Guardian Ignores MI5 Warnings, Vows To 'Publish More Snowden Leaks' 301
dryriver writes in with news that a new round of Snowden leaks may be on the way. "Guardian editor Alan Rusbridger says he plans to publish more revelations from Edward Snowden despite MI5 warning that such disclosures cause enormous damage. Mr Rusbridger insisted the paper was right to publish files leaked by the US intelligence analyst and had helped to prompt a necessary and overdue debate. Mr Rusbridger said more stories would be published in the future as the leaked documents were 'slowly and responsibly' worked through. His comments come after criticism from the new head of MI5, Andrew Parker. Making public the 'reach and limits' of intelligence-gathering techniques gave terrorists the advantage, he said. He warned that terrorists now had tens of thousands of means of communication 'through e-mail, IP telephony, in-game communication, social networking, chat rooms, anonymising services and a myriad of mobile apps'. Mr Parker said it was vital for MI5 to retain the capability to access such information if it was to protect the country. "
Liars, liars, pants on fire (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm so tired of using "terrorist" argument and then, when we give them what they want, they turn around and use new powers on own citizens or to oppress members of minor political parties.
Re:Liars, liars, pants on fire (Score:5, Funny)
Well, "terrorist" is becoming as generic as calling someone an asshole.
You took the last bear claw, you terririst!
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I see that occurring on Slashdot, along with various claims of "everyone's a terrorist" for some reason or another generally involving disingenuous rhetoric. As a rule I don't see that from government. They seem to be a bit clearer about its meaning.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Such as when you become a registered sexual offender because you pissed on a tree on night.
Re: (Score:2)
Your post give a hint of the right answer: a "registered sex offender" is .... a registered sex offender, not a terrorist.
Hella big whoosh there, moron. (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, analogies are not identical. Well done. Have a bikkit.
However, the term "sexual offender" gives images that do NOT include "pissed on a tree where a police officer could see them".
Much like those that are called terrorist are not actually what is considered by the people who agreed to the laws to be used against terrorists to be terrorists.
Such as people whose dogs poop in the streed and don't clean up the poop.
Re:Liars, liars, pants on fire (Score:4)
This just in: government gets to decide the meaning of "registered sex offender" and "terrorist".
cold fjord is happy with the definitions the government uses and presumably thinks that those definitions will never change.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
As a rule I don't see that from government. They seem to be a bit clearer about its meaning.
I guess that might be considered true, since the government feels that the rules don't apply to them, and that "rule" would be no exception. Or you're ignorant of/ignoring the fact that these endless "anti-terrorist" laws are used more often in the clusterfuck that we call "the war on drugs" than against actual terrorists. And that we've already displayed that the government is happy to bypass the law entirely against "actual" terrorists, even if they're citizens, without even pretending or "plausible denia
Re: (Score:2)
I guess that might be considered true,...
... your observation here seems pretty divorced from reality.
Make up your mind, it's either true or it isn't. The police and investigative agencies may use some of the powers they are granted by antiterrorism legislation for investigating other crimes,* but that doesn't mean the criminals they are investigating are then necessarily terrorist.
* You should be clear that terrorist groups often resort to ordinary criminal activity to fund themselves. Examples include bank robbery, kidnapping, extortion, smuggling, and so on. The terrorist group Hezbollah has hundreds
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Make up your mind, it's either true or it isn't.
Read for context. Doing otherwise doesn't make you look clever, it makes you look like a putz.
As a rule I don't see that from government. They seem to be a bit clearer about its meaning.
I guess that might be considered true, since the government feels that the rules don't apply to them, and that "rule" would be no exception.
Here you go. [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Liars, liars, pants on fire (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Liars, liars, pants on fire (Score:4)
Anyway, bringing up the drug cartels is a bit rich, considering they exist mostly because of stupid government policies, even being supported directly by government stooges. Fast and Furious, anyone? [wikipedia.org]
And to answer your question. No, I would not want "the police or security services to be able to listen in on the phone calls, or read the emails, of a gang that had kidnapped one of your loved ones" if that means that they have undermined the very fundamentals of democracy to do so.
