Slashdot Mirror


Guardian Ignores MI5 Warnings, Vows To 'Publish More Snowden Leaks'

dryriver writes in with news that a new round of Snowden leaks may be on the way. "Guardian editor Alan Rusbridger says he plans to publish more revelations from Edward Snowden despite MI5 warning that such disclosures cause enormous damage. Mr Rusbridger insisted the paper was right to publish files leaked by the US intelligence analyst and had helped to prompt a necessary and overdue debate. Mr Rusbridger said more stories would be published in the future as the leaked documents were 'slowly and responsibly' worked through. His comments come after criticism from the new head of MI5, Andrew Parker. Making public the 'reach and limits' of intelligence-gathering techniques gave terrorists the advantage, he said. He warned that terrorists now had tens of thousands of means of communication 'through e-mail, IP telephony, in-game communication, social networking, chat rooms, anonymising services and a myriad of mobile apps'. Mr Parker said it was vital for MI5 to retain the capability to access such information if it was to protect the country. "

198 of 301 comments (clear)

  1. Liars, liars, pants on fire by HansKloss · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I'm so tired of using "terrorist" argument and then, when we give them what they want, they turn around and use new powers on own citizens or to oppress members of minor political parties.

    1. Re:Liars, liars, pants on fire by MickyTheIdiot · · Score: 5, Funny

      Well, "terrorist" is becoming as generic as calling someone an asshole.

      You took the last bear claw, you terririst!

    2. Re:Liars, liars, pants on fire by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      "I have here in my hand a list of 205—a list of names that were made known to the Secretary of State as being members of the Communist Party and who nevertheless are still working and shaping policy in the State Department."

                                          Joe McCarthy, February 9, 1950

      Some things don't change.

    3. Re:Liars, liars, pants on fire by Spottywot · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Especially when they quote bullshit for the reason, i.e. Britain faced one or more terrorist attack per year since 2000 and will continue to do so http://news.sky.com/story/1151954/mi5-boss-warns-of-growing-uk-terror-threat. Now that means that there have been 13-26 attacks according to his figures and we haven't heard of one of them? I remember when the UK really was under the threat of terrorist attacks from the IRA, and though a lot of things were kept secret for obvious reasons during that time, when the security forces scored a major victory or prevented an attack you knew about it. Are they seriously saying that 7/7/2005 was 'the one that got away', and they haven't told us about the others because of secrecy? Just one for an example?

      --
      In a cybernetic fit of rage she pissed off to another age...
    4. Re:Liars, liars, pants on fire by somersault · · Score: 2

      Just one? Okay.

      --
      which is totally what she said
    5. Re:Liars, liars, pants on fire by cold+fjord · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I see that occurring on Slashdot, along with various claims of "everyone's a terrorist" for some reason or another generally involving disingenuous rhetoric. As a rule I don't see that from government. They seem to be a bit clearer about its meaning.

      --
      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
    6. Re:Liars, liars, pants on fire by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Such as when you become a registered sexual offender because you pissed on a tree on night.

    7. Re:Liars, liars, pants on fire by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The Communist Party USA, CPUSA, was an instrument of the USSR, this was proven by declassified documents as well as Soviet archives. The CPUSA was involved in espionage as well as underground supporters that pushed US policy towards a more favorable approach of the USSR.

    8. Re:Liars, liars, pants on fire by geminidomino · · Score: 2, Insightful

      As a rule I don't see that from government. They seem to be a bit clearer about its meaning.

      I guess that might be considered true, since the government feels that the rules don't apply to them, and that "rule" would be no exception. Or you're ignorant of/ignoring the fact that these endless "anti-terrorist" laws are used more often in the clusterfuck that we call "the war on drugs" than against actual terrorists. And that we've already displayed that the government is happy to bypass the law entirely against "actual" terrorists, even if they're citizens, without even pretending or "plausible deniability" anymore.

      Yeah... "As a rule", your observation here seems pretty divorced from reality.

    9. Re:Liars, liars, pants on fire by Stolpskott · · Score: 1

      Britain has been facing the constant threat of terrorist attacks since the 1970's, right up until the early years of the 21st century, thanks to the terrorist elements of the Irish Republican Army and other Irish Republican splinter groups. Bombings happened, but even without the all-pervasive intelligence gathering apparatus that is apparently now necessary to track every "terrorist", the British Security Services still did a pretty good job of foiling most of the attacks.

      I say most, not all, and I am not arguing that increased surveillance would not have prevented more attacks and saved more lives. Indeed, the extreme prevalence of CCTV cameras in UK is probably in large part a reaction to the bombings by the IRA et al.

      But it seems to me that because the Irish problems did not adversely affect the US, it was less of a threat. Now that the US has a terrorist threat pointed its way, all-inclusive surveillance becomes the order of the day and the Brits are jumping on the bandwagon.

    10. Re:Liars, liars, pants on fire by gweihir · · Score: 2

      Indeed. And to add insult to the lie, they do not even manage to do anything about what little terrorism is actually there.

      However, I agree that "tremendous damage" is being done, namely to society by concerted efforts to establish a police- and surveillance-state. We had that in Europe in the last century and it took about 80 million dead to deal with it because it was not stopped at the onset. These people are extremely dangerous and need to be stopped. At this time, it may still be possible to do that in a democratic fashion, but only if the voters wake up.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    11. Re:Liars, liars, pants on fire by Spottywot · · Score: 1

      Well done, they thwarted that one good and proper. I'm talking about one that was stopped by MI5 or GCHQ. Such as this one http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2013/mar/04/northern-ireland-police-ira-mortar, stopped by security forces in Northern Ireland. Try again.

      --
      In a cybernetic fit of rage she pissed off to another age...
    12. Re:Liars, liars, pants on fire by Pino+Grigio · · Score: 1

      Are you asking us which secret-that-nobody-knows-about terrorist attacks were thwarted by MI5? By definition that question is unanswerable. Besides, this is lunacy. The UK is covered in video cameras. Yet people are whining about GCHQ aggregating their Facebook and Twitter feeds, as if people go online and use social media in order to be somehow private citizens? A better target for the Guardian is the surveillance society in general, not MI5; it's council busy-bodies snooping with town centre cameras and things like that, not what the intelligence services are getting up to.

    13. Re:Liars, liars, pants on fire by Lunix+Nutcase · · Score: 1

      And for anyone who is still ignorant of this fact this has a great story about it.

    14. Re:Liars, liars, pants on fire by Joce640k · · Score: 1

      A better target for the Guardian is the surveillance society in general, not MI5; it's council busy-bodies snooping with town centre cameras and things like that, not what the intelligence services are getting up to.

      Why not both?

      --
      No sig today...
    15. Re:Liars, liars, pants on fire by miletus · · Score: 1, Interesting

      So they were doing something like what AIPAC does today, with widespread support from both political parties?

    16. Re:Liars, liars, pants on fire by Lunix+Nutcase · · Score: 1

      Because constructing false dilemmas is more fun.

    17. Re:Liars, liars, pants on fire by dave420 · · Score: 1

      Hardly. The US government in particular has tried to describe acts as terrorism without understanding the motives of the perpetrator(s), which is impossible to do as an act of terrorism is only terrorism if the motive is to coerce people. So no.

    18. Re:Liars, liars, pants on fire by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      I guess that might be considered true,...

      ... your observation here seems pretty divorced from reality.

      Make up your mind, it's either true or it isn't. The police and investigative agencies may use some of the powers they are granted by antiterrorism legislation for investigating other crimes,* but that doesn't mean the criminals they are investigating are then necessarily terrorist.

      * You should be clear that terrorist groups often resort to ordinary criminal activity to fund themselves. Examples include bank robbery, kidnapping, extortion, smuggling, and so on. The terrorist group Hezbollah has hundreds of people involved with crime in the US to help provide funding. Cigarette smuggling (.pdf) is a common means.

      --
      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
    19. Re:Liars, liars, pants on fire by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      Your post give a hint of the right answer: a "registered sex offender" is .... a registered sex offender, not a terrorist.

      --
      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
    20. Re:Liars, liars, pants on fire by Soluzar · · Score: 4, Insightful

      They're very clear on one point. They are entirely clear that fanning the flames of hysteria regarding terrorism will allow them to get away with whatever they want. Including spying on private communications between people who are not and never will be accused of any crime. I don't want them reading my intimate communications with my loved ones. I don't want them reading my flippant communications with my friends. I don't want them reading anything. I don't want them to put my life under a microscope.

    21. Re:Liars, liars, pants on fire by Lunix+Nutcase · · Score: 2

      Nothing revisionist about it. From here:

      CRAWFORD, Texas — Paul O'Neill, President Bush's Treasury secretary in the first two years of his presidency, says the Bush administration was planning to invade Iraq long before the Sept. 11 attacks and used questionable intelligence to justify the war.

      This is a 7 year old story.

    22. Re:Liars, liars, pants on fire by Lunix+Nutcase · · Score: 1

      And if you want to deny the USA today story read this. They were planning the Iraq invasion as early as January 2001.

    23. Re:Liars, liars, pants on fire by Smauler · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Nelson Mandela was a terrorist, by just about any definition. Doesn't mean he wasn't right.

      "We don't negotiate with terrorists!" is a little bit odd coming from people trying to get their photo next to him.

    24. Re:Liars, liars, pants on fire by NatasRevol · · Score: 1

      How about if we just stayed the fuck out of Iraq completely? Like since 1991.

      No 9/11 because there wouldn't have been any pissed of extremists.

      Foreign policies have unintended consequences too.

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    25. Re:Liars, liars, pants on fire by Lunix+Nutcase · · Score: 1

      But didn't you read below? I supposedly just manufactured all of this. I'm sure that idiot probably still believes that Iraq had WMDs.

    26. Re:Liars, liars, pants on fire by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      Re They seem to be a bit clearer
      Not really Cold, when Western govs see a lack of traction for their PR they often have to help things along a bit beyond "rhetoric":
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategy_of_tension
      A study of history will always turn up some interesting actions by governments trying to rule :)

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    27. Re:Liars, liars, pants on fire by Lunix+Nutcase · · Score: 1

      LOL it was contingency planning? Are you serious? The only one engaging in revisionism is you.

    28. Re:Liars, liars, pants on fire by Nyder · · Score: 1

      I'm so tired of using "terrorist" argument and then, when we give them what they want, they turn around and use new powers on own citizens or to oppress members of minor political parties.

      The true terrorist is the USA Government and it's cronies.

