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. "

64 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 Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

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

    6. 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.

    7. 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.
    8. 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.

    9. 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.

    10. 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.

    11. 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)
    12. 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?

    13. 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.

    14. 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.
    15. 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.

    16. 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.
    17. 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!”
    18. 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.

    19. 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
    20. 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
    21. 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.

    22. 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.

    23. 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.

    24. 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.

  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. 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!

  5. 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
  6. 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 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. 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
  8. enormous damage - but to what? by rvw · · Score: 4, Insightful

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

    FTFY!

  9. 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.

  10. 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.

  11. 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 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.
  12. 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.
  13. 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.

  14. 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.
  15. 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.
  16. no thanks by Charliemopps · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I fear my Government more than I fear terrorists.

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

      The government there is also worse than terrorists.

  17. 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"
  18. 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.
  19. 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
  20. 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 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

  21. 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.
  22. 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?

  23. 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.
  24. 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
  25. Re:Echo chamber by Hypotensive · · Score: 2

    I see the ketamine is kicking in...

  26. 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.

  27. 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

  28. 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)
  29. 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 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.

  30. 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!”
  31. 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!
  32. 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.

  33. 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
  34. 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

  35. 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 ...