Re: (Score:3)
Would you want the police or security services to be able to listen in on the phone calls, or read the emails, of a gang that had kidnapped one of your loved ones and threatened to mail you various body parts each day until you paid the ranson?
They don't need any of the anti-terrorism legislation to do that and they don't need my telephone metadata from 5 years ago in their leaky lockbox for that, a judge would be happy to sign a conventional warrant to cover listening in on the bad guys.
Besides that, the NSA will not help in such a case since it might reveal their capabilities and we're just nobodies to them.
Of course, if they would drop the pointless war on drugs, there would be no Mexican cartels.
Re: (Score:3)
It's called a warrant and has nothing to do with the mass trolling of everyone's phone and internet communications.
Re:Liars, liars, pants on fire (Score:5, Insightful)
Nelson Mandela was a terrorist, by just about any definition. Doesn't mean he wasn't right.
"We don't negotiate with terrorists!" is a little bit odd coming from people trying to get their photo next to him.
Re: (Score:3)
Sinn Fein are the political wing of a terrorist organization, and negotiation with them worked out pretty well. The Taliban are terrorists but if we ever want to sort Afghanistan out we will need to negotiate with them.
The argument that it encourages terrorism is stupid. Clearly you have to be pretty badly repressed, far worse than the average UK citizen is, before you are willing to murder other people and possibly die doing so. The fact that if you and many others organized into a coherent group (so there
Re:Liars, liars, pants on fire (Score:4, Insightful)
So were the Founding Fathers of the US. Things tend to change when you win.
Re: (Score:2)
Not really Cold, when Western govs see a lack of traction for their PR they often have to help things along a bit beyond "rhetoric":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategy_of_tension [wikipedia.org]
A study of history will always turn up some interesting actions by governments trying to rule
Re:Liars, liars, pants on fire (Score:4, Informative)
I see that occurring on Slashdot, along with various claims of "everyone's a terrorist" for some reason or another generally involving disingenuous rhetoric. As a rule I don't see that from government. They seem to be a bit clearer about its meaning.
You mean like when they consider the Occupy movement, political protests and environmental groups terrorism?
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2012/12/peaceful-protest-treated-as-terrorism-by-the-fbi.html
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
I think this is what you are looking for:
Occupy organizers linked to Cleveland bridge bombing plot [humanevents.com]
Fellow activists express disbelief at arrest of NATO summit bomb plot suspects [nbcnews.com]
I think there are one or two more, at least, associated with Occupy.
Domestic Eco-Terrorism Has Deep Pockets. And Many Enablers. [forbes.com]
Re: (Score:3)
That's nothing compared to blowing up the entire world's economies just to make a buck. I wonder what the penalty for that is. OH yeah, none at all. It's protesting those people that carries the penalties and gets you investigated as terrorists.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Liars, liars, pants on fire (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Liars, liars, pants on fire (Score:5, Interesting)
"I have here in my hand a list of 205—a list of names that were made known to the Secretary of State as being members of the Communist Party and who nevertheless are still working and shaping policy in the State Department."
Joe McCarthy, February 9, 1950
Some things don't change.
Re:Huge Difference (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Huge Difference (Score:5, Interesting)
Or economic damage done. If these things were dealt with rationally. Look at countries with a real terrorist problem or that used to have one. They are all still there, including Northern Ireland, Spain, Germany, etc. And they are still there even with the authorities in some of them acting terminally stupid and adding 10000% damage on top of what the terrorists did.
The threat of terrorism is not relevant. The threat of people being scared into irrationality by claims of "terrorism" from governments is severe. The threat of "countermeasures" to terrorism by governments is severe. Establishment of police- and surveillance-states is a few orders of magnitude more problematic that terrorism could ever be. And that is what is clearly going on. One would think people in the west have learned something from the things that happened last century. Apparently not.
