NZ Police Got PRISM Data Before Raid On Dotcom

Bismillah writes "Police affidavits show that the New Zealand Police requested and received assistance from the country's signals intelligence agency, the GCSB, which appears to have used PRISM to intercept Kim and Mona Dotcom and the Megaupload associates' communications."

Comments

Was that really necessary?

[cold fjord]

That seems a bit excessive.

Re:Was that really necessary?

[Fluffeh]

On the upside, with this cat out of the bag now, at least it is going to be brought up in court. Kim doesn't seem to be the sort of chap who will keep quiet and just let it slide. He is probably straightening his tie as we speak and about to knock on the door of the nearest court in NZ.

Re:Was that really necessary?

[sjwt]

When the US is in command, nothing is excessive when protecting the income of Big business.

Re:Was that really necessary?

[cold fjord]

Generally you see a line between law enforcement "signals intelligence" and national security signals intelligence. I would expect that the use of national security assets for ordinary law enforcement would be limited. I have a hard time seeing that it would be justified in this case.

Re:Was that really necessary?

[AHuxley]

Cold what do you expect NZ to do when it comes under pressure from the USA? At anytime the USA can turn off the NSA data stream.
NZ learned a lot from the Rainbow Warrior, international treaties, understandings, letters, assurances, visits, friendships and decades of cooperation are totally worthless.
When NZ asked Australia, the US, UK for small amounts of basic telco help with France they got very little back.
So NZ now knows its place, when the US asks for anything, NZ does all it can with all its tools (NSA was very good to the NZ gov and vast, expensive new telco work).
National security assets where in no way limited and NZ national security staff seemed happy to help before any new telco/spy law changes.

Re:Was that really necessary?

[icebike]

Wait, are you saying that PRISM was used for enforcement of some media company's copyrights?
Or was it used to try to prop up the arrest after the fact?

Because once there is proof that these systems are secret to the population of the USA, but used freely to enforce some copyrights for campaign donners, shit could hit the fan in high places.

Re:Was that really necessary?

[icebike]

Generally you see a line between law enforcement "signals intelligence" and national security signals intelligence. I would expect that the use of national security assets for ordinary law enforcement would be limited. I have a hard time seeing that it would be justified in this case.

Especially when the "law enforcement" issue was basically a civil matter of copyright.

Re:Was that really necessary?

[SuricouRaven]

Sarcasm aside, this ridiculous claims has actually been made by not only copyright agencies, but the US government, to justify more money for copyright-enforcement efforts.
news.cnet.com/Terrorist-link-to-copyright-piracy-alleged/2100-1028_3-5722835.html
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2008/03/us-attorney-general-piracy-funds-terror/

Re:Was that really necessary?

[symbolset]

Not really. I used to believe people gave a shit, but really - they don't. Most people really don't care. Even if the accused is accused of something they do every day they will sit on the jury and convict because the specific circumstance doesn't apply to them, because the prosecutor is so persuasive about how the specific way the accused is claimed to have done it is a criminal act, and take the lesson to mind their ways ever after about that specific way. Until they are in the dock proclaiming that it is not fair to people who were like them and will convict them too for failing to observe a different specific nuance of imaginary property in an exquisitely specific different way.

This is an odd game where the combatants define the rules dynamically after the fact. For a decade after play ends the outcome is in doubt. The only real way to win is not to play. Or to be one of the many lawyers who get hourly fees to contest the outcome.

In my mind it's just one symptom of the cancer of lawyers infesting the body public. Class action laywers have given up even the pretense of giving their clients a coupon for a discount toward their opponent's products in settlement as justification for their disproportionate share of the penalty, and now collect without compensating the victims at all. In cases like Prenda they generate their own plaintiffs, respondents and misdeeds to generate profits out of whole cloth.

It is not fair. It is not right. But this is how it is, and unless people unite to fight it this is ... hey, Wilfred's next season dropped on Netflix. BRB.

Re: Was that really necessary?

[saihung]

No one forced him to use an international communication system.

So two governments cooperate to spy on each others' citizens with no judicial oversight and you are ok with it because ... wait. Why are you OK with it? Because the communication was international? So you believe that no international communications should enjoy privacy protections? Why?

Re:Was that really necessary?

[symbolset]

[Citation needed]. Specifically a situation where people in general give a shit, rather than unique powerless individuals.

Re: Was that really necessary?

[BlueStrat]

No one forced him to use an international communication system.