      --
      Be seeing you...
    29. Re:Liars, liars, pants on fire by NatasRevol · · Score: 1

      They were extremists who didn't want us in their part of the world. And I can't really blame them for that.

      Where they were born has no fucking bearing.

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    30. Re:Liars, liars, pants on fire by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      Cold the term terrorism is now so diluted it has lost much of its legal meaning. Any local criminal act can now draw on federal funding if carefully presented as terrorism related. The states get nice support for their ongoing and very expensive bank robbery, kidnapping, extortion, smuggling investigations.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    31. Re:Liars, liars, pants on fire by kilfarsnar · · Score: 3, Informative

      I see that occurring on Slashdot, along with various claims of "everyone's a terrorist" for some reason or another generally involving disingenuous rhetoric. As a rule I don't see that from government. They seem to be a bit clearer about its meaning.

      You mean like when they consider the Occupy movement, political protests and environmental groups terrorism?

      http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2012/12/peaceful-protest-treated-as-terrorism-by-the-fbi.html

      --
      "What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
    32. Re:Liars, liars, pants on fire by cold+fjord · · Score: 1, Informative
      --
      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
    33. Re:Liars, liars, pants on fire by Pino+Grigio · · Score: 1

      I don't think it's a false dilemma, no. You see it makes ***** all difference to my life if GCHQ are storing my Twitter feed somewhere. But it makes a big difference to my life if some petty Napoleon is sitting around waiting for me to accidentally drop some litter before swooping down to fine me £100.

    34. Re:Liars, liars, pants on fire by argStyopa · · Score: 1

      Bad analogy, since much (not all) of what McCarthy said turned out in fact to be true. The State Department WAS rife with people who were in fact Communist sympathizers or active Soviet agents.

      McCarthyism has become a cultural touchstone for 'witch hunt' but that little bit conveniently has been ignored/forgotten.

      Read Venona or Mitrokhin.

      --
      -Styopa
    35. Re:Liars, liars, pants on fire by daem0n1x · · Score: 2

      Clearer??? They installed a huge and completely illegal dragnet to spy on virtually every individual on Earth! If they have it so "clear", why aren't they spying ONLY on the guys who fit the definition? Or is the definition incredibly blurred in their minds?

    36. Re:Liars, liars, pants on fire by geminidomino · · Score: 2

      Make up your mind, it's either true or it isn't.

      Read for context. Doing otherwise doesn't make you look clever, it makes you look like a putz.

      As a rule I don't see that from government. They seem to be a bit clearer about its meaning.

      I guess that might be considered true, since the government feels that the rules don't apply to them, and that "rule" would be no exception.

      Here you go.

    37. Re:Liars, liars, pants on fire by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      What you still haven't shown is the government making wide use of the label "terrorist" in an inappropriate manner. They may use the enforcement or investigative power from the antiterrorism laws to investigate other crimes, but they aren't labeling those other criminals as "terrorists" inappropriately. (Keeping in mind that terrorist groups often resort to various forms of ordinary crime to fund themselves.)

      --
      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
    38. Re:Liars, liars, pants on fire by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Normally this sort of AC post is flamebait. However, in this case, look at Cold fiord's posting record on this topic, and you'll see the AC parent should be modded informative.

      He is indeed a bootlicker as described. Or maybe a paid security services shill.

    39. Re:Liars, liars, pants on fire by Qzukk · · Score: 3

      This just in: government gets to decide the meaning of "registered sex offender" and "terrorist".

      cold fjord is happy with the definitions the government uses and presumably thinks that those definitions will never change.

      --
      If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
    40. Re:Liars, liars, pants on fire by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Yes, because when all availible facts and logic have to be ignored to support your concept, it makes it the most sane possability.

    41. Re:Liars, liars, pants on fire by Xicor · · Score: 3, Insightful

      no they dont. a terrorist is someone who causes terror in the hearts of a group of people. a terrorist is NOT someone who discloses government information, or hacks government websites to show protest. clearly the government doesnt understand what a terrorist actually is, because they call both snowden and anonymous terrorists, when they are actually just political activists.

    42. Re:Liars, liars, pants on fire by cpt+kangarooski · · Score: 4, Informative

      Bad analogy, since much (not all) of what McCarthy said turned out in fact to be true. The State Department WAS rife with people who were in fact Communist sympathizers or active Soviet agents.

      Not really. McCarthy didn't have evidence or even a reasonable basis for making his claims. Playing the lottery and winning doesn't mean you can see into the future or are a whiz with statistics; claiming that there are communists in the State Department didn't mean he had even the tiniest bit of intelligence.

      Plus, if he did know, it would've been grossly irresponsible to say so. Exposing known enemy spies and agents just means that they'll be replaced by others who you'll have to find all over again. The better tactic is to in some way turn the ones you know about so that you control what information they send back to your enemy.

      And 'rife' is somewhat of an overstatement.

      Frankly, McCarthy was a drunk bully. We'd all have been better off if he'd never been in politics at all. It's entirely proper to despise him and it's nice to see that so many do.

      --
      -- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
    43. Re:Liars, liars, pants on fire by fustakrakich · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Well, he's trolling. Very successfully, I might add. He knows how to draw a crowd. The remaining question is if he is being paid for for it.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    44. Re:Liars, liars, pants on fire by interkin3tic · · Score: 1

      I'd suggest the answer is to overuse the fuck out of the word to devalue it. Unfortunately, the politicians who would be able to do that are too busy using the word and the fear it commands for their own purposes. Oops, I mean, the communist, child molesting terrorists in washington who would be able to do that are too busy using the word and the fear it commands for their own purposes.

    45. Re:Liars, liars, pants on fire by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      Would you want the police or security services to be able to listen in on the phone calls, or read the emails, of a gang that had kidnapped one of your loved ones and threatened to mail you various body parts each day until you paid the ranson?

      Tortured Mexican kidnap victim says: 'I would sit there wondering how people could be that bad'

      For a week he was a side-show for gunmen who beat him with planks and pistol handles and gave him electric shocks to intensify his screams when they put him on the phone to his poverty-stricken family, demanding money for his release. The rest of the time, he says, he was forced to watch his captors going about the more serious business of torturing information out of captured members of the Gulf cartel by cutting off different pieces of their bodies each day for about a week. Then they were killed, their mutilated bodies burnt to dust on the mountainside.

      "They told me the same thing would happen to me, if the ransom didn't arrive," he says.

      The police can invade pretty much any home that they need to, why don't they? If there are limitations on them invading homes, how can there not be for electronic surveillance? Their numbers are not unlimited.

      You may disagree with him, but I think this interview with Sir David Omand, former GCHQ Director, is worth listening to.

      --
      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
    46. Re:Liars, liars, pants on fire by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

      Well, he's trolling. Very successfully, I might add. He knows how to draw a crowd. The remaining question is if he is being paid for for it.

      How can you have any doubt that this piece of shit is being paid for his psy ops work ?

      No one else would :

      1) have the free time
      2) have the willingness to persist
      3) have such an obvious pro-government bias, to the point of comical absurdity.

    47. Re:Liars, liars, pants on fire by Lunix+Nutcase · · Score: 1

      Except I'm not ignoring anything. My statements are based on actual statements from officials in the administration, declassified documents and info from FOIA requests. Do you have proof that Paul O'Neill was lying? Or can you at all provide evidence to dispute my second length based on declassified documents and FOIA requests? All you seem to have is ad homs.

    48. Re:Liars, liars, pants on fire by Lunix+Nutcase · · Score: 1

      Link not length.

    49. Re:Liars, liars, pants on fire by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2

      Sinn Fein are the political wing of a terrorist organization, and negotiation with them worked out pretty well. The Taliban are terrorists but if we ever want to sort Afghanistan out we will need to negotiate with them.

      The argument that it encourages terrorism is stupid. Clearly you have to be pretty badly repressed, far worse than the average UK citizen is, before you are willing to murder other people and possibly die doing so. The fact that if you and many others organized into a coherent group (so there is something to negotiate with) and run a sustained campaign with the backing of significant numbers of ordinary people you might just get to sit down and talk to the people you have a problem with doesn't really enter their minds.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    50. Re:Liars, liars, pants on fire by G-forze · · Score: 3

      Aren't you furloughed? Guess your kind is considered "essential", then. Why am I not surprised...

      Anyway, bringing up the drug cartels is a bit rich, considering they exist mostly because of stupid government policies, even being supported directly by government stooges. Fast and Furious, anyone?

      And to answer your question. No, I would not want "the police or security services to be able to listen in on the phone calls, or read the emails, of a gang that had kidnapped one of your loved ones" if that means that they have undermined the very fundamentals of democracy to do so.

      --
      "There's someone in my head but it's not me." - Pink Floyd, Dark Side of the Moon
    51. Re:Liars, liars, pants on fire by argStyopa · · Score: 1

      How would you know? He had unnamed sources - some have asserted that in fact he was getting info from Hoover, who couldn't act overtly. The fact is, they were right. Your assertion that "he was just lucky" is itself a guess, and no more supportable factually than you claim his were.

      Going public is a time- honored practice when the people responsible WILL NOT ACT. Snowden comes to mind. McCarthy didn't *start* by grandstanding - he tried to approach State and the President on these issues, and they were disregarded (him being a rather odious person probably had a lot to do with that).

      --
      -Styopa
    52. Re:Liars, liars, pants on fire by kwbauer · · Score: 3, Insightful

      So were the Founding Fathers of the US. Things tend to change when you win.

    53. Re:Liars, liars, pants on fire by kwbauer · · Score: 1

      Exactly how repressed were the members of Baader-Meinhof, the Red Army Faction and Action-Directe? All they had to do in order to live under a Communist regime was move a few hundred kilometers east?

    54. Re:Liars, liars, pants on fire by kwbauer · · Score: 1

      When someone drives a large steel spike into a tree for the sole purpose of maiming or killing a logger who gets assigned to fell the tree, then yes, they are a terrorist.

      When someone commits arson to stop some houses from being built or large vehicles from being sold, then yes, they are a terrorist.

      When someone destroys a multi-thousand USD coat by throwing paint on it, then yes, they are a terrorist.

    55. Re:Liars, liars, pants on fire by felipekk · · Score: 1

      Snowden definitely caused terror in the hearts of the "Politicians of the USA"/"Directors of NSA" so he is, by your standards (and not by mine) a terrorist...

    56. Re:Liars, liars, pants on fire by NatasRevol · · Score: 1

      How about most of the people they LET GO from Guantanamo Bay after calling them terrorists & keeping them locked up for years?

      Is that inappropriate?

