back to article Snowden: 'Hey, Assange, any more room on Ecuador's sofa?'

NSA PRISM whistleblower Edward Snowden has requested asylum in none other than Ecuador, the country that’s also technically safeguarding WikiLeaker Julian Assange. Snowden is actually on his way to the South American nation to see if he can stay, while Assange remains ensconced on the sofa of the Ecuadorian embassy in London …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.
  1. Winkypop Silver badge
    Trollface

    From ridiculous

    to farce.

  2. Anomalous Cowshed

    Ecuador, trying to corner the market?

    Once upon a time, a poor Latin American country.

    Now the world's leading purveyor of upholstered furniture to discerning customers.

    Introducing the Senior Assange(R) range, which is all the rage in Beverley Hills, lush but with just a little stylish hint of excess wear, and that uniquely genuine whiff...

    And coming soon, other ranges made renowned by being endorsed by famous people!

    Come and try them out at our London showroom. Viewing by appointment only. Call now, availability is limited.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Go

      Re: Ecuador, trying to corner the market?

      No showings between midnight and 8 AM, as current occupant will be using floor sample......

      1. Scorchio!!
        Trollface

        Re: Ecuador, trying to corner the market?

        "No showings between midnight and 8 AM, as current occupant will be using floor sample......"

        Has anyone wonder how Julie is 'making out' on his own in that lil' embassy? Does he relieve himself by hand, or do embassy staff do him a favour every now and then, their 'duty to the party'? Perhaps he uses the furniture, or the odd embassy bicycle.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Ecuador, trying to corner the market?

      Maybe George Washington slept on a few sofas while being pursued.

  3. an it guy
    Go

    And in other news...

    bookings for general tourism to Ecuador is on the up ;-)*. It's a good bit of awareness for Ecuador. how many people knew where it was on the map beforehand? it's now publicly said that it's going to be nice and friendly to foreigners, and you may even get tourists wanting to see the man that 'snubbed' the USA.

    * I actually have no idea

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: And in other news...

      tourism to south america as a whole is on the up actually, unrelated to assange et al, but more down to being a "destination" that hasn't (yet) been totally destroyed by capitalism. Recent events are only going to enhance that, so people can go see what it really has to offer (apart from the Galapagos of course, i'm sure you'd heard of them)

      1. Khaptain Silver badge

        Re: And in other news...

        I am not so sure that tourism to Brazil is on the up at the moment. There appears to be a little bit of unrest....due to the bus fares.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: And in other news...

          ...just wait for riots on the streets of Quito in the next 12 months as a bunch of CIA sponsored "revolutionaries" demand that the current regime be replaced. The Yanks will unfortunately not only get Assange and Snowden by hook or crook but also their revenge upon the current Ecuardorian government.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: And in other news...

            "...just wait for riots on the streets of Quito in the next 12 months as a bunch of CIA sponsored "revolutionaries" demand that the current regime be replaced"

            Worked well for them in Cuba.

            (For those that don't know their history, search for Bay of Pigs)

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: And in other news...

        "tourism to south america as a whole is on the up actually, unrelated to assange et al, but more down to being a "destination" that hasn't (yet) been totally destroyed by capitalism."

        Bang on!

        1. Anonymous Coward
          FAIL

          Re: And in other news...

          >>"tourism to south america as a whole is on the up actually, unrelated to assange et al, but more down to being

          >>a "destination" that hasn't (yet) been totally destroyed by capitalism."

          >

          >Bang on!"

          Oh gawd, all the armchair communists have arrived. Tell you what guys, if you hate capitalism and what it does so much how about you sell your computer and stay off the internet? And then buy yourself a dingy to paddle to equador (can't use those nasty capitalist airlines now can you?) and live in the abject poverty sorry , I mean revolutionary workers paradise, that country can offer you?

          So how about it?

          No? Not keen?

          Now ain't that strange.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: All the armchair communists ...

            You do know that the internet "exists" in south america too ? You do know what communism actually is ?

            Nowhere in those two posts above was any "communist" ideology mentioned, simply saying that South America is unspoiled by mass-market tourism (as exhibited by capitalism) that destroys archaeological remains etc etc. You've clearly never been to such places, nor are likely to ever, so perhaps come back when you're better informed

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: All the armchair communists ...

              "You do know that the internet "exists" in south america too ? You do know what communism actually is ?"

              Whoooosh....

              The internet was initially created by the bug nasty US government that everyone on here seems to hate and then further progress was made possible by nasty capitalist companies getting involved. So if you don't like the US and don't like capitalism then fuck off from the internet because its like writing that abhor slavery on some paper that your slave just fetched for you.

              "South America is unspoiled by mass-market tourism (as exhibited by capitalism) that destroys archaeological remains etc etc. "

              You mean unlike the wise caring natives who would never bulldoze ruins or plough up archeology to plant crops? No , never. Ever. Never happens...

              "You've clearly never been to such places, nor are likely to ever, so perhaps come back when you're better informed"

              Let me guess - you've been on some pot fueled arms-length Gap Yah over there and now think you're got the inside view on world poverty and how to solve it? Yeah well, that'll be you and every other naive post grad traveller my friend.

              1. Mad Mike
                FAIL

                Re: All the armchair communists ...

                @boltar

                "The internet was initially created by the bug nasty US government that everyone on here seems to hate and then further progress was made possible by nasty capitalist companies getting involved. So if you don't like the US and don't like capitalism then fuck off from the internet because its like writing that abhor slavery on some paper that your slave just fetched for you."

                Epic fail!! Starting out by showing you have no idea of the history of the internet is not a good place to start. The internet was not created by the 'bug nasty US government' at all, but really start amongst Universities etc. that wanted to share data. Of course, it does depend to some extent on how far back in history you want to go, but the US government had no more involvement than many other countries whose universities were involved. You could, at a stretch, say that governments (as in multiple, not just the US) were involved through their funding of universities, but the US government never had any intention to create the internet.

                1. Anonymous Coward
                  FAIL

                  Re: All the armchair communists ...

                  "Epic fail!! Starting out by showing you have no idea of the history of the internet is not a good place to start. The internet was not created by the 'bug nasty US government' at all, but really start amongst Universities etc. that wanted to share data"

                  Look up ARPANET in Wikipedia you dumb cunt and read the first paragraph.

                  Yeah epic fail indeed - for you.

                  1. Mad Mike
                    FAIL

                    Re: All the armchair communists ...

                    "Look up ARPANET in Wikipedia you dumb cunt and read the first paragraph.

                    Yeah epic fail indeed - for you."

                    I could reply in kind, but I'm not an idiot. If you were to lookup internet, you will note that ARPANET is only ONE of the predecessors of the internet. There was also Mark I at NPL in the UK for instance. CYCLADES, Telenet, Tymnet etc.etc.

                    All played a vital role in developing the technology that has become the internet. I know Americans love to think they invented everything and have done everything, often rewriting history using Hollywood to try and indoctrinate the masses that the US is responsible for everything good. BUT, IT SIMPLY ISN'T TRUE.

                    Your egotistical attitude and self-belief is a prime example of why America is making so many enemies.

                    Before making my post, I actually did lookup the history of the internet and double checked my facts. Yes, ARPANET was an important predecessor, but certainly not the only one and certainly not solely responsible for internet.

                    1. Anonymous Coward
                      Facepalm

                      Re: All the armchair communists ...

                      "I could reply in kind, but I'm not an idiot. "

                      Sorry , but you are.

                      "There was also Mark I at NPL in the UK for instance. CYCLADES, Telenet, Tymnet etc.etc."

                      There were plenty of standalone networks in the 60s, 70s and 80s including ah hoc uucp & compuserve. However the internet with TCP and failover packet switching as we know it today came directly out of arparnet since the network it grew into supplanted the others whether you like it or not so I'm afraid its not up for debate.

                      "BUT, IT SIMPLY ISN'T TRUE."

                      I'm afraid it is.

                      "Your egotistical attitude and self-belief is a prime example of why America is making so many enemies."

                      A feeble attempt at an ad hominem but thing is I'm actually british and whats more I've worked with one of the people who was involved in developing the first packet switch routers. But unlike you I'm not blinded by a union jack draped over my brain.

                      1. Mad Mike
                        FAIL

                        Re: All the armchair communists ...

                        Rather than take a very narrow, blinkered and frankly stupid approach as you have, I looked at the real picture of the internet and thought more holistically and intelligently.

                        "There were plenty of standalone networks in the 60s, 70s and 80s including ah hoc uucp & compuserve. However the internet with TCP and failover packet switching as we know it today came directly out of arparnet since the network it grew into supplanted the others whether you like it or not so I'm afraid its not up for debate."

                        Did I say the internet didn't grow out of ARPANET? Don't think so. However, I'm intelligent enough to realise that ARPANET was a mixture of many things. It contained some rehashed ideas from the past and also some new stuff....TCP/IP etc. So, did the US government also 'create' all the old things it used or rehashed? In some cases yes, but in many no. So, are the people who created these other things not due their acknowledgement for their contribution to creating the internet? According to you, of course not. ARPANET had no previous ideas at all, was completely new and solely down to Uncle Sam. Bullshit. Therefore, my comment of it simply isn't true is absolutely correct.

                        The US government without doubt played a sizeable part in the internet, bu so did lots of other people in their contributions from the past. Similarly, since you mention it, many organisations, not just capitalist companies were responsible for moving the internet forward with new additions and ideas and funding etc.

                        To give an example. When Henry Ford invented the production line for cars, did he do it all by himself? Or, were other people involved, including the reuse of prior art in various machines etc.? Of course there was. Hollistically, no one person or organisation is ever responsible for new things as they almost invariably rely on prior art of some sort and therefore some credit is due to those people as well. So, the US government did its part, but so did many others.

                        So, lets relook at what you actually said. The US government initially create the internet all by itself. Nope. Other entities and prior art were involved, but you want to forget about them. Initial deployment was largely around universities, mostly in the US, which also funded some of it.

                        "The internet was initially created by the bug nasty US government that everyone on here seems to hate and then further progress was made possible by nasty capitalist companies getting involved. "

                        "A feeble attempt at an ad hominem but thing is I'm actually british and whats more I've worked with one of the people who was involved in developing the first packet switch routers."

                        Interesting that you seem to believe working with someone somehow rubs off on you and gives you credibility, but it doesn't. Working next to Einstein doesn't make you less of an idiot.

                        "But unlike you I'm not blinded by a union jack draped over my brain."

                        Not sure where this has come from. I don't recall ever mentioning Britain or anything about Britain having a particular claim to 'creating' the internet. So, I assume this is just mindless insulting.

                        Just to ensure you understand. I do not claim sole credit for anything I 'create' in my employment as generally speaking it might have some new, but also contains other peoples work (whether modified or not) and therefore other people are also responsible for the 'creation' in their own way as well.

                        1. Anonymous Coward
                          WTF?

                          Re: All the armchair communists ...

                          "Interesting that you seem to believe working with someone somehow rubs off on you and gives you credibility, but it doesn't. Working next to Einstein doesn't make you less of an idiot."

                          Ditto NOT working next to einstein as you nicely demonstrate.

                          "Of course there was. Hollistically, no one person or organisation is ever responsible for new things as they almost invariably rely on prior art of some sort and therefore some credit is due to those people as well."

                          If you want to engage in absurd extrapolations then the person who invented the abacus is ultimately responsible for the internet and the discussion is over.

                          Muppet.

                          1. Mad Mike

                            Re: All the armchair communists ...

                            @boltar

                            "Ditto NOT working next to einstein as you nicely demonstrate."

                            I'm not the one trying to get some credence out of it. You are.

                            "If you want to engage in absurd extrapolations then the person who invented the abacus is ultimately responsible for the internet and the discussion is over."

                            It's not an absurd extrapolation. It's simply accepting the reality of the situation and seeing development for what it is. When you understand this concept (which you clearly don't), you can start appraising people by what they actually achieve (the advance they made) rather than the whole. In some cases, the difference isn't much. In some cases, it is huge. If you look at the whole, this isn't always apparent. So, thinking like this allows you to see the real achievement rather than the hype.