So two governments cooperate to spy on each others' citizens with no judicial oversight and you are ok with it because ... wait. Why are you OK with it? Because the communication was international? So you believe that no international communications should enjoy privacy protections? Why?

Tyranny & corruption have graduated from the individual-nation level, to being a global/international level game. National leaders/power-brokers have realized the advantages to cooperation, at least on limited terms, with the leaders/power-brokers of other nations toward the goal of controlling ever more of people's lives, liberty, and wealth.

It's corruption and betrayal/treason/tyranny on a global, international scale. This is the non-tinfoil/black-helo, real-world "NWO". It isn't some wild super-secret conspiracy theory. It's just your everyday human corruption and lust for wealth and power that has evolved over time and with the opportunities that technology advances and mass media propaganda over time provide to operate across borders, political systems, and even sovereign interests.

It's things like TFA describes, and things like the US and UK or NZ each spying on the other's citizens and exchanging the data to avoid legal/constitutional proscriptions against domestic spying. Things like treaties that "force" a (or a set of) national laws to be changed/abolished to comply with treaty terms, when the whole aim was to get said changes made against popular wishes and/or to avoid/bypass legal/constitutional restrictions.

The fact that Snowden's and other's whistle-blower domestic surveillance revelations happened at all indicates that either the surveillance apparatus and infrastructure has grown so enormous and all-encompassing that it was bound to happen, or that things are so much under their control that it really doesn't matter that much any longer to those in power if the public finds out.

Or both.

None of which bodes any good for regular people anywhere, not just in the US, as TFA illustrates so well.

Strat

Re:Was that really necessary?

[DarkOx]

I like how we are told by every government mouth piece how much harm these revelations by snowden, manning and fisa declassifications are doing to there anti terror intelligence work, but were willing to risk exposing it for copyright infirgment. Kinda cuts right through their bullshit about this being for the public good.

Re:Was that really necessary?

[Velex]

Some people seem to care, but it seems we're in the minority.

Another poster brought up the Occupy movement. Everything I've heard about how that movement was "dealt with" frankly made my skin crawl. Another example is the Tea party. It started out as a grassroots libertarian protest against "too big to fail" back in 2008, but by 2010 it had been completely co-opted into an astroturf wing of the Republican party.

The thing is that the powers that be have a very good understanding of psychology and sociology to the point of being expert manipulators. However, the only way it works is if enough people have their bread and circuses. When enough people are "getting by" (but only through "hard"/stressful work, so they can feel as though they've earned what they have and deserve no more and no less because after all if they wanted more they could just work "harder" and the magic Invisible Hand or else the magic Sky Wizard will provide more) they tend not to care about what's going on in the larger picture.

The thing that's been really creeping me out honestly in the past two to three-ish years is just how damned well the powers that be understand this dynamic.

It seems that the real trick is that people don't care right up until one of their family is targeted. Then they start caring. Until then, however, they'll reason that if they're doing ok that the propoganda in the mainstream media must be true. They want to pat themselves on the back for their hard work and good decisions like not getting "into drugs" (i.e. they've successfully resisted the devil in marijuana all these years so they must be good people and anyone who even gives into the devil/marijuana/"drugs" once must be a bad person). So, if the mainstream media says that the Occupy movement is just a bunch of aimless drug seekers who are defecating in public spaces, it must be true.

Of course, the trouble is programs like the oft mentioned here on /. COINTELPRO. All a powerful entity needs to do is plant enough people in enough highly visible places in a movement, and they can effectively control perception of that movement. Want to paint Occupy as a bunch of dirty hippies without jobs looking for handouts? Send in enough people to loudly ask every passer-by if they have any weed, and tell them to harass local businesses and generally be obnoxious.

A more prosiac example would be federalized Romneycare/Obamacare. The ACA seems to be utterly set up to fail. Insurance companies are already raising their premiums and blaming the ACA while really none of the provisions of the ACA that matter have kicked in yet (health insurance exchanges, vouchers/subsidies as I understand it, and the personal mandate). The thing that really worries me is how many people buy into the narrative that health insurance companies just have to raise premiums because of Barry and his Kenyan socialism so blindly instead of being more sceptical of the insurance companies themselves and demanding better justification for premium hikes than just "because ACA." The lack of critical thinking in the masses is truly terrifying.

