explanations on how they are being spied upon isn't going to be helpful in the long run.

      Be afraid. Be very afraid.

      Rather than "be afraid," be prudent. Telling your enemies how you spy upon them isn't prudent. Once you compromise an intelligence method it can easily lose all value, and you may never get it back.

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    39. Re:Amazing by dkleinsc · · Score: 1

      Nothing like that has remotely happened in the United States.

      It certainly did: The KKK is the largest and longest-lasting terrorist group in the history of the United States (unless you count the Confederate States of America). They were involved in acts of terrorism almost continuously for about a century, and there are still people claiming to be heirs of the group who are out there beating and killing people.

      Of course, if you're not the population that the terrorists are targeting, it's easier to forget about.

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    40. Re:Amazing by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

      So I have to ask who is really winning this war?

      Halliburton. Monsanto. McDonnell-Douglass. FMC. GE. You know, the usual suspects.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    41. Re:Amazing by C0C0C0 · · Score: 1

      No. I'm pretty sure the answer is "No. You are not alone in noticing this."

      --
      You are totally blocking my view of the wall. - Dogbert
    42. Re:Amazing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      However there have been zero questions or national dialogue in the Canadian press regarding the CSE and their participation in these NSA programs, or what data they are providing. The silence is deafening.

    43. Re:Amazing by QuantumPion · · Score: 1

      Because we're all sure that Al Qaeda couldn't possibly find any rail lines in Europe without leaks and whistle blowers.

      Seriously, unless you believe that the US has an impervious border (at which point you have issues that can't be solved simply by education) then it should be obvious that al Qaeda isn't what we're being told it is for the simple reason that WE'RE NOT BEING ATTACKED. A dozen guys armed with second hand deer rifles, working as landscapers and dishwashers, driving old beater cars, could take down the entire US electrical grid. No suicide attack necessary. If they work at the Tyson plant they could poison thousands or tens of thousands with biological agents that can be grown in home beer fermentation kits. They can make iron oxide and aluminum powder and burn out railroad bridges with simple thermite. And yet none of these things are happening. Instead we have a Shoe Bomber who forgets to bring matches with him, and the Underwear Bomber.

        Be afraid. Be very afraid.

      Maybe so but when you read stories like this, it makes you worry...7 Pakistani muslim chemical engineers arrested for trespassing at Boston area municipal water supply at midnight

    44. Re:Amazing by cusco · · Score: 2

      You must not have much imagination. I can think of many, many attacks that would cause medium to large scale loss of life or property just in my area that could be carried out by one or two people. No extensive communications network, no massive funding, just a couple of people who come across the border the same as any other mojado, work at the same jobs as any other illegal, and live the same quiet life that almost all other immigrants do, until they get a message on their Hotmail mentioning that their dead brother's birthday is on a date next month. It ain't rocket surgery.

      --
      "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
    45. Re:Amazing by T.E.D. · · Score: 1

      Both my parents and my wife's parents have a habit of saying "Screw you, J. Edgar Hoover" any time they are on the phone and funny noises are heard. For their generation (Baby Boomers), it was just an expectation that the FBI was listening in on random phone conversations.

      No folks, this shit did not start yesterday. Every generation has to fight it. Welcome to the battle.

    46. Re:Amazing by misterooga · · Score: 1

      Actually, every time I hear the news on CBC...then read something like this, I really wonder if they are making a big fuss over this scandal just to draw attention away from the PRISM and others programs that are probably also in Canada.

    47. Re:Amazing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And you know how the Authorities in the UK and NI recacted , same old authoritian shit Internment without trial , 'Politician's' voices from the enemy had to be dubbed on tv stop their evil message being heard. Alleged collaboration in death squads and executions.

      OH and dont forget make hay as political capital in their childish empire games.

      The ordinary people? they just dusted them themselevs off grieved for their dead and tried to live as good as life as possible. The true heroes and winners.

    48. Re:Amazing by Agent0013 · · Score: 1

      And maybe you haven't noticed, but the US, UK, and a number of other European countries have all had a number of incidents of varying severity which have led to arrests, trials, and convictions. In a number of those cases the planned attack could have caused mass casualties.

      The only arrests that get made are either after the fact or are setups done by the feds themselves. If the feds plan an entire terrorist operation and find some patsy to convince to drive the truck they get credit for stopping a terrorist attack. Even though there was no attack that was even remotely going to happen before they made all the plans and produced the fake bombs and everything. But you go ahead and keep defending them. We all know who butters your bread!

      --

      -- ssoorrrryy,, dduupplleexx sswwiittcchh oonn.. -Quote found on actual fortune cookie.
    49. Re:Amazing by asavage · · Score: 1

      Mike Duffy (The Senator with the $90K expenses) is still a senator. He resigned from the conservative caucus, so now he is independent but he still has his job.

    50. Re:Amazing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is a giant dog and pony show. The U.S., Canada, and especially the U.K. are a lot less free than people like to think.

    51. Re:Amazing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I mean, a senator and high ranking official just lost their jobs because of ... wait for it ... $90,000 of questionable expenses.

      It's a tempest in a teapot.

      1. Harper wants to drastically change Senate
      2. Harper is prevented from doing so by the constitution. The end? Perhaps not!
      3. Suddenly, there is an expensive audit of all the little things some stupid senators do, like stopping in Toronto on their way home! You know, instead of taking their connecting flight immediately, they wait a while.
      4. RAWR RAWR RAWR! CORRUPTION in the senate! OMG OMG!
      5. Public's perception of the Senate drops. When some in parliament want to extend the audit to include House of Commons (the *real* government), they are blocked by the government. Only the Senate is to be investigated after all!

      Now connect the dots. *How* can you start to even talk about reforming anything if there is no perception of some crises or problem?? You can't. You have to either find it, or manufacture it.

      The audit found some minor things. Now I would not be surprised that after the next prorogation of parliament (again), we will not get an agenda to look at the "corruption in the Senate" and how to make it more "democratic". Considering it was Harper that appointed these people there in the first place!

      http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2013/02/08/pol-patrick-brazeau-senate-arrest.html

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Brazeau
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pamela_Wallin
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Duffy

      So, maybe the future steps will be,

      6. Start debate about reforms and "accountability" in the Senate (favourite *word* of current government)
      7. Start to gauge public opinion about senate reform
      8. (after) next election, start the ball rolling on changing (abolishing and then maybe replacing) the senate. The trick is to keep all this in the spot light while pretending you don't want it in the spot light.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Senate_expenses_scandal

      A June 2013 poll revealed that in the wake of the controversy, 49% of Canadians wanted to reform the Senate, 41% wanted to see it abolished, 6% wanted to keep it as it was, and 4% were unsure

      Imagine that!!

    52. Re:Amazing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      until they get a message on their Hotmail mentioning that their dead brother's birthday is on a date next month. It ain't rocket surgery.

      Or until the teacher gives them a failing grade on a term project.

      Really, you've got the imagination to come up with some bizarro world of sleeper agents and weapons of mass destruction but you can't even consider the attacks that could be (and have been) caused by true blue American citizens against their own people? That's just messed up. Some times crazy people just snap and it has nothing to do with those 'border crossing' terrorists.

      Google Oklahoma City Bombing, then take a real long look in the mirror and turn yourself in before you cause some medium to large scale loss of life or property in your area.

    53. Re:Amazing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Stephen Harper didn't kick Patrick Brazeau out of the Conservative caucus because he was embroiled in expenses and domestic violence scandals, Harper kicked him out because Brazeau had become a liability to the Conservative party brand.

      It wasn't about punishing Brazeau for doing something wrong, if Brazeau hadn't attracted a bunch of press he would not have been removed from the caucus. Notice how none of the senators currently under investigation for expenses abuse were removed from the Conservative caucus before it became public that they were blatantly abusing the system. Removing them from the Conservative caucus is a PR maneuver to save face for the Conservative party, not because Harper's better than the scrum politicians south of the border.

      Oh, and OP, Duffy is still a senator. He didn't lose his job, and neither did Nigel Wright (Wright resigned, again, to save face for the Conservative party). Duffy is sitting as an independent because, wait for it, the senate reforms Harper lauded so loudly when he was a minority government still haven't happened.

      So, yeah, Canadian politicians are scum, they're just marginally more polite scum than American politicians.

    54. Re:Amazing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not that I disagree with your overall point, but your numbers are fairly misleading. The post office is a terrible proxy for the size of the US government.

      The US population in 1968 was 200 million people [1], and number of non-military federal employees was 3.1 million [2], or 1.5% of the population. In 2011, this shifted to 312 million people and 2.8 million non-military federal employees, or 0.9% of the population.

      I strongly suspect that some of the decrease is due to the growing use of contractors to do work that used to be done by federal employees, but I don't have that data handy. Another contributing factor is probably the general trend towards growing productivity per worker seen across the economy in the US since 1980.

      [1] http://www.multpl.com/united-states-population/table
      [2] https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/data-analysis-documentation/federal-employment-reports/historical-tables/total-government-employment-since-1962/

    55. Re:Amazing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While I agree 100%, they don't have to attack anything to cause massive damage. Just consider the recent case of the embassy closures. Some guy, picks up his sat phone, calls a couple friends and says something like "the US presence in the Arab world will be terminated next Monday", hangs up the phone, flips on CNN and sits around drinking coffee with his buddies.

      A day later the US closes the embassies...

      The guy with the sat phone, laughs at how he spent $2 on phone charges to inconvenience tens of thousands of people, and waste millions of US government funds.

      You don't win against a much larger opponent by beating him directly, you use his strengths against him. At this point we probably could have made the world safer by identifying the dozen or so real terrorists and offering each of them a billion dollars and a life on the beach. Would have saved us a shitton of money too, we might actually be able to afford to build some bridges/roads at home with the savings.

    56. Re:Amazing by IamTheRealMike · · Score: 1

      But why exclude the military from those figures?

    57. Re:Amazing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      oliver cromwell

    58. Re:Amazing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you want to leave America, where do you go? Edward Snowden has gone to Russia, but is that a realistic option?

      Snowden "went" to Russia?

      He got trapped in Russia when the Fed revoked his passport, made overt threats against sympathetic governments, and demanded that other countries ground and search any and all aircraft that may have been carrying him onboard.

      Russia is an oligarchic hole that did not lose the corruption of the USSR when it went capitalist; it's not a good candidate as a place to go if you actually have a choice.

    59. Re:Amazing by Teancum · · Score: 1

      Prior to World War II, the Post Office Department was the largest federal agency by far, which is why I bothered to include it. Furthermore, the Postmaster General was a cabinet level officer which reported directly to the President until the Postal Service was created as a quasi-government agency like it exists today. Note I wasn't trying to be misleading by quoting just the size of the post office, but rather note that basically the Post Office Department was for all intents and purposes what you could call nearly the entire federal government with a few various appendages like the U.S. Navy and Army who made up the remainder of the government and of course a few other left overs. Even during the administration of FDR, the U.S. Army totaled less than 30,000 soldiers and legislation was even drafted at the time (and even got a floor vote) to completely eliminate it altogether as it was felt an unnecessary expense of American taxpayers and that the National Guard could cover any real security needs at the time with maybe a very small contingent of generals to command the national army in times of crises.

      The federal government started to balloon under the Herbert Hoover administration, and became the bloated mess we know today under the FDR administration and not really cut back except under the JFK administration (or at least that was a professed goal of JFK had he lived to a 2nd term) and the Truman administration, where people still remembered the much smaller federal government. World War II grew the U.S. military from the very small number that existed prior to that war to an organization of several million. Nobody since has really tried cut those numbers.

      My point is that the federal government was very small at one time, and that it was a large republic with 48 states and not just a loose newly free group of colonies like is sometimes portrayed by people who say the federal government simply must be this size in order to govern effectively. Noting numbers since 1962 is well past when the damage was done.

    60. Re:Amazing by cusco · · Score: 1

      IIRC he was caught because he asked a stewardess for a lighter, I assumed he didn't have any matches.

      --
      "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
    61. Re:Amazing by Teancum · · Score: 1

      That is a fair point. It is also ignored in most history books that blacks fought back against the KKK and ended up killing more than a few of them, where technically the racial war that happened in the deep south took out thousands of lives... both black and white. The numbers involved rank with some of the great battles of the U.S. Civil War, but happened just a few at a time.

      One interesting thing about the KKK though is that it was also deeply rooted into the political culture of the areas where it prevailed, with even members of the U.S. Supreme Court openly proclaiming membership in the organization. It is funny to see some modern day politicians run away from their roots in that organization (like Robert Byrd in particular but others too).

      One other difference is that the KKK was not explicitly trying to overthrow or even hope for the destruction of the U.S. government. There have been other domestic terrorist groups that have done that as an explicit goal though.

    62. Re:Amazing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, it's because an eruption in the right spot will make the whole place hotter than a German 'bakery'.. You're gonna need more than one ash tray.

    63. Re:Amazing by Raenex · · Score: 1

      You recall incorrectly. Why would a stewardess give somebody a lighter on an airplane? And what would he answer that he wanted it for, to light his shoe bomb? Is that what gave him away? You know, it's 2013 and the facts of this case are at your fingertips. No need for your poor recall, especially after you've been called out on it.

    64. Re:Amazing by dkleinsc · · Score: 1

      That is a fair point. It is also ignored in most history books that blacks fought back against the KKK and ended up killing more than a few of them

      Care for a citation on that? I've heard of cases where the KKK attacked black people and the black people defended themselves, but I'm not aware of cases where black people sought out and killed Klansmen except when doing their duty as US soldiers.

      One other difference is that the KKK was not explicitly trying to overthrow or even hope for the destruction of the U.S. government.

      That's not entirely true: Some incarnations of the Klan were in fact trying to do just that on the grounds that it had been taken over by Catholics, Jews, black people, etc. The more realistic members were aiming for rendering the former Confederacy free from any practical influence from the US government, at least when it came to treatment of black people, and in this they were largely successful for about a century.

      It's not really different from the IRA trying to make it so Northern Ireland was ungovernable by the UK, and having a political wing (Sinn Fein) that was part of the legal government of the area.

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    65. Re:Amazing by DarthVain · · Score: 1

      Heh, yeah I was trying to understand some bazaar Paul Martin/Stephen Harper joke or something... :)

      Anyway yeah, kicked him out, but appointed them all. Also they have kicked out a lot of MP's and Senators, seems more systemic than reactive. At a certain point you are just throwing people under the bus to maintain the status quo.

      A nice example of that is Duffy. We will publically chastise you, but then offer to pay the tab using party funds... But Harper was totally unaware of that as well. For a control freak, he apparently has no clue ever about what people in his own party are doing... sarcasm.

  9. Safe House. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The funny thing is how "safe" Brazil is compared to the first world.

    1. Re:Safe House. by no-body · · Score: 1

      Doesn't need to be - just needs to be in opposition to what their internal string-pullers perceive as bullies (US) and be pissed about all the snooping on them being disclosed.

      Still BR is not considering giving Snowden asylum.

    2. Re:Safe House. by Hypotensive · · Score: 1

      Unless you play football.

  10. Time to move data centers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Government agents smashing your data, and backups, to bits is now something that happens. I suspect many multinational corporations ate going to be rethinking their hosting strategies. Having the government spy on your business data is one thing. Having them come in with sledgehammers and destroy it is something else entirely.

    1. Re:Time to move data centers by Deluvianvortex · · Score: 1

      But it was the government's data, Snowden stole it and gave it to the guardian. It was not the guardian's to begin with.

    2. Re:Time to move data centers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It was not UK data to begin with. Snowden copied it from NSA servers, also stop using "he stole it", when he just copied it. He stole nothing at all.
      That's the same nonsense bullshit as "copyright theft". You can neither steal a copyright nor do you steal when you copy something. You are violation license terms, nothing else.

    3. Re:Time to move data centers by Ash-Fox · · Score: 1

      You are violation license terms, nothing else.

      Can you explain to me how this is in no way possible to commit treason or violate something like the secrets act?

      --
      Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
    4. Re:Time to move data centers by myowntrueself · · Score: 1

      But it was the government's data, Snowden stole it and gave it to the guardian. It was not the guardian's to begin with.

      Then it was evidence of a crime and destroying it is destruction of evidence which is a crime.

      --
      In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
    5. Re: Time to move data centers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Evil will prevail if the good stands by and does nothing.

      Sometimes you have to violate laws to archive a higher and better goal. Slavishly adhere to laws even if they result in doing the wrong is defined in AD&D as lawful evil.

      The philosopher Kohlberg defined different level of morals. Sticking to laws at all costs is quite primitive and not morally superior.

      Staufenberg tried to kill Hitler with a bomb. (Yadayada goodwin's law, yadayada) According to law that was illegal and according to you he was wrong? No. He had better morals than you. Sometimes you MUST violate the law. It's morally imperative.

      It there would be a law that forces you to surrender your kids to a state reeducation camp, would you do it 'cause the law says so? If a law would outlaw all of the sudden it to listen to music (like in Sharia controlled countries), would you destroy all your CDs and MP3s? If a law would mandate that everyone kills their parents when they turn 60, would you do it? Because law? No.

      The same with Snowden. Yes he violated the law. But it was morally imperative. The same with Manning. Seeing evil and wrong and doing nothing makes you wrong.

    6. Re: Time to move data centers by Ash-Fox · · Score: 1

      Evil will prevail if the good stands by and does nothing.

      I don't believe in the fabricated concept of 'evil'.

      --
      Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
  11. Pxe boot? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you run a news agency just pxe boot from various remote sites that way $government/corp thugs get their touchy smashy feel good, and you keep your data......... its win win........ or something

    1. Re:Pxe boot? by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      PXE only works across ethernet. There are ways to book remotely off a WAN but another way to work is to use a remote desktop or just an ssh session. You would want to have multiple copies of the data in places like Iceland (hmmm can I work on them in Eve?) and just connect when you want access to bits of it.

  12. torrents? by monzie · · Score: 1

    Isn't it safe to assume that the data would already have distributed to n number of people via torrents? If so, this action is totatlly pointless and shows their desparation.

    1. Re:torrents? by fnj · · Score: 1

      Desperation -> perversity, cussedness.

    2. Re:torrents? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It just shows how ignorant and technically inept officals in charge are. In my experience growing up there and going through various IT classes from high school to university, most of the UK doesn't really understand technology or how to use it, even those in charge of teaching it are either out dated or pretend to know more then they actually do.

  13. Time to dox everything by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Before the spooks find your offsite backups, put it all on the world's best data backup and redundancy system: bittorrent.

    1. Re:Time to dox everything by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://wlstorage.net/torrent/wlinsurance-20130815-A.aes256.torrent
      http://wlstorage.net/torrent/wlinsurance-20130815-B.aes256.torrent
      http://wlstorage.net/torrent/wlinsurance-20130815-C.aes256.torrent

      Off you go.

  14. Loss of an opportunity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    There's every chance they had good reason to act as they did but from the outside, to me, it seems like this was a wasted opportunity. Had they forced the government to bring them to trial it would have brought shone more light on both the NSA story and the problem of the erosion of freedom of the press.

      Had The Guardian won, they would have the added benefit of setting some precedent for their countrymen.

    Had they lost, we would at least know where we stand in terms of press freedom; better, in my mind, than the present situation, in which the rules don't seem to be fixed and government power is arbitrarily applied.

    Saying the data is copied somewhere else seems like an avoidance of the principle of the matter.

    1. Re:Loss of an opportunity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unless the House of Commons or Lords gets riled up, the UK government is immune to the Streisand Effect. It is almost like they are daring The Guardian to publish all of the stuff it has from Snowden in an act of righteous revenge. Not only would that end the mystery, but it could justify actual legal action against the principals, allowing them to shut the Guardian down.

      Hopefully The Guardian (and its board, owners or significant investors) have some patience to hold onto their cards. As much asshattery and dirty tricks the UK government can pull, as long as the Guardian hasn't revealed the juicy bits they still hsve some leverage.

      Just wish we (US, UK) citizenry would get over the inherent worship of their/our collective executive branches, who clearly have only one intention, to maintain their power and dominion that we have given them.
      IngSoc über alles!

  15. Official Secrets Act? by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

    I wonder if the Guardian et al. are in danger of running afoul of the Official Secrets Act?

    This would be cause for concern: "The Official Secrets Act 1989 (c. 6) is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom that repeals and replaces section 2 of the Official Secrets Act 1911, thereby removing the public interest defence created by that section."

    That law has some teeth of it, if it applies.

    --
    much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    1. Re:Official Secrets Act? by AHuxley · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The UK has a lot of teeth in a lot of laws, for having a "gun" with you, for reading banned material online and if they so wish the full use of the Official Secrets Act.
      The problem for the UK is the optics and methods of the Official Secrets Act.
      If you use it in a sealed court setting, you admit you have a "spy" like situation and need a top cleared legal team. Any person facing that system is by default be facing a Star Chamber and gather world wide sympathy and much legal UK interest spins up fast.
      If its in an open court, the defence and press goes to work on every detail and method. All in the open again over years. A situation most UK govs seem to want to avoid at any cost.
      So you never "running afoul" of the Official Secrets Act. It is a legal tool to welcome staff into the system with a nice clearance level and hints at years in jail.
      The UK would rather use other methods - if your connected to power/gov - no trial, pension but no more talking/leaks.
      If your connected to codes/methods but have few friends - a public trial on other topics..
      Other non court methods are also very legal in the UK.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    2. Re:Official Secrets Act? by tolkienfan · · Score: 1

      Are US secrets covered by the UKs official secrets act?

    3. Re:Official Secrets Act? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wonder if the Guardian et al. are in danger of running afoul of the Official Secrets Act?

      Seriously, what is your reason for posting your bootlicking fascist views here ? No one on Slashdot
      wants to hear your pro-government bullshit.

    4. Re:Official Secrets Act? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      officially no, but unofficially it's a secret.

    5. Re:Official Secrets Act? by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      Verrrry interestink! Makes me think the info isn't really all that important. More of an indirect 'press release' with high drama to get everybody's attention. You know, sex it up a little. My god, it's genius!

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    6. Re:Official Secrets Act? by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      The UK has a lot of teeth in a lot of laws,

      Plus, the guardian has been running all of these out of its NY office which is well outside the jursdiction of the UK laws. The thing is that while the UK might be the US's bitch, the US isn't so fond of returning favours and isn't likely to have a go at that office.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    7. Re:Official Secrets Act? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Other non court methods are also very legal in the UK.

      let's write them all an ASBO and be done with it.

  16. Protection costs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Next time they roll around asking for there take to keep the neighborhood safe you should pay up bro

  17. Not even government is this incompetent by FuzzNugget · · Score: 5, Insightful

    They know there are offsite backups. This was intimidation, pure and simple.

    1. Re:Not even government is this incompetent by fnj · · Score: 1

      Correct and insightful. Ding ding ding ding.

    2. Re:Not even government is this incompetent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      'We can call off the black helicopters,' joked one as we swept up the remains of a MacBook Pro."

      I wonder if this was a bit of tacit approval for the Guardian on the part of disgruntled younger/lower-level GCHQ employees. "Yes Minister, destroying their drives will totally destroy all the data on them, leaving them with absolutely nothing at all. No siree. Problem solved". Clueless upper management think they're getting their way, everyone else is snickering at them and quietly cheering on the 'leakers'.

      Of course, this ignores Hanlon's Razor entirely.

  18. Media is in the business of making money by VinylRecords · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The media gets dozens, hundreds, of documents. They slowly release them one or two at a time. Why? Not to make them easier for the public to digest. Not because they need to spend time reviewing them, writing articles, or gather sources. Not even because they enjoy being the gatekeepers of desired information.

    No. This is almost entirely about making money and a major ego trip. The writers enjoy getting off on being the center of a public spectacle. You put a few articles out a week and you get more viewers. You keep stringing everyone along and keep those numbers up for more advertising revenue and to try to attract more subscribers. You keep your own name in the papers and get a higher profile for a book release. That's what this game is all about. Snowden leaked his information to people who are using it as leverage to manufacture news.

    The reporters that Snowden contacted could easily release everything tomorrow. Total transparency. It would eliminate them being part of the story. But they get off on the attention. Glenn Greenwald wants to BE THE STORY. We've seen this repeatedly with Assange who comments on himself as often as he comments on the news. They don't want to report on some of the most relevant news and whistleblowing in the last decade. This is a chance for Greedwald to make a lot of money, a low of news appearances, some Real Time with Bill Maher, and maybe even a Howard Stern Show appearance. If he releases all of the documents then he's no longer important. His ego can't take that.

    I know at Slashdot that people are upset when the news media focuses on Snowden and Greenwald not the major revelations that Snowden has given us regarding the U.S. government's total war on privacy. But this is not new territory for Greenwald. He loves being the center of attention. Look at his news appearances regarding this case. He talks about himself and his involvement far too much in my opinion.

    I think that the U.S. citizenry has a right to know about the government's war on privacy. Show us everything. Be transparent the way Obama said he would be when he campaigned. Let us judge. Stop being the gatekeepers of information that you don't have a right to hide from us like the government did. Enough of the games. I can't take anyone in the media seriously anymore. If Greenwald and Snowden want less attention then give the world the information to help people combat the government's overreach.

    1. Re:Media is in the business of making money by Laxori666 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Actually I think it's definitely better to do a slow-release. Snowden may even be planning it this way. Think about it: if it's released all at once, who the fuck is going to go through thousands of documents to see what the gov is up to? Plus once the story is out it'll be forgotten within a few weeks. This way it's constantly in the news, people are always talking about it, it remains in people's minds, and the findings are summarized to make it easier to understand what is really going on. Good stuff, I say.

    2. Re:Media is in the business of making money by washort · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The really nice thing about releasing documents a few at a time is you have so many more opportunities to directly contradict the official reaction to the previous release. Dump 'em all at once and the government gets much more opportunity to control the narrative.

    3. Re:Media is in the business of making money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      For better or for worse, all of the people involved are making a serious attempt to prevent the publication of information that would directly lead to the persecution of sources, deaths of intelligence people currently in the field, whatever. It doesn't always work out (especially when some idiot releases the encryption key) but that's the only reason why they aren't all just released in a big lump. They could do so and still report on it.

      (More than one reason they're doing it, I grant you. They want to be Good People, and they also want to try and ease things back toward reasonability without a huge fascist crackdown.)

    4. Re:Media is in the business of making money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What rubbish. As someone that has worked in data journalism in a larger media org, you want to publish as soon as you can to trump the other news agencies. There are usually 3 reasons for a slow down 1) It takes time to get the data into a query-able format that the journalist can use easily for research, 2) They need to verify and validate the source material, this means putting in calls and follow ups - this can be slow going if you wait for everyone to get back to you, 3) big stories need legal to clear it and legal teams are getting smaller in the media downsizing.

      There is no doubt that the ordering and some timing is done to maximise readership impact, but this would not be the main reason for holding back. No news org wants to be trumped.

    5. Re:Media is in the business of making money by kermidge · · Score: 0

      Washington Post has the same material, do they not?

      In response to the earlier submission on Miranda's arrest and the confiscation of all his electronics, a poster posited that the mechanic thus far has been to release some info, the gov't responds, more info is given out which also catches out the first gov't response to be a lie. Repeat. This serves among other things to keep matters in the public view, as you point out, and perhaps increases its anger and concern.

      Poster also posited that if all were released at once it might afford gov't the chance to do a bit of one-time mea culpa and then sweep the matter away. A new, compelling news story, manufactured or no, could then captivate the audience, a body not noted for much of an attention span.

      Hell's bells, the nigh-daily bombardment of some bit of fluff regarding the Kardashian brood successfully competes for front page on numerous news sites and summaries. Hmm, let's just shorten that as the journalists are wont, to "K-dash", and apply it as short-hand for any kind of fluff-puff used to divert and amuse the masses.

    6. Re:Media is in the business of making money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually I think it's definitely better to do a slow-release. Snowden may even be planning it this way. Think about it: if it's released all at once, who the fuck is going to go through thousands of documents to see what the gov is up to? Plus once the story is out it'll be forgotten within a few weeks. This way it's constantly in the news, people are always talking about it, it remains in people's minds, and the findings are summarized to make it easier to understand what is really going on. Good stuff, I say.

      What a crock of shit. How about do both, release the data, THEN write a whole series of articles breaking it down?
      Which is it, they actually WILL read it all and spoil your precious news releases, or they WONT and you can do your stupid "news" serial drama?

      WHAT T. F. makes those activities mutually exclusive? Right, greed.

    7. Re:Media is in the business of making money by quantaman · · Score: 1

      The media gets dozens, hundreds, of documents. They slowly release them one or two at a time. Why? Not to make them easier for the public to digest. Not because they need to spend time reviewing them, writing articles, or gather sources. Not even because they enjoy being the gatekeepers of desired information.

      No. This is almost entirely about making money and a major ego trip. The writers enjoy getting off on being the center of a public spectacle. You put a few articles out a week and you get more viewers. You keep stringing everyone along and keep those numbers up for more advertising revenue and to try to attract more subscribers. You keep your own name in the papers and get a higher profile for a book release. That's what this game is all about. Snowden leaked his information to people who are using it as leverage to manufacture news.

      The reporters that Snowden contacted could easily release everything tomorrow. Total transparency. It would eliminate them being part of the story. But they get off on the attention. Glenn Greenwald wants to BE THE STORY. We've seen this repeatedly with Assange who comments on himself as often as he comments on the news. They don't want to report on some of the most relevant news and whistleblowing in the last decade. This is a chance for Greedwald to make a lot of money, a low of news appearances, some Real Time with Bill Maher, and maybe even a Howard Stern Show appearance. If he releases all of the documents then he's no longer important. His ego can't take that.

      I know at Slashdot that people are upset when the news media focuses on Snowden and Greenwald not the major revelations that Snowden has given us regarding the U.S. government's total war on privacy. But this is not new territory for Greenwald. He loves being the center of attention. Look at his news appearances regarding this case. He talks about himself and his involvement far too much in my opinion.

      I think that the U.S. citizenry has a right to know about the government's war on privacy. Show us everything. Be transparent the way Obama said he would be when he campaigned. Let us judge. Stop being the gatekeepers of information that you don't have a right to hide from us like the government did. Enough of the games. I can't take anyone in the media seriously anymore. If Greenwald and Snowden want less attention then give the world the information to help people combat the government's overreach.

      Any 'great man' (and probably great woman) is going to have issues. Normal well adjusted people live normal well adjusted lives and don't do anything noteworthy. If you want to do something extraordinary you either need an extraordinary talent, or a personality quirk that causes you to do something that no one else is doing.

      Manning is gay, possibly transgendered (which is fine, but not at home in the military), and had some psychological issues, if he was well adjusted and the military was accepting he probably wouldn't have leaked.

      Assange is a self-righteous attention whore asshole. If he wasn't you probably wouldn't have heard of wikileaks.

      I don't know Snowden's deal but he's a bit of an asshole to dump that on his girlfriend without warning, and he didn't plan his escape that well.

      Greenwald is a nicer self-righteous attention whore, good on him since it stops him from being intimidated.

      You're not going to get flawless human beings doing stuff like this, and if you want to make a difference you don't necessarily want any.

      --
      I stole this Sig
    8. Re:Media is in the business of making money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hell's bells, the nigh-daily bombardment of some bit of fluff regarding the Kardashian brood successfully competes for front page on numerous news sites and summaries. Hmm, let's just shorten that as the journalists are wont, to "K-dash", and apply it as short-hand for any kind of fluff-puff used to divert and amuse the masses.

      K-dash can also signify loss. As in your sharp pen is K-dashed on many.

    9. Re:Media is in the business of making money by Charliemopps · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You mean Greenwald is manipulating the public? Good! His goals, be they of self interest or not, coincide with my goals. I want the public outraged by this, so things will change. He wants them outraged so he can get famous. Sounds like a fare trade to me.

    10. Re:Media is in the business of making money by kermidge · · Score: 1

      Yeah, ouch.

      I was also hasty and careless; I just searched on "k-dash" and it turns out that it's a clothing line from guess who, and other things, so the term is already in use. With slight variations it's all over the place. Time to cap the pen for a bit.

    11. Re:Media is in the business of making money by khallow · · Score: 1

      How about do both, release the data, THEN write a whole series of articles breaking it down?

      Not as effective or profitable. Plus, the Guardian is getting mileage out of official response to the ongoing revelations. It keeps foes off balance and generates more stories.

      WHAT T. F. makes those activities mutually exclusive? Right, greed.

      So what? A media source successfully milking a highly profitable story means that future news sources may do more of the same. The business case for profiting from revealing wrongs and improving transparency of society will help us in the long run.

    12. Re:Media is in the business of making money by dkleinsc · · Score: 3, Interesting

      One legitimate reason for the slow release is it keeps the issue in the public mind for longer. That actually seems to be more effective than 1 giant event.

      For an example, compare the tactics of Occupy Wall Street with Feb 15 2003. I'll bet good money that you can tell me a bit about Occupy Wall street, but can't tell me what happened on Feb 15 2003 that might be related in any way to Occupy Wall Street.

      Give up?

      That day was the Largest single-day protest in the history of the world. Approximately 8 million people were out in the streets complaining about George W Bush's decision to invade Iraq. That's about 1 out of every 500 people on the planet at the time. And it's almost completely forgotten, because there was a splash in the papers the next day, and then it disappeared from the headlines. By contrast, Occupy Wall Street stuck around for months, and by simply not ending until the police came by to beat people up at 3 AM, they became a long-term part of the public consciousness.

      You may disagree with the politics of either or both protests, but my point here is about tactics - both involved massive efforts, but one was a lot more effective than the other.

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    13. Re:Media is in the business of making money by alexibu · · Score: 1

      Here is a video of Assange addressing your point:
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wBENlJfZ-f8 - start at 0:46 if you like

    14. Re:Media is in the business of making money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I disagree. I post on a forum with a lot of hardcore republican Americans. After the first leak they were supporting the government spying, as well as constantly talking about Snowden's character. After the second leak they were still supporting the government spying and still talking about Snowden's character.

      At this point they either refuse to answer the questions or they believe the government has overstepped its reach. They also no longer talk about Snowden's character.

      This slow release that constantly flies in the face of the official response is doing wonders for cranking up the cognitive dissonance in people who try to justify these actions. This is the perfect way to release the information.

    15. Re:Media is in the business of making money by Pino+Grigio · · Score: 1

      What do you want to happen, precisely? In the UK, the security services have been putting pressure on newspapers not to publish sensitive material since around 1912, with the D-Notice system. If someone wants to disband the security services or open the archives and publish everything and stop us cooperating with our allies, well, let Him stand for Parliament, get elected, form a government and enact the necessary legislation. That's how a democracy works.

      Otherwise, no, I'm not going to allow the Guardian to be my moral guide, judge and jury as to what it's acceptable for the State to do in the interests of national security, especially given the fact it's only doing this to try to increase its circulation as it's up a shit creek without a paddle financially right now.

    16. Re:Media is in the business of making money by Beyond_GoodandEvil · · Score: 1

      You mean Greenwald is manipulating the public? Good! His goals, be they of self interest or not, coincide with my goals. I want the public outraged by this, so things will change. He wants them outraged so he can get famous. Sounds like a fare trade to me.
      What could possibly go wrong? Nothing says justice like mob justice. Or nothing more democratic than a lynch mob.

      --
      I laughed at the weak who considered themselves good because they lacked claws.
    17. Re:Media is in the business of making money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If someone wants to disband the security services or open the archives and publish everything and stop us cooperating with our allies

      Total strawman.

      let Him stand for Parliament, get elected, form a government and enact the necessary legislation.

      Electoral system rigged to make this impossible.

      That's how a democracy works.

      An essential component of any democracy is a free press.

      Are you an official government spokesman or do you shill for them for free?

    18. Re:Media is in the business of making money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "No. This is almost entirely about making money and a major ego trip"

      Not exactly. They understand the average attention span of the typical citizen is pretty short. Blast everything out in one big wave and it will be forgotten next week when ( insert some silly event here ) happens. Continue to leak this stuff out over time to keep the information fresh in everyone's mind and it's far more effective.

      Besides, up to this point they have been releasing just enough info for the government to hang itself with any counter-statements they come up with to justify their programs. Release X, wait for Government lies Y, release Z to prove their lying. All in glorious High Definition :D

      The funny thing is, the government isn't even bright enough to understand the concept. :|

    19. Re:Media is in the business of making money by Cederic · · Score: 1

      Yet everybody remembers September 11th. Sometimes you don't have to draw things out.

    20. Re:Media is in the business of making money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly what I've been thinking. Obviously there's incentive for the press to release it slowly (to better their pocket books), but I think this is definitely a WIN-WIN.

      Plus, it gives time for the government to try to fix PR problems by denying certain claims, and then have the media release a document which totally kiboshes said statement with documentation supporting it's really happening.

    21. Re:Media is in the business of making money by Laxori666 · · Score: 2

      Plus, it gives time for the government to try to fix PR problems by denying certain claims, and then have the media release a document which totally kiboshes said statement with documentation supporting it's really happening.

      Yeah, this has been the most awesome part of it all.

      "I have proof the NSA is spying on the American people."
      "No, we're not spying on the American people. Nothing of the sort. No sir."
      "Actually yes, here's proof you record all the metadata of emails and phone calls and stuff."
      "Ok yes yes but we promise it is only the metadata, we don't see anything else."
      "No actually, see you record everything, here's the slides you use to train people how to do it."
      "Ok ok well we might do that but we swear it's all with oversight and there are no abuses. We caught 300 terrorists!"
      "No dude, see, here is your own internal memo which revealed thousands of abuses. And did you really catch 300 terrorists?"
      "Well um no it really just sort of helped us to capture one... but we swear we only keep this data for 5 days! 5 days seriously!"

      Now it's just a matter of time until we have proof of the date after which they started archiving everything, forever.

  19. Context by SuperKendall · · Score: 5, Informative

    Story about the arrest.

    Note they claim his video ignited muslim protests, when in fact it was a coordinated attack on embassies including Benghazi...

    His video had nothing to do with it, but he made a great scapegoat for the embarrassed state department. Now that we know it was terrorists and not a protest, he's out of prison. How odd.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:Context by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You might be confused about the timeline.
      His original arrest was for bank fraud and identity theft.
      While he was out on parole, he made the movie you're referencing.
      While making the movie, he violated the terms of his probation and got himself re-arrested & re-jailed.

      You're right that "he made a great scapegoat for the embarrassed state department"
      The truth about Benghazi is that the CIA was both:
      1. Helping get weapons to the Syrian rebels and
      2. Trying to stop the Syrian rebels from getting anti-aircraft weapons.

    2. Re:Context by SuricouRaven · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I think his plan succeeded. He wished to make the argument that Muslims are easily incited to violence, so he made a film insulting them - and the immediate reaction was a series of violent protests and a few murders, making his point quite clearly.

    3. Re:Context by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 2

      Now that he's served his time for parole violation, he's out of prison. How normal.

      FTFY.

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    4. Re:Context by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The fact that he knew the film was nearly 100% guaranteed to cause an extremely adverse reaction amongst Muslims could very reasonably be construed as incitement to riot. Which is a crime in plenty of jurisdictions.

      You don't need to defend a fraudster and his hate film (an unreasonable position) in order to make your key point about Benghazi (a reasonable one). Why do you persist in doing the former?

      CAPTCHA: riddle

    5. Re:Context by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And if he had made a similar film targeting say Buddhists or Unitarians would there be similar reactions of similar magnitude?

      If no, then I'd say he and his film are not the real problem, the Muslims are.

    6. Re:Context by Eunuchswear · · Score: 1

      And if he had made a similar film targeting say Buddhists [...]

      If he released it in Sri Lanka or Myanmar, probably.

      Why does everyone think Buddhists are all nice people?

      --
      Watch this Heartland Institute video
    7. Re:Context by khallow · · Score: 3, Informative

      How many people died in the protests after "Amish Mafia" debuted? You can say the same of other religious followers/cultures, but that statement isn't always going to be true.

    8. Re:Context by rossdee · · Score: 1

      Benghazi is in Libya, not Syria

      (but there is a Tripoli in both Libya and Lebanon)

    9. Re:Context by Trailer+Trash · · Score: 1

      I think his plan succeeded. He wished to make the argument that Muslims are easily incited to violence, so he made a film insulting them - and the immediate reaction was a series of violent protests and a few murders, making his point quite clearly.

      Except the film had nothing to do with the violent protests, which were a cover for the terrorist operation to attack the embassy. Nobody in Libya mentioned the film. Ever.

      The executive branch wanted to push a false narrative about Benghazi where a bunch of people got pissed off about the film, started a protest, and attacked the embassy. So they had the filmmaker loudly arrested. They've since started to admit the truth.

    10. Re:Context by idontgno · · Score: 1

      How many people died in the protests after "Amish Mafia" debuted?

      I heard the incidence of Amish drive-by shootings skyrocketed.

      "clop, clop, clop, BANG, clop, clop, BANG, clop, clop..."

      --
      Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
    11. Re:Context by SleazyRidr · · Score: 1

      Oh, they weren't protesting a film, they were just attacking an embassy and murdering the people within. I see your point, they are indeed a peaceful people.

    12. Re:Context by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Right, it is. And Ambassador Stevens was in Benghazi to meet the Turkish ambassador. Why? The government won't say. Some people who were in the intelligence community believe it was to funnel weapons from Libya to Syria via Turkey. The point was to funnel only certain weapons to Syrian forces, not to include man portable antiaircraft missiles, because there was a fear that those might be used against U.S. commercial aircraft by the al-Qaeda associated groups that the weapons were being sent to. It is further postulated that the Obama administration prevented military intervention because they were hoping they could hide the existence of the CIA operation, the same reason the people there were ordered not to attempt to come to the aid of the State Department Station Stevens was at. Unfortunately for them that information got out before they could hide it when the two contractors from the CIA station were killed trying to save Stevens. So they created the myth of the movie, not because they thought people would believe it, but so that Foxnews, Beck and LImbaugh would concentrate on how they were lying and not ask questions about why Stevens was in Bengahzi, who he was meeting and whether the Obama administration was funneling weapons toal-Qaeda associated terrorists groups, something that could bring down the whole administration, or at least end up in Iran Contra types of hearings.

    13. Re:Context by Trailer+Trash · · Score: 1

      That's not my point at all. The film had nothing to do with the attack, and there was no "protest". The fake protest was a cover for a preplanned terrorist attack on the embassy. The Obama administration lied about it and tried to blame it on a filmmaker apparently because the whole terrorist attack was too embarrassing.

    14. Re:Context by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because Buddhists follow a non violent religion, and if they are true Buddhists they would not attack people, instead they will try to get to know the person and reason with them to find out why they are being so mean. A true Buddhist is non violent, if they turn mean and angry they are not following the religion or were brought up by an extreme sect of Buddhism and therefore cannot be call Buddhist.

    15. Re:Context by Eunuchswear · · Score: 1

      Because Buddhists follow a non violent religion, and if they are true Buddhists they would not attack people

      Ah, the no true Buddhist falacy.

      You do realise that Christians, Moslems, Hindu, Scientologists.... all say exactlty the same thing?

      Funny, that.

      --
      Watch this Heartland Institute video
    16. Re:Context by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Buddhists follow a non violent religion [...] if they are true Buddhists they would not attack people[...] A true Buddhist is non violent [...] an extreme sect of Buddhism [...] cannot be call Buddhist.

      So what you're saying is that Wirathu is actually a Welshman?

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    17. Re:Context by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Recent converts to any religion and ideology are usually the most angry and violent followers (ironic term in the case of Buddhism) of that religion or ideology. It's something to do with the fragility of the process of shaping new identities, which is again amusing term to use in a discussion about Buddhism.

  20. Rather pointless theater by khallow · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Was that rather pointless and incompetent theater supposed to impress someone? I doubt the Guardian has been cowed by destruction of at most a few thousand dollars of equipment. And it shows that the UK is in bed with the US with this sort of spying.

    1. Re:Rather pointless theater by niftydude · · Score: 1

      Was that rather pointless and incompetent theater supposed to impress someone? I doubt the Guardian has been cowed by destruction of at most a few thousand dollars of equipment. And it shows that the UK is in bed with the US with this sort of spying.

      Usually incompetent theater like this is a distraction to try and draw attention from something else that is going on. I don't know what - perhaps the fact that tensions over the Falkland Islands are flaring up again, and the UK might be going back to war. The Guardian seemed to be the only paper reporting on that - every other paper in the UK is back to back royal baby photos right now.

      They know that the majority of people in the UK don't really care about this spying stuff and accept it as the cost of added security from terrorists, if they've thought about it at all. And freedom of the press is somewhat on the nose after all that phone tapping scandal stuff.

      So they can do something pointless like this, knowing it will distract the Guardian, and knowing the UK populace won't care.

      --
      You can never know everything, and part of what you do know will always be wrong. Perhaps even the most important part.
    2. Re:Rather pointless theater by khallow · · Score: 1

      Usually incompetent theater like this is a distraction to try and draw attention from something else that is going on. I don't know what - perhaps the fact that tensions over the Falkland Islands are flaring up again, and the UK might be going back to war. The Guardian seemed to be the only paper reporting on that - every other paper in the UK is back to back royal baby photos right now.

      And why would the UK government need even a bit of distraction over that particular issue?

    3. Re:Rather pointless theater by niftydude · · Score: 2

      And why would the UK government need even a bit of distraction over that particular issue?

      Whoops - I posted a link to the wrong article - was trying for something more recent.

      I get that a lot of Brits want to hang on to every remaining scrap of the British Empire, but I think there is also a lot of the populace that is sick to death of funding expensive wars on the other side of the world. Especially when the official line is that there is seems to be no money for services and education (but plenty for spying and war).

      At any rate, Falklands was probably a bad example. I don't know what the distraction is in aid of - only that blind Freddy could have told you that going in, destroying some computers and stomping around making noises about black-ops helicopters is only going to increase attention on the Snowden files, and the government is likely competent enough to know that.

      I don't know what their goal was, but it probably isn't what it seems, as someone else in this discussion said - this story is rage porn. I don't think their actions could be calculated more perfectly to get this issue to blow up. I really do want to know why.

      --
      You can never know everything, and part of what you do know will always be wrong. Perhaps even the most important part.
    4. Re:Rather pointless theater by Pino+Grigio · · Score: 1

      UK spooks spent the entire Cold War bugging and burgling their way around London. Nobody really seemed to give a shit about it then. Now everybody's raging that we even have a security service and that, shockingly, we have allies we share intelligence with. What is wrong with you people?

    5. Re:Rather pointless theater by sgt_doom · · Score: 1

      Correct --- the reporter on that beat, for The Guardian, announced he would continue reporting......from an undisclosed location in New York!

    6. Re:Rather pointless theater by IamTheRealMike · · Score: 1

      The cold war has been over for more than 20 years?

    7. Re:Rather pointless theater by Pino+Grigio · · Score: 1

      You think nations no longer compete with each other? You think a nation like China, for example, responsible for corporate espionage on an industrial scale against the West, is worried about that? Most of you seem to be living in some kind of "Liberal" la-la land. So I reiterate, what is wrong with you people?

  21. It is sad to see the UK ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It is sad to see the UK ... once with its own Empire ... being reduced to a mere minion of the United States of America, but this is what it has come to. With the pinning of Assange in an embassy, holding a journalist with a mere association with Snowden under terrorism legislation, and now bullying news papers to destroy computer equipment -- however futile this might be -- can it be any clearer that once proud and independant Great Britian is now just another bitch of the American government? I don't think so...

    1. Re:It is sad to see the UK ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh bullshit. The UK government is capable of being fascists on their own without any help or guidance from the US or anyone else.

  22. Lovely Greenwald by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I love the Greenwald quote in the NYT a few days ago: "You feel you are empowered for the first time because there’s this mammoth system that you try and undermine and subvert and shine a light on..." (emphasis added)

    Poor choice of words for a mere reporter, wouldn't you say? If I was in government security, I'd be after him even without Snowden.

  23. UK HATES APPLE MACBOOK PROS! by MobSwatter · · Score: 1

    They destroyed data there was copies to, so the only point they could be making must have been that they believe that Apple Macbook Pros are terrorists!

  24. Zoolander clowns by danceswithtrees · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ...joked one as we swept up the remains of a MacBook Pro.

    Anyone else think of the scene in Zoolander? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ze3hthGRbRo

    Did they really destroy a functional computer to destroy the drive? Could they not have removed the hard drive and destroyed just those parts that have any persistent data retention? Even including the optical drive would have been overkill-- eject the disk. What was the purpose of destroying perfectly good hardware? Just to be sure? Why not steam roller the remains and then incinerate them in an induction furnace? Where they worried about a secret compartment? Notes scribbled on the inside? What a bunch of clowns.

    1. Re:Zoolander clowns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you asking about the movie or about Greenwald's computer? In real life, it was the hard drives that were decimated. Welcome to the real world.

    2. Re:Zoolander clowns by danceswithtrees · · Score: 2

      Are you asking about the movie or about Greenwald's computer? In real life, it was the hard drives that were decimated. Welcome to the real world.

      Did you read the summary or the referenced article? Both make reference to "sweeping up the remains of a MacBook Pro." If they had destroyed only the hard drive(s), it would be unusual to refer to the remains of a hard drive as the "remains of a MacBook Pro." Don't you think? Perhaps taking some journalistic license to make it more interesting perhaps? Maybe.

      I would like to think that the government officials are rational beings exercising their powers rationally but their actions make this a dubious assumption. Yes, this is the real world we live in. What point was there to physically destroying the drives when the information on them had already been copied? Does this sound rational? Perhaps that is why I had an easy time believing they would be capable of destroying the entire computer.

    3. Re:Zoolander clowns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apple made it too much of a pain to remove the hard drive, it was much faster and easier to smash the whole thing.

    4. Re:Zoolander clowns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did you read danceswithtrees' comment? That is exactly the point he was making. Why destroy the whole computer when the hdd is all they need?

    5. Re:Zoolander clowns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The point is intimidation. It shows that they can much in and destroy whatever they like.

    6. Re:Zoolander clowns by jsepeta · · Score: 1

      recall that newer MacBooks are glued together, so it was easier to destroy the entire computer to get to the drive, rather than to simply unscrew and remove the drive as one might do on a PC.

      --
      Remember kids, if you're not paying for the service, YOU ARE THE PRODUCT THAT IS BEING SOLD.
    7. Re:Zoolander clowns by Jason+Levine · · Score: 1

      Furthermore, what point is there in destroying evidence to a crime (which I'm sure they would love to claim these leaks are) when said evidence could be used for the government's purposes?

      Of course, the answer here is that the purpose was to intimidate. "If you EVER even THINK of releasing stuff like that again, we'll be back and it won't be the COMPUTER that gets smashed to bits!"

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    8. Re:Zoolander clowns by Nyder · · Score: 1

      ...joked one as we swept up the remains of a MacBook Pro.

      Anyone else think of the scene in Zoolander? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ze3hthGRbRo

      Did they really destroy a functional computer to destroy the drive? Could they not have removed the hard drive and destroyed just those parts that have any persistent data retention? Even including the optical drive would have been overkill-- eject the disk. What was the purpose of destroying perfectly good hardware? Just to be sure? Why not steam roller the remains and then incinerate them in an induction furnace? Where they worried about a secret compartment? Notes scribbled on the inside? What a bunch of clowns.

      To take the HD out, would require some tools, like a Philips screwdriver. That sort of tool is too complicated for the jackboots, they are just given hammers. Hammers smash, which is about the IQ level needed to be the jackboot of the government.

      --
      Be seeing you...
    9. Re:Zoolander clowns by danceswithtrees · · Score: 1

      I think you are confusing Apple laptops (Macbook (pro, air, etc)) with their tablets (iPad). Look on ifixit.com and you can see that all the MacBooks have screws which can be turned with the appropriate tools to open up their insides.

    10. Re:Zoolander clowns by danceswithtrees · · Score: 1

      Confirmed with pics: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/20/nsa-snowden-files-drives-destroyed-london
      Government agents watched as they "supervised" Guardian employees to destroy the laptop motherboard, etc using an angle grinder and a drill. Is that real world enough?

    11. Re:Zoolander clowns by toddestan · · Score: 1

      You still generally have to disassemble the whole thing to get to the drive, a process that can involve dozens of screws. And that's assuming it's not one of the SSDI models where the flash chips are soldered directly to the mainboard. Whereas on most PC laptops, you can remove the drive with 1-2 screws in under a minute.

    12. Re:Zoolander clowns by danceswithtrees · · Score: 1

      On my MacBook, 10 screws to get the bottom shell off then two more to get the drive out. Regardless, your point is irrelevant. The government officials had the Guardian reps take the computer apart, presumably using screwdrivers. The circuit boards were removed and then an angle grinder was used to grind off the chips. You can see pictures of the end result here: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/20/nsa-snowden-files-drives-destroyed-london

      Taking out the circuit boards from a laptop takes a lot longer than taking out a hard drive-- even in a MacBook. Can you come up with a _rational_ explanation why they would need to grind down the circuit boards? Secret information on the firmware EEPROM? Hand written notes under the chips? Any way you slice it, their actions seem petty and irrational.

  25. GCHQ = pointless display of powerlessness ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All this behavior on the part of GCHQ is evidence of nothing so
    much as a state of panic on the part of stupid people who
    want to retain power they no longer deserve because they
    have ABUSED that power.

    The British "empire" is now nothing more than a couple of
    islands with shitty weather, inhabited by people who have bad
    teeth and no guns. Pathetic is the word that comes to mind when
    one witnesses such has-been empires grasping at the shreds of
    the power they once had.

    Thanks for the laughs, you GCHQ fuckwit bootlickers.

    1. Re:GCHQ = pointless display of powerlessness ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The British "empire" is now nothing more than a couple of islands with shitty weather, inhabited by people who have bad teeth and no guns.

      The weather is quite pleasant at present, I've just had my teeth fixed by a very nice NHS dentist, and guns would be no use against the entire force of the state.

      Actually the UK is still a very beautiful (in parts) and relatively peaceful place to live *if you keep your head down*. It's just a shame that the government, security services and police suck and the electoral system is rigged to prevent any new parties succeeding in general elections.

  26. Backoff USA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Despite the need for the people in the UK, Australia, New Zealand, Canada and the USA to rebell and overthrow their governments, it's well and truly time that the USA back the fuck off and leave the rest of the world alone.

    1. Re:Backoff USA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Go fuck yourself. The UK government did this, and while it may have been at the behest of the US government, don't think for a minute that the former has a more lax approach to spillage. Every government with an IT infrastructure of any appreciable size would request the same, and anyone wanting to stay on good terms would oblige.

      If you're looking for somebody to blame, then blame the spy who perjured himself by falsifying information and lying to gain access to classified data that he could then sell abroad. How about that asshole, huh? Selling data he had no rights to and causing all this trouble for an otherwise respectable newspaper? Personal accountability?

      No, I'm sure anarchy is the answer. Please don't breed.

    2. Re:Backoff USA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Go fuck yourself.

      Big words ( above ) from a keyboard wannabe badass who probably has
      never been in an actual fight in his entire insignificant wannabe life.

      Snowden was not a spy, he was and IS a whistleblower who accomplished
      more in a few days than you will in your entire useless existence. I won't
      bother telling _you_ to go fuck yourself, because from what you wrote above it
      is laughably obvious that you have already done that.

    3. Re:Backoff USA by MobSwatter · · Score: 1

      If you're looking for somebody to blame, then blame the spy who perjured himself by falsifying information and lying to gain access to classified data that he could then sell abroad. How about that asshole, huh? Selling data he had no rights to and causing all this trouble for an otherwise respectable newspaper? Personal accountability?

      I do not recall reading anything that Snowden sold the data. Source?

    4. Re:Backoff USA by Teancum · · Score: 1

      Of course the UK has a tradition of internal rebellion and forcing the government into concessions that generally have resulted in greater freedoms among its people (with a few setbacks along the way).

    5. Re:Backoff USA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Some anon on the interwebs tells you to go fuck yourself, and you're ready to throw down? Tell me again who the keyboard badass is.

      Snowden is a spy. He admitted publicly back in June that he took the job with BA solely to get access to the classified data, so that he could release said data to foreign interests. Please explain how this doesn't qualify as "spying." When you're done, you can go fuck yourself.

    6. Re:Backoff USA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is widely publicized (responsible parties are, in fact, proud of this) that he has received monetary compensation from Wikileaks and several media outlets as a direct result of releasing classified data. I don't know what you call it, but that sounds like a business transaction to me.

      Also, common sense: take a look at his gymnast/ballerina ex-fiance and tell me you'd leave that for anything short of piles and piles of money.

  27. Inspiring by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 5, Insightful

    So, basically, guys who are apparently stupid enough to think this actually accomplished anything are the ones we're supposed to give the benefit of the doubt to when they say they're adequately protecting our data when they vacuum everything up?

    No wonder they say they need to gather up every available piece of data they can - they're not bright enough to walk and chew gum at the same time.

    --
    #DeleteChrome
    1. Re:Inspiring by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, basically, guys who are apparently stupid enough to think this actually accomplished anything are the ones we're supposed to give the benefit of the doubt to when they say they're adequately protecting our data when they vacuum everything up?

      No wonder they say they need to gather up every available piece of data they can - they're not bright enough to walk and chew gum at the same time.

      HOW do people believe this?

      The NSA / GCHQ recruit the best and brightest. That's not just an opinion they very aggressively recruit the brightest minds from the best universities and are headed by the brightest in military intelligence. This narrative that they are in some way inferior to the average-joe-forum-user is simply outlandish.

      That being said... I have no idea why they did this, but I think it is probably a well thought out part of a much larger plan. I wouldn't even be shocked if part of the plan is to make the public underestimate them. Maybe the whole thing is a setup to "leak info" (propaganda) to foreign governments and have them actually believe it. Regardless the (oddly wide-spread) notion that the people that work at the NSA are in someway of inferior intelligence is ridiculous.

    2. Re:Inspiring by pipedwho · · Score: 1

      HOW do people believe this?

      The NSA / GCHQ recruit the best and brightest. That's not just an opinion they very aggressively recruit the brightest minds from the best universities and are headed by the brightest in military intelligence. This narrative that they are in some way inferior to the average-joe-forum-user is simply outlandish.

      There is something that I like to call a singularity of knowledge and intellect. There are many many people that are brilliant in the specificity of what they do best, but when it comes to more general thought processes, particularly common sense, they are severely lacking.

      In fact, I would almost expect these agencies to actively avoid recruiting people that excel at critical thought.

    3. Re:Inspiring by IamTheRealMike · · Score: 1

      Many years ago I was in the process of joining QinetiQ which at that point had just been privatised, it was formerly DERA, the UK military research agency. Of course I had heard the "best and brightest" story from various people. Once I was somewhat far through the process and it was clear that I was well above their hiring bar I was taken to one side, and some guy evasively asked me a bunch of questions about how well I knew Python. At that time it was more of an obscure language than it is today. Eventually the guy, who was clearly desperate to impress me how cool all this "spy stuff" was, let on that his team worked on a component of ECHELON and they were looking for people with a good understanding of Python to work on it. I politely declined, continued with the regular process, and ended up in a different part of the organisation doing (mostly) non-military work.

      I can tell you now that the people working there were very far from the best and brightest. Some of them were paid to be programmers but could barely write hello world. One guy actually used Notepad the moment he couldn't use the Visual Basic IDE anymore (e.g. different language). Entire months dribbled by without them producing any working code at all.

      I have no doubt that during times when the nation was seriously under threat, the military and intelligence agencies had their pick as there was a clear "good vs evil" delineation and many people would love to fight for their side. Since the end of the cold war no such clear dividing line has existed. I seriously doubt GCHQ or MI5/6 is able to compete with major international firms for the best tech talent these days, their role is just far more ambiguous than in the past, the private sector much better at wooing people and the projects in the private sector far more interesting.

      One thing the NSA learned the hard way is that some of the best technical workers these days also have a strongly libertarian streak. It can't have been easy to go up against recruiters at places like Google at the best of times, but these ongoing revelations are probably the worst thing that ever happened to their hiring pipeline. I expect GCHQ to enter a difficult-to-spot talent death spiral now, and because the best people want to work with the best people, it'll be hard for them to pull out of that (barring another major war that seriously threatens the nation).

    4. Re:Inspiring by khallow · · Score: 1

      HOW do people believe this?

      Observation. I'd have to say that this story, for example, contradicts your claim for the GCHQ. NSA may still do so.

    5. Re:Inspiring by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      I have no doubt that during times when the nation was seriously under threat, the military and intelligence agencies had their pick as there was a clear "good vs evil" delineation and many people would love to fight for their side.

      The way it always works is that in wartime they write blank checks and in peacetime they get jealous that people with brains and education should make more than someone without either who can only die in the mud, so they underpay scientists who depart for the private sector.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  28. Break a HDD? Burn a book. by penandpaper · · Score: 2

    Good old fashioned book burning internet style. Less flame but just as fun.

  29. Thank god for microSD... by nbritton · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Utterly stupid. It's trivial to hide a microSD card, all you need is AES encryption and Saran Wrap. Just stash it under a rock, or up a tree, or in a hotel room. You've got 57 million square miles to choose from.

  30. Air Gapped by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In the NYT article about Poitras and Greenwald's initial contact with Snowden there is mention of the use of, "air gapped" computers. At first it struck me as odd, but knowing that everything transmitted over the internet is tracked and that MAC addresses can reasonably be used to identify specific hardware, it no longer qualifies as paranoid to suspect that nearly any computer that's ever passed an IP packet could be singled out by some claiming to have been sent by the government just to help you.

    The Guardian article indicates that the lack of a constitution renders this type of situation something from which UK subjects have little protection, implying that you're safer in the US. Apparently after Guantanamo, extraordinary rendition, the new & improved FISA courts and the I Have a Drone program, anyone who believes they are protected by a 225 year-old historical work might be forced to seek medical advice for their own personal intracranial air gap.

    1. Re:Air Gapped by gweihir · · Score: 2

      MAC addresses are invisible after the first router, unless you use IPv6 with insecure settings. So, no, they cannot be used without breaking into things.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    2. Re:Air Gapped by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Some companies such as Xilinx attach the license for their softwares to the different MAC of the interfaces it detects in your system.

      That would be a shame if someone, say the NSA, could just look around in those kinds of databases.

      Your physical computer linked to your real identity, for like... ever.

      Well they almost certainly do already.

    3. Re:Air Gapped by lister+king+of+smeg · · Score: 1

      MAC addresses are invisible after the first router, unless you use IPv6 with insecure settings. So, no, they cannot be used without breaking into things.

      Unless of course the NSA pressured router manufacturers to put a backdoor in the router but no they would never do that its not like they have been demanding encryption keys from all of the big names in the computer industry or backdooring skype and dropbox. Anyone ever find out what NSAkey in older windows was for? Anyone else starting to feel like building their own router is no longer paranoid?

      --
      ---Saying gnome 3 is better than windows 8 not so much a compliment as it is damning with light praise.
    4. Re:Air Gapped by gweihir · · Score: 1

      Only if you are incompetent. Most modern network cards can be programmed to new MAC addresses. I recently did it for an Intel card, soldering in a replacement firmware chip (and later found out that software only would have cost about as much time to figure out). If the card is removable, you can also just replace it. The only thing you need to make sure is that you do not use the same MAC twice in the same LAN segment.

      Also, while you are right that these databases connect network card and owner, finding out what the MAC address of a specific network card in a computer is requires either breaking into that computer or at least being present on a different computer on that LAN segment. MAC addresses do not go over the network and are not routed. The first router (typically the ADSL- or cable-modem) strips them completely.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    5. Re:Air Gapped by gweihir · · Score: 1

      Building your own Router (typically in the form of a NAT box) is definitely _not_ paranoid! There are Linux and xBSD distros that specialize in this, and, for example, an ALIX-board with 2 or 3 NICs is a cheap and effective solution for this.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    6. Re:Air Gapped by gweihir · · Score: 1

      Also just saw this:
      http://ia801600.us.archive.org/7/items/gov.uscourts.gand.188990/gov.uscourts.gand.188990.61.16.pdf

      The DHCP server definitely has the MAC addresses of every machine it hands IP addresses to. That is a technical requirement and cannot be avoided. The DHCP server typically sits on the ADSL/Cable modem (or is proxied there). If you insert your own router between the ADSL/Cable modem, you can either proxy the DHCP server (thus hiding the MAC addresses of your LAN-connected devices) or you can assign private IP addresses in your LAN. Your ISP still gets the MAC address of your own router.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    7. Re:Air Gapped by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, if you're on Paranoia DEFCON 1, just boot your box up with no Ethernet connection cabled in, assign the adapter a random MAC address in the OS, and connect it with that.

