Slashdot Mirror


New Snowden Leaks Reveal More About NSA Satellite Eavesdropping (theverge.com)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Verge: Newly published documents from Edward Snowden have shed more light on American surveillance operations in the UK. The Intercept details how the NSA and GCHQ used information gathered by Menwith Hill Station, a massive but tightly sealed facility that intercepts satellite data transmissions worldwide. Among other things, the files appear to include evidence that links UK-based surveillance to American anti-terrorism campaigns outside official combat zones. While many surveillance efforts focus on the internet's connective "backbone" cables, Menwith Hill intercepts wireless signals, using an array of antennae and U.S. government satellites to capture up to 335 million pieces of metadata in a 12-hour period. Previous reports -- including an earlier Snowden leak -- have already revealed some of its capabilities. But The Intercept includes more details, particularly about the UK's involvement in "capture-kill" operations against suspected terrorists. It describes how the GHOSTHUNTER program traced the location of targets "when they log onto the internet," often in internet cafes. A different program called GHOSTWOLF, which let the NSA and GCHQ monitor traffic from Yemeni internet cafes, is part of a plan to "capture or eliminate key nodes in terrorist networks" by tracking their locations. This leak fuels existing suspicions that the UK's role in American covert drone strikes is greater than it admits -- potentially implicating it in the civilian deaths that have resulted. GCHQ told The Intercept that all its work "is carried out in accordance with a strict legal and policy framework," and "is entirely compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights."

100 comments

  1. Dont leave moms basement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    if you can see the sky from inside you have lost.

    1. Re: Dont leave moms basement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I pulled up a picture of the sky on Google images.

    2. Re: Dont leave moms basement by saloomy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Of course you did, it says so right here in the massive surveillance server farm that tracked your actions to do so. Seriously though, this is why encryption is so important. All throughout history, you can find examples of excessive government overreach and oppression. How can we in this world not value a right to be private amongst ourselves without massive public backlash? How has it come to the point where it just ends up being brushed off as "oh right, more tin-foil hat jokes, we knew the whole time how bad we have it"?

      I believe in the 4th amendment, in principle and in practice, I think it is absolutely necessary in this age of information overload. The government should be spending those dollars on trying to catch the pricks who mean to do it harm, and not drag netting all over our inherent rights. Things have clearly gotten out of hand.

    3. Re: Dont leave moms basement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "How has it come to the point where it just ends up being brushed off as "oh right, more tin-foil hat jokes, we knew the whole time how bad we have it"?

      Because most people don't understand technology, in past ages the tech wasn't invisible and forever present. The rise of telecommunications, transpiration, satellites, etc means no matter where you go you are easily tracked by any government. Governments are tools of the rich and world wide oligarchs why would anyone think they wouldn't develop such a thing especially since we had the cold war to even get workers rights, aka its the masters vs the slaves and the masters spent all that money on military and tech to make sure the slaves (average people) are overwhelmed by superior technology that there every move would be tracked if they resisted the masters (the rich and their corruption).

    4. Re: Dont leave moms basement by WaffleMonster · · Score: 1

      The government should be spending those dollars on trying to catch the pricks who mean to do it harm, and not drag netting all over our inherent rights. Things have clearly gotten out of hand.

      I would tend to agree but government is just way too busy giving money and munitions to the Saudi's to fund Madrassas and conduct indiscriminate bombing operations within Yemen.

  2. Is Snowden completely stupid? by Fragnet · · Score: 0

    The USA and UK are gathering intelligence for counter-terrorism? Who the fuck knew? We had listening stations in the UK throughout the Cold War, and before. We still have them now. The massive prick is holed up in Russia. He really needs to get a sense of perspective.

    1. Re:Is Snowden completely stupid? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you?

      Governments are keeping secrets! SECRETS!!!

    2. Re:Is Snowden completely stupid? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Snowden supposedly turned over all the docs to Greenwald and Poitras and I guess a few other press people, so the decision to release them falls on them.

    3. Re:Is Snowden completely stupid? by Tesen · · Score: 1

      Are you?

      Governments are keeping secrets! SECRETS!!!

      I fully support Fragnet's extremely large prick. Snowden on the other hand... Russia cold... shrinkage.

    4. Re:Is Snowden completely stupid? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "The massive prick is holed up in Russia."

      And there we have it folks, the real problem that trolls like "Fragnet" have with Snowden...he managed to find a place to migrate better than their shithole of a country.

      The massive prick will be Trump's when you vote for him in a few months, southern man, then you'll be sucking on his bell end for real instead of in your wildest dreams. Hope you fucking choke to death on it troll boy.

    5. Re:Is Snowden completely stupid? by Fragnet · · Score: 2, Interesting

      he managed to find a place to migrate better than their shithole of a country.

      Sure, a place where journalists investigating corrupt politicians are regularly murdered. It's so common there's even a Wiki page for it. Not so many whistleblowers East of the Dnieper, then.

      So you know, why don't you go and get your fucking shoe shine box?

    6. Re:Is Snowden completely stupid? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      oh teh lulz... Russia is the "better place"?

      What kind of a warped lens are you looking through?

      Snowden had a hell of a thing going and managed to let greenwald coach him into flushing it all down the drain, and there were a few dozen people rushing in to fill his spot. Not to mention the billions of dollars and millions of man-hours going into fixing the mess he made

      Anybody watching the new snowden movie should ask themselves how the hell this pasty little twink managed to fuck up so bad

    7. Re: Is Snowden completely stupid? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The only one doing anything on the level of murder here is the government. You don't get out of it by saying people didn't find out about it in a way you're pleased with.

    8. Re: Is Snowden completely stupid? by vux984 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "No. Snowden deliberately dumped these documents. You don't get out of murder charges when you hire the hitman."

      What a strained analogy that is.

