Slashdot Mirror


UK Prime Minister Threatens To Block Further Snowden Revelations

Bruce66423 writes "From the article: 'In a statement to MPs on Monday about last week's European summit in Brussels, where he warned of the dangers of a "lah-di-dah, airy-fairy view" about the dangers of leaks, the prime minister said his preference was to talk to newspapers rather than resort to the courts. But he said it would be difficult to avoid acting if newspapers declined to heed government advice.' So that will achieve something won't it? Don't these politicians understand that blocking publication in just the UK achieves nothing? The information is held outside the UK, and will be published there; all he's doing is showing his real colors."

91 of 431 comments (clear)

  1. Russian Times to the rescue by ulatekh · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I remember reading about these NSA revelations years before Edward Snowden disclosed them...on the Russian Times web site.

    Guess we'll have to go back to relying on the Russian press to defend freedom and print the truth.

    Ugh...I think I just threw up in my mouth.

    --
    "Once we've identified and embraced our sickness, we'll have strength...and that's when we get dangerous." - John Waters
    1. Re:Russian Times to the rescue by mirix · · Score: 5, Informative

      And that's different from the far-left government-lapdog U.S. press how, exactly?

      There's not much far-left anything in the US. Certainly not 'the press', unless you're counting some random blog or the communist party's paper.

      --
      Sent from my PDP-11
    2. Re:Russian Times to the rescue by ulatekh · · Score: 5, Informative

      Why, too lazy to look it up yourself?

      Here's one: NSA whistleblowers: Government spying on every single American

      A full year before Edward Snowden.

      I remember showing that article to some friends of mine, people who were deeply involved with government work. They laughed at me and called me paranoid and gullible. Sure sucks when the tinfoil-hat crowd is right.

      --
      "Once we've identified and embraced our sickness, we'll have strength...and that's when we get dangerous." - John Waters
    3. Re:Russian Times to the rescue by Guppy06 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Why, too lazy to look it up yourself?

      Because searching Russia Today for the evils of the US government is like searching Fox News for the evils of the Democratic Party.

    4. Re:Russian Times to the rescue by girlintraining · · Score: 5, Insightful

      There's not much far-left anything in the US.

      Sure there is! Fox News tells us all the time that Obama is a communist and there's a big liberal left-wing conspiracy to oppress them because they hate freedom. Okay... my turn to vomit in my mouth.

      But more seriously, the fear here has become palpable. They said "lah-di-dah, airy-fairy view", like it doesn't mean anything, but they're already moving to try and suppress it. How was it that Ghandi put it: First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you... ah, but I forget what comes after that!

      This is the first public admission that the UK is shitting a fucking brick about Snowden, but you have to read between the lines to spot it.

      You know, I've had very little good to say about Snowden, considering him little more than some kid who punked the NSA, then mooned us on his way out the door. But this kind of reaction suggests there's more to the story than I think anyone realizes. Now, I'm not saying Snowden has anything, but the UK is obviously worried that he'll say he does. Snowden has credibility now -- he could turn that on the UK. And the UK and US are very close allies when it comes to intelligence.

      The UK may be worried that it's staunch defense of the US is about to kick of a political shitstorm as some yet unidentified new leak surfaces. And real or not, it could seriously harm the UK's credibility. The Obama administration's absolutely terrible way of handling this entire affair has turned some dumb kid into a weapon potentially more damaging to the UK than a few hundred drone strikes.

      If I were the PM, I'd be fucking livid right now with Obama.

      --
      #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
    5. Re:Russian Times to the rescue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Is the New York Times a liberal newspaper? Of course it is.

      Do you disbelieve this phrase? Highlight the entire two sentences with the mouse, right-click, and select 'search'.

      So you are not even pretending to hide that confirmation bias?

      Let us do an experiment to demonstrate. Search for "Are aliens real? Of course they are."

      How about "Is Obama a muslim? Of course he is."

      Confirmation bias is a wonderful thing. You can prove anything with it!

    6. Re:Russian Times to the rescue by Guy+Harris · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Is the New York Times a liberal newspaper? Of course it is.

      Is the new York Times "far left" except in the fever dreams of the far right? Of course it isn't.

    7. Re:Russian Times to the rescue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      William Binney was all over Democracy Now as well.

      Seriously--

      Whistleblower: The NSA Is Lying-- U.S. Government Has Copies of Most of Your Emails -- April 20, 2012

      Exclusive: National Security Agency Whistleblower William Binney on Growing State Surveillance -- April 20, 2012

      More Secrets on Growing State Surveillance: Exclusive with NSA Whistleblower, Targeted Hacker -- April 23, 2012

      etc. There were also numerous warnings from Assange, Appelbaum, and others outlining exactly what was going on to anyone who was listening.

      Not to mention common sense should suggest to anyone familiar with US history and human nature that this was probably happening.

    8. Re: Russian Times to the rescue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      As seen from a scandinavian view ( or, a personal view of mine if you like), there is no left and right in American politics. You have two right wing parties, which are essentially the same, and then a few idiots who in the naming of their group - the tea party movement - are ass raping the history of the US.

      But that is it. Left wing politicians? I don't see them at all.

    9. Re:Russian Times to the rescue by Patch86 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You have to be an inscrutable idiot if you believe that "Liberal" is the same as "Far Left".