    8. Re:Air Gapped by lister+king+of+smeg · · Score: 1

      Yeah I am thinking about build router/dns/dhcp/wpa2-radius and possible openVPN box out of a old pc with a few ethernet cards and wireless nic so inside my network will be invisible to the isp except for my one box

      --
      ---Saying gnome 3 is better than windows 8 not so much a compliment as it is damning with light praise.
  31. One reason the surveillance is a problem by gweihir · · Score: 1

    It is done by morons! They can do untold damage without even intending to, as they apparently have zero clue about IT security.

    --
    Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
  32. How do you say... by vomitology · · Score: 1

    "Thank goodness for AppleCare+" in Russian?

    --
    ~Knowledge is knowing that a tomato is a fruit, but Wisdom is knowing not to put it in a fruit salad.
    1. Re:How do you say... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Slava bogu, dlya AppleCare +

      (no unicode support. so no cyrillic letters)

  33. You want the truth? You can't handle... etc. by SuperKendall · · Score: 0

    Don't bother, SuperKendall is a Benghazi truther.

    Truther is a term used for some idiot who believes 9/11 was the result of aliens, bad diarrhea or a massive government conspiracy by a government so stupid it sent machine huns to mexican drug lords just to see what would happen.

    With Benghazi, it was obvious it was a terrorist attack from the start but the government blamed a video for scores of deaths and embassy attacks. Every reporter on earth along with the public now knows it was a terrorist attack, and that the state department knew it was at the time. Most people now know also they let people die there because they didn't want any hiccups in the undergoing operation to ship 400 Libyan missiles to Syria... but that's a story for another day.

    It says much that your weak attempt at spin comes not from anyone real, but a nameless AC who tries to pretend something that everyone knew long ago was discredited... and as I said the guy is out of jail so it's pretty obvious he was just in jail when it was handy. Which he says himself...

    Post away AC. But your attempt to deflect real truth with a weak protest that the most obvious thing is not true, holds little weight among people who can think and/or read.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  34. Lord inbred by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    strikes again...

  35. Security experts by code_monkey_steve · · Score: 1

    ... with two GCHQ security experts overseeing the destruction of hard drives in the Guardian's basement

    "We have top men working on it now."
    "Who?"
    "Top ... men."

  36. Spooks are trying to provoke an irresponsible act. by dweller_below · · Score: 5, Interesting
    So far, Poitras and Greenwald have done an incredibly good job of handling the Snowden material. They have been implementing a long term, strategic, plan that seems to have 2 goals:
    • * Restore the US Constitutional limits on the Executive branch.
    • * Make the Executive branch accountable to the Legislative and Judicial branches.

    As ambitious as it seems, this level of correction has happened several times in US history. I believe that these goals can be achieved if 3 conditions are met:

    • 1) Poitras and Greenwald must succeed in maintaining public awareness of the problem.
    • 2) Poitras and Greenwald must continue to be regarded as responsible journalists.
    • 3) The Public must agree that the threat of an unbridled Executive is greater than the external threat.

    So far, Poitras and Greenwald have played Obama and the US Intelligence like a hooked trout. They have skillfully countered every attempt to divert or end the discussion. It looks like they have a chance of advancing reform of the US Executive branch. They may also help bring reform to England.

    But now, I think we are seeing the beginning of more strategic responses from the US Intelligence community. I suspect that they are now trying to end the discussion by re branding Poitras and Greenwald as traitorous threats. This approach worked so well with Manning and Assange. Not only did they succeed in discrediting the messenger, they also turned the messenger into an external threat. Now, they can use 'Traitors' to justify Executive excess.

    I suspect that the goals of US Intelligence are now:

    • * Get Poitras and Greenwald to do an irresponsible disclosure. From the Intelligence communities viewpoint, even an immediate, complete disclosure of the Snowden material is a small price to pay in return for swift end to the discussion and discrediting the whistle-blowers.
    • * Or create an irresponsible disclosure of the Snowden material. Remember, neither Manning nor Assange/WikiLeaks did the big, irresponsible disclosure. But, they were blamed when it happened. On considering this objective, it seems to me that the primary objective of the Miranda incident may have been to acquire the secret key of the distributed file, so they could create an irresponsible disclosure.

    If they can't shutdown or re-brand Poitras and Greenwald, then I expect the next step will be to create an immediate, external threat that requires an unbridled Executive.

    I am praying for Poitras and Greenwald. We need their help. And their enemies are capable of doing terrible things.

  37. Because of the original idiotic comparison by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 4, Insightful

    A popular thing here on /. which the original poster did is to turn any story either about China doing something bad, or the US doing something bad in to a "Oh look at how bad the US is, they can't say anything to China!" or "OMG the US is worth than China/Russia, they are more free!" Or equally stupid shit like that.

    In no way is China relevant to this. What's more, the idea that only if a nation is perfect that it could level any criticism at another is completely ludicrous.

    It is just spin, just crap to try and hate on the US and allies for no particular reason. So the GP had a good point: China does some pretty bad shit, things that even the imperfect countries that are the UK and US might have an issue with.

    If people want discussions of the problems with western governments to stay on topic, something I think is a good idea, then the first step is to stop dragging in China et al at every opportunity. What the US, UK, etc do is good or bad, right or wrong, regardless of what they say to China, regardless of how they compare to China, etc.

    If you want to start playing the "compare and contrast" game, well then don't be surprised when others come back in kind.

    1. Re:Because of the original idiotic comparison by c0lo · · Score: 1
      Agreed with "In now way China is relevant to this" and " the first step is to stop dragging in China et al at every opportunity". Other than that, a whiff of pendantry is required: otherwise the whiff of spin may persist.

      It is just spin, just crap to try and hate on the US and allies for no particular reason.

      hate on the US ... for no particular reason? I don't exactly get it how I should take it.
      1. should I take you were trying to say "its' spin. there's no reason to hate US, every and all particular ones mentioned are BS"?
      2. should I take you meant "it's spin meant to cause hate of US indiscriminately, any particular reason being as good as any"?

      If 1., we're in disagreement, and I would suspect some spinning intentions from your side.
      If 2., that's a piece of opinion that I can respect (or even resonate with).

      So the GP had a good point: China does some pretty bad shit, things that even the imperfect countries that are the UK and US might have an issue with.

      I still fail to see how one can benefit from an irrelevant pissing contest when topic of pissing (and how to stop it) should be the main one.

      If you want to start playing the "compare and contrast" game, well then don't be surprised when others come back in kind.

      No, I don't want. This is why I see dragging China in the "Amazing" opening post as irrelevant (while the rest of the opinion that ANZUS+UK+Canada should stop pissing around being still relevant). But even more irrelevant: the reply of "Yeah, but China pisses harder".

      --
      Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
    2. Re:Because of the original idiotic comparison by khallow · · Score: 1

      This is why I see dragging China in the "Amazing" opening post as irrelevant (while the rest of the opinion that ANZUS+UK+Canada should stop pissing around being still relevant). But even more irrelevant: the reply of "Yeah, but China pisses harder".

      It's the game that gets played when China does something wrong. Someone has to drag the US into the conversation, even if the comparison is ludicrous.

    3. Re:Because of the original idiotic comparison by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      The leaks have definitely made diplomacy with China harder though. The US was making a lot of noise about state sponsored hacking attempts but has been forced to shut up now, since it is clear that the US is at least as bad. Unlike China we have irrefutable evidence of law-breaking by the UK and US, and other countries don't want to share intel with us any more because apparently we can't keep a lid on it.

      Our credibility is at an all-time low.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    4. Re:Because of the original idiotic comparison by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's the game that gets played when China does something wrong. Someone has to drag the US into the conversation, even if the comparison is ludicrous.

      It's a game that gets played even when China does not do something wrong. This is an American-centric site after all. It's not surprising there are people who frames all issues with respect/comparison to the US.

  38. Re:You want the truth? You can't handle... etc. by cusco · · Score: 1

    Machine huns? Damn, the original Huns were bad enough when they were just mounted on horseback, now they're mechanized? :-)

    --
    "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
  39. If i had a scarf by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I would shit in said scarf and gag David Cameron with it.

    1. Re:If i had a scarf by Chrisq · · Score: 1

      I would shit in said scarf and gag David Cameron with it.

      I'll lend you mine

  40. Re:You want the truth? You can't handle... etc. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Let's go ahead and look at some of the "truth" you posted in response to another AC:

    Note they claim his video ignited muslim protests, when in fact it was a coordinated attack on embassies including Benghazi...

    Except there were widespread protests and riots across the middle east in general, with the worst of it being in Egypt, not Libya. The initial statements from the US government mistakenly identified these protests/riots as the cause of the Benghazi consulate attack -- but within 48 hours of the attack they had updated information and had informed the American public that it was, in fact, an organized and planned terrorist attack.

    His video had nothing to do with it, but he made a great scapegoat for the embarrassed state department. Now that we know it was terrorists and not a protest, he's out of prison. How odd.

    You're right; he had nothing to do with the attack itself. But let's look at the rest of your version of events. First: He was arrested on probation violations on September 27th, 2012, weeks after the Obama administration had already announced that the Benghazi consulate attack was orchestrated by terrorists. The idea that the initial arrest was part of a cover-up is, thus, a load of bullshit. Second: He was released earlier this month, after serving almost the full length of his 1 year sentence (and almost 1 year after the Obama administration's announcement that Benghazi was a terrorist attack). Thus, the idea that his release is because everyone knows it was a terrorist attack now is absurd -- everyone knew it was a terrorist attack the day he was arrested. The explanation for why he is out of prison somewhat early is the same reason countless prisoners are released early -- good behavior and release to a halfway house.

    Now let's go ahead and take a look at the post to which I am replying.

    With Benghazi, it was obvious it was a terrorist attack from the start but the government blamed a video for scores of deaths and embassy attacks.

    (a) On what basis was it obvious that it was a terrorist attack? Are you asserting that all of the protests and riots across the entirety of the middle east and northern Africa were orchestrated as some massive terrorist plot to cover for a single consulate attack? And if so, do you have any actual evidence of this? And if you do have evidence, was this evidence widely available (which would be necessary for it to be "obvious" that it was a terrorist attack) "from the start"? Alternately, if you are not asserting that the widespread protests/riots were orchestrated as part of any plot, on what basis can you possibly assert that a single consulate attack on a day in which dozens of people were killed in protests/riots was not simply an extension of said protests/riots?

    (b) Scores of deaths -- again, do you mean to imply that you believe the entirety of the protests/riots were orchestrated by terrorists? There were only 4 deaths in the consulate attack.

    (c) Embassy attacks (plural) -- What embassies? There was a single consulate attacked, and no embassies. You can't even get very basic facts straight, yet we are supposed to believe your grand conspiracy theory is the real story here.

    Most people now know also they let people die there because they didn't want any hiccups in the undergoing operation to ship 400 Libyan missiles to Syria... but that's a story for another day.

    Perhaps if you seek psychiatric help that day will not come.

  41. You're just not smart enough. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Please stop posting.

    1. Re:You're just not smart enough. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please stop posting.

      From what you posted it is obvious you are the one who is not smart enough.

      Next time, try some reasoned argument instead of simply whining.

  42. A show of power by Taco+Cowboy · · Score: 1, Funny

    ... thus solving the problem once and for all!

    But

    ONCE AND FOR ALL!

    I guess the Anglo/Rican alliance is felt feeling so powerless that they just had to smash up a MacBook Pro to show that they are powerful

    It's not unlike a lame thief who just had to rob candies from a little baby in order to feel great

    --
    Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
    1. Re:A show of power by meerling · · Score: 2

      I don't have an apply laptop, but the pc ones I have access to it's stupid simple to remove the hard drive. Only a complete imbecile would think it's necessary to destroy the computer to destroy the data. Then again, destroying the hard drive would only get rid of one copy of something you can be sure there are hundreds if not thousands of copies out there now.
      It's kind of like burning down the barn because the horse got out of the stall a century ago and now has a massive herd of descendants.

    2. Re:A show of power by TWiTfan · · Score: 2

      to show that they are powerful

      "Yes, him a *powerful* laptdog...yes you are...yes you are!" said Barack Obama, as he tossed the English government a treat.

      --
      The cow says "Moo." The dog says "Woof." The Timothy says "Thanks, valued customer. We appreciate your input."
    3. Re:A show of power by TWiTfan · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The intention wasn't to destroy the data, it was to punish and intimidate.

      --
      The cow says "Moo." The dog says "Woof." The Timothy says "Thanks, valued customer. We appreciate your input."
    4. Re:A show of power by nitehawk214 · · Score: 2

      to show that they are powerful

      "Yes, him a *powerful* laptdog...yes you are...yes you are!" said Barack Obama, as he tossed the English government a treat.

      laptdog: A combination laptop computer and lapdog.

      --
      I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
    5. Re:A show of power by nitehawk214 · · Score: 2

      I don't have an apply laptop, but the pc ones I have access to it's stupid simple to remove the hard drive. Only a complete imbecile would think it's necessary to destroy the computer to destroy the data. Then again, destroying the hard drive would only get rid of one copy of something you can be sure there are hundreds if not thousands of copies out there now.
      It's kind of like burning down the barn because the horse got out of the stall a century ago and now has a massive herd of descendants.

      apply() laptop: A computer that excels at running code for functional languages.

      --
      I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
    6. Re:A show of power by Nyder · · Score: 4, Funny

      The intention wasn't to destroy the data, it was to punish and intimidate.

      It worked, I think that Laptop is scared and will never hold a harddrive again...

      --
      Be seeing you...
    7. Re:A show of power by rullywowr · · Score: 1

      It's kind of like burning down the barn because the horse got out of the stall a century ago and now has a massive herd of descendants.

      I was thinking it's more like detonating an explosive in a toilet when you could have just flushed the defecation instead.

    8. Re:A show of power by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

      to show that they are powerful

      "Yes, him a *powerful* laptdog...yes you are...yes you are!" said Barack Obama, as he tossed the English government a treat.

      laptdog: A combination laptop computer and lapdog.

      Aibo?

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    9. Re:A show of power by Guy+Harris · · Score: 1

      It worked, I think that Laptop is scared and will never hold a harddrive again...

      There are other ways of accomplishing that goal....

    10. Re: A show of power by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the files are IN the computers

    11. Re:A show of power by rtb61 · · Score: 2

      Punish and intimidate, seriously? You know how cheap hard disk drives are, this is a company, a Friday team lunch costs way more than those (already backed up drives). It was a seriously stupid, completely and utterly pointless thing to do. The government spent more money sending those officers there than those drives cost. This smells more like the rebuke was going back in the other direction to the politicians rather than anything targeted at the Guardian. Those British agents purposefully went out of their way to make the UK government look bad in it's sucking up to the US government.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    12. Re:A show of power by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "But it wasn't a laptop - it was a MacBook". Apple's Marketing people must be loving this.

  43. Keeps the news story going... by Kazoo+the+Clown · · Score: 2

    No need to release new leaks when they keep pulling stunts like this! What better news story could there be than new examples of neo-Orwellian boot stamping, modern-day book burnings.

  44. Re:Blame Snowden by MaskedSlacker · · Score: 2

    Nice to know my grandparents and greatgrandparents bled in WWII so fascists like you could still be in power. Oh wait...

  45. Not technology, not news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This article is outrage porn. If this community is still capable of rational, mature thought there will be people commenting on what I've said here explaining in further detail what is wrong with this being on slashdot. If that does not happen you will have hard evidence that this community is dead, and you should move on.