      If you report (and provide proof) of government corruption, overreach, and general malfeasance to the legitimate press; and the press sorts thorugh it, verifies it, and determines what is newsworthy and publishable... that is an important function of the press.

      Snowden definitely broke the law taking the information, but I think he should be pardoned.

      But holding him responsible for what the press does is as ridiculous as holding you responsible for someone the police kill after you report a crime to them.

      a) its not automatically a crime when the police kill someone.
      b) even when the police are in the wrong, its STILL not your fault for reporting the original crime to the police.

    9. Re: Is Snowden completely stupid? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      Snowden should be pardoned? Had he stuck to only stealing and releasing information directly related to the US domestic realm he may have been able to workout a guilty plea and received probation. Instead he released information on US foreign intelligence programs. The US Constitution and Bill of Rights do not apply to anyone outside of the US except for maybe US ex-pats who still have US citizenship and have not actively conspired with groups dedicated to harming US interests. Everyone else is fair game. The only rule is don't get caught.

      There is no way the US will ever give him a pardon. He best hope Russia doesn't use him as a bargaining chip to get sanction relief.

      This guy has made some very foolish decisions. Why did he go public BEFORE he was living in a country willing to shield him? How could he possibly not realize the consequences of his actions. I am sure Greenwald told him making the information public would garner enough support to keep him out of jail. Why is the stolen information being released piecemeal? Does Greenwald just want to make sure his name gets mentioned every few months? What is the content of the information they have not published? Is there contradictory information that might mitigate their accusations? Anyone who has ever been involved in developing a software system knows the e-mail chain and related project documents produce more than a couple of documents? Where is all that information? Why is Snowden living in a Russian paradise while his pet journalists are living with impunity in South America. After all Greenwald was actually working directly with Snowden before and after the information went public you would think they could have shared the same flight. Did Snowden not realize the influence of the Chinese government when he went public in their back yard? I surprised the idiot didn't end up in NK because they would have loved to protect him.

    10. Re: Is Snowden completely stupid? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Newsflash... Govts spy on others.

      You millennials act just like your parents. Hippie free world (60's) them reality sets in and you're freakin greedy capitalists (80's).

      When reality sets in for this 'privacy exclusivity generation' happens will be a show to see.

    11. Re: Is Snowden completely stupid? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're imposing a lot of arbitrary governmental legal constructs in a way that would be great, except for the basic ethical facts here.

      The government is doing wrong. People pointing out people doing wrong is right. Subsequent rage by those doing wrong or associating themselves with them, is as expected as the sunrise. As is the corresponding wall of text expressing that rage, as you have nicely illustrated.

      No one is addressing your wall of questions, note. Because nobody including yourself will find any answers relevant to your actual motivations in asking them. Nor would you accept any, for precisely that reason.

    12. Re: Is Snowden completely stupid? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      So, you think he is a hero for betraying his country. You also must believe Putin is a great guy for providing protection for Snowden. You must also believe that Russia really really hates spying and would never ever spy on it's own people, because they are nice guys and it is only the evil white people in America that hate it's populace. Russia is a county of diversity and equal opportunity for all its people. Dissidents and black people go the head of the line in all political debate, because that is just how much Putin cares. . China is also the pinnacle of democracy, and they are always supporting opposing opinions and never spy on their own people.

      Spying is what governments do. Domestic spying by the intelligence services is a good thing. Spying has stopped acts of terrorism on US soil. If you are a Muslim, you especially want the government spying on Muslim activities. The last time the US government did not do it's job and spy on Muslims was 911. As a result of that mistake the US government with the support of the U.S. populace destroyed Afghanistan, Iraq, and the United States (we went bankrupt fighting a war on a tactic) The USA overreacts when bad things happen on USAian soil, and we go after people who had nothing to do with the act. I do not want to get in any more wars. This is why I support the NSA / CIA / whatever spying on and killing anyone who would want to commit an act of terrorism.

        But if you really think Snowden is some kind of hero, you should move to some country where they support heros and never spy. A country such as russia, or China. Tell them you are a Liberal Lesbian Muslim Tibet supporter. I am sure they will give you all kinds of government protection.

    13. Re:Is Snowden completely stupid? by ArylAkamov · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The massive prick is holed up in Russia. He really needs to get a sense of perspective.

      He is "holed up in Russia" because the United States government decided to revoke his passport and trap him in the Moscow airport. It wasn't his intention to stay in Russia.

      I'm always amazed when people are quick to demonize Snowden for breaking laws but defend what he exposed: Massive government corruption and disregard for the law.

    14. Re: Is Snowden completely stupid? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Someone is angry that Snowden has done more good for the murican people then any expendable clown has done with a machine gun in his hands for the past 60+ years. Feel free to raise your chromosome-enriched children to join the army, this planet will be better off when your bloodline comes to an end.

    15. Re:Is Snowden completely stupid? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Holding one's government accountable takes effort and sacrifice. It absolutely serves the greater good to do so, and is absolutely the right thing to do. But most Americans will have NONE of that shit!. Effort and sacrifice are for other people...like Snowden. They will fight the good fight for me, and I will reap the rewards from right here on my couch.

      America doesn't deserve Snowden.

    16. Re: Is Snowden completely stupid? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Domestic spying by the intelligence services is a good thing.

      Then change the Constitution. There's a procedure for that, you know. Until that happens, you and your boot licking can fuck right off.

    17. Re:Is Snowden completely stupid? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Working for an unethical government agency that conducts unconstitutional mass surveillance on the populace is not "a hell of a thing". Only those without a conscious and without principles can remain there. Not everything is about money.

      Russia may not be better than the US on the whole, but it will at least help protect Snowden from the US government.

    18. Re: Is Snowden completely stupid? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you're saying that our government is wrong to spy on other, hostile governments, and that Snowden is a hero for destroying,our ability to spy on other governments? Don't lie to yourself. Snowden has deliberately murdered over a hundred informants. And no, the CIA isn't going to confirm to hostile intelligence agencies that they got the right ones. Your "fuck the US" worldview is naive and ultimately, suicidal. But go ahead and believe that Russia truly is a bastion of freedom.