    10. Re:Russian Times to the rescue by reve_etrange · · Score: 2

      The press is "left leaning" on certain social issues, such as gay marriage and voter suppression, but other than that the press is nearly uniformly in support of fiscal austerity (commonly presenting the deficit as unambiguously bad in so-called news pieces), is vitriolically anti-labor (unions are portrayed as "hostage takers"), anti-regulation, generally hawkish on armed conflict, etc.

      Not that I would call them "right wing" either. The US press is essentially pro-business and supportive of the status quo, but also very sensitive to current trends in public opinion (which they both reflect and manipulate).

      --
      .: Semper Absurda :.
    11. Re: Russian Times to the rescue by reve_etrange · · Score: 5, Interesting

      There are "left" and "right," but our current national politics are a struggle between the center-right and far-right. If you look at local governments there is a lot more variation and mixture in general. For example in California, the open primary and citizen-controlled redistricting have recently blown open the field. Last year all my local contests were between the Dems and Peace and Freedom, which is actually sort of left-wing.

      --
      .: Semper Absurda :.
    12. Re:Russian Times to the rescue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Russia Today is a propaganda outlet of the Russian government.

      Well, that's the point. It would definitely be preferable to prove them wrong rather than right by one's actions. If the worst a propaganda outlet can fantasize about the U.S. is actually true, that does not really paint a good picture.

    13. Re:Russian Times to the rescue by Hypotensive · · Score: 3, Informative

      Is the New York Times a liberal newspaper? Of course it is.

      Far left = communist.
      Left = socialist.
      Middle of the road = liberals, greens.
      Right = Democrats, New Labour, David Cameron.
      Far right = Republicans, Marine le Pen, Bashar al-Assad.

    14. Re:Russian Times to the rescue by emj · · Score: 2

      New york post publisges too much right wing crap to be called far left, may be they have a streak of red in them somewhere. Maybe.

    15. Re:Russian Times to the rescue by Patch86 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I would use whatever word is actually applicable to the policies that they're advocating.

      "Socialist", for example, is not a dirty word. The Labour Party in the UK still has "democratic socialist" baked into their mission statement. Do you mean that the New York Times is a socialist paper? Because let me tell you, as a socialist myself, I find that very hard to believe.

    16. Re:Russian Times to the rescue by Guy+Harris · · Score: 2

      Read between the lines. Liberal is a polite word. What else would you call an organization that openly supports far-left causes not only on the editorial page but the news pages?

      Far left? Such as, say, the Revolutionary Communist Party?

      As distinguished from the New York Times, which supports nothing that any person who's actually aware of reality would call "far-left".

    17. Re:Russian Times to the rescue by Resident+Emil · · Score: 3, Funny

      If I were the PM, I'd be fucking livid right now with Obama.

      Who's Livid?

    18. Re: Russian Times to the rescue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      British drivers?

    19. Re:Russian Times to the rescue by SuricouRaven · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The leaks so far include the UK and US working together to tap emails and phone lines used by heads of allied states, and a US attempt to intercept the diplomatic lines at the UN. It's hard to imagine what could come out next to top that one. The only possibilities I can see would be using the intelligence services for political advantage (Watergate-style), using them for commercial advantage to domestic companies (China-style) or using them to deliberately manipulate the politics of another country. Those are juicy possibilities, certainly, because they'd clearly reveal the 'protecting our country from terrorist threat' line as a big lie.

    20. Re:Russian Times to the rescue by Xest · · Score: 3, Interesting

      It's also quite possible he simply believes his own bullshit.

      This is the guy who was quick to cry terrorism in response to the Lee Rigby murder but at least initially refused to call it terrorism when a Ukrainian far right extremist stabbed a muslim and bombed two mosques in the UK.

      Certainly he has a very warped perspective on threats and terrorism so I could quite believe he believes his own bullshit about how Snowden's revelations help terrorists and will be the end of civilisation as we know it.

    21. Re:Russian Times to the rescue by macsuibhne · · Score: 3, Insightful
      --
      -- "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" -- Juvenal
    22. Re:Russian Times to the rescue by Xest · · Score: 5, Interesting

      There was a guy on here the other day telling me he was the most conservative Republican conservative going.

      At the same time he was saying about how welfare should be about giving everyone the exact same amount regardless of who they are (i.e. he was advocating communist ideas).

      He was completely unable to grasp that was he was advocating was most definitely not conservative given that by definition conservatism is about resisting change, and he was advocating massive change, and was very much a communist idea - i.e. the complete opposite of the right which he claimed to proudly represent.

      I never cease to be amazed how messed up the political views and comments of many Americans are. So many wear their supposed leaning like a badge of honour whilst spouting views that completely contradict it and similarly declaring things about other leanings that make absolutely zero sense. From the libertarians that rally against gay marriage and the freedom to have abortions, to the conservatives that demand profound change, to the tea partiers who claim to be all about the constitution and free speech whilst turning up at opposition rallies armed to try and stifle discussion of opposing views with implied threats. It's insane and it's so painfully hypocritical.

      I have more respect for people who at least come out and say what they are. I can't stand Nigel Farage in the UK because he refuses to admit he's far right whilst advocating primarily far right policy - at least Nick Griffin of the BNP for all his flaws had the courage of his convictions to admit what he was even if I think his views are sickening. It's like a denial people have because they fear being associated with Nazism if they openly admit they're far right even though in practice they do in fact often align politically with them. If you don't have the courage to admit what you believe in, whether that's far left communism, or far right fascism or something in between then the implication is simply that you know deep down that there's something wrong with your beliefs. Don't try and dress yourself up as something your not, because either you believe what you believe, or you know full well you're just being selfish, ignorant, and full of shit.

