Slashdot Mirror


Leaked Snowden Docs Show Canada's "False Flag" Operations

An anonymous reader writes Documents leaked by NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and The Intercept show the extent to which Communications Security Establishment Canada (CSEC) cooperates with the NSA — and perhaps most interestingly details CSEC's "false flag" operations, whereby cyberattacks are designed and carried out with the intention of attribution to another individual, group or nation state. The revelations come in the midst of Canadian controversy regarding the C-51 anti-terrorism bill.

202 comments

  1. Spies are sneaky by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Say it ain't so.

    1. Re:Spies are sneaky by jellomizer · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Security vs. Liberty, It is always a tradeoff. And basicly we as a culture doesn't want to accept that reality.
      If you want the liberty without people spying on you, you will need to be brave enough as an overall population to say, I am willing to accept the Risks to our safety so we can have our liberty. Or if you want to stay secure, we as a population will need to say, We want to be safe, and are willing to trade our liberty for it.

      America like to say Land of the Free and Home of the brave. You need to be brave and accept the risks to be free. The more we cower in fear that the popular bad guys of the time will get us, either being the native americans, british, anarchist, communists, terrorists... The more liberties we lose. Or we stand up an say we are willing to take the risks, even it it means those guys will sneak in, but we will have more liberties.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    2. Re:Spies are sneaky by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I would rather be less safe and free.

    3. Re:Spies are sneaky by jythie · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but we can still be annoyed with their actions.

    4. Re:Spies are sneaky by jythie · · Score: 2

      There is often a trade off, but it is not inherent. Security and Liberty are not diametrically opposed, but that false dilemma has proven an effective way to package power grabs.

    5. Re:Spies are sneaky by king+neckbeard · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's not a tradeoff at all. Our intelligence agencies are likely the biggest threat to our security today. We are giving up liberty to be in more danger.

      --
      This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    6. Re:Spies are sneaky by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Perhaps YOU should move to prison (where you will be 100% safe, monitored and provided for), and the rest of us can be free outside. No need for any of us to travel to shit tier country.

    7. Re:Spies are sneaky by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      mostly right but the trade offs work in three way, not two. its this:

      1. Security
      2. Liberty
      3. Religion

      You can gain any two by eliminating one. Its a great bargain actually when you pick the right one.

    8. Re:Spies are sneaky by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Security vs. Liberty, It is always a tradeoff. And basicly we as a culture doesn't want to accept that reality.
      If you want the liberty without people spying on you, you will need to be brave enough as an overall population to say, I am willing to accept the Risks to our safety so we can have our liberty. Or if you want to stay secure, we as a population will need to say, We want to be safe, and are willing to trade our liberty for it.

      America like to say Land of the Free and Home of the brave. You need to be brave and accept the risks to be free. The more we cower in fear that the popular bad guys of the time will get us, either being the native americans, british, anarchist, communists, terrorists... The more liberties we lose. Or we stand up an say we are willing to take the risks, even it it means those guys will sneak in, but we will have more liberties.

      This would be valid if the governments weren't constantly manufacturing "bad guys" in order to scare the population. None of them exist, and if they do they are usually created by these bastards. Not to mention that they own the media and have unlimited ability to drum up fear. We are separated intentionally, divided, and kept from ever banding together to say "We will accept the risks."

    9. Re:Spies are sneaky by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Problem is we aren't getting any security for our sacrificed liberty. We're tanking our economy on pointless wars and runaway "security" spending that virtually every indication suggests is actually making us less secure. We're sacrificing civil rights (privacy, trial, property, etc) and instead of going after terrorists they're using the laws to go after low level drug dealers/users and "malcontents" (see Snowden, reporters, etc).

    10. Re:Spies are sneaky by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I've always thought that those who want security over liberty live in fear. They are afraid all out of proportion to actual threat and that illogical cowardice is hoisted upon the rest of us. Fingers twitching on gun triggers and shaking in the darkness of fear is no way to live life.

    11. Re:Spies are sneaky by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Informative

      It's not a trade-off. This kind of operation makes you less safe while intruding on your freedom. Removing it is a win-win-win situation if you also count the economic part of it.

    12. Re:Spies are sneaky by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 3, Insightful

      There is no such thing as absolute safety, just as there is no such thing as absolute freedom. The closest you can get to that is to live alone on an abandoned island ir in an abandoned mine. And even then, Mother Nature is a b*tch. The whole "one or the other" argument is just a false dichotomy, acerbated by people who are motivated to present unrealistic arguments to further their own agendas or beliefs.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    13. Re:Spies are sneaky by shaitand · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "Security vs. Liberty, It is always a tradeoff."

      It's a trade I for one don't care to make. But this isn't just spying, this is creating fake attacks against our nation to make people THINK they are unsafe and trade away their liberty to the very groups that present the only real threat to it!

    14. Re:Spies are sneaky by O('_')O_Bush · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Perhaps you should move to North Korea.

      --
      while(1) attack(People.Sandy);
    15. Re:Spies are sneaky by facetube · · Score: 5, Interesting

      And, in the US technology industry, it's one of the biggest threats to our ability to compete effectively in a global economy. When a giant company like Cisco is looking at ways to avoid shipping hardware directly from the US to keep its international customers, you know something's wrong.

    16. Re:Spies are sneaky by LWATCDR · · Score: 0

      The fact that you can post this shows that your fears are at best exaggerated.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    17. Re:Spies are sneaky by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Security vs. Liberty, It is always a tradeoff.

      Not always. This very article is an example of harming security for the purpose of reducing liberty.

    18. Re:Spies are sneaky by l0ungeb0y · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Or we stand up an say we are willing to take the risks, even it it means those guys will sneak in, but we will have more liberties.

      We are past the point of merely saying anything. We are to the point where only an outright civil war will stop our slide into a Totalitarian Police State.

    19. Re:Spies are sneaky by TheCycoONE · · Score: 2, Insightful

      No, it would be more detrimental to their efforts if they stopped king neckbeard from posting than if they allow him to continue when the general populous doesn't care or considers him paranoid. Kinda like how CSIS monitors all the file upload sites but doesn't report people for copyright infringement (they talked about having to sift through episodes of glee).

      Incidentally these silly little freedoms, to talk in a voice that isn't heard, to buy and share entertainment, and the ability to choose a Jesus fish or flying spaghetti monster for their back bumper is all most 'free world' citizens care about.

    20. Re:Spies are sneaky by diamondmagic · · Score: 1

      On the contrary, freedom is pretty well defined even in contexts of two or more people, it's just a whole lot more difficult to enforce (and study) than a "Crusoe" economy since there's literally nothing that one person can do by themselves to violate one's rights.

      The addition of another person to the Crusoe economy is how economists study the origin of natural rights. Crusoe's welfare could improve because of comparative advantage; or it could fail, say, if he were attacked.

      Society is basically adding a bunch more people to a much bigger island and studying the limit as n approaches infinity.

      Just because it's difficult to study, doesn't mean 'absolute freedom' doesn't/can't exist.

    21. Re:Spies are sneaky by king+neckbeard · · Score: 1, Funny

      or that the American government has the slightest inkling about trying to not be conspicuous.

      --
      This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    22. Re:Spies are sneaky by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Security for whom, by whom, Liberty for which? Once you excommunicate yourself from your nation-state subjugation, reality becomes much clearer.

    23. Re:Spies are sneaky by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Also, we America's could stop being such dicks to the rest of the world and maybe less people would be pissed off at us and our allies.

    24. Re:Spies are sneaky by king+neckbeard · · Score: 1

      I seem to be having trouble posting ATM, so perhaps there are some helicopters waiting to swoop me up . Pre-preemptive apologies if this all appears several times when /. gets it together.

      --
      This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    25. Re:Spies are sneaky by king+neckbeard · · Score: 1

      I actually can't seem to post right now. Probably just /. issue, but I'm looking for black helicopters.

      --
      This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    26. Re:Spies are sneaky by king+neckbeard · · Score: 1

      I actually have been having difficulty posting. /. incompetence or grand conspiracy?

      --
      This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    27. Re:Spies are sneaky by KamikazeSquid · · Score: 2, Insightful

      where you will be 100% safe

      Sounds like you've never been to prison.

    28. Re:Spies are sneaky by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I actually seem to be unable to post atm. Could be a conspiracy, although it is most likely just crappy /. code.

    29. Re:Spies are sneaky by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      People generally understand that just fine. The problem is, various groups seem to be trying very hard to influence the majority's perception of the ideal tradeoff. They're doing that by misrepresenting the danger.

    30. Re:Spies are sneaky by aralin · · Score: 2

      Yes, that has been the US mantra. You have a freedom of speech. But the thing is, you don't. Post of slashdot does not matter at all and where the speech matters, there it is viciously prosecuted. And if you did nothing wrong, well, everybody did something wrong. But even if you did not, who will question the authorities when they said they found a HDD full of child porn on your computer? Or that they find out you were enabling payment system for drug dealers? You will get railroaded and it won't even look political. That is how US operates. It leaves people to speak their mind because it does not matter. They can shout themselves to death. They just need to nab the few leaders of any of such effort, jail them on drug charges and are done with it. Or would you want to say that you mean to do some action beyond the words? No. You won't.

      All it takes when the discussion heats up is sending couple trolls like you, who will start to peddle the freedom of speech argument and people will think: "Well, its not so bad when they let me say all those bad things about them." They just need a reason to justify for themselves why they do nothing about it. And you are conveniently supplying it.

