Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Edward Snowden Leaks Could Help Paedophiles Escape Police, Says UK Government

samzenpus posted about a year ago | from the root-of-all-evil dept.

Security 510

An anonymous reader writes "Paedophiles may escape detection because highly-classified material about Britain's surveillance capabilities have been published by the Guardian newspaper, the UK government has claimed. A senior Whitehall official said data stolen by Edward Snowden, a former contractor to the US National Security Agency, could be exploited by child abusers and other cyber criminals. It could also put lives at risk by disclosing secrets to terrorists, insurgents and hostile foreign governments, he said."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

May they burn in hell. (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45353849)

Those demagogical assholes are the worst terrorists of all.

Damn poop detector is going off again (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45353943)

Let's see.

"Save the children"? Check.

"Terrorism"? Check.

"For your own good"? Check

If you can't smell the heavy miasma of bullshit wafting off this, you need a new fucking nose.

I read this on Techdirt: (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45354261)

(Copied from a Techdirt comment):
I wonder if the CIA distributes pedo material the same way they get Swiss bankers to drink-drive?

Imagine you are a UK minister. Like most men you look at porn because you're biologically programmed to like pictures of woman doing stuff. Like most ministers you pretend porn is vial and evil, because that's how you get elected.

CIA wants to turn you into an apparatchik, so they do their 'redirect' attack, the one they use to MITM Google in one of the leaks. CIA redirects them to a kiddy porn server in Orlando, now the logs of both GCHQ and NSA show them visiting a kiddy diddling site.

CIA man visits minister and explains the shock and outrage at finding this, but assures minister that he's a good man and therefore the CIA won't tell.

Minister can't go to MI5 because Parker could be a CIA apparatchik (he is doing an attack on the free press FFS). Indeed he can't get help at all, because all it takes is ONE apparatchik among the people in the know and he is gone.

It may sound fanciful, but the mechanisms are already in place. Also read a few leaks. The plan to attack Greenwald & Wikileaks.

http://www.thetechherald.com/articles/Data-intelligence-firms-proposed-a-systematic-attack -against-WikiLeaks/12751/

The leverage they got over a Swiss Banker:

http://www.businessinsider.com/edward-snowden-describes-cia-tricks-2013-6

The weird way ministers are behaving.

And yet - AKA Slashdots Ohanian moment? (5, Interesting)

FriendlyLurker (50431) | about a year ago | (#45354291)

If you can't smell the heavy miasma of bullshit wafting off this, you need a new fucking nose.

And yet, the demonize Snowden rhetoric made it pas Slashdot editors to make front page. How many times is that now even just in the last few days? [slashdot.org]

Wikileaks has shown us that Reddit cofounder Alexis Ohanian was attempting to abuse his position, sell out and leverage reddit users by working for Stratfor [startpage.com] . They turned him down apparently due to already having the area covered. Could we now be witnessing Slashdots Ohanian moment, now directed they peddle pathetic anti-Snowden properganda to the front page?

The verdict on Edward Snowden (5, Insightful)

Taco Cowboy (5327) | about a year ago | (#45354087)

First, they said he was a traitor.

Then, they accused him of stealing.

Followed closely with the accusation that he has been a Soviet spy.

Now ?

Edward Snowden, according to them, is aiding pedophile and all other sexual perverts, especially those "exploiting innocent children", to evade surveillance by the "GOOD GUYS", namely, the spooks/cops/big brothers.

In other words, Edward Snowden, to some, is a de-human-izer.

Re:The verdict on Edward Snowden (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45354215)

These wankers in Britsh govt (and civil service) know very well how much are their sleezy sicko tricks are exposed .. so take the usual mud slinging tactic ..
Edward Snowden, you are true hero.

Re:May they burn in hell. (5, Interesting)

prefec2 (875483) | about a year ago | (#45354157)

Well, it worked before. The British have this fabulous web-filters for content, which allow to control the delivered content. A clear censorship mechanism. They defended it with the child porn argument and the keep porn away from children argument. It worked. In Germany it did not, but they only used the child porn argument and were caught lying, about its effectiveness. and yes it was only a scheme to gain votes for the conservatives. However, Cameron that little anti-democrat tries to transform the UK in one of Orwell's fantasies to finally abolish any opposition to his classistic view of the world. Poor Britain. :-(

Re:May they burn in hell. (5, Insightful)

N1AK (864906) | about a year ago | (#45354171)

Welcome to democracy. I'm not even sure many of the politicians believe this kind of nonsense but god forbid voters think of you as being soft on criminals or ineffective at fighting terrorists.

The average UK citizen will accept, or in fact welcome, pretty much any kind of invasion of privacy by the state if it doesn't inconvenience them in going about their day to day life. So we probably shouldn't be lumping all the blame on politicians for expressing views that match us.

The media also deserves considerable blame. We went through decades of terrorism with the IRA a group that was massively more dangerous, coordinated and smarter than the radicalised Islamists that threaten us now and we carried on regardless. Look up the 1996 Manchester bombing, which I remember vividly, and you'll see how dangerous they were and how recently. But we didn't throw away all our rights and privacy to fight it and we rebuilt the area better than it was before as a massive 'fuck you' to the scum bags that did it. Why are we so afraid of the idiots they call terrorists these days? Because the media constantly barrages us with stories about plots, dangers, threats from around the world like it's some kind of miracle that I've survived the last week.

Re:May they burn in hell. (1, Insightful)

They'reComingToTakeM (1091657) | about a year ago | (#45354263)

Well said, sir. I wish I had some mod points for you.

Re:May they burn in hell. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45354205)

Well said .

Oh christ... (5, Insightful)

mirix (1649853) | about a year ago | (#45353851)

Is there anything that they won't use the 'think of the children' line on?

Pathetic.

Re:Oh christ... (2)

DrPBacon (3044515) | about a year ago | (#45353883)

Is there anything that they won't use the 'think of the children' line on?

Fukushima?

Re:Oh christ... (1)

geogob (569250) | about a year ago | (#45353921)

I beg to differ. You're welcomed... [hisz.rsoe.hu]

Re:Oh christ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45354005)

Is there anything that they won't use the 'think of the children' line on?

Miley Cyrus ?

Re:Oh christ... (5, Funny)

Tablizer (95088) | about a year ago | (#45353903)

Is there anything that they won't use the 'think of the children' line on?

Healthcare.

Re:Oh christ... (5, Funny)

erroneus (253617) | about a year ago | (#45354039)

Best Answer Ever.

Re:Oh christ... (5, Insightful)

beh (4759) | about a year ago | (#45354149)

Sorry - no moderator points today - The answer is bitterly funny, but - unfortunately - also very accurate. Labelling it is "funny" seems like primarily useful to discredit it as a serious answer.

Re:Oh christ... (5, Insightful)

Freshly Exhumed (105597) | about a year ago | (#45353905)

They'll be adding the usual "You are either for us or you are for paedophiles!" line soon enough.

The Surveillance State is now official (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45353993)

It's an interesting twist: instead of claiming spying is essential for the nation's foreign intelligence capabilities and security when faced with nation state adversaries, they are now claiming spying is needed to combat internal, run-of-the mill criminals. So they are basically admitting they are building a surveillance state where every possible law that the leaders imagine can also be enforced.

If we are to configure our society so that every sicko that enjoys child molestation videos in the privacy of his home is immediately apprehended, then it seems to me any type of dissent of conspiracy against the government becomes impossible. Good luck explaining to the public that's a bad compromise.

Re:The Surveillance State is now official (1)

rmstar (114746) | about a year ago | (#45354085)

It's an interesting twist: instead of claiming spying is essential for the nation's foreign intelligence capabilities and security when faced with nation state adversaries, they are now claiming spying is needed to combat internal, run-of-the mill criminals.

It also seems a little desperate. That argument doesn't have a history of working too well.

Re:The Surveillance State is now official (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45354161)

they are now claiming spying is needed to combat internal, run-of-the mill criminals.

It also seems a little desperate. That argument doesn't have a history of working too well.

