Tuesday declared 'The Day we Fight Back' against NSA et al A broad coalition of technology companies and activist groups has declared Tuesday, February 11th 2014 has been “The Day We Fight Back Against Mass Surveillance”. Timed to co-incide with the first anniversary of Aaron Swartz's death, the day has attracted support from some unsurprising sources – the Electronic Frontier …
Notice how Obama is once again given a free pass despite his obvious guilt...
Here's a tip: if you don't point the finger at a particular person or politician, then this "protest" is a complete waste of time because no individual will feel their career is threatened.
We want the right to show emotions
But emotions are revealing of your personality, therefore contrary to the aims of anonymity.
I think El Reg should go further and protect you from your revealing use of word constructs by automatically feeding your text through a translation cycle such as
[English -> Russian -> Welsh -> English]
before publication.
Yes Google is getting better, and simple sentences should survive intact. The whole of AC's para does get modified, though.
I put my post through the process and found it distorted much of the meaning. The first sentence, though, was nicely depersonalised :
But emotions are revealing of your personality, therefore contrary to the aims of anonymity.
became
But emotions reveal who you are, so contrary to the purposes of anonymity.
All the social humps start and end their day on FB, Tweeter and yeah, Tumblr. I, for own privacy issues, don't peek inside.
May be I'll talk to my friends over the coffee machine.
PS: And I'd really appreciate a transparency report about NSA requests from El Reg as well. After all we talk here a lot.
Any Big Thinkers and Virtual Tinkerers?
Nice to see El Reg doing its thing for AIMeritocracy and becoming an Informed Target of Advanced Interest to GCHQ Intelligence Community Enterprises, unpeopled and disinfested with MAD Muppet Master Blasters?
Do Special Information Services Secreting Sublimely Intelligent Sources lead with seconded third party politicians following prepared scripts or do they and the mad and the bad and the rad and the sad go rogue and renegade and wander off piste and reservation in search of personal enrichment and chaotic excitement elsewhere, and utilise media waves and communications chunnels to present an individually subverted and perverted future tomorrow which begins with the manipulated news of today ........ and would such SISSSIS be a national intelligence asset or internetional field force?
And that question to whoever is charged and/or presumes to supply Blighty and Britannia her leading intelligence community wares.
cc COBRA re Virtual Strike Force Engagement Fight Back and Fighting Back with Black Watch Servers in the Sunny Shade of Dark Web Shadow.
It never rains but it pours in a biblical flood and to fight the flow is to drown and be washed up ashore , useless and dead metaphorically and metaphysically to a new world order awash with fresh opportunities.
Here be a little something further and deeper on Virtual Strike Force Engagement Fight Backs which present quite magically all manner of alternative events, for the odd couple or two to dislike and vote down without probably knowing anything about what they be voting on. However, one would expect the likes of intelligent folk seeking intelligence for a living though to act completely differently and not tarry in a hurry if their concerns stretch to matters of interest to IARPA’s Uncle Sam.
A user knowledgeable about an intended MPC [MultiParty Computation] scenario, but not an expert in cryptographic protocols or MPC, could input application data into a future tool which will select or generate the definition of a cryptographic protocol and a proof of the protocol’s security or data that can be used to prove the security of the protocol. …. http://cryptome.org/2014/02/iarpa-rfi-14-03.pdf
Hmmm …. Input application data into a future tool which will select or generate the definition of a cryptographic protocol and a proof of the protocol’s security or data that can be used to prove the security of the protocol such as those which provide leading Special Information Services Secreting Sublimely Intelligent Sources with seconded third party politicians following prepared scripts, is a Multiparty Computation scenario which reveals untold and telling vulnerabilities in everything that tries to disprove it?
And the available more chaotic alternative for command and control with rogue renegade elements/constituents does present the facility and utility to create havoc and mayhem if prime first parties are inadequately addressed and poorly compensated for non-leading future participation in an adopted supporting role.
There’s a lot going on out there in the Cyber Domains of IntelAIgent Space, El Regers. And none of it bad whenever one is good and prepared to freely share, although that does not mean that things cannot turn suddenly catastrophic to ensure that things will be even better.