                            In reality, ARPANET actually achieved only one thing. It was the major (but not only) driver for packet switching. Beyond that it did little. ARPANET may have provided a lot of the technology underpinning (although earlier projects also provided underpinning for the internet and ARPANET itself as well), but the change to what the internet is now is mostly due to the companies and individuals who then went on to use it and expand it.

                            "Muppet"

                            Well quite. Looking in the mirror must always be difficult for you. Taking the blinkered and intellectually low brow position is what a stuffed puppet animal would do. Looking for the wider, contextually based position and thinking is not something you want to do, preferring the soundbite knowledge to reasoning.

                            1. Mad Mike

                              Re: All the armchair communists ...

                              Sorry, just to add a little.

                              Boltar, you are also guilty of doing exactly what I am as well. You're extrapolating a small network installed primarily for universities and consisting originally (and designed) of only a few nodes and extrapolating this into the worldwide internet with millions of nodes etc.etc. You're doing all this and not acknowledging all the work done by countless individuals and companies between now and when it was formed in an attempt to claim 'the US created the internet'!! Talk about an overblown claim. Yes, the US created a tiny precursor to the internet, which others have made countless additions to (new technology etc.) and have expanded enormously since then, but no, the US still created the internet.

                              To use your own example of an abacus being a precursor to the internet.....well, yes in a sense it is. After all, compared to the internet as it is today, ARPANET was little more than an abacus. It created a new technology (packet switching) that is used by the internet which has been used and expanded and extrapolated into the internet in much the same way as it itself used previous technology and did the same with that.

                              So, your own logic actually backs what I've been saying. The ARPANET is one small, tiny contributor to creating the internet and the fact that the US created ARPANET no more makes them the creator of the internet than anyone else who provided a small contribution to all the technologies now used in the internet. For instance, would the internet be what it is today without using DNS? When it only had a few nodes, using a HOSTS file and putting names in for your favourite addresses might have been practical. Is it now? No. So, could DNS not be cited as creating the internet as it allowed expansion etc. into what it is today? Maybe those students who wrote the early DNS systems should be hailed as the creators of the internet? Of course not. These are all contributions and as a WHOLE create the internet, but individually simply created one small technology component. The same could be said for all manner of other technologies and mechanisms such as NAT etc.

    2. AbelSoul
      Boffin

      Re: And in other news...

      "... how many people knew where it was on the map beforehand?"

      Given the clue in the name, "Ecuador," I'd have thought quite a few people.

      1. Captain Hogwash

        Re: And in other news...

        Certainly anyone with an interest in panama hats too.

        1. Captain Hogwash
          WTF?

          Re: panama hats

          Downvote why? Is it the hats you object to or the fact that they come from Ecuador?

      2. JaitcH
        Happy

        Re: And in other news...

        @AbelSoul

        Likely a damn sight more than knew where Afghanistan was, and likely even Iraq, before the US invaded those countries.

        North Americans knew about Ecuador as producers of bananas, ranked 5th with an annual production of 8 million tonnes, 6% of world production, which all had little labels stuck on them.

        It is also why it is known as a 'banana' republic.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: And in other news...

          also refer to "United Fruit Company" responsible for the destruction of significant areas of countries like Colombia, Ecuador etc

  4. Thesheep
    Holmes

    Oh no he isn't...

    The flight is filed to capacity with thirsty journos, but no Snowden: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/24/edward-snowden-booked-on-plane-from-moscow-to-havana-live-coverage

    Does El Reg have someone on board?

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Oh no he isn't...

      Lester is wearing a trenchcoat and fedora combination fetchingly accessorised with a Groucho Marx false moustache and Google Glass combo and a copy of Pravda with cut-out eye holes.

      Has anyone checked the IcelandAir check-in desk yet?

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Go

        Re: Oh no he isn't...

        How about a worn fedora, bomber jacket and whip? A much more macho image for international derring-do.

        1. Captain Hogwash

          Re: A much more...

          I suppose so, if you can't find a panama hat, cream linen suit and gin and tonic.

  5. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    I've gone off this guy. Was originally of the view that he was a hero and a true patriot for exposing how the US spies on it's own citizens to the degree that it does.

    I think by actually revealing how the US spies on it's rivals (which is legitimate - that is what spying is and everyone does it), he has actually crossed the 'traitor' line. I mean does he think that by exposing this stuff the NSA is going to shut up shop and stop spying on/hacking other countries while everyone continues doing it to them? Yeah, he has actually crossed the line into traitor territory.

    1. David Hicks
      FAIL

      And how about all the stuff about how the US spies on many millions of its own people? That legitimate too?

      And what if the people of the nation hear about all the spying and decide they don't want their taxes going to pay for all the spying?

      Isn't it right that in a democracy we have some idea of what our governmeent is doing?

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Facepalm

        Are you incapable of reading? I just said I initially thought he was a hero for that.

        The point at which a guy with top security clearance starts blabbing about how the US spies on it's rivals (not it's own citizens - just repeating that as your comprehension seems lacking) then yes, you have crossed the line. I mean, what the fuck did he think he was going to be doing at the NSA? I can understand the outrage at spying on your own citizens but blabbing to all and sundry about how the US spies on China and Russia, etc?

        Come on, he's crossed the line.

        1. David Hicks
          Stop

          Are people not allowed to be outraged at the extent of spying that their country does on the citizens and corporations of other countries too?

          Maybe I don't want to live in a country (or have a government) that thinks it's just fine to steal SMS data from citizens and officials all over the world?

          Maybe some of us are tired of the institutionalised duplicity of diplomacy and spying and would rather leave the whole game alone. It's like systemic corruption and until we start fighting it, it will never go away. "The other guy does it" is no excuse".

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            If you don't want to live in a country where the government thinks it's alright to spy on other countries citizens, you won't have many options, my friend. Perhaps there's a volcanic rock in the Pacific Ocean somewhere you can live on?

            When your riposte to my argument is some flouncy, idealistic horseshit that bears no semblance to the reality of the world we live in, you know you've lost.

            1. David Hicks
              FAIL

              "If you don't want to live in a country where the government thinks it's alright to spy on other countries citizens, you won't have many options, my friend. Perhaps there's a volcanic rock in the Pacific Ocean somewhere you can live on?"

              Then perhaps throwing the light of day on the extent of these activities every so often will change this, was my point. If there's all this publicity and people turn out not to like it, maybe we can force change in the way this works. He's not a traitor if he's telling people what they're government is doing in secret and they hate it.

              "When your riposte to my argument is some flouncy, idealistic horseshit that bears no semblance to the reality of the world we live in, you know you've lost."

              Right, because we can never change anything, ever, and ought to just put up with 'reality'. Fuck you too.

              1. Anonymous Coward
                Anonymous Coward

                Yes, I agree. It's entirely realistic that the US will completely stop spying on other countries due to these revelations. And after they stop doing it, the Russians and the Chinese and the Norks will follow their lead and say 'Hey the US aren't spying on us any more, we don't need to do it to them!'

                Fuck me, I thought this site attracted a more pragmatic crowd? I think you should get back to your Chakras and Reiki healing.

                1. David Hicks
                  FAIL

                  "Yes, I agree. It's entirely realistic that the US will completely stop spying on other countries due to these revelations."

                  Right, because it's really definitely all or nothing, and democratic people should just let the government handle it and do as much or as little spying as they feel like, and the rest of us shouldn't worry our pretty little heads about how much they f*ck around in other countries.

                  Who gives a fuck if its realistic they stop entirely? Maybe its realistic they get shamed into curtailing their activites due to democratic pressure. Maybe its realistic that this is just one more strik against government secrecy and adds to a building distaste people have for their own government. Maybe its realistic that the populace slide back into total fucking apathy.

                  But don't tell me "We spy because we spy and that will never change so everyone should just keep quiet about it".

                  1. Anonymous Coward
                    Anonymous Coward

                    Going completely off topic to be honest. I don't really care about the ethics of espionage and I'm not here to take a side and defend it, merely to point out the reality of the situation to someone who is obviously quite fond of idealistic, emotional soapbox ranting.

                    You're the one who's whining about not wanting to live in a country that doesn't spy on other people. Like I said, if that is your wish go live on a rock in the Pacific Ocean, or Antarctica, whatever. The fact of the matter is there is a big difference between exposing domestic spying and the geopolitical kind and by any countries definition of the term he has crossed the line into 'traitor' territory.

                    1. Anonymous Coward
                      Thumb Up

                      @Murph

                      I have to agree, but -

                      I mean does he think that by exposing this stuff the NSA is going to shut up shop and stop spying on/hacking other countries while everyone continues doing it to them? Yeah, he has actually crossed the line into traitor territory.

                      What you have to understand about posting on here is that there is a significant community of commentators who believe that this will happen, or even possibly by the power of their comments not only will the NSA, and GCHQ stop spying but also all the other countries trying to spy on us .......

                      Never mind the apologists for an alleged rapist who by any logical explanation of his behaviour seems to be substantiating the allegations.

                    2. Mad Mike

                      "Going completely off topic to be honest. I don't really care about the ethics of espionage and I'm not here to take a side and defend it, merely to point out the reality of the situation to someone who is obviously quite fond of idealistic, emotional soapbox ranting.

                      You're the one who's whining about not wanting to live in a country that doesn't spy on other people. Like I said, if that is your wish go live on a rock in the Pacific Ocean, or Antarctica, whatever. The fact of the matter is there is a big difference between exposing domestic spying and the geopolitical kind and by any countries definition of the term he has crossed the line into 'traitor' territory."

                      This depends on how you define traitor and treason. In his case, as he hasn't released any of the data, it's a matter of debate if he fits those words. The question you need to ask yourself, is whether monitoring a US citizen or say a French citizen is any different? Why is it, just because someone is a US citizen, it suddenly becomes unreasonable to spy on them? Aren't they both the same potential 'terrorist' threat etc? Quite probably. You see, nationality of a person isn't really anything to do with the risk at all and not anything to do with what they're doing.

                      This is all part of the reason why the laws have been written in such a way that they can keep EVERYBODIES communications regardless. The NSA, CIA, Congress etc. all know that nationality makes no difference, so they've organised it so they can monitor anyone. So, your outrage at monitoring US citizens, but lack of outrage at monitoring other countries citizens is clearly at odds with their 'brief' and their beliefs. It's also as unrealistic a position as expecting there to be no spying anywhere!!

                      Just remember. The only reason for creating laws that nobody knows about, enforced by secret courts, is if you don't really believe what you're doing will meet with approval by anybody. If the average US citizen agreed with their foreign spying, why not admit it? What's the point in all the secrecy, especially if everyone knows they're doing it anyway?

                      1. Rol

                        It appears many on here seem to agree, that surveillance is going on everywhere and that America isn't doing anything that Russia or China isn't doing also.

                        I'd like to remind you of a recent discussion on The Reg some weeks ago, regarding cloud computing and how most of it is bunkered in the good ol' US of A.

                        British cloud provider on the glitzy web page, American storage under the covers.

                        Google, paypal, microsoft...the list of American sites that make up the bulk of our internet are staggering.

                        How anyone could suggest Russia or China come close to that level of international data throughput is beyond comprehension.

                        America has set itself up as the centre of the internet and it is American agencies that are sifting through it, not Russian or Chinese.

                        So, are you still happy to have all of your data just a few clicks away from the NSA's prying eyes?

                        Is America a fit and proper place for the vast majority of our data to pass through?

                        Maybe, like international airports or perhaps embassies, data centres should be outside of local jurisdiction, in an international zone, governed by international rules.

                    3. David Hicks
                      FAIL

                      "I don't really care about the ethics of espionage and I'm not here to take a side and defend it"

                      Then why are you trying to tell the rest of us someone is a traitor for exposing to us what our governments are doing in our names?

                      "You're the one who's whining about not wanting to live in a country that doesn't spy on other people. Like I said, if that is your wish go live on a rock in the Pacific Ocean, or Antarctica, whatever. The fact of the matter is there is a big difference between exposing domestic spying and the geopolitical kind and by any countries definition of the term he has crossed the line into 'traitor' territory."