Re: (Score:2)
Look up the first red scare and the communist activities in the US circa 1919. You sre correct that in recent times, comunist have not done anything violent in the US but rhat wasn't always the case.
Not that this detracts from your point or anything. It is just a little perspective.
Re:Huge Difference (Score:5, Insightful)
Well to put that in perspective, the Russian Intelligence Services already have a complete copy and the Chinese Intelligence Services also have a complete copy, so who exactly are they keeping it secret from. Well, we all know that, the voting public who will be outraged at the invasion of privacy. The financial sector who will be deeply disturbed by global insider trading schemes. Many countries, some of which are meant to be allies of the countries doing the most spying. Terrorist not so much, unless they are starting up some new terminology vote-terrorists those that vote against government who support insane 1984 Orwellian scams. Voters who know too much and most be prevented from contacting other voters, voters unafraid to express their opinions and the very worst of all voters who actively vote against the dictates of the military industrial complex, evil vote-terrorists all over the place.
Re: (Score:2)
Terrorism is real in the sense that you read about it in the news occasionally. It does not do any relevant damage. (9/11 was a fluke die to terminal incompetence of the US FBI and TLAs, and a lot of luck on the side of the perpetrators. Still, its damage was quite limited, especially compared to the damage done as "response" to it.) In addition, all this spying, surveillance, erosion of liberties, etc. does not prevent terrorism at all! Maybe that is not the goal, and the basically irrelevant terrorist "th
Re:Huge Difference (Score:5, Insightful)
Terrorists are real.
So are bathtubs [falkvinge.net], so are stairs and so are traffic accidents, all which cause more lives lost than terrorists.
Any death other than the one of old age is terrible. Accidents happen that cause people to suffer for quite a while before dying. Some people have lost their lives in earthquakes - literally buried alive, waiting days for a rescue that never come. Other people die in house fires in the most horrible agony you might imagine. Therefore, Terrorists do not frighten me any more than an earthquake would.
Oh, sure. Terrorists are horrible people, hell-bent on violating the worst crimes of war possible. They are no stranger to detonating a nuclear bomb in the middle of any decently sized american city. Does that thought scare me? Yes, a bit. But does it make me cower in fear under my bed? No sir. I'm not afraid of these terrorists, because I know that if I'm afraid of them, then I'll always be afraid. The Terrorists have won.
I put my faith in the state to protect me as much as possible from these terrorists, as well as protect my liberties as best can. Unfortunately this paralyzing fear of terrorists have made the state erode my liberties without actually protecting me from terrorists. Therefore, I oppose those changes.
It's not about being stupid or brave. It's about not letting a bunch of jackasses control my life. And as long as I draw breath, they won't.
Re: (Score:2)
...
Oh, sure. Terrorists are horrible people, hell-bent on violating the worst crimes of war possible. They are no stranger to detonating a nuclear bomb in the middle of any decently sized american city....
Dude we are talking real life here, not TV. No terrorist has ever set off a nuclear bomb in America. In fact, the only nuclear bombs to ever be used against any cities was dropped by America.
Re:Huge Difference (Score:4, Insightful)
I too have been sick of the fear mongering propaganda complex that has overtaken our society in the past several years.
See, you have to start out with something that will leave the target with the impression you are on their side.
However, there is an enormous gulf between McCarthyism and the terrorist threat. No commies blew up airplanes and buildings. No commies went on shooting sprees in malls. No commies set off car bombs in crowded markets. The pink menace wasn't really very menacing at all. It was a false accusation.
Then you shift to a point that seems reasonable enough; that the target will probably agree with, since you only shifted the focus a little. It's cool since we all agree that the propaganda has gotten really thick (it gets thicker with posts like this one). So we're still on the same team.