  46. Re:You want the truth? You can't handle... etc. by kenwd0elq · · Score: 1

    The "widespread protests" were for the anniversary of 9/11. I seem to recall that there were a number of violent protests and a few hundred dead. But we have always been at war with East Asia, so the record of this has been disappeared.

    Scores of deaths? There were the four dead Americans, and a few dozen dead terrorists in the courtyard. SEALS don't go down easily, and these two took an honor guard to Valhalla with them. It wasn't QUITE the "Grave of the Hundred Head", but close.

  47. Re:You want the truth? You can't handle... etc. by G-forze · · Score: 0

    Truther is a term used for some idiot who believes 9/11 was the result of aliens, bad diarrhea or a massive government conspiracy by a government so stupid it sent machine huns to mexican drug lords just to see what would happen.

    And what do you call one stupid enough to believe an ordinary office fire could cause a building to collapse in a way that only a handful of highly specialized demolition companies in the whole world could accomplish? "Naïve" is the kindest word that comes to mind. WTC 7 collapse

    --
    "There's someone in my head but it's not me." - Pink Floyd, Dark Side of the Moon
  48. Is it time for war? by future+assassin · · Score: 1

    Seriously 10 more years of this shit and we'll be back 1980's Soviet erra style control unless people get the fuck off their ass and so something unless you're a fucking retard like this http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/19/us/cable-outage-911-calls

    --
    by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
  49. Re:You want the truth? You can't handle... etc. by smash · · Score: 1

    Sending machine guns to drug lords may well have had the desired outcome, to justify increased spend on crime prevention, arming the polce better, etc.

    --
    I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
  50. Re:You want the truth? You can't handle... etc. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You are correct, of course, about the death count at the consulate attack -- I was ignoring the deaths of attackers as one generally does not count those in the casualty count of an attack.

  51. Effects of Motivation on the Sheeples by Taco+Cowboy · · Score: 1

    There is no better way to motivate a journalist than to tell them that they aren't allowed to to report on something. I mean, seriously,

    Not everyone can be motivated

    Not all journalists cares about the truth

    For some journalists, yes, it would be a tremendous motivation to find out just how far the big brother has invaded our liberty and how bad our society is suffering from it

    But to others, the term "journalist" is but a ticket to fine dinings in posh surroundings, with important people

    When we compare journalistic articles of, say, 1960's - 1970's, to what we have now, you would understand that true journalism is, - if not completely dead already, - struggling to stay alive in the ICU

    --
    Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
    1. Re:Effects of Motivation on the Sheeples by Concerned+Onlooker · · Score: 2

      "But to others, the term "journalist" is but a ticket to fine dinings in posh surroundings, with important people"

      Oh, dude, you have no idea of the realities of journalism. Too many movie cliches, I suspect. Any journalists out there who care to share their stories of copious lavish lunches with the rich and famous?

      --
      http://www.rootstrikers.org/
    2. Re:Effects of Motivation on the Sheeples by meerling · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Though it would be hard to deny the incredible decline in quality of 'journalism' over the last several decades.

    3. Re:Effects of Motivation on the Sheeples by MysteriousPreacher · · Score: 4, Informative

      Definitely. There are few good sources of real journalism. That doesn't mean though that it's all about fancy meals - it's just a shift in the market. Take The Sun in the UK - it's got the largest circulation, and is only a newspaper in the tits and sport sense. The Mail is more upmarket - i.e. no tits, but any excuse to show a teenage girl in a short dress stepping out of a car. The Sun generally keeps people cheery. The Mail is the newspaper for angry middle-aged white people, who don't know why they're angry, so the Mail is happy to give them some reasons for their simmering rage. The Guardian's one of the better ones, but personally I'd go for Private Eye, The Guardian, BBC News and The Economist.

      There remains good journalism out there - it's just not found alongside "Su, 18" and her smashing pair.

      --
      -- Using the preview button since 2005
    4. Re:Effects of Motivation on the Sheeples by pjabardo · · Score: 1

      Don't worry, we have great journalists like Michael Grunwald that are dying to write stories about drone attacks on sources - http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/17/michael-grunwald-julian-assange_n_3773981.html

    5. Re:Effects of Motivation on the Sheeples by jwhitener · · Score: 1

      What has happened in the last 20-30 years is pretty simple. In no particular order:

      1. The internet has really hurt print media, and the decline of the newspaper industry alone has shrunk the amount of 'on the ground' journalists everywhere.
      2. The concentration of media ownership: very few people now control wide swaths of newspaper, tv, and radio outlets. I hopefully don't need to explain why that is a bad thing.
      3. Ever since "60 Minutes" aired and began to make a lot of money, corporate media realized that their news branches could also make money. Which created a nice downward spiral from what used to be seen as a public good, to news as a money making business. And of course, given that politicians were just as much in the pockets of those with money as the advertisement-dependent media owners, very little was done to preserve the "public good" part of being allowed to own a part of the public commons: the airwaves.

  52. Time for the People to Speak by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    At this point I expect nothing short of the British people taking to the streets and demonstrating for their freedom of expression. The Guardian could call for it.

  53. Re:Spooks are trying to provoke an irresponsible a by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Sounds like a good analysis. As retarded as the government usually acts, I have to believe that at least the intelligence communities have some brains; you can't build sophisticated systems like PRISM and XKeyscore with mere corruption and fascism alone.

    So, since they know destroying one individual copy of the data is pointless when everyone knows it's been backed up all over the place, the only rational reason I can see for their actions is to attempt to get one or more people holding onto other copies decide to dump everything at once, and soon, for fear of being the next target. The spooks can't really go into full damage control mode until the leaked material is completely published.

  54. Obama calls it by Fuzzums · · Score: 4, Insightful

    the war on free press.

    --
    Privacy is terrorism.
    1. Re:Obama calls it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Revelation 13:16-18. Verse 17 is already here in the US in a limited capacity.

    2. Re:Obama calls it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes because we all know your savior is a credible source of what's going on in the universe:

      Matthew 8:30-34 -- New International Version (NIV)

      30 Some distance from them a large herd of pigs was feeding. 31 The demons begged Jesus, “If you drive us out, send us into the herd of pigs.”

      32 He said to them, “Go!” So they came out and went into the pigs, and the whole herd rushed down the steep bank into the lake and died in the water. 33 Those tending the pigs ran off, went into the town and reported all this, including what had happened to the demon-possessed men. 34 Then the whole town went out to meet Jesus. And when they saw him, they pleaded with him to leave their region.

  55. Curious, what gives them the right to destroy? by Camael · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Ok, so David was detained and his goods seized under Schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act 2000 which states :-

    Detention of property
    11 (2) An examining officer may detain the thing—

    (a) for the purpose of examination, for a period not exceeding seven days beginning with the day on which the detention commences,
    (b) while he believes that it may be needed for use as evidence in criminal proceedings, or
    (c) while he believes that it may be needed in connection with a decision by the Secretary of State whether to make a deportation order under the Immigration Act 1971.

    In the first place, they had no right to detain the personal property. I wish the officers joy in explaining why he thought these items were "evidence in criminal proceedings" or were relevant to a "deportation order".

    In the second place, nothing I can see therein allows them to destroy detained property, which is a very extreme response under any cricumstances. It also contradicts the intent of the section, which was to allow collection of property to be used as evidence.

    Pretty ironic since the preamble states that the Act was "An Act to make provision about terrorism; and to make temporary provision for Northern Ireland about the prosecution and punishment of certain offences, the preservation of peace and the maintenance of order.". The only terrorism here I see is committed by the government.

    terrorism
    1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes.
    2. the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.

     

    1. Re:Curious, what gives them the right to destroy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      [[ I wish the officers joy in explaining why he thought these items were "evidence in criminal proceedings" or were relevant to a "deportation order". ]]
      Who will pressure him for an explanation, and why wouldn't he just ignore them?

    2. Re:Curious, what gives them the right to destroy? by Vintermann · · Score: 5, Informative

      I wish the officers joy in explaining why he thought these items were "evidence in criminal proceedings" or were relevant to a "deportation order".

      -Mr. officer, can you...
      -National security!
      -Yes, but please explain how...
      -National security!
      -I can't see how this qualifies as ...
      -National security!

      (journalist gives up, goes to speak with MP instead)

      -Mr. representative, can you expl...
      -National security! Trust us, we know best!

      --
      xkcd is not in the sudoers file. This incident will be reported.
    3. Re:Curious, what gives them the right to destroy? by the_other_chewey · · Score: 4, Informative

      Completely and utterly offtopic, way to go moderators.

      This story is about the destruction of hardware belonging to the Guardian,
      in the Guardian's basement.

      It has nothing to do with any kind of seized property - a fact you would know if
      you had read even just the summary before going off on a tangent.

    4. Re:Curious, what gives them the right to destroy? by Aglassis · · Score: 5, Informative

      In the first place, they had no right to detain the personal property. I wish the officers joy in explaining why he thought these items were "evidence in criminal proceedings" or were relevant to a "deportation order".

      You misread it. It takes practice to read legal documents and you made a common error. You missed the 'or'. Case (a) is in use right now, but it has a 7-day clock. Case (b) or (c) would be used if they want to hold something indefinitely.

      My suggestion for reading legal documents would be to be very, very careful about punctuation and ands/ors. Highlight or underline them if you need to.

      In the second place, nothing I can see therein allows them to destroy detained property, which is a very extreme response under any cricumstances. It also contradicts the intent of the section, which was to allow collection of property to be used as evidence.

      This is a different case. The destruction of hard drives was done by GCHQ at the Guardian UK offices well before David Miranda was detained by the police. There is no evidence that any possession of Mr. Miranda has been destroyed. But when he gets them back, I'd assume that they were loaded with spyware.

      Pretty ironic since the preamble states that the Act was "An Act to make provision about terrorism; and to make temporary provision for Northern Ireland about the prosecution and punishment of certain offences, the preservation of peace and the maintenance of order.". The only terrorism here I see is committed by the government.

      This is an insanely broad law. Look at Section 2:

      Power to stop, question and detain
      2 (1) An examining officer may question a person to whom this paragraph applies for the purpose of determining whether he appears to be a person falling within section 40(1)(b). (i.e. a terrorist)
      (2) This paragraph applies to a person if--(a) he is at a port or in the border area, and (b) the examining officer believes that the person's presence at the port or in the area is connected with his entering or leaving Great Britain or Northern Ireland [or his travelling by air within Great Britain or within Northern Ireland].
      (3) This paragraph also applies to a person on a ship or aircraft which has arrived [at any place in Great Britain or Northern Ireland (whether from within or outside Great Britain or Northern Ireland).]
      (4) An examining officer may exercise his powers under this paragraph whether or not he has grounds for suspecting that a person falls within section 40(1)(b).

      What does this mean? At a port of entry the cops can detain you without suspicion to determine if you might possibly be a terrorist. Basically, they can detain you for any reason whatsoever.

      --
      Suddenly, the hairy finger of a familiar monkey tapped me on the shoulder. It was time.--G. T.
    5. Re:Curious, what gives them the right to destroy? by oji-sama · · Score: 4, Informative

      I think destroying the hardware implies that the hardware was seized (even if momentarily), I don't see the Guardian giving the hardware to them voluntarily.

      --
      It is what it is.
    6. Re:Curious, what gives them the right to destroy? by CmdrGravy · · Score: 1

      I think these are two separate incidents; the detention of David and the confiscation of his stuff and the destruction of the Guardian disk drives.

      I don't know what law entitles them to destroy private property like that though.

    7. Re:Curious, what gives them the right to destroy? by myowntrueself · · Score: 2

      You seem to know your stuff.

      If they were destroying these computers because there was something criminal on them then surely that constitutes destruction of evidence? And wouldn't that be illegal?

      --
      In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
    8. Re:Curious, what gives them the right to destroy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly. Mod parent up, and whoever modded GP up should feel dumb.

    9. Re:Curious, what gives them the right to destroy? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      If they were destroying these computers because there was something criminal on them then surely that constitutes destruction of evidence? And wouldn't that be illegal?

      Only if you planned to prosecute. And even then, they were destroying information the prosecution would need more than the defense.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    10. Re:Curious, what gives them the right to destroy? by b4upoo · · Score: 1

      The cops will have legal wiggle room on this one. For example when guns are confiscated they are normally destroyed in the US. The US considers encryption programs munitions and regulates encryption as a matter of law. The material on those drives will be called stolen and the claim could be that there is a danger in storing such sensitive materials and the degree of danger was such that the drives had to be destroyed.
                                It is all fluff and nonsense but the courts are in the hire of government. Frankly exposure to such information to the public may be exactly what all nations need. We live in times in which secrecy in and of itself is a hazard to other nations and the keeping of secrets can in itself be a violent act. Secrets force other nations to endlessly strive to keep up with potential threats and causes economies to suffer as well as populations who see their nations wealth dispersed in trying to keep their heads above water.

    11. Re:Curious, what gives them the right to destroy? by myowntrueself · · Score: 1

      If they were destroying these computers because there was something criminal on them then surely that constitutes destruction of evidence? And wouldn't that be illegal?

      Only if you planned to prosecute. And even then, they were destroying information the prosecution would need more than the defense.

      If a crime has been committed then its evidence of a crime regardless of whether the crown decides it wants to prosecute or not, isn't it?

      --
      In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
    12. Re:Curious, what gives them the right to destroy? by intermodal · · Score: 1

      Sadly, they mean "government" when they say "national". I'm done worrying about how secure the government itself is. We, as a people, indeed, a nation, are going to survive with or without those who make up our present government. And if they're not going to follow the constitution, the last thing I want is for them to be "secure" in their positions.

      My kind of loyalty was loyalty to one's country, not to its institutions or its officeholders. The country is the real thing, the substantial thing, the eternal thing; it is the thing to watch over, and care for, and be loyal to; institutions are extraneous, they are its mere clothing, and clothing can wear out, become ragged, cease to be comfortable, cease to protect the body from winter, disease, and death.
      - Mark Twain, A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court

      --
      In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
    13. Re:Curious, what gives them the right to destroy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you read the actual article the Guardian was given the options of destroying the hard drives or having them siezed. The guardian destroyed their own drives with the officers watching

    14. Re:Curious, what gives them the right to destroy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you read the actual article the Guardian was given the options of destroying the hard drives or having them siezed. The guardian destroyed their own drives with the officers watching

      So they will lose the hardware in either case. Where is the option where they get to keep the hardware (and data)? Then we can start talking about this being a voluntarily made choice.

    15. Re:Curious, what gives them the right to destroy? by Agent0013 · · Score: 1

      Fine, they don't plan to prosecute then. Where do they get the right to destroy other people's property? The people claiming to be hunting for the terrorists are the true terrorists.

      --

      -- ssoorrrryy,, dduupplleexx sswwiittcchh oonn.. -Quote found on actual fortune cookie.
    16. Re:Curious, what gives them the right to destroy? by sabt-pestnu · · Score: 1

      Hmm... So Romney had a job in National Security before becoming governor?

    17. Re:Curious, what gives them the right to destroy? by Guest316 · · Score: 1

      Destruction is a form of seizure, in that it deprives the owner of their property. This interpretation has been used successfully in (somewhat off-topic here) cases of LEOs shooting people's pets; since pets are considered property by law, courts have upheld killing them without due process is a 4th Amendment violation.

    18. Re:Curious, what gives them the right to destroy? by Cederic · · Score: 1

      The hardware was approximately zero cost to the Guardian, especially including rounding errors.

      The data was not lost.

      The point was lost, on the security personnel involved.

      It's a fucking farce, but one that needs to be resolved by fixing the shit legislation.

    19. Re:Curious, what gives them the right to destroy? by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

      Of course he did it for the purpose of examination. The practical examination of how effective their methods of destruction are on the thing.

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    20. Re:Curious, what gives them the right to destroy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well yes, of course they have the data elsewhere. In either case they do lose the hardware and in my opinion this implies seizing it. The fact that in this case the hardware doesn't really have monetary value is irrelevant. There is no reasonable choice, especially if you aren't a corporation and/or have timely backups. And if they bring a computer expert next time and seize the backups too?

      Yes, should be fixed by legislation, but I would still consider this a seize. No matter how incompetently the actual seizing happened.