                      Yes, the fact of the matter is that he has exposed international spying. The fact of the matter is also that the people of these democratic countries had little idea how far their own governments were going in our names (though you could get some idea if you were paying attention). In a democratic country, where the government acts with the mandate of the people, if the people don't know what's going on then they cannot have sufficient oversight. Telling the people what their government is doing, when it is doing far more than anyone expects or wants of it, is not traitorous. It's informative to the democratic process.

                      I repeat - unless you think governments should just be left alone to do whatever the hell they want in the international arena, and the rest of us shouldn't worry our pretty little heads about it?

                  2. Steve Crook

                    Growing up...

                    Nations have spied on other nations for as long as there have been nations, and I'm sure it was villages, tribes and caves before that.

                    No amount of hand wringing is going to change it. Personally, I'd be more concerned about what the Russians, Chinese, Norks and sundry Islamic states are up to. At least with the US there's always the chance that someone is going to leg it and live long enough to start talking. For the others, there are are absolutely no controls except those imposed by available talent and the finances. If you do try to get out, there's always a lethal umbrella or something waiting for you...

                    Ultimately, the US needs to protect itself, and, given that almost everyone outside the US has a gripe with the US, it means it's not paranoia, it's justified self interest. You could argue (I wouldn't) that, as a nation of immigrants, there's even a justification for spying on a select (but large) minority of your own citizens.

                    1. Mad Mike

                      Re: Growing up...

                      "Ultimately, the US needs to protect itself, and, given that almost everyone outside the US has a gripe with the US, it means it's not paranoia, it's justified self interest. You could argue (I wouldn't) that, as a nation of immigrants, there's even a justification for spying on a select (but large) minority of your own citizens."

                      Cheers. So, the UK has a gripe with the US? I guess we all know where we stand now. So, why don't you take Menwith Hills and b**ger off? Interesting that you believe the US has no allies and everyone is against her. Does that make you a paranoid American, someone who hasn't a clue what he's talking about, or someone trying to justify the indefensible?

                      1. Steve Crook

                        Re: Growing up...

                        There are UK citizens who hate the US. You think we don't take every bit of intelligence we can (I'm a Brit btw) on the Yanks? Just because we're friends now, doesn't mean we will be in 10 years time.

                        I'm *NOT* justifying or agreeing with what they've done, or their reasoning that's made them do it, but I don't think it's exceptional globally. It's just that we know what the US is doing. Do you *really* think that China or Russia are trying to do any less?

                        The UK has it's own problems with institutional government secrecy. Illegal covert operations staged by the Police, GCHQ that operates its surveillance operations by rules that are themselves classified, the Care Quality Comission, Health Trusts trying to bury bad news with gagging orders, and the BBC spending millions on legal advice to evade answering legitimate FOIA requests.

                        I merely point out that people are complaining about this as if it's exceptional and not already a globally endemic problem. Why do you think Orwell wrote 1984?, think about *when* he wrote it? What was life like in Romania or Eastern Germany and what would their governments have done with the tech the Americans have? Give governments an inch and you'll find they've *already* taken a mile.

                        1. Steve Crook

                          Re: Growing up...

                          And I didn't mention RIPA, Our own governments legislation to legitimise spying on us by all levels of the government... Something that local authorities have been abusing since the day it came into force.

                          1. Steve Crook

                            Re: Growing up...

                            And the recently resurrected snoopers charter? Turns out they've already been doing it, just not quite legally. Take my point? They were asking for an inch when they'd already got the mile. And many of our spineless MPs were prepared to meekly line up and legitimise this sort of spying.

                            In the last decade there have been more people killed by falling trees than terrorism. But we need to surrender more of our liberty to protect ourselves from something that we're already pretty well protected from. Stuff it.

                        2. David Hicks

                          Re: Growing up...

                          >> Do you *really* think that China or Russia are trying to do any less?

                          Do you *really* think that we should do everythig they do?

                          1. Steve Crook

                            Re: Growing up...

                            >> Do you *really* think that we should do everythig they do?

                            No, you nitwit, I don't. Argumentum ad absurdum. But do YOU really appreciate the scale of the problem? Do you think 'fixing' the US spying on us is going to make us safer? If you do, you're mistaken and you risk neglecting the wider problem...

                            1. Mad Mike

                              Re: Growing up...

                              "No, you nitwit, I don't. Argumentum ad absurdum. But do YOU really appreciate the scale of the problem? Do you think 'fixing' the US spying on us is going to make us safer? If you do, you're mistaken and you risk neglecting the wider problem..."

                              So, what are you proposing? Are you suggesting we tackle the 'wider problem' all in one go? Talk about setting yourself up for failure. We can't tackle it all in one go, so you have to start on small areas and gradually nibble away at it. It'll take a long time, hence why we need to start now. However, trying to tackle the wider problem all at once is doomed to failure. You can't fight everyone at once.

                            2. David Hicks
                              FAIL

                              Re: Growing up...

                              >> "No, you nitwit, I don't. Argumentum ad absurdum.

                              Then maybe "Buh, buh, buh... but Russia and China do it!" isn't such an awesome argument?

                              >> But do YOU really appreciate the scale of the problem? Do you think 'fixing' the US spying on us is going to make us safer? If you do, you're mistaken and you risk neglecting the wider problem..."

                              No, I think that the extra levels of safety afforded by all our spying is small and not worth either the tax money or the cost of our own freedom and privacy.

                        3. Mad Mike

                          Re: Growing up...

                          "Give governments an inch and you'll find they've *already* taken a mile."

                          And that's the point people are making. We need to give governments an inch as some leeway is required. However, we need to know what's being done to know whether they've taken an inch or gone further and taken a mile. Oversight is everything.

                          At the moment, the president, congress, senate etc.etc. are showing themselves to be incapable of providing due oversight. In the UK, the government is hiding all sorts of things. Yes, it's going on everywhere, but that doesn't make it right.

                          At some point, unless people want to slowly walk into a prison cell, people have to stand up and say enough. That was also part of Orwells message. It's very easy to leave it to the next person (whether a peer or your children), but that's just ducking the problem and making it worse when someone does stand up. Maybe we should just accept our position and accept slavery and having no say in our futures. That's the logical end point to this. Or, maybe we should start fighting it.

                          However, saying it's not worth commenting on because 'everyone else is doing it too' is rather missing the point. You have to start somewhere and maybe that somewhere is the US?

                          The US also needs to realise that things like this are exactly the reason people start hating them. The hypocracy of doing exactly what you say other people shouldn't do. Thinking you have the right to go round executing anyone (drone attacks) you don't like with little or no public oversight etc.etc. And they wonder why people want to do the US harm!! Wake up. Keep going like this and it's actually signing your own epitaph. No one country and fight the entire world and that's where the US is heading. It's a lesson US politicians need to remember.

                          You didn't win Vietnam, the Soviets didn't win Afghanistan. Just created an awful lot of enemies. So why did the US go into Afghanistan (and other allies) and think they could win? It's actually in the US's own interests to stop this!!

                          1. Steve Crook

                            Re: Growing up...

                            >> You didn't win Vietnam

                            I'm Brit. Vietnam was a disaster all round.

                            The point I probably didn't make clear enough was that the US motivation for doing this sort of spying is not unique to them, that the sort of paranoid thinking it embodies is common among *all* governments. Given a tendency for all those with power to abuse it and the availability of the technology that makes that abuse all to easy, we would be right to be very concerned.

                            Sent something via encrypted anonymous email? Don't know who sent it and have your laptop taken by the police. Can't hand over the encryption key? That's an offence then.

                            Just wait, we're not far away from being told that RPVs taking video are an essential part of the security operations of this country, and that they're a more cost effective solution than fixed CCTV, and could make dramatic improvements in crime detection rates and helping protect us from terrorism.

                        4. Scorchio!!

                          Re: Growing up...

                          "There are UK citizens who hate the US. [...]"

                          I was musing on findings in occupational, clinical and forensic psychology the other day. There is such a thing as the unpopular patient on a hospital ward, the unpopular criminal in a team of criminals, the unpopular employee in a work environment, and so on. These phenomena are found also in the wild, with rooks mobbing one member of a group, and in other of the more social/group acting bird species too.

                          Currently the most unpopular political actor is the US, and much of it is nonsense dressed up as common sense. People are queueing up to spout silliness, and deliberately overlooking the fact that the charges they level at the US can definitely be aimed at any actor in international politics, particularly those in the heavier stakes and also in those groups with aspirations, such as Ecuador (of lamentably bad human rights fame), and so on. People also deliberately overlook the fact that it is necessary to have intelligence in order to determine who is going to strike a country next, and I have cited Pearl Harbour and the WTC attacks (there was an attempt to bomb it, remember). Add to these the embassy bombings in Africa, the USS Cole, Bali - aimed mostly at Australian tourists - and so on.

                          Intelligence, particularly ELINT, is a necessary means to pick up on and deal with such phenomena. I note with interest that citing these facts leads to 'down voting'. I do not give a toss about the down vote itself, but am ineffably saddened that people can be so silly as to treat the matter with such lack of consideration and forethought. Each time we have an incident in which people are killed by terrorist groups there are a number of responses, ranging from the Tango Sierra variety (though I'm certain that such people would respond differently if themselves hurt by an attack), through to the 'how could they let this happen' variety; indeed the latter responses followed the WTC attacks in 2001, and rightly so because the attacks could have been stopped but for many documented mistakes.

                          Now that we are awake and aware of the possibilities for violence it seems that we have a backlash from the silly rights minorities, from would be Neos and assorted would be digiterati; I am more than certain that, faced by an impending bomb, head severing or other gruesome end, these people would review their thoughts had they the luxury of time and an untroubled mind. Fortunately they are unlikely to be anything more than statistical outliers in the Gaussian distributions of political thought, paradoxically afforded the comfort of a stable society in which terrorism is largely speaking handled with care and adroitness, punctuated by mistakes following which bits of human flesh are left hanging from lamp posts, other street fixtures, from passing vehicles and splattered onto innocent passers by, to say nothing of the innocent victims themselves. I might include in the latter category the not very bright dupes that have been allowed to swallow propaganda by people such as the hook, and the other sorts of propaganda by digiterati, who lacking insight into the benefits of ELINT scream blue murder, whether or not people die. They have it made; they are not accountable. Yet.

                          1. Mad Mike

                            Re: Growing up...

                            @Scorchio.

                            I'm one of the 'silly' people you refer to. I don't know what country you're in, but I have lived in the UK and worked extensively in London all during the IRA bombing campaigns of the past. Indeed, I have been within short distances of several of these bombs. Of course intelligence is good and trying to prevent these acts is also good. However, there have to be limits. There has to be a balance between what is possible and what is desirable for a decent country.

                            I'm also one of those people who are not silly enough to believe safety is possible. Life is dangerous, get over it. I went about my business in London exactly the same during those times and if I happened to be involved in an 'incident', so be it. I know risks will exist no matter what you do and I accept a cerain level of risk.

                            Perhaps rather than seeking to control the world, the US would be better off asking what the motivation of those performing the attacks are. When they can understand that, they can potentially deal with the issue at source, rather than always being on the back foot, seeking more and more extreme methods of intelligence. The world will become a truly better place (and far safer than anything provided by the intelligence community) when the US realises they are creating their own enemies. Osama Bin Laden was their own creation, the Taliban were etc.etc. Their own foreign policy decisions and desire to force everyone to do exactly as they say, their hypocracy etc.etc. are causing most of these attacks. Stop that and the intelligence etc. might not be necessary, or can at least be turned down a lot. But, they're not willing to do so.

                            Whether the people of the US realise this or not, their government are actually playing games with their lives by creating the enemies and are more than willing to sacrifice some citizens for the 'benefits' they see in playing the game.

                          2. Intractable Potsherd

                            Re: Growing up... @ Scorchio!