    19. Re: Is Snowden completely stupid? by WaffleMonster · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Spying is what governments do. Domestic spying by the intelligence services is a good thing.

      Domestic spying breeds corruption and isn't a legitimate activity. Hence the reason it's illegal.

      Spying has stopped acts of terrorism on US soil.

      Meanwhile a 9/11 load of people are murdered in the US each and every quarter like clockwork.

      If you are a Muslim, you especially want the government spying on Muslim activities. The last time the US government did not do it's job and spy on Muslims was 911.

      60 9/11's worth of murders have occurred since then in this country. Why exactly should everyone give up their rights and privacy in the name of a single outlier event given they are more likely to be murdered by a non-terrorist, killed in a car accident or falling in their own homes?

      As a result of that mistake the US government with the support of the U.S. populace destroyed Afghanistan, Iraq, and the United States (we went bankrupt fighting a war on a tactic) The USA overreacts when bad things happen on USAian soil, and we go after people who had nothing to do with the act.

      LOL the terrorists made us do it. The terrorists made Bush invade Iraq and the terrorists made the "Intelligence" community make up a bunch of bullshit it's own people with intimate domain knowledge didn't even believe themselves as a pretext for war.

      I do not want to get in any more wars. This is why I support the NSA / CIA / whatever spying on and killing anyone who would want to commit an act of terrorism.

      The terrorists made us do it... kill them all and then we won't do stupid shit anymore. I promise. Never mind bush already looking for whatever pretext he could to get revenge for the attempt on his daddy. The terrorists MADE US DO IT.

      But if you really think Snowden is some kind of hero, you should move to some country where they support heros and never spy.

      What Snowden did was expose/confirm illegal activities conducted against everyone who has ever used a phone in this country. I'd be willing to entertain your bullshit about the NSA for a few milliseconds at least when someone from NSA goes to jail.

    20. Re: Is Snowden completely stupid? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let the government spy on other governments all it wants. But if it breaks international law it should be punished for it. If it leaks "top secret" stuff it's a huge sign of incopetence on the government's side. Stop blaming the messenger.

    21. Re: Is Snowden completely stupid? by SaroDarksbane · · Score: 1

      Snowden has deliberately murdered over a hundred informants.

      Source? (And no, lack of evidence is not evidence)

    22. Re: Is Snowden completely stupid? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It's not the foreign spying that concerns Americans, you fuckwit. It's spying on citizens that is a problem.

      I don't give two fucks if China does. I don't have to worry about being extradited on bogus charges to Shanghai. I do if some Fed gets pissed and decides to structure a story.

      So there's a fucking difference.

    23. Re:Is Snowden completely stupid? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2

      He didn't expect to get stuck in Russia. Then again, at least he is mostly safe from the US there. They are unlikely to try kidnapping him or drone launched Hellfire missiles while Russia is watching.

      It's hard to think of a much better place. US kidnappings have happened in Europe, sometimes thwarted by the local security services and sometimes not. Iceland might be good if security could be guaranteed.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    24. Re: Is Snowden completely stupid? by DMFNR · · Score: 1

      Whatever happened to, "by the people, for the people"? If they want to watch me, I'm going to watch them right back. I'm glad there are people willing to risk their lives and freedom to expose the things our government is doing behind our backs. We have an agencies dedicated to investigating domestic matters, there's no need to common citizen needs to be under surveillance like we are all rogue actors on our own soil. Focus on making sure these terrorist fucks don't get in to the country in the first place. Of course some will slip through the cracks, and these people need to be investigated and stopped. The only way to do that is through good old fashioned investigation and police work. There's what, 350 million people in the US, and what percentage of those people are terrorists? What percentage of those people are upstanding (or otherwise for that matter) citizens who have a right to think and say what they want with out the government monitoring them? Seems like a lot of noise to filter through to try to expose a few bad actors, and I'm willing to bet broad surveillance is far less effective than targeted investigation. So Uncle Sam can stay the fuck out of my business and anyone else's until they have just cause to investigate us. Attempting to have a private conversation is not proof I am a terrorist, encrypting my data is not proof I am a criminal, and exposing actions our government has taken behind our backs is the right thing to do. I love America, I do not like the people running our government. America is the people you see every day, programmers, construction workers, police, doctors and so on. The people giving orders to spy on us the same as they would the citizens of a terrorist state, that is NOT America. FUCK THEM.

    25. Re:Is Snowden completely stupid? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uh, hello, cold_fjord. Now called Fragnet?

      (captcha: parasite)

    26. Re:Is Snowden completely stupid? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The massive prick

      He has way more fun than you do with your tiny one. That's something, at least.

      On a more serious note: Please fuck off. You don't know what you're talking about.

    27. Re:Is Snowden completely stupid? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      delusional much?

      The mass surveillance was unconstitutional in you opinion, and that is about it

      If it is allowed by a law passed by Congress, signed by a President and not yet invalidated by the Supreme Court, then it sure as fuck is Constitutional bitch

      You and the lot of people who actually believe the greenwald crapola should spend half a day reading up on US Civics and then realize that you are all as duped as snowden has been

    28. Re: Is Snowden completely stupid? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tell me again about murdered presidents...

    29. Re:Is Snowden completely stupid? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If it is allowed by a law passed by Congress, signed by a President and not yet invalidated by the Supreme Court, then it sure as fuck is Constitutional bitch

      Except that none of those have any authority outside the United States. A large part of the NSA's illicit activities take place outside the US. What the US allows itself to do is utterly irrelevant elsewhere.

    30. Re:Is Snowden completely stupid? by Xest · · Score: 1

      I'm a full on Snowden supporter, but I don't think it's demonising him to point out that this isn't too big a deal.

