back to article Snowden's Big Brother isn't as Orwellian as you'd think

Few will forget learning the truth about Santa Claus. Many also felt deep shock on realising that a hitherto ultra-secret NSA/GCHQ programme, revealed in documents leaked by whistleblower Edward Snowden, was constantly rating everyone on a naughty-nice metric based on indiscriminate covert surveillance all their online activity …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.

Page:

                              1. BlueGreen

                                Re: gaz gaz YawnGreen Typical. @Plump & Bleaty

                                > So the system is working as intended

                                Look matt, if it upsets you so much, if you really think it's so harsh, I'll repost with the offending line removed and delete the original.

                                I'll do that now.

                                Following that, please answer the question ie. show where I've used the words you claim I have.

                                1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
                                  FAIL

                                  Re: YawnGreen Re: gaz gaz YawnGreen Typical. @Plump & Bleaty

                                  "Look matt, if it upsets you so much, if you really think it's so harsh, I'll repost with the offending line removed and delete the original...." But, as expected, you won't post any proof of the 'harm' you claimed the NSA was doing to 'everyone'. So, you're just avoiding again.

                                  1. BlueGreen

                                    Re: YawnGreen gaz gaz YawnGreen Typical. @Plump & Bleaty

                                    > I have clicked the abuse button when I see comments that contain abuse

                                    That's you, matt. Your words. I removed the 'abuse' as a gesture to you. Having done so, please answer the question - show me (as specified in my post) where I said what you claimed I said.

                                    1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
                                      Happy

                                      Re: YawnGreen gaz gaz YawnGreen Typical. @Plump & Bleaty

                                      You make the assumption that I clicked the 'abuse' button for your drivel, when the reality is I would have clicked a button for 'laughable stupidity' if that was available. Or a button for 'constant repetition' which is against the house rules. Because that's all you do, repeat, deny and divert. Once again, post the proof of 'harm' you insisted the NSA's actions are inflicting on 'everyone', you said you could do so. If you are finally realising that what you stated you cannot prove, I'll make it easier for you - simply show the proof that the NSA's activities are 'harming' you. Surely if what you claim is true then that should be so easy for you that you won't even need your usual, abusive diversions?

                                      1. Psyx

                                        Re: YawnGreen gaz gaz YawnGreen Typical. @Plump & Bleaty

                                        "Because that's all you do, repeat, deny and divert. "

                                        Whereas name-calling is far more constructive?

                                        1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
                                          Happy

                                          Re: Psyx Re: YawnGreen gaz gaz YawnGreen Typical. @Plump & Bleaty

                                          "Whereas name-calling is far more constructive?" At least my name-calling comes with verifiable facts and arguments. YawnGreen wouldn't know a fact if it bit his fat backside. Indeed, it seems the sheeple are much happier bitching about name-calling rather than admitting the article has a point, and that their fervent bleatings about big Borther Now are just hysterical melodramatics.

                                          1. BlueGreen

                                            Re: Psyx YawnGreen gaz gaz YawnGreen Typical. @Plump & Bleaty

                                            Well, plumpness, you seem repeatadly disinterested in anything constructive, or indeed in fulfiling your side of the agreement, I guess I'm going to have to go back to sheep-baiting. You love it. Or maybe you don't love it but can't resist answering. Well, except when you've posted something silly you can't back up then you go quiet and scuttle off to another thread to piss off another crowd and hope I don't notice your absence. But I do.

                                            BTW keep annoying gazthejourno. There's a scene in a film when a rather unwise goose (or maybe it was a swan) angrily attacks a tiger, pecking it hard in the face, twice. Then it goes for the hat-trick and the film cuts immediately. Can you guess why? Hint: you're not the tiger.

                                            1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
                                              Happy

                                              Re: Psyx YawnGreen gaz gaz YawnGreen Typical. @Plump & Bleaty

                                              "....you seem repeatadly disinterested in anything constructive....." So, I post verifiable facts and arguments, you just post blather and froth, but you say I'm disinterested? Your denial really is quite exceptionally developed, at least your social services team can reflect that you have finally excelled in something, even if it is being pointless.

                                              "....then you go quiet and scuttle off to another thread...." What, you're complaining I haven't exposed your stupidity enough? Are you some kind of psychological masochist? Are you labouring under the mistaken assumption that your posts are somehow a contribution?