                            " Fortunately they are unlikely to be anything more than statistical outliers in the Gaussian distributions of political thought, paradoxically afforded the comfort of a stable society in which terrorism is largely speaking handled with care and adroitness, punctuated by mistakes following which bits of human flesh are left hanging from lamp posts, other street fixtures, from passing vehicles and splattered onto innocent passers by, to say nothing of the innocent victims themselves."

                            Terrorism is so rare that it doesn't figure in my consideration, to be honest. The deaths of a handful of people only trouble me these days because I know that some name-making twat is going to use it as the justification for impeding my liberties even more. Law-making for tiny, tiny minorities (people killed/injured by terrorists, children abused or killed) is the bane of modern life. By all means put in measures, but don't start treating everyone as a potential risk. The world doesn't work like that. I personally do not give a toss about dead or injured people who I do not know, and I will never wail "Why wasn't there a law to stop X?" if someone I know dies or is seriously injured as a result of a minor variation of blind chance (or if I am seriously injured in the same way). A missing child in Devon is not national news - a missing child in the next town isn't even headline news. Bombs on the underground/outside a Mosque are news only for the fact that people need to change their travel plans. Bombs in US cities are barely news at all, and yet we were all treated to fear-inducing coverage of highly dangerous pressure-cooker bombs that hardly did any damage at all. It is time to move away from the politics of fear.

                            There are limits on what a reasonable society should accept, and what a reasonable government should try to get away with. The line has been crossed, and it is time that the reasonable ones amongst us stand up and tell the "pragmatists" like you that enough is enough, and we want change. That means having a real national *defence* strategy that doesn't include marching into other people's countries. It means not spying randomly on everyone in a given population. It means being generally honest about the larger part of governmental activity. It means government not treating the people as a threat to its existence, and knowing when to change to avoid a threat to its existence, or reap the rewards of failing to listen.

                            Wow - that didn't start out as a manifesto, honestly!

                    2. Scorchio!!

                      Re: Growing up...

                      Espionage is in fact it is a part of diplomacy; states frequently allow their 'enemies' to find out things so that they know some of their capacity. That way wars are often averted. OTOH, if you give your ORBAT away to, e.g., the former Soviet Union, heck the Chinese or the Russians, you could just end up being 'Pearl Harboured'. OTOH, using various forms of ELINT enables people to find out whether an enemy is planning an attack such as the on 11th Sept 2001 (well, I am English and don't believe in 9.11 speak), Pearl Harbour, and the American attack on the south coast of England, about 120 or so years back.

                    3. Fink-Nottle

                      Re: Growing up...

                      'Ultimately, the US needs to protect itself, and, given that almost everyone outside the US has a gripe with the US, it means it's not paranoia, it's justified self interest."

                      Unfortunately, the self-interest of the US is in direct conflict with Article 12 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights :

                      No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.

                    4. Anonymous Coward
                      Anonymous Coward

                      Re: Growing up...

                      "Ultimately, the US needs to protect itself, and, given that almost everyone outside the US has a gripe with the US, it means it's not paranoia, it's justified self interest."

                      Ultimately, every nation has a right to protect itself. However in the case of the United States it's foreign policy, it's warmongering, it's double standards, it's political onanism and it's delusional, unmitigated self-importance are to blame.

                      Fixed it for you.

                    5. Scorchio!!
                      Thumb Up

                      Re: Growing up...

                      "Nations have spied on other nations for as long as there have been nations, and I'm sure it was villages, tribes and caves before that."

                      And nations have found it necessary, nay vital, to spy on their own since before Walsingham, who saved our nation on a number of occasions. We will probably never hear about our successful protection by such means, and that is substantially due to the fact that intelligence and security organisations don't want the techniques aired. For obvious reasons.

                      Once again a reference to the late Georgi Markov, a Bulgarian dissident, broadcaster and journalist; thank you for making it relevant, though I suspect not many will understand the point.

                      1. Mad Mike

                        Re: Growing up...

                        "And nations have found it necessary, nay vital, to spy on their own since before Walsingham, who saved our nation on a number of occasions. We will probably never hear about our successful protection by such means, and that is substantially due to the fact that intelligence and security organisations don't want the techniques aired. For obvious reasons."

                        Interesting and rather blinkered view on history. Walsingham 'saved our nation'? Walsingham did whatever he could to keep Elizabeth 1 on the throne. Her legitimacy is questionable, her identity is arguable as well and there were a substantial number of people in the country who wanted to displace her for one reason or another. So, he only 'saved our nation' from the queens point of view and arguably did a great disservice according to a lot of others!! Maybe our nation would have been better off with a new queen?

                2. Mad Mike

                  "Yes, I agree. It's entirely realistic that the US will completely stop spying on other countries due to these revelations. And after they stop doing it, the Russians and the Chinese and the Norks will follow their lead and say 'Hey the US aren't spying on us any more, we don't need to do it to them!'

                  Fuck me, I thought this site attracted a more pragmatic crowd? I think you should get back to your Chakras and Reiki healing."

                  I think the point here is one of degree. Do we expect the US to spy on the Chinese, Norks and Russia? Yes, of course. Do we expect them to spy on the UK? France? Germany? Japan? etc.etc. Maybe not. After all, we're 'friends' aren't we? Do we expect them to try and find terrorists and other 'bad people'? Yes, of course. However, they're actually spying on every single person on the planet who ever goes near technology of pretty much any type. Not just looking at an email and deciding it means nothing and deleting it, but keeping it for 5 years (and maybe longer).

                  Yes, some spying and covert works are inevitable. But, what people are worried about, is whether what we're seeing is proportionate to the risk.

                  1. Anonymous Coward
                    Anonymous Coward

                    Which was exactly my point...I understand the outrage at the PRISM stuff and spying on your own citizens, but when an NSA employee gets into the territory of blabbing about spying against the US' rivals, then you have crossed the line, which he has. I would've thought that was a fairly obvious distinction, but people seem to have trouble understanding it?

                3. Anonymous Coward
                  Anonymous Coward

                  Fuck me, I thought this site attracted a more pragmatic crowd?

                  Some of us are quite pragmatics about Mr Snowdens revelations, mainly those of us who sit here knowing that the US government has (by it's own actions) just sanctioned China, Russia, and everyone and anyone else (who feels like it) starting and running their own mass data gathering exercises. You know where they start capturing as much data as they can about EVERY American, so that they can classify you and your beliefs and actions as crimes according to their beliefs and laws. We're all now much more settled about other countries doing that to you, as we now KNOW you've been doing it to all of us... and many of you are happy about it.

                  1. Scorchio!!
                    FAIL

                    "[...] the US government has (by it's own actions) just sanctioned China, Russia, and everyone and anyone else (who feels like it) starting and running their own mass data gathering exercises."

                    Of course they needed the US to set this off, and they did not ever consider doing such a thing of their own accord. The FSB would never do such a thing, and the fact that the state Duma is packed out with former KGB/FSB placemen has nothing to do with this; also Russian spying in the UK is not at the highest since a point during the cold war when it was at a height.

                    They have all been doing it. Ecuador's bad record on human rights centres on this kind of thing. China didn't need any inspiration for its version; it's been doing it for decades, and stealing commercial secrets too.

                    The idea that the world of international politics is filled with cuddly, fluffy people who would not have dreamed of doing such a thing until the US set an example is the stuff of dreams, hookah pipes, and other chemically induced states. Everyone does it, everyone has been doing it since at least the dawn of international politics; Walsingham's intelligence service, from which everything Int & Sy in the UK is a descendant, had to cope with a variety of plots and did so mostly with style. The evidence so far, which includes telephone conversations, footage of plotters in their own homes and a variety of other techniques, points quite clearly to the need for and success of such intelligence in preserving lives. Lotus eating will not make the need go away, and it is not merely the threat from (e.g.) Islamic terrorism, or from other states, but also the threat from international narcotics gangs [...].

                    1. Mad Mike

                      @Scorchio.

                      The US doing these sorts of things doesn't justify any other country doing it as well, but it does create more enemies. Also, the US just loves to claim itself to be 'the home of the free' and talk down to all and sundry, quoting human rights etc.etc.etc. They're now being shown to be hypocrits of the highest order. Until the US realises it is traveling round the world like a big bully boy, telling everyone else how to live whilst doing anything it likes, the sooner their 'enemies' will disappear.

                      Bearing in mind that in a lot of ways, the US created the current Islamic extremists at some point in the past. Training people to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan being one such example. No amount of intelligence and firepower will protect you when you are creating enemies faster than you're dealing with them. And that is exactly the position the US is in at the moment.

                    2. Anonymous Coward
                      Anonymous Coward

                      @ Scorchio

                      You seem to have missed the point entirely old chap, so I'll just go with stating it bluntly.

                      Next time you all want to claim you 'stand' for something (freedom, liberty, the rights of man to be free. etc, etc) just remember that your country not only chose to act like the Stasi towards the rest of the world, but that people like you told us all that because the FSB would do it if they could it was perfectly OK for you to do it. Remember that when we all laugh at your claims to stand for value of human decency, and hold you all as being no better than than the former DDR.

              2. Scorchio!!
                FAIL

                When you give away your secrets people die, such as agents and military personnel. After ToniBliar's big adventure in Iraq there was a debate in the house of commons on whether or not to make it a requirement that all governments debate an action/war before undertaking it; the commotion died down when it was realised that this loss of secrecy would eliminate the advantage of surprise, and thus probably lose more lives.

                As much as you may wish all secrets to be known, dishing them is in the longer run more than reckless. In respect of your desire to change things, irrespective of the real world position and 'fuck you too', as a politician once said (I think it was either Woodrow Wilson or Eisenhower) we have to take the world as it is, not as we would like it to be; the difference between the two is, in the current context, a matter of life and death and even the survival of nations.

                So to phrase your sentiments in martial vernacular rather than the popular streetsy stuff that you evidently favour, move off in short sharp and jerky movements with your rifle at the high port.

                1. Mad Mike

                  "When you give away your secrets people die, such as agents and military personnel."

                  Snowdon hasn't really given away any secrets. Possibly, you could argue, he's let them know what we're watching, but to be honest, they already knew this anyway. So, I don't really see how his actions have contributed to people dying.

                  "After ToniBliar's big adventure in Iraq there was a debate in the house of commons on whether or not to make it a requirement that all governments debate an action/war before undertaking it; the commotion died down when it was realised that this loss of secrecy would eliminate the advantage of surprise, and thus probably lose more lives."

                  Absolutely right. There have to be limits. However, you're not very likely to be able to hide a war after it's started are you!! So, public scrutiny comes into effect and one could argue if people are upset enough, you won't win the next election. So, not the same issue at all.

                  "As much as you may wish all secrets to be known, dishing them is in the longer run more than reckless. In respect of your desire to change things, irrespective of the real world position and 'fuck you too', as a politician once said (I think it was either Woodrow Wilson or Eisenhower) we have to take the world as it is, not as we would like it to be; the difference between the two is, in the current context, a matter of life and death and even the survival of nations."

                  This is entirely the problem and why we must do this. Unfettered, politicians will simply imprison the population. They love to tell everyone how to live, whilst lining their own pockets. So, we have to have oversight, including how they're spying to an extent. Not the contents, but how.

                  Yes, we need to live in the world as it is, but we should be trying to move to how we would like it to be. Will we ever get there? No. But, we should always be trying, because when we stop trying, the politicians will have won and we'll all be in a prison doing exactly what we're told, when we're told.

              3. Tomato42
                Joke

                @David Hicks

                Don't bother, he probably hails from a country where the people are for the government and not the other way round.

                Probably soviet Russia or something.

          2. Danny 5
            Happy

            Now who was it that said "the price of freedom is eternal vigilance"

        2. Rol

          The UK can at best be described as an economic rival, although, also ran, would be a better description.

          Fundamentally and certainly at the level we're talking about, the UK is not Americas rival, we're a long time ally, we pose no threat to the USA and often support them in some absolutely shameful acts.

          To then have it confirmed, that every citizen in this country has had every keystroke slurped up by the NSA as if we had purportrated some hideous act against them is appalling.

