Snowden files 'show massive UK spying op'

[jimjamuk]

You're right it is.

As for you, me and 99.9% of the population? Well unless they suspect us of wrongdoing and obtain a warrant they should **** off and butt out, it's none of their business and it's not for them to sift through our personal lives/communication.

Personally dont care and to say it was a surprise would be a bit of a lie really - the sheer amount of data they could get and store is so large they could only parse for keywords in real time and then sift back f they needed but frankly if you are stupid enough to be mailling or talking about doing some horrible things across the internet then you deserve to ping on the radar.

 

[Xelene]

I'm not surprised at this in the least bit, but I am incensed. It steps over so many boundaries it's untrue. Twenty years ago you'd go nuts if some knob from the civil service came and listened to all of your personal phone calls and opened all of your letters. But now they do and you don't raise a massive stink about it?

Sir Humphrey has no bloody right to do that at least in this country without probable cause or suspicion and he's doing it wholesale just on the off chance. How is this not wrong?

 

[FoxEye]

We have absolutely no way of stopping our govt, or the US, from using such systems or even further developing them. It does seem like the future is now set in stone, and it will be one of continuous monitoring and surveillance.

So given there is nothing at all we can do, why worry about it? I'm guessing none of us here are actual terrorists, so the worst thing that can happen is the govt learns about our furry fetishes, or something

 

[dowie]

Personally dont care and to say it was a surprise would be a bit of a lie really - the sheer amount of data they could get and store is so large they could only parse for keywords in real time and then sift back f they needed but frankly if you are stupid enough to be mailling or talking about doing some horrible things across the internet then you deserve to ping on the radar.

this really

they have a staff of how many? discount the mathematicians, programmers, network specialists, linguists, signals specialists... and the analysts deployed all over the place tasked with looking at all sorts of communications data, electronic intelligence etc..etc.. it doesn't leave that many humans to actually look at who is contacting who on facebook etc.. I'd suspect they must filter rather a lot, I'd suspect also that a large portion of it will be looking at people directly connected to people already *known* to them

just taking a wild stab in the dark but unless you're say a muslim who's been chatting to a mate who's just come back from 'religious school' in Pakistan or a lonely defence contractor who's been flirting on facebook with the hot russian girl who approached you in the hotel bar after the big bad western defence companies' annual confrence (like something out of a bad spy movie) then I don't think they're really going to waste valuable analyst resources reading your mail

 

[robgmun]

Surprised he went to Russia to be frank, I honestly thought he'd disappear to some dark corner of China

 

[asim18]

Personally dont care and to say it was a surprise would be a bit of a lie really - the sheer amount of data they could get and store is so large they could only parse for keywords in real time and then sift back f they needed but frankly if you are stupid enough to be mailling or talking about doing some horrible things across the internet then you deserve to ping on the radar.

Exactly. Which is why this whole charade isn't really about terrorism at all. No sane criminal would communicate using such easily traceable services, and the 'feds' are equally insane if they think anyone would any more, especially in light of their world wide exposure.

 

[Philtor]

Everyone is going to end up using Onion routing at this rate. I don't expect my own Government to spy on me unless I'm up to no good.

 

[asim18]

Except sane criminals do, a lot of the time. They're not necessarily tech savvy enough to know how to use whatever encrypted services, etc. Why do you make the false assumption criminals can't be stupid, or make stupid mistakes?

And it's not just about me talking to you about building a bomb, which we could do face-to-face, so there's no electronic record. It's about knowing we're connected - so I could talk to you about a fantasy football league via text, but only talk about bomb making face-to-face, and the authorities could work out we're connected and look into us (me if they'd identified you, or vice versa).

Yep exactly

Which is precisely why this practice is being condemned in the first place. Going by that logic everyone is connected to a criminal in some way whether aware of it or not - which in turn backs up the majority's suspicion that this is simply a charade.

When will you realise this is nothing to do with terrorism? It's about seizing rights, freedoms, and control.

 

[V F]

Control is the reason they want this data.

 

[asim18]

No, it's not about a connection = guilt. It's about identifying people who could be criminals - the point is they can build a map of a suspect's contacts, and use that information to identify other criminals... so say they arrest you, then work out you've been talking to me (as well as all your other friends)... they'll find nothing to incriminate your other friends, but when they look at me they'll find all the bomb making stuff I've been Googling and talking to you ~off the grid~ about.

Do you still deny some sane criminals will use methods of communication which are traceable and readable by governments, btw? Before you said no sane criminal would.

You're little scenario there is just a doctored fairytale scenario which doesn't prove anything.

I said "especially any more". To use electronic communication to thwart wood be terrorists is just as insane as a wood be terrorist using electronic communication to plan terrorism. But obviously you don't understand that. Just as you couldn't fathom that if one federal agency, NSA, does something extremely illegal as you admitted, while absolutely refusing to believe that the agency next door, DOJ, simply cannot do anything illegal or sinister at all. All traits of living in a fairytale world doctored by propaganda.