      --
      If programs would be read like poetry, most programmers would be Vogons.
    31. Re:Spies are sneaky by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      I hope people aren't basing their studies on freedom based on a work of fiction. If you're going to do that, why not pick Lord of the Flies?

      Or if you want to base it on reality, Black Like Me.

      Just because it's difficult to study, doesn't mean 'absolute freedom' doesn't/can't exist.

      There is no such thing. Everyone is constrained in what they can do. You might want to fly like Superman, but physics and biology say it's not going to happen. Or you might want to lgo to a live Beatles concert. Nature kind of limits your freedom to.

      "Absolute" is a very dangerous word.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    32. Re:Spies are sneaky by wisnoskij · · Score: 0

      I think the legislation shows that people accept that they must accept limitations of their freedom in the name of added security. If they were in denial people would not be so willing to accept any and all limitations.

      --
      Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
    33. Re:Spies are sneaky by diamondmagic · · Score: 1

      I hope people aren't basing their studies on freedom based on a work of fiction. If you're going to do that, why not pick Lord of the Flies?

      Or if you want to base it on reality, Black Like Me.

      It's an analogy. Come on now.

      It's the same thing when physicists think about cats in boxes with poison, or spherical cows. It settles fundamental questions.

      There is no such thing. Everyone is constrained in what they can do. You might want to fly like Superman, but physics and biology say it's not going to happen. Or you might want to lgo to a live Beatles concert. Nature kind of limits your freedom to.

      "Absolute" is a very dangerous word.

      I can get sufficiently close to flying to satisfy my desires, thank you very much.

      No one was ever talking about omnipotence. We mean liberty.

      Out of all the choices a person could make, what is the subset of things that are right to do? One person on an island, everything. Two people on an island, less than everything, but still well-defined. Person A can't physically attack person B, or steal their stash of coconuts, and so on.

    34. Re:Spies are sneaky by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      " They just need to nab the few leaders of any of such effort, jail them on drug charges and are done with it. Or would you want to say that you mean to do some action beyond the words? No. You won't."
      Wow that is down right scary... maybe you should not not post such things or you might get busted...
      That is just it name any leader" that has had that happen to them.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    35. Re:Spies are sneaky by HiThereImBob · · Score: 1

      And, in the US technology industry, it's one of the biggest threats to our ability to compete effectively in a global economy. When a giant company like Cisco is looking at ways to avoid shipping hardware directly from the US to keep its international customers, you know something's wrong.

      Agreed on the fact that the NSA is causing significant damage to the US tech sector in general, but I didn't really buy this story. Cisco's headquarters are in the US, but their manufacturing facilities aren't. I know they have plants in the Czech Rep, China, India, Russia (soon), recently closed some in Mexico, etc. If they are so worried about the NSA intercepting their shipments, why not just ship them from the factory / distributor in that country? Why bring them anywhere near the US Mail system?

    36. Re:Spies are sneaky by ArcherB · · Score: 1, Interesting

      It's not a tradeoff at all. Our intelligence agencies are likely the biggest threat to our security today. We are giving up liberty to be in more danger.

      You are confusing privacy with liberty. While I view I have a right to a certain level of privacy, it has no effect on my liberty.

      For example, if I were to strap a camera to my head and stream my life 24/7 onto the web, am I any less free than I was before? No, even though I had given up 100% of my privacy. My liberty would only be limited if I limited it myself. For example, if i decided not to view porn because the camera on my head would broadcast it and the whole world would know that I'm into midget-barbarian porn.

      Liberty is diminished, however, when that lack of privacy is used against you. For example, if the state puts a GPS on your car and sends you a fine every time you exceeded the speed limit, your liberty would obviously be diminished. Or if the state put a camera in your bedroom and arrested you for masturbating in an unapproved manner.

      Privacy is nothing more than the securing of information. Information has nothing to do with liberty. However, it could be used to restrict freedom.

      --
      There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
    37. Re: Spies are sneaky by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or that he knows that even in such a constrained environment one cannot guarantee safety.

    38. Re:Spies are sneaky by aralin · · Score: 1

      I know how the story goes. I name people, then you say that is exception, so I name 3 more, you say that means nothing, it is still rare, so I name more and you say that well, Russia is still worse. There is always going to be some argument with you that will make it seem like everything is just fine. I don't care. If you are a troll, it won't stop you from trolling, if you are really a concerned citizen, you can do your own research and you will trust that more than you'd trust me here anyway.

      --
      If programs would be read like poetry, most programmers would be Vogons.
    39. Re:Spies are sneaky by king+neckbeard · · Score: 1

      That's a ridiculous argument, as surveillance has a chilling effect. It's not a hard restriction of freedom, but that doesn't really make a difference, and soft restrictions are easier to hide and deny.

      --
      This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    40. Re:Spies are sneaky by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "hey peter....watch your cornhole man."

    41. Re:Spies are sneaky by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Spies? Don't you mean "The government is sneaky,"? The intelligence agencies are the apparatus by which the government secures its position, and here they are, caught with their hand in the cookie jar, but you're blaming what would have to be rogue spies? You are a fool.

    42. Re:Spies are sneaky by PopeRatzo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I am willing to accept the Risks to our safety so we can have our liberty.

      I don't know where the fuck you been, but people have been saying that since the Patriot Act was rammed through congress and signed by Bush.

      Take a look around you. People are over 9/11. They've internalized the fact that you're more likely to die of auto-erotic asphyxiation than by the hands of a terrorist. Hell, you're way more likely to be killed by a conceal/carry goofball who thinks more guns equals less crime or some half-bright "Oath Keeper" with more ammo than brains than you are by some Muslim extremist. People put up with the militarized barneys every fucking place because they've got fucking guns. But every time I fly or go to a basketball or hockey game, I hear plenty of voices say, in no uncertain terms, that this is bullshit and they're tired of this phony security theater. Yeah, we'll take the risk.

      Further, they're also tired of the phony security theater that says that having a bunch of US military propping up a corrupt drug lord in Afghanistan or rattling sabers at anybody who represents a political inconvenience to Bibi Netanyahu is in any way keeping the US safer. People got the memo that the entire security/intelligence/military apparatus of the United States exists only to perpetuate itself. We haven't fought a war for US security or liberty in the lifetime of anyone alive today.

      Maybe somewhere, there's some huddled neo-con think tank where they're quaking in their boots over every brown person who resides in an oil producing region, but other than that, yeah, we'll take the risk.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    43. Re:Spies are sneaky by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      I know how the story goes. I name people, then you say that is exception, so I name 3 more, you say that means nothing,

      I promise not to do that. Please name some names, if you really believe what you say.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    44. Re:Spies are sneaky by sjames · · Score: 1

      That argument only works when replying to an extremist. For example someone who never met a regulation he liked. Someone who wants to move the 'slider' a bit one way or the other, not so much.

      In cases like this where the 'safety' is far from established but the cost to freedom is shown (even if a few steps out), it's even less appropriate.

    45. Re:Spies are sneaky by sjames · · Score: 1

      It completely misses the aspect of positive freedoms. The conditions that maximise the negative freedoms (that is, rights to have others NOT do something) are often dismal for the positive freedoms. For example, Crusoe had it made as far as people not telling him he could not shout obscenities at 3 A.M. But reading whatever he wants? A bit hard when nobody is writing anything he can get to.

    46. Re:Spies are sneaky by ahabswhale · · Score: 1

      Everyone says this until one of their loved ones is killed in a terrorist attack. It's so easy to be brave until it happens to you.

      --
      Are agnostics skeptical of unicorns too?
    47. Re:Spies are sneaky by ckatko · · Score: 1

      Generation X gave way to Generation D for Denial.

      Too bad they forgot:

      People who bury their heads in the sand, drown when the tide comes in.

    48. Re:Spies are sneaky by tnk1 · · Score: 1

      What activist has been subjected to that treatment that you know of?

    49. Re:Spies are sneaky by ArcherB · · Score: 1

      That's a ridiculous argument, as surveillance has a chilling effect. It's not a hard restriction of freedom, but that doesn't really make a difference, and soft restrictions are easier to hide and deny.

      First, don't think that I'm supporting spying on the general population. However, I don't feel it is the information that is bad, but what governments will do with it. For example, I don't see Google doing anything bad with the data they have on me. Yes, it's an invasion on my privacy, but frankly, I don't really care. What can they do? However, I can see governments abusing the data, especially given the recent IRS scandal where the government used information to punish groups opposing the president.

      As for the "chilling" aspect of it, it's only a problem if 1) You know about it, and 2) You let it.

      I can't say that a secret invasion of privacy limits my freedom in any way. How could it? I had no idea. That's not to say that it won't be used to limit my freedoms later. Everyone at one point or another is against the powers in Washington. Today, it's conservatives. In a few years, it will be liberals. Libertarians scare the bejeezus out of both parties.

      --
      There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
    50. Re:Spies are sneaky by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That makes no sense at all. Why would the anger of those grieving be directed at giving those in power even more power? What makes sense is that people will want a response, not that they will want stupid responses that involve even more limits to freedom. The stupid response of government is merely dressed up as an appeasement. And if there is anything that requires bravery, it is living without freedom. Living with freedom is the opposite: it is life-fulfilling. It is the complicated social limits of society that cause stress and concern, and inhibit the bravery of man.