Sure, it all sounded like a lot of tinfoil hattery even a few years ago. However, the more information that comes out, the more we can begin to suspect that perhaps our tinfoil hats really weren't on too tight after all. Now we have verification of things like "parallel construction," wide-scale domestic spying, incestuous data sharing among agencies, secret courts, national security letters, and a complete breakdown of due process.

However, the public isn't too worried. After all, they haven't come for me or anyone I know personally, and all the people I know are hard-working Americans, so therefore, there must be an element of truth that if I don't have anything to hide, it must really be the case that I don't have anything to worry about. History be damned.

So of course these "leakers" are just malcontents the reasoning goes. They're access information t

Re:Was that really necessary?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm glad I'm not the only one whom is frightened by how screwed up things have become and how willing the masses are to accept transparent excuses. It honestly has my afraid deep down that we're going to see a war on US soil in my life time. We're letting our government get away with overstepping their bounds (on a global scale) so often that they seems to have gotten comfortable being a bully. If history has taught us anything, it should be that countries which bully other countries become the target of large scale warfare.

Re:Was that really necessary?

[Dachannien]

Another example is the Tea party. It started out as a grassroots libertarian protest against "too big to fail" back in 2008, but by 2010 it had been completely co-opted into an astroturf wing of the Republican party.

I'm glad somebody else recognizes this, because I'm tired of fiscal responsibility being painted with the same brush as Michelle Bachman's ilk. When the Tea Party first started getting media attention, I was interested in subscribing to their newsletter, but now they're basically just the Christian conservative message wrapped up in some anti-tax stuff. By taking a minority viewpoint and acting like they have some sort of political mandate, they're spelling an early doom for the GOP-ers who are willing to play ball with the Dems. (The GOP would likely collapse eventually anyway, but it would have taken a lot longer for the demographics to shift without the help of the new "Tea Party".)

The ACA seems to be utterly set up to fail.

What I don't get is why the federal exchanges exclude those people who aren't eligible for insurance through their employers. They ought to be available for everyone to choose an insurance plan from, with the employer paying their share to whichever insurance plan the employee chooses.

Re:Was that really necessary?

[Bucc5062]

You mirrored my thoughts so well I wanted to thank you for expressing them. Just this morning I am listening to an NPR article where the NPR "reporter" interviewed Mr. Muller, soon to be retired head of the FBI. Generally it was a fluff piece, but what started to bother me was when they talked about 9/11 and how the FBI, Federal Bureau of Investigation, was now tasked with protecting our country from *terrorist* and acting *preemptively*. Really? I thought, When did Investigation turn in to Surveillance (aka FBS).

So Mr. Muller tells us that instead of focusing on small things like white collar crime and violent crime he now needs to focus on an incredibly small group of people who pale compared to the terrorism Bankers, Hedge Fund managers, and other white collar criminals have committed against the people of this country. He even states, "We only have some much money so we spend it chasing bad guys with bombs that we cannot catch till after they explode"...well, my interpretation of he banal comment.

Normally I am not a conspiracy type of person, but I cannot help, but wonder that after 9/11 as all of our law enforcement is now shifted to l;ook for bad guys in the desert, laws like Glass-Segal are repealed, Wall Street investment brings this country (and the world) almost to the point of ruin, and the FBI was unable to investigate, because they were spending so much time looking for terrorists. Good timing.

My final thought as I listened to the end of this fluff was that the NPR reporter was just another tool to be used in a propaganda machine. She didn't ask or talk about why the FBI felt white collar crime was less important, she did not ask or push questions about unwarranted surveillance an d the FBI's role, and she certainly did not act like a reporter; she acted like a prop for a show. Very disappointing. I fear that investigative journalism is all but buried as Corporations hold more control of media centers. Ask the hard questions and soon you are shut out of access and the talking heads still get face time from the toodies trotted out by primary Media conglomerates.

Fox - Owned by Rupert Murdoch (and branched in many countries)
ABC - Owned by Walt Disney Corp
NBC - Owned by General Electric
CBS - Viacom, but ( Predecessor firms of Viacom include Gulf+Western, which later became Paramount Communications Inc., and Westinghouse Electric Corporation.
CNN - Time Warner

Iit is amazing how only 4 major conglomerates control, TV, Radio, Print, and more and more Internet media to the point where most of the content was absorb comes from only these four sources..

In a country that championed the idea of the 4th Estate, it has been supplanted by a Jim Taylor machine so vast it may not be brought down. Even NPR, my bastion of good reporting now seems to be losing ground. (sigh)

Re:Was that really necessary?