Which is why I find it extremely tedious holding any sort of discussion with you and should probably stop before you stress me out.

 

[StriderX]

There likely is some rather incautious sane criminals, but lets be honest, a good competent police force can deal with it even without the Dystopian measures.

 

[asim18]

There likely is some rather incautious sane criminals, but lets be honest, a good competent police force can deal with it even without the Dystopian measures.

Exactly.

Some people seem to think the Boston bombings didn't happen and Lee Rigby is still alive, thanks to this multinational multi-petabyte data mining operation, yay \o/.

But yeah in these people's propaganda led lives who are led to believe "ooh I feel so secure from this [false] threat of terrorism", what do you expect.

 

[StriderX]

I will add however if the British public wasnt such a demanding lot, our Police force wouldnt be stretched so much and morale would not be so low.

But you know, continue your drunken disorderly nature, but don't moan that terrorists get through a net you pull wide open.

 

[asim18]

I didn't say that. Provide evidence I did or hush (unless I can say you admitted being a paedo Nazi rapist?).

...

Legal or Illegal?

People must understand the following points:

• The Department of Defence is a US Federal Executive Department.
• The Department of Justice is a US Federal Executive Department.

Then ask yourself:

• What is the definition of "illegal"?

~DEM FEDS~ can still get in trouble if they do stuff which is unconstitutional.

This post suggests you think DoD can do something illegal (or unconstitutional [lol oooh but it's unconstitutional], but the DoJ will be completely righteous and sue their own sister-agency if they do something illegal. Completely forgetting that the DoD and DoJ are under the same parent.

To further clarify as you seem to constantly fail at comprehension, and in this case, recollection;

You think the DoD will get "in trouble" by their sister-agency, the DoJ, if they do something wrong. Which is pretty naive and just proves you are a victim of this mass brainwashing and don't know how stuff really works.


Edit: that's all I have to say to you. I have posted the "evidence of fail" you very rightfully requested. I will not waste my time further responding to the other two paragraphs in your post.

 

[asim18]

Lol @ you posting that, but ignoring the rest of the conversation . And lol @ the fact it doesn't evidence what you accused me of saying .

Anyway... so what if they're all part of the broader government? I later I posted how, in the UK, HMRC did a tax deal with Vodafone, which was subsequently investigated re: its legality. Showing a government department/agency can do something which may have been illegal, which is then investigated. In your World, that would've just been hushed up because ~the government~ wouldn't 'go after' ~the government~ .

Ahahah. Now you're all red-faced and "lolling" eh? Furthermore, you see those little icons next to the quote

? I left those there so everyone can click them and read the whole convo. So again you just failed in saying that I "ignored the rest of the convo".

Enough's enough of this crap dude.

 

[asim18]

You quoted the post, but not the conversation - as I said, you conveniently ignored the HMRC point... which you've now done again. You just post ridiculous things, then cry when anyone replies asking reasonable questions. It happened last time, too.

Are you insane?

What has HMRC squashing a tax deal with Vodaphone got to do with anything?

It just proves the fact that you have no idea about the government and corporate world. There isn't just one company in the UK you know. If Vodaphone had a deal with HMRC then Three would want one, EE would want one, Joe's Wines down the road would want one. The reason it was squashed is because it became public knowledge, therefore had to stop.

And even then it just proves HMRC was corrupt LOL. If they weren't, it wouldn't have happened at all! It only stopped because it became public knowledge. Why don't you understand these things.

Dear god.

 

[asim18]

It shows a government department can do something (HMRC doing a deal), which is later investigated regarding its legality. You're saying government won't investigate illegality activities carried out by government departments. The former disproves the latter.

Oh my god.

And even then it just proves HMRC was corrupt LOL. If they weren't, it wouldn't have happened at all in the first place! It only stopped because it became public knowledge. Why don't you understand these things.

 

[asim18]

No, it doesn't prove they're corrupt .

Wait.

You just said HMRC did an illegal tax deal with Vodaphone. And once it became public knowledge it was consequently stopped. But then you refuse to believe there was anything wrong or sinister going on?

Wow, just wow.

 

[asim18]

No. I didn't say it was an illegal deal - perhaps brush up on your comprehension skills :\. I said HMRC did a tax deal, which was subsequently investigated by the National Audit Office (government investigating government, which you deny happens ) - HMRC were cleared. The point is that it demonstrably shows the state does investigate the state.

To be honest, I don't know what the **** you're going on about any more.

It shows a government department can do something (HMRC doing a deal), which is later investigated regarding its legality. You're saying government won't investigate illegality activities carried out by government departments. The former disproves the latter.

 

[asim18]

They investigated activities which were potentially illegal - you know, they need to investigate to establish whether or not illegal activity took place - they established it was okay.

Then what's that got to do with the government doing something illegal? If they knew it was legal but only investigated it to assure people, what's that got to do with absolutely anything?