Shame its too late...
I used to think 1984 was a great sci-fi, pure fiction and the UK would never go so far, and we were better off out of Europe to govern ourselves.
CCTV went up, I thought it was a good idea, police can direct their forces better, protect & serve the public.
But I am starting to worry.
First they disarm us as much as possible, then they take away out liberties, one, by one...
Every year there are more and more laws being brought in that curb our freedoms, we might not yet be as oppressed as 1984, but we are getting there.
So people need to take a stand, and protest for our rights, before we loose that right.
"Currently governments spread the narrative that nobody cares about surveillance" - that's because nobody does. Well, at least for the same definition of "nobody" they used for the adventure game genre - "nobody" cares about those either; unsurprisingly that's actually true inasmuch as the valiant army of those who do is utterly and thoroughly dwarfed into insignificance by the ocean of those who really, really don't. Same thing here.
Write a real letter to your elected representative.
Keep it calm and polite and focused.
Depending where you you might like to point out
£2bn the govt say they will give ISPs to do their work.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/10/07/detica_interception_modernisation/
Snowden suggsts that GCHQ have probably implemented quite a lot of this without ISP assistance already.
Number of UK terror suspects watched by MI5 in 2007 2000
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6613963.stm
Number of UK terrorist deaths 2000-2012
52 victims of 7/7/5 bombings. 4 bombers
http://www.theinsider.org/news/article.asp?id=0472 only lists the victims.
Jean Charles de Menezes 22/7/5 Intelligence FUBAR.
Northern Ireland 2 8/3/9
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/mar/08/northern-ireland-soldiers-killed-antrim
Total 59 in 12 years..
Estimated value of a human life
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Value_of_life
$6m (US DoT)
$7.9 (US FDA)
UK average lifetime earnings at average UK salary 18-70 @ £26,244 £1 364 688
UK population 2010 62.3million
http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/npp/national-population-projections/2010-based-projections/sum-
So the UK govt plans to spend £1m each to watch these suspects. or they will spend £33.8m each to save 1 life.
Or it plans to watch *every* person in the UK because 0.0032% *may* actually do something that will endanger other peoples lives, possibly.
Average number killed each year in botched DIY or farm accidents c50-70 ROSPA
BTW IIRC the cost to keep a prisoner in a UK prison is about £38k/ year.
IOW. It's a f**k of a lot of money to get not a very great result,and you could guarantee to save more lives by spending less in other areas.
And for USAians I'd point out that all that unwarranted (as in no warrant) spying did not prevent the Chicago bombing and did get a women raided by the FBI when her husband lost his job and the boss checked his browser, see El Reg story.
That's really a low blow. For all the hassle they get, the constant travelling, the long debates that run into the evening/night, and the exposure they have to their constituents and their problems, most MPs are not in it for the money, and many of them care passionately about their constituents.
I don't know whether you follow your MP, but if you did, you would probably be surprised by how many days they don't get back home in the evening, or how readily they are prepared to talk to any of their constituents.
Rather than constantly being in hotels, they are allowed to have an expensed second residence. If their permanent residence is in their home constituency, then this second residence will be in London or the home counties. If they have been parachuted into a constituency, then it may be there (although I would like all MPs to actually live in their constituency).
Because they are often out of their constituency, they are normally allowed to run an expensed office with some staff there. Often, MPs top-up the running of their constituency office out of their own pocket, or have family members working for more hours than they are paid.
And like almost any other employed person, they are allowed to claim justifiable travel expenses and ad-hock accommodation costs when away from any of their residences.
So yes, they do claim high expenses, because they do things that need paying for. And, yes, sometimes the rules have been abused. But probably not too much now (cases in the media nowadays are mostly historical).
They do not join Parliament to make money, at least not while they are an MP. Mostly people do it because they want to make a difference, and precious few manage this against the political machine. If they get well known, they may make money afterwards by taking directorships or on the public speaking circuit, but I suspect that many MPs after they leave office either move into local government, find normal jobs or retire. Only a few make the really big bucks. Most just grow grey and disillusioned.
