Re: Vimes Re: Intractable Pothead Johnnie Thicko Let's not forget @ Matt
"Not when you consider past history...." That is the problem - you frothing sheeple have no insight into history. What has Snowden revealed that wasn't already known, documented, or at least strongly hinted at? The Web is full of info on GCHQ, Frenchelon, even many details on PRISM short of the actual name, from long before Snowden's little tantrum.
".....RIPA was brought in and we were assured it wasn't going to be abused....." Those of us with a clue expected and saw the get-out clauses for GCHQ and friends in RIPA, they were only a surprise to the sheeple that blindly accepted what politicians told them. The details of RIPA and Section 8's get-out clause have never been hidden. What you call "abuse", and what more seasoned and realistic observers might call "expected wriggle room for the spooks", was built in.
"..... The idea of the level of data gathering that is actually going on seemed absurd...." Again, those of us with a clue had seen all the signs long ago. TBH, the surprise is it is not even more, though I suspect Putin's willingness to gag Snowden hints that there is also plenty of data being exchanged with the Russians.
"....What you seem to fail to recognise is that people are capable of noticing patterns of behaviour, and merely throwing around cheap insults in response to what seem like legitimate concerns do you no favours whatsoever....." ROFLMAO! Seriously, it's like some kid that ignores the warning "low lintel", bangs their head, then shrieks about how terrible and unfair it is! Snowden revealed nothing that wasn't already out there, and shrieking about how upset you are to hear the news just identifies you as as one of the obtuse.
".....Do you happen to work for Detica or one of the other companies with a vested interest ...." Apart from the amusing hint of paranoia, did you stop to think that working for The Man is not a requirement to read such basic sources as Wikipedia? Once again, read more and bleat less.