      Of course the problem is it works - there's so much confusion especially in the US that you can claim to be a libertarian and people see you as a freedom fighter when in reality you're advocating primarily anti-libertarian policy. It's as if some people see the political leaning people label themselves with as more important in defining what they stand for than the actual policies they're pushing in practice.

      People need to learn what different leanings mean and start evaluating candidates on what they actually stand for rather than obscure paranoia over terms that aren't dirty like "liberal" and "socialist" contrary to what the idiot squad likes to pretend. They think by saying "he's a liberal" they're being nasty and slagging them off, when in reality they're saying "he's a guy that supports protecting people's rights and freedoms and ensuring equality" as if that's somehow a bad thing. The opposite of classic liberalism is basically fascism, so by decrying someone for being a liberal with the implication that you oppose liberalism you're effectively aligning yourself with fascism. If only they knew how fucking stupid it made them sound to those of us who know what things like socialism, and liberalism actually are.

      The fact is pretty much the entirety of the Western world is primarily liberal with a hint of socialism and a focus on capitalism in them more general economy so to decry that is to decry the bulk of what stands behind Western ideology.

    23. Re:Russian Times to the rescue by fritsd · · Score: 3, Funny

      As one of the 1% non-idiotic commenters on a BBC blog put it: "sure they spy on Angela Merkel; who knows she may be planning to blow up the Bundestag!"

      --
      To be, or not to be: isn't that quite logical, Slashdot Beta?
    24. Re:Russian Times to the rescue by peragrin · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This needs to get modded up to 11

      The fact is in the USA in the last 30 to 40 years the republican party has moved to where I am not sure but the facts are just plain funny.

      I see conservatives rant and rave and blame obama, but then admit both parties are screwing things up. I see them get all pissy about government spending and taxes, yet at the same time wonder why the roads have pot holes, the schools are losing programs, bridges are falling down, etc.

      a simple fact is that conservatives and so called republicans use 55-60% of social security, medicare and medicaid.(Older people tend to be or have become more conservative as they aged). Yet those same people believe they are entitled to those services. They refuse to stand up for their own beliefs.

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
    25. Re:Russian Times to the rescue by TheCarp · · Score: 2

      And another "Ive been listening to too much Bill Hicks in the car" post:
      "Its like we all just woke up from a car crash and all we know is someone named Reagan was driving, and there was this Thatcher woman in the back seat yelling 'turn right, go right, turn right, go right'"

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
    26. Re:Russian Times to the rescue by Jason+Levine · · Score: 2

      Along the same vein, Republicans like to talk about how the Federal government should be smaller, taxes should be less, and more should be left up to the states to provide, but then the Red states pull more money from the Federal government than they give in. (Blue states tend to give more than they take in.) They are pocketing money with one hand while holding up a "Federal government money is evil" sign with the other hand. No sign of hypocritical behavior here. Just politics as usual.

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    27. Re:Russian Times to the rescue by Rob+the+Bold · · Score: 2

      What could have happened in the past to make socialism a dirty word? Start with the events of 20th century.

      A concerted campaign by their opponents to demonize them?

      --
      I am not a crackpot.
    28. Re:Russian Times to the rescue by BasilBrush · · Score: 2

      At the same time he was saying about how welfare should be about giving everyone the exact same amount regardless of who they are (i.e. he was advocating communist ideas).

      Thatcher also held this view. Are you saying she's communist?

      Meanwhile it's a view that communists DON'T hold. "From each according to the means, to each according to their needs" is not the same as "To each the same."

    29. Re:Russian Times to the rescue by St.Creed · · Score: 2

      You're talking Stalinists and social democrats, not Communists as Lenin would have defined them. Social democrats define class by wealth or education or whatever their latest sociological think tank found fashionable.

      Communists, or revolutionary socialists as they're called nowadays, use Marx's definition: your class is determined by your relation to the power to produce goods: labour power. If you have to sell your labour power to create goods in order to survive, you're a worker. If you buy labour power and use it to create more goods, you're a capitalist. If you employ just a few workers, you're a small capitalist. There's a few subcategories for de-classed or yet un-classed folk (students, kids) or peasants, but that's basically it.

      So saying that redistributing wealth moves us closer to Communism is going to be treated to howls of laugher by revolutionary socialists. At best, it diminishes a bit of the inequality under capitalism and therefore provides a much more stable form of capitalism. Which isn't necessarily a bad thing, but not a move towards communism.

      --
      Therefore, by the (faulty) logic you're using, you're just a cow with a keyboard - osu-neko (2604)
  2. Puppet strings by ArchieBunker · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Wonder how much pressure the PM is getting from Washington?

    --
    Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
    1. Re:Puppet strings by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

      This has nothing to do about the master of puppets but more to do about allegiances and alliances. This shit is coming out, whether anyone likes it or not.

    2. Re:Puppet strings by Kazoo+the+Clown · · Score: 2

      Probably doesn't need any pressure, only to find out that some of his own dirty laundry is in the mix just waiting to be aired. My heart bleeds.

    3. Re:Puppet strings by Kazoo+the+Clown · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's EXACTLY what they deserve. And what do they do, act like the arrogant a$$holes, for all to see. You know we can hear you, right? LOL! If they had any brains they'd make a spectacle of firing Clapper and Alexander for being so incompetent as to allow themselves to be pwned by a Snowden. Then they could claim "problem solved", "mission accomplished" and all that at least. But no, they'd rather make a permanent enemy of all the decent journalists in the world. War on Journalism, that's what this is, plain and simple.