So you want to argue that the SUCCESS of the security services in the UK in preventing terror deaths is used against them? How completely moronic! You do realise that in the same period thousands have died as a direct result of terrorist action in countries which do not have the same safeguards?
By your argument, we should stop all of the annual billion dollar cancer research because, collectively, we can't prove it may save more than a few thousand people Worldwide every year. Indeed, one of the problems with research is there are many deadends which mean the money invested in that research actually ended up saving no-one. Research into child obesity? Scrap it, you say, because the LFFs can just be made to go running. HIV and AIDS research? I bet you think they had it coming so why spend millions a year when we can tell the victims to just realise it was all their fault in the first place for being junkies and pervs, right? How about road safety? Same for that as we've reached the point where adding road safety features in the UK may probably only save an extra dozen people a year, so why bother? Of course, I'm sure you'd change your tune if it was a relative or someone you actually care about, you mindless cluetard.
Nice straw man argument Matt, but medical research and mass snooping by the government are not the same thing.
Could you please cite your sources that show how many lives have been saved by said surveillance intelligence? The US government has already admitted the intelligence they gather has been next to useless at actually stopping any attacks on their home soil.
http://theweek.com/article/index/254401/is-the-nsas-data-snooping-actually-effective
"Nice straw man argument Matt...." So nice I see you just can't counter it? At what point do we decide saving a life is "too expensive", either medically or security-wise? Oh, sorry, you probably didn't want me to raise that point seeing as it tramples all over the moronic arguments of you sheeple.
"....medical research and mass snooping by the government are not the same thing...." Even a broken clock is right at least twice a day, now all you have to do is be right about one more thing and you'll prove it. Sorry, but, going on your post, I rate your chances as close to zero.
".....Could you please cite your sources that show how many lives have been saved by said surveillance intelligence?...." How's this for a simple comparison - the number of people killed by terrorists in the US and UK yesterday is zero, compared to the five people killed by Islamist terrorists (that would dearly love to kill Yanks and Brits) in Iraq alone. BTW, three of those five were videoed being beheaded by their AQ murderers. Now, YOU stop bleating for a minute and try and answer one simple question - if the security services aren't doing anything useful, why is AQ unable to mount attacks other than by lone-wolf nutjobs in the US or UK? Do you think they've changed their minds? Don't worry, the rest of us will give you a nice long pause to think about it seeing as thinking for yourself is obviously such a taxing and unfamilar task to you.
""Nice straw man argument Matt...." So nice I see you just can't counter it? At what point do we decide saving a life is "too expensive", either medically or security-wise? Oh, sorry, you probably didn't want me to raise that point seeing as it tramples all over the moronic arguments of you sheeple."
- Why would I bother trying to counter an invalid argument, other than pointing out that it is invalid. Not sure why you feel the need for name calling : (
""....medical research and mass snooping by the government are not the same thing...." Even a broken clock is right at least twice a day, now all you have to do is be right about one more thing and you'll prove it. Sorry, but, going on your post, I rate your chances as close to zero."
- I honestly have no idea what you are trying to communicate with your response?!?
"".....Could you please cite your sources that show how many lives have been saved by said surveillance intelligence?...." How's this for a simple comparison - the number of people killed by terrorists in the US and UK yesterday is zero, compared to the five people killed by Islamist terrorists (that would dearly love to kill Yanks and Brits) in Iraq alone. BTW, three of those five were videoed being beheaded by their AQ murderers. Now, YOU stop bleating for a minute and try and answer one simple question - if the security services aren't doing anything useful, why is AQ unable to mount attacks other than by lone-wolf nutjobs in the US or UK? Do you think they've changed their minds?"
- So basically, you believe that without mass state sponsored surveillance on it's citizens, the country would basically be overrun by sadistic religious nut-jobs. Yet your only evidence is to cite the number of "terrorist" killings in Iraq, a country still in the midst of a tribal/religious war? Please tell me more!!
"Don't worry, the rest of us will give you a nice long pause to think about it seeing as thinking for yourself is obviously such a taxing and unfamilar task to you."