[anagama]

When the Tea Party first started getting media attention, I was interested in subscribing to their newsletter, but now they're basically just the Christian conservative message wrapped up in some anti-tax stuff.

Denninger quoted here, voted for Obama BTW:

Karl Denninger, an original organizer of the Tea Party, is out with a livid blog post blasting current leaders of the conservative movement and the apparent hypocrisy in their views of the economic issues that originally catalyzed its creation.

According to Denninger, "Sarah Palin, Newt Gingrich, Bob Barr, and douchebag groups such as the Tea Party Patriots" are to blame for the bastardization of a movement that now seems focused on "Guns, gays, God," instead of the Tea Party's original mission: to castigate the federal government for supporting the "rampant theft" of taxpayer dollars that went toward "propping up FAILED private businesses."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/20/karl-denninger-tea-party_n_770108.html

Re:Was that really necessary?

[chihowa]

File sharing and peer to peer copyright infringement (what Dotcom was allegedly facilitating) don't raise funds for anybody. Selling bootleg movies on the street may fund terrorism, but the copyright infringement happening on Bittorrent and Megaupload isn't commercial in nature and there's no money changing hands at all. It's like saying smiling at people funds terrorism; it's a completely absurd statement.

Wow...

[allaunjsilverfox2]

You have to wonder who WASN'T involved with Kim Dotcom at this point. It's absurd the amount of time and money that was used to investigate this one man. Personally, I've always felt he was a bit egotistical. But man, When goverment(s) bring THIS much force to you, you kind of deserve to be a bit over the top.

Re:Wow...

[game kid]

They didn't just feed the troll. They gave him all-you-can-eat steak and caviar, catering for a party of five, and coupons for tomorrow's main course.

Re:Wow...

[LordLucless]

Have you seen Kim Dotcom? Catering for a party of five would only just cover it.

Not only for "Terrorism"

[surfdaddy]

See how quickly the scope creep sets in. We break the constitution to spy on EVERYBODY without warrants to "protect us from terrorism". And now already other agencies want some of that honeypot data - the DEA, the IRS, New Zealand, and the XXAA media organizations. Now it's being used for COPYRIGHT violations!

What the FUCK has happened to my country?

Re:Not only for "Terrorism"

[0123456]

Don't worry: someone will be along shortly to point out that the slippery slope is a logical fallacy, so this could never have happened.

Re:Not only for "Terrorism"

[gmuslera]

Not just your country, UK, NZ, Sweden and others are either in bed with US or in their pocket. Is not enough that US is in fact a plutocracy, a lot of other countries that claim to be democracies aren't either, or are following orders of the same plutocrats (either by being bribed, extorted, scared, or being just retards). US is just out of hope, everything was given to the real rulers in a silver plate for decades, but would think that in some of those countries population opinion mean something.

Re:Not only for "Terrorism"

[Anonymous Coward]

The best way to answer those overeducated idiots is to point out that government isn't a logical entity.

Re:Not only for "Terrorism"

[TheReaperD]

Jamie Dimon paid his bribes *ahem* ... I mean donations to the powers that be (both democrats and republicans) and Kim Dotcom's enemies did the same. What's the confusion?

Not just for the terrorists.

[steelfood]

Funny how the justification for the program was all about the terrorists. Now, we find out that it wasn't just used for terrorists, pedophiles, and drug traffickers, but also for people the copyright lobby dislikes.

And yet, I find myself completely unsurprised. How long before all this surveillance infrastructure gets used against farmers standing up against Monstano, or generic drug makers, or individuals advocating for shorter copyright terms? How long before this gets used to stifle political dissent and free speech?

Soon, if it isn't already happening. Very, very soon.

Re:Not just for the terrorists.

[Anonymous Coward]

The real reason for the establishment of a pervasive security state was not 9/11 but "battle of seattle" which happened 1999 and completely caught the government off guard. 9/11 was the excuse they needed to create a massive surveillance network accross the whole country to make sure it never happened again. Why do shit holes like Detroit or some podunk oil town in North Dakota need anti-terrorism control centers or whatever? They don't need them for al-Qaeda but for anarchists, union organizers, environmentalists and assorted other proft-threatening lefty types. Seattle put the fear in the government and they spent the last 10 years making sure if something like OWS pops up it gets put down fast.

Re:Not just for the terrorists.

