Read more.Quote:
New Edward Snowden leak reveals the extent to which security services can pry.
Printable View
Read more.Quote:
New Edward Snowden leak reveals the extent to which security services can pry.
Doesn't surprise me. Always assume everything you do online is being watched.
Just hearing this makes one wish to rebel against their own country tbh.
This sort of thing has absolutely no affect on me or most people who have read this piece of news as the agency's sole reason is to catch people who are up to no good, I am of the opinion that this Snowden chap should be hung for weakening our security.
Well unless listening to 80s music has recently become a terrorist activity then I'm still safe.
I surely can't be the only one who is neither surprised nor bothered. If I thought our government were turning a little evil I might be more concerned but they are spineless bumbling idiots who's sole thought is the mass popularity of everything that comes out of them, they probably even avoid eggs so a smelly fart won't lose them votes.
Everyone is now a suspected terrorist and your privacy is now compromised. Is this news to me, am i suprised...? No, but i dont particularly like it and am left wondering where will it end.
Since 2001 the number of deaths caused by these so called "terrorists" living amoung us is far outnumbered by the 32 dead in a 2007 mass killing at Virginia Tech. Yet in America 10'000 people are murdered every year, 11'000 die of swine flu and 1760 children die of abuse/neglect. The 20 or so people that die a year due to "terrorism" does not justify spying and gathering of intelligence and the removal of a nations privacy. Its all about institutionalizing fear and then using it to gain control.
If that were true they would never have even attempted anything like this. The fact is they have turned evil. They have horribly abused their authority. And the next crowd who gets in could be much worse, and we would have handed them a turn-key Stazi-run state.Quote:
Originally Posted by kingpotnoodle
The powers-that-be are intercepting our comms? Remember Echelon?
Not quite sure if you are trolling or not.... But:Quote:
Originally Posted by eatonm62
The problem is this technology has MASSIVE scope for abuse, and whilst our current government might use them responsibly (debatable already, frankly), who says the next one will? Often tools made for well-intentioned purposes are put to inappropriate use. The same is true of laws also. The anti terror laws are a farce, with so many incidents of misuse in cases that clearly have nothing to do with terrorism. I personally don't trust any form of government with this kind of power, and will oppose it all the way. I'm sick to the back teeth of the US and UK governments pushing through policy and removing hard-won legal rights in the name of protecting us from terrorism. I'd exchange the reversal of all of this anti-terrorism BS for the slightly increased risk of already very unlikely terrorist action any day, frankly. If the US/UK seriously want to stop terrorism in the long term, they need to radically change their foreign policy, and NOT remove the basic rights of their populace and spy on their private communications.
"Protecting the free world"... This really is just hilarious. The fact that people run from the US to take asylum in Russia says it all, really.
Did it cross your mind that it's so low because they spy?Quote:
Originally Posted by addz17
So when you go from extremely low instance of terrorism deaths, to a tiny blip of attacks, back to an extremely low instance of terrorism deaths, your conclusion is that we have a rampant terrorism problem, and only the government is catching them and thwarting all their efforts? If that were true, the government would be trumpeting their wins all over the news. Seriously, you need to crack open a statistics book or something. Blips don't establish a statistical trend.Quote:
Originally Posted by McEwin
And also, zeh t'rr'sts don't use unencrypted or state-targetable encrypted internet for communications, they use carrier pigeons, and horseback messenger boys, not literally, of course, but the point is they're low tech organisations and they play to their strengths. I mean is there even one single case where internet spying has actually caught a credible threat (as in, not FBI set up patsies)? Because I'd really love to know about whether assraping my civil liberties is actually effective at stopping just one single solitary suicidal jihadi fruitcake, nevermind that it's so far beyond disproportionate that it makes me want to vomit. That a 'democratic' government set up a global spy net to snoop on its own citizens without any kind of national debate is sickening.
A simple yes would have sufficedQuote:
Originally Posted by aidanjt
What it boils down to is ..... we just don't know what we don't know.Quote:
Originally Posted by aidanjt
Your argument there rests on the assumption that successes would be loudly trumpeted, but is exactly that .... an assumption. And in fact, several of the intelligence services are very well-known for barely acknowledging that they even exist, let alone what they do. For instance, in trying to do family genealogy, I have been trying to get some sort of service history for someone that used to be in a fairly senior role. And guess what response I get? Almost nothing. I'm lucky if I get a response at all, and if I do, it says little more than that they don't comment on staff. And this relates to someone that, admittedly senior, has been dead since before most members of this forum were born. Put it this way, their service relates to WW2 and the period before and immediately after. I know what service they worked for, and roughly the geographical areas, but I can't even get official confirmation that they've ever heard the name.
So, how much do you expect them to say about current or recent operations?
Personally, I expect nothing.
There have been statements made by politicians implying that dozens of plots, of varying severity, have been stopped. That may or may not be true, and I certainly don't put it past politicians to 'big up' the situation, or their own knowledge, if it suits them, but those "politicians" have included former Home Secretaries. And it may be an understatement, or the tip of an iceberg.
We simply do not know. But while I can't prove it, my very limited experience with ....erm .... these services, is that you'll be doing damed well to get them to tell you if it's raining outside right now.
Right, we don't know for sure because the government *could* be keeping it all a secret, which is as good as it never happened, for the same reason that debating the current state of Russell's teapot is pointless... Either way you cut it, the government has been pushing anti-democratic policies and systems.
Not what I said, and you know it.Quote:
Originally Posted by aidanjt
You asserted that IF there had been successes, we'd know it because it would have been shouted about.
My point is that your ASSUMPTION is merely an assumption, and the absence of publicity of successes is NOT proof of the absense of successes, merely that both givernments and especially intelligences services are quite capable of keeping their gobs shut when they need to. Threat of prosecution under the Official Secrets Act helps concenteate minds.
Absence of publicity is proof of the absence of publucity, and that's all it proves. It MIGHT be because there's nothing to publicise, but it also MIGHT be because it's got classification notices all over it.
We don't know EITHER WAY, so you cannot just assume it's evidence if one or the other.
Your original claim is unusually sloppy thinking for you, and is based on mere inference, and one you cannot be sure of. It might be a correct inference, or it might not, and we simply have no way to know.
As for anti-democratic systems, etc, yup, agreed. But so did the last lot, and arguably, far more so, be it the prevalence of CCTV, or attempts at lengthy "anti-terror" detention without trial.
Frankly, this is the MI5 conundrum all over - even if we haven't found any covert terrorist cells yet, it could just mean that they're really good at not being found - so we need to increase the security and intelligence measures, just in case.
Of course, if the government did drop the anti-terrorism measures and there was a significant terrorist attack (and the chances are pretty high given this country's history), we'd all blame the government for not doing enough to stop the threat.
Wouldn't you love to be an MP? 'Cause I certainly wouldn't...