    51. Re:Spies are sneaky by Livius · · Score: 1

      Security vs. Liberty, It is always a tradeoff.

      Wrong. If you're not paying attention it's easy to lose both at the same time.

    52. Re:Spies are sneaky by aralin · · Score: 1

      Here are several links that are public knowledge. I know some cases personally, which I don't want to mention because I don't want to get associated with them publicly. There is more than 200 names in these lists:

      http://www.thejerichomovement....
      http://www.voxfux.com/features...
      https://denverabc.wordpress.co...
      http://www.amnestyusa.org/our-...

      I am not even including any of the whistleblowers or the Guantanamo prisoners in this list. But both of those categories are political prisoners.

      --
      If programs would be read like poetry, most programmers would be Vogons.
    53. Re:Spies are sneaky by aralin · · Score: 1

      If you want a bit more background on defending and prosecuting political prisoners, I would suggest to read this article from Harvard Law:

      http://www.law.harvard.edu/stu...

      Those links are also very interesting read:

      http://www.pjvoice.com/v52/520...
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L...

      --
      If programs would be read like poetry, most programmers would be Vogons.
    54. Re:Spies are sneaky by mjwx · · Score: 1

      I would rather be less safe and free.

      Often you dont have to give up essential liberty for essential safety. The key is in also being an accepting society. It becomes harder and harder for a malicious person to hide when the average person does not feel the need to hide a lot of details about themselves (please note, this is not a "if you have nothing to hide" argument, its about people feeling secure to be themselves without the fear of societal judgement).

      The problem is, politicians know that fear sells. So they use fear to get through what would ordinarily be unpopular and unacceptable laws.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    55. Re:Spies are sneaky by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you posted 3 times saying you were having trouble posting, I think there may indeed be some incompetence here, I'm not convinced it can be levelled at /.

    56. Re:Spies are sneaky by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      That's good stuff. I'm glad I asked and I'm glad you shared those links.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    57. Re:Spies are sneaky by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Everyone says this until one of their loved ones is killed in a terrorist attack. It's so easy to be brave until it happens to you.

      If everyone said (and meant) this until one of their loved ones was killed in a terrorist attack, we wouldn't be in this mess. Terrorist attacks are so rare that the understandable irrationality or their victims would not be driving policy.

      Instead we have policy driven by folks who seem to think that the likelihood of being killed in a terrorist attack is greater than (for instance) the likelihood of being accidentally killed by fireworks (fireworks death is 9 times more likely) and want the equivalent of a war on fireworks manufacturing and use and a surveillance apparatus capable of knowing if anyone is thinking about buying or using fireworks.

      Terrorism is so far down on the list of dangers in a modern society that it would make more sense to allow the government to monitor and control everyone's daily diet to prevent heart attacks than to give up ANY privacy or freedom to prevent terrorist attacks.

    58. Re: Spies are sneaky by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well said.

    59. Re:Spies are sneaky by diamondmagic · · Score: 1

      I don't like those terms, the distinction between "negative" and "positive" freedoms tends to be a way of explaining people's mis-use of the terms.

      They're properly called liberty and entitlement, respectively. And they're mutually exclusive.

      e.g. Crusoe can't be forced to stop reading, nor can he force others to provide him something to read (especially hard to do when those people don't exist, as you point out).

    60. Re:Spies are sneaky by sjames · · Score: 1

      Entitlement is a word used mostly by people who don't believe in positive rights. For example, do you have a positive right to defend yourself or is it an entitlement?

      Note that entitlement would be an acceptable term for positive rights except for the unwarranted negative connotation it has been given of late.

    61. Re:Spies are sneaky by Cederic · · Score: 1

      Oddly no. One reason so few people die to terrorist incidents is that there's a lot of time and effort expended on preventing and mitigating against them.

      A sensible balance is needed. There is a risk, it does need to be addressed, but it doesn't justify ubiquitous surveillance, blanket restrictions on movement, prevention of free speech or extrajudicial punishments.

    62. Re:Spies are sneaky by neo256 · · Score: 1

      Because US intelligence have been known to do stuff outside borders anyway?
      Guantanamo Bay detention camp is a perfect example.

      If we can't do it within the borders, we do it somewhere else where the laws we don't want to abide by do not apply.
      If they want to wedge themselves between the delivery of packages of every US based company, they will probably just 'leverage' (and by that I mean threat) a country to accept laws for the US to do so and maybe even in secret.

      This whole thing has gone wide and far. The whole notion of 'trying to get security at cost of EVERYTHING' has gone up and over. If we can get the data, they can also. If everything is encrypted, secured and unknown. You can probably say that at least your data and private lives are 'safe'. If we are talking about practical safety as in 'can I safely walk the streets without harm becoming me', consider the following. If everyone is scared and wants to protect themselves, means everyone is that hair threat away from unleashing hell.
      This works on person to person level, groups, regions, counties and continents. Everyone suspects everybody, no one can be trusted, everyone is armed and scared to dead. You think that safety and certainty can grow under such conditions? The only way you can achieve that is if you are oppressing everyone else and making them scared. But that doesn't work on a planet with more then 7 billion people, because their will be a smart guy, a strong guy and a nut job that will take offense to your open declaration of war and fight you for it.

      The only way for everyone to coexist (and this is not a tree huger statement) I actually believe that if we can understand each other, trust one another, have equel rights and at least the same chances and I'm not talking about giving everyone a bunch of money, I'm talking about education, chance on a job, a house and a life. Then people with eventually accept that and the more stable it is the more they are prone to accept the current status quo.

      The whole western world works on this last principle. We do not burn the city down the moment we do not get what we want. People come up with ideas and solutions. If we do not get heard we protest. And more times then not we come up with a solution that satisfies 'most people'. No you can not make every one happy. But if you get 5 out of the 100 things you want. A concession on 50 more and you can live with at least 40 more. Then the last bits are not worth the hassle involved by risking everything to try and change that.

      I think a free unrestricted internet for everyone can help. Because when I can freely talk I can speak my mind. Tell you why I think we should change things. Everytime I do that, your understanding of how this person of this part of the world feels about the subject creates understanding. At one point groups of people will change their behavior and assumptions over one another and accept their are differences, but also so many things that have been and will always be the same. We want room to drive our passions and express our ideas and thoughts. We want stability so we can live and keep living in relative safety. And with relative is that we take acceptable risks. I can die in a car accident tomorrow. I will not fret over it today, because my car is checked, (almost) everyone has a drivers license, roads are looked after etc etc. Layers of understanding of the parts at play that have been worked out and looked after to make sure they can work in a place where MILLIONS of people live together. All of them unique in their many ways, but also the same in many other ways too.

      If your answer to have a binoculars in one hand a riffle in the other trusting that you information and understanding of the world will make you lethal enough to survive. You will find the other guy thought the same thing before, during and after he pulled the trigger fighting for his own version of mostly the same story.

      EO rant

    63. Re:Spies are sneaky by rhazz · · Score: 1

      Because those grieving believe that the tragedy could have been avoided if the authorities had more power. They would trade much for the assurances that this could not happen again. The sister of the single casualty in Ottawa's attack last year is making this argument for bill C-51.
      http://www.cbc.ca/news/politic...

    64. Re:Spies are sneaky by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oddly no. One reason so few people die to terrorist incidents is that there's a lot of time and effort expended on preventing and mitigating against them.

      A sensible balance is needed. There is a risk, it does need to be addressed, but it doesn't justify ubiquitous surveillance, blanket restrictions on movement, prevention of free speech or extrajudicial punishments.

      I see several problems with that approach.

      1. Using the possible number of lives lost in an unknown number of prevented events as an indicator of the level of risk leads to risk assessments based on fear instead of actual data. The risk is almost infinite in that case and can be used to justify the most intrusive measures.

      2. Ubiquitous surveillance is already here. (Who expected that some secret judge would decide that the calling data of everyone in the country was relevant to a terrorist investigation? The same law that allows the collection of telephone calling records applies to ANY business records. Watching what EVERYONE does and RECORDING IT is the very definition of ubiquitous surveillance.) And it's up to its opponents to justify its removal. That means even small reductions of surveillance must be weighed against almost infinite increases in perceived risk.

      3. Surveillance techniques we don't know about yet do not have to be balanced against even overly inflated perceived risk.

      The scales have been tipped too far by fear for this balancing act to work.
      Instead we need a principled approach to safety, liberty and privacy. I'm suggesting one principle should be that the privacy and liberty of the general public should not be sacrificed to prevent events less likely to kill a member of the general public than a bolt of lightening.

    65. Re:Spies are sneaky by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      You refuse to give examples because someone might disagree with your conclusions...
      And that ends any credibility you might have had.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    66. Re: Spies are sneaky by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well put

    67. Re:Spies are sneaky by danagin · · Score: 1

      It's not security vs liberty. Though one takes away from the other, not many people would want an absolute one of either. Police take away my liberty to rob you in the street. That's a liberty that as part of our social contract with each other that we've decided for security over liberty.
      What many people have been tricked into believing is that if you have two opposing ideas, that there should be an absolute of one or the other. When that happens the argument goes no where and things carry on the way they were headed. And we're headed into a terrifying direction for mankind if we can't start having intelligent conversations about these topics.

      In this article for example, we are talking about a nation of elected officials not only lying, but committing fraud to and on behalf of their constituents. Because of the national discussion around the spying revelations, the conversation gets mixed up in that. Many people don't care about the spying and are tired of hearing about the potential dangers that they don't believe will come. What those people fail to realize, is that this topic is one of those potential dangers. Not only are they lying to us now, they are fabricating events to meet their goals.

