Snowden files 'show massive UK spying op'

Moses said:
They didn't know it was legal - hence the investigation. Oh wait, you mean it's just a conspiracy and it was a front to appease the sheeple? :o:rolleyes:

Are you just simple? I mean, didn't you get kicked out of uni after not being able to understand a timetable (and also for being a thief...)?
Click to expand...

Whoa whoa. Hold on a minute. Don't try to change the subject.

So HMRC signed a million pound tax deal with Vodaphone without making damn sure it's legal FIRST?

:D And I'm the simple one, you really are clueless.
 
Moses said:
No. They thought what they were doing was okay. Another department thought it needed checking and so investigated.

You know, people can act in good faith, but still do something which is against the rules (unwittingly). A golfer can complete a round, but honestly make a mistake on their scorecard... they can then be investigated and sanctioned, even though they didn't think they'd done anything wrong (until it was brought to their attention).
Click to expand...

Oh ****. Now your HMRC vs Vodaphone crap has been flushed down the toilet.

And I haven't bothered with your dig at my failure to comprehend a conflicting timetable and email I received regarding a lost HDD....

You've now moved to golf. Well let me tell you again. It's got nothing to do with federal departments.

If you think the DoD is "unwittingly" setting up a billion dollar data mining plant in Utah without making sure it's damn well "legal" by the DoJ you have just proved your insanity and retardation. (once again)

Good night. I have to be up for work at 10.
 
Last edited:
Moses said:
Pardon me?
Click to expand...

Yes it's been flushed down the toilet.

You said HMRC signed a million dollar tax deal with Vodaphone just "thinking it was legal" which it conclusively was, as you said.

You used this as an analogy saying that the DoD can also make a mistake, by "thinking" the billion dollar data mining facility, PRISM, ISP contracts, are all legal. And if the DoJ does an audit and finds it illegal they will shut it down.


Well let me tell you something. The DoD and the DoJ get their funding from the same damn pot man. If you think the DoD are going to build a billion dollar complex without making damn sure the DoJ won't shut it down BEFOREHAND, proves you are clueless.
 
Last edited:
asim18 said:
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. :D
Click to expand...

:confused: If the threat of terrorism is false then what killed Lee Rigby and the Boston Marathon spectators?
 
scorza said:
:confused: If the threat of terrorism is false then what killed Lee Rigby and the Boston Marathon spectators?
Click to expand...

Yep you got the point :): People who decided not to air their motives through electronic communication. Completely and utterly (and easily) bypassing this whole mass data mining charade and rendering it useless for its intended purpose, which is to provide a false sense of security against propagandised "terrorist attacks".
 
Last edited:
asim18 said:
Yep you got the point :): People who decided not to air their motives through electronic communication. Completely and utterly (and easily) bypassing this whole mass data mining charade and rendering it useless for its intended purpose, which is to provide a false sense of security against propagandised "terrorist attacks".
Click to expand...

You seem to be under the impression that electronic surveillance is the only method available to the security services.
 
scorza said:
You seem to be under the impression that electronic surveillance is the only method available to the security services.
Click to expand...

Incorrect.

Post 126:

asim18 said:
Also, in that case you mentioned, he was put under live surveillance by the way. Actual agents in visual range, watching his moves. Not some multi-million petabyte mass internet data mining operation. Two entirely different things.
Click to expand...


Which further backs up what I'm saying. Physical surveillance with actual evidentially obtained warrants is what catches terrorists. Not some mass data mining.

Data mining has nothing to do with catching terrorists. And most definitely won't any more as it's world wide knowledge now.
 
Last edited:
asim18 said:
Which further backs up what I'm saying. Physical surveillance with actual evidential based warrants is what catches terrorists. Not some mass data mining.
Click to expand...

So now you're saying physical surveillance is the only technique the security services should use :confused:

Question: how do the security services know who they should place under physical surveillance?
 
scorza said:
So now you're saying physical surveillance is the only technique the security services should use :confused:

Question: how do the security services know who they should place under physical surveillance?
Click to expand...

Now? :confused:

I said it yesterday.

How hard is it to understand that no terrorism that has the potential of occurring will be discussed or planned electronically (certainly not whatever the NSA/GCHQ are mining)? Do you understand this, yes or no?

The Boston attacks and Lee Rigby's murder was not planned or discussed online - they occurred. Do you understand this also?

Therefore do you understand that the sense of security which PRISM et. al. aims to provide to the masses is false? Do you understand this?
 
Last edited:
asim18 said:
Now? :confused:

I said it yesterday.

How hard is it to understand that no terrorism that has the potential of occurring will be discussed or planned electronically (certainly not whatever the NSA/GCHQ are mining)? Do you understand this, yes or no?

The Boston attacks and Lee Rigby's murder was not planned or discussed online - they occurred. Do you understand this also?

Therefore do you understand that the sense of security which PRISM et. al. aims to provide to the masses is false? Do you understand this?
Click to expand...

How do you know that no terrorism will be discussed or planned electronically. These guys aren't exactly brainiacs, the main critical success factor in planning a terrorist attack seems to be luck.
 
Ever since the London riots, the UK Government pretty much spelled it out to us that GCHQ would be responsible for helping prevent repeats of it. It's well known that social networks and SMS messages were almost entirely responsible for the level of "organisation" in those riots. Even as the riots were unfolding over that bizarre 3 or 4 day period, it was obvious the Police were getting more and more intelligence as to where the next mobs would be forming. That's because GCHQ started feeding them with information.
 
i think in this case rupert murdoch should SUE the govt because of the whole hacking fiasco.

The govt has some cheek punishing the newspaper for hacking when they are doing the same..

/I am not in favour of the SUN etc, just pointing a fact.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom