PDA

View Full Version : Assange and Snowden twerps


ArthurR
1st Oct 2013, 07:57
Julian Assange and Edward Snowden as the "self-seeking twerps"

what do you think?

Dame Stella Rimington: MI5 and MI6 must convince public they are working for them and not against them - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/10345998/Dame-Stella-Rimington-MI5-and-MI6-must-convince-public-they-are-working-for-them-and-not-against-them.html)

cattletruck
1st Oct 2013, 08:12
Well we just had Reserve Bank of Australia executives and directors doing blatant illegal deals with Saddam Hussein and get away with it.

As the whistle-blower Brian Hood who lost his job summised - "There's two sets of rules, some people will be held accountable for what they do and don't do and others may well be untouchable".

Story here COVER UP - Four Corners (http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/stories/2013/09/30/3857148.htm)

500N
1st Oct 2013, 08:17
Cattletruck

That is only half of it.

Wasn't their a scandal about Oil with Saddam as well ?

I am still amazed that the RBA etc have got away with it.

BillHicksRules
1st Oct 2013, 08:17
It is very simple to avoid whistleblowers.

Do not do stuff that you should not. Simples.

Assange and Snowden are not a threat to National Security. They are a threat to National pride. They highlight things that are embarrassing and illegal.

VP959
1st Oct 2013, 08:30
The bottom line here is that Snowden, Assange, et al, wouldn't need to stoop to releasing state secrets if those states always acted honestly and obeyed the laws regarding personal privacy.

It's only because Western governments have the potential to spy on every single electronic communication by every single citizen, regardless of reasonable suspicion, that Snowden felt the need to go public, I believe.

I don't feel wholly comfortable with Snowden's actions, or those of Assange, but on balance I can understand why they feel that the general public have a right to know and understand the degree of state surveillance that they are being subjected to.

Having worked within government and seen first hand how cock ups happen (with monotonous regularity) the potential for innocent people to get their lives ruined by revelations emanating from the widespread state surveillance machine seems too high a price to pay for the small benefit it might give in reducing directed personal surveillance of suspected threats.

radeng
1st Oct 2013, 11:48
Then there was the accountant who blew the whistle on the EU dodgy accounting - and was fired by Kinnock, who was sent in to sort out the scandal!

Although whistle blowing is supposed to be something welcomed by the powers-that-be, in reality, they want to prevent it on a CYA (cover your arse) basis.

I know of one large company that is very dubious about using email for internal discussions on contracts because they feel they cannot guarantee its security, especially where the competition is US based.

ExXB
1st Oct 2013, 12:14
Heroes, both of them.

VP959
1st Oct 2013, 13:46
Do we really think that Western intelligence services are interested in, or will waste resources monitoring, every inane message transmitted by email, Twit, Face, Skyp etc.?
A friend refers to his pub night as . . . best not say as it would tick a few auto flag-ups

Of course not, but I've seen far to many cock ups within government to not expect that this mass state surveillance operation will throw up a lot of false positives.

Automated intelligence gathering, on the scale of the current interception by key word of all electronic communication, is very far from infallible and can easily lead to innocent people being targeted. The majority of the time one hopes that innocent targets would soon be recognised as such and disregarded, but, as happened with Jean Charles de Menezes, one cannot ever be entirely sure that the system would work as it should.

rgbrock1
1st Oct 2013, 13:56
Basil wrote:

Do we really think that Western intelligence services are interested in, or will waste resources monitoring, every inane message transmitted by email, Twit, Face, Skyp etc.?

I do, yes indeed. The resources used to acquire and analyze this data is done, at first, by computer systems and then, if needed, by human analysts. I'm sure such "illustrious" state organs such as the N.S.A. have state-of-the-art systems. Systems which can probably crunch mega gigabytes of information in milliseconds. Feed the programs running on those system keywords to search for and then flag them when found. Then, onto the human analyst. Those keywords can be anything. Anything the "powers to be" deem pertinent.

Even if the keywords are, for example, "we had sex all night."

:eek::eek::eek:

superq7
1st Oct 2013, 14:02
RG
As long as it ie NSA etc do it to stop feking terrorists I'm all for it.

VP959
1st Oct 2013, 14:24
As long as it ie NSA etc do it to stop feking terrorists I'm all for it.

I doubt anyone would disagree with this, but would the relative of someone wholly innocent being targeted in error and then shot, feel the same way?

Mass surveillance on this scale has the potential to be misused, either deliberately by the state, or be those running the system who may act outwith the boundaries laid down by the state.

How tempting it would be, for example, to influence politics by uncovering communications (perhaps of the "we had sex all night" type) that are then leaked and used to embarrass opponents out of office.

Once there is a single state repository of every electronic communication made (as there is now) then it must be exceptionally tempting to misuse it. If anyone thinks that this is far-fetched, look at the way that the Police National Computer (PNC) is currently misused.