      What happens when it's too late, and people realize how messed up things are and speak up about it. Only to have some truth fabricated about them to have them discredited, imprisoned, or even murdered.

      There needs to be a new universally enforced bill of rights that protects us from the possibility of creating the most effective global authoritarian government this world has ever seen.

    68. Re:Spies are sneaky by Methadras · · Score: 1

      Bullshit, liberty must be preeminent. There should never be a trade-off. Find other ways that don't infringe on liberties. Enough with nanny stating the masses. I want to be free because I know that I also can be brave (i hope) in the face of the enemy. I just don't want that enemy to be my own countrymen.

    69. Re:Spies are sneaky by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But every time I fly or go to a basketball or hockey game, I hear plenty of voices say, in no uncertain terms, that this is bullshit and they're tired of this phony security theater.

      Every time you fly or go to a HSA secured event, you vote VERY LOUDLY IN NO UNCERTAIN TERMS that you are far from tired and agree with this BS.

      Hell, you're way more likely to be killed by a conceal/carry goofball who thinks more guns equals less crime or some half-bright "Oath Keeper" with more ammo than brains than you are by some Muslim extremist.

      Evidence? Real stats? I'll disregard the qualifiers ("thinks more guns equals less crime", "more ammo than brains") because I'm charitable. Let's stick to "killed by" either "Oath Keeper" or a "conceal/carry" (legal, which I think is a fair qualifier given the context). You also have to get stats for "killed by" the "some Muslim extremist" you mentioned. For purposes of this discussion, "extremist" will be determined by whether or not it was a non-rape/non-theft, murder of a stranger. That can be refocused if needed.

      I'll wait 3 days.

    70. Re:Spies are sneaky by coolguy43 · · Score: 1

      They really are. I've asked what is a native english speaker at http://preply.com/en/skype/eng... and usually the spies are from their homeland with their own motivation.

    71. Re:Spies are sneaky by shaitand · · Score: 1

      "Oddly no. One reason so few people die to terrorist incidents is that there's a lot of time and effort expended on preventing and mitigating against them."

      There is absolutely no evidence to support that claim. As anti-terrorism efforts have heightened since 9/11 there has been an increase in terrorism from pre-9/11 not a reduction.

  2. No wonder the Canadian Flag... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    is covered in blood red with nine swords as the logo.

    1. Re:No wonder the Canadian Flag... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      *nine bladed sword

    2. Re:No wonder the Canadian Flag... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      is covered in blood red with nine swords as the logo.

      I count 12 guns...

    3. Re:No wonder the Canadian Flag... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      False flag ops? I knew it was the Canadians that hacked Sony.

      Yeah, they are all, "you betcha" to your face, but you can't trust those ones.

  3. 'In Canada's Interest' Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Sounds like outsourcing labour to from the US so that a third party catches flack for it should it go south. Canada, who basically has few natural enemies, could end up with a kick me sign on its back because of this.

    1. Re:'In Canada's Interest' Really? by gl4ss · · Score: 4, Insightful

      it's doubleception. canada could have blamed some other party after getting caught for trying to frame other party.

      now, framing individuals? that's war talk.

      I just wish other countries would already learn up and stop sending anyone into usa for being prosecuted for cybercrime. the fuck anyone can know who they framed or whatever, just as excercise...

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    2. Re:'In Canada's Interest' Really? by jenningsthecat · · Score: 0

      Sounds like outsourcing labour to from the US so that a third party catches flack for it should it go south. Canada, who basically has few natural enemies, could end up with a kick me sign on its back because of this.

      We Canadians already have a 'kick me' sign on our backs, courtesy of our Prime Minister's insistence on following the US example of poking its nose into places where it doesn't belong. And he keeps making the sign bigger and more taunting. I have yet to figure out whether it's because he has a 'Me too!' inferiority complex, is inherently stupid and/or evil, or is a tool of the corporations that benefit from war and from a compliant populace. Possibly a combination of the above, with perhaps a dash of some other psychological and/or intellectual defects yet to be determined.

      --
      'The Economy' is a giant Ponzi scheme whose most pitiable suckers are the youngest among us and the yet-unborn.
    3. Re:'In Canada's Interest' Really? by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      You're thinking too hard. Harper wants to sell stuff, primarily oil. The US is the biggest customer. If they keep getting into wars, they're an even bigger customer! So helping them kick over hornets' nests is good for everyone!

    4. Re:'In Canada's Interest' Really? by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 1

      Canada has plenty of natural enemies, but don't worry as the polar ice pack melts most of those will drown. Then they will just have to worry about the brown bears instead of also the polar bears.

      --
      Time to offend someone
    5. Re:'In Canada's Interest' Really? by gstoddart · · Score: 1

      I just wish other countries would already learn up and stop sending anyone into usa for being prosecuted for cybercrime

      Essentially, this.

      As soon as US law enforcement started using parallel construction (otherwise known as perjury with permission) ... nobody in the world should ever trust a damned thing claimed by US law enforcement.

      They can, and will, lie and manipulate their data to make all sorts of things look true.

      I'm afraid it's never going to happen, but claims by a US law enforcement agency should be treated as if they're lies ... because they probably are.

      And any extradition request is likely to be so much crap, designed to intimidate people they don't like.

      Sadly, American "law enforcement" has demonstrated the US is now more or less a banana republic where the police make up the law, and lie about how they arrived at any conclusions.

      Land of the free? Yeah, right.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
  4. hmmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    This story isn't coming out too long after the whole doxing American soldiers thing. It makes you wonder.

    1. Re:hmmm by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      Not really. It only confirms suspicions.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
  5. I'm disappointed in Canada by Chrisq · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Yes I'd expect this from the USA or the UK. But I thought Canada was better than that

    1. Re:I'm disappointed in Canada by Mashiki · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This has happened before, it's one of the reasons why CSIS exists and is no longer under the umbrella of the RCMP and why an investigative committee exists which examines all CSIS actions. I expect the same to happen to CSEC, it may take a few years but it'll happen.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    2. Re:I'm disappointed in Canada by phayes · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yes Candide, nations all around the world have spies that are performing espionage so you can be expect to be disappointed by every nation on earth larger than Monaco, Andorra or Lichtenstein (though I'm not so sure about the last three either...).

      --
      Democracy is a sheep and two wolves deciding what to have for lunch. Freedom is a well armed sheep contesting the issue
    3. Re:I'm disappointed in Canada by bhcompy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This is the worst type of behavior. Hopefully it's not true. Plotting against your own citizens for gains, whether it's political, monetary, or whatever, is worthy of revolution

    4. Re:I'm disappointed in Canada by Thanshin · · Score: 4, Funny

      I'm ready to believe it was all USA, posing as Canada posing as other countries, on its "double false flag" operations.

    5. Re:I'm disappointed in Canada by king+neckbeard · · Score: 5, Insightful

      That doesn't mean that we need to accept it, though.

      --
      This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    6. Re:I'm disappointed in Canada by Thanshin · · Score: 4, Funny

      Monaco is so chock full of spies you could cross the country, leaping from spy-car to spy-car without ever touching the ground.

    7. Re:I'm disappointed in Canada by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yes Candide, nations all around the world have spies that are performing espionage

      There is a pretty big difference between performing espionage and doing a false flag operation.
      A false flag operation actively tries to destabilize the relationship between other nations. (Or in the case when you use your host nation as a target, to trick the own population to accept certain infringements on freedom/democracy.)
      Neither case is really something where you can say "boys will be boys" and move on. The first case leads to a lot of hate and distrust between nations, the second case is treason.

    8. Re:I'm disappointed in Canada by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      remember ? you're either with us or against us. i wonder why in all NSA discussions never did anyone ask about the potential to alter packages to make others look evil ?

    9. Re:I'm disappointed in Canada by dwillden · · Score: 1

      There is a pretty big difference between performing espionage and doing a false flag operation.
      A false flag operation actively tries to destabilize the relationship between other nations. </quote>
      No a false flag operation plays on the friendship of two nations to allow a third to collect information. A and B are friends, A does not like C. C sends an agent claiming to be from B. The agent is thus able to collect the information on/from A because A thinks he is from B. That is a false flag op. It can destabilize relationships but that is not the active goal or target.

      --
      I'm too lazy to compose a creative sig.
    10. Re:I'm disappointed in Canada by BENthesoundman · · Score: 2

      Canada: the source of and cause of most of America's problems.

    11. Re:I'm disappointed in Canada by DarkOx · · Score: 2

      No a false flag operation is pretty much any operation where one of its principle objectives is the miss-attribution of the action to another party.

      Suppose Bob hates Alice, and Bob also hates Ted who does not care about Alice one way or the other but similarly despises Bob. Ted might attack Bob under the flag of Alice, in hopes Bob will go to war with Alice. Bob will consume his resources fighting with Alice; perhaps to Ted's economic advantage or maybe so Ted can attack a further weakened Bob later.

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    12. Re:I'm disappointed in Canada by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      FTFA : "The ‘deception tactics’ outlined by the documents include ‘false flag’ techniques, carried out in order to ‘create unrest’."

      are you working for CSEC ? just asking

    13. Re:I'm disappointed in Canada by gstoddart · · Score: 3, Informative

      No, a false flag merely attempts to disguise itself as coming from another source ... that's it.