          I look forward to the response in my democratic nation as ISP's start to provide, as standard, anti surveillance software, so they might better comply with the Data Protection Act, because knowing your customers data is being misused and doing nothing about it, makes them complicit to the crime.

          1. david wilson

            >>"To then have it confirmed, that every citizen in this country has had every keystroke slurped up by the NSA as if we had purportrated some hideous act against them is appalling."

            So the NSA has recorded the content of every piece of internet traffic?

        3. The Indomitable Gall

          @murph

          " I can understand the outrage at spying on your own citizens but blabbing to all and sundry about how the US spies on China and Russia, etc?"

          As that "etc" is every effing country on the face of the planet, and as that includes me, I'd say he was in the right. I am not an intelligence target. I am not a fundamentalist of any philosophy. I am not a politician. I have access to no sensitive documentation. Why are you lumping my personal correspondence in with Chinese stack secrets?!?

    2. QuinnDexter

      @murph

      I *kinda* see what you're saying, but I think the ends most definitely justify the means, and your view is perhaps affected by the US Gov decision to do him for treason or whatever. Here is a guy who has let the world know that the US Gov spy on EVERYONE, their own citizens and everyone else in the world who happens to come into any contact with technology. What a lot of b0ll0cks that PRISM does not keep the same info on it's own citizens. Someone mentioned boiling a frog on the previous topic, and Facebook, MS, Google etc have been lining up to show the public what has been requested of them. Still no word from the telcos / ISPs who actually move the information from / to the far end. Would that not be the place to get the full info?

      This fella is running scared and who can blame him. The Chinese spy on everyone, the US spies on everyone, the UK uses US tech to spy on everyone and so the US most likey have access to all and every system of spying the UK has, and all the information they create. These may be secretive solutions, but the fact that they exist is not a secret - what do you think the CIA / FBI / MI5 / MI6 do? And all the methods of spying are likely to be equivalent. The bluster in news reports of the US accusing China of spying, and then later stating that Snowden works for China is all smoke and mirrors.

      What Snowden has done in saying the US spies on China is buy himself some column inches, kept himself in the headlines, and bought himself some time to get to a friendlier nation where the chances of him being dissappeared are lessened. (But not negated.) China knows the US spies on them, just as the US knows China spies on them. If China or Russis thought for a second that Snowden had any relevant information to pass on to them he would most likely either be sipping down a Maotai or Vodka, rather that stuffinf his face full of complimentary in-flight peanuts. As it is, they are choosing to allow his safe passage to a country where he will be protected for his human rights rather than the information he has to offer up.

      The Governments don't care about this - they are not surprised, and do the same thing themselves. With hindsight, and in no way to excuse the actions of any Government, who on these forums is surprised by anything Snowden has yet had to say?

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Also taking a tour of countries known for their obsession about controlling their own citizens...

      ... it's not the best way to tell the world you care about democracy. I guess he was looking for to make a stop in East Germany also, just finding at it no longer exists... maybe he tried to call Ceasescu as well to obtain asylum, but was told he was killed years ago...

      1. Anonymous Coward
        FAIL

        Touring?

        It's not relevant. A refugee could decide to go (a) only to a perfect country or (b) any one that isn't going to persecute/kill him or his group specifically.

        If China/Russia/US simply want to trade dissidents for the remainder of our natural lives, and it achieves the effect of increasing our expectations of rights & democracy over and above having cooperating police states, I'm not seeing the problem.

        1. Sir Runcible Spoon

          Government spying

          This isn't about someone revealing that the American government are spying on other governments - this is a given, as is the reverse.

          What this is about is the American government spying on the populace (eg the UK) and then handing over data wholesale to our own spooks.

          This creates an us & them situation that history tells us will end in blood. Lots of it.

          1. Scorchio!!

            Re: Government spying

            "This creates an us & them situation that history tells us will end in blood. Lots of it."

            Really? The mixed ironic/sarcastic side of me tends at such a point to ask how history is. However, the truth of the matter is that there is no such thing as history, no matter how much people try to apply the fallacy in argument of reifying it. Furthermore, it is not invariably the case that for a given course of action another given will follow. Nor is it necessarily the case that 'an us & them situation' is being 'created'.

            If outcomes were as inevitable outcomes as you appear to believe, then people would develop switches to turn off or divert such causes and their consequences, and there would be a completely new argument of the 'Seldon' sort Asimov once posited when fantasising about a psychology of history, or 'psychohistory'.

            Indeed, the study of events - call it history if you want to run the risk of reification - involves a considerable amount of discussion as to why consequences in apparently similar situations are so diverse; actually it's one of the reasons why people like me study psychology, study history and study politics; we are so damned different and refuse to conform to the attempts of others to label and box us into inevitability (ably parodied by Sartre in the form of Dr Robert in La Nausee) of the sort peddled by Marx and his pseudo scientific followers, people who (starting with Marx) spoke of 'historical inevitability' and 'believed in history', yet the first communist revolution did not occur as Marx posited in the first country to have an industrialised capitalist economy, it occurred in a largely peasant economy, the UK; it occurred in that unlikely country, Russia; moreover, the storming of the Winter Palace is a fairy tale dreamed up by propagandists, the Mensheviks were illicitly ousted by the Bolsheviks, and nothing about the example of the last Russian revolution resembles that which is portrayed by 'historians'. (Actually people try to claim there were no revolutions prior to that in Russia, but there were, just as there was one in France; see Pugachev, Bolotnikov, & etc..)

            History is not a thing; there is no inevitability of history, 'history' cannot tell us anything (mostly because it isn't); people vary in their responses to situations, situations vary, and on it goes.

    4. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Traitor? Hmmm. "Dissident". I think that's the word that fits Snowden's behaviour best to a non-American (and non-Chinese :) ) guy like me, not so much "whistleblower" any more. Of course there needs to be a big smear to drown out any unwanted homeland discussion of Snowden's revelations, so "traitor" is a useful word there. I don't see it gaining much traction outside the US for obvious reasons.

  6. NomNomNom

    Ecuadorian Embassy

    Now we just need to get John McCafe in there

    The pieces of the puzzle are finally coming to fruition and the circle will be complete

    1. frank ly

      Re: Ecuadorian Embassy

      Do you mean that Scottish guy who enjoys coffee?

      1. Scorchio!!
        Happy

        Re: Ecuadorian Embassy

        No, the one who instructs women on how to 'back up'! ;-> [ http://www.whoismcafee.com/the-mcafee-guide-to-uninstall-mcafee/ ]

    2. Scorchio!!
      Thumb Up

      Re: Ecuadorian Embassy

      "Now we just need to get John McCafe in there"

      As an ex smoker I laughed at the video, particularly at the "I really need to give up [smoking]" comment. I have memories of using his stuff in Imperial College, a CLI anti virus package at the time when Windows 3 was foisted upon us. I remember the happy days of W4W which was absolutely amazing; I remember backing up (thinking again of McAfee!) onto a 500Mb Jumbo tape drive, both at home and at work. At home I had the Microsoft interface, and I had the Jumbo interface, and the world felt as safe and secure as could be; system crash? No bother, boot up into the tape drive software. I panicked when my dissertation was somehow shredded, but then managed to restore it from the tape drive. I long for a .qic backup instead of .zip files. It somehow doesn't seem right.

      McAfee's software may be crap now - and I know it's not his company any more - but I managed to rescue the departmental IT from the stupidity of a consultant we had on the team, who continually laid his hands on pirated bloody games and thereby brought infection after infection into the system. So thanks John, and don't forget to 'back up'. ;->

  7. Andrew Moore
    Thumb Up

    Tip to future whistleblowers...

    Go to Ecuador first, THEN blow the whistle.

    1. Jonathan 29

      Re: Tip to future whistleblowers...

      NSA employees must declare their foreign travel 30 days in advance and are monitored. I would suggest that declaring your intentions to go to Ecuador might look a tad suspicious. I do wonder if NSA employees will be restricted to holidaying in one of the 50 states from now on.

      1. Pascal Monett Silver badge

        I think that, if your goal is to personally terminate your employment via high-profile whistleblowing, not declaring your sudden destination decision is the least of your worries.

      2. Scorchio!!
        Happy

        Re: Tip to future whistleblowers...

        Meanwhile, be careful that you don't give away your true feelings and intentions by means of non verbal cues [ https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=3v98CPXNiSk#at=51 ] That could be fatal.

  8. dubaijim

    “What is being done..... is an assault against the people"

    Please tell me he wore a total shit-eating grin when he used that phrase, bearing in mind what Assange is alleged to have done....

    1. Frank Zuiderduin

      Yes, having unprotected sex is a criminal offence anywhere in the world, not just Sweden.... Oh, wait...

      1. Ben Tasker

        Yes, having unprotected sex is a criminal offence anywhere in the world, not just Sweden.... Oh, wait...

        Because presumably the Swedish have no right to expect foreigners to abide by their laws when in Sweden then?

        It's weird the double standards people have sometimes - "You want to live over here, you live by our rules" and yet when we're talking about somewhere else only our rules apply. It doesn't matter if you think their law is stupid, if it's been passed by their government then you have to abide by it, or just don't visit Sweden. Even if they had a law which made peeling an orange the wrong way a crime, whilst you're there you're subject to it.

        Generally, it's also considered polite to have an STD test if asked to do so by someone you've had sex with. Flat out refusing does make it sound a little like you knew/know you have/had something anyway.

        1. Mad Mike

          Whether guy is guilty of the Swedish crime or not, I don't know. However, the 'charge' is being greatly overplayed, which means people are at minimum showboating and maybe more.

          Yes, when in Sweden, you should obey Swedish laws. Absolutely. However, calling this offence 'rape' makes it appear far worse than it is and is probably the result of some bad translation by a newspaper. Even in Sweden, the offence is considered trivial, hence the very low penalties. Before the EAW was brought into force, the penalty would have been so low, extradition wouldn't have been sought.

          As to having a STD test.....Yes, of course it would be polite to have one on request and therefore put the other parties mind at rest. However, polite doesn't mean required. There's a lot about the story (including the lack of interest, then sudden interest from the prosecutors) which doesn't add up. Assange was being an idiot about having a test. However, the Swedish authorities dropped the case, then someone else picked it up, at which point, the women suddenly became very concerned, but didn't seem to be too concerned before.

          There's a lot odd, on both sides. Maybe it's just people showboating, I don't know. However, it is all being blown out of all proportion by ALL parties. Can you really see the UK authorities taking out an EAW and extraditing someone for a fine equivalent to a parking ticket?

          P.S.

          I'm not defending what Assange did. Just saying the reaction is totally at odds with the severity with which Sweden normally considers these offences.

          1. Brangdon

            He's accused of having sex with an unconscious woman, knowing she wouldn't have consented had she been awake. A British judge has reviewed the case and agreed this would be considered rape under UK law. It's not just "some bad translation".

            Had he remained in Sweden after being told they wanted to question him a second time, it probably would have blown over quickly. Instead he fled Sweden to here, and then jumped bail here. That's why there's been a big reaction. Entirely because of his actions.

            1. Mad Mike

              "He's accused of having sex with an unconscious woman, knowing she wouldn't have consented had she been awake."

              This is absolutely NOT what he has been accused of. This is primarily because it is impossible to prove what he KNEW at the time and therefore it is impossible to prove him guilty. Indeed, the circumstances you portray are a crime anyway as you need informed consent and being unconscious means he can't get it. So, what he KNEW at the time is completely irrelevant.

              I agree that he could have stayed in Sweden etc. and a lot of what has happened afterwards is due to this paranoia. Is his paranoia right or wrong.....that's a question of personal opinion. However, at worst, the crime has only ever been listed as something like 'sexual molestation' in Sweden. In this country, we might well prosecute him for rape for not getting permission for sex (nothing to do with what he knew), but that is absolutely NOT what the Swedes are looking to charge him with.

              You can't start using definitions of crimes in all manner of different countries. It's the crime in the country in which it occured that matters.

              1. david wilson

                >> >>"He's accused of having sex with an unconscious woman, knowing she wouldn't have consented had she been awake."