Terrorists are real. Terrorist individuals and organizations commit atrocities on a near daily basis and regularly and publicly vow to kill large segments of the population or entire nations. Terrorism, unlike communism in the U.S., is a real threat that must not be ignored. But, that doesn't excuse these governments from using it as the go-to excuse for justifying every infringement of rights and nefarious activity, from banning nail clippers to the brave new world.
Then you deliver the real payload. Yeah, the government goes overboard, but we really do need them to keep us safe. Terrorism is real after all (which no one is disagreeing with) and it must not be ignored. On balance, it's a good thing we have our intelligence agencies to watch out for us. You've earned it today, AC.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Liars, liars, pants on fire (Score:5, Informative)
Bad analogy, since much (not all) of what McCarthy said turned out in fact to be true. The State Department WAS rife with people who were in fact Communist sympathizers or active Soviet agents.
Not really. McCarthy didn't have evidence or even a reasonable basis for making his claims. Playing the lottery and winning doesn't mean you can see into the future or are a whiz with statistics; claiming that there are communists in the State Department didn't mean he had even the tiniest bit of intelligence.
Plus, if he did know, it would've been grossly irresponsible to say so. Exposing known enemy spies and agents just means that they'll be replaced by others who you'll have to find all over again. The better tactic is to in some way turn the ones you know about so that you control what information they send back to your enemy.
And 'rife' is somewhat of an overstatement.
Frankly, McCarthy was a drunk bully. We'd all have been better off if he'd never been in politics at all. It's entirely proper to despise him and it's nice to see that so many do.
Re:Liars, liars, pants on fire (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Just one? Okay [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Britain has been facing the constant threat of terrorist attacks since the 1970's, right up until the early years of the 21st century, thanks to the terrorist elements of the Irish Republican Army and other Irish Republican splinter groups. Bombings happened, but even without the all-pervasive intelligence gathering apparatus that is apparently now necessary to track every "terrorist", the British Security Services still did a pretty good job of foiling most of the attacks.
I say most, not all, and I am not
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
A better target for the Guardian is the surveillance society in general, not MI5; it's council busy-bodies snooping with town centre cameras and things like that, not what the intelligence services are getting up to.
Why not both?
Re: (Score:2)
Because constructing false dilemmas is more fun.
Re: (Score:3)
Indeed. And to add insult to the lie, they do not even manage to do anything about what little terrorism is actually there.
However, I agree that "tremendous damage" is being done, namely to society by concerted efforts to establish a police- and surveillance-state. We had that in Europe in the last century and it took about 80 million dead to deal with it because it was not stopped at the onset. These people are extremely dangerous and need to be stopped. At this time, it may still be possible to do that in
Re: (Score:2)
I'm so tired of using "terrorist" argument and then, when we give them what they want, they turn around and use new powers on own citizens or to oppress members of minor political parties.
The true terrorist is the USA Government and it's cronies.
Re: (Score:2)
And for anyone who is still ignorant of this fact this [nytimes.com] has a great story about it.
Re: (Score:2)
But didn't you read below? I supposedly just manufactured all of this. I'm sure that idiot probably still believes that Iraq had WMDs.
Re: (Score:3)
Nothing revisionist about it. From here [usatoday.com]:
CRAWFORD, Texas — Paul O'Neill, President Bush's Treasury secretary in the first two years of his presidency, says the Bush administration was planning to invade Iraq long before the Sept. 11 attacks and used questionable intelligence to justify the war.
This is a 7 year old story.
Re: (Score:2)
LOL it was contingency planning? Are you serious? The only one engaging in revisionism is you.
Re: (Score:2)
And if you want to deny the USA today story read this [gwu.edu]. They were planning the Iraq invasion as early as January 2001.
Re: (Score:2)
How about if we just stayed the fuck out of Iraq completely? Like since 1991.
No 9/11 because there wouldn't have been any pissed of extremists.