      What you specifically use it for isn't part of the definition.

      Pretty much any reason you can think of why it is advantageous to make people think it was someone other than you is why you might run a false flag.

      You're both assigning arbitrary constraints to a false-flag, and those constraints simply don't exist.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    14. Re:I'm disappointed in Canada by fustakrakich · · Score: 2

      The message that 98% of the voters send with their vote for incumbent political parties says that they do accept it. If people intend to resist, they need to show it.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    15. Re:I'm disappointed in Canada by LWATCDR · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Every nation will spy to the best of it's ability and within the limits of it's self interest.
      This has been true since the beginning of recorded history.

      The fact that people find this shocking is what is so bizarre to me. The original heroes of computer science where spying. Bletchley park's function was to spy. You spy in wartime to win you spy in peacetime to prevent war.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    16. Re: I'm disappointed in Canada by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You don't "need" to "accept" anything. You simply have no choice whatsoever and you never will. If you protest you will be ignored if you're lucky, punished if you are not. Get over it, part of the process of growing up is the painful understanding that the world is shaped by bigger forces than us and that we cannot do anything against them.

    17. Re:I'm disappointed in Canada by phayes · · Score: 1

      You could also attempt to signal your disapproval of the degradations performed by oxidation in the atmosphere by refusing to breathe.

      Do let us all know how that works out for you...

      --
      Democracy is a sheep and two wolves deciding what to have for lunch. Freedom is a well armed sheep contesting the issue
    18. Re:I'm disappointed in Canada by phayes · · Score: 1

      What? Publicly stating on /. that we do NOT approve is insufficient?!?

      --
      Democracy is a sheep and two wolves deciding what to have for lunch. Freedom is a well armed sheep contesting the issue
    19. Re:I'm disappointed in Canada by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "to cause unrest" is the authors attempt to spin it as abnormal.

      Are you in grade school to be so unable to distinguish between facts & media spin? Just asking...

    20. Re:I'm disappointed in Canada by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Every nation has as it "spy apparatus" a cadre of energetic younge men with a lot of stupid ideas, egos to prove, and who enjoy elaborate practical jokes. There isn't any logic here, beyond the logic of giving someone a wedgie.

      Has there been a single intelligence program in the last 30 years that has delivered concrete results of benefit to the USA? What kind of ethos to do you think the people working in such a pointless endevour develop?

    21. Re:I'm disappointed in Canada by mu51c10rd · · Score: 2

      Canada is a "five eyes" country. I expect the same from the UK, Australia, and New Zealand. They and the US work quite closely in the world of intelligence.

    22. Re:I'm disappointed in Canada by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually it was triple-flag: Canadians pretending to be Americans pretending to be Canadians.

    23. Re:I'm disappointed in Canada by king+neckbeard · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Or, you spy in peacetime to create war. Wars usually are the results of growing internal or external tensions, and any country large enough to not be militarily curbstomped in a day has enough restraint to not launch a war without obvious precursors. Plus, spies have a long history of being massive idiots who fuck everything up, which is a good way to cause a war.

      --
      This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    24. Re:I'm disappointed in Canada by king+neckbeard · · Score: 1

      Or, you spy in peacetime to create war. Wars usually are the results of growing internal or external tensions, and any country large enough to not be militarily curbstomped in a day has enough restraint to not launch a war without obvious precursors. Plus, spies have a long history of being massive idiots who fuck everything up, which is a good way to cause a war.

      --
      This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    25. Re:I'm disappointed in Canada by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To be fair, though, can't you just jump over the whole country without the spy cars?

      It's probably like 8ft across at the widest point.

    26. Re:I'm disappointed in Canada by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      The present topic is specifically offensive false-flags. It doesn't matter whether you're using someone else's flag so you can sneak in and do harm, or because you specifically want to frame the third party, either way it's going to damage the original relationship. The story implies it's the latter type anyway.

    27. Re:I'm disappointed in Canada by gstoddart · · Score: 1

      No, the present story basically says they were "designed and carried out with the intention of attribution to another individual, group or nation state" ... as in, anybody but you.

      That is the definition of all false flag operations.

      But for some reason a bunch of people are trying to arbitrarily define false flag in a specific context. I'm saying that's mostly meaningless drivel by people who are trying to arbitrarily define false flag in a specific context.

      Yes, it's a false flag operation. Those have been known about for a long time. Why everybody is trying to assign a specific set of semantics I have no idea.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    28. Re:I'm disappointed in Canada by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      Keyhole is still ongoing and it has been very useful.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    29. Re:I'm disappointed in Canada by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And thus began the 7PFF standard - behind "7 proxy false flags" operations ...

    30. Re:I'm disappointed in Canada by Livius · · Score: 1

      It was, but that was some time ago.

    31. Re:I'm disappointed in Canada by Livius · · Score: 2

      I'm ready to believe it was all USA, posing as Canada

      That's my theory for Stephen Harper.

    32. Re:I'm disappointed in Canada by Cederic · · Score: 2

      Hmm. With a wingsuit it might well be possible. There are a couple of bloody big hills overlooking Monaco.

      Ok, can confirm: Optimal glide path for a wingsuit is 2.5:1. So stand on Tete de Chien (height 450m if you believe English Wikipedia, or 550m if you believe French wikipedia, so lets assume halfway: 500m). Jumping from there gives you approximately 1.25km distance under optimal conditions before you reach sea level.

      Assuming you can land on the sea (and someone's survived landing on cardboard boxes), assuming no tall buildings and assuming no yachts (a dodgy assumption here) you can fly over Monaco and land in the harbour in 1.25km (measured approximately using Google Maps).

      So yes, you can just jump over the whole country.

    33. Re:I'm disappointed in Canada by phayes · · Score: 1

      No, Candide, these practices are NOT new, nor are they in any way different from the espionage nations & kingdoms & city-states have been engaging in since mankind began to write on papyrus & clay tablets.

      --
      Democracy is a sheep and two wolves deciding what to have for lunch. Freedom is a well armed sheep contesting the issue
    34. Re:I'm disappointed in Canada by king+neckbeard · · Score: 1

      So because I find your 'everybody's doing it' argument an insufficient justification, you suggest that I kill myself? You're certainly a champion of intellectualism.

      --
      This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    35. Re:I'm disappointed in Canada by phayes · · Score: 1

      I suggested that you make the attempt, assuming that you would do so using the simplest method: Holding your breath. After multiple attempts & achieving nothing I'd hoped that your oxygen deprived mind would come to the realization that tilting at windmills is futile. It was a forlorn hope Don Neckbeard...

      --
      Democracy is a sheep and two wolves deciding what to have for lunch. Freedom is a well armed sheep contesting the issue
    36. Re:I'm disappointed in Canada by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      The ‘deception tactics’ outlined by the documents include ‘false flag’ techniques, carried out in order to ‘create unrest’. In a spectacular display of bureaucratic legerdemain, this process is apparently defined as ‘[altering] adversary perception’.

      Single quotes from the article text, quoting the leaked documents. Emphasis mine. Yes, that's from the article, not just the summary.

    37. Re:I'm disappointed in Canada by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Canada, Australia and Europe have no independent foreign policy. It is all dictated out of USSA. Sad to say because I live in one of the colonies of Empire Amerika but it is true.

    38. Re:I'm disappointed in Canada by king+neckbeard · · Score: 1

      Except this windmill is one of if not the closest thing to a dragon in this world. The stupid paranoia of incompetent spies has come close on a few occasions to causing enormous damage to large chunks of human civilization as well. For the sake of species security, the spooks need to go ASAP. Fortunately, they aren't useful anymore, and their utility was pretty limited to begin with, and they were probably always a net liability.

      --
      This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    39. Re:I'm disappointed in Canada by king+neckbeard · · Score: 1

      Except that I'm far from alone, and more people are starting to get concerned. I think that this kind of insane bullshit is exactly what Hawking was talking about regarding aggression being a threat to humanity.

      --
      This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    40. Re:I'm disappointed in Canada by phayes · · Score: 1

      With Isis, Putin, Ebola, etc in the world, you think that _this_ is "one of if not the closent things to a dragon in the world", then talk in the next sentence about "species survival"?!?! Talk about self delusion, you _ARE_ don Neckbeard. Remember this moment don Neckbeard if you are lucky enough to live another few decades and think about how wrong you were to predict the disparition of your so called useless "spooks".

      --
      Democracy is a sheep and two wolves deciding what to have for lunch. Freedom is a well armed sheep contesting the issue
    41. Re:I'm disappointed in Canada by phayes · · Score: 1

      You warm yourself around that pilot light you call the community that will unite & overthrow all the "spooks" as you put it elsewhere. I'll note that even with a president elected on a platform to supposedly roll back everything you denounce came to precisely nothing.

      --
      Democracy is a sheep and two wolves deciding what to have for lunch. Freedom is a well armed sheep contesting the issue
    42. Re:I'm disappointed in Canada by king+neckbeard · · Score: 1

      Yeah, it's not an easy fight. It never is. That doesn't mean that we should give up like cowards, though.

      --
      This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    43. Re:I'm disappointed in Canada by king+neckbeard · · Score: 1

      Actually, ISIS and Ebola are far more bark than bite. Putin is a serious concern, mostly because he's the same kind of paranoid dickhead as our leaders.