[Pseudonym Authority]

Did they actually target pedos with PRISM? Surely they would have told us if they did; after all, `if only ONE child is saved....'. Many are disillusioned by the War on Terror, and many like to light up every once in a while, but everyone hates sexual deviants. It would be the perfect PR move. 90% of those against the spying programs would be pushing for an even larger program.

Re:Not just for the terrorists.

[Anonymous Coward]

How long before all this surveillance infrastructure gets used against farmers standing up against Monstano, or generic drug makers, or individuals advocating for shorter copyright terms? How long before this gets used to stifle political dissent and free speech?

Soon, if it isn't already happening. Very, very soon.

You need to read more history. I mean REAL history, not the lies they shoved
down your throat in high school.

None of this surveillance+governmental abuse stuff is new. What IS new is the scope with which surveillance
can be done now, due to technological changes. The "machine" can now be more efficient than ever before.
The efficiency is really the only new thing here. All the rest is an old story. However, the end of many such stories
often features the fall of empire. Read "Hegemony or Survival" by Noam Chomsky for more on this idea.

Could it happen in the US, the fall of empire ? Buddy, it is ALEADY happening, like a house of cards
falling down in super slow motion video. Look at the true stats on the US economy. Look at how the US
is HATED in much of the world. Look at how the US has become a bully which uses power instead of
finesse to attempt to achieve goals. Truly the show in the US is run by idiots, and smart people know this
is the case because it is painfully obvious if you watch actual events rather than mindlessly consuming
propaganda. It's not Obama's fault though -- Obama is just an errand boy for the swine who really run the show,
just as Bush was before him.

Re:Not just for the terrorists.

[TapeCutter]

Mate, it didn't start in 1999, nor did it start with Nixon in the 70's, or McCarthy if the 50's, it's been there forever and all sides do it if given a chance.

Re:Not just for the terrorists.

[TheReaperD]

I'm not old enough to have been there but, a friend of mine that was part of the protests in the 1960s. One of the things he mentioned that caught my attention was that in the late 60s there wasn't 'the Women's rights protesters' and 'the black protesters', etc. The groups supported and worked with one another to achieve their goals. Then, new people started joining their groups. He stated that they stood out as they always had their dues ready on time and always in exact change. And once they came in, they started infighting between the groups that eventually led to the groups separating. At the time he believed these were government agents and in the last couple decades evidence has come out the the FBI was involved in counter-intelligence operations against protesters during that era.

If this is all true than this is just the next stage against freedom of expression in this country. :-(

Re:Not just for the terrorists.

[0111 1110]

And yet, I find myself completely unsurprised. How long before all this surveillance infrastructure gets used against farmers standing up against Monstano, or generic drug makers

Some years ago I returned from a trip abroad with some generic drugs in my luggage. The US customs guy searching my luggage noticed them. He told me that I should stop buying foreign generics because they were used to fund terrorists. I asked him if he seriously believed that or if it was just something he was supposed to say. He replied that he seriously believed it. So I think the generic drugs = terrorism line has already been crossed by our government.

Re:Not just for the terrorists.

[nine-times]

Well of course, if it hasn't been done already, it's the next step. I believe pedophiles were the claimed reason for the British to attempt Internet filtering.

So first they say, "This isn't being used to spy on regular citizens. It's just for national security and going after terrorists. We're not interested in anything else, so if you're not a terrorist, you have nothing to worry about." A lot of people will go along with that, since nobody wants terrorist to kill people.

So next they say, "Well we have all this data sitting around, and we could allow police access to it, and they could use it to catch pedophiles. You want to catch pedophiles, right?" And what, you're going to say no? You're going to defend pedophiles?

So eventually they'll say, "Well we have all this data sitting around, and police have access to it, so why not use it to catch all kinds of criminals? I mean, would you rather hamstring the police for no reason whatsoever?"

That's how the slippery slope works.

As a kiwi

[Mistakill]

I'm upset, and yet not surprised.... sigh

Follow the money

[taniwha]

What's interesting is that our Prime Minister effectively admitted in parliament (by refusing to answer in a situation where "no" would have been a far better answer for him and one he would have given had it been true)just 2 days ago that the GCSB (or NSA wanna bes) have been funded by the US to the tune of millions of dollars.

So what did they buy? probably a Prism to put in our fibre access to the rest of the world. And I guess enough of a back channel to send it all to the US. I can see now why the second pacific fibre was nobbled because they wouldn't accept the use of Chinese infrastructure - wouldn't do to have some other country's backdoors in the routers rather than the US's.

Perhaps they should reqrite their ad.