                                              "....BTW keep annoying gazthejourno...." What, by clarifying the rules? Oh, I forgot - for you there is no 'understanding', no rules, you simply obey the shepherds unquestioningly. How quaint.

                                              Oh, BTW, you still didn't post the proof of 'harm' you claimed you could provide.

                              2. Matt Bryant Silver badge
                                Stop

                                Re: gaz gaz YawnGreen Typical. @Plump & Bleaty

                                Was that down vote because someone doesn't want gaz to remain as Moderatrix? I admit, he's not Ms Bee, but there's no going back, she dumped us and moved on. You'll just have to quit moping and accept gaz is it, she ain't coming back.

                            1. Vic

                              Re: gaz YawnGreen Typical. @Plump & Bleaty

                              > I've warned you before about your misuse of the report post button

                              First there was Eadon ...

                              :-)

                              Vic.

                          1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
                            WTF?

                            Re: gaz YawnGreen Typical. @Plump & Bleaty

                            Was the down vote because someone actually thinks I do have power over the editorial staff?

                          2. Graham Marsden

                            Re: gaz YawnGreen Typical. @Plump & Bleaty

                            > I have clicked the abuse button when I see comments that contain abuse.

                            Hmm, I wonder how Matt would describe the comment: "STFU you boring, repetitive, lying, moronic sheep"?

                            1. BlueGreen

                              Re: gaz YawnGreen Typical. @Plump & Bleaty

                              > Hmm, I wonder how Matt would describe the comment: "STFU you boring, repetitive, lying, moronic sheep"?

                              I think the little plumpgasm would describe it as factual and verifiable. If you were matt bryant Plump & Bleaty wouldn't you? I certainly would and I know you wouldn't disagree.

                              Incidentally lambchop, consider the number of sheep who inhabit this domain, who disagree and downvote you and generally don't treat you as the demigod you are. Perhaps one might venture to ask why you keep coming back here only to be so despicably treated yet again. It's clear us sheeple don't like you (no, I don't know why either) and can't learn to bask in your clear rays of wisdom, perhaps it's time to move on to another part of the interwebs. Howsabout the daily mail <http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/index.html>. It's simply loaded with petty minded terrorist-fearing right-wingers who know what's right and haven't the mental flexibility to change either.

                              But wait... there your precious posts would be drowned in the dross and no-one would notice you at all, and that's unacceptable because it's not about being right, it's about being noticed; centre of attention; upvotes/downvotes, information content, who cares, it's just ego pumping which keeps you going.

                              So settle in and keep posting cotton-bud, we treasure each perfectly composed patronising worthless insulting rave.

                              1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
                                FAIL

                                Re: YawnGreen Re: gaz YawnGreen Typical. @Plump & Bleaty

                                "...consider the number of sheep who inhabit this domain, who disagree and downvote you..." As I have pointed out to you and the other sheeple before, I am completely unconcerned about 'fitting in with the flock'. After all, it is a natural law of nature that the herds of herbivores outnumber the carnivores that prey upon them. Or, for a simpler example that might make it past your reality filters, the number of sheep in New Zealand far outnumbers the number of humans, yet the New Zealand Government don't ask the sheep for their views. But I suppose it helps you cope that you like to baaaah-lieve your views are 'popular' if only in the tiny circle you move in.

                                "...why you keep coming back here...." Apart from the fact I was here when it was a respectable technical website, long before the majority of the sheeple arrived, I also find exposing your stupidity quite amusing. Unlike you and your unquestioning acceptance of what the herd tell you is 'fact', I am quite happy to think for myself and more than equipped to debate the facts with you I'll-equipped sheeple. I know you have been inculcated with the idea that independent thought is 'bad', that any divergence from what you have been told is 'The Truth' is just verboten in the flock, but I think it really is in your own best interest to realise those here that post alternate views (backed by verifiable facts) are actually doing you lot a favour. Oh, and we get to laugh at your frothing responses. Enjoy!

                                Oh, and BTW, that little spittle-flecked tantrum was yet another post with nothing to do with the thread, just more diversion, and you are still avoiding posting the proof of 'harm' you claimed you could show.