      --
      This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    44. Re:I'm disappointed in Canada by phayes · · Score: 1

      If only you would leave your protected bubble and spend time in western Africa or Northern Iraq you would discover how wrong you are. No chance of that huh? So much easier to continue your puerile whining.

      --
      Democracy is a sheep and two wolves deciding what to have for lunch. Freedom is a well armed sheep contesting the issue
    45. Re:I'm disappointed in Canada by phayes · · Score: 1

      You're the tireless freedom fighter putting his life on the line to protect us all? Yeah sure, I can see how plausible that could be to someone as self delusional as don neckbeard.

      You stay in your protected society protected from almost all of the really bad things in the world & continue to tell everybody else how bad you have it & how remote any real danger is.

      --
      Democracy is a sheep and two wolves deciding what to have for lunch. Freedom is a well armed sheep contesting the issue
    46. Re:I'm disappointed in Canada by king+neckbeard · · Score: 1

      Malaria kills a lot more people than Ebola, even in West Africa. Ebola is all kinds of nasty, but it's not nearly as contagious. ISIS is a big mess as well, but their scale is relatively small, and they exist because we arm rebels and ask questions later. Look, I realize that these things are scary as hell to our brains. Our brains have a lot of difficulty with grasping relative risks on scales beyond the scope of a tribe. However, that doesn't change the reality, and the reality is that bathtubs kill more people than terrorists.

      --
      This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    47. Re:I'm disappointed in Canada by phayes · · Score: 1

      Good point on Malaria, but again, you need to tell it to people in western africa dying of ebola & people in Iraq dying in conflict with ISIS, etc where bathtubs are not the threat you make them out to be.

      Your opining from the comfort of your protected bubble shows the lack of empathy that some personal experience with danger would correct.

      --
      Democracy is a sheep and two wolves deciding what to have for lunch. Freedom is a well armed sheep contesting the issue
    48. Re:I'm disappointed in Canada by king+neckbeard · · Score: 1

      I'm not downplaying their struggles at all. I'm just normalizing them against global threats, and also against the threat of Americans in particular (since we are discussing a US agency, and that agency is nominally focused on US threats). You. however, seem to be focusing entirely upon acute threats. That's actually the easy stuff to focus on, but it often has much less of an impact than less exciting threats. You can empathize with someone without agreeing with their conclusions. That's why, while 9/11 was an awful tragedy, it wasn't worth passing the PATRIOT Act for, especially since it didn't really result in us being safe. I've seen claims that the decrease in flying due to the TSA's security theater has actually caused more deaths than the terrorism it's supposed to fight because people opt for car travel instead, and cars are more dangerous than planes.

      Look, it's an easy mistake to make. The human brain is awful at scale, and thinking on scale feels dirty to us. But we've got to at least try to be rational if we want to make sensible decisions.

      --
      This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    49. Re:I'm disappointed in Canada by phayes · · Score: 1

      You're been relativizing the risks, in particular painting bathtubs as a greater danger than ISIS or ebola because that is how you perceive risks to yourself in your protected bubble. You're don neckbeard the ignorant, pompously opining on subjects like danger to the public when you have no idea what real danger is & refuse to educate yourself.

      --
      Democracy is a sheep and two wolves deciding what to have for lunch. Freedom is a well armed sheep contesting the issue
    50. Re:I'm disappointed in Canada by king+neckbeard · · Score: 1

      No, I'm 'relativizing' them to statistical probability, both globally and within the US. Within both realms, ISIS and Ebola are not threats. If your village is taken over by ISIS or has a severe ebola outbreak, the stats become a bit different, but that's the exception, not the rule. Also, a good share of the groups fighting ISIS end up causing similar death tolls.

      --
      This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
  6. False Flag Plots.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Are the very opposite to what you want to run in a true democracy. If you must lie through your teeth to keep your own electorate in the dark, simply because you fear that the action(s) you are about to take would not be sanctioned by a well informed populous, then it's time to stop calling your country a democracy and start owning up to the fact that you live in and operate a dictatorship.
    Perhaps not as bad as most dictatorships out there, but it can be a very slippery slope..

    1. Re:False Flag Plots.... by Immerman · · Score: 1

      Don't be ridiculous. Lying to your populace saves you a bundle on domestic policing expenses.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    2. Re:False Flag Plots.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Where does this mention the electorate?

      It says that this was to incite discord elsewhere, IE: attacking ISIS and blaming Al-Qaeda. Releasing this information doesn't make Canada safer, it just gives enemies an easier time pulling together by blaming their internal strife on an external scapegoat.

    3. Re:False Flag Plots.... by king+neckbeard · · Score: 1

      In the long run, it can definitely make Canada safer. Prohibiting this behavior means that we won't do stupid shit that will cause even more enemies.to appear. The number of threats that the Anglosphere faces that we didn't create ourselves is incredibly small.

      --
      This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    4. Re:False Flag Plots.... by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      We can still vote them out. All it takes is the will to do it.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    5. Re:False Flag Plots.... by myowntrueself · · Score: 2

      In the long run, it can definitely make Canada safer. Prohibiting this behavior means that we won't do stupid shit that will cause even more enemies.to appear. The number of threats that the Anglosphere faces that we didn't create ourselves is incredibly small.

      I've lived in 3 Anglosphere countries and 2 non-Anglosphere countries. I'm a native English speaker from the UK.

      Having experienced life outside the Anglosphere I'm puzzled why it is that virtually all the English speaking nations are so fucking retarded in so many ways. Its not just the dumbass self-defeating 'espionage' its also the amazing pedantry, prudishness, squeamishness etc, the obsession with poop jokes. Almost all the adults in these cultures seem, by external standards, to be like large schoolchildren.

      --
      In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
    6. Re:False Flag Plots.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can only vote for corrupt party candidates, so that is not actually true. You could sat write-in, but that would not be a voting effort, because it requires massive organization that defeats corrupt media, and the free advertising of voters pamphlets.

      Please read the laws in your state on how elections are run, and prepare to be shocked and complete disillusioned.

    7. Re:False Flag Plots.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Daylight and public exposure are some of the best and most effective deterrents to this kind of thing. Thanks to Edward Snowden and the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation we have some.

      Time was, I'd say that the law, due process and responsible behaviour was the greater deterrent to nasty, constitution-defying state actions. Nowadays I'll take exposure of the embarrassing plots as the superior deterrent.

      Eventually I predict a scandal that will actually stick to the spy agency.

    8. Re:False Flag Plots.... by mjwx · · Score: 1

      In the long run, it can definitely make Canada safer. Prohibiting this behavior means that we won't do stupid shit that will cause even more enemies.to appear. The number of threats that the Anglosphere faces that we didn't create ourselves is incredibly small.

      I've lived in 3 Anglosphere countries and 2 non-Anglosphere countries. I'm a native English speaker from the UK.

      Having experienced life outside the Anglosphere I'm puzzled why it is that virtually all the English speaking nations are so fucking retarded in so many ways. Its not just the dumbass self-defeating 'espionage' its also the amazing pedantry, prudishness, squeamishness etc, the obsession with poop jokes. Almost all the adults in these cultures seem, by external standards, to be like large schoolchildren.

      I've also lived outside the angloshpere, every single nation has huge glaring problems that people simply ignore because it's part of their culture.

      There's no real way to say which one is better, both have their advantages and drawbacks. You may be able to get away with more things in Thailand than the UK, but in Thailand you'll always be a second class citizen, accepted only because you have enough money to live there without working. Any fight between you and a Thai will result in the Thai winning regardless of what actually happens. If you want to live in Asia, you'll have to get used to the corruption, nepotism, tiered society, face, blood money and a lot of other things we would consider uncivilised in Anglo countries.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    9. Re:False Flag Plots.... by myowntrueself · · Score: 1

      In the long run, it can definitely make Canada safer. Prohibiting this behavior means that we won't do stupid shit that will cause even more enemies.to appear. The number of threats that the Anglosphere faces that we didn't create ourselves is incredibly small.

      I've lived in 3 Anglosphere countries and 2 non-Anglosphere countries. I'm a native English speaker from the UK.

      Having experienced life outside the Anglosphere I'm puzzled why it is that virtually all the English speaking nations are so fucking retarded in so many ways. Its not just the dumbass self-defeating 'espionage' its also the amazing pedantry, prudishness, squeamishness etc, the obsession with poop jokes. Almost all the adults in these cultures seem, by external standards, to be like large schoolchildren.

      I've also lived outside the angloshpere, every single nation has huge glaring problems that people simply ignore because it's part of their culture.

      There's no real way to say which one is better, both have their advantages and drawbacks. You may be able to get away with more things in Thailand than the UK, but in Thailand you'll always be a second class citizen, accepted only because you have enough money to live there without working. Any fight between you and a Thai will result in the Thai winning regardless of what actually happens. If you want to live in Asia, you'll have to get used to the corruption, nepotism, tiered society, face, blood money and a lot of other things we would consider uncivilised in Anglo countries.

      Believe me, I know all that and have experienced it first hand.

      What seems strange to me is the way that its so consistent across English speaking cultures. Maybe its an emergent property of the English language?

      --
      In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
    10. Re:False Flag Plots.... by painandgreed · · Score: 1

      Believe me, I know all that and have experienced it first hand.

      What seems strange to me is the way that its so consistent across English speaking cultures. Maybe its an emergent property of the English language?

      I say we blame the Puritans.

  7. There are consequences by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    to sharing that long border with only ten meters of no trees in most of it.