Actually, I can't think of any example where that argument failed, but plenty where it worked flawlessly: biometric IDs, Internet censorship, perceived violence in games and music, cell phone tracking (drugdealers etc.), anti-money-laundry legislation and many more. Never underestimate the gullibility and political clout of a nation full of semi-literate soccer mums and Joe sixpacks.

Re:The Surveillance State is now official (2)

spiritplumber (1944222) | about a year ago | (#45354121)

Actually you've just made an excellent counterpoint -- how do we inject that into the conversation?

Re:The Surveillance State is now official (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45354229)

So it was an arms-race against our own defenceless population all along?

Busted!

Captcha: distress

Re:Oh christ... (5, Insightful)

AmiMoJo (196126) | about a year ago | (#45354081)

The worst part is people actually believe them. The security forces have been revealed to be little more than criminal scum, gleefully breaking the law and violating human rights, egged on my the Americans. It's disgusting and I'm ashamed to have them working in my name.

You know what, I think GCHQ might actually be worse than a paedophile, if such a comparison is even possible. The latter ruins a few lives at most, the former has undermined our very democracy and hurt all of us deeply.

Re:Oh christ... (2)

AlphaWolf_HK (692722) | about a year ago | (#45354113)

Just a comment about what that quote is based on: When Bush said that he wasn't referring to individuals, but rather foreign governments who harbor known terrorists. Either those governments are with us in finding and capturing them, or they're against us; a middle ground is not permitted. Taking the later option will result in the US government going after them with full military force and will not count as a war of aggression under international laws (whereas previously it would have.) That was the basis for the invasion of Afghanistan who we otherwise had no "valid" reason to invade (because Osama wasn't technically part of their government.) That is also the "Bush Doctrine" and as far as I'm aware there isn't any intention of ending that any time soon, or even any popular support against it.

Most people who rail against those words don't seem to have any problem with the Afghanistan invasion (rather they support it) but strangely enough they have a problem with those words. Either they don't know the meaning of them, or they're willfully oblivious over petty partisan bickering.

Give them some credit. (5, Funny)

thegarbz (1787294) | about a year ago | (#45353965)

In defense of the government's statements they've held out an extraordinarily long time before invoking children in this debate.

Re:Give them some credit. (1)

erikkemperman (252014) | about a year ago | (#45354055)

Well, they have been treating the public at large like little kids for a while now. And pretending to think of them.

Re:Give them some credit. (1)

cheater512 (783349) | about a year ago | (#45354103)

How is that a defence of anything?

Probably only took this long because they knew everyone would laugh at it.

Re:Oh christ... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45353975)

> Is there anything that they won't use the 'think of the children' line on?
I believe ... maybe children...

Re:Oh christ... (2)

hweimer (709734) | about a year ago | (#45354187)

Is there anything that they won't use the 'think of the children' line on?

Sure, when dealing with pedophiles in the intelligence services [bbc.co.uk] .

Re:Oh christ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45354191)

Of course (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45353855)

It's all for the children....
Ha ha ha ha !

There we go. (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45353857)

Now we know they're desperate, hate the population, and have entirely run out of arguments.

Time to recall this government. Failing that, maybe just kick them some more while they're down. It's what they'd do to us, after all.

Re:There we go. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45353969)

And out of control...

And so it begins (5, Interesting)

Rumagent (86695) | about a year ago | (#45353861)

Give it a couple of weeks and Snowden will be labeled a pederast and it will play over and over in the news until it is true.

Re:And so it begins (5, Insightful)

wonkey_monkey (2592601) | about a year ago | (#45354095)

Give it a couple of weeks and Snowden will be labeled a pederast

Doubtful that many in the target audience know what one of those is, considering the trouble they've had with "paedophile" and "paediatrician" in the past.

Re:And so it begins (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45354287)

so, you're saying paeditricians don't like little kids?