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    57. Re:Liars, liars, pants on fire by sjames · · Score: 1

      Yes, they most certainly are misusing the very special exceptions for terrorism to get magic skip the Constitution powers against common domestic criminals.

      On of the leading cocaine traffickers is the CIA.

    58. Re:Liars, liars, pants on fire by sjames · · Score: 2

      Would you want the police or security services to be able to listen in on the phone calls, or read the emails, of a gang that had kidnapped one of your loved ones and threatened to mail you various body parts each day until you paid the ranson?

      They don't need any of the anti-terrorism legislation to do that and they don't need my telephone metadata from 5 years ago in their leaky lockbox for that, a judge would be happy to sign a conventional warrant to cover listening in on the bad guys.

      Besides that, the NSA will not help in such a case since it might reveal their capabilities and we're just nobodies to them.

      Of course, if they would drop the pointless war on drugs, there would be no Mexican cartels.

    59. Re:Liars, liars, pants on fire by sjames · · Score: 1

      So if a Mason robs a liquor store, does that mean the entire order is to be considered a criminal organization?

    60. Re:Liars, liars, pants on fire by sjames · · Score: 1

      They don't like that definition because Congressmen and the DOJ frequently trot out the terrorist boogeyman to cause terror in the hearts of the American people.

    61. Re:Liars, liars, pants on fire by sjames · · Score: 1

      There is nothing wrong with being a Communist sympathizer though. It's not a crime. It's even our right under the Constitution.

      Then, of course it all spun out of hand from there.

    62. Re:Liars, liars, pants on fire by sjames · · Score: 1

      More properly, given the complete lack of evidence, the answer is none. He also pointed out that when there were actual terrorist attacks going on, they were never shy about reporting the ones they stopped. Now they're silent.

    63. Re:Liars, liars, pants on fire by Magius_AR · · Score: 1

      So if a Mason robs a liquor store, does that mean the entire order is to be considered a criminal organization?

      When the organization is actively scheduling events to shut down ports and close down various other parts of infrastructure? (bridges, roads, etc). Probably, yes.

    64. Re:Liars, liars, pants on fire by RespekMyAthorati · · Score: 2

      Would you want the police or security services to be able to listen in on the phone calls, or read the emails, of a gang that had kidnapped one of your loved ones and threatened to mail you various body parts each day until you paid the ranson?

      It's called a warrant and has nothing to do with the mass trolling of everyone's phone and internet communications.

    65. Re:Liars, liars, pants on fire by RespekMyAthorati · · Score: 1

      Clearly you have to be pretty badly repressed, far worse than the average UK citizen is, before you are willing to murder other people and possibly die doing so.

      Unless you really believe that the moment you blow yourself up,
      you will be instantly transported to an oasis with 77 Playboy bunnies.

    66. Re:Liars, liars, pants on fire by sjames · · Score: 2

      That's nothing compared to blowing up the entire world's economies just to make a buck. I wonder what the penalty for that is. OH yeah, none at all. It's protesting those people that carries the penalties and gets you investigated as terrorists.

    67. Re:Liars, liars, pants on fire by GumphMaster · · Score: 1

      McCarthyism is synonymous with hypocrisy in my mind. You have individuals (McCarthy, Hoover and others) abusing their position to stifle opposing political ideologies (or sexual inclinations) by fear, threat and intimidation, all the while professing to be upholding the US Constitution and its attendant freedoms of speech and assemblage. Sharing political leanings with the far left is not a crime, so the State Department being rife with communist sympathizers should be a non-issue. Espionage is a crime and fair game for investigation of those you have reasonable grounds to investigate. However, investigating homosexuals looking for commie spies is classic witch-hunt.

      Fast forward to 2013, substitute "terrorist" for "communist"...

      --
      Patent litigation: A doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction... in which everyone seems willing to push the button
    68. Re:Liars, liars, pants on fire by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Yes, for example, when they refer to OWS or Free State Project as "potential terrorists".

    69. Re:Liars, liars, pants on fire by Pino+Grigio · · Score: 1

      Well, they're not going to tell you about the 1,000 conspiracies to commit terrorist acts they're currently investigating, are they. Besides, the actual technical detail here isn't what bothers me. It's what right the Guardian or Snowden or Assange have to make these judgements. This is a question that's currently unresolved in my mind. Who are these people accountable to? Yes, I'm not sure who the security services are accountable to either these days, but there's too little questioning of motives on the other side (5th estate) here at Slashdot. There needs to be more.

    70. Re:Liars, liars, pants on fire by LordWabbit2 · · Score: 1

      But think about the children!

      --
      There are three kinds of falsehood: the first is a 'fib,' the second is a downright lie, and the third is statistics.
    71. Re:Liars, liars, pants on fire by sjames · · Score: 1

      So you're saying that in the several years they haven't actually cracked a single case of terrorism? That's MY point and OPs. If they were having any actual success at all they'd be shouting it from the rooftops but we hear only crickets.

      Does that mean that the terrorists are THAT much smarter than the IRA? If so, why haven't they managed more attacks? Or are they that much rarer? That seems more likely.

    72. Re:Liars, liars, pants on fire by Pino+Grigio · · Score: 1

      No, they might well have. You don't know. They might still have "assets" in play, spies, moles, whatever. The same goes for the IRA, by the way and to an extent, I inform my opinions on this based on what we got up to in the Cold War. So many people born after the fall of the Berlin Wall don't understand how these games are played.

      But that's not my substantive point. Actually I'm not sure what my substantive point is, apart from a general feeling of unease about the whole thing.

    73. Re:Liars, liars, pants on fire by sjames · · Score: 1

      In the past, they did, in fact, shout from the rooftops when they actually cracked a case. They need it to make people want them funded. So if they are not shouting now, the best conclusion is that they have nothing to shout about.

      They shouted quite a bit about the binary explosives caper, but it was quickly debunked (not actually possible to mix up TATP on bumpy plane ride and without 60 pounds of ice, none of the group had a passport or tickets). So it seems that they really want to shout about something (anything at all) but they have nothing.

      Note, I was born well before the fall of the Berlin wall. They certainly shouted then when they caught moles 'red handed' (pun intended).

    74. Re:Liars, liars, pants on fire by Pino+Grigio · · Score: 1

      They certainly shouted then when they caught moles 'red handed' (pun intended).

      They did when they caught some but not others. Otherwise, as far as I remember there were occasional diplomatic expulsions on one side or the other, or both at the same time. But that was the tip of the iceberg. There's so much we don't know and probably never will.

    75. Re:Liars, liars, pants on fire by sjames · · Score: 1

      The fact that you know about the expulsions and such is making my point for me. These daye, we hear NOT ONE THING. No expulsions, no arrests, no lurid stories about how this terror cell or that was stopped as they loaded their van with explosives. NOTHING AT ALL.

      The silence is deafening. In spite of them needing to drum up popular support more than ever, they can't come up with anything.

    76. Re:Liars, liars, pants on fire by Pino+Grigio · · Score: 1

      But surely that's a sign of success, not failure? Whatever they're doing in terms of security is clearly working.

    77. Re:Liars, liars, pants on fire by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      You are ignoring what happened. You linl to a disgruntled ex employee pushong a book snd an opinion piece in the op-ed section of the NYT that is long on "i've seen this but you havn't"and short on your claim of bush's motivation outside of opinion. Here is a word of wisdom that will serve you well in life. Opinion is not fact. Even if opinion is factually correct, it is still opinion about facts and not fact.

      If you did not dismiss history, you would remember that even under Clinton, IRAQ and Saddam was seen as the single largest threat to the US for more than a decade before bush took office. For all the information you presented, Bush'S WAR STANCE with Iraq could very well be the difference between his policies of using the military and force as apposed to clinton's reliance on lae enforcement and procecutions. That certainly seems more supportive of all the availible evidence.

      Here is a thought experiment for you. If bush and iraq was as you say, then why didn't he invade Iraq right after 9/11 and then once in war say "opps my bad, we are here so we need to finish now"? I mean seriously, the athirization for use of force did not limit him to afghanistan or al qeada or the taliban. He could have easily invaded Iraq and simply said he had bad inteligence after the fact. That's the problem, instead of doing something like that, he laid out all the intelifence we had, went to the UN, then convinced congress that the threat of terrorism and iraq's unaccoubted wmds made it in our best interest to invade. And before you jump to the "but there were no wmds" read the war resolution for iraq. It did not say there had to be wmds.

    78. Re:Liars, liars, pants on fire by Soluzar · · Score: 1

      They are justified in monitoring the communications of anyone, if they get a warrant first. Otherwise they can stay the hell out of my personal affairs. To get a warrant, they need to demonstrate probable cause first, before a judge. That's how society is supposed to work. I am the AC to whom you originally replied. Forgot to log in.

    79. Re:Liars, liars, pants on fire by Xicor · · Score: 1

      technically, when they are part of national government, they no longer count as a group of people, and instead count as part of the government. snowden merely gave us information that the government has been hiding, he did not cause any actual damage, or cause any fear whatsoever.

    80. Re:Liars, liars, pants on fire by Soluzar · · Score: 1

      Whoops. Turns out I was logged in for that original post. Beg your pardon for the mix-up.

    81. Re:Liars, liars, pants on fire by intermodal · · Score: 1

      You must have missed the reports of DHS trying to teach law enforcement that anyone who seems to believe they have civil liberties is a "potential terrorist".

      --
      In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
    82. Re:Liars, liars, pants on fire by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      The Founding Fathers were rebels against the British Crown, not terrorists. There is a difference.

      --
      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
    83. Re:Liars, liars, pants on fire by sjames · · Score: 1

      It clearly did NOT work in Boston. Surely your contention isn't that 9/11 happened and then the ramp-up of security scared 100% of the terrorists (who we are assured were around every corner and under every rock) into pacifism?

      I'm not a big believer in the tiger repelling rock.

    84. Re:Liars, liars, pants on fire by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      So you would support the US bombing Mexico because a lot of people want them out of the US if they didn't go through the proper immigration channels? Maybe support is the wrong word, maybe "can't really blame them for that" should be used instead?

      I never can understand the line of reasoning behind things like "How about if we just stayed the fuck out of Iraq completely? Like since 1991.

      No 9/11 because there wouldn't have been any pissed of extremists."

      No one can ever seem to explain it in a way that they agree with if you supplant those extremist with Americans and America. It seem like the logic is a failure from the start if you cannot reverse the roles and have the point mean just as much in that fictional play. It is more like that line of reasoning is little more the cover to bash the US while justifying those who would hurt her without taking direct fire.