                >>"This is absolutely NOT what he has been accused of. This is primarily because it is impossible to prove what he KNEW at the time and therefore it is impossible to prove him guilty. Indeed, the circumstances you portray are a crime anyway as you need informed consent and being unconscious means he can't get it. So, what he KNEW at the time is completely irrelevant."

                Why is what he knew irrelevant?

                Possibly irrelevant to whether there was a crime or not, but seemingly quite relevant to the severity of it.

                Doing something without consent where one expected consent would be given if asked is somewhat different to doing something without consent when one knew pretty well that consent wouldn't be given if asked for.

                1. Mad Mike

                  "Why is what he knew irrelevant?

                  Possibly irrelevant to whether there was a crime or not, but seemingly quite relevant to the severity of it.

                  Doing something without consent where one expected consent would be given if asked is somewhat different to doing something without consent when one knew pretty well that consent wouldn't be given if asked for."

                  I'll spell this out for you. In the UK, having sex with an unconscious woman is rape...full stop. She has to give consent and you cannot assume consent etc.etc. Stating you knew she would have said yes is not relevant.

                  You have stated that Assange had sex with he 'knowing she wouldn't have consented had she been awake'. However, no law can ever work on the basis of what the accused KNEW as nobody except the accused can ever know that. It is well nigh impossible for the prosecution to PROVE he KNEW she wouldn't have consented. How do you do that? So, what he knew or believed at the time is completely irrelevant to the case. It is the fact she's unconscious that matters, not what he believed or knew or whatever, as nobody can prove any of that, hence you can't prove 'beyond reasonable doubt'.

                  1. Intractable Potsherd

                    @Mad Mike

                    Look up "actus reus" and "mens rea" - you might be surprised about what you think you know.* I believe the concepts apply in Sweden as well.

                    *The latest Sexual Offences Act in the UK is a pile of aggressive feminist-driven shit that overturns years of sensible deliberation in order to put men in the wrong. It is totally unbalanced and fails to recognise the practicalities of life in favour of "sex as a contractual relationship".

                    1. Mad Mike

                      Re: @Mad Mike

                      "Look up "actus reus" and "mens rea" - you might be surprised about what you think you know.* I believe the concepts apply in Sweden as well."

                      Effectively, what you are presumably referring to,is the requirement to have a guilty (i.e. illegal) act (actus reus) and also an intent (mens rea). There is a common misconception that both need to be present for a crime to be committed. This is simply not true as can be shown by several examples. The extreme porn laws make possession of certain images on a computer an offence. The reason for having them (apart from a couple of exemptions for those doing the analysis to find them) and even if you were aware of their presence is not relevant. Therefore, for this law, mens rea is not relevant. It's a strict liability crime. If they're on your computer, you're guilty. End of argument. Intent, irrelevant. Knowledge of their existence, irrelevant. Indeed, people have been prosecuted for them being present in their internet cache, and even when there is no evidence they've even been looked at!!

                      I don't disagree that much recent legislation for one reason or another is wholly wrong and unbalanced, but they've been passed, so......... The very principles on which our law used to be based are slowly being changed, by such things as strict liability. Having an intention, prior knowledge or criminal negligence in a crime is no longer required. As you say, recent legislation turns sex pretty much into a contract where both parties have to agree. If one party is asleep, basically they can't have agreed, regardless of how much you believe they would have done. Same is true if they are extremely drunk. There have been court cases where people have been declared incapable of giving consent due to extreme drunkenness. Normally, this ends up badly for the 'attacker'.

                      The law is being gradually turned upside down and more and more bizarre and damnright dangerous changes being implemented.

            2. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              so...

              Does that mean waking someone up by shagging them for a nice suprise is illegal ?

              1. Mad Mike

                Re: so...

                "Does that mean waking someone up by shagging them for a nice suprise is illegal ?"

                In theory yes. However, in reality, it rather depends on what the person says when they realise what's been going on/happened. IF they made a complaint and it turns out they were asleep, your position is very dubious. Effectively, recent legislation changes require consent and have circumstances where someone can't give consent. Being asleep, very drunk, underage etc. are all such examples. Under those circumstances, what the person says (even if they say yes), is irrelevant.

                1. Anonymous Coward
                  Anonymous Coward

                  Re: so...

                  > "Does that mean waking someone up by shagging them for a nice suprise is illegal ?"

                  > In theory yes.

                  This is a fascinating and relevant discussion.

                  Is it safe to assume ongoing consent even if consciousness is not maintained? Recently after a few pints I fell asleep during intercourse and the wife - despite noticing my predicament - just kept abusing me. She's not even ashamed to admit it. I awoke all sore the next morning. Do I have any legal basis for a case (UK)? What would be the options in Sweden?

          2. david wilson

            >>"I'm not defending what Assange did. Just saying the reaction is totally at odds with the severity with which Sweden normally considers these offences."

            What statistics do you have regarding normal Swedish responses to similar kinds of allegations?

            With or without people running away after their lawyer has been informed they are wanted for questioning, and

            with or without people making loud public accusations of bad faith and dishonesty regarding the accusers and the Swedish legal system in general.

            1. Mad Mike

              @David Wilson

              "What statistics do you have regarding normal Swedish responses to similar kinds of allegations?"

              I don't have any statistics, just speaking with Swedish people. Maybe I know a non-representative bunch of Swedes, I don't know. However, they seem to think Assange was being treated quite differently to other cases in Sweden. Granted, he has made it worse by running and by messing around in the UK. However, Swedes I have spoken with have told me this wouldn't even see the inside of a courthouse in Sweden under normal circumstances. It's regarded as quite trivial.

            2. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              no juries in sweden...

              There is no jury system in sweden. They just have paid legal professionals...

              Their courts are like modern buildings, but with armed guards.

              Is not peoples justice at all there, its justice as a function of the state.

        2. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          lnteresting

          how the Swedes give a free pass to their swelling Muslim population to violate all of the social causes held to be so central to their enlightened beings.

      2. Maharg
        Facepalm

        It is when the other person involved is not aware you are doing it…

  9. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Not good

    I think Assange is trying to tie himself in with Snowden which is not a good move if you believe either or both are hero's.

    Assange has a damaged reputation. He released documents against the US but is wanted on a rape charge which would obviously be used to get him in US hands. However he is wanted on a rape charge which is not something to be ignored, it is a highly damaging accusation. Not only that but the guys who did the heavy lifting and got the documents to Assange were abandoned to the trial of the US. The more worthy hero's (even if you consider Assange as a hero) are the ones in the US's hands on trial.

    Snowden did what he thought was right and is trying to expose what he considers wrong. For his efforts he is attacked for being a traitor or for seeking the lime light. That is the worst claims people can come up with against this man. So the only real debate is if he is a traitor or a patriot.

    By linking themselves together Assange will only damage Snowdens reputation although it would make sense for them to help each other. I just hope this doesnt damage Snowdens credibility because regardless of individual opinions as to traitor/patriot it is highly unfair to dirty someones reputation because they had no other allies left to go to.

    One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Not good - LMFTFY

      He released documents against the US but is wanted on a rape charge which Assange claims would be used to get him in US hands.

    2. QuinnDexter

      Re: Not good

      Hadn't Wikileaks moved themselves away from Assange (TM)?

    3. NomNomNom

      Re: Not good

      "However he is wanted on a rape charge which is not something to be ignored, it is a highly damaging accusation"

      Actually on the 10 point Saville scale it only rates a 2

      1. M Gale

        Re: Not good

        Actually on the 10 point Saville scale it only rates a 2

        Now then, now then!

    4. Twits R 4 Twats
      Big Brother

      Re: Not good

      "So the only real debate is if he is a traitor or a patriot."

      This question was one of live and death on many occasions in history, while this setup reminds me a lot of what was going on in the thirties and early forties in Germany...

      What do you mean legal- WE decide how your acts are to be interpreted- and what is legal and what not!

      If this type of surveillance was "O.K." by any standards it wouldn't have to be kept secret, and no charges would be necessary!

      So the other important question is how lawful and righteous a government is to be called that implements a surveillance system that violates not only its peoples privacy, but that of citizens of other sovereign states as well.

      A government can of course bend and twist it's own laws until their actions do not violate any such, or their constitution, as long as it keeps its people either dumb or scared enough (or both) to stand up. And it can get away with violating the rights and constitutions of other nations if it has superior (military) power and a "kiss my ass" attitude.

      I think chauvinism is the term?

      Growing up in a country with a well remembered history of such, and being somewhat "over sensitized" on the matter, the questions that bothers me is how far this will still go before it starts flipping towards fascism...

      Just saying...

      P.S: Anyone noticed how different "big brother" systems play an increasingly prominent role in US based criminal series- and their significant role in catching the bad guys and saving the world? Coincidence?

      Ask yourself: Has that changed your attitude towards those systems in any way?

      1. Alistair
        Big Brother

        Re: Not good @ twits R 4 Twats

        ahhhhh. Now you've hit on what has driven murph to his position. Sadly -- far too many folks believe these entertainment(s) that effectively mandate a "centralized repository" of information providing swift and certain answers to "whodunnit"

        Reality however is far from what shows up on CSI, Criminal Minds, Numbers, etc etc. Furthermore should the several hundred law enforcement agencies in the US ever manage to come up with a coherent database of such information and the ability to glue it to other relevant databases I suspect that we'll be on the T6 or T10 model by then.

        That the NSA has the ability to suck up this much information, be it actual conversations, metadata, or simply connectivity references should have the entire American population thinking twice.

        The question I have for all of the political spin doctors that are out there attempting to recover from this episode is:

        "What mandated lifetime is in place on this data, who is auditing the destruction of the data, and what process is in place for auditing the collection filtering elements?"

        I'll guarantee that the answer to each of those audit phrases is "there is no audit". At which point I don't care what government you are or what you THINK your collecting. The justification fails.

        The functionality exists, and there are justifications for using the functionality to mitigate criminal, "terrorism", "spying", anti "national" actions etc - things from which you expect your government to protect you. Without putting a lifetime on the data and having audit controls in place for how its collected, why its collected, and how long its retained, the issue becomes "Okay -- now we've gotten rid of the ***(example used here)*** folks, what ELSE can we clean up?"

        Today its perfectly acceptable to run around in the street in large groups and bitch about Monsanto. Or, at least, that is what you've been lead to think.

        1. Bleu
          Happy

          Re: Not good @ twits R 4 Twats

          `should the several hundred law enforcement agencies in the US'

          Otherwise a great post, but the election of judiciary and heads of constabulary is to me a fascinating example of where US democracy is a model.

          The point of most states (and the major ones in the US) is precisely to deprive the citizenry of any say, the remnants in the few places where real US democracy survives are pretty instructive, also automatically by Guardian and BBC-style outfits where the main aim is dictacting the outlines of permissible thought.

          Doesn't make Edward Snowden's tilt at the national security state any less pertinent, tragic, or hilarious.

          Viva Edward!

        2. Twits R 4 Twats
          Happy

          Re: Not good @ Alistair

          I couldn't agree more with your view on the need of auditing...

          Deciding the level of personalized vs. anonymized data, retention times, access rights and acceptable use would be the fundamental base of all data handling guideline there ever can be- IF you operate within the boundries of just ANY legal system.

          The NSA is building a massive data storage facility in the desert of Utah to bunker indiscriminately collected data together with targeted data, including and especially encrypted data, indefinitely. For later analysis, when technology in general and the existing data crunching systems catch up.

          This proves to me how realistic any hope for a transparent or at least somewhat regulated use of the collected data is...

      2. david wilson

        Re: Not good

        >>"Anyone noticed how different "big brother" systems play an increasingly prominent role in US based criminal series- and their significant role in catching the bad guys and saving the world?"

        Would you be talking about things like fingerprint databases, or the more CSI-fantasy stuff like CCTV cameras taking infinitely zoomable images or having fantastic face recognition software, or soil databases with a 10m resolution?

        I'm sure many liberties with the truth are taken basically for reasons of speeding the plot along.

        1. Twits R 4 Twats
          Happy

          Re: Not good @ Alistair and David Wilson

          I am very aware that the technical capabilities of the portrait systems are largely exaggerated.