Re:And so it begins (1)

umghhh (965931) | about a year ago | (#45354169)

You must admit tho that the documents he released to the public are obscene or? If so it is just a small step from this to 'my kid read this crap' and to 'This guy was a pervert'. I have an impression that all the signs are out there that rule of law and democracy has been undermined but not because of the spying itself. Failures happen all the time. The behaviour of authorities means the mindset has changed so significantly that no discussion is at all possible. The secret courts is just one example - were the openness and transparency one of the key features in combating the corruption and tyranny? This gets better and better - German government reaction was pathetic and symptomatic too. They have sent some minister to Washington so that he could tell the public 'all is well' after coming back. Now revelations went on so Chancellor got all excited but somehow this is not real - setting up jammers against US Embassy would be a nice gesture but not even this small hindrance was risked against these friends. Their regular work on 'reinterpretation' of acts of laws so that what was illegal became perfectly OK - this is also symptomatic. It seem the authorities have been infiltrated by self-righteous assholes that despise the public, see the laws as not really binding and hell bound on doing what they were doing. I can even understand basic desire to fight crime but I do not think that is what they want. Similar like war on drugs the surveillance organisations brought to life for a purpose become independent and start setting their own targets. What is really scary is the lack of reaction in general public. In a sense that is understandable because people that know what is going on are to much focused on technology and not on what the real problem is: not the surveillance itself but shameless disregard to values on which most modern western states have been built. These values are important because of what has happened before when for instance similarly unimportant movements have destroyed the (admittedly broken) Weimar Republic. The only thing remaining is to show transmissions that 'prove' people pointing to illegality of gov. actions are perverts etc. This has been done before and total surveillance allows to pick up words that are true but taken out of the context and put arbitrarily together may suddenly mean civil death for a person deemed dangerous for the system. What interesting times we live in...

Ah yes, (5, Insightful)

ColaMan (37550) | about a year ago | (#45353863)

The old, "Associate your target with helping pedophiles" approach.

The Diddle Card (1)

Tablizer (95088) | about a year ago | (#45353865)

Yet another "think of the children" excuse to be dicks.

Danger danger! (5, Insightful)

ibib (464750) | about a year ago | (#45353867)

The secret police state is at risk!

Trains (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45353871)

Ayup. Trains, taxis, bicycles, roller blades and running shoes can be used to escape police. The UK Gubmint should immediately ban them all. We cannot expect the Plods to have to run and catch perps after eating their doughnuts and coffee if the perps are wearing running shoes now can we?

Re:Trains (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45353961)

In fact, no running without a permit!

You want to apply for a permit for running shoes? You are obviously going to need to submit for a background check, potential criminal!

This just in: Pedophiles often wear shoes. Everyone should go barefoot or be under suspicion of having something in common with one of them...

You sir! Do you have a permit for those genitalia? Oh you didn't know that was a requirement now? Not our problem. We're going to have to confiscate your testicles now.

yes, (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45353879)

and it could release all the pink elephants from their cyberprisons.

Maybe... (2)

hawkingradiation (1526209) | about a year ago | (#45353881)

If they are dumb enough to not know that the government was spying on them and looking for them. *government staggering - Must....catch...paedophiles...at...all costs (gasp)*

At last (1)

korbulon (2792438) | about a year ago | (#45353885)

The "think of the children!" canard. I was expecting you sooner [casually takes a pull from an oversized brandy snifter].

consistent much? (4, Insightful)

Ubi_NL (313657) | about a year ago | (#45353887)

Yeah, and sale and possession of firearms enables rapist to threaten and rape children! Yet we don't seem to imply the same logic there. How strange.

Child rape is becoming the new Godwin. Before we know it Glenn Beck will be using it every other sentence as well.

Re:consistent much? (1)

rusty0101 (565565) | about a year ago | (#45354021)

You are aware it it the British police saying this? You know, where the strictest of gun laws in the USA is orders of magnitude more permisive than what is allowed in England?

The Good Old British Way (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45353889)

The good old "Think of the children!" FUD card.

caught the hand in the cookie jar (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45353893)

Dear all gouvernements around the world, you were caught the hand in the cookie jar. You are lucky to be free after that. Now just shut the fuck up.

Bother (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45353895)

Sorry, but governments have forfeited their use of the words "pedophile" and "terrorist". If they mention them, I'm concluding they are lying.

Captcha: fascism

Wow (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45353897)

They're now resorting to "think of the children!" mindset in order to discredit Snowden?
It shows how desperate these governments are to try to quash anymore leaks.