  56. Re:You want the truth? You can't handle... etc. by dbIII · · Score: 1

    Ordinary? It takes about ten tanker loads of fuel to fill up those planes. It's closer to a refinery fire than an office building fire with that much stuff. Add vast amounts of paper plus wood panelling and the aluminium goes up too. All that heat and the steel frame is soft like a heated up horseshoe - following me so far? Now a skyscraper is made with a steel frame that is strong due to heat treatment, make the steel soft and it isn't strong enough to hold itself up. When it isn't strong enough you get one floor falling into the one below, then into the one under that, so the entire thing collapsing into itself and a lot of stuff inside ground into dust. That dust then burns. Aluminium dust plus iron dust plus wood dust burns so well that it used to be used to weld rails together. The end result is a fire that is not ordinary at all and far more destruction than what a handful of highly specialized demolition companies in the whole world could accomplish.
    Does it make sense now?

  57. Re:You want the truth? You can't handle... etc. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Since when are "ordinary" office fires started by means of the high-velocity impact of many tonnes of jet fuel in a restricted space?

    CAPTCHA: prowess

  58. Free speech? lol by Camael · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Australia and the UK have never really had free speech provisions.

    And as if to underline the point, the UK also gave us English defamation law, with this very attractive trait :-

    English defamation law puts the burden of proving the truth of allegedly defamatory statements on the defendant, rather than the plaintiff, and has been considered an impediment to free speech in much of the developed world.

    So you can sue someone for defamation and make them bankrupt if they fail to prove what they said was true. Pretty nifty when you need to sue say, a newspaper exposing your scandals -just sit back and bleed them with legal fees while they scramble for evidence (which you've already buried, of course).

    1. Re:Free speech? lol by Raenex · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I don't think it's so horrible. What if somebody called you a pedophile. How would you prove that you weren't a pedophile? Wouldn't it make much more sense to say what evidence the person making the claim had?

    2. Re:Free speech? lol by hublan · · Score: 1

      Er. That's the point. The accused has to prove they aren't what the accuser says they are. Proving a negative, if you must.

      --
      My spoon is too big.
    3. Re:Free speech? lol by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      It's that way because as the plaintiff it is often impossible to prove you didn't do things (prove a negative) or to produce evidence of things said and done in private.

      It really isn't that big a deal anyway. You can say "I have circumstantial evidence that Mr. X did something wrong, and he should explain it" without fear. It's only if you say "Mr. X DID do something wrong" that you could be sued, in which case it seems reasonable for you to have some evidence to back up your claim.

      Bleeding people dry with litigation can happen anywhere in the world because you can litigate as much as you like for any reason you like, at least until the legal system itself gets fed up with you.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    4. Re:Free speech? lol by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The defendant in a libel case in the one that has something to prove - they have made an assertion (if they haven't made said assertion then the case will be dropped as soon as that is confirmed) and they have published/spoken that assertion - now they must defend it or face a sentence for libel.

      Makes sense to me.

        I can see how it can be abused - but I can also see that it would almost impossible to actually attain a conviction for libel otherwise, which would also be abused by those with the loudest voices constantly libeling their enemies and there being no recourse to take them down.

    5. Re:Free speech? lol by Raenex · · Score: 1

      Er. That's the point.

      I think you're confused. At least I am by your statement. Suppose I call you a pedophile and you sue me for defamation. Who do you think the burden of proof regarding pedophile or not should lie on, me for making the pedophile claim or you for suing for defamation?

    6. Re:Free speech? lol by StormReaver · · Score: 1

      What if somebody called you a pedophile. How would you prove that you weren't a pedophile?

      Until you are convicted in court of being a pedophile, you are not a pedophile. Someone who makes the claim prior to a court conviction is opening himself up to being sued.

    7. Re:Free speech? lol by Jeremy+Erwin · · Score: 1

      Until you are convicted in court of being a pedophile, you are not a pedophile.

      "Pedophillic Disorder" is listed in the DSM-V,though individuals seeking treatment for this may be exposing themselves to legal liability, depending on the porosity of doctor-patient confidentiality laws.

    8. Re:Free speech? lol by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just need to cull our gene pool until there aren't any idiots left who believe things without proof. Then we can all be free.

    9. Re:Free speech? lol by harperska · · Score: 1

      Counselors in many mental health fields are mandated reporters. In other words, if you are seeking treatment for Pedophilic Disorder, and in the course of treatment you mention the name of a child you abused, your counselor is legally obligated to report that to the authorities. So if you mention a specific instance of abuse to your counselor, there is no longer any doctor-patient confidentiality at all protecting that information.

      That being said, I wouldn't be surprised if Pedophilic Disorder was added to the DSM so that it could be used as a defense. If you are on trial for child abuse, you could claim insanity and be sentenced to treatment for PD rather than jail time.

    10. Re:Free speech? lol by Jeremy+Erwin · · Score: 1

      That being said, I wouldn't be surprised if Pedophilic Disorder was added to the DSM so that it could be used as a defense. If you are on trial for child abuse, you could claim insanity and be sentenced to treatment for PD rather than jail time.

      Perhaps you also believe that psychiatry as a whole is a detriment to society, as it attempts to excuse willful departures from rationality as some sort of disease.

    11. Re:Free speech? lol by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is no need for additional contrived constructs like the English defamation law.
      I sue you for defamation, e.g. for saying that I'm a pedophile, so the burden of proof lies on me: I have to prove that you said I'm a pedophile.
      This is usually very easy, because you made a widely public statement. Now you can argue that this is not a case of defamation by actually proving that I'm a pedophile and you're simply stating the truth... but unless you do that, you have commited a crime (or misdemeanor, depending on jurisdiction) and have to be punished if proven guilty (which is usually easy, as established).

    12. Re:Free speech? lol by Camael · · Score: 1

      Suppose I call you a pedophile and you sue me for defamation. Who do you think the burden of proof regarding pedophile or not should lie on, me for making the pedophile claim or you for suing for defamation?

      Hublan is right, actually. Let me make this as clear as I can. If you are sued for defamation in England, the burden of proof lies on you to prove that the person you called a paedophile, was in fact a paedophile. The alleged paedophile can just sit back and watch you flounder. If there is no evidence from either party, you will generally be found guilty of defamation.

    13. Re:Free speech? lol by Raenex · · Score: 1

      I know the situation. It was laid out as something bad in the person I originally responded to. I argued that it was reasonable, not bad. Hublan then replied while adding nothing to the conversation. This is what happens when you don't read the context (what people are replying to).

  59. Meanwhile... by advocate_one · · Score: 2

    the Daily Mail is leading with some b0ll0x about some royal baby's first portrait photo... all across the front page... the Miranda detained in Heathrow news item is there, but buried under all sorts of rubbish about what various z-lister's had for their breakfast etc.

    --
    Donald 'Duck' Dunn: We had a band powerful enough to turn goat piss into gasoline.
  60. Climate of fear by Camael · · Score: 2

    I think that generally things have pretty much been as they always have been, wild and chaotic. Accidents happen, disasters occur, people die etc.

    What is different is this climate of fear over terrorism permeating our society, in no small part fanned by those in power. Understandably so -people ruled by fear are much easier to herd in the direction the powers that be want them to move. Since the terrorism scare began, overly broad and severely restrictive laws have been passed (Terrorism Act/Patriots Act), personal liberties infringed and sacrified in the name of safety (TSA is a good example), huge chunks of national budgets have been appropriated for defence all of which the government could not have done if the public had not been coerced into it by fear of terrorism.

    One example of how this climate of fear has changed our world is (with utmost respect to the deceased) the death of Lee Rigby. Prior to 911 I doubt this story would be deemed remarkable -a story about a lone soldier stabbed by 2 (crazed?) men. What gives the story prominence now is the motive for the killing, i.e. revenge for Muslims. And we have people like the Former UK Prime Minister Tony Blair fanning the flames by calling the attack part of the broader "problem within Islam."

  61. Google is your friend... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Uh, I don't think that LEXIS-NEXIS has anything to do with the government. It is essentially a search engine of court filings and rulings. It is private, anybody (even you) can buy access and it has been around for decades.

    Based on this, I think the rest of your post is worthless.

  62. Re:Spooks are trying to provoke an irresponsible a by only_human · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Laura Poitras for several years has been subject to extraordinary harassment, intimidation and searches when travelling. http://www.salon.com/2012/04/08/u_s_filmmaker_repeatedly_detained_at_border/

  63. They should sue. by jcr · · Score: 2

    These goons destroyed private property, and the Guardian is entitled to compensation. The big win in litigating this would be making the goons squirm in depositions. "Officer Asshat, what did you seek to accomplish by destroying the equipment in question? Are you stupid enough to believe that you were destroying the only copy of the embarrassing material, or were you just making an infantile display of pique?"

    The Guardian could get months of material out of that..

    -jcr

    --
    The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    1. Re:They should sue. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It was private property which contained illegally-acquired and -relayed, classified material. The physical destruction was necessary to prevent further illegal activity. This is old hat, if not particularly effective, to anyone with even a passing familiarity with handling classified data. The Guardian's faux poutrage is just that -- they knew the risks of peddling in State secrets; I think they got off light.

    2. Re:They should sue. by jcr · · Score: 1

      You love the taste of that boot leather, don't you?

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    3. Re:They should sue. by jcr · · Score: 1

      The physical destruction was necessary to prevent further illegal activity.

      Oh, and: exposing a crime is not an illegal activity.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    4. Re:They should sue. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It certainly can be. If you discover a drug ring operating out of a bank vault during a nighttime robbery, you have still committed robbery. Discovering a crime in progress does not absolve you of wrongdoing.

    5. Re:They should sue. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      About the way you love the taste of fallacy cock.

  64. Re:You want the truth? You can't handle... etc. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Huns like Honey, not like Attila. Machine huns = sexbots.

  65. They said they wanted their stuff back. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Instead they destroyed their stuff.

    They have problems other than their remit to spy: they're clearly morons.

    "I want my car back, stick it in this crusher, so you can't take it again!".

    I hope they at least paid for the hard drives which wasn't theirs and took away the data on it that was theirs rather than leave it for someone else to clean up after their mess. Or at least Graun charged them for cleanup. CEO pay for three hours (leave it to someone lower down and they may decide to steal the data again and sell it to the chinese!).

  66. Re:You want the truth? You can't handle... etc. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The building was designed to manage that without catastrophe.

    Simplest explanation: corners were cut to increase the profits to the contracting company who is connected to Rummy and Shrub. The chances of a plane crashing in is damn near zero, so no deaths were INTENDED. But since this was a "terrorist attack", not accidental CFIT, anything showing that a US Company were responsible for the death count would not only gut the security theatre attempts to externalise the anger, but more importantly, put people like Rummy, Shrub and their best pals in the dock AND show up capitalism as a danger to American safety.

    Malicious incompetence, lets call it.

  67. The government has to destroy the drives by abigsmurf · · Score: 1

    This is something required by the police for all hard drives seized with suspected illegal material on it.

    The stereotypical example is if they seize a PC with suspected child porn on it, can't find any on the drive, they return it, only for them to have missed the material, the police could be accused of then distributing child porn and get sued or even prosecuted.

    Likewise with classified information, they are not allowed to 'distribute' classified info so are required to destroy the hard drives. It's not the government being naive and thinking they can stem the data, it's the government pretty much being forced to by various laws (and a litigious society).

    1. Re:The government has to destroy the drives by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Police have qualified immunity from criminal and civil prosecution for acts performed while carrying out their official duties. If they were acting in good faith without criminal intent when returning the hard drives, having missed the material, they could not be charged.

      At least, this is the way it is in the tyrannical US where government is not accountable for anything it does. I can't imagine it's any different in the even more communist/statist/tyrannical UK.

    2. Re:The government has to destroy the drives by myowntrueself · · Score: 1

      Oh right, so destruction of evidence is now not illegal but mandatory...

      --
      In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
    3. Re:The government has to destroy the drives by abigsmurf · · Score: 1

      Whilst the drives are still classed as evidence the contents are protected. When they're deemed not to be and the PCs are returned, they get destroyed. Even if the drives weren't destroyed, the second they're returned to the owner, they're largely useless as evidence. Examining the drive after receiving it wouldn't tell you anything you don't already know anyway (ie that the police have probably looked through everything).

    4. Re:The government has to destroy the drives by keltickal · · Score: 0

      But the police did not seize the hard drives but simply ordered them destroyed. Did the Gestapo check to see if this was Snowden's computer? The absurdity of this is barely comprehensible. The next step will be to shoot the reporters to present the spread of this information unless the Limeys have developed a neuralyzer. tiocfaidh ár lá

  68. They would have lost.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    because the government writes the laws that protect them and appoint the judges. So we know where we stand already.

  69. No one lost their jobs by msobkow · · Score: 1

    Duffy is still a senator and still being paid. The PMO's mouthpiece quit and was not fired as punishment.

    Distract, deceive, distort.

    Ever the Conservative mantra in Canada.

    --
    I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
  70. war by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Queen Elizabeth II declares war on the United States targeting the NSA for breaching EU law and bribing GCHQ. Now that would be a turn of events :P taking the old fashioned approach of data suppression to the extreme.

    1. Re:war by PortHaven · · Score: 1

      God save the Queen....
      (and that's coming from a Connecticut Yankee)

  71. Re:Spooks are trying to provoke an irresponsible a by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Excellent analysis: Next stop False Flag Attack. America and the world need to beware. These guys would waste a US or a European city in a nuclear detonation or do something stupid like that just to cover their tracks. If you had any doubt that the real terrorists were the states involved this is about next up on their playbook! Watch for it and be ready. These guys are running out of options short of outright mass murder!

  72. Symbolizing might by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is it not obvious? The lesson is that might makes right -- the same tired old lesson that coercive authority has been teaching us for thousands of years.

  73. Re:You want the truth? You can't handle... etc. by G-forze · · Score: 1

    So, which plane hit the WTC 7 again? I know planes hit WTC 1 and WTC 2, but none ever hit building seven.

    --
    "There's someone in my head but it's not me." - Pink Floyd, Dark Side of the Moon
  74. Re:You want the truth? You can't handle... etc. by G-forze · · Score: 1

    You might have a point if a plane actually hit WTC 7. None ever did. The claim is that falling debris from the twin towers (WTC 1 and 2) damaged building seven, started a fire and caused it to collapse into its own footprint. Yeah, right...

    --
    "There's someone in my head but it's not me." - Pink Floyd, Dark Side of the Moon
  75. Re:You want the truth? You can't handle... etc. by G-forze · · Score: 1

    Same answer applies as to the posters above. No plane ever hit WTC 7 and no-one has ever claimed so. For some curious reason, the collapse of WTC 7 was not mentioned in the 9/11 commissions report at all. Wonder why that might be?

    --
    "There's someone in my head but it's not me." - Pink Floyd, Dark Side of the Moon
  76. A bit prideful by ThatsNotPudding · · Score: 1

    I like to think that, in Canada, there is a large enough percentage of us who really lose our shit whenever we get even a hint that something oppressive or corrupt is going down.

    And yet, there is still a US-backed and assisted Conservative government literally raping the land for tar. I guess if they do it in a 'non-corrupt' manner, it is eh-okay with Canadians.

  77. Re:Spooks are trying to provoke an irresponsible a by Politburo · · Score: 2

    There seems to be a misconception here. Congress broadly authorized the programs, and the intelligence committees get regular updates. The programs operate under FISC orders, which provides some form of judicial oversight. Either body could shut the programs down. The House did not have the votes to defund a couple weeks ago, extremely unlikely it would have passed the Senate anyway.

    So given that these bodies have not shut the programs down, the only logical conclusion to me is that all three branches are OK with it. Yeah, some individual legislators are making hay, and there was one denial from FISC, but as a whole the bodies haven't really used their power to curtail the activities.

    This doesn't magically make the programs legal, good, or right.

  78. For the Fox News haters by fuzznutz · · Score: 1

    It might be of interest to note that Fox News' website has a prominent article regarding the drive destruction on their home page, while CNN has absolutely no mention of it at all on their home page that I could find. Hmmmm. Nothing on MSNBC either. CNN and MSBNBC both have deemed it newsworthy to have articles on Prince George's new royal portrait though. I guess that's what's important.

    Remember that next time you feel the need to complain about Fox News.