          What I was referring to was my suspicion that their increasingly prominent role is to increase acceptance for such systems in the "general public".

          A well documented example of such mass manipulation by media has been in place prior to WW2 in many countries.

          A more recent and less sinister example: The wide acceptance of contraceptives in Middle America is a direct result of their prominent featuring in popular soap operas.

          So the pattern is known and the effectiveness of entertainment media to build and influence public opinion and behavior is proven...

          Or dear, now I sound like a tin foil hat wearing conspiracy theory nut, do I? ;-)

    5. Maharg

      Re: Not good

      If I had to choose a country to be extradited to face criminal charges, if I had to choose any country to give me a fair trial, and protect my human rights, if I had to be in the hands of any justice system, I’m pretty sure Sweden would be up there with places I would go ‘Oh Yes Please’.

      Ecuador, not so much…

  10. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    at least by going straight to Ecuador he isn't running up bills in London that he can't be bothered to pay

  11. PaulR79
    Facepalm

    Heh..

    "There are some governments that act more upon their own interests, but we do not," Patino said, according to the Associated Press and others. "We act upon our principles. We take care of the human rights of the people."

    Ecuador doing what the USA supposedly does. When the "land of the free" becomes a giant prison and one of their closest allies (UK) is nothing more than a mouthpiece for their agenda this is what happens. 'MURIKA protecting the people from the evil of...... themselves.

    1. Scorchio!!
      FAIL

      Re: Heh..

      "Ecuador doing what the USA supposedly does. When the "land of the free" becomes a giant prison and one of their closest allies (UK) is nothing more than a mouthpiece for their agenda this is what happens. 'MURIKA protecting the people from the evil of...... themselves."

      You didn't GREP out the human rights situation in Ecuador, did you? I like the bit on human rights and asylum procedures, never mind the bits on 'freedom of the press' (a la Julie):

      http://www.hrw.org/news/2013/06/19/ecuador-fully-respect-refugee-rights

      http://www.hrw.org/americas/ecuador

      http://www.amnesty.org/en/region/ecuador

      http://www.humanrightsecuador.org/

      http://www.humanrightsecuador.org/2013/06/18/contradictions-assange-and-media-law-in-ecuador/

      Yet the UK breaches a bail jumper's human rights, a bail jumper that also fled a EU jurisdiction claiming it had the same standards as a banana republic (all EU countries have to meet a high standard before being admitted as members), in which jurisdiction he is wanted for rape:

      http://uk.reuters.com/article/2013/05/28/uk-ecuador-assange-idUKBRE94R0ZH20130528

      Meanwhile, those who support Julie claim that what he did was not rape FFS. Given their puerile standards on human rights elsewhere I suppose that I ought not to be surprised.

      1. Bleu
        Thumb Down

        Re: Heh..

        Wow.

        Thou art a true moron.

        Do you really expect your constant use of `Julie' to have some sway? Was it in a `talking points' instruction from your controllers?

        Being a girl myself, it irritates me no end that you think you can undermine someone by running that line all of the time.

        If only you had half a wit, but moron you are.

  12. VinceH

    Optional

    If/when he actually gets to Ecuador, he definitely needs to get a customised postcard printed, with the picture depicting him enjoying his freedom, which he can send to Assange with the words "Wish you were here? :p"

  13. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    All this underlines just how precarious Assange's position is.....

    Given the extent of US/UK co-operation, I can see Assange leaving these shores in one of two ways:

    - Flight to Sweden

    - In a box.

    1. Don Jefe

      Re: All this underlines just how precarious Assange's position is.....

      I hate it that Assange is hijacking this thing. That's a major problem with him. He'll take any issue and turn it into an Assange issue. It's kind if like when a lunatic endorses a major political figure, nobody wants that.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: All this underlines just how precarious Assange's position is.....

        Assange is not hijacking this. He was introduced as a derogatory parallel to debase what Snowden has done - classic guilt by association and distraction by focussing on the man not the message.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: All this underlines just how precarious Assange's position is.....

      Surely you mean:

      - Flight to US (via Sweden)

  14. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Huh?

    "and is being escorted by diplomats and legal advisors from WikiLeaks. "

    I didn't know WikiLeaks had diplomats.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Huh?

      I hope you aren't let anywhere near life-critical systems.

      1. This post has been deleted by its author

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Huh?

        Enjoy your next hospital visit...

    2. Bleu
      Mushroom

      Re: Huh?

      Well said. says a lot about the level of today's `journalists', not all illiterate yet, but seems to be the goal.

  15. All names Taken
    Paris Hilton

    How should dissent be handled In a land of the free?

    1. Don Jefe
      Unhappy

      Well, the 'official' way to manage dissent is with your vote.

      The way that actually works however is to use your wallet. It is all very tidy really, you draft a bill that changes the things you don't like then present said bill to the most powerful person within reach of your budget, along with a big check, then you go to lots of fancy dress lunches and dinners, pick up the tab and Bobs your uncle! Your problem is resolved and you can feel proud knowing you have participated in the 'Greatest Democracy on Earth'...

  16. Bleu
    Happy

    Where in the world is Edward Snowden?

    Ambitious app devs with quick cartoonist friends, on your marks ...

    What a lovely circus he is making!

    1. Cardinal
      Go

      Re: Where in the world is Edward Snowden?

      By God though, the man has the courage of his convictions about what democracy SHOULD be!

      Reminds me of the line about wishing you were half the man your dog thinks you are.

      Well he IS the man his dog thinks he is. Yes indeed!

      1. Bleu
        Happy

        Re: Where in the world is Edward Snowden?

        As the great Scottish nationalist Sean Connery, who chooses not to live in Scotland incidentally once pronunced from a script, `You're the man now dog'.

  17. Otto is a bear.

    Here's the thing

    In order that our security services carry out their functions they need to monitor internet traffic to spot useful information about what the bad guys are up to. A tiny fraction of the data is relevant to them, a fraction of that is actually detectable, but once detected it may take years to build a picture activity, much of which will come from previously discarded data. If they were to throw away the data on first pass then a lot would be missed.

    The rest of the data is never even looked at by a human, and will sit there until deleted, no democratic country can afford to read everybody's eMail, either financially or politically.

    Governments have always taken an interest in anybody who is a criminal, an agent of a foreign power, and of groups of individuals who protest or work against the state. They also look at our elected politicians, and business leaders. This is all done to protect the state and its citizens, and they do it proactively because we the people prefer bad guys to be caught before they do any damage, and I'm not sure how you expect them to do it without touching the lives of the innocent. There is a balance between civil rights and security, is shifts each time the mark is overstepped by the security service, or the bad guys, but it will never ever stop happening, nor should it. Snowdon has broken a service oath, to basically stand up and say hay the NSA spies on the world, and so does GCHQ, which is not news, but the details given are another matter.

    I'd love to hear how you think it should be done, if not the way it is.

    1. Cardinal
      Stop

      Re: Here's the thing

      "The rest of the data is never even looked at by a human, and will sit there until deleted, no democratic country can afford to read everybody's eMail, either financially or politically."

      OR it will sit there until the Prez/other bigwig says "Get me any shit you've got about my opponent in the upcoming election/Congressional - whatever - race. And you'll do it coz, hey, he's the Prez right? - and it would be disloyal to tell anyone about it, right?

      Nah! Couldn't possibly happen could it.........?

    2. Sir Runcible Spoon

      Re: Here's the thing

      "Governments have always taken an interest in anybody who is a criminal, an agent of a foreign power, and of groups of individuals who protest or work against the state."

      You've missed a group of people off that list:-

      Law abiding citizens who do not agree with government policy and are unhappy that their elected officials constantly ignore the mandate upon which they were elected (i.e. GIVEN power).

      Also people who don't like their every move mapped onto some database just in case it falls into the wrong hands.

      You simply cannot argue this is all for our own good when RIPA was abused so quickly and thoroughly by petty officials of all political stripes.

      It is, quite simply, too much power to put in too few hands - and there are lots of people not happy about that.

      Whether there are enough people who are unhappy and are prepared to do something about it is another question. In a democracy, I have a vote. However, if my vote cannot in any way change the things I don't like, what course of action is left?

    3. Mad Mike

      Re: Here's the thing

      @Otto is a bear.

      Nobody is saying this sort of thing shouldn't be monitored, but you seem to be saying they should do as much as possible without any oversight. Presumably, you would have preferred life under the Stasi in East Germany. After all, they're often believed to have one of the most effective security services in the world. Nobody expects the security services to do nothing, but we do expect to have oversight. If the politicians etc. can adequately perform this for us, that's fine. However, they're not doing it. So, we need to perform the oversight ourselves. It's interesting that you think the security services should be spying on our politicians and business leaders. To an extent that's correct, to ensure they're not working against us. Unfortunately, they'll also come into information that can be used to blackmail these people for whatever they want. Wonder whether the real intelligence budgets have been affected much by the cuts? The black ones, not the official ones. It'd be a brave politician that signed that off, knowing they have all the dirt on them!!

    4. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Here's the thing

      "A tiny fraction of the data is relevant to them" -- That may not be as tiny as you'd like to believe.

      You can read up here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ECHELON#Controversy on how the US used ECHELON allegedly for industrial espionage. I say allegedly because I can not prove it, personally I don't have much of a doubt this happened.

      Even if it hadn't, the data they aggregate, once there is so previous that the strongest of forces will work on getting at it. And quite possibly not to do me, my employer or my country a favour.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Here's the thing

        so previous -> so precious

  18. Steven Holmquist

    Surprised?

    I'm often surprised at the "Outrage" folks have to learn that a government is spying on them and everyone else. First of all, it's a government. By their very nature they watch and keep an eye on everyone. To think otherwise, you are kidding yourself.

    Second, most politicians are lawyers.

    Did we all forget the old joke about lawyers?

    "How can you tell if a lawyer is lying? His lips are moving."

    Let's face it, all governments lie.

    They will all spy and watch everything and everyone.

    1. MissingSecurity
      Devil

      Re: Surprised?

      I don't know why you're surprised. It seems fairly easy to grasp for techies the capabilities of our current technology, but for many people, they are so clueless its quite amazing. Even you're most prudent blogger sniffing a latte, tapping away on his Jesus Mobe is completely clueless. (Couldn't resist)

      To them meta data mean "everything on your screen, and all the pink hidden behind it."

  19. Dan Paul
    Devil

    Once you give up your principles, you've lost the right to criticize others

    What's good for the goose is good for the gander. When you lie, cheat and steal; don't expect any honesty from those you deal with. You've lost the right to that expectation.

    As far as I am concerned, the "alphabet" agencies acted completely outside the the purview of the Constitution. Once those "inalienable rights" were terminated, so were any and all rights of the alphabet agencies and all of those who work for and with them.

    There will never be a justifiable reason for our government to breach the rules and protections of our Constitution.

    The mere act of doing so negates the validity of each and everything the perpetrators have ever done.

    They have themselves, by their own admission deliberately become criminals, traitors, become the "Enemy" within.

    Therefore, nothing they ever say or do, can have any legal standing. The principle is call "Fruit of the Poisoned Tree".

    1. Sir Runcible Spoon

      Re: Once you give up your principles, you've lost the right to criticize others

      How would disaffected Americans go about filing a class action lawsuit for treason to whomever authorised these un-constitional wire-taps?

  20. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    The chase is on!

    Great distraction from the actual content of the case, Sen Feinstein is happy to turn it into a Passepartout farce.

  21. Herby

    This just in...

    Guardian sets up bureau in Quito, Ecuador.

    Tomorrow...

    Guardian abandons bureau in Quito, Ecuador due to observing press gagging, and lack of any (meaningful) story to file.

    In a week?

    ElReg expresses a card table and laptop to cantina. Makes deal with owner for WiFi access. Encourages "leakers" to have a seat.

    Months later.

    Said card table is quite active as everyone is playing internet games. No "leakers" yet. ElReg decides it really wasn't worth trouble, as nothing really happens in Ecuador anyway. Good thing components were castoffs from BOFH operations. We understand that one of Simon's bosses may be exiled there as well.