- Actually the math is not that hard. If someone could prove to me with credible verifiable data that mass surveillance is value for money, and really saves a ton of lives, then I'd be all for it. Feel free to post those stats and make me a changed man.
@killakrust: If you haven't worked it out yet, Matt could start an argument in a vacuum - whether it be invalid or not. You know the type you used to meet at school who would argue away until you gave up as it was all pointless at which point they'd happily feel that they'd "won" thus justifying their position.
"....Why would I bother trying to counter an invalid argument...." Yeah, it's "invalid" when you can't argue against it, right? Why don't you start by saying why it is "invalid"? Maybe because you can't....?
"....I honestly have no idea what you are trying to communicate ...." Don't worry, I was merely trying to throw you a bone by highlighting the fact you actually got something right, a rarity for a member of the flock. Unfortunately, I used far too much sarcasm for your simple witts to follow. Aplogies for not realising the dismal depths of your crass stupidity.
"....So basically, you believe that without mass state sponsored surveillance on it's citizens, the country would basically be overrun by sadistic religious nut-jobs....." Did I say over-run? I said we would be suffering far more attacks. You have avoided answering the question as to why you think AQ have been unable to mount such spectaculars in the UK or US despite them being able to in such countries as Kenya. Don't worry, most of us have already worked out it's beacuse you want to avoid the question, that it probably makes your head hurt to consider.
"....Yet your only evidence is to cite the number of "terrorist" killings in Iraq, a country still in the midst of a tribal/religious war?...." We in the UK weren't in the grip of "tribal/religious war" when the London Tube bombings happened, and I'm pretty sure there wasn't any modern-day Crusade going on in the States on 9/11. But both countries have plenty of AQ sympathisers that would love to act. Oh, sorry, did you not want me to point out the incredibly obvious? Well, obvious to the non-baaah-lievers, anyway. Oh, and violence in Iraq, especially from AQ, was massively reduced under the Allies, but has risen since the US (and associated security services) reduced their role and left it to the Iraqis (who do not have Echelon-like capabilities). Maybe you want to pretend otherwise, but the simple fact is the security services ARE protecting even mindless numpties like yourself.
> I said we would be suffering far more attacks. You have avoided answering the question as to why you think AQ have been unable to mount such spectaculars in the UK or US despite them being able to in such countries as Kenya.
Iraq or Kenya vs the UK are not exactly ceteris paribus comparisons, are they, Matt? Is the level of comms surveillance the only difference here or could other contributing factors be
- large numbers of Sunnis and Shias in Iraq keen to do each other's heads in,
- similarly tribal hatred in Kenya,
- a higher number of willing terrorists native to the countries, poverty possibly contributing to radicalisation,
- an influx of terrorists, weapons and explosives from other, often neighbouring countries vs relatively decent border control on this island and in any country with a bit of a budget,
- a less corrupt and better equipped police force,
- a better chance to effect whatever change they want to in an already unstable country?
The presence of US/UK forces in Iraq again is likely to have an influence all on its own, even without comms surveillance.
In a nutshell, your whole comparison is ludicrous and pointless to start with.
"....Iraq or Kenya vs the UK are not exactly ceteris paribus comparisons...." They're just comparisons you don't want to make is what you actually mean.
"....large numbers of Sunnis and Shias in Iraq keen to do each other's heads in...." In the UK we have a massive Muslim population, both Shia and Sunni, from India and Pakistan, plus many Middle Eastern countries. We already know plenty of AQ sympathisers exist in the UK, as shown by 7/7, Anjem Choudray and his associates, plus the jihadis that are traveling by the dozen to fight for AQ in Syria and Somalia. Oh, sorry, I shouldn't have said 'we' as you are obviously very unaware. But the 7/7 events show you do not need a large number of Sunni and Shias trying to kill each other, so your point is completely moot. Were the 7/7 bombers or the 9/11 hijackers targeting Shias? No, they were targeting Brits and Yanks, and AQ put a lot of time, effort, cash and resources into those two attacks, so pretending the Sunni-Shia schism is the only reason for Islamic terror is stupid beyond words, and thinking (sic in your case) that we are safe because we are not Iraq is beyond putting your head in the sand.