      Maybe I'm wrong and you can be the first person in 11 years who it able to justify the premise outside of the actors presented.

    85. Re:Liars, liars, pants on fire by Gen_Music · · Score: 1

      So why allow Napoleon to have your twitter feed so guys can tune up to your door when you speak ill of him? You should be trying to roll back changes, not allow them to progress with thier plans

    86. Re:Liars, liars, pants on fire by Gen_Music · · Score: 1

      *turn

  2. Re:Dope by durrr · · Score: 5, Informative

    I think the guardian got all his stuff in a batch file, they're just going through it slowly, the man himself is not releasing anything new.

  3. Re:Dope by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Snowden isn't releasing any more data - he did it once when he handed everything over to the reporter.

  4. You do or you don't want the terrorists to know? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    So Mr Parker lists all those methods then says he wishes to retain access to them... doesn't that kind of tell the terrorists everything he's worried the leaks are??

  5. Re:Dope by Cigarra · · Score: 1

    What if he did release everything (to The Guardian / Greenwald / Poitras / etc) already?

    --
    I don't have a sig.
  6. What about the old tried and true... by smarkham01 · · Score: 2

    All of the spy types could meet at Rick's Cafe. Of course Sam won't be there to play that tune, but you can't have everything now, can you? The best alternative might be to have forms of communication directed to a spy central where censors review it for "National Secrets" then pass it on or arrest you!

  7. Grauniad by loccohombre · · Score: 3, Funny

    On teh upstart none will byable to hunderstand nethig publishd in their neway

    --
    "It's expensive, stupid, last only seconds - but makes your mouth hurt for days - it's BEE IN A BALLOON" - Kibo 3/1/95
  8. MI5 got it wrong by Rosco+P.+Coltrane · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Security through secrecy = no security.

    Also, the Snowden leaks mostly show that it's more honest citizens than terrorists who should be concerned about ubiquitous surveillance. Cue 1984 references...

    In a sense, Bin Laden got what he wanted: he didn't want to hurt western societies directly, he wanted to get western societies to collapse into dictatorships by giving the initial push (9/11) that would allow mostly-democratic governments to slowly turn nasty with a good reason.

    --
    "A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
    1. Re:MI5 got it wrong by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      well security might mean also getting away with murder and for that secrecy is pretty useful..

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    2. Re:MI5 got it wrong by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      He did not sell them, the fun part is who is helping 'review' aspects in some parts of the world before publication :)
      http://cryptome.org/2013/10/questioning-snowden-truth.htm
      You get differences
      http://cryptome.org/2013/10/nsa-ego-differ/nsa-ego-differ.htm
      Or the Tor is not unsafe message vs:
      http://cryptome.org/2013/10/packet-stain/packet-staining.htm
      The "others put their lives on the line for your security" is a nice talking point but most states do put effort into their revolutionaries, freedom fighters, mercenaries and faith based teams.
      Handlers always knew what signals intelligence offers and the "junk" equipment offered on the world market and work with what they have.
      Why would the internet, banking, web 2.0 be any different?

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    3. Re:MI5 got it wrong by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      Snowden is a traitor

      "You chucklefucks keep using that word. I do not think it means what the fuck you think it means." - Inigo Fuckin' Montoya

    4. Re:MI5 got it wrong by atgaaa · · Score: 1

      The problem with a secret, is there is no way to know that it remains secret.

    5. Re:MI5 got it wrong by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      Bin Laden didn't want Western societies to become ordinary dictatorships, he wanted them to become nations ruled by Muslims living under Islamic Sharia law. With the demographic implosion underway in Europe among native Europeans, the continuing import of vast numbers of immigrants that reject Western values, and religious conversion among native Europeans, it would be hasty to rule out that possibility in 100-200 years. There may be real trouble brewing in as little as 50 years since so many countries are hovering around the birthrate of 1.3 children per woman, which will halve an existing population in that time. While native Europeans are on a self-chosen road towards extinction (you can only halve a population so many times), natives continue to arrive.

      Security through secrecy = no security.

      You seem to be misapplying the idea of "Security through obscurity". As a principle of analysis in system security engineering or encryption algorithms its fine, but it has limited scope. Encryption algorithms that rely on obscurity for their protective power aren't strong enough. But even good encryption algorithms depend on you keeping your password secret. So no, there are many things that rely upon some measure of security through secrecy for their protection. That is a common means of protecting various national security matters. If you still don't believe it, then you should have no problem posting your real name, birth date, social insurance number, driver's license number, bank account numbers, and PINs.

      MI5 is more right than you are.

      --
      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
    6. Re:MI5 got it wrong by dave420 · · Score: 2

      No, OBL wanted the US to stop funding Israel and to stop dicking around in the affairs of Muslim nations the world over. Which is a rather obvious reaction to the dicking around the US has done in those countries, and the mountains of aid it gives Israel to continue its occupation and subjugation. Why do you keep on peddling these nonsensical claims? I hate to use such a cliché to highlight your behaviour, but you really do sound like a talking head on Fox News. Seriously. It's embarrassing, as you are clearly intelligent and capable of learning about the world for yourself, but for whatever reason (be it fear, ignorance, nationalism, or a thousand others), you seem reluctant to do so. Are you so set in your ways that learning the institutions you seem to support are not what they purport to be is a perceived death sentence to your very being? It's truly perplexing.

    7. Re:MI5 got it wrong by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      Not sure where you are going with 'natives continue to arrive" part cold wrt to MI5.
      Encryption algorithms should work as advertised, sold, produced and tested.
      Mixing useless encryption and dreaming of decryption for "national security matters" is a bit of a risk long term.
      Other groups, countries and people do find out about the weak algorithms or nature of the illegal domestic surveillance and take precautions.
      Or different governments, criminals or individuals take advantage while many users feel they are protected.
      Useless encryption and domestic surveillance buys national security a few years before its exposed at some level.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    8. Re:MI5 got it wrong by gnasher719 · · Score: 1

      Bin Laden didn't want Western societies to become ordinary dictatorships, he wanted them to become nations ruled by Muslims living under Islamic Sharia law. With the demographic implosion underway in Europe among native Europeans, the continuing import of vast numbers of immigrants that reject Western values, and religious conversion among native Europeans, it would be hasty to rule out that possibility in 100-200 years. There may be real trouble brewing in as little as 50 years since so many countries are hovering around the birthrate of 1.3 children per woman, which will halve an existing population in that time. While native Europeans are on a self-chosen road towards extinction (you can only halve a population so many times), natives continue to arrive.

      On the other hand, give them jobs, iPhones, porn and the X Factor, and they will piss on Bin Laden and his shit, and go for a good life.

  9. Hey Bro! by FilmedInNoir · · Score: 5, Funny

    T1: RU rdy for the big boob
    T2: Wat? lol
    T1: Bomb stupid spell chk
    T2: Tot Bro got packback rdy
    T1: YOLO for Allah!
    T1: Rmbr, post pic or it didn't happen!

    Is it like that? Do terrorists txtmsg each other like teenagers?

    --
    Sig. Sig. Sputnik
    1. Re:Hey Bro! by NatasRevol · · Score: 1

      I think today's (and just today's) vernacular is:

      totes = totally
      instapic it = put a picture on instagram

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
  10. enormous damage - but to what? by rvw · · Score: 4, Insightful

    despite MI5 warning that such disclosures cause enormous damage to their image

    FTFY!

    1. Re:enormous damage - but to what? by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      Yes that http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerzy_Popie%C5%82uszko moment when the security forces blink and try anything to solve short term political issues.
      After that any tame academic, corrupted national brand, political figure, retired expert, member of the press or sockpuppet is seen for what they are.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    2. Re:enormous damage - but to what? by RivenAleem · · Score: 1

      They have nothing to fear if they have done nothing wrong.

  11. Enormous damage ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Causes damage ? Sorry for having a different point of view but uncovering the disgusting acts of espionage on the population is a public service showing us how our free world is being transformed by the crooks and criminals we elected. The ones that should be jailed are the officials that led us down this path. They do not want to protect us , they want to protect their asses from being landed in a cold cell.
    They are NOT working in our interrest, they are working against the People trying to get a better grip on our lives making us better slaves for our masters.
    Fuck em . Publish all you got , get those bastards in jail or execute them. If some of them happen to get killed , so be it , they have waged a war on the People and they knew that the path they led us on was a dangerous one.

    let em deal with their mess , i got no pity whatsoever.

    1. Re:Enormous damage ? by mrbester · · Score: 1

      I noticed you posted AC. I have no such qualms:

      Andrew Parker, you are a lying fascist fear mongering cunt who should be locked up for crimes against humanity. Come at me, fucknuts.

      --
      "Wait. Something's happening. It's opening up! My God, it's full of apricots!"
  12. Damage to their careers by EmperorOfCanada · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I can't imagine the number of careers being destroyed with each leak. I suspect that in the healthier democracies the very organizations doing this spying will be largely dismantled. The real question, that should not be answered by anyone in the spying business, is whether these revelations are resulting in a greater good?

    Quite simply the people behind the curtain have long had an attitude of the end justifies the means, so now in exposing them they are getting a taste of their own medicine. The other core pillar of the spying business is that information is power; well by exposing the spies themselves we give power back to the people of the various democracies in question.

    But what really boils my butt is that any foreign spy or "actor" who was using any electronic system without assuming that they were being monitored is a fool. And anyone that foolish probably didn't pose much of a threat. From what I gather Osama was found as they tracked the couriers who physically carried messages, which means that he was off the grid as far as his trail was concerned. But the people who do still use electronic communications were people like you and me, combined with organizations and governments who trusted the rest of the world.

    So how many trade negotiations were done while the US listened in on the other side figuring out their negotiating positions, how many companies like Siemens might have had business deals or trade secrets handed over to us contractors?

    But then it gets potentially worse: How many times did say a Canadian go to negotiate a trade agreement only to find that they had a recording of him and his mistress? How many times did a politician who was causing problems have a tipped off reporter show up for a rendezvous with his mistress? Or even to have the troublesome politician's election strategy handed over to his opponent? Or to have his secret PAC supporters suddenly withdraw their support?

    If they are willing to lean on a company that "buys its ink by the barrel" how little reluctance would they have to twist democracy to their needs?

    So my guess is that it is not the real baddies who have gone silent but the diplomats, politicians(both domestic and foreign, and large international businesses that are going silent. Personally if I ran a company like Siemens I would be locking up the communications and computer system tighter than a drum.