  22. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    I wonder how long before Ecuador ends up on the "state sponsored terrorism" list

    and gets a US invasion to root out Al Qaeda or whoever we'll claim is over there.

    1. Mad Mike

      Re: I wonder how long before Ecuador ends up on the "state sponsored terrorism" list

      Well, there was arguably a reason for Afghanistan, as there were terrorist training facilities there. Although, it has to be said, the method was probably the worst possible. Anyone who thinks the Taliban are finished is dreaming.

      Iraq.....well nuff said. Absolutely no reason there as far as I can see. Weapons of mass destruction.....false. Oil.....true, but not really a legal reason. Saddam Hussein a nasty man......true, but he had been for decades and we'd supported him against Iran.

      1. Jigr69

        Re: I wonder how long before Ecuador ends up on the "state sponsored terrorism" list

        The Taliban which we are trying our best to destroy has never attacked any country outside of Afghanistan. It has attacked plenty of people who have invaded or tried to invade the country but never committed any terrorist atrocity outside of Afghanistan.

        The only way to actually defeat the Taliban would be to take a leaf out of Hitlers book to see what he tried and failed with the Jewish population. Obviously this isn't going to happen, so we'll never defeat them. We never defeated the IRA in all of those years, so why do people think we'll win against the Taliban.

        Off topic: But why destroy poppy fields in Afghanistan when we are spending money to grow poppy's in the UK for pharmaceutical use? Why not allow the Afghans to grow poppy's (afterall they've had plenty of experience) and use that instead? We'd save money destroying the crop, save money protecting the crops in the UK (farmers themselves aren't allowed to harvest said poppy fields), and probably get it a lot cheaper!

        1. Mad Mike

          Re: I wonder how long before Ecuador ends up on the "state sponsored terrorism" list

          "The Taliban which we are trying our best to destroy has never attacked any country outside of Afghanistan. It has attacked plenty of people who have invaded or tried to invade the country but never committed any terrorist atrocity outside of Afghanistan."

          True. The Taliban themselves have never attacked, but there were terrorist training facilities being hosted within the country, so you could argue they were liable for them. Problem is, the Taliban is not really an organisation. It's really a series of warlords who have a generally similar outlook. However, they are different, fought each other to some extent and have varying degrees of 'nuttiness'.

          "The only way to actually defeat the Taliban would be to take a leaf out of Hitlers book to see what he tried and failed with the Jewish population. Obviously this isn't going to happen, so we'll never defeat them. We never defeated the IRA in all of those years, so why do people think we'll win against the Taliban."

          This is the problem with wars. Very often wars are not actually 'won'. They often (especially these days) end up more as a stalemate, which is why a political solution has to be agreed in the end. The IRA didn't win, but neither did the UK. So, after a while people (on both sides) realised a negotiated settlement had to be reached. Same will be true of Afghanistan, Syria, Libya......all of them.

          "Off topic: But why destroy poppy fields in Afghanistan when we are spending money to grow poppy's in the UK for pharmaceutical use? Why not allow the Afghans to grow poppy's (afterall they've had plenty of experience) and use that instead? We'd save money destroying the crop, save money protecting the crops in the UK (farmers themselves aren't allowed to harvest said poppy fields), and probably get it a lot cheaper!"

          This is all to do with politics and money over common sense. The 'war on drugs' is lost and always will be. No matter what you do, removing illegal drugs from the streets is a fight we will never win, even remotely. We are more awash with drugs now than ever before. So, what do we do? Same as any other war....negotiate a settlement. That will undoubtedly mean at least some drugs become legal. It may take some time, but it will happen in the end unless they want the 'war' to continue. Getting the Afghans to grow the poppies is never going to happen, as there's good money for companies doing it in the UK and elsewhere. Money wins. Also, it's rather hard to justify giving a poppy contract to your 'enemy' the Taliban!!

          It's nothing to do with practicality and everything to do with money and power.

  23. JaitcH
    FAIL

    The GCHQ claims it cannot tell the difference ...

    between overseas communications and domestic ones.

    What a load of poop.

    Given that they know the difference between transmitters and receivers and they can figure out that most domestic cables do not cross the shore line even the sad excuse for womanhood, May May of Maidenhead, could figure which was which.

  24. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Fun

    I have my popcorn out and am enjoying all the fuckwittery.

    This is all but a distraction, we never had privacy, democracy is but an illusion, all governments are twats, it's all about nothing but money,.

    Let's see, GCHQ is monitoring all the interwebs, when did this news break? about 6pm on Friday? Why would that be? Your all clever people and I wouldn't want to insult anyone's intelligence by answering it for you.

    furthermore, at the end of the day there is fuck all you or I can do about all this, get over it, find a political party that will change it, oh wait, none have said they will or even want to, go fucking democracy,if you still think your free or that our children will have it any different then you are very naive.

    1. Mad Mike

      Re: Fun

      "furthermore, at the end of the day there is fuck all you or I can do about all this, get over it, find a political party that will change it, oh wait, none have said they will or even want to, go fucking democracy,if you still think your free or that our children will have it any different then you are very naive."

      I guess people have a choice. Accept this or try to change it. By the same argument, nobody should have fought the Germans in WWII. Just accepted the inevitable, let them in and live with it. Apathetic acceptance is (in my view) a poor place to be. Better to stand and be counted (and maybe fall) than do nothing. I want better for my children.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Fun

        Me too, but again, no political party, either us or uk wants to touch this with a barge pole, what's the alternative, create your own political party and run for office? revolution like they have in Brazil?

        Apathy pisses me off, not sure the German land grab is a good comparison though, that was out and out war, this is the controlling of the populace by monitoring their every move and you can be sure that all this information will be used to that end.

        1. Mad Mike

          Re: Fun

          "Me too, but again, no political party, either us or uk wants to touch this with a barge pole, what's the alternative, create your own political party and run for office? revolution like they have in Brazil?

          Apathy pisses me off, not sure the German land grab is a good comparison though, that was out and out war, this is the controlling of the populace by monitoring their every move and you can be sure that all this information will be used to that end."

          I agree it's hard, but unless people start to stand up, it will keep getting worse and worse. Why not create a political party? Why not run for office.

          If you look at what was happening during the 30s in Germany, it's a very apt comparison. The Nazis made sure they had control of their own populace and started the 'conditioning' before they invaded other countries. Now, compare that to what the US has done. Have they got control of the populace? Pretty much so. Are they 'conditioning' them? Pretty much so. Have they invaded any other countries? Mmmmmmmmm

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Fun

            You make some very good points.

            Why not create a political party? Why not run for office.

            I would love to, however the press is already best buddies with the political elite so regardless of the manifesto I would be written off as a racist or an Antisocialists loon, futurama puts it best with Jack Johnson and John Jackson, one of the few nuggets in the media that actually point out the obvious.

  25. Anonymous Coward
    Facepalm

    More interesting points

    as with arseange why make it about the whistleblower as opposed the blown whistle?

    I quote,

    Fugitive US whistleblower Edward Snowden is still in the transit area at Moscow airport, Russia's President Vladimir Putin has confirmed.

    When did Russian presidents make statements about individual extradition requests?

  26. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Be afraid- Be very afraid.... 'We only need your info to catch Terrorists'

    The problem is that there is an implicit assumption that 5-Eyes intelligence will be used for good and not evil i.e. solely to capture terrorists. But what do we mean by terrorist? One man's definition can quickly morph from 'terrorist' to 'traitor' to just 'target'. How magnificently laws are amended in 'Animal Farm'!

    Two examples from history where intelligence was abused. A. The IRA hit on the RUC with collusion in the "widest sense of the word" being investigated by the Smithwick Tribunal. B. The illegal methods used to track the whereabouts of a US senator's plane in the early days of the Patriot Act.

    Should there be more US 'traitors', you can be bet your life that Prism will be used to hunt down the offender using extreme prejudice! But what if that traitor is in fact a whistleblower, divulging abuses by our elected officials, such as the Pentagon Papers bringing the Vietnam War to a close? ... What then?

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Be afraid- Be very afraid.... 'We only need your info to catch Terrorists'

      Free Nelson Mandela (though this is based on what year it is)

  27. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Can not resist

    Germany seeks UK surveillance assurances

    To paraphrase someone Else's comment

    how times have changed. Now the Germans are questioning our police state and the threat it poses to them!

    I'm still shocked that the media coverage is fixated on Snowden and now the information he revealed. Anyone with an ounce of IT knowledge knows that terrorists and child abusers can stay hidden, which leaves Jo Public to be spied on...why?

    1. david wilson

      Re: Can not resist

      >>"Anyone with an ounce of IT knowledge knows that terrorists and child abusers can stay hidden,.."

      True, though 'can' != 'does'.

      There is no shortage of stupid criminals, and seemingly not a total lack of fairly amateur terrorists.

    2. Mad Mike

      Re: Can not resist

      "I'm still shocked that the media coverage is fixated on Snowden and now the information he revealed. Anyone with an ounce of IT knowledge knows that terrorists and child abusers can stay hidden, which leaves Jo Public to be spied on...why?"

      Yes indeed. I mean, they caught Bin Laden quickly enough using this technology!! Or, was he simply clever enough to keep out of the way of it and was actually caught through one of his couriers? If someone has the desire to stay hidden on the internet, they pretty much can unless the intelligence capabilities go way beyond what is being revealed now. So, the serious players (most terrorists, child abusers etc.) can stay hidden, whilst medium and low players should get caught all the time. Funny thing is, you rarely hear of these lower players being caught by these means. Probably because the information can't be used in court, partly because they'd have to reveal what they're doing, but also because it was illegally obtained and therefore not usable!!

      When looking at peoples intentions, it's generally a good idea to follow the money, as that is normally a good indicator for most people (and organisations). So, where does the money trail go here?

  28. Mr_Pitiful
    Go

    Are there any IT jobs in Ecuador?

    I'm currently looking!

    If they want to build infrastructure, security etc then I'm your guy

    Please look me up

    Paul

  29. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Somebody somewhere has a good sense of humour

    Hi,

    Someone recently tried to use an application to sign in to your Google Account - @googlemail.com.

    We prevented the sign-in attempt in case this was a hijacker trying to access your account. Please review the details of the sign-in attempt:

    Wednesday, June 26, 2013 6:23:36 AM UTC

    IP Address: 114.97.86.14

    Location: Hefei, Anhui, China

    If you do not recognize this sign-in attempt, someone else might be trying to access your account. You should sign in to your account and reset your password immediately.

    Reset password

    If this was you, and you are having trouble accessing your account, complete the troubleshooting steps listed at http://support.google.com/mail?p=client_login

    Sincerely,

    The Google Accounts team

    This email was legit (in the sense it had no dodgy links) the email they referenced was not mine and I have never linked my gmail (not googlemail) to my hotmail account, coincidence? you decide, maybe they do really hold all the keys, and if they do then why the fuck are they reading comments on a tech site? Do they really have nothing better to do? I now take my tin foil hat off

    Also on this subject I see a certain (you have nothing to fear) politician made even better quotes today

    "We have not yet exhausted all the means of building up and extending our influence. It is not so much the relative size of our power that matters in the 21st Century, but the nature of it, and how agile and effective we can be in exerting it."

    in other words, bend over the rest of the world.

    is it just me or is this getting crazy?

    1. Mad Mike

      Re: Somebody somewhere has a good sense of humour

      "is it just me or is this getting crazy?"

      It isn't just you. I receive a constant stream of very credible looking, but definitely dubious emails from all over the place. The usual suspects, such as Nigeria, but also plenty of other places as well. I often wonder how they know the information or how they've linked things I thought weren't linked. Maybe someone is doing some deep data mining? Of course, the NSA operating through proxies in China would make a great means of trying to deny what you're doing!!

  30. mistergrantham
    Holmes

    could be an excellent resource

    Data data data! I cannot make bricks without clay...

    I wonder what tools they use to query and visualize the data.

This topic is closed for new posts.

Other stories you might like