    4. Re:Puppet strings by epyT-R · · Score: 2

      Obama did vote 'yes' for PATRIOT after all..and he renewed its provisions as president.

    5. Re:Puppet strings by WillKemp · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Wonder how much pressure the PM is getting from Washington?

      He doesn't need pressure. When their US masters give them orders they simply obey. They don't even question it. It's been that way for decades. All the bullshit whining about the EU taking away their sovereignty is just a smoke screen - the UK has had no sovereignty for a very long time. And, of course, one of the tasks their masters have set them is to disrupt the EU as much as possible (it's a threat to US economic dominance).

  3. I am Jack's... by nctritech · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...complete lack of surprise.

  4. Re:wrong target by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Will someone remember Snowden is pointing out info to everyone. The most important info. Heck, the Russians pale in comparison to the dangers of the NSA. Ever heard of transparency? Got a clue?

  5. Re:wrong target by epyT-R · · Score: 5, Insightful

    um. No he's revealing info to everyone.. No country claiming to be a bastion of freedom should be in the business of mass data collection of its citizens' comings and goings. The criminals are the politicians in washington DC. Hell, the russian government probably already knows more about the USA domestic spying activities than its own citizens do.

  6. Re:wrong target by PPH · · Score: 5, Funny

    Will someone point out that Snowdon is probably revealing info to the Russians?

    Why? Don't they have their own subscription to The Guardian?

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  7. Silencing the Press by Phoenix666 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    So Gen. Alexander releases a propaganda video saying he believes the journalists releasing the stories ought to be silenced, and now the UK is echoing that? It seems to me that we are well on our way to the point of no return.

    --
    Do what you can, with what you have, where you are.
    1. Re:Silencing the Press by AHuxley · · Score: 2

      Yes MI6 and SAS teams on the ground world wide "hunting" the free press with help from the GCHQ? Did that work out well for the East Germans and KGB vs their dissents in the free West?
      Did the truth just stop with each successful mission from the Soviet Union?
      Any day in open court will be a joke as the UK gov is forced to admit the material is 100% real and very admissible.
      A closed UK court is even more of a joke - then the legal reform starts and more material leaks in protest.
      One member of the UK press is legally disappered for 20 years as a warning? Sealed court case, all the UK court staff have clearances :) Its a real powerful win until the Hollywood movie and new leaks
      Did the truth just stop with each court case in 1960's South Africa?
      Soviet option...closed court or show trial ...

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    2. Re:Silencing the Press by Anubis+IV · · Score: 2

      I'd like to see them try shutting up the press. Can you imagine what will happen if Fox News goes off the air and all of those angry, gun-owning citizens suddenly have a lot more free time in their lives?

    3. Re:Silencing the Press by TapeCutter · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Alexander and the UK are odd bedfellows, apparently he was a financial supporter of the IRA before Clinton at the urging of Bono)speech starts @2:21) stopped Americans from donating to the IRA. Say what you like a Bono, but it took the balls of an Elephant to make that speech as an Irishman in Boston.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
  8. Re:UK Prime Minister Threatens to hide what? by AHuxley · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Mostly POW issues from Iraq, the legality of wars, the use of the SAS, black sites and select not so legal weapons sales going back decades.
    There is also a lot of MI6/MI5/SAS/FBI views on weapons shipments via the USA old news from the Ireland years.
    Domestic surveillance is well understood by the UK press so the 'block' would be over much more interesting stories.
    The UK could not stop the US press in the 1930's on UK domestic news. In 2013 the UK gov wants to try again?

    --
    Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
  9. Sen. Feinstein by Phoenix666 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    They're reporting this evening Sen. Feinstein is backpedaling on surveillance after defending the NSA's crimes all summer. Did one of her grandchildren chew her out for turning the country into a police state? Or is she so stupid that she hasn't actually paid attention to the issue and its implications til now? Or is it a dodge to deflect the criticism until the public forgets and moves on and all can return to status quo ante?

    Honestly, I'm kind of to the point where the situation won't be made right until the people at the NSA responsible for this are in prison, the NSA is dismantled, and everyone in the Whitehouse and Congress are impeached and thrown into the deepest, darkest hole we've got.

    --
    Do what you can, with what you have, where you are.
  10. Control of information is power by EmperorOfCanada · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Over and over governments have fallen and change has been driven when secrets become known. This is because information is the only real source of power. Controlling what information gets out, and what information you have is real power. Any person who has been in government or even a large organization quickly realizes this and those who thrive in these organizations have taken this to heart.

    So this is why governments spend so much effort in "massaging" information and are happy to have things kept secret for a hundred different reasons such as "privacy" or "security" but the simple truth is that once the population has this information they now have the power and this is the scariest of all scenarios for people who want power.

    As I said, just look at the history of leaks, in the UK you had ministers that were terrible and people wanted them gone, yet they not only stayed but were regularly re-elected because people didn't have the solid information that could sway an electorate. Then the expenses scandal came out with solid information about people lying, cheating, and repairing their moats and in a flash they were gone. Prior to the leak the public was fed a filtered version of the MP expenses. In the US you had Nixon get turfed from office when he lost control of the information. The key being concrete evidence of what was happening in the oval office. The media loves their dueling opinions but people can tell the differences between narrative, opinion, and cold hard facts. I very much doubt these bozos care one iota about the whole protecting the country part of these revelations but they do care about losing their ability to spy on anyone who is making them look bad or getting in the way of their rich friends. And they really hate the fact that these revelations prove them to be liars themselves.