    1. Re:Damage to their careers by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      The "greater good" is we now know most hardware and the big brands are junk. Their coders, testers and engineers are too trusting or fake.
      If an intelligence agency can get in, so can any other friendly intelligence agencies, people who where with friendly intelligence groups and now work for cash, people who can afford to hire ex intelligence agency staff, foreign front companies who can exploit weakness for national gain, crime or blackmail.
      Everything you want good generational encryption for has be reduced to junk for a cheap 10 year "look" into the use of the web.
      The only people who did not know where the herds of end users of the expensive US junk brands who had to upgrade version after version.
      Even countries like Australia knew and their top staff would have been warned re "negotiate a trade agreement".
      http://delimiter.com.au/2013/10/08/attorney-general-briefed-prism-two-months-snowden-leaks/
      http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-10-08/australia-prepared-briefing-on-prism-spying-program/5004290
      http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2013/s3864183.htm
      The UK's message seems to be late - everybody knew via public or State sources. Historical documents or government advisors.
      Like the Airlift of Evil http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kunduz_airlift or the arming of the Syrian 'freedom' fighters - even the optics of the local events was known.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
  13. Wrong optics by redelm · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The spies whine and spin it their way. If what they were doing was so innocuous, uncontroversial and even beneficial then they would be happy to be praised in the press. The fact is what they ware doing is deeply offensive to a large segment of society and they wish to hide it.

    As to whether the terrs benefit or not, only the stupid ones might and they probably aren't reading. The non-stupid terrs have known about surveillence since before Echelon and adjust accordingly. They won't even infer any limits because they know the release is vetted to be incomplete.

    The real effect of Snowdens releases is to confirm the tinfoil-behatted. Many fringe people have been saying much the same thing for 10+ years and been dismissed as lunatic paranoids. Now it appears they were right. Many people have egg on the face (congentially oblivious).

    1. Re:Wrong optics by asylumx · · Score: 1

      Did it really take a lunatic to see that the gov't was doing this? Everyone (outside of slashdot) was OK with it when Bush was president and the patriot act was passed, why be so against it now? IMO Snowden didn't tell us anything we didn't already know, and I don't know why people are calling him a hero or traitor now when he hasn't really done anything good or bad.

    2. Re:Wrong optics by atgaaa · · Score: 1

      Everyone (outside of slashdot) was OK with it when Bush was president and the patriot act was passed, why be so against it now?

      And when he had the chance Obama did not repeal the patriot act.

      I do not see this as a left/right, liberal/conservative, democrat/republican issue. This is a citizens versus government issue.

    3. Re:Wrong optics by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      Yes think of the academics and tutors who churned out gifted generations who never thought to study the hardware firms develop, buy, sell and use.
      So trusting in gov standards, other brands and their own bosses. Was it peer pressure, the cash or fear?

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    4. Re:Wrong optics by redelm · · Score: 1
      None of the above. IMHO, there was an innocence and presumption that govt followed the law and was otherwise civilized. Snowden ripped this veneer away. The NSA was revealed as intrusive as the KGB or Stasi, more frightening because of greater efficiency albeit with less wet work.

      The loss of trust is by far the most damaging impact since the actual surveillence was already known but dismissed.

    5. Re:Wrong optics by Princeofcups · · Score: 2

      The spies whine and spin it their way. If what they were doing was so innocuous, uncontroversial and even beneficial then they would be happy to be praised in the press. The fact is what they ware doing is deeply offensive to a large segment of society and they wish to hide it.

      One thing we need to realize, is that it's not the spies, it's their handlers. Homeland Security in the US is completely owned by large corporations that get most of their expenditure. Remember, most spooks are contractors now. They are not even government employees. I suspect that MI# is a bit different, with the money being handles more by the old school network of people with titles, but the result is the same. If the spies are embarrassed, they lose their cash cow.

      --
      The only thing worse than a Democrat is a Republican.
    6. Re:Wrong optics by sjames · · Score: 1

      Because those people were naive and actually believed Bush and Congress when they swore the Patriot act would never be abused and that it was a temporary measure.

      Now they can see how naive they were. Now that they know that it not only will be abused, but that it already has been, they're not so in favor.

  14. Re:You do or you don't want the terrorists to know by gl4ss · · Score: 2

    So Mr Parker lists all those methods then says he wishes to retain access to them... doesn't that kind of tell the terrorists everything he's worried the leaks are??

    that's not the point. the point is that currently many of these god hating terrorists don't even know they're terrorists! if they're told that they're terrorists and under surveillance they might move their communications off gmail! can't let that happen!

    --
    world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
  15. Huge Difference by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I too have been sick of the fear mongering propaganda complex that has overtaken our society in the past several years.

    However, there is an enormous gulf between McCarthyism and the terrorist threat. No commies blew up airplanes and buildings. No commies went on shooting sprees in malls. No commies set off car bombs in crowded markets. The pink menace wasn't really very menacing at all. It was a false accusation.

    Terrorists are real. Terrorist individuals and organizations commit atrocities on a near daily basis and regularly and publicly vow to kill large segments of the population or entire nations. Terrorism, unlike communism in the U.S., is a real threat that must not be ignored. But, that doesn't excuse these governments from using it as the go-to excuse for justifying every infringement of rights and nefarious activity, from banning nail clippers to the brave new world.

    1. Re:Huge Difference by king+neckbeard · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Terrorism is not a real threat, at least not in and of itself. The terrorists we concern ourselves with and that our intelligence agencies are often outwitted by are mostly complete morons who can't even blow things up. Even if we had a 9/11 scale event every year, it wouldn't even register as a top cause of lives lost.

      --
      This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    2. Re:Huge Difference by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Look up the first red scare and the communist activities in the US circa 1919. You sre correct that in recent times, comunist have not done anything violent in the US but rhat wasn't always the case.

      Not that this detracts from your point or anything. It is just a little perspective.

    3. Re:Huge Difference by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Except you're more likely to die falling down your stairs at home then ever being subject to a terrorist attack. The threat is largely manufactured and overblown.

    4. Re:Huge Difference by gweihir · · Score: 1

      Terrorism is real in the sense that you read about it in the news occasionally. It does not do any relevant damage. (9/11 was a fluke die to terminal incompetence of the US FBI and TLAs, and a lot of luck on the side of the perpetrators. Still, its damage was quite limited, especially compared to the damage done as "response" to it.) In addition, all this spying, surveillance, erosion of liberties, etc. does not prevent terrorism at all! Maybe that is not the goal, and the basically irrelevant terrorist "threat" is only a convenient pretext swallowed whole and without reflection on actual numbers by people like you?

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    5. Re:Huge Difference by rtb61 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Well to put that in perspective, the Russian Intelligence Services already have a complete copy and the Chinese Intelligence Services also have a complete copy, so who exactly are they keeping it secret from. Well, we all know that, the voting public who will be outraged at the invasion of privacy. The financial sector who will be deeply disturbed by global insider trading schemes. Many countries, some of which are meant to be allies of the countries doing the most spying. Terrorist not so much, unless they are starting up some new terminology vote-terrorists those that vote against government who support insane 1984 Orwellian scams. Voters who know too much and most be prevented from contacting other voters, voters unafraid to express their opinions and the very worst of all voters who actively vote against the dictates of the military industrial complex, evil vote-terrorists all over the place.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    6. Re:Huge Difference by gweihir · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Or economic damage done. If these things were dealt with rationally. Look at countries with a real terrorist problem or that used to have one. They are all still there, including Northern Ireland, Spain, Germany, etc. And they are still there even with the authorities in some of them acting terminally stupid and adding 10000% damage on top of what the terrorists did.

      The threat of terrorism is not relevant. The threat of people being scared into irrationality by claims of "terrorism" from governments is severe. The threat of "countermeasures" to terrorism by governments is severe. Establishment of police- and surveillance-states is a few orders of magnitude more problematic that terrorism could ever be. And that is what is clearly going on. One would think people in the west have learned something from the things that happened last century. Apparently not.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    7. Re:Huge Difference by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Terrorism is not a real threat, at least not in and of itself. The terrorists we concern ourselves with and that our intelligence agencies are often outwitted by are mostly complete morons who can't even blow things up. Even if we had a 9/11 scale event every year, it wouldn't even register as a top cause of lives lost.

      Or they are complete morons who can't even blow things up, until the FBI steps in with some undercover agents and 'guides' them on what stuff to buy and how to put it together, plans a 'target' with them, and then arrests them the day before the 'attack' for being a terrorist and building a bomb - which the moron couldn't have done without FBI help. (A little research will come up with a number of 'thwarted terrorists' who were 'created' by the FBI in just this way).

    8. Re:Huge Difference by wertigon · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Terrorists are real.

      So are bathtubs, so are stairs and so are traffic accidents, all which cause more lives lost than terrorists.

      Any death other than the one of old age is terrible. Accidents happen that cause people to suffer for quite a while before dying. Some people have lost their lives in earthquakes - literally buried alive, waiting days for a rescue that never come. Other people die in house fires in the most horrible agony you might imagine. Therefore, Terrorists do not frighten me any more than an earthquake would.

      Oh, sure. Terrorists are horrible people, hell-bent on violating the worst crimes of war possible. They are no stranger to detonating a nuclear bomb in the middle of any decently sized american city. Does that thought scare me? Yes, a bit. But does it make me cower in fear under my bed? No sir. I'm not afraid of these terrorists, because I know that if I'm afraid of them, then I'll always be afraid. The Terrorists have won.

      I put my faith in the state to protect me as much as possible from these terrorists, as well as protect my liberties as best can. Unfortunately this paralyzing fear of terrorists have made the state erode my liberties without actually protecting me from terrorists. Therefore, I oppose those changes.

      It's not about being stupid or brave. It's about not letting a bunch of jackasses control my life. And as long as I draw breath, they won't.

      --
      systemd is not an init system. It's a GNU replacement.
    9. Re:Huge Difference by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Given the amount of money we spend 'thwarting' terrorists, it might be worth it if getting killed by a terrorist was a better bet than winning the lottery. Twice. In one year.

      So, no, it's not a REAL threat. At least to the US. And it's not worth the trillions of dollars, bought by debt, that was spent to 'keep us safe'.

      Better foreign policy - like not pissing of the populations of countries - would do way more than any 'thwarting' of terrorists we've done.

    10. Re:Huge Difference by Nyder · · Score: 1

      ...

      Oh, sure. Terrorists are horrible people, hell-bent on violating the worst crimes of war possible. They are no stranger to detonating a nuclear bomb in the middle of any decently sized american city....

      Dude we are talking real life here, not TV. No terrorist has ever set off a nuclear bomb in America. In fact, the only nuclear bombs to ever be used against any cities was dropped by America.