      I'm concerned that the debate about security servers has descended to the point where people are basically just arguing they shouldn't exist.

      I profoundly disagree, I think they serve an important purpose, to me the problem is that they've completely overstepped those bounds in recent decades but that doesn't mean I believe everything they do is wrong.

      I disagree with the bulk collection of data, but if they're performing targeted interception against legitimate threats to the state, or are performing counter-intelligence against foreign state threats or similar, then to me that's exactly what they should be doing, and I don't really see what exposing that achieves - no shit, we know they're doing it, they're supposed to be doing it, it's their fundamental purpose.

      I think this view that everything the security services does is evil and bad is fundamentally flawed, I think it's an argument that can't (and shouldn't) ever be won, and I think it gets in the way of legitimate criticism of situations where security agencies have overstepped the mark, by carrying out widespread spying on their own populace.

      I think it's important people start making a distinction between spy agencies spying on who they're supposed to be spying on, and when they spy on people who have done nothing wrong. I think the argument holds a lot more weight in that context.

      We need to know what Snowden has to say about them spying on their home population, and innocent people in other populations, but frankly I don't care about them spying on legitimate terrorist targets in Yemeni cyber cafes, it's what they're supposed to be fucking doing.

    31. Re: Is Snowden completely stupid? by dwillden · · Score: 0

      Nope, he was the one entrusted with a security clearance. He is the one who signed the NDR. And he is the one who handed classified data on our intelligence gathering systems to individuals not cleared to receive it. He is the one who needs to face charges. He does not deserve a Pardon. Had he limited what he handed over to just the surveillance of US citizens inside the US then he would deserve a Pardon. But he didn't limit what he stole and gave away. Therefore he deserves to spend a very long time in prison.

      He is responsible for the data he took without authorization and turned over to individuals not authorized to receive it. They are not bound by the NDR, HE is.

      Your police example is not relevant. He is responsible for whatever happens to data he releases without authorization.

      --
      I'm too lazy to compose a creative sig.
    32. Re: Is Snowden completely stupid? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The government was doing wrong in one small but significant aspect, the US phone monitoring system.

      Everything else he has released is NOT the government doing wrong. Intelligence gathering is the task of the NSA and the intelligence community. Collecting on everybody, friend or foe, except Ex-pats is their job. Revealing those collection efforts is a crime, the government conducting those operations is not a crime, not wrong by any standard.

      You obviously have no idea what you are talking about and just want to be outraged at anything the government does.

    33. Re: Is Snowden completely stupid? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... hero for betraying his country ...

      Yes, once again, telling the truth is a far worse crime than internal corruption. Maybe that's why you mention Russia and China so much: You believe bureaucrats should be criminals. It's explains why don't hold politicians accountable when the USA "went bankrupt fighting a war".

      ... I support the NSA / CIA / whatever spying on and killing anyone ...

      That's still a war: Unconventional and probably asymmetric, but war. I understand you now: When 'might is right' doesn't work, when 'the world does what the USA says' doesn't work; you want the war all over again, on the cheap and away from the real armies.

      ... Domestic spying by the intelligence services is a good thing.

      The Russian Cheka and NKVD, East German Stassi, Nazi Germany Gestapo all agree with this statement.

      Spying has stopped acts of terrorism on US soil.

      A lot of people are saying this but the few terrorists being arrested are US-trained and badly trained at that: Not defensible evidence for believers like yourself.

      ... want the government spying on Muslim activities.

      That's how police caught Andrew Joseph Stack (USA), Ted Kaczynski (USA), Anders Behring Breivik (NOR), Timothy McVeigh (USA). The 'New America foundation' declared white terrorists more dangerous than Muslims. The FBI has declared 2nd Amendment militias the biggest threat to the USA. But let's blame the loud-mouthed minority only when they're not Christian devotees.

    34. Re:Is Snowden completely stupid? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      for counter-terrorism

      Keep telling yourself that.

    35. Re:Is Snowden completely stupid? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Snowden did not just dump secrets on domestic spying. He dumped secrets on foreign spying, which all goverments do. Your right, America doesn't deserve him--he should stay in Russia where he is a hero for making their intelligence services' job very easy.

    36. Re: Is Snowden completely stupid? by gonz · · Score: 1

      Well said!

    37. Re: Is Snowden completely stupid? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      An illegal contract is still illegal. i.e. Provisions can not be place in a contract which would contradict natural law or constitutional law.

    38. Re:Is Snowden completely stupid? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Voices of reason are not allowed on /.

      Didn't you get the memo?

    39. Re: Is Snowden completely stupid? by vux984 · · Score: 1

      Nope, he was the one entrusted with a security clearance. He is the one who signed the NDR. And he is the one who handed classified data on our intelligence gathering systems to individuals not cleared to receive it

      "to individuals not cleared to receive it" aka "the press" aka "a proxy to the public".

      He did exactly what you said, and not only does he deserve a pardon, he deserves a medal. There is simply no way the VAST majority of what he released shouldn't have been known by the public funding it; our internal surveillance, and even the extent to which we collaborate with other countries, and the extent to which we spy on allies...

    40. Re:Is Snowden completely stupid? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      US Law and the Constitution allow for completely unrestrained monitoring of communications the are either entirely or partially outside of the country, it has since world war 2.

      You really need to do some fact checking before letting your emotions take control, it makes your arguments as strong as wet tissues

      Seriously, the US limitations on wiretapping (warrants etc...) only apply in the US, so if you are going to call on the Constitution to validate your bullshit views, then at least try to apply them where the Constitution applies, or you just make this look more and more like an fsb operation

    41. Re: Is Snowden completely stupid? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All BS. You are including the Syrian civil wars and Yemen in your rant. The USA and UK deserve to protect themselves.

    42. Re: Is Snowden completely stupid? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So the government doing blanket drag net spying on all of its citizens and THEN lying about it, is perfectly A-OK according to you. But fuck the guy who released the information on said spying. He should hang.

      Stop believing what your parents/tv stations tell you about politics.

      Pro tip: they all have an agenda.
      Pro tip2: domestic spying != foreign spying.

      It's one thing to spy on your enemies, but to spy on your own god damn citizens for no apparent reason other than TERRORIST or ch1LD pr0n, should be illegal without a warrant.

    43. Re: Is Snowden completely stupid? by Type44Q · · Score: 1

      I don't know about your bosses, dumbass, but I certainly expect better shilling for my tax dollars.

    44. Re: Is Snowden completely stupid? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Spying is what governments do. Domestic spying by the intelligence services is a good thing.

      Domestic spying breeds corruption and isn't a legitimate activity. Hence the reason it's illegal.

      Spying has stopped acts of terrorism on US soil.

      Meanwhile a 9/11 load of people are murdered in the US each and every quarter like clockwork.

      If you are a Muslim, you especially want the government spying on Muslim activities. The last time the US government did not do it's job and spy on Muslims was 911.

      60 9/11's worth of murders have occurred since then in this country. Why exactly should everyone give up their rights and privacy in the name of a single outlier event given they are more likely to be murdered by a non-terrorist, killed in a car accident or falling in their own homes?

      As a result of that mistake the US government with the support of the U.S. populace destroyed Afghanistan, Iraq, and the United States (we went bankrupt fighting a war on a tactic) The USA overreacts when bad things happen on USAian soil, and we go after people who had nothing to do with the act.

      LOL the terrorists made us do it. The terrorists made Bush invade Iraq and the terrorists made the "Intelligence" community make up a bunch of bullshit it's own people with intimate domain knowledge didn't even believe themselves as a pretext for war.

      I do not want to get in any more wars. This is why I support the NSA / CIA / whatever spying on and killing anyone who would want to commit an act of terrorism.

      The terrorists made us do it... kill them all and then we won't do stupid shit anymore. I promise. Never mind bush already looking for whatever pretext he could to get revenge for the attempt on his daddy. The terrorists MADE US DO IT.

      But if you really think Snowden is some kind of hero, you should move to some country where they support heros and never spy.

      What Snowden did was expose/confirm illegal activities conducted against everyone who has ever used a phone in this country. I'd be willing to entertain your bullshit about the NSA for a few milliseconds at least when someone from NSA goes to jail.

      And by "expose/confirm" you mean "leaked illegally and committed espionage against his own country". It was/is not illegal at all. Unless you are a terrorist, you have nothing to worry about. Snowden is a traitor.

    45. Re: Is Snowden completely stupid? by ArylAkamov · · Score: 1

      So, you think he is a hero for betraying his country.

      It isn't exactly betrayal when they cast the first stone.

      Say we have a legally binding contract. Between you and over 300 million people. And you break said contract, regularly. How is it betraying you to let everybody else know that you have broken our contract and should not be trusted?

    46. Re:Is Snowden completely stupid? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is irrelevant what US Law and the US Constitution allow if the actions are not in the US. If the NSA wants to do anything in country X, it has to obey country X's laws.

    47. Re: Is Snowden completely stupid? by dwillden · · Score: 1

      False, the public does not have any right to know our national secrets. If we reveal all our secrets we have none, and have no leverage in international relations. Just because we fund it does not mean we are entitled to know everything the government does. A government with no secrets cannot stand.

      the vast majority of what he released was not for public release and has compromised many legitimate intelligence operations that we the people have tasked the intelligence community to engage in.

      He signed the NDR, that means he promised to protect those national secrets. The only ones he was not bound to protect are those that were illegal, i.e. the phone surveillance of US citizens inside the US.

      He does not deserve a pardon or a medal. He deserves a very long stint at Ft Leavenworth breaking big rocks into little rocks.

      --
      I'm too lazy to compose a creative sig.
    48. Re: Is Snowden completely stupid? by dwillden · · Score: 1

      The NDR is a legal contract. It has been well vetted and challenged in the courts. The SF 312 NDR is not an illegal contract by any definition. He is not bound to protect secrets about illegal acts, thus he would have been justified and even a hero in revealing the illegal phone surveillance of US citizens inside the US. But that was revealed in his first release when he was still in China. Everything since then has been fully legitimate intelligence collection efforts and thus still subject to the lawful contract he signed.

      --
      I'm too lazy to compose a creative sig.
    49. Re: Is Snowden completely stupid? by vux984 · · Score: 1

      the public does not have any right to know our national secrets

      That's some fine circular reasoning you've got going there.

      If the government had been acting legally, it wouldn't have had any misbehaviour to keep secret. And declaring its illegal and undesirable activities to be secret absolutely does not deny the public the right to know about them.

      . Just because we fund it does not mean we are entitled to know everything the government does. A government with no secrets cannot stand.

      Followed by a straw man. Nobody is arguing that the government should have NO secrets. But it should not have had THESE secrets.

      and has compromised many legitimate intelligence operations that we the people have tasked the intelligence community to engage in.

      "we the people" asked for no such thing, and do not support MANY of these operations."

      If a few criminals and whatnot go free, so fucking what... that is the entire premise of our justice system, that it is better to let a criminal or even a terrorist go then to imprison the innocent. That is a premise the NSA seemed to abandon, and since it was keeping it a secret the fact that it was abandoned couldn't be debated by the public.

      The NSA did not have a mandate to spy on our closest allies and our own citizens en masse. No to trade intel with our allies for intel on our own citizens to get around what few legal restraints they were still observing. Full stop.

    50. Re:Is Snowden completely stupid? by Fragnet · · Score: 1

      Anonymous Paranoid acting tough on the internet. Shocking.

    51. Re:Is Snowden completely stupid? by Fragnet · · Score: 1

      Are you serious? Intelligence Agencies are by definition not obeying country X's laws. Country X has a law against spying.