".....similarly tribal hatred in Kenya...." WTF? The attack on the Westgate mall had NOTHING to do with tribal enmity!?! All the attackers were al-Shabaab Somalians, not Kenyans. Seriously, STFU and go do some reading you ignorant moron.
".....a higher number of willing terrorists native to the countries....." So what is the critical number you think we need before AQ would act in the UK? The 7/7 bombings were just four Islamic nutters, do you seriously want to pretend there aren't four more AQ sympathisers in the UK? Even 9/11 actually only required 19 actual hijackers. I'm guessing you simply don't know that the are currently 200+ UK citizens fighting in Syria alone, the majority for AQ. Every dribbling post you make simply exposes more of your willful ignorance.
".....vs relatively decent border control on this island and in any country with a bit of a budget..." Please, stop it, your desperation is looking downright childish! Thanks to the EU, we threw away the majority of our border controls years ago! It is actually INTELLIGENCE which leads to the majority of seizures of drugs, people smuggling, weapons smuggling, etc., etc. So what you are moaning about - US and UK eavesdropping - you actually ADMIT is a factor in STOPPING terror attacks in the UK. Face it, you are so full of the brown stuff you really don't have a clue what you're dribbling about.
"....- a better chance to effect whatever change they want to in an already unstable country?...." Very much avoiding the fact one of the reasons it is an unstable country is BECAUSE they no longer have access to the US-led intelligence gathering that the Allies had when they were securing Iraq. The US is being very restrictive over what intelligence material they pass on to the current Iraqi administration and the results are easy to see - no intel, more terrorism. Oh, I mean easy to see if you're not a blinkered dolt, crippled by your socio-political failings.
".....The presence of US/UK forces in Iraq again is likely to have an influence all on its own, even without comms surveillance....." An influence as in giving the jihadis the excuse they crave, the very rallying cry bin Ladin used in Saudi and Afghanistan and Iraq, i.e., expel the 'Crusaders' from Islamic lands? You obviously do not know that bin Ladin and his nutty crew think they need to 'purify' all Islamic countries of any Western influences. The return of the Allies would act as a magnet to AQ sympathisers all over the Middle East, as seen by their prior rush to support and fight for Saddam prior to the 2003 invasion. Your arguments are not just lame, they are counter to the very points you try to make. In a nutshell, you claim our security services do nothing to combat terrorism, then claim the reason we are not seeing the same level of attacks as Iraq is because our security forces are stopping terrorists for operating effectively in the UK or US..... Way to make my point for me!
It's quite simple and obvious, Matt. It's much easier for terrorists to operate in unstable countries with worse border control and higher levels of corruption such as Iraq and Kenya than in the UK.
That alone does suffice to make your comparison non-ceteris paribus and gone is your point. Your verbosity illustrates how much that bothers you but it does not detract from the facts.
"It's quite simple and obvious, Matt. It's much easier for terrorists to operate in unstable countries with worse border control and higher levels of corruption such as Iraq and Kenya than in the UK....." So you want to admit terrorists like AQ are finding it hard to act in the UK due to it being "stable", but desperately want to deny that "stability" is due in any way to the GCHQ monitoring? Wow, you really have taken denial to a new level!
".....That alone does suffice to make your comparison non-ceteris paribus...." And now you're bleating in Latin! I'd be impressed if I hadn't already explained EXACTLY why, all things actually being equal, the comparison was a load of cobblers.
"..... Your verbosity illustrates how much that bothers you...." You're bleating illustrates exactly how much you are despearte to avoid the actual points of the discussion. And how you are still evading the issue of providing any proof of how your rights have been infringed and you have been "harmed" by the NSA or GCHQ actions. Oh, what, were you hoping I'd just forget about that? Sorry to break it to you but us non-sheeple have attention spans longer than the goldfish-levels of your flock. So, where's your proof?
> So you want to admit terrorists like AQ are finding it hard to act in the UK due to it being "stable", but desperately want to deny that "stability" is due in any way to the GCHQ monitoring?
What I'm saying is that from a comparison of the number of terrorist attacks in Iraq and the UK "yesterday" it does not follow that the difference is down to that GCHQ monitoring alone if at all, so your point is nada. That's so obvious, it saddens me that you need this explained over and over again.
> And how you are still evading the issue of providing any proof of how your rights have been infringed and you have been "harmed" by the NSA or GCHQ actions.
When have I spoken of rights infringement or harm caused to me? You're once more confused as to who you are talking to, Matt. That's something I reckon you may have discussed with killakrust but don't take my word for it. Your homework to find out really.
"....What I'm saying is that from a comparison of the number of terrorist attacks in Iraq and the UK "yesterday" it does not follow that the difference is down to that GCHQ monitoring alone if at all, so your point is nada...." Why is it 'nada'? And you can't just say because you want to baaaah-lieve it is so. It seems a very simple comparison - AQ obviously feel better able to act in Iraq, as shown by the killings where there is no matching surveillance, than they do in the UK, as shown by the lack of killings and we know they know the GCHQ and NSA are looking for their sympathisers online here in the UK. It follows one of the factors crippling their ability to act is their fear of discovery, and very obvious given their previous reliance on email and other electronic coms that they are now have problems communicating with their sympathisers and probable activists here in the UK. It seems a very simple and obvious logical statement, but then I suspect you prefer not to use logic but instead give precedence to your petty paranoias and sad socio-political outlook. As I have asked before, and as you have constantly failed to answer, why do you think AQ have not been able to repeat their 9/11 and 7/7 successes, what factor do you think has stopped them? Do you want to pretend it was that they all had a change of heart?
Oh, and BTW, we already know that the terrorists are scared of detection and have tried changing their coms since Snowdope's treasonous jaunt (http://www.theregister.co.uk/Print/2013/11/07/terrorists_switching_ccmms_techniques_because_of_sncwden_leaks_claims_gchq_chief/).
"....When have I spoken of rights infringement or harm caused to me?...." You insisted all your own emails and Internet activity was being intercepted and analysed, you stated this was an invasion of your privacy and trampled on your rights, yet you seem to be unable to show any harm (or any actual proof your coms were analysed at all). It just seems to be your paranoid and egotistical fantasises talking. As suggested before, get over yourself, you are simply of no interest to anyone.
>> When have I spoken of rights infringement or harm caused to me? You're once more confused as to who you are talking to, Matt. That's something I reckon you may have discussed with killakrust but don't take my word for it. Your homework to find out really.
> You insisted all your own emails and Internet activity was being intercepted and analysed, you stated this was an invasion of your privacy and trampled on your rights...
Should be easy enough to quote me then. The stage is all yours.
"....The stage is all yours." Oh, what, so you can wriggle out of answering the points raised yet again? You have posted numerous times stating (a) your coms are being intercepted (you dribbled about your packets being analysed), (b) that the NSA and GCHQ activities cause 'harm', and (c) that you continue to maintain they are 'illegal' long after they have been shown to be completely legal. Now, do you want to try and answer the points I raised or do you just want to carry on playing avoidance games? Don't worry, we all know it's the latter - you simply don't want to face facts.
It's neither news nor a surprise that you struggle to keep track, Matt.
> "....The stage is all yours." Oh, what, so you can wriggle out of answering the points raised yet again? You have posted numerous times stating (a) your coms are being intercepted (you dribbled about your packets being analysed), (b) that the NSA and GCHQ activities cause 'harm', and (c) that you continue to maintain they are 'illegal' long after they have been shown to be completely legal.
If I had it'd be the simplest thing to quote. Stage is all yours. Still.
"....Stage is all yours. Still." What you mean is you are still avoiding the points raised. God try on obfuscation but it is plainly obvious you have no intention of returning anywhere near the topic of the thread. This is my surprised face, honest. You have been caught out lying and want to avoid an argument you have already lost, as you do in so many threads, and are now just desperate to dodge admitting either. What a sad little sheep you are. Does it really pain you that much to realise no-one would actually want to read your pitiful, bleating coms?
As previosusly requested, stop running away and answer the question - if the security services aren't doing anything useful, why is AQ unable to mount attacks other than by lone-wolf nutjobs in the US or UK? You've had more than long enough to try thinking of an answer, certainly long enough for you to try all manner of evasions, and I really don't think your imaginary kids are going to be asking for a game of football in this weather, so ANSWER THE QUESTION.
"How completely moronic! You do realise that in the same period thousands have died as a direct result of terrorist action in countries which do not have the same safeguards?"
I wonder how many have died in countries with more pervasive security regimes
Probably at the hands of their own government?
But keep playing the strawmen. It's what your good at.
"By your argument, we should stop all of the annual billion dollar cancer research because, collectively, we can't prove it may save more than a few thousand people Worldwide every year. I"
Bring on the strawmen again Mattie.
As you'd know Mattie boy, if you've read my post you'll know there are values placed on human lives.
And they are not unlimited.
I'd say all of the causes you mentioned have saved more lives (in fact any of them) have saved more lives that your visceral love of mass surveillance.
In truth I can only think of 2 reasons for your frankly bats**t craze stance on this subject.
a)Your company has a big contract with some TLA and more snooping is good for business. "HP, our servers spy on more people than any other mfg on the planet" That also fits with the anorak level HP server wars you engage in.
b)You had some sort of childhood trauma and desperately seek the security that somehow you believe this sort of mass surveillance brings you. Like crime victims turning their houses into fortresses following following a mugging/burglary/rape
Which is just sad. It's like a shifted version of the data fetishist..
>Write a real letter to your elected representative.
Why?
One person I know, who had been e-mailing his representitive about the GCHQ JTRIG revelations (which went even further than DDoS'ing IRC) said a few days ago that his representitive had been fired/resigned.
Why? His representitive was the immigration minister, who had hired illegal immigrants to clean for him.
Hypocrites, the fucking lot of them.
This representative may have been a bit hypocritical. That does not mean they all are.
If you are talking about Mark Harper, then he resigned as a minister, not as an MP. And the statement from Downing Street says "there was no suggestion the 43-year-old Conservative MP for the Forest of Dean had knowingly employed an illegal immigrant". It looks like he was shown the required documents at the time (2007), but did not follow up by checking that the cleaner had an indefinite right to stay, and eventually ended up working beyond what her visa allowed. So she was a legal immigrant who overstayed her visa. Not the same thing as employing an illegal immigrant.
When he found out, he resigned on principal, not because he had to. He is exactly the type of MP I would want!
.
By saying that it is pointless to even try to engage, you are descending into apathy, unless you are advocating direct action, which may see you branded as a terrorist yourself, depending on the scale of your action.
"Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time." - Churchill.
Matt: "You insisted all your own emails and Internet activity was being intercepted and analysed, you stated this was an invasion of your privacy and trampled on your rights..."
Me: "Should be easy enough to quote me then. The stage is all yours."
Matt: "You have posted numerous times stating (a) your coms are being intercepted (you dribbled about your packets being analysed), (b) that the NSA and GCHQ activities cause 'harm', and (c) that you continue to maintain they are 'illegal' long after they have been shown to be completely legal."
Just quote where I said this and we can move on and discuss your favourite topic, Matt. What's stopping you?
The fact that I never did say all this?
Still evading I see. As previosusly requested, stop running away and answer the question - if the security services aren't doing anything useful, why is AQ unable to mount attacks other than by lone-wolf nutjobs in the US or UK? You've had more than long enough to try thinking of an answer, certainly long enough for you to try all manner of evasions, and I really don't think your imaginary kids are going to be asking for a game of football in this weather, so ANSWER THE QUESTION. The question won't go away just because you desperately want it to.
Not evading, Matt. Just trying to ensure that you do understand what it is that I have and haven't said. There's little point discussing anything further if you are intellectually incapable of following a conversation and are evidently not even making an effort to do so.
So once more:
Matt: "You insisted all your own emails and Internet activity was being intercepted and analysed, you stated this was an invasion of your privacy and trampled on your rights..."
Me: "Should be easy enough to quote me then. The stage is all yours."
Matt: "You have posted numerous times stating (a) your coms are being intercepted (you dribbled about your packets being analysed), (b) that the NSA and GCHQ activities cause 'harm', and (c) that you continue to maintain they are 'illegal' long after they have been shown to be completely legal."
Just quote where I said this and we can move on. I guess by now we both know you can't and are too embarrassed to admit to it.
"....He does tend to 'invent'...." LOL, evade all you like, I see you're too scared to even acknowledge the question I posed, let alone 'invent' an answer. Why so scared of the question, does it go right to the root of your denial? In your version of reality do jihadis just not exist, or do you just not want people to realise the extent of AQ support in both the UK and USA? I'd like to think maybe you're just suffering from a particularly zealous and blinkered affliction of political correctness, but given your determination to dodge the issue I'd have to suspect you have another reason.
"Not evading, Matt. Just trying to ...." Evade. Again. It's OK, I didn't expect you to actually be able to manage independent thought when so many of your 'ideals' are so obviously spoonfed to you. But exposing your desperate attempts to avoid the subject does supply more than a wry smile. I suppose the real question is why are you so scared to think for yourself? Have you been told dreadful things will happen to you if you don't bleat in tune with the rest of the flock? Scared of the idea of maybe being ostracised by the 'cool' kids? LOL!
".....Throughout January, 16 people were arrested on suspicion of terror offences after travelling between Syria and the UK - that compares with 24 in the whole of 2013....."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-26214793
But, according to Pstupidonymous, Blinkered Bernie and BlueGreenLoser, they don't exist at all, and we shouldn't be 'wasting money' looking for them either. It's about time they realises their petite socialist, wannabe rebel bleatings are just denial writ big.
Hi lambchop,
> But, according to [...] BlueGreenLoser, they don't exist at all, and we shouldn't be 'wasting money' looking for them either.
But plumpo, I never said anything of the sort! You being naughty and making things up again?
Also plumps, I refer you to my questions in my other posts which for some reason you seem to have evaded answer twice. So again, and I realise you're really struggling with this one but intellectual honesty is important, right?
* You appeared to endorse the viewing of animal pornography (after unkindly attributing such viewing to another respondent named obnoxiousGit). Yes? No?
* You concede that widespread analysis of net traffic is in fact taking place. Yes? No?
Third time lucky, perhaps...
".... I refer you to my questions in my other posts which for some reason you seem to have evaded answer twice...." Apologies, Loser, but the delay in my posting a reply and your being able to dribble another evasion is because the moderator decided that one of your sheeple buddies breaking forum rules meant I should get automatic extended moderation on posts. Hence the delay. Hey, I'm sure it made sense to him, no bias at all..... Maybe he thought it would give you three sheep a sporting chance?
Oh, BTW, all you sheeple sound the same, probably something to do with that hive 'mind' of you all having been spoonfed the same male bovine manure until it dribbles out your ears. You all demonstrate the same poor education, lack of general knowledge and inability to grasp even the basics of history or politics. IMHO, it's a wonder you can even type posts for yourselves, though I suppose the continual regurgitation of the same untruths and fabrications probably does make it a bit easier for you. It would be quicker and simpler if you, Psutpidonymous and Blinkered Bertie all got together and just made posts as one. It might even give you a combined IQ in three figures.
No, you're on premoderation because you broke the forum rules.
I'd have rejected the above post but I want to make it clear what is and isn't acceptable in our comment threads. The above mindless abuse is not. Kindly moderate your tone, or I shall do it for you.
> but the delay in my posting a reply [...] is because the moderator decided that one of your sheeple buddies breaking forum rules meant I should get automatic extended moderation on posts. Hence the delay. Hey, I'm sure it made sense to him, no bias at all
Matt, I thought people here were only moderated for going against the House Rules not on the basis of a moderator's bias. And I thought they were rather generous with you, seeing how e.g. "Seriously, STFU and go do some reading you ignorant moron" directed at me in your post here http://forums.theregister.co.uk/forum/1/2014/02/10/tuesday_declared_the_day_we_fight_back_against_nsa_et_al/#c_2104958 