BillHicksRules
1st Oct 2013, 14:29
SuperQ,

Considering how Anti-Terror Laws are abused on both sides of the Atlantic the definition of terrorist could include just about anyone.

lexxie747
1st Oct 2013, 14:52
daytime only

rgbrock1
1st Oct 2013, 15:21
VP wrote:

Mass surveillance on this scale has the potential to be misused, either deliberately by the state, or be those running the system who may act outwith the boundaries laid down by the state.

And in the U.S. mass surveillance on this scale is wholly unconstitutional i.e., illegal. With the practitioners guilty of high-crimes and misdemeanors.

VP: check your PM's as I sent you one earlier.

cattletruck
1st Oct 2013, 15:21
As long as it ie NSA etc do it to stop feking terrorists I'm all for it.

And on quiet times they'll pin it on some p!ssed off goat herder, after all there is money to be made making weapons to blow him up and upgrading intelligence systems that identified him as a suitable candidate. Why do I feel the corporations are running this agenda?

Here in Australia I know of the corruptible person who runs the major telco's phone tapping systems - I wonder if he has lost his virginity yet but I can't see that ever happening even with the many thousands of dollars he earns per week.

"There's two sets of rules, some people will be held accountable for what they do and don't do and others may well be untouchable".

I think I may now refer to him as the untouchable dick.

Lonewolf_50
1st Oct 2013, 16:16
Assange and Snowden are not a threat to National Security. They are a threat to National pride. They highlight things that are embarrassing and illegal.
BHR once again demonstrates serious misunderstanding. Assange wasn't the security problem, Manning was as the source of the leaks. Snowden, being the source of the leak, was and is a security problem.

radeng
1st Oct 2013, 16:32
rgb wrote

>And in the U.S. mass surveillance on this scale is wholly unconstitutional i.e., illegal. With the practitioners guilty of high-crimes and misdemeanors.<

But only if they are caught, for which their crimes have to be known to have been committed, which without the whistleblower, won't happen. But then the whistleblower is a 'danger' to 'security' because he HAS blown the whistle.

Don't they call this 'catch 22'?

Blacksheep
2nd Oct 2013, 08:10
... the general public have a right to know and understand the degree of state surveillance that they are being subjected to.Perhaps they do. But that doesn't justify the publication of secret information that may be useful to an enemy, foreign or domestic.

In any case, an assumption that the general public are being subjected to massive state surveillance may be thought of as paranoia - a common mental illness. :rolleyes:

dubbleyew eight
2nd Oct 2013, 08:27
blacksheep you should read Legacy of Ashes and the History of the FBI.
there is no paranoia in the general population, more a paranoia in the population of generals.

VP959
2nd Oct 2013, 09:23
In any case, an assumption that the general public are being subjected to massive state surveillance may be thought of as paranoia - a common mental illness.

The snag with this assumption is that, as revealed by Snowden (and widely suspected for some time) there has been a massive state surveillance programme in place for some time, at least as far as electronic communication is concerned.

Obviously this doesn't extend to an individual listening in on every bit of electronic communication, but it does involve caching pretty much all electronic data and searching for keywords and suspicious looking communication patterns. Should something worthy of closer attention be spotted in this deluge of data then the powers that be can (and apparently do) investigate it further.

Those that trust the supposed infallibility of the state and security services may well hold the view that this is an acceptable breach of personal privacy if it helps prevent terrorist attacks.

However, as most who've worked within government will either suspect or know, neither the state nor the security services are infallible. There is a risk, an unacceptable one in my view, that either an individual, an organisation with access to the data, or the state itself, will, and perhaps already have, misuse this surveillance capability that presently exists.

Blacksheep
2nd Oct 2013, 09:53
I was paying attention. I once read "1984" It was a load of crap. :suspect:

BillHicksRules
2nd Oct 2013, 11:42
BS (oh how aptly that fits),

You clearly have not been paying attention.

The alternatives to that are not palatable.

Blacksheep
2nd Oct 2013, 12:49
But I have been paying attention. Big Brother has checked me out and found me to be a harmless old duffer. I cooperate and they leave me alone.

That's how it works.

You on the other hand are revealing yourself to be a dangerous resistor. They will mark you down for the treatment no doubt.

Or, Big Brother may be me. You'll never know, will you? :=

parabellum
3rd Oct 2013, 01:36
Well said Blacksheep, both posts, two more vacuous, shallow, self absorbed people it would be hard to find.

galaxy flyer
3rd Oct 2013, 02:23
That Snowden is a guest, an unseen one at that, of Mr. Putin says carloads about his real allegiance. Hardly, a hero.

Not to say, I don't sympathize with some of his points, but his choice of friends (Greenwald, Applebaum, Putin et al) are hardly inspiring.

GF