      For fuck's sake what is wrong with you people? It's almost like you're being deliberately fucking stupid.

    52. Re: Is Snowden completely stupid? by strikethree · · Score: 1

      I am kind of a Snowden supporter here...

      If you report (and provide proof) of government corruption, overreach, and general malfeasance to the legitimate press; and the press sorts thorugh it, verifies it, and determines what is newsworthy and publishable... that is an important function of the press.

      This part (government corruption/overreach) of what Snowden did makes him a national hero and a patriot. He deserves a statue and reverence from every American for it.

      What this story is covering is NOT about American government corruption and overreach. It is about GCHQ corruption and overreach. Snowden had no business revealing such secrets that he got from the NSA. He is a traitor and a coward for running from the consequences of his actions.

      Long story short, every government has the responsibility to spy on every other government. Each State is sovereign and the real world is dangerous. I fully expect GCHQ to spy on me as I am not one of their citizens. I also expect Russia and China to spy on me as I am not a citizen of those countries either.

      Snowden released too much information. If he had kept his release of information strictly to what the American government was doing illegally, I would drop to my knees and praise him. As it is, I am torn. The depth of his treachery is almost unfathomable. The height of his courage is almost unfathomable. What to do?

      --
      "Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
    53. Re: Is Snowden completely stupid? by vux984 · · Score: 1

      What this story is covering is NOT about American government corruption and overreach. It is about GCHQ corruption and overreach.

      And therefore what is the problem with it exactly?

      Long story short, every government has the responsibility to spy on every other government

      Every government has a responsibility to protects its national security, and that can involve spying on other governements. But it is an absurd waste of resources to spy on every member of every government everywhere all the time. Canada, for example, is not threatening the US. The UK is a longtime ally. The US should be keeping tabs on these countries and others, monitoring their policies, profiling key people, etc. But they don't need to hack their email and tap their phones; not unless there are some serious red flags. Instead they do it as a matter of course. That's a waste of resources. Resources that could be put to better use elsewhere.

      I fully expect GCHQ to spy on me as I am not one of their citizens.

      Because dedicating resources to spying on strikethree's phone conversations with his grandmother is a good use of a Brit's taxpayers money? No. Of course not. The money would be better spent elsewhere. I fully expect the GCHQ to have the authority to try and spy on you if it needs to. But I would expect its not in the UK's interests to actually do it... what is the return on that effort? Assuming you aren't a legitimate threat to the security of the UK... the return is ZILCH.

      The UK public should be as disgusted at the GCHQ as you should be at the NSA.

      If he had kept his release of information strictly to what the American government was doing illegally,

      Who decides what was illegal or not?
      The NSA? They'd decided everything was legal; or at least legal enough that they could argue it was legal; or perhaps if not strictly legal .... that there were extenuating circumstances that made it ok in this case... ". Who was Snowden to 2nd guess them on it? Deciding he rely on the NSA to determine what was legal would be would be a pretty pointless position to take; nothing would be released ever.

      Snowden should be the judge for himself? If so, we are faulting him for not having the arrogance to decide for the entire country which information should be released or not. That's a pretty heavy burden to lay at his feet, and how could you possibly be satisified trusting his judgement. So that's a fascinating position to take too.

      So that leaves what he actually did... give it to the press; to disseminate it to the public; you know so we can decide for ourselves like adults. If we decide not every detail was necessary, that's fine. Its good to know that perhaps not everything the NSA did was a shitshow. But there was so much wrong with the NSA, that seeing it all, so we have the big picture, and the context, so we can see where the boundaries were crossed, and decide for ourselves. That seems like the best option by far to me.

    54. Re:Is Snowden completely stupid? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course I am serious. That these criminals are being paid for by taxpayers in some other country does not somehow make their actions any less illegal or immoral. They should be extradicted if necessary and prosecuted and the government of the country where the crimes took place should enact sanctions against the government that ordered those crimes.

  3. Ho Ho Ho by sexconker · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "is carried out in accordance with a strict legal and policy framework," and "is entirely compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights."

    1: No one believes that.
    2: You voted to leave the EU. Why even pretend at this point?

    1. Re:Ho Ho Ho by Fragnet · · Score: 3, Informative

      The European Convention on Human Rights is The Council of Europe, not the European Union.

    2. Re:Ho Ho Ho by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Also, May claims to have given up on plans to repeal the Human Rights Act, although I expect she will try to weaken it.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    3. Re:Ho Ho Ho by sexconker · · Score: 1

      My point is they're posturing for no reason. Everyone in Europe has written them off because they always have and always will do their own thing. They never even adopted the Euro for shit's sake. Why even pretend they're anything but the US's crazy uncle?

    4. Re:Ho Ho Ho by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      Also, May claims to have given up on plans to repeal the Human Rights Act

      Finally, some good news, though this isn't unexpected:

      although I expect she will try to weaken it.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    5. Re:Ho Ho Ho by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Incidentally, it's idiots like you who don't bother to look up things like the EU and ECHR being entirely unrelated, that voted Leave in order to "get rid of the ECHR!"

    6. Re:Ho Ho Ho by Fragnet · · Score: 1

      We can and should repeal it, and replace it with our own.

    7. Re:Ho Ho Ho by Fragnet · · Score: 1

      You actually think the crazy uncles refused to join the Euro, the sane uncles joined it? You know Spain, Greece, Italy?

  4. "Compatible" by Ormy · · Score: 2

    "is entirely compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights."

    I like how they said "compatible" and not "compliant". How clever.

    1. Re:"Compatible" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How much do you want to bet, this is their high-level PR spin.

      If and when we get some detailed compliance information, we'll find an unacceptably high level of unapproved taps, data feeds they are using that are not allowed, investigations into individuals not under suspicion, and so forth. Note that I'm even allowing for mistakes and the odd "over enthusiastic" employee. No, we'll find that they have violations of both policy and law, that even GCHQ cannot defend.