      --
      Be seeing you...
    11. Re:Huge Difference by kilfarsnar · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I too have been sick of the fear mongering propaganda complex that has overtaken our society in the past several years.

      See, you have to start out with something that will leave the target with the impression you are on their side.

      However, there is an enormous gulf between McCarthyism and the terrorist threat. No commies blew up airplanes and buildings. No commies went on shooting sprees in malls. No commies set off car bombs in crowded markets. The pink menace wasn't really very menacing at all. It was a false accusation.

      Then you shift to a point that seems reasonable enough; that the target will probably agree with, since you only shifted the focus a little. It's cool since we all agree that the propaganda has gotten really thick (it gets thicker with posts like this one). So we're still on the same team.

      Terrorists are real. Terrorist individuals and organizations commit atrocities on a near daily basis and regularly and publicly vow to kill large segments of the population or entire nations. Terrorism, unlike communism in the U.S., is a real threat that must not be ignored. But, that doesn't excuse these governments from using it as the go-to excuse for justifying every infringement of rights and nefarious activity, from banning nail clippers to the brave new world.

      Then you deliver the real payload. Yeah, the government goes overboard, but we really do need them to keep us safe. Terrorism is real after all (which no one is disagreeing with) and it must not be ignored. On balance, it's a good thing we have our intelligence agencies to watch out for us. You've earned it today, AC.

      --
      "What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
    12. Re:Huge Difference by jittles · · Score: 1

      I too have been sick of the fear mongering propaganda complex that has overtaken our society in the past several years.

      However, there is an enormous gulf between McCarthyism and the terrorist threat. No commies blew up airplanes and buildings. No commies went on shooting sprees in malls. No commies set off car bombs in crowded markets. The pink menace wasn't really very menacing at all. It was a false accusation.

      Terrorists are real. Terrorist individuals and organizations commit atrocities on a near daily basis and regularly and publicly vow to kill large segments of the population or entire nations. Terrorism, unlike communism in the U.S., is a real threat that must not be ignored. But, that doesn't excuse these governments from using it as the go-to excuse for justifying every infringement of rights and nefarious activity, from banning nail clippers to the brave new world.

      It's true. Every time I walk down the street to the local McDonald's, I find myself dodging suicide bomber after suicide bomber. Thank goodness we have these politicians in Washington who are spying on my every action to help keep me safe from these no good terrorists.

    13. Re:Huge Difference by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      Chapter III

      Those were the days when column after column of the front pages of the newspapers shouted the news of strikes and and-Bolshevist riots; when radicals shot do* Armistice Day paraders in the streets of Centralia, Washington, and in revenge the patriotic citizenry took out of the jail a member of the I. W. W.-a white American, be it noted-and lynched him by tying a rope around his neck and throwing him off a bridge; when properly elected members of the Assembly of New York State were expelled (and their constituents thereby disfranchised) simply because they had been elected as members of the venerable Socialist Party; when a jury in Indiana took two minutes to acquit a man for shooting and killing an alien because he had shouted, "To hell with the United States"; and when the Vice-President or the nation cited as a dangerous manifestation of radicalism in the women's colleges the fact that the girl debaters of Radcliffe had upheld the affirmative in an intercollegiate debate on the subject: "Resolved, that the recognition of labor unions by employers is essential to successful collective bargaining." It was an era of lawless and disorderly defense of law and order, of unconstitutional defense of the Constitution, of suspicion and civil conflict-in a very literal sense, a reign of terror.

      * OCR error, I have the printed book. There are quite a few OCR errors in the University of Virginia copy.

    14. Re:Huge Difference by VortexCortex · · Score: 1

      I put my faith in the state to protect me as much as possible from these terrorists,

      I agree with you except for this point. Note: The armed forces have no obligation to protect citizens. They are sworn to protect the flag and the constitution. Congress ruled that police have no obligation to preemptively protect the citizens also. It is your duty to protect yourself and your loved ones. Now, considering it's NOT the government's job to protect us from terrorists... What the fuck are we bending over backwards and letting them do all this pre-emptive spying bullshit for? We don't need that shit, every one of us knows what's going on around us. The proper response to a terrorist threat is a decentralized, aware and armed everyman.

      Look, I'm a scientist. If they want a bunch of powers to spy on everything and say it's because that will help them fight terrorists, then I want a damn control group where there is no spying to see if it actually fucking works or if they're just blowing smoke up all our asses while becoming an amalgamation of KGB / Stasi / Nazis.

      As you said, the terrorist threats are nothing to be afraid of. You're hundreds of times more likely to kill yourself. 6 times more people commit suicide every year than died on 9/11. Think about what would happen if a terrorist invasion force reached American soil and were running rampant in the streets killing civilians: With or Without the police or armed forces, the citizens themselves would put down the threat. There are far more of us than there are of them. Hell, we thwarted the terrorists plans with our own bare hands by crashing the plane once we figured out what the endgame was. Since the middle of the 9/11 attacks such an attack could never be effective again; Why? Because the people know about it.

      Listen: As soon as the citizens knew what the threat was they ended it. This is why, as a citizen and as a scientist, I can not stand for this secret spying bullshit. If they say it's protecting us from terrorists, yet can't give us the details then I call bullshit. Also, we have to factor in the cost of the system and all of our privacy vs the costs of life due to terrorists that's far less than even bathtubs, as you say. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. We are the land of the brave, so let's stop being afraid of bathing (seriously, some of us nerds fucking stink).

      They have trotted out a few cases with nonspecific details as proof of the systems protecting us, yet provide no evidence that the it was the spying infrastructure that helped catch the criminals -- some would even call some of their antics entrapment as they recruit unstable folks into playing a part in a supposed terrorist attack, then jail them. Stop manufacturing the threats, and they go away. Hell, we've got kids sneaking into wheel wells of airplanes and even flying as stowaways... So, for all the pat-downs and scans and expenses we've not protected SHIT. Those kids could have been bomb wearing terrorists. The citizens stopped the underwear bomber. We have no evidence that any of the protections are protective.

      There is no such thing as a terrorist threat. It's hundreds of times less of a threat than the flu. We accept the risk of the flu existing and don't have concentration camps for flu carriers, so I think I can protect myself against some ineffective and moronic terrorists. Life's a bit risky: I still drive cars, even though they are more of a clear and present danger to my life than terrorists.

      Even if the threat were real: Our freedom to use our technology and have privacy as more of our lives take place online is far more important than the loss of a few lives. We have secret ballots for a reason. Now you can't even use Tor to make sure no one knows who you're thinking of voting for... This attack against US citizens privacy and the constitution is the very real threat that must be ended. The army has sworn to uphold the constitution. The secret court ruled the NSA's actions unconstitutional. The army should be storming the NSA server rooms and shutting them down until we have a vote to (dis)continue it; Voting to either accept or reject amending Stasi like powers to the constitution...

    15. Re:Huge Difference by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      Terrorists are real.

      So are bathtubs, so are stairs and so are traffic accidents, all which cause more lives lost than terrorists.

      In 1941, traffic deaths accounted for about 13x the number of deaths at Pearl Harbor. The US still went to war with Japan. The same is true of 9/11.

      --
      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
    16. Re:Huge Difference by VortexCortex · · Score: 1

      Note, I'm a US citizen, but my statements hold true for citizens of all free nations. In fact, it is becoming clear through Snowden's leaks that our governments are all one and the same, collaborating between themselves to spy on all of us (and themselves). When you say UK, or Australia, or Germany, or France, or Canada, etc. I hear Nation of Earth's People. Since it's been shown that one nation can spy on the whole planet now, it is the whole planet that must end the surveillance, globally. If not by coercing our governments to allow us privacy, or by technological means if necessary.

      We need the Right to Bear Technology.

    17. Re:Huge Difference by khallow · · Score: 1

      Any death other than the one of old age is terrible.

      Old age is pretty bad too. I'm starting to think that this dying thing isn't a very good idea. Maybe we ought to stop doing it.

    18. Re:Huge Difference by dkf · · Score: 1

      Terrorists are real.

      Really? Are you sure about that?

      int terrorist;

      There you go! Claim disproved, trivially...

      --
      "Little does he know, but there is no 'I' in 'Idiot'!"
    19. Re:Huge Difference by spire3661 · · Score: 1

      "but we really do need them to keep us safe"

      Who is this 'them'? WE ARE THE GOVERNMENT. If we so order 'they that are charged with upholding the law' to stand down and stop spying on citizens they MUST comply or face armed retribution.

      WE THE PEOPLE keep us safe by demanding they act in a just and righteous manner, in accordance to both the letter and spirit of our laws. Anything less is utter treason.

      --
      Good-bye
    20. Re:Huge Difference by gweihir · · Score: 1

      You overlook that these networks were not in place or completely ineffective during the RAF terrorism in Germany. The connection you are suggesting is not there. You also misjudge the importance of Germany in the world.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    21. Re: Huge Difference by echnaton192 · · Score: 1

      You are not following the German politics and news too closely, are you? To cut things short: No. We. Do. Not. Have. A. Robust spying network. They are trying to build one, but at the moment the balance of power does work in general at the moment, actually limiting the legilative power by our constitution.

      Before you make such bold claims, you should actually read some news. I read slate, huffington post, washington post, fox, the guardian, the times from time to time when I want to know something about oceania, I do not only rely on german news sources.

      Unlike the american intelligence they mostly keep within the bounderies of the law, restricting them quite a bit (not enough for my taste, but I am propably talking to an oceanian citizen, so to you they would be best described as to having no powers at all and are absolutely law-abiding).

      For a start, google for "NSU scandal". Our robust surveillance state is a weak and clumsy one. Given, they try to circumvent their boundaries by collaborating with the roothless realy spies from oceania, but that is because they are limited and want all the funny powers your real spies have.

      But as the powers that be follow Orwells manual to the letter, I am quite shure that those collaborations will come to an end, because oceania was always at war with eurasia, as we all will now.

    22. Re: Huge Difference by echnaton192 · · Score: 1

      Exactly. storing data in the US is equal to sending it to every policeman, spy and secret agent in Oceania. Using closed source encryption from any US company is equal to using encryption with a widely open backdoor, ready for the good and always nice people mentioned before AND other criminals.

      You should learn how capitalism is supposed to work: The free market needs absolutely symmetric information about all the products on the market in order to work. And as a citizen of the capitalism-as- religion-fanatic-Unites-States you complain about non-US-people chosing less snooping countries to store data or buy encryption from?

      If I enter the US, I have two choices if I do not want my privacy on the laptop intruded:

      Use bitlocker or similar, so that the people at the borders could easily access my privacy. Or I could use truecrypt and give the friendly guy the wrong key. The one that BOOTS a legit LOOKING OS. Plausible denyability, I am not even sent back for failing to provide the key, but my privacy is safe. Which product would you prefer?

      Just doing my job as a good member of the free market

    23. Re: Huge Difference by echnaton192 · · Score: 1

      Sorry for accidently attacking parent, it was targeted at grand-parent.

    24. Re:Huge Difference by wertigon · · Score: 1

      economy - not more than a fire or earthquake would.
      travel - only as far as we let them. Flight is as (in)secure as it has always been. They can't catch everyone. Therefore increased security do little but annoy regular people.
      Geopolitics - It depends. School shootings, the Washington sniper etc. are to be considered acts of terror just as much as plane hijackings and suicide bombers.
      Political careers - Unfortunately you are right about this one, but it is easy to refute any criticisms with cold hard facts. Wish there was a politician with enough balls to do this, but sadly there is not.

      So no, there are no good reasons for the fear-mongering. Either cops are smarter than the terrorists or terrorists are smarter than the cops, in the former case mass surveillance is unneccessary, in the latter case mass surveillance is useless.

      --
      systemd is not an init system. It's a GNU replacement.
    25. Re:Huge Difference by hazeii · · Score: 1

      They almost certainly already knew anything a random sys admin could download (despite my respect for them, I still imagine more of them can be bought than risk their lives blowing whistles).

      --
      All your ghosts are just false positives.
  16. Secrecy Through Obscurity? Really? by LifesABeach · · Score: 1

    I would assume that MI5 is staffed by reasonably competent folks. If they are curious enough about viewing their philosophy at work, they only need look at the western part of Pakistan, or what I affectionately refer to as the, "Paki Bad Lands." There, Ignorance is their god.

    1. Re:Secrecy Through Obscurity? Really? by JonnyCalcutta · · Score: 2

      I would not assume competency. Maybe its changed but historically MI5 has been anything but :

      http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/adamcurtis/posts/BUGGER

  17. Having followed all the leaks by Severus+Snape · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Is there anything real terrorists didn't know before that they know now? It is in the public domain the laws like The Patriot Act means the American government can go to Google and ask for the emails from whatever account they want. Of course they are going be using services out with America and her allies control. All these leaks have shown is the general public is the real enemy of the state.

    1. Re:Having followed all the leaks by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      Just the citation needed to enrage sockpuppets and their simplistic "saving the world" rants.
      Beyond that any well read person could be expected to understand what was done during WW2 to Germany/Japan encryption and later ECHELON.
      All we know is the constant drive to domestic surveillance legality and desire to see a lifelong "locked box" used in US courts.
      Something many in the US and UK have been attempting for decades.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    2. Re:Having followed all the leaks by dave420 · · Score: 1

      I think what it really shows is that GCHQ/NSA/MI5/SIS are using everything at their disposal to do what they have been tasked to do. I don't agree with it, as the real possibility of innocent people being caught in their online trawling is clearly going to increase the more it goes on, with the real possibility of hit squads/drone strikes/kidnapping coming their way. My real fear is if they concentrate too much on the internet, they cease performing actual intelligence work as they rely too heavily on internet traffic. But saying that, terrorism can be easily stopped with earnest dialogue between states and aggrieved parties, preferably before they feel the need to pick up arms to be heard in the first place.

    3. Re:Having followed all the leaks by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      I think the CIA and MI6 are working hard to get the message out about internet and other traffic been presented as actual intelligence work.
      Tasks once done in hidden sub committees or in a supportive role are now getting real political access.
      Perhaps some form of very public and legal discussion to reshape the role of signals intelligence can be arranged? A generation might contain the political access.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
  18. some forced perspective. by nimbius · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Its worth mentioning that heart disease, obesity, cancer, famine, smoking, natural disasters, car accidents, and domestic violence each individually kill more people yearly than "Terrorism." Bruce Schneier said it best when he noted we only deploy countermeasures against what terrorists have done, not what they will do. To imply global surveillance of every man woman and child somehow reduces what is already a very rare event is to call attention to the reason we combat terrorism at all. Namely, because Terrorism undermines very controversial foreign policies of certain governments and flies against the interests of their controlling parties. Terrorism may not stop these policies, or even slow them down. However the more terrorist activity occurs, the more the target nation begins to question everything from their elected leadership to the motivation behind the policies that trigger the events. And the events cannot be simply explained away. The best george bush could muster in defining terrorist activity was to say terrorists 'hate our freedom.' If freedom were the real concern, then 180 other nations with varying degrees of equal freedom around the world would certainly be able to confirm this.
    What presidents dont say is, "terrorists hate our intrusive foreign policy that installs dictatorships, topples governments, crushes dissent, exploits and degrades the region, and prevents autonomous governance."

    the snowden leaks are terrorism in that they empower citizens to actively question and criticize government. Without Snowdens facts, the government absolves itself of a slew of very important questions it would rather not have to answer as it pursues goals strategic to a small minority of its citizens at the expense of the greater good.

    --
    Good people go to bed earlier.
    1. Re:some forced perspective. by Hypotensive · · Score: 1

      "terrorists hate our intrusive foreign policy that installs dictatorships, topples governments, crushes dissent, exploits and degrades the region, and prevents autonomous governance."

      I doubt they enjoy the drone strikes either.

  19. THREAT not a warning by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    He threatened the Guardian, it was a clear threat.

    The Home Office now controls the police (which was buried in the change from SOCA to British FBI), Guardian should realize that Andrew Parker's not going to give up his illegally seized power easily and with the police under political control, he should not underestimate the man.

    Look, "Internet Moderization Program" was never passed into law, neither did its latest version the snoopers charter. He is already outside the laws of Britain and he knows it. His astroturfers are all over the press, he's making threatening noises to the Guardian and Beeb and he's doing chest beating, which is not the sign of a civil servant doing his job within the law.

    Be careful.

  20. no thanks by Charliemopps · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I fear my Government more than I fear terrorists.

    1. Re:no thanks by gweihir · · Score: 1

      I don't think the maybe 20-30 active terrorists on this planet can do any real damage. Even 9/11 was peanuts compared to the damage that is being done to civil society by the US administration alone. And 9/11 was a complete fluke, only possible because of the utter incompetence of the relevant TLAs and a lot of luck on the side of the perpetrators.

      Oh, wait, the relevant TLAs are still incompetent at preventing terrorist successes. They so far have only stopped "terrorist" plots that they themselves manufactured. I wonder why that is? Maybe they are not really working on preventing terrorism at all? (Well, rhetorical question, obviously.)

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    2. Re:no thanks by ElusiveJoe · · Score: 1

      Good citizen! Fear and obey!

    3. Re:no thanks by thoth · · Score: 1

      I fear my Government more than I fear terrorists.

      So move to Afghanistan and you should feel safer?

    4. Re:no thanks by sjames · · Score: 2

      The government there is also worse than terrorists.

  21. Re:Dope by AHuxley · · Score: 5, Informative

    unethical to continue releasing the data?
    http://cryptome.org/2013/10/26-years-snowden.htm
    The data exists outside Russia. No new data is been released from Russia.
    Other interesting comments
    http://cryptome.org/2013/10/nsa-link-removed.htm
    http://cryptome.org/2013/10/nsa-tor-disinfo.htm and http://cryptome.org/2013/10/questioning-snowden-truth.htm

    --
    Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
  22. Not publishing causes more damage by gweihir · · Score: 2

    A police-, surveillance- or totalitarian state is the most despicable and repulsive form of human organization in modern times. It does more damage than anything else, except maybe total war. What the NSA and their friends in the UK are aiming and preparing for is exactly this however, thinly veiled with a ridiculous claim of "fighting terrorism". We had these tendencies in Europe last century. Nothing was done to stop them, and it finally took two world wars and a cold war to get over them. The latter brought the human race to the brink of extinction several times.

    Anything is better than something like that happening again. I really hope they publish everything and make it count.

    --
    Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
  23. Re:You do or you don't want the terrorists to know by Lunix+Nutcase · · Score: 1

    You do realize they were joking and being sarcastic...

    Oh wait, this is Slashdot so you're likely a social retard with no sense of humor.

  24. How are the Guardian's offsite backups by acb · · Score: 2

    Hope the Guardian has good offsite backups outside the UK, and preferably a backup newsroom in, say, Reykjavik or somewhere they can use.

    I can see this ending with the Met Police and special forces (under MI5 command) raiding the offices, making sure nobody takes anything out and then torching the whole place with very carefully placed thermite charges.

    1. Re:How are the Guardian's offsite backups by gnasher719 · · Score: 1

      I just had to google for "Spiegel raid" and found this newspaper article from 1962:

      http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1946&dat=19621107&id=vMAtAAAAIBAJ&sjid=Cp4FAAAAIBAJ&pg=7169,1419811

      Attacks against freedom of the press can stay in people's memory for a very, very long time.

    2. Re:How are the Guardian's offsite backups by Anti-Social+Network · · Score: 1

      You missed it, GCHQ already tried this. Despite the fact that the documents belonged to the US government not the UK authorities, they claimed ownership and demanded the documents be turned over or destroyed. And yes, they have backups, so the whole exercise was pointless posturing. A "random" office fire is just going to blow back on them at this point.

      --
      Goddammit just when I get my first +5 the Beta rolls out and kills everything
    3. Re:How are the Guardian's offsite backups by acb · · Score: 1

      That was a piece of theatre; the Guardian's staff destroyed the hard drives/laptops, ensuring that they didn't fall into the hands of the government. Everybody knew that, other than costing the Guardian a few thousand pounds (i.e., a blip in the expenses), it achieved nothing. If Rusbridger keeps waving a red rag in the face of the bull of the Deep State, the next raid will not be quite so innocuous; more like APCs cordoning off the road, troops pouring in with submachine guns under cover of snipers on adjacent rooftops, nobody allowed to leave without a body search for data-bearing contraband, and anything capable of bearing data either taken back to GCHQ for analysis or placed in a pile on the lower floors of the building, ringed with thermite charges. And the following day, the Times and Telegraph leading with “well, what did they expect?”

    4. Re:How are the Guardian's offsite backups by Anti-Social+Network · · Score: 1

      They're not quite so bold yet. As evidenced by the backlash against the NSA, the common people wouldn't stand for anything so overt. My point stands; any major destruction of Guardian property will only make a martyr of them and blow back on the UK establishment; it's the archetypal underdog "speak truth to power" fight. The bigger the crackdown is, the harder the pushback will be, up to riots etc. And if they try to quash that, it will be like Tienanmen Square and you will set the whole country on fire. GCHQ hasn't got the public support to pull that off and they know it.