    1. Re:For the Fox News haters by Areyoukiddingme · · Score: 1

      It is on the Reuters front page though.

    2. Re:For the Fox News haters by fuzznutz · · Score: 2

      It is on the Reuters front page though.

      Which is even more telling of CNN and MSNBC. It was a conscious decision to not report it.

  79. We'd Best Watch Out by Greyfox · · Score: 3, Funny

    If we keep oppressing the UK this way they might dump all the tea into the Boston harbor or something.

    --

    I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

  80. morons by slashmydots · · Score: 1

    Has nobody ever heard of multi-pass zeroing out? In like 10 years tops we'll have the technology to read the 0's and 1's off magnetic hard drive platter shards and there's a rumor that the technology exists right now. Run DBAN or Killdisk and you're never, ever, ever getting that data back ever. Although, it is rather amusing that they destroyed a macbook pro.

  81. The verdict is in by Reliable+Windmill · · Score: 1

    And you are guilty of committing an act of journalism. This is where things are heading.

    --
    Signature intentionally left blank.
  82. Re:You want the truth? You can't handle... etc. by dbIII · · Score: 1

    I'll give you one guess what fires do when something next to them can burn. One guess should be good enough for anyone at your reading level. Ironically it was a fire hot enough to burn "tinfoil".

  83. Re:Blame Snowden by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He's the one who sold you information that he had no legal claim to. You knew the risks when you bought obviously classified data with the intent to violate that classification. This is how data leaks are handled -- if I were to accidentally plug a portable hard drive into a SIPR machine, even if no data transfer took place, that hard drive is considered classified, and must be handled as such, up to and including physical destruction. It's not gestapo... it's bureaucracy.

    Well, that makes it all right then. As long as your name's not one-letter-off from a renegade HVAC terrorist, you should be perfectly fine.

  84. Re:You want the truth? You can't handle... etc. by Torvac · · Score: 1

    So, which plane hit the WTC 7 again? I know planes hit WTC 1 and WTC 2, but none ever hit building seven.

    im sure the answer is in one of the sealed torrents floating around. lets wait for some keys ?

  85. Re:You want the truth? You can't handle... etc. by G-forze · · Score: 1

    Nice ad hominem you've got there. I guess you ran out of talking points.

    --
    "There's someone in my head but it's not me." - Pink Floyd, Dark Side of the Moon
  86. What's the timeline? by Jeremy+Erwin · · Score: 1

    How recently did GCHQ attempt to destroy one of the Guardian's copies? It's not really clear whether this happened before or after Miranda was detained.

  87. Re:You want the truth? You can't handle... etc. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Haven't you heard of the Mechanical Turk?

  88. Obama's That '70s Show by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Really bizarre events in London. And the word play of the "Officers" suggests a much less than high school education.

    And the association of 'Miranda Rights' with Mr. David Miranda who again at the hands of London Police had no rights whatsoever.

    Furthermore, why would London Police give the President of the U.S. a "heads up call"; did they or did they not give the Exchequer a buddy call too? And what did Mr. Cameron say in reply? From where or whom did the London Police get the U.S. President's private phone number?

    Bloody odd for sure.

    But I bet its got The Guardian flying out the news stands all over Old Town.

  89. Re:You want the truth? You can't handle... etc. by Agent0013 · · Score: 1

    [Jedi hand wave] There was no building 7! This is not the building you are looking for. [End Jedi mind trick]

    Seriously though, I find it amazing how many people don't even remember that there was another building that fell that day. And that there is no probably reason for it to fall.

    --

    -- ssoorrrryy,, dduupplleexx sswwiittcchh oonn.. -Quote found on actual fortune cookie.
  90. Re:Blame Snowden by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Your grandparents and great-grandparents would be mortified at your complete ignorance of the meaning of the word "fascist."

  91. A comment on another article is apt here ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I found this comment on another article and I want to recreate it here, if I may,

    "You are much more free than before. Because you know more.

    What you see is a forward movement.

    Did you expect the power to just surrender to a future where they don't matter anymore?

    As you know more and more. As you recover what is rightly yours. As you take over the control of your own country. They will fight back. And they will bite and tear down your houses searching for traitors. And they will destroy you, and put you in jails, and kill many of you.

    But you will prevail.

    Because freedom only moves one way.

    You're scared because you're the first ones. There's only darkness ahead. But you shouldn't be, because behind that darkness is the future that will look back and cheer at you as the freedom fighters of this century."

  92. They had to act fast by PPH · · Score: 1

    To keep information about how much of a lap dog the GCHQ is to the USA out of public view.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  93. Re:Spooks are trying to provoke an irresponsible a by magamiako1 · · Score: 2

    Absolutely. It seems all the posts blasting the 'President' for this stuff people intending to blast the President himself rather than the process. Yes, The US Congress (legislative branches) have authorized all of these programs, repeatedly. And people will continue to vote for them, and even I will; because the alternatives are FAR worse.

    I am willing to exchange a little bit of my personal privacy for the rights for gays to marry. That's just how it goes. It's a trade off I accept.

  94. Re:Spooks are trying to provoke an irresponsible a by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You forgot to add the third crucial element, the Guardian. It's the only publication covering this story consistently, in the UK there is a 'gnote' issued by the government that has silenced most publications and blogs; an eerie silence for a so called democratic country and free press. In the US mainstream media is severely compromised.

    So in the end its only due to the Guardian that this story is persistently in our face. Some of these revelations are so far out its forcing reluctant media who would simply this story goes away, to print it as a matter of record.

  95. NSA+Google+Chromebook and disk space by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Think about one thing... Secret services people don't like hard drives, Google has put a laptop for sale with less then 50GB, and google works with the NSA...

    So the plan for world domination is to decrease computer disk space.

  96. Re:You want the truth? You can't handle... etc. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The World Trade Center was built a while ago. Would they have cut corners in anticipation of an event nearly 30 years later?

  97. previous data by bob_jenkins · · Score: 1

    Indian: Boy, that was awful, Snowden releasing all that data.
    Chief: Good thing he didn't release x,y,z as well
    Indian: Hum ... wait a second ... let me check what was on Snowden's drive BEFORE he copied that data onto it
    Chief: OMG
    Indian: Y'know, with the proper tools, anyone with that actual drive could get at that ...
    Chief: OMG! OMG!
    Indian: I'm on it, boss

  98. Re:You want the truth? You can't handle... etc. by hazah · · Score: 1

    You're right... that whole area was super stable after the first two came down. How could we have been so stupid!?

  99. Re:You want the truth? You can't handle... etc. by Agent0013 · · Score: 1

    True! So unstable that there was half a dozen buildings that fell. Oh. . .wait, what?

    --

    -- ssoorrrryy,, dduupplleexx sswwiittcchh oonn.. -Quote found on actual fortune cookie.
  100. Smash the machines by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What is the name of the guy in charge of this operation, Ned Ludd?

  101. Re:You want the truth? You can't handle... etc. by hazah · · Score: 1

    So it's all or nothing, eh? Perfect logic!

  102. The point of this exercise: by metamarmoset · · Score: 1

    all reporting on the Snowden leaks is already being edited and published from locations other than the UK

    The UK government wants to stay in the US's good books.

    The leaks are being reported on, but not in the UK's jurisdiction.

  103. Re:You want the truth? You can't handle... etc. by Agent0013 · · Score: 1

    Then why the cover up. No report on why it fell. No talk about that building at all. Most people don't even remember it happened. I don't know the truth. All I know is the official story does't hold water.

    --

    -- ssoorrrryy,, dduupplleexx sswwiittcchh oonn.. -Quote found on actual fortune cookie.
  104. got what they asked for by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Having the data locally and bragging about it is quite different than some anonymous blob floating around on teh interwebz. It's practically a challenge to the authorities to come and get it -- well, they got it :-)

  105. It'c CYA by bytesex · · Score: 2

    "The paper had repeatedly pointed out how pointless destroying the data was: copies exist, and all reporting on the Snowden leaks is already being edited and published from locations other than the UK."

    That may be, but I fathom that the UK's policy is: it may leak, but it won't leak from the UK.

    --
    Religion is what happens when nature strikes and groupthink goes wrong.
  106. Re:You want the truth? You can't handle... etc. by hazah · · Score: 1

    Why assume that there is a cover up in the first place? You don't have any evidence to support that claim -- full stop. From the sound of it it's because no one but you, and a handful of others, actually give a shit about it. That's why. Not to mention that that's not the building where people actually died that day. For the record, I remember it collapsing.

  107. Re:You want the truth? You can't handle... etc. by Richy_T · · Score: 1

    And to be able to claim that Mexican drug-lords are obtaining weapons from US dealers and enact stricter controls.

  108. Re:You want the truth? You can't handle... etc. by Agent0013 · · Score: 1

    Because it is kinda stupid to believe things that are told to you by someone that has been lying to you over and over again. The reasons we go fight wars are lies, the oversight of the spying agencies are lies. Our government is being run by criminals that are breaking the law and telling us it's ok and we can't do anything about it. Every way that the US has entered was started by a false flag operation, where they deliberately got americans killed so we would have justification to enter the war. Boats of passengers sent into German waters, letting japanese planes have free attack on Pearl Harbor. Why would the war on terrorism be any different. They knew what was up that day and figured it would be good to give them the authority to attack wherever they wanted and pass the laws they wanted. So when a building that took almost no damage suddenly falls down and they don't even make up a story to explain it, you just accept it as the will of your masters. Well I don't. When the pentagon gets hit with a plane, but there are no marks where the wings and tail should be, you just accept it as the masters tell you to, well I don't. Keep believing the lies if you want to, I'm sure it makes your world seem a much nicer place to be.

    --

    -- ssoorrrryy,, dduupplleexx sswwiittcchh oonn.. -Quote found on actual fortune cookie.
  109. Re:Spooks are trying to provoke an irresponsible a by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You're a very naive person to believe that admitted liars and frauds (Snowden admitted in a June interview that the took the job at BA only to collect and disseminate classified data; Manning broke sworn oaths to protect the State secrets he released) when they say that they haven't been "irresponsible" with the information they stole -- though, I find it laughable that we're even using that word, given that one handed over his entire stack of documents to a known criminal, while the other sought refuge for himself and his treasure amongst the most prolific frenemies the US has. Irresponsible doesn't even begin to describe their actions to date.

  110. Re:You want the truth? You can't handle... etc. by hazah · · Score: 1

    You're conflating two distinct issues. Not assuming that there is a conspiracy does not immediatly suggest I take your government's word for the event. I've never said I accepted anything from your masters. Note I used the word "your" twice now, hint hint. Frankly you have no concept of my convictions, as we've never properly discussed them. My point was one and only, do not look for evidence to fit your theory. Look to construct a theory from your evidence (sorely lacking for the conspiracy angle). That is all.

  111. Re:You want the truth? You can't handle... etc. by dbIII · · Score: 1

    Since you are not the originator of the tinfoil hat conspiracy you are spreading it is not a personal attack but instead a call for you to think for yourself given the situation instead of lazily falling for the loud rants of manipulative bastards. Learning about the world is the best defence against conspiracy theories from people that want to drag you into their slimy politics, such in this case people that want to undo the work of the US Revolution. Think of who is funding such hatred against governments. Rule by the rich alone is still feudalism before they pass control down to their children, and you should have managed to pick up enough history to learn that such a society is a bad thing for nearly everyone.

  112. Re:You want the truth? You can't handle... etc. by dbIII · · Score: 1

    When the pentagon gets hit with a plane, but there are no marks where the wings and tail should be

    Aircraft tend to change shape rapidly when hitting concrete walls at speeds of several hundred knots.
    The alternative of making a plane full of civilian passengers disappear while setting up a hoax explosion and hoax aircraft parts next to the pentagon, plus coaching fake witnesses, ripping the tops of light poles and falsifying aircraft traffic control data would require a huge operation running with clockwork precision for no gain at all since there was already enough justification for nearly any action after the planes hit in New York. It's not only implausable it's pointless. Nobody wins anything with such a hoax.
    It was real. Yes, reality sucks some times, but living with it is better than any of the alternatives.

  113. Damn those journalists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Those damn 'traitor' journalists they are destroying the damn country I tells yu!

  114. Re:You want the truth? You can't handle... etc. by G-forze · · Score: 1

    You should take your own advice, to think for yourself and learn about the world. I have done just that, and I concider myself most reasonable. If I may suggest, start with watching one talk from this video, the one that starts on 2:08:17. It is not long, very coherent and well worth watching if one claims to be open to evidence. When you have done that, get back to me, and we can talk. Calling others "tinfoil hatters" is not likely to win any discussions. Presenting well reasoned evidence and alternative explanations is.

    --
    "There's someone in my head but it's not me." - Pink Floyd, Dark Side of the Moon
  115. Re:You want the truth? You can't handle... etc. by Agent0013 · · Score: 1

    I don't have a theory. All I know is the official story is straight BS. When they get caught lying over and over and have proven that they have no respect for the truth or the public people then there is no reason to give them the benefit of the doubt. And when their story is full of holes and makes no sense it reinforces the view that they are lying about it. Steel softening makes sense, pancaking at the speed of freefall does not. Having most of the plane melted to nothing, but finding one of the terrorists drivers licences sitting on the ground in the rubble just a short while after the attack also makes no sense. Don't terrorists keep those in their wallets in their pants? Ignoring an entire building in the official story is just poor work. They couldn't even come up with a good lie so they just dropped it. Obviously when the people don't question them on this, then it really doesn't matter if they could come up with a good lie or not, so why bother.

    I also love how conspiracy has become a bad word meaning nut-case imaginings. A google search on the definition comes up with this. A secret plan by a group to do something unlawful or harmful. I would say the NSA spying is a conspiracy. Just because most people aren't in on it, doesn't mean there are a few people planning things in the government that are illegal and wrong.

    --

    -- ssoorrrryy,, dduupplleexx sswwiittcchh oonn.. -Quote found on actual fortune cookie.
  116. Re:You want the truth? You can't handle... etc. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You didn't watch the hearings.

  117. Re:You want the truth? You can't handle... etc. by hazah · · Score: 1

    What you describe can largely be attributed to incompetence. It isn't the word that bugs me here. Yes there are lies and more lies on top of lies, but what you see as a coordinated assault on The People, I view as a shitshow perpetuated by extreemly disconnected self centered interests. They are too incompetent to work together, and amusingly, all of this technology they employ to conpensate ends up sheding light on these cockroaches. All of this has happened before, and all of this will happen again.

  118. Wiki Encrypted Files by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And what do you think was in those encrypted files WikiLeaks posted this week? Betcha is was the contents of those disks. Betcha, betcha, betcha!

  119. We might have crap law but at least get it right.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Whilst I'm no big fan of our libel law here, that's not the whole picture. Journalists would have the defence of responsible journalism, which they can argue in their defence independently of a separate defence of truth or justification (what you're talking about).

  120. Dear UK and US governments, by MichaelSprague · · Score: 1

    Also, any other governments who get the urge to destroy a Macbook Pro...

    Speaking as a person who loves his country and likes his held together by duct tape Macbook, I would be very happy to come to you and remove the hard drive from the next Macbook Pro you are about to smash to bits, if I can have the puter afterwards.

    The propeller heads at slashdot will still make fun of you for myriad reasons, but this will take one really easy to avoid one away from them, and also allow me to improve my own computing power significantly. See? Win-win.

    Your friend,

    Michael

    P.S. This story is really one where the use of the word "retarded" seems justified. Just observing, not using it on anyone specific.

  121. What's with this post-literate shit? by dbIII · · Score: 1

    If you can't put it into words why should I respond with anything other than ridicule? Instead of "well reasoned evidence" you've got a link to some supposed video which could be anything, so I'm not going to look at it since I'm not in a private environment.
    Using words isn't hard, let me demonstrate:
    Fires break stuff. Things fall over. Go bang!

  122. But the Important Thing... by Pherdnut · · Score: 1

    ... is just how funny of ad can Toughbook advertisers put together based on this event?

  123. Not UK gov, Israeli gov by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It is not the UK government. The current body of traitors who you refer to are Israeli agents who works for Israel. This is a fact you can verify even on wikipedia. Look up William Hague on wikipedia, you will see that he works for Israel and always has done so.