      Any time there isn't adequate transparency of operation, you get shoddy behavior, corners getting cut, and people exceeding their authority. The current security situation is ripe for abuses of power.

  5. Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is good. Why would you monitor "just within combat zones"? Terrorism is a global problem. Guess what? No one cares about you. Not the NSA, not the GCHQ. You are boring.

    1. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Life would be so much nicer as soon as everyone understood and accepted 'You are not special'.

    2. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's only comforting if you only care about yourself, rather than about democracy and freedom in general. But mass surveillance is worrisome for dissidents, political opponents, lawyers, activists, whistleblowers, journalists, and generally just people who want to change the system or challenge authority. These are the people who help put checks on government power and therefore help democracy thrive. You or I, specifically, may not be interesting (but there's still a chance normal people could become targets for reasons completely unknown to them), but it's not all about you. Stop being selfish.

      The FBI tried to make MLK commit suicide, law enforcement practices parallel construction to cover up illegal searches, the US has wronged many people in the past (e.g. Japanese internment camps), there are countless unjust laws on the books, etc. The US government and other governments have proven that if they can abuse their power, they absolutely will do so. This is a simple historical fact that only a blind fool would deny.

      There are many pro-mass surveillance trolls on Slashdot. Less so for SoylentNews.

    3. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "dissidents, political opponents, lawyers, activists, whistleblowers, journalists, and generally just people who want to change the system or challenge authority."
      They aren't looking for any of those things. The NSA and GCHQ doesn't care about people who want to "challenge authority". They are looking for people who want to blow you up.

  6. Is any of it illegal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If it is Not illegal, then it is More charges of Treason against him.

    1. Re:Is any of it illegal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly. Thanks for letting the terrorists know how we do it. This is exactly what the NSA should be doing.

    2. Re: Is any of it illegal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I guess US citizens now stands for "terrorist" as well.

  7. You could be concerned about this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Or, you might want to be more concerned about Obama's drone program that has murdered countless civilians, and maybe a few terrorists.

    Your choice, amigo.

    1. Re:You could be concerned about this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you friend is a Terrorist then do not stop by for a visit, or invite him over.
      You never know when he might just explode.
      If you are married to one then do not be surprised either.

    2. Re:You could be concerned about this by zedaroca · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Suspected terrorist in the eyes of the NSA. Is who you are saying people should stay away from.
      The program is the murder of known innocents and alleged/suspected terrorists. There is no trial, they are not terrorists.

      These people are in their country, they are not murdering in the US. Many of them are murdered based on metadata only, so just by saying stuff and being in the "wrong" places (in your own country) might be enough to be murdered by the US.

      How does one figure if your friend who talks bad shit about the US (after his cousin was bomb murdered in the market) is a suspected terrorist in the American eyes? He says the same stuff everyone does...
      If you live in a country where everyone is Muslin and everyone should hate the US (because of the killings without war), how do you tell the difference between who is normal and who is not in the eyes of the NSA?

      But the worst is that you are suggesting people should be afraid in their homes, in their countries, of what they say and who they talk to, because they might just explode. Inflicting this kind of fear is what some people call terrorism.

    3. Re:You could be concerned about this by Max_W · · Score: 1

      Military drone program is also killing the civil UAV industry.

      Every year about million and a half die in traffic accidents on overcrowded ground roads in the world, much more badly wounded and mutilated. These are the figures of a WW3.

      UAVs could deliver packages and documents in cities reducing ground traffic up to 50%, they also could transport cargo between cities, etc. The technology is there already to do it safely and efficiently. However as people hear the word "drone" they immediately think about a danger, - deaths of innocent people at weddings, privacy violation, surveillance from the air, and other similar issues.

      FAA and other analogous agencies play along with this public mood, as politicians usually do, and suffocating the emerging UAV industry with prohibitive regulations.

    4. Re:You could be concerned about this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People are only concerned about that when Trump says he'll do it, not when Obama & co. are actually doing it.

      So it's ironic that voting for Trump might end the program, in theory, due to actual public outcry.

      Not that I intend to vote for him. I don't like either one. I'm about reduced to writing in Harambe.

  8. cor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Plenty of folk have suspected what menwith hill has been up to for decades,snowxen missed out that the Uk allows the nsa access to the much smaller but more detailed electronic data gathered by the Brittann Norman islander aircraft as they circle at 10.000+ feet above London andotber major cities,there is one stationed at all times over London,in relay,from Northwood RAF base,just outside London,these aircraft can suck up ten of thousands of calls at once,and that's full info,who said what to who on which number,in which handset etc etc,they are up there listening in,probably reading this live as I type it,because I'm "a person of interest" because I watch watchers,and have had the pleasure of MI5 and MI6 etc etc watching us since at least since 2000,again,but have been in their sights for decades before that,mostly because I refused to work for or with the spooks when I was much younger and because I've lived an "interesting" life...they must have time,money and bodies to burn,they always give up from getting bored watching me do nothing,except grow a small bit of weed,and possible lab rat for experiments from porton down in the 60's/70's ,,stupid bastards couldn't catch anyone who knows what their doing,which is one of the reasons they watch me,they know that I could vanish for months,start all sorts of "interesting" events but leave nothing for them to trace...done before,scared I might do it again but not as a wind up this time,they appear to be under the delusion that amateurs like me can get access to almost anything !!!possibly if you have lots of cash/contacts,pity I have neither,I could,possibly would, cause plenty of embarrassment to our ruling elite if I did..and no I'm not some sad paranoid on lithium pills who should be in a nice soft cell...

  9. Betrayed America to Americans? by dbIII · · Score: 1

    So, you think he is a hero for betraying his country

    He leaked to a pair of American journalists.