Foreign policies have unintended consequences too.
Re: (Score:2)
They were extremists who didn't want us in their part of the world. And I can't really blame them for that.
Where they were born has no fucking bearing.
What about the old tried and true... (Score:2)
Grauniad (Score:3, Funny)
On teh upstart none will byable to hunderstand nethig publishd in their neway
MI5 got it wrong (Score:5, Interesting)
Security through secrecy = no security.
Also, the Snowden leaks mostly show that it's more honest citizens than terrorists who should be concerned about ubiquitous surveillance. Cue 1984 references...
In a sense, Bin Laden got what he wanted: he didn't want to hurt western societies directly, he wanted to get western societies to collapse into dictatorships by giving the initial push (9/11) that would allow mostly-democratic governments to slowly turn nasty with a good reason.
Re: (Score:2)
well security might mean also getting away with murder and for that secrecy is pretty useful..
Re: (Score:2)
http://cryptome.org/2013/10/questioning-snowden-truth.htm [cryptome.org]
You get differences
http://cryptome.org/2013/10/nsa-ego-differ/nsa-ego-differ.htm [cryptome.org]
Or the Tor is not unsafe message vs:
http://cryptome.org/2013/10/packet-stain/packet-staining.htm [cryptome.org]
The "others put their lives on the line for your security" is a nice talking point but most states do put effort into their revolutionaries, freedom f
Re: (Score:2)
Snowden is a traitor
"You chucklefucks keep using that word. I do not think it means what the fuck you think it means." - Inigo Fuckin' Montoya
Re: (Score:3)
Hey Bro! (Score:5, Funny)
T2: Wat? lol
T1: Bomb stupid spell chk
T2: Tot Bro got packback rdy
T1: YOLO for Allah!
T1: Rmbr, post pic or it didn't happen!
Is it like that? Do terrorists txtmsg each other like teenagers?
Re: (Score:2)
I think today's (and just today's) vernacular is:
totes = totally
instapic it = put a picture on instagram
enormous damage - but to what? (Score:5, Insightful)
despite MI5 warning that such disclosures cause enormous damage to their image
FTFY!
Re: (Score:2)
After that any tame academic, corrupted national brand, political figure, retired expert, member of the press or sockpuppet is seen for what they are.
Enormous damage ? (Score:5, Insightful)
Causes damage ? Sorry for having a different point of view but uncovering the disgusting acts of espionage on the population is a public service showing us how our free world is being transformed by the crooks and criminals we elected. The ones that should be jailed are the officials that led us down this path. They do not want to protect us , they want to protect their asses from being landed in a cold cell.
They are NOT working in our interrest, they are working against the People trying to get a better grip on our lives making us better slaves for our masters.
Fuck em . Publish all you got , get those bastards in jail or execute them. If some of them happen to get killed , so be it , they have waged a war on the People and they knew that the path they led us on was a dangerous one.
let em deal with their mess , i got no pity whatsoever.
Damage to their careers (Score:5, Insightful)
Quite simply the people behind the curtain have long had an attitude of the end justifies the means, so now in exposing them they are getting a taste of their own medicine. The other core pillar of the spying business is that information is power; well by exposing the spies themselves we give power back to the people of the various democracies in question.
But what really boils my butt is that any foreign spy or "actor" who was using any electronic system without assuming that they were being monitored is a fool. And anyone that foolish probably didn't pose much of a threat. From what I gather Osama was found as they tracked the couriers who physically carried messages, which means that he was off the grid as far as his trail was concerned. But the people who do still use electronic communications were people like you and me, combined with organizations and governments who trusted the rest of the world.
So how many trade negotiations were done while the US listened in on the other side figuring out their negotiating positions, how many companies like Siemens might have had business deals or trade secrets handed over to us contractors?