  8. What? That's An Outrage! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You mean the Tim Horton's didn't really run out of coffee?

  9. they all play this game by circletimessquare · · Score: 5, Insightful

    world governments to USA in public: "we are outraged about the NSA!"

    world governments to USA in private: "everything is coming along nicely"

    world governments, we-hate-USA-edition, in public: "we are outraged about the NSA!"

    world governments, we-hate-USA-edition, in private: "so how soon can we have NSA style abuses to add to our extensive portfolio of abuses?"

    americans should complain loudly about the NSA

    but the rest of the world, you should clean up your own fucking house, your government is feeding you manufactured NSA outrage as a distraction while it does the same

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    1. Re:they all play this game by Trepidity · · Score: 4, Insightful

      In Canada's case they've barely even bothered to feed outrage. Harper clearly wants to cooperate with the U.S. national-security establishment and doesn't care to even hide it.

    2. Re:they all play this game by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      perhaps; the difference though that other countries do not try to use cyberattacks as casus belli, while US "takes them very seriously" (most recently "North Korea" attack against... Sony).

    3. Re:they all play this game by houghi · · Score: 2

      We have the ability to do both. AND complain about what the NSA is doing AND complain what our governement is doing AND what Europe is doing AND ...
      We are able to multitask. One does not exclude the other.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    4. Re:they all play this game by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      but the rest of the world, you should clean up your own fucking house, your government is feeding you manufactured NSA outrage as a distraction while it does the same

      Working on it. Do you think it is a coincidence that the Pirate Party is doing so well in Iceland?

    5. Re:they all play this game by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Canadian government mails out leaflets "you support us, or the terrorists".

      http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/...

      Toet's mailout asks "What do you think?" and requests people check off one of the following options:

            * I agree with my MP Lawrence Toet. We must take additional action to protect Canada from terrorism.â
            * I disagree. Terrorists are victims too.

    6. Re:they all play this game by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the difference though that other countries do not try to use cyberattacks as casus belli,

      And you would be privy to this information how?

      Didn't think so, assshole.

    7. Re:they all play this game by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      98% of the voters are still playing the charade. The complaints mean shit if they are not backed up with the vote.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    8. Re:they all play this game by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      *sigh* Typical American evangelism with its finely tuned hypocrisy...

    9. Re:they all play this game by Zeromous · · Score: 1

      I reply to these polls with a write-in tertiary option: GFY

      --
      ---Up Up Down Down Left Right Left Right B A START
    10. Re:they all play this game by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So... your complaint is that he's not hypocritical enough?

  10. Perpetual War by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    These tactics shoud not surprise us as we have all read the book.

  11. Excerpted from The Intercept by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Linky:

    The document suggests CSE has access to a series of sophisticated malware tools developed by the NSA as part of a program known as QUANTUM. As The Intercept has previously reported, the QUANTUM malware can be used for a range of purposes – such as to infect a computer and copy data stored on its hard drive, to block targets from accessing certain websites, or to disrupt their file downloads. Some of the QUANTUM techniques rely on redirecting a targeted person’s internet browser to a malicious version of a popular website, such as Facebook, that then covertly infects their computer with the malware.

    According to one top-secret NSA briefing paper, dated from 2013, Canada is considered an important player in global hacking operations. Under the heading “NSA and CSEC cooperate closely in the following areas,” the paper notes that the agencies work together on “active computer network access and exploitation on a variety of foreign intelligence targets, including CT [counter terrorism], Middle East, North Africa, Europe, and Mexico.” (The NSA had not responded to a request for comment at time of publication. The agency has previously told The Intercept that it “works with foreign partners to address a wide array of serious threats, including terrorist plots, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, and foreign aggression.”)

    Notably, CSE has gone beyond just adopting a range of tools to hack computers.

    According to the Snowden documents, it has a range of “deception techniques” in its toolbox. These include “false flag” operations to “create unrest” and using so-called “effects” operations to “alter adversary perception.” A false-flag operation usually means carrying out an attack but making it look like it was performed by another group – in this case, likely another government or hacker. Effects operations can involve sending out propaganda across social media or disrupting communications services. The newly revealed documents also reveal that CSE says it can plant a “honeypot” as part of its deception tactics, possibly a reference to some sort of bait posted online that lures in targets so that they can be hacked or monitored.

    1. Re:Excerpted from The Intercept by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      See my JTRIG (=GCHQ version of this agency) post below (modded to -1 currently, not suprising since I point out that JTRIG attacked British targets when they went after those hackers).

      The list of tools JTRIG uses
      https://firstlook.org/theintercept/document/2014/07/14/jtrig-tools-techniques/

      Perhaps there is a lot of crossover on names, but Quantum malware isn't one of them. They do have a bunch of tools for faking emails, faking posts, changing pictures posted on social media etc.

      JTRIGS biggest trick is the 'Victim claim' where they pretend to be a victim and make a false claim of a crime to discredit someones (Wikileaks fake rape charges anyone?). Honey-pot in that context refers to the women used as a lure.

  12. Same as JTRIG only JTRIG also attack UK by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    JTRIG is UK cyber-psych-ops version of this. They too have access to that big surveillance database, and can use it to change images on social media, change posts, fake emails and so on.

    THEY, A UK AGENCY, HAVE USED THIS AGAINST HACKERS IN THE UK.

    The Snowden leak shows they acted against Anonymous hackers after they hacked a US military website. Those hackers were Brits. Whether they hacked the website or not, we cannot now be sure of, because JTRIG can fake evidence, and whether the judge took evidence into consideration that was fake, we cannot know. It's all secret, pissing on UK legal system.

    JTRIG blockops propaganda leaks:
    https://firstlook.org/theintercept/document/2014/02/24/art-deception-training-new-generation-online-covert-operations/

    How they rig polls to get political decisions in their favor:
    https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/07/14/manipulating-online-polls-ways-british-spies-seek-control-internet/

    There tools:
    https://firstlook.org/theintercept/document/2014/07/14/jtrig-tools-techniques/

    They target British alleged hackers:
    http://www.dailydot.com/politics/snowden-anonymous-jtrig-gchq-ddos/

    With UK judges (like Judge John Evans) permitting evidence to be heard in private without the prosecution present, we won't know if a load of lies were put into his head by this lot either.

    Oh, but one thing: THEY'LL CLAIM IT LEGAL. Because the law gives them immunity from everything if the Secretary of State asked them to do it, and the rules that limit the Secretary of States actions are things IN HIS OWN JUDGEMENT, i.e. meaningless.

    So Stasi is legal in Great Stasiland.

  13. Pretending to be a terrorist by jbrown.za · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Isn't "behaving" like a terrorist exactly the same as "being" a terrorist?

    1. Re:Pretending to be a terrorist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes it is, but you know, one persons terrorist is the other persons freedom fighter.

    2. Re:Pretending to be a terrorist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Only if the behavior is uniquely terroristic. If you blow up a mosque and make it look like ISIS, it is different from transferring $100,000 and making it look like ISIS.

  14. Re:Harper by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    only problem is the people in opposition will do 100% exactly the same type of stuff, they are even bigger statists.

  15. Limited 'show' here. by jythie · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Am I missing something? As far as I can tell the document just outlines what they can do, not what they have done. Having been through countless meetings with powerpoint presentations outlining what a department 'can' do, I can appreciate just how far apart these two things could potentially be.

    1. Re:Limited 'show' here. by xdor · · Score: 1

      This just affirms doubts concerning the US claims of North Korean hacking Sony Pictures or any-given-hullabaloo about cyber attacks.

      Perhaps it's all a deception to achieve some political end?

      Or perhaps Snowden and Russia, et. all are trying to undermine our trust in the supreme integrity of our not-to-be-quesitoned leaders :)

    2. Re:Limited 'show' here. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      As far as I can tell the document just outlines what they can do, not what they have done. Having been through countless meetings with powerpoint presentations outlining what a department 'can' do, I can appreciate just how far apart these two things could potentially be.

      If a department powerpoint presentation was a twenty side show of how they could rape and eat babies, would you simply dismiss it because there's a lack of evidence they actually rape and eat babies or would you be disgusted (1) because to present such a thing implies such is desired and (2) because there's any clear evidence to suggest a strong negative backlash about "the ability to rape and eat babies" and such authories who focus on that, it heavily implies that it's not a question of if but when the department will rape and eat babies?

      Am I missing something?

      Apparently.

    3. Re:Limited 'show' here. by jythie · · Score: 1

      Well, yes, I would feel very different about a powerpoint presentation talking about raping and eating babies vs people actually doing so. I imagine the babies in question would also feel very differently about the two types of events.

    4. Re:Limited 'show' here. by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      Baby eating is a bit outlandish, but how about blueprints for a domestic Predator Drone base to deal with protestors and terrorists? You can't call that a 'nothingburger' after the NDAA, which allows military detention without trial.

  16. B..but...that's a conspiracy theory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Just remember this next time they use silly words like "conspiracy theory" as if the term means something that doesn't happen.

    Conspiracy theories like... US funded pro- and counter insurgencies....
    False flag attacks...
    Rigged elections...
    etc.

    They happen and they're quite well documented. The government attempts to ridicule the evidence, but in the end they are the ones who look idiotic.