                                1. BlueGreen

                                  Re: YawnGreen gaz YawnGreen Typical. @Plump & Bleaty

                                  > herbivores outnumber the carnivores

                                  And you're the carnivore? Farmer's very own scampering pet? Plump "this is my surprised face" & Bleaty? You? (mega giggle!) I am sooo going to save that one up for later. But I think that's it for this thread.

                                  Ewe boring now, plumpkins, TTFN.

                                  1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
                                    FAIL

                                    Re: YawnGreen gaz YawnGreen Typical. @Plump & Bleaty

                                    "....And you're the carnivore?...." Going on the evidence you present in your posts, compared to you I'm a cross between Einstein and a T-Rex. Now stop evading and procrastinating and post the evidence of 'harm' you insisted it was so easy for you to prove.

                            2. Matt Bryant Silver badge
                              Happy

                              Re: Marsbarbrain Re: gaz YawnGreen Typical. @Plump & Bleaty

                              "....I wonder how Matt would describe the comment: "STFU you boring, repetitive, lying, moronic sheep"?" As an accurate description of YawnGreen's posting habits.

                      1. BlueGreen

                        Re: YawnGreen Typical. @Plump & Bleaty

                        As promised, repost with offense removed (I hope)

                        ++++++

                        > IIRC, I challenged you to prove the 'harm' you claimed was happening to 'everyone' in the thread on the Bahaman wiretaps (http://forums.theregister.co.uk/forum/1/2014/05/19/latest_snowden_leak_claims_nsa_bugged_all_mobile_calls_in_the_bahamas).

                        Oh dear, I do believe you recall incorrectly.

                        Please post a link to the PRECISE comment where I claimed that 'harm' was happening to 'everyone'.

                        Because I've looked on that thread and I did not use the word 'harm' (although you did repeatedly), and the only use of the word 'everyone' was by two other people.

                        Now, please post a link to the EXACT comment on that thread. Don't post a general link and expect everyone to be taken in. If you actually don't know how to link to an exact comment let us know we'll show you - we're here to help!

                        The EXACT comment, please.

                        Where I said these things.

                        Because I don't recall doing so and will retract them if I did. You want a public retraction? You got it!

                        Just post the frigging link to where I (not another person) used the EXACT words 'harm' and 'everyone' in MY own words (not quoting someone else) IN THE CONTEXT OF NSA INTERCEPTIONS.

                        ++++++

                        So, is that acceptable now?

                        1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
                          FAIL

                          Re: YawnGreen Typical. @Plump & Bleaty

                          "....So, is that acceptable now?" No, because you are still just avoiding posting any proof of the 'harm' you claimed the NSA was doing to 'everyone'. It doesn't matter if you use abuse or not, all the forum readers get that all you are doing is trying to divert attention away from the fact your mindless claims have no basis in reality.

    1. Creamy-G00dness

      Sheeple, baaaah-lieve

      Sheeple, baaaah-lieve, Sheeple, baaaah-lieve, Sheeple, baaaah-lieve, Sheeple, baaaah-lieve, Sheeple, baaaah-lieve, Sheeple, baaaah-lieve, Sheeple, baaaah-lieve, Sheeple, baaaah-lieve.

      Whatever fire you were trying to ignite when you first started with this crap, you must surely know by now that your efforts have been wasted. You post nothing but opinionated, hatred filled dross simply looking for someone to disagree with you so you can kick into personal attack mode.

      Troll on keyflinger you are taxing only on the eyes.

      1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
        Happy

        Re: Sheeple, baaaah-lieve

        ".....you are taxing only on the eyes." Well, it is obvious that some sheeple, such as yourself, have very under-taxed brains. In particular, you demonstrate a clear inability to exercise logical thought processes, preferring a more religious-like, unquestioning attitude.

  1. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Great journalism

    You're right, the UK gov't has not been oppressing its citizens.

    As long as you overlook three decades of spying, bribing, assassination and collusion with murderers on all sides of the conflict in Northern Ireland .

    And four decades of inserting spies and agent provocateurs into striking unions, CND, anti-war and environmental campaign groups.

    And the campaign for justice for Stephen Lawrence.

    And suspects detained in Belmarsh near indefinitely on evidence that has not been released to the defence.

    Other than those misunderstandings, its all been rosey.