But then it gets potentially worse: How many times did say a Canadian go to negotiate a trade agreement only to find that they had a recording of him and his mistress? How many times did a politician who was causing problems have a tipped off reporter show up for a rendezvous with his mistress? Or even to have the troublesome politician's election strategy handed over to his opponent? Or to have his secret PAC supporters suddenly withdraw their support?
If they are willing to lean on a company that "buys its ink by the barrel" how little reluctance would they have to twist democracy to their needs?
So my guess is that it is not the real baddies who have gone silent but the diplomats, politicians(both domestic and foreign, and large international businesses that are going silent. Personally if I ran a company like Siemens I would be locking up the communications and computer system tighter than a drum.
Re: (Score:2)
If an intelligence agency can get in, so can any other friendly intelligence agencies, people who where with friendly intelligence groups and now work for cash, people who can afford to hire ex intelligence agency staff, foreign front companies who can exploit weakness for national gain, crime or blackmail.
Everything you want good generational encryption for has be red
Wrong optics (Score:5, Insightful)
The spies whine and spin it their way. If what they were doing was so innocuous, uncontroversial and even beneficial then they would be happy to be praised in the press. The fact is what they ware doing is deeply offensive to a large segment of society and they wish to hide it.
As to whether the terrs benefit or not, only the stupid ones might and they probably aren't reading. The non-stupid terrs have known about surveillence since before Echelon and adjust accordingly. They won't even infer any limits because they know the release is vetted to be incomplete.
The real effect of Snowdens releases is to confirm the tinfoil-behatted. Many fringe people have been saying much the same thing for 10+ years and been dismissed as lunatic paranoids. Now it appears they were right. Many people have egg on the face (congentially oblivious).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So trusting in gov standards, other brands and their own bosses. Was it peer pressure, the cash or fear?
Re: (Score:3)
The spies whine and spin it their way. If what they were doing was so innocuous, uncontroversial and even beneficial then they would be happy to be praised in the press. The fact is what they ware doing is deeply offensive to a large segment of society and they wish to hide it.
One thing we need to realize, is that it's not the spies, it's their handlers. Homeland Security in the US is completely owned by large corporations that get most of their expenditure. Remember, most spooks are contractors now. They are not even government employees. I suspect that MI# is a bit different, with the money being handles more by the old school network of people with titles, but the result is the same. If the spies are embarrassed, they lose their cash cow.
Secrecy Through Obscurity? Really? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I would not assume competency. Maybe its changed but historically MI5 has been anything but :
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/adamcurtis/posts/BUGGER [bbc.co.uk]
Having followed all the leaks (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Beyond that any well read person could be expected to understand what was done during WW2 to Germany/Japan encryption and later ECHELON.
All we know is the constant drive to domestic surveillance legality and desire to see a lifelong "locked box" used in US courts.
Something many in the US and UK have been attempting for decades.
Re: (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
no thanks (Score:5, Insightful)
I fear my Government more than I fear terrorists.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think the maybe 20-30 active terrorists on this planet can do any real damage. Even 9/11 was peanuts compared to the damage that is being done to civil society by the US administration alone. And 9/11 was a complete fluke, only possible because of the utter incompetence of the relevant TLAs and a lot of luck on the side of the perpetrators.
Oh, wait, the relevant TLAs are still incompetent at preventing terrorist successes. They so far have only stopped "terrorist" plots that they themselves manufact
Re: (Score:2)
Good citizen! Fear and obey!
Re: (Score:3)
The government there is also worse than terrorists.
Not publishing causes more damage (Score:3)
A police-, surveillance- or totalitarian state is the most despicable and repulsive form of human organization in modern times. It does more damage than anything else, except maybe total war. What the NSA and their friends in the UK are aiming and preparing for is exactly this however, thinly veiled with a ridiculous claim of "fighting terrorism". We had these tendencies in Europe last century. Nothing was done to stop them, and it finally took two world wars and a cold war to get over them. The latter brought the human race to the brink of extinction several times.