      The hard drive destruction demand itself was pretty ill-advised; I imagine somebody in MI5 has gotten a call from the spook department Stateside telling them to knock it off, they're pouring gas on the fire the NSA is quietly trying to put out. It's not like Greenwald is there in person, anyway; they couldn't possibly think they would be nabbing the only copy of the files. It was a simple bluff of intimidation.

      --
      Goddammit just when I get my first +5 the Beta rolls out and kills everything
    5. Re:How are the Guardian's offsite backups by jimicus · · Score: 2

      Already happened, to great bemusement on the part of the Guardian.

      http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/aug/21/nsa-nick-clegg-guardian-leaked-files

  25. Re:You do or you don't want the terrorists to know by Lunix+Nutcase · · Score: 1

    Where did I ever claim I was being funny?

  26. Re:Dope by dc29A · · Score: 5, Insightful

    That said, I think it is unethical to continue releasing the data

    And spying on Brazilian companies in the name of fighting terrorism is all good?

  27. Definition by darrellg1 · · Score: 1

    The definition of "terrorism" and "terrorist" shall soon be bent to include anti-govt speech, thus loss of our 1st amendment.

  28. MI5 -- what a laugh by Mister+Liberty · · Score: 1

    Egotistical Giraffe!
    There!

  29. Re:Echo chamber by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Sure, a powerful Westers state holds the line between civilization and chaos. And we're discussing precicely where that line should be.

    The Guardian and Snowden exposed terrible crimes of our governments against their own citizens. I.e., US. You and Me. If you think it's treason to expose the crimes of the state, you deserve what you get.

    Plenty of blood of innocents is being spilled every day. Have you any idea how a powerful Western state holds the line between civilization and chaos? The "barbarian hordes" are a small number of people who have brought misery to their own countries, as well as ours.

  30. Re:Echo chamber by Zeromous · · Score: 2

    >Anybody who dares to disagree is crucified.

    Honestly? This is not reddit.

    If you are being 'crucified' at all, it is for lacking nuance on the subject. Viewing things as black and white does not beget 50/50 odds because your views lay along a spectrum. Extreme views tend to result in most people disagreeing with you on some level. It's basic statistics.

    --
    ---Up Up Down Down Left Right Left Right B A START
  31. Re:Dope by NatasRevol · · Score: 1

    Spying on your own people in the name of fighting terrorism, too.

    --
    There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
  32. Re:Echo chamber by Hypotensive · · Score: 2

    I see the ketamine is kicking in...

  33. Re:Echo chamber by darrellg1 · · Score: 1

    in a crater. You NSA shill.

  34. Re:WOW!!!! by AHuxley · · Score: 1

    Re: more distractions to throw off people from the more important issues
    Yes huge arms shipments to the freedom fighters in Syria. The nice democratic ones.
    The neat question is where some of the arms shipments start .... A new Contragate is waiting for any skilled journalist.

    --
    Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
  35. Just publish it all by EmagGeek · · Score: 2

    Seriously, Wikileaks, release the key to the insurance file already. There's no reason not to at this point.

  36. Re:Echo chamber by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I used to think like you until I grew up. Nothing is worth the grief of letting a self-selecting club of alpha males take over. They're thuggish, ignorant, and last but not least lack humanity. Their almost messianic belief in their own certainty and the deep and dark shadow of fear it casts in their own psyche just kills hope and joy. They create the monsters their so very scared of.

    Me? I'm on the side of Chelsea Manning and Edward Snowden. Not just because I believe someone should be true to themselves, and live an authentic life free of hypocrisy but because I believe they're speaking to higher truth and principle. To close the door to these possibilities - to censor self-scrutiny is the politics, the dogma, of a closed and failing system.

    Then again I'm a transsexual hipster whose entire life is a smoking crater so I would say this wouldn't I? Yes, darling, my entire life is a lie. A lie I had to live because of authoritarians just like Mr Secret Agent guy. Well, fuck that. It's too late for me to undo all the damage I'd like but not too late for the kids. So it's not just about now. It's about the world we leave behind. Let's try and leave behind a better world so people no longer need to live like us (or you), or YOU.

  37. Hella big whoosh there, moron. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Yes, analogies are not identical. Well done. Have a bikkit.

    However, the term "sexual offender" gives images that do NOT include "pissed on a tree where a police officer could see them".

    Much like those that are called terrorist are not actually what is considered by the people who agreed to the laws to be used against terrorists to be terrorists.

    Such as people whose dogs poop in the streed and don't clean up the poop.

    1. Re:Hella big whoosh there, moron. by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      Much like those that are called terrorist are not actually what is considered by the people who agreed to the laws to be used against terrorists to be terrorists.

      Such as people whose dogs poop in the streed and don't clean up the poop.

      QED.

      --
      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
    2. Re: Hella big whoosh there, moron. by echnaton192 · · Score: 2

      No. You just did not get the reference. They were using anti-terrorist-laws and tools to actually get the pooping dog. So the analogy with the sex offender stands. Sexting teens and pissing man are no pedophiles. Pooping Dogs are no terrorists. Critics of the american governemnt and the surveillancestate, that are sent back and denied entry to the US are no terrorists, either. Or the au pairs that are sent back because they intend to work in the US, an information obtained by anti terrorist laws from facebook - they are no terrorists, either.

      You just outed yourself as a clueless and uninformed believer in the good of the government. Is it really so hard to read the news from time to time BEFORE making political comments?

      Despicable.

    3. Re:Hella big whoosh there, moron. by hazeii · · Score: 1

      It was 2005 when it became clear to me that the terrorism legislation would be mis-used; specifically when the UK's Labour party used the Terrorism Act to detain an 82-year old pensioner for shouting "Nonsense" during a speech by the (then) Home Secretary.

      n.b. the link is to the apology - the original story seems to have disappeared.

      --
      All your ghosts are just false positives.
  38. practically an admission... by xombo · · Score: 1

    of censorship

  39. Re:Dope by fustakrakich · · Score: 2

    I think it is unethical to continue releasing the data.

    What, are you saying it is unethical to report a crime in progress? Are we just supposed to sit here and submit to these violations? Sorry bub, we need to apply the law to everybody if we are expected to show any respect for it. Besides, it turns out that these "terrorists" are business associates in our destabilization efforts in the Middle East and Africa.

    --
    “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
  40. You better believe Guardian editors threatened by GodfatherofSoul · · Score: 3, Interesting

    If you work there, you'd better not have a secret cocaine habit or stripper girlfriend on the side. If there's the slightest bit of dirt on you, they're going to out you. I've got a lot of respect for that paper going on under what has to be some frightening pressure.

    --
    I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
    1. Re:You better believe Guardian editors threatened by hazeii · · Score: 1

      So true; Glenn Greenwald immediately outed a disputed business deal in his past (a hotel TV business, which had a hand in providing porn for corporate man) because he knew otherwise it would be used against him. The rest of them must be frighteningly clean-living (or figure this story is more important than their past indiscretions).

      --
      All your ghosts are just false positives.
  41. Re:Dope by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    At least there is a possibility of having terrorists among your own people (Hello, Mr. McVeigh!). But spying on foreign companies for advantages in business negotiations is inexcusable on the grounds of "terrorism!" That is really where the bullshit crumbles down.

  42. Re:Dope by amicusNYCL · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I think it is unethical to continue releasing the data.

    Don't worry, if the government wasn't doing anything wrong then it has nothing to hide.

    Or maybe that old line is bullshit and the government knows it. Maybe the right to privacy exists for a reason. Exposing how world governments spy on their people is long overdue. The governments didn't want to have this discussion before, they wanted to keep everything hidden, but they decided to go a little too far so now we need to have the talk.

    --
    "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
  43. Never ask why by ThatsNotPudding · · Score: 1

    Mr Parker said it was vital for MI5 to retain the capability to access such information if it was to protect the country.

    But never *ever* ask why measures up to and including the destruction of one's own society to 'protect the country' is necessary. That 'protection' being the continued unfettered profits of British Petroleum, BAE Systems, et al where ever and when ever no matter the collateral corruption and death (i.e., constructing the next generation of terrorists).

  44. Re:Dope by spire3661 · · Score: 1

    I think its unethical to think that its ok to ask their secrets be kept. I have no obligation to keep state secrets I deem harmful to the citizenry.

    --
    Good-bye
  45. Great! by lennier1 · · Score: 2

    After the smear campaign the UK government and their willing accomplices at the Daily Fail are running I'm glad they're actually beginning to ramp it up instead of backing away:
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2450291/The-Guardian-produced-handbook-help-fanatics-strike-will.html

  46. Idiots by biodata · · Score: 1

    What is MI5/GCHQ doing giving access to UK secrets for a private citizen employed by a corporation subcontracted to an agency of a foreign government (the US?). If Snowdon had access to UK secrets it is the fault of the UK's agencies for failing at security.

    --
    Korma: Good
  47. Re:Dope by davester666 · · Score: 1

    Well, getting a brazilian could be considered torture...

    --
    Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
  48. cure the source, not the symptoms by hochl · · Score: 2

    Instead of mass surveillance of *all* means of communication (terrorists could use any form of communication, wow -- we have to monitor everything!) maybe it would be a much better *and cheaper* idea to ask why there is terrorism and how to combat the source of it. Really, those people have some reason why they do it, even if those reasons are hard to understand from out perspective. I guess for them everything makes perfect sense ...

  49. Re:You do or you don't want the terrorists to know by gl4ss · · Score: 1

    You do realise that the poster boy terrorist are extremist religious types... they love God, but their concept of God, if you are calling them terrorists for hating your god then you are as much a terrorist as they are.

    they're not the people I was talking about. I was talking about the Joe Average who talks smack about Biden to his friend on the phone. they're the one's who don't know they're terrorists....

    --
    world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
  50. Why are the Brits so excited about Snowden? by hicksw · · Score: 1

    Snowden lifted files from US security, not GCHQ. Every UK operational detail that he and the Guardian might divulge was already in the hands of a foreign organisation, outside the control of the UK secret services.

    Snowden was merely the first NSA data leak that went public. There is little reason to believe he was the first NSA staff to walk out with a memory stick.

    If the Chinese realised what he had in Hong Kong, what riches would thay have offered him? Unless they already had most of it from routine espionage (see above).
    --
    How long does it take Airstrip One to unperson someone these days? Stand by.