[whoever57]

In the advert on /. page for this story: "Spiceworks, easy to use network monitoring." Post Edward Snowdon, they should rewrite their advert.

Spying on Congress?

[Esion Modnar]

Imagine what might happen if one of the revelations-to-be is evidence of spying on members of Congress? Maybe this is suspected by said members, and while this might anger them, they would rather the "revelations" to be kept secret. A secret kept secret is power. A secret revealed forces action in ways that are not preferred.

After all, burning gas in an engine produces useful work, burning it outside just produces a loud bang.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Wait, what?

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

If I am reading it right, it is just circumstantial evidence based on the NZ documents using the term "selecrtors" with respect to real-time data collection. But no actual mention of NSA programs.

After the DEA and IRS were found to have access plus the boondoogle with the presidential airplane over europe and the revelation that the decision to detain Miranda came directly from the office the UK PM James Cameron, I am completely ready to give the benefit of the doubt to the reporting, I just want to make sure there isn't any more concrete proof besides what may be terminology common to multiple LE agencies.

Two US House members ask identical questions

[Required Snark]

Here is a video of two members of the US House asking identically worded questions during a congressional hearing on copyright. Unfortunately the sound volume is very low, so it is a bit hard to hear.

http://youtu.be/JtVbHBIyFKw

They don't even bother to check the script they are given. It's not even as professional as books on tape or someone blindly reading the news.

They may be elected officials, but they certainly are not working for the public. To make it worse, you know that they sold themselves for next to nothing. A few hundreds of dollars of campaign contributions and an empty promise of fundraising is all it takes. They're not just whores, they're cheap whores.

Devil's Advocate

[Joining Yet Again]

Firstly, there's no difference between "law enforcement" and "national security" except in the eyes of egomaniacs who think that there brand of crime investigation (e.g. "terror" - seriously, could you get any more emotive?) is Totally More Important and should receive all sorts of Special Dispensations.

Secondly, intercepting data of suspected criminals - and there is a lot of good evidence that this guy was engaging in criminal activity - seems sensible. It shouldn't be all cloak and dagger, and "signals intelligence" should just be regarded as another way of collecting evidence.

Thirdly, people like this, who are essentially making huge bank by distributing other people's work, don't really deserve their income. They are the flip side of the copyright cartel.

The copyright cartel are also leeches and ought to be just as thoroughly investigated for their dirty bribery and lawyering practices.

A pox on all their houses.

Re:Devil's Advocate

[_merlin]

Secondly, intercepting data of suspected criminals - and there is a lot of good evidence that this guy was engaging in criminal activity - seems sensible. It shouldn't be all cloak and dagger, and "signals intelligence" should just be regarded as another way of collecting evidence.

If there's plenty of good evidence, why didn't they charge him on summons? Why did they break down his door special ops style? If it's a criminal matter, there's a process for obtaining and serving a warrant. If it's a civil matter, there's a process for bringing a complaint. Neither was followed.

Thirdly, people like this, who are essentially making huge bank by distributing other people's work, don't really deserve their income. They are the flip side of the copyright cartel.

He operated a file sharing service. What you shared on it wasn't his business. He took down files when requested. He complied with relevant laws. By your logic, manufacturers of zip-lock bags don't deserve their income, because the product is used to facilitate drug trades.

Re:Anton Vickerman Prosecution

[sosume]

Funny how the US always criticizes other countries for human right violations and references their constitution as a safeguard against government abuse. Meanwhile, state agencies are collecting information on the entire internet population and handing it out to foreign governments to aid oppressing their population. The irony!

Re:Anton Vickerman Prosecution

[erroneus]

I wish that was funny.

I no longer take the human rights thing seriously when coming from my country. Until they start following the constitution, this country is completely dysfunctional. In the past, when something was declared/ruled as unconstitutional, it mean "you're done. cease doing it." For some reason, it doesn't mean that any longer. Now it's just "yeah? so?"

Re:Anton Vickerman Prosecution

[Anonymous Coward]

This NSA scandal is also a good comeback for the Chinese whenever Obama thinks it's a good idea to blast them for their human rights.

Where would you rather live? a country which detains you in secret and uses secret evidence against you, and maybe throw you in gitmo... Or a country which everyone knows spies on you, and isn't ashamed for the world plus its own citizens to know about it?

Serious food for thought really.

Re: Anton Vickerman Prosecution

[Anonymous Coward]

Can I have country option number3 please?!?