    Take this recent hilarity: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

  17. "you should clean up your own fucking house" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    "you should clean up your own fucking house" : firstly we are outraged too when it comes out our nation cooperated, even when they were blackmailed into it. It is not a XOR situation that you can be outraged either at the NSA stuff OR at our own government. We can be outraged at BOTH. Secondly, if the incredible spying of the USA did not went that deep , exploiting so many vulnerabilities, and now false flag operation... Well if the american public got a little bit more outrage than "meh" as a whole, then we would not be so outraged at YOU. Look we go into the street for less than that where I live. I don't see any of you before the white house or congress yelling to have it stopped , millions walking in the street. All I see is "meh" type of outrage. Shifting the blame onto other seem to be all well alive tough.

  18. Cyberattacks by ledow · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Which is just one reason why I'm always incredibly dubious that cyber-attacks "coming from China" etc. are used as potential justification for retaliation. This is entirely different to "proved originating from", where China etc. could just be an unfortunate third-party, a plant, or deliberately infiltrated to further some other countries ends with a cyberattack that DOES come from their country even if they don't know it.

    Sorry, but you cannot go to war on the basis of what packets travelled over the Internet. It's just too damn unreliable and unaccountable that you can't do such things.

    And yet all the first-world nations are saying that such things could be "just cause" for doing exactly that.

    If your military systems are THAT bad that you can even get into anything at all from the ordinary Internet, it's your own fault.

  19. Safe from false flag? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The whole point of these false flag ops is to make the world APPEAR to be less safe than it really is. The attacks you see, are actually your own side! So the tradeoff security vs liberty, APPEARS to require a lot less liberty.

    That Sony Hack evidence makes no sense, so now I wonder if one of the 5-eyes did it to market these new cyber laws that will legalize their actions. Laws like C51

  20. The whole world will get us by AndyKron · · Score: 1

    One of these day the entire world will declare war against the United States.

    1. Re:The whole world will get us by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We'll forgive you if you wipe ISIS away from universe.

  21. The conspiracy theorists by captnjohnny1618 · · Score: 1

    The conspiracy theorists were right! Damn!

  22. How slowly is he leaking? by m.alessandrini · · Score: 1

    I don't understand how those things work, how come documents are still leaking after years of Snowden's escape? Can't the world know everything at once? Does he sip them for better suspense? Or did they forget to revoke his password?

    1. Re:How slowly is he leaking? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Does he sip them for better suspense?

      Yes. AFAIK, he released everything to a trusted journalist, but the plan between the 2 of them was always to release things slowly, because the public has a limited attention span and wouldn't be able to digest everything all at once.

    2. Re:How slowly is he leaking? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      They're purposefully being doled out, bit by bit.
      People do not have the attention span to digest enormous quantities of data in a short timespan. We can all too easily forget one-time events; outliers in our daily lives. Reoccurring long term patterns are much more likely to stick in memory.

    3. Re:How slowly is he leaking? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That gives those 2 guys editorial control over the secret information. More BS. You can't trust anybody, even the guy who spooked the spooks.

    4. Re:How slowly is he leaking? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not to mention that tyey could be killed in any moment to destroy the remaining documents.

  23. Excellent! by edibobb · · Score: 1

    Maybe they can follow through by increasing science research.

  24. I kind of love the reasoning... by qeveren · · Score: 1

    "Hey terrorists are scary and we need new laws, so lets commit terrorism so we can make these new laws!" XD

    Oh, Canada...

    --
    Don't just stand there, get that other dog!
  25. I'm disappointed in you. by TiggertheMad · · Score: 2

    Don't be naive, and ascribe personal ethics to the behaviors of state actors. States' behavior is driven by the lowest common ethical denominator of it's collective leadership. For any sufficiently large state, this will trend towards 0.

    --

    HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
  26. While I think this 'Spy vs Spy' ... by CaptainDork · · Score: 2

    ... shit is funny, I want to be in on the joke.

    We need more whistle blowers.

    Super powers are aiding each other and snooping on each other and throwing 'false flags' all behind our backs.

    That doesn't make it easy for us to make informed decisions.

    It's 'Government by the government for the government'.

    --
    It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
  27. Five Eyes by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

    But I thought Canada was better than that

    Really, why? We were talking about Echelon here more than fifteen years ago.

    Hosers.

    (sorry)

    --
    My God, it's Full of Source!
    OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
  28. did the attacks come with an apology? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I can't seeing my countrymen doing this without apologizing. It just seems so uncanadian.

  29. He's dead. (Fictional account) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not true, but could be if things get worse: 2 minutes after posting his comment, king neckbeard died in an "auto accident".

    Don't believe that how things operate? Read the book, Stalin, by Walter Laqueur.

  30. What a pile of apologetic excuses! by nnappe · · Score: 1

    1. So far, all disclosures have been about the 5 eyes. That does not mean others are doing it, but you have no proof, are just mouthing off because it makes you fell better (or because you are a shrill).
    2. Most governments don't even have a budget big enough to fund NSA style snooping. For the time being, economics still protect us.
    3. US is spying everyone else. As much as I distrust my government, I reckon it has *more* interests in common with me than US government (namely, my country's interests. US has once and again shown that it will screw other countries (population included) to further its interests.
    4. World governments, we-hate-USA edition, in public have proofs of their saying. In private. as soon as something leaks, we'll take care don't you worry.
    5. World governments, we-are-USA-puppets edition (the ones you don't branded) are part of the problem too. They should be dealt with along the US.

    The US government and the 5 eyes are the only ones caught in this abuse of their own (and other countries) population. Like you said, YOU should clean up YOUR fucking house, before claiming of others something you don't even have any proof of.

  31. The truth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You know that 9/11 was also an NSA inside job, right?

  32. So surypy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The major Western countries' moral high ground is lost for decades to come. This is some serious diarrhea that will stick for a long time to come.

  33. So let me get this straight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Their targets are located in the Middle East, North Africa, Europe and Mexico, plus other unnamed countries

    Such as the United States and Canada

    connected to the two agencies' counterterrorism goals

    Such as the total suppression of all civil rights

    Other leaked documents revealed back in 2013 that the CSE spied on computers or smartphones connected to Brazil's mining and energy ministry to get economic intelligence.

    Industrial espionage purely for illicit profit

    But the latest top-secret documents released to CBC News and The Intercept illustrate the development of a large stockpile of Canadian cyber-spy capabilities that go beyond hacking for intelligence, including:

            destroying infrastructure, which could include electricity, transportation or banking systems;

    Otherwise known as acts of war

    creating unrest by using false-flags — ie. making a target think another country conducted the operation;

    Such as hacking Sony so the FBI and the Obama administration can make threats at North Korea

    disrupting online traffic by such techniques as deleting emails, freezing internet connections, blocking websites and redirecting wire money transfers.

    aka criminal hacking, one wonders just how many hackers selling their stolen credit card numbers to black markets are actually US and Canadian spooks

    It sounds like Canada needs to join the United States on the international terrorist watch list and have the UN call for Soviet Spetsnaz commandos to locate and destroy terrorist training camps deep inside the US and Canada's intelligence agencies.

  34. Privacy is Freedom from stalking. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So privacy is much more than what you say it is.

  35. Snowjob! by iq145 · · Score: 1

    What has Special Ed done that's "wrong"?: 1) Theft 2) False credentials 3) Tampering with national security 4) Placing all Americans at risk 5) International flight 6) Traveling on a voided passport 7) Bartering with items/information he doesn't legally own nor has personally created 8) Terroristic threats 9) Unethical treatment toward his employer 10) Misrepresentation 11) Perjury/breach of oath 12) Dereliction of duty 13) Failure to follow orders. 14) Impersonation of known government officials/identity theft. He's also flirting with, in fact, trying to set up the two main offenses: A) Assisting foreign powers B) Aiding the enemy. Sure, the Constitution guarantees our freedom to share more information with the public, and the right to free speech is great... but NOT when it will cause a danger to National Security. The info Snowjob likely possesses is probably EXACTLY the kind of stuff al Qaeda wants leaked out so they can learn better of how to successfully find ways to kill Americans at will. Not to mention, maybe names and locations of counter-terrorism spies that the U.S. has out in the field infiltrating the ranks of those would-be murderers. People want to complain about the NSA and alleged "spying", but then they'll also complain about not feeling the government is doing enough to protect them from al Qaeda! The NSA is not "hiding" anything, but they'll be truly ineffective if EVERYONE knows what they're working on. Has NOBODY stopped for a moment and asked "why" the NSA has been doing what they're doing? Did people think the authorities use magic to uncover terrorist plots? Which would you prefer, spying on you or terrorism on you? http://www.newser.com/story/17...

    1. Re:Snowjob! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did people think the authorities use magic to uncover terrorist plots?

      What terrorist plots? Oh you mean 911 where several federal agencies knew that terrorists were going to fly an airliner into a building, but allowed it to happen so they could use it to clamp down on civil liberties. Or something like the Boston marathon thing, where federal agencies deliberately ignored warnings from Soviet intelligence that the brothers were political dissidents with violent tendencies and needed watching? Again to use as an excuse to demand even more police power and less judicial oversight. Or are you talking about all the terrorist plots that the FBI creates itself so they can swoop in the nick of time and toot their own horn about how important they are (and needing even more surveillance powers)? And of course who can forget all those terrorists that the TSA routinely doesn't discover.

      Can you name even ONE bonafide terrorist plot that ANY federal agency actually stopped instead of allowing to happen so they could use it as an excuse to remove yet another page from the Constitution?