Anything is better than something like that happening again. I really hope they publish everything and make it count.
How are the Guardian's offsite backups (Score:3)
Hope the Guardian has good offsite backups outside the UK, and preferably a backup newsroom in, say, Reykjavik or somewhere they can use.
I can see this ending with the Met Police and special forces (under MI5 command) raiding the offices, making sure nobody takes anything out and then torching the whole place with very carefully placed thermite charges.
Re: (Score:3)
Already happened, to great bemusement on the part of the Guardian.
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/aug/21/nsa-nick-clegg-guardian-leaked-files [theguardian.com]
Just publish it all (Score:2)
Seriously, Wikileaks, release the key to the insurance file already. There's no reason not to at this point.
You better believe Guardian editors threatened (Score:4, Interesting)
If you work there, you'd better not have a secret cocaine habit or stripper girlfriend on the side. If there's the slightest bit of dirt on you, they're going to out you. I've got a lot of respect for that paper going on under what has to be some frightening pressure.
Great! (Score:3)
After the smear campaign the UK government and their willing accomplices at the Daily Fail are running I'm glad they're actually beginning to ramp it up instead of backing away:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2450291/The-Guardian-produced-handbook-help-fanatics-strike-will.html [dailymail.co.uk]
Re:Dope (Score:5, Informative)
I think the guardian got all his stuff in a batch file, they're just going through it slowly, the man himself is not releasing anything new.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Snowden isn't releasing any more data - he did it once when he handed everything over to the reporter.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Dope (Score:5, Informative)
http://cryptome.org/2013/10/26-years-snowden.htm [cryptome.org]
The data exists outside Russia. No new data is been released from Russia.
Other interesting comments
http://cryptome.org/2013/10/nsa-link-removed.htm [cryptome.org]
http://cryptome.org/2013/10/nsa-tor-disinfo.htm [cryptome.org] and http://cryptome.org/2013/10/questioning-snowden-truth.htm [cryptome.org]
Re:Dope (Score:5, Insightful)
That said, I think it is unethical to continue releasing the data
And spying on Brazilian companies in the name of fighting terrorism is all good?
Re: (Score:2)
Spying on your own people in the name of fighting terrorism, too.
Re:Dope (Score:5, Insightful)
At least there is a possibility of having terrorists among your own people (Hello, Mr. McVeigh!). But spying on foreign companies for advantages in business negotiations is inexcusable on the grounds of "terrorism!" That is really where the bullshit crumbles down.
Re:Dope (Score:5, Insightful)
I think it is unethical to continue releasing the data.
Don't worry, if the government wasn't doing anything wrong then it has nothing to hide.
Or maybe that old line is bullshit and the government knows it. Maybe the right to privacy exists for a reason. Exposing how world governments spy on their people is long overdue. The governments didn't want to have this discussion before, they wanted to keep everything hidden, but they decided to go a little too far so now we need to have the talk.
Re: (Score:3)
So Mr Parker lists all those methods then says he wishes to retain access to them... doesn't that kind of tell the terrorists everything he's worried the leaks are??
that's not the point. the point is that currently many of these god hating terrorists don't even know they're terrorists! if they're told that they're terrorists and under surveillance they might move their communications off gmail! can't let that happen!
Re: (Score:2)
You do realize they were joking and being sarcastic...
Oh wait, this is Slashdot so you're likely a social retard with no sense of humor.
Re: (Score:2)
Where did I ever claim I was being funny?
Re: (Score:3)
>Anybody who dares to disagree is crucified.
Honestly? This is not reddit.
If you are being 'crucified' at all, it is for lacking nuance on the subject. Viewing things as black and white does not beget 50/50 odds because your views lay along a spectrum. Extreme views tend to result in most people disagreeing with you on some level. It's basic statistics.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes huge arms shipments to the freedom fighters in Syria. The nice democratic ones.
The neat question is where some of the arms shipments start