    The UK is still far better than just about anywhere else in the world. But we should always be looking to improve, not fall back on the grounds that we'll still be among the best places to live even with a little tweak here and there.

  2. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    So everything is alright then

    So everything is alright then, and we don't need to worry about anything? Is that the message of this article, which compares very real wrong-doings of government agencies with fiction and draws some weird conclusions for our very real lives and future from it?

    As the author repeatedly assumes that everything is within legal boundaries, and mostly ignores ethics, maybe a short reminder as to who makes laws might help. Hint: it's not Joe Public, you or me. This means, it's very hard to stop this.

    It's the creeping changes and ignorance of people, which have facilitated snooping. Heck, even after a year of revelations most people will still shrug it off and give less than a shit. In other words, 1984 may not be reality right now, but it's a question of time when it will be.

    1. big_D Silver badge

      Re: So everything is alright then

      And generally, it is all against the law. All of the surveillance that was performed by the NSA and GCHQ against European citizens is illegal... In Europe.

      That is the problem, which many Americans especially fail to see, that saying that it was aimed at Americans makes it okay. No, it doesn't.

      We were, in the past, thankfully limited in what the spy agencies could spy upon, so they had to have good intelligence to work out who they needed to spy on, because they simply didn't have the resources for mass surveillance. It was self limiting. Now they don't have that 'problem', we have the resulting problem.

    2. tom dial Silver badge

      Re: So everything is alright then

      In other words, "we have met the enemy and he is us." (Pogo, 1970)

  3. big_D Silver badge

    Spin

    can we spin up the GCHQ hard disk doughnut up to 7500rpm and see what happens?

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Spin

      I suspect a head crash - of everyone inside.

      It would be much more fun if it could actually fly.

  4. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Russia stop-over

    "Edward Snowden is now in Russia, a country that is rather closer to Orwell's dystopian future than Britain or America. Some see this as evidence that he has been working for Russian intelligence. "

    The article overlooks the fact that Moscow airport was an in-flight stop-over. A seat was apparently booked for an onward flight via Cuba. It was the USA cancelling his passport at that point which made it impossible for him to travel to his presumably intended sanctuary in South America.

    Was it also the case that the USA arranged for another plane to be intercepted and searched in Europe in case he was being secretly ferried to South America?

    1. emmanuel goldstein

      Re: Russia stop-over

      precisely. he is in Russia through necessity, not choice. important to bear that in mind.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Russia stop-over

        No that seems to have been arranged by the FSB, and WIkileaks.

  5. Adam Inistrator

    Boiling frogs

    This article is trying to settle down the frogs ... jostling uneasily in the pan as a rather hot bubble wells up.

  6. codejunky Silver badge

    So

    We dont have to worry about the increasing abuse of powers (particularly anti-terrorism powers) being used against the ordinary? We dont have spy agencies breaking the laws and then lying to their superiors about doing so? We dont have people being detained, secret courts, abusive prisons/extraordinary rendition? We dont have a right to privacy in the hunt of an intangible (terror)? Snowden didnt have his passport cancelled to stop him from escaping and he hasnt already been convicted as a traitor by every US politician trying to grab him?

    But at least we have media who can openly report to keep the gov in check. Oh apart from secret courts and intimidation efforts against the newspaper reporting on these law breaking abuses.

    And we dont continue to get further revelations of the spying activities and their abuse which is denied outright... then weasel worded... then admitted but all for the good of the people? Sounds great

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: So

      @codejunky: Very good summary.

      Presumably the author's name "SA Mathieson", means speacial agent? Okay, joking, but you catch my drift. The article is full of "close your eyes and all will be okay" attitude.

  7. breakfast

    Will nobody think of the T1000s?

    People worry a lot about government, but with all this monitoring set up so everyone can be watched by any computer anywhere we're totally opening to door to hostile AI, should it ever come knocking.

  8. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    There is a big difference between a whistleblower and a traitor who had his ego slapped professionally and decided to"show them" how smart he was. Most of his revelations are things the agencies are supposed to be doing. If he had constitutional concerns, the document release would have been very narrow and specific. This is a classic case of firing an arrow and then painting a target around it...now he's styling himself as some kind of civil rights champion. Ha...Ha...Ha.

    1. dogged

      I think the important thing here is that Edward Snowden is not important. The information is important.