Next they'll be comparing him to Hitler (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45353899)

Amazing how they always bring out this justification when they're caught with their hands in the cookie jar.

1984 just happened. The uk has the most surveillance cameras of any country, the USA has to now be counted as an oppressive police state when you look at the work of the NSA, DHS and all the other agencies set up to 'protect' the population.

Why not just tell the truth. Yes there are crazies out there, yes we try and identify them to save you from them, but now all the spook squads have funding they've taken on a life of their own and we can't stop them cos we don't actually know what they're really up to.

the typical repsonse (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45353901)

anything bad happens... mention pedophiles... i see no use this would be for pedos as they prey on children, they are opportunist predators.... not protestors

them reading the policies and procedures of how they monitor web traffic is usually wasted on them.. but hey lets just put them out there so it makes the news and scares the simple folk

Godwin (1)

hooiberg (1789158) | about a year ago | (#45353907)

Now here we have another fine example of the Godwin argument of computer security.

Of course (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45353913)

Of course it would... also, scary aliens, space AIDS and that weird growth on the bottom of my heel... because....

"Senior Whitehall Official" != "Has a clue about technology."

Think of the children! (1)

aralin (107264) | about a year ago | (#45353915)

If you don't let us snoop on you, children get fucked. I mean, literally, fucked, by pedophiles. Yes, that is your only choice a stalker or pedophile. Pick one.

And yet more excused from the UK (4, Insightful)

pegasustonans (589396) | about a year ago | (#45353917)

We've heard from David Cameron that Snowden's leak "damaged national security."

Cameron made veiled threats suggesting he could take the media to court over publishing the leaks.

Government enforcers employed heavy-handed tactics to intercept, detain and threaten those even tangentially connected to the leaks.

Many were forced to destroy technical equipment in a quixotic quest to purge the unpurgeable.

Now, all of that failed. Predictably, this is the kind of horse shit they've resorted to slinging.

What else would you expect! (1)

M1FCJ (586251) | about a year ago | (#45353933)

Torygraph, almost as bad as Daily Scary Mail.
Next headline: Snowden was a necrophiliac and wanted to dig up your grandma's grave!

Jimmy Savile (0)

steelfood (895457) | about a year ago | (#45353935)

'Nuff said.

they are still thinking we havent got it yet (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45353937)

guys like this--------------> senior Whitehall official
are the problem. we know it , they know it ,we know they know it , they know we know it. we know they know we know it.they know we know they know we know it.
so now what?
captcha=colons

Hey, look! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45353939)

Over here! It's something shiny! It'll help you forget that we're abusing our positions in the government.

Pffft... (3, Insightful)

Pav (4298) | about a year ago | (#45353941)

If they ACTUALLY wanted to help kids they'd apply some actual knowledge gathered from study in this area and develop strategies to minimise occurrence, but it's SUCH a successful rhetorical boogieman/distraction...

Standard tactic. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45353945)

Quick! Nobody's listening to the terrorist argument! Deploy the paedophiles!

Yes, but... (4, Interesting)

Stolpskott (2422670) | about a year ago | (#45353949)

Yes, the publicizing of the NSA and GCHQ's surveillance capabilities COULD in theory help paedophiles avoid detection... but I suspect that most paedophiles are not so technically savvy that the details will be important to them. For the majority of them, just as for the majority of the general population, the message they will take away is that "Big Brother Is Watching You", and if they do not assume that from the very start, then they are very naive.
The other side of the coin would be an interesting one - perhaps a Freedom Of Information request to GCHQ, to ask how many man-hours as a percentage of their total work is spent tracking and investigating paedophiles. I would wager a lot of money that, if they were to give an honest answer to that, it would be 0. GCHQ are not, and never will be, interested in tracking paedophiles.

Re:Yes, but... (4, Insightful)

FireFury03 (653718) | about a year ago | (#45354033)

The other side of the coin would be an interesting one - perhaps a Freedom Of Information request to GCHQ, to ask how many man-hours as a percentage of their total work is spent tracking and investigating paedophiles. I would wager a lot of money that, if they were to give an honest answer to that, it would be 0. GCHQ are not, and never will be, interested in tracking paedophiles.

And nor should they be, anymore than GCHQ should be going after shop lifters or any other petty criminal.

Their excuse is that they can ignore due-process to accomplish the all important job of maintaining national security. They can do this because the government has passed various "anti-terror" laws which more or less eliminate the need for due process. Unless you're going to start labelling paedophiles, shoplifters, drug sellers, etc. as terrorists (and therefore apply the anti-terror laws) then you're going to have to follow due process, which means warrantless spying seems like its out of the picture...

And yes, I'm aware that all sorts of non-terrorist activities are now being labelled as terrorism just so they can use those broad laws... *sigh*

Re:Yes, but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45354197)

Crimes scare people. Criminals commit crimes. All criminals are terrorists.

geeky peds (1)

Behrooz Amoozad (2831361) | about a year ago | (#45353955)

There must be some really geeky peds in UK that can utilize what's in NSA documents to not get caught.impressive pedophiles you have out there.

What the f.. (1)

clickson (2887959) | about a year ago | (#45353979)

What a bucket of bullshit...

Big Brother just LOVES little children (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45353987)

long time, every position

How typical (1)

rossz (67331) | about a year ago | (#45354011)

We need to break the law and spy on law abiding citizens FOR THE CHILDREN and to STOP TERRORISTS.

They're going for broke.

Well, that's too bad. (1)

Ihlosi (895663) | about a year ago | (#45354013)

How about coming up with a way to catch criminals that doesn't involve preemptively spying on everyone?

may help some wrong, but also *many* inocents (1)

lebjoot (560242) | about a year ago | (#45354017)

They are right: the enlightenment provided by Mr. Snowden may help one or other wrong-doing, but that is nothing compared to the greater good to the humanity by letting innocent people know about whats really going on. Want to get depressed for aday or 2? http://www.stopeg.com/ [stopeg.com] . Sorry.

I know this is stupid, but... (2)

BringsApples (3418089) | about a year ago | (#45354023)

I read this short little article, it never justifies the statement. Just consider the idea that they're putting out, knowing that a certain percentage of people will just agree, and tack on one more thing in the back of their mind as to why they hate "hackers" and "computer nerds" and how things need to be more secretive and more government-regulated. Now imagine what that percentage might be. Where I am, it's quite high. So it doesn't matter if there's any logic in headlines, just the wording.

Paedophiles may escape detection because highly-classified material about Britain's surveillance capabilities have been published by the Guardian newspaper

As if another newspaper published it, it wouldn't have been a problem. This is what it looks like when old rich children throw temper tantrums.

Re:I know this is stupid, but... (1)

Transfinite (1684592) | about a year ago | (#45354043)

Funny how they are saying specifically pedophiles, this is because they always knew that 'terrorists' fly under their radars on a regular basis by ermmm. Not actually using technology in the first place.

That old classic (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45354029)

Don't you know eroding civil liberties in cyberspace has always = stopping pedos? Just like eroding civil liberties IRL = stopping terrorists.

too late (1)

Transfinite (1684592) | about a year ago | (#45354031)

Except I don't actually think most are buying this now. 6 months a year ago, yes, now. Not so much.

Other things it may affect (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45354041)

May let jaywalkers avoid detection.

You may never know which neighbor stole your newspaper, last july 23

your girlfriends naked sunbathing at the nude beach, might be missed by the satellites.

The TSA personnell at the airport may have to work.

Taxes might have to increase to cover the FOIA requests.

Gilligan may never get off the island !

Jimmy Hoffa may never be found.

You might complain about obamacare and nobody will be listening.

FUD (1)

surfdaddy (930829) | about a year ago | (#45354045)

The FUD is strong in these ones...

Not really (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45354053)

While they mumble trash about "Think of the children", in reality Snowden never really gave anything away. If you think a high level description of something is 'giving away secrets', then you are either an idiot or a fool (or both). Like everything else, the devil is in the details, and powerpoint has always been *profoundly* shy on that sort of thing (likewise the suits that drag it out). Anyone with half a clue about security would not put information out on the interweb that would let agencies track them. Electronic technology? Sure, but nothing trackable (not on the internet). There are a million ways to do this. A way of hacking across air gaps was demonstrated recently using the microphone/speaker on a computer to cross air gap barriers to another computer with microphone/speakers. You could use an ultasonic transducer to send data via a hard metal rail, or through the water to another computer. An ultraviolet pulsed laser aimed at a window 10 blocks away is not detectable by other people, and can send craploads of data. But these are not things published by Snowden, likewise me knowing that the NSA has something called 'Thin Thread' is a secret, but knowing how it works is an open question. I can guess, but the devil is in the details. Think of the children? What about the civil liberties we have given up in their name already? Think of that!

Anything that stops you from snooping on (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45354057)

people on there own computer in their own home is fine with me no matter who you do or dont get.
You people are never going to understand what the fuck freedom is.
You dont get to spy citizens in there home.
If you have probable cause on someone go to the court get a warrant.

Otherwise stay the fuck out of peoples house and any evidence you collect if you dont should never be admissible in any court in the world that claims to be a free country or at least quit pretending.

Re:Anything that stops you from snooping on (1)

Chronus1326 (1769658) | about a year ago | (#45354163)

You don't get to spy citizens in there home RE: I thought you didn't have anything to hide......

Re:Anything that stops you from snooping on (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45354175)

Hey bro! Are you looking at kiddie p0rn? Otherwise, why would you hide your web activities?

In the UK (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45354063)

In the UK, government escapes you!

hats off to Slashdot commenters (2)

bob_super (3391281) | about a year ago | (#45354069)

Faith in humanity restored.

Paedophiles = Terrorists? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45354071)

I thought the snowden leaks about spying were in relation to Terrorism.

They're using them to track paedophiles now?
That's funny, how do paedophiles affect "national security"?

"An anonymous reader writes..." (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45354077)

I wonder who it could be? Could be any one of us, I suppose...

Jimmy Savile (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45354097)

They mean it prevents protecting perverts

https://www.google.com/search?q=jimmy+savile

Thanks. (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45354099)

For confirming that nothing Snowden has leaked did actually endanger anyone.
Because if it had, we'd be hearing about that 24/7.

Quick, sue CSI! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45354111)

They're showing rapist, murderers and yes, even child abusers how forensics can track them down! They must be stopped now!

OMG THE BAD MAN TOUCHED ME! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45354119)

Because, of course pedophiles have never before thought the government might be trying to catch them online.

Left unsaid: How many pedophiles have been identified by NSA/GCHQ spying...only to be left alone to bugger small children in the name of "protecting national security".

UK (5, Funny)

thetagger (1057066) | about a year ago | (#45354133)

I was going to argue that the UK is a Banana Republic but it just occurred to me that they are a Banana Monarchy.

No Way (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45354155)

No Way...if you're a peedo///then you deserve to get shot, nothing less. On the other hand... Our own country shouldn't be looking at the content of each of my posts.

And the success rate is? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45354183)

The thing I'm not hearing is the actual success rate in catching anyone they're supposedly looking for. If it's anything like the success rate in uncovering spies (even in their own organisations) it would be somewhere in the vicinity of zero. It's quite clear that this defence of 'catching paedophiles' is a smoke-screen. It's clear that even the police are making very little headway in this respect, and frankly very few resources are allocated to the problem. It's nothing more than a desperate attempt to justify mass surveillance.

Clean air and water help paedophiles live longer (4, Insightful)

henrypijames (669281) | about a year ago | (#45354211)

... so we better get some pollution going.

Nonsense argument (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45354219)

The availability of digital cameras also help paedophiles (not only to escape the police but also to commit their crimes).

Oh lord! (1)

Tasha26 (1613349) | about a year ago | (#45354243)

Quite pathetic that they would look for such an excuse to carry on with their intrusive and malicious spying. I thought they were looking for terrorists only, have the goal posts moved? What are they not telling us? Is it about making money on the stockmarket by using information stolen from the emails exchanged between companies?

To me, the NSA and GCHQ are the real creepy perverts for eavesdropping and storing my life on their servers as if I have no rights to privacy. I wonder how many paedos they have caught using their spying en masse?

Think of the Children (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45354255)

Is there any better argument for anything?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?