    But the worst part for these people is that the media is no longer just a few media barons that they can be clubby with. In years past they may very well have been able to keep a lid on this through that alone. But now the traditional media is no longer local. So even if none of the press in one country runs a story other countries' press cores will and then there are the million micro media sites. They will all run with anything they can get their hands on.

    I love it!

  11. We all know what this means... by hyades1 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I guess it's a pretty good bet that Snowden got hold of something nice and juicy about what Cameron's Tory government has been up to.

    I can't help but look forward to the revelation, and wonder exactly how that jumped-up little fascist thinks he's going to prevent people in Britain from finding out. Will they be legally required to go around with their eyes squinted and their fingers in their ears?

    This should be fun!

    --
    I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
    1. Re:We all know what this means... by TapeCutter · · Score: 2

      I'm waiting to find out about Australia, we have some strategically placed US listening stations out in the bush and the US is our BFF. Over the half century I've watched pollys come and go in Oz I've seen a few prospective PM's take the grand tour of the "secret" listening such as Pine Gap, I've noticed some come out looking rather shaken and are never really themselves again after the experience, especially the ones who had previously criticised US policies. Mark Latham is the most striking recent example, except he didn't stop criticising US policy. Suddenly it seemed all of Oz turned against him, ostensibly because of an awkward looking handshake with Howard that somehow proved he was a "thug".

      On the rare occasions Latham is mentioned in the media since that time, he's been largely portrayed as deranged and potentially violent. True he hasn't helped his cause with some of the things he has said since leaving politics, but I think he has some pretty good reasons to be bitter.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
  12. Re:wrong target by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Cameron is a COMPLETE idiot!

  13. Dear James Cameron: by Entropius · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Dear James Cameron,

    You might ring Barbra Streisand and ask her how this'll work out for you.

    Love,
    The Internet

    1. Re:Dear James Cameron: by rmdashrf · · Score: 5, Informative

      Wrong Cameron. The political twat is David, the film-maker is James.

      --
      Nihil in publicum sputa.
  14. Then they came for me... by ulatekh · · Score: 5, Insightful

    First the government abused foreigners, and the press did nothing.

    Then the government started abusing its own citizens, and the press did nothing.

    Then the government started abusing the press...

    --
    "Once we've identified and embraced our sickness, we'll have strength...and that's when we get dangerous." - John Waters
  15. Re:wrong target by Demonantis · · Score: 4, Informative

    Incorrect: According to Snowden, the laptops he brought to Russia were empty. Shockingly the internet exists making physical transport of data unnecessary. He doesn't have control and probably access over the information anymore. That is why Cameron is attacking the news outlets now. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/10/14/snowden_decoy_laptops_russia_china/

  16. What am I missing? by wwalker · · Score: 5, Funny

    Can someone explain it to me, why US/UK/etc. governments are so freaking afraid of leaks, when apparently it's such a common knowledge that everyone spies on everyone, including their friends and allies?!

    Shouldn't it be, if you haven't done anything wrong, you shouldn't be afraid of the truth? Since enemies of any state already assume they are being spied on anyway?

    I mean, I can understand if the leaks included real names of agents and informants, or were putting real people in real danger of being killed in some other way. But at this point it's all just about governments lying to the people and each other, and about politicians losing all credibility. Oh, wait, I think I just answered my own question...

    1. Re:What am I missing? by TapeCutter · · Score: 3, Insightful

      There are no terrorists under Merkel's desk, It's economic espionage, UK/US have been the experts in that field since the end of WW2.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    2. Re:What am I missing? by Required+Snark · · Score: 5, Insightful
      It makes sense once you realize who the real enemy is. It's not the terrorists/Islamists/Chinese/Russians, it's the citizens of the US/UK/NZ/Australia and other countries that are the target of the spying. The general population is the enemy.

      In the delusional hyper-paranoid NSA world you gain power and control when you know things that other people don't know. It's all about insiders and outsiders. If the outsiders find out what's going on, they might become less pliable and start wondering about what's going on and ask questions. They might even start objecting to the current setup.

      Some of it is about money. The US is spending something over $50 Billion per year. That a long way from chump change, and a lot of companies are getting very very rich from that. I don't think that the direct government employees are the big winners at this, I think the outside contracting companies really rake it in. First you pay your dues working for the Feds, then you make a vastly higher amount doing the same thing in the private sector. That's what Snowden did.

      The second thing is fear of failure. Everyone is terrified of taking the blame for the next successful big attack. They want all the data in the vain hope that it means that failure can be avoided forever. It's not possible, but given effectively unlimited resources they can engage in the insane project of trying to spy on every human on earth.

      So not only is the goal impossible, it is a huge waste of resources. For the kind of money they are spending they could literally buy off many of the "bad guys" they are fighting. (This assumes that the money was spent wisely, as opposed to the complete cluster fuck of wasted money poured into Afghanistan and Iraq.)

      For example, offer the Palestinians and the Israelis billions of dollars each for domestic non-military spending, with the condition that any violence on either side means a complete immediate shutoff. (And no more Israeli building on the west bank.) Assume they are corrupt and can be bought, and it just might work. Even if it doesn't work, at least the money will be poured down some new rat holes for a change.