  10. Read it Carefully: It's probably true by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 2

    1: The ECHR is not related to the EU
    2: It probably is compatible because the base is regarded as US Sovereign territory and what goes on there is technically not subject to British control similar to a foreign embassy. Hence it is compatible but not necessarily compliant.

    In fact I grew up in Harrogate and have actually been on to the Menwith Hill base when I was a school kid for a party. They were extremely hospitable and even gave us Coca Cola imported from the US. At the time none of us British kids could understand why US coke tasted so bad compared to British coke and it was not until I was living the US ~10 years later that I heard of the "New Coke" debacle.

  11. Signal-to-noise? by symbolic · · Score: 1

    >> using an array of antennae and U.S. government satellites to capture up to 335 million pieces of metadata in a 12-hour period.

    Among those 335 million pieces of metadata, how many of them actually pertain to anything related to terrorism? My guess..less than .000001%.

    1. Re:Signal-to-noise? by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 1

      My guess..less than .000001%.

      So that would be 3 pieces of terror related metadata in a 12 hour shift. Sounds about right although it may be an order of magnitude higher.

      --
      Time to offend someone
    2. Re:Signal-to-noise? by dunkindave · · Score: 1

      >> using an array of antennae and U.S. government satellites to capture up to 335 million pieces of metadata in a 12-hour period.

      Among those 335 million pieces of metadata, how many of them actually pertain to anything related to terrorism? My guess..less than .000001%.

      Police believe a known terror suspect is at a football/baseball/soccer/quidditch game and scan the crowd looking for him, and eventually find him. Of the 50,000 fans in the stadium, they examined 49,999 innocent people to find the one they were looking for. Are you saying since only 0.002% of the data points examined pertained to the terror suspect, the police should be prohibited from looking through crowds for suspects?

      It's like running a wireshark capture to watch connections to a server. Even though you give it filter criteria, the capture machine has to collect everything on the wire then look through it for the packets the user wants. Same idea for the satellites - they have to collect and comb through a ton of data to find the nuggets they want.

    3. Re:Signal-to-noise? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      49,999 invasions of privacy for one apprehended suspect. suspect probably didn't harm anywhere near 50k people. Even five persons would be exceptional. The numbers don't look good for you unless your value system is fucked up.

    4. Re:Signal-to-noise? by dunkindave · · Score: 1

      49,999 invasions of privacy for one apprehended suspect. suspect probably didn't harm anywhere near 50k people. Even five persons would be exceptional. The numbers don't look good for you unless your value system is fucked up.

      So you are saying police cannot look around to see if they see a suspect because they will almost certainly see a lot of non-suspects before they may see the suspect? They can't look at cars hunting for the robbery getaway vehicle because all those other innocent drivers on the public road would be having their privacy violated? So police must now walk and drive around blindfolded lest they "invade the privacy" of those out in public? If police are not allowed to look for suspects, or even watch for crimes being committed (the logical consequence of you position), how do you expect them to find any criminals?

      Tell me where you live because I don't want to live anywhere near it - it sounds like a criminal's paradise because the criminals are writing the rules.

  12. Not even legal within UK law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    GCHQ always says that, but when we learn its legal definitions, they're crap, bogus.

    There is an exemption from criminal law if they are acting under directions of a secretary of state. i.e. you cannot prosecute them if they are only following orders. Which their PR mans spins as "legal, full compliance with the law".

    This bit: "is entirely compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights" is the "innocent" plea in a legal challenge to ECHR and ECJ. He *has* to make that claim, or they're admitting the illegality of bulk surveillance prior to the legal challenge.

    http://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/other/%e2%80%98snoopers%e2%80%99-charter%e2%80%99-under-threat-from-ecj-interim-ruling/ar-BBuwdWy

    "‘Snoopers’ charter’ under threat from ECJ interim ruling....The finding relates to strict legislation introduced by Theresa May in 2014, when she was home secretary, but could have an impact on the sprawling remit of the UK’s new investigatory powers bill, dubbed the Snoopers’ Charter, now going through parliament. The 2014 legislation compelled telecoms companies to scoop up metadata — the who, how and when of a customer’s phone or internet usage.....In the opinion, Henrik Saugmandsgaard Øe, one of the court’s advocates general, conceded some of these points and argued that bulk collection of metadata should be used for “only the fight against serious crime” rather than “ordinary offences”."

    We can't at this point vote in a government without the watchful eye of GCHQ and NSA and the rapey astroturf of their attack dog JTRIG.

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/nov/20/us-uk-secret-deal-surveillance-personal-data

    So they're busy spying on Brits, handing the data to NSA, who use it to ensure only compliant "Theresa May" style surveillance bots get elected. And somehow they've told themselves they're the good guys and this is all to protect Britain from terrorists who kill fewer people than Tesco's 2 for 1 donut deals.

  13. Subversive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "potentially implicating it in the civilian deaths that have resulted."
    Oh. So the ppl that died was ACTUALLY the government's fault, NOT the terrorists.
    Got it...

    1. Re:Subversive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Since it was the government that killed them, I would argue that is not entirely unreasonable.

  14. Great job! by mumma3k · · Score: 1

    All this manpower and infrastructure to catching so called terrorists. They really do a fantastic job considering the situation in Europe and the middleeast today. But I guess that's not the focus of the operation.

  15. All very well because by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    this is high-tech and sexy and all but it tries to solve the problem too late. You'll never stop all of them that way. Look at the douchebag in France who murdered all those people by ramming them with a truck. How about they devote some of the megabucks they're spending on sexy space age surveillance on studying the causes like Saudi Arabia: http://www.salon.com/2016/01/0...

  16. bikers are stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://bnews.chopperguy.net/articles/2016/09/06/two-black-pistons-convicted-drug-charges

  17. Yes but... by tmjva · · Score: 1

    Are they hiring?

    --
    Tracy Johnson
    Old fashioned text games hosted below:
    http://empire.openmpe.com/
    BT