      Those attacking the man and ignoring the crimes (yes, crimes) might perhaps wish to consider this.

      1. tom dial Silver badge

        "Edward Snowden is not important. The information is important." Most of the information has been publicly available, with somewhat less detail, for years, and the activities described have been going on in various forms since before World War II. Books and articles have been written and published describing them. Bulk communication collection at places like Menwith Hill and the potential tracking use of cell phones (mentioned in a later post) are widely known for quite a while. Not much has happened.

        So perhaps Edward Snowden actually is important. Perhaps, but the pace and degree of change underway suggest otherwise. "Reset the Net" might have an effect, but even with that skepticism is in order.

        1. Psyx

          To be fair, there is a big difference between being told by third-hand sources and that there are listening stations everywhere intercepting stuff and with seeing an NSA powerpoint presentation on the subject.

          The information has been there and *some* people have known about it, but it was never cast-iron-front-page stuff and was known to a minority. Snowdon dragged in a dead yeti, rather than some photos of footprints in the snow.

  9. Identity
    Black Helicopters

    Was ist das?

    Seems to me a semantic argument to foster stage two of the denialist triad*: 'OK, it's happening, but it's not as bad as you say.' Those of you in Blighty may have grown used to constant surveillance, what with the cameras and all, but on this side of the pond we are supposed to have a right to privacy. Today, it was reported on National Public Radio** that your cell phone (mobe, if you prefer) is leaking all kinds of information about you, even if you're not using it!

    *The other two are 1) "It's not happening" and 3) "OK, it's happening, but it's somebody else's fault."

    **http://www.npr.org/2014/06/11/320882348/project-eavesdrop-what-passive-surveillance-collects

  10. Squander Two

    No, no, no.

    He should also ditch the agency’s name, "Government Communications Headquarters," a long-blown Second World War cover story.

    Got to disagree with this bit. It's the popular mistake of thinking a name's origin and it's meaning are the same thing. GCHQ isn't Government Communications Headquarters; it's GCHQ. In the UK's national consciousness, GCHQ's heritage and pedigree are embedded in its name. Keep it.

    1. Levente Szileszky

      Re: No, no, no.

      " it's GCHQ. In the UK's national consciousness, GCHQ's heritage and pedigree are embedded in its name. Keep it."

      Are you high?

      1. Squander Two

        Re: No, no, no.

        If you explain what your actual problem is, I'll respond.

  11. druck Silver badge

    I used to get that view of GCHQ everytime I flew in or out of Staverton airport (2 miles down the road), it's quite amazing they allow anyone to fly over such a sensitive building at under 1000ft.

    1. Fred Flintstone Gold badge

      Oh, don't worry, they know you're there.. :p

  12. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Winston Smith the terrorist ..

    "If you want both, go back 30 years, when a civil servant in London started writing a diary about his hatred of the government. Influenced by a new girlfriend, he got involved in radical politics, pledging to commit acts of terrorism in order to advance the cause"

    I don't recall reading Winston Smith wanted to 'commit acts of terrorism'. Lucky for the party that O’Brien got him into room 101 for some re-education. "radical politics" .. haarr harrr ... 1984

    --

    "Orwell’s masterpiece was not in place by 1984, and it isn’t now"

    "Operation BOHAN Lies and more Lies"

    --

    What is this propaganda piece for the state security apparatus doing in a technology mag?

  13. MacGyver

    What's the worst that could happen?

    Does anyone remember J. Edgar Hoover? Do you remember all that he did with only the craptastic tech he had available in the 20's to the 70's? He was the top FBI man for 50 years right up until the day he died because presidents were afraid to fire him for fear of reprisal. Now imagine what it would have been like if he had access to the internet history of everyone in the U.S., email, web searches, sites visited, transcribed voice calls, and online purchases. Not just for 2014, but all the way back to 2001, and continuing on until the day you die.

    I don't worry about the good-guys maybe doing bad things so much as I worry about the bad-guys doing what they will do. Someone could sit behind a desk and control everyone in the United States if they had uncontrolled access to that information, and if someone can, someone will.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: What's the worst that could happen?

      Someone could sit behind a desk and control everyone in the United States if they had uncontrolled access to that information, and if someone can, someone will.

      I would move house if I were you. Schmidt and co. will not appreciate you uncovering the Google master plan.