      --
      Why is Snark Required?
    3. Re:What am I missing? by Strawser · · Score: 2

      'zactly. David Cameron is calling for "social responsibility". These leaks are social responsibility.

      --
      The louder he talked of his honour, the faster we counted our spoons. -- Ralph Waldo Emerson
  17. Re:wrong target by Frobnicator · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Why? Don't they have their own subscription to The Guardian?

    One interesting thing about threats is that you absolutely must be able to follow through and the threats most be seen as a positive action. Cameron has just put his head in a noose. (Well, more than usual)

    When The Guardian publishes again --- which it absolutely will --- he can choose to do nothing and further relinquish control, further harming himself politically. Or he can take it to the courts like he threatened, spending a fortune trying to get an unpopular order which will also harm him politically. If he succeeds at getting the order all it will do is make the UK government and the crown look even more the fools. He is playing a game that has no winning moves.

    By all means, I hope he continues to make threats like this. If he doesn't follow through he will be seen as weak, and if he does follow through he will become even more unpopular. Boris Johnson is already twice as popular in the polls, Cameron is already less popular than his party (which is also rapidly sinking) and idiotic statements like this will just cause the ship to sink faster.

    Mr Cameron, every time you open your mouth you make it easier for those who will oppose your party in 2015. Please carry on.

    --
    //TODO: Think of witty sig statement
  18. Re:wrong target by mosb1000 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    No country claiming to be a bastion of freedom should be in the business of mass data collection of its citizens' comings and goings.

    That's probably just a consequence of having the ability to collect such data. I'm more worried about they way they encourage people they have a problem with to engage in illegal activities just so that they can arrest them. Or the way the way laws have been passed prohibiting recreational drug use, effectively declaring 10% or so of the population to be criminals. Them tracking our comings and goings wouldn't be such a problem if our innocent activities weren't illegal in the first place.

  19. Re:No one outside of the NSA knows what Snowden kn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    So basically you'll trust a whistleblower who has climbed the ranks high enough to access top secret information in the U.S.'s intelligence service, Russia's intelligence service, and China's intelligence service? But what if this whistleblower dosn't release information that's embarrassing to Paraguay, too? How could you then trust that he wasn't just a shill for some Latin American strongmen? Hmmmm?

  20. I vote fewer secrets, more freedom by kawabago · · Score: 2

    Of course, it depends on who is counting the votes.

  21. Release it all! by dohzer · · Score: 2

    Why don't they just release the remaining data before the UK implement the block?

  22. How far will they go... by hawkingradiation · · Score: 2

    so as to feel so defensive about what they have done to dismantle the liberties and freedoms that we all hold dear? Listening to these bureaucrats quip is more than just a nuisance, these guys have power to summon the government to imprison or send a drone to your home. Maybe we should all wait patiently until the whole government collapses. *chill* if that is the only hope we have then that is a scary thought.

    --
    Society use your Sciences
  23. Re:wrong target by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Not true; many parts are still missing. But he's pulling himself together, so to speak.

  24. Re:wrong target by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The Grauniad is printed as several editions in several locations. The best way to answer this would be to print the British edition with large amounts of white space entitled "Censored" on the pages that the foreign editions have articles that contain information obtained from Snowden. The British people would then go online to see the information which would harm the British press but harm the British government more.

  25. Re:wrong target by rsborg · · Score: 5, Insightful

    When The Guardian publishes again --- which it absolutely will --- he can choose to do nothing and further relinquish control, further harming himself politically. Or he can take it to the courts like he threatened, spending a fortune trying to get an unpopular order which will also harm him politically. If he succeeds at getting the order all it will do is make the UK government and the crown look even more the fools. He is playing a game that has no winning moves.

    Let's change how we look at David Cameron. Instead of viewing him as the PM, look at him instead as a very expensive property of the Murdochs. How much would Rupert and his clan pay to finally silence the Guardian or any joint willing to publish in the UK? Who cares if their latest pawn (Cameron) goes down in flames - they'll just bribe the opposition or push one of their other pawns forward.

    --
    Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
  26. re Another Revolution by jelizondo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    More than three hundred years after the Glorious Revolution, the U.K. has a freaking P.M. who thinks is an absolute monarch. Perhaps it is time for another revolution.

    Off with his head!

    --
    Be very, very careful what you put into that head, because you will never, ever get it out. - Cardinal Wolsey
  27. Other Possibilities by jamander4 · · Score: 2

    One dark possibility is the PM going all past US policy for real. He could just start locking up everyone involved his government could get their hands on. Then the governments in question could use extrodinary rendetion to get the rest. If other governmants would not cooperate (Brazil) then start killing those held to be responsible(Greenwald and the offending editors). Given the claimed targeted killing and extraordinary rendition powers already used the only differences would be the scale of non legal behavior and the targets. This use of power would make some use of supression of dissent necessary. When governments go all out with no regard for any laws domestic or international the offending parties can be removed from the playing field. With the help of the US it could be done. Lets hope cooler heads prevail.

  28. Re:wrong target by WillKemp · · Score: 5, Insightful

    He is playing a game that has no winning moves.

    True. But he's undoubtedly doing it under orders from his US masters - who don't care whether he gets re-elected or not. The UK has for a very long time now been a client kingdom of the US. One of their main roles on behalf of their masters is to disrupt the EU as much as possible, but they have to carry out other menial tasks too.