  14. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    PanOpticon

    The fact that Snowden (quite correctly in my view) decided that he needed to decamp to China, then Russia, in order to guarantee his personal safety, tells us that the US is closer to Orwell than some here believe.

    Guantanamo Bay still stands as a testimony to how the US government will evade its own laws in order to detain people without due process, somewhere far from prying eyes. Before he was elected, Obama said he would close it. But it's still there.

    The campaign finance laws in US ensure that the political process there is bought and paid for, rather than subject to democratic change. How else to explain why Obama has reinforced the police state he inherited from Bush, rather than dismantled it.

    The UK is not nearly as bad, due in part to much stricter political finance oversight. However, the Assange saga suggests that exposing the truth to the light, is still not welcomed, by those who misdeeds get aired.

    Contra Capt Hogwash, Google is at least as large a threat to an accountable future as our venal politicians. They have shown themselves willing in China to censor accurate political history at the behest of a repressive government. They have suppressed their commercial rivals by excluding them from their search results. Give it a few years, and you can be sure that any previous journalism hostile to Google will be deprived of oxygen, hidden from the search results and effectively suppressed. Their landgrab for the book market will have a similar effect. What's the difference between Winston Smith job for MiniTruth and the editors of the Google search results?

    1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
      FAIL

      Re: AC Re: PanOpticon

      "....in order to guarantee his personal safety...." Snowjob moved to guarantee his not being extradited and tried for treachery. There never was any proof of any attempt to harm him other than his own Wallter Mitty-esqe claims. If the CIA had really wanted to kill him it would not have taken much effort, he was never really hidden, not in Hong Kong (where the CIA could have used his contacts with Chinese journos and/or Greenwald to find him) and definitely not whilst he was stuck in the transit lounge in Moscow. It was all part of the big sales job done by the Wikidicks and Greenwald that Snowjob's life was 'at risk', but there has never been any proof of it.

      ".....Guantanamo Bay still stands as a testimony to how the US government will evade its own laws in order to detain people without due process...." Gitmo is an example of how laws designed for combat between civilised countries do not work well with terrorists. The convoluted legal discussions since it opened, even under Bush, demonstrate that the US does want to deal legally with the detainees and is not just trying to lock them away without due process. I'd also have to ask how much 'due process' has the Taliban every given anyone, especially the thousands of Shia they ethnically cleansed (and continue to attack daily)?

      "....somewhere far from prying eyes...." Bullshit. Apart from the fact Gitmo has always been the subject of sustained comment inside the US administration and public, the jail and the prisoners have been given access to lawyers and other organisations such as the Red Cross. Copious amounts of information on Gitmo and conditions therein are available on the Web (plus a large amount of conjecture and propaganda), so to claim they are 'far from prying eyes' is just hysterical bleating.

      "....Before he was elected, Obama said he would close it. But it's still there...." Agreed totally. But then Obambi has desperately tried to keep his electioneering promise, most recently by releasing five of the worst mass murderers in Gitmo in exchange for an alleged deserter that was causing him political trouble at home. Obambi would close Gitmo tomorrow if he could. Obambi's problem is not that he wants to close Gitmo to keep his promise, even though it means risking the release of those that have shown no intention of giving up violent jihad, it's that he can't find countries willing to take the jihadis. Why do you think the recent five went to Sunni-jihad-funders Qatar? Because even Pakistan and Afghanistan did not want the trouble they would have brought with them.

      "....How else to explain why Obama has reinforced the police state he inherited from Bush, rather than dismantled it....." Apart from the fact that, if you really think the US is a 'police state', then you really need to get out in the World a lot more, maybe Obambi found that he actually needs to keep the security apparatus largely as it was in order to protect America and allies from those that would seek to do them harm, steal their secrets, or commit crimes? No, you much prefer the spoonfed idea about 'Nazi Amerika', right?

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: PanOpticon

      It strikes me that Obama hasn't got the ability and support to change anything, which suggests that Bush well and truly nailed the door shut to any recovery of that situation.

      Having said that, Obama doesn't seem to be WILLING to change anything either, to the point where I actually talked to the Norwegian Nobel price committee to ask if they took back Nobel prices. Sadly, they don't.

Page:

This topic is closed for new posts.

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2021