  29. Cornered rat. by mindwanderer · · Score: 2

    I reckon a select number of government officials are shitting bricks not because of what has already been revealed, but what remains. This irrational, dangerous behavior by Cameron tells me that whatever it is, it's huge.

    --
    :wq
  30. Can we stop about Snowden already? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's quite unimportant how much some Edward Snowden has been lying (not so much, it would seem by the way). The salient point is how much your own government has been lying to you, and how much your secret services have been lying to both your government and you. Nobody so far has tried claiming that the released documents were doctored by Snowden. So the veracity of the relevations is not in question.

    Snowden could be a shill for Hitler and that would not be relevant. What is relevant is that your government chooses to be a shill for Hitler, bringing back fascism into the world.

    1. Re:Can we stop about Snowden already? by Kilo+Kilo · · Score: 5, Informative
      Hitler was a National Socialist (leftist) who had the Reichstag burned down. Therefore Obama==Hitler. Wait, what were we talking about? Oh, right. The most transparent administration ever. The AC didn't even mention Obama, he said

      your government chooses to be a shill for Hitler

      Though, being the president and all, he is in a position of responsibility here. And if our govt is acting like Hitler's govt, it's not too much of a stretch to say that the guy in charge can be compared to Hitler. But he didn't actually say that. However, you did call him a racist. Because yelling racist is the easiest way to win an argument...on the internet...with an anonymous coward.

    2. Re:Can we stop about Snowden already? by morgauxo · · Score: 2

      One guy brings out the Hitler card. Another counters with his racist card. I blame Pokemon. Obviously that is where the kidies are learning their communication skills these days.

    3. Re:Can we stop about Snowden already? by Austerity+Empowers · · Score: 2

      Everyone knows that Hitler was Obama's fault.

    4. Re:Can we stop about Snowden already? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Hint: Just because the Nazi party had "Socialist" in its name, doesn't mean it actually was socialist in any way. Get your political compass right.

  31. He IS offering evidence by Bruce66423 · · Score: 5, Informative

    At no point have the people or organisations outed by these allegations claimed his information is fabricated; in effect they've admitted its truth, so there's no libel involved. Given that Snowden DID have access to the data and turned it over promptly, the most likely hypothesis is that it's accurate, and certainly the sight of Obama in practice admitting that the NSA had intercepted Merkel's personal phone calls gives the rest of it credibility. There is a debate to be had as to whether there has been damage to the appropriate data gathering abilities of the intelligence services; that's the argument that is being advanced by both Cameron and Alexander. However their credibility is rather shot given that they've been shown to have misled about it in the past. The Guardian has claimed that it's offered spooks the chance to comment on the material before publication, and that they have been careful to avoid the obviously damaging. Overall it is clear that there has been an abuse of power and that this has been the only way that it has been exposed to the point where something has been done about it (the NSA has stopped intercepting Merkel's phone calls). Coincidence?

  32. Murdoch seeking to get rid of Cameron by this? by Bruce66423 · · Score: 2

    Or if the response of the public is sufficiently negative to this then Cameron may be forced out, so Murdoch gets a better leader for the next election...

  33. The cat's out of the bag already by erroneus · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Unless there is even MORE damaging things which the US and NSA have done.

    More recently, as a form of damage control no doubt, were assertions by both the POTUS and the NSA that the POTUS didn't know about many things. Okay great. If it's true, then shut down the NSA as it is clearly an executive branch activity which is not within the knowledge or control of the executive. "It's not his fault! He didn't know!!" Really? You're that far out of control? And he's not in control?! Get rid of both! That's a pretty damning admission if you ask me.

  34. There is no such thing as 'objective media'. by boorack · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Even if they try their best to do this. Every article, blog post, every news program always reflects point of view of whoever created this content. Even if such person tries his/hers best to be as objective as possible, it is impossible to avoid bias.

    The only truth is what you see yourself which is of course impossible for practical reasons. The second best approximation is to snort though raw footage and original materials. This is very time consuming task and it is also impractical for anyone who is not a professional investigative journalist.

    This brings us to preprocessed and prepackaged information spewed by either mainstream or alternative media. What works for me is to assume that they all have a lot of spin in their content and that every spin doctor uses at least partially true arguments supporting his/her position at first, is quiet about arguments contrary to his/her position and resorts to lies and fabrications only if all other alternatives fail. So I'm trying to read arguments of all adversary sides (US media, european media, russian media, chinese media, iranian media) and then use my head to sort out things - pretty much 'Scherlock style' deduction. Unfortunately this requires some time and effort, which most of people do not want to expend.

    Very unpleasant thing about this is that western media perform very poorly in this regard, especially since run-up to Iraq war. I attribute this to general situation and 'lack of good arguments' on western side - which directly correlates to our latest economic (2008 crash and afterwards) and social (rise of police state) troubles. We now see things going from bad to worse: UK blocking PressTV, UK government forcing Guardian to destroy its computers, now UK PM threatening all newspapers if they do not obey his demands. The same in the US: Obama prosecuting and jailing more than twice as many whistleblowers as all his predecessors combined, US blocking RT, huge assault on journalists, with some of them propably murdered by government thugs to silence and send a message (Michael Hastings). We are certainly not better in this regard than government controlled eastern media and I suspect we might even crossed point of no return in our way have only to strictly controlled, totalitarian media spewing nothing but lies and propaganda.

    1. Re:There is no such thing as 'objective media'. by siddesu · · Score: 2

      There is no such thing as "objective media", but there is a definite and unsubtle difference between media that are influenced by the government in a democratic state, and media that run errands on behalf of a dictator. I'll let you figure out which is which in this case. It ain't very hard.

    2. Re:There is no such thing as 'objective media'. by akinliat · · Score: 2

      Very unpleasant thing about this is that western media perform very poorly in this regard, especially since run-up to Iraq war. I attribute this to general situation and 'lack of good arguments' on western side - which directly correlates to our latest economic (2008 crash and afterwards) and social (rise of police state) troubles.

      I'm not sure it's that complex. Just look at goals. The goal of media outlets in the US/UK has been, for years, to provide entertainment. This is probably most obvious for Fox, but it applies almost universally at this point. The result has been an increasing tendency to identify news channels with market segments (political left, right, or center) and news that is driven by viewer response rather than editorial judgement.

      An unintended (but highly important) consequence of the infotainment model is the power it gives to the subjects of news stories, because actually having the subject on-camera is far more likely to get viewers' attention than reportage from the same old journalist/talking head types. The subjects realize this, and have been limiting that access as a way of rewarding or punishing various news outlets. Combined with the decline of (boring) investigative journalism, this has really put polticians in the driver's seat with regard to their PR management.

      Note: If you're thinking that the above comments don't really apply to newspaper and blog news sources, then consider what sorts of newspapers and blogs have become popular, and what sort of articles they use to draw readership.

  35. Who threatened national security here? by dutchwhizzman · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The PM wants the newspaper to stop publishing because it will be a "threat to national security". Well, maybe they should have thought of that before they did all the things that are now being published. If they'd not done those things and not have been so clumsy with their dirty little secrets, national security wouldn't be at stake now. They clearly brought this problem on themselves and the publishing of these facts is just a symptom of their own threatening national security with their own actions. Don't blame a newspaper for publishing news. Blame the people that did the stupid things that are now being published.

    --
    I was promised a flying car. Where is my flying car?
  36. Re:wrong target by artg · · Score: 4, Informative
    I know they're always ignored and this one fails to attack the most significant points - such as the government's treatment of Snowden as a criminal rather than a whistleblower showing up abuse.

    However, lots of votes will at least make ignoring the call embarrassing. Even the americans are claiming to review the situation.

    http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/51959

  37. Re: No one outside of the NSA knows what Snowden k by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    My main concern is what the NSA is doing to Americans, not what Paraguay may be doing.

  38. Re:wrong target by jalopezp · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I don't know, Ed Milliband is working hard to make sure that doesn't happen.

  39. Technically, as defined by whom ? by Taco+Cowboy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You said, of Snowden ...

    Technically he is a traitor ...

    Would you be so kindly tell us how would you define your term of " Technically " ?

    What Mr. Edward Snowden did was not treacherous to the country of the United States of America.

    No.

    Just because the Obama Administration that called Edward Snowden a "traitor" doesn't make it so.

    --
    Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
  40. Showing his colors might be the goal by Opportunist · · Score: 2

    He just wants to show his master that he's a good puppy.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  41. Re:No one outside of the NSA knows what Snowden kn by TWiTfan · · Score: 4, Insightful

    No one outside the NSA knows what Snowden knows

    Yeah, just him and 4 million other contractors with Top Secret clearance. And their wives, friends, and anyone else they've ever blabbed to. And high ranking military officials, the CIA, any number of Congressmen, State Department officials, etc.

    But, yeah, aside from them--and Snowden--all this stuff is totally contained. Our phone calls, emails, and web browsing histories are safe. And no one could possibly use them for anything illegal or unethical.

    --
    The cow says "Moo." The dog says "Woof." The Timothy says "Thanks, valued customer. We appreciate your input."
  42. Re:Needs to be Japan that releases the docs now by CanadianMacFan · · Score: 2

    I could see New Zealand letting these revelations be published. I keep tabs on one of the papers from there and it has always provided a good balance to the coverage in the Middle East, especially Iraq. Plus NZ isn't afraid to tell the US to get stuffed.

    I can't see Canada being too co-operative in publishing these leaks as long as Harper remains in power. Even after because our economy is so dependant on the American one.

  43. Re:wrong target by lennier · · Score: 2

    However, when you have like 10k nukes, you couldn't point *all* of them at DC or NY...

    Probably not the sub-launched ones, no, you have to put a submarine in position first. You probably could target all of the ICBMs at a single city though. It would waste a lot of warheads because of fratricide, but you would be very sure that it was melted by the time you were finished.

    Also, how does one ``point'' a missile anywhere? (you mean they have the GPS coordinates of most interesting places already in the address book?).

    Very cleverly, and I imagine they do have an 'address book' of sorts.

    They have coordinates, yes. ICBM guidance systems way predate GPS and use inertial guidance based on very accurate gyroscopes, very accurate maps of Earth's gravitational field, and some of the first digital microcomputers which predated even the Apollo guidance computer. The first Minuteman one was 1962, and that was the third generation of US ICBMs. The first US ICBM, the Atlas-A, actually used radio guidance, which had the problem of being able to be jammed from the grond - if you're a James Bond fan, you'll remember this as being a major part of the villain's scheme in the first Bond movie, 1962's Dr No.

    ICBM guidance systems basically are one of the secret projects which built the American computing industry as we know it. Far more than civilian NASA spaceflight, the ICBMs had the real military money and the political will to make advanced miniaturised real-time computing happen.

    --
    You are not a brain: http://books.google.com/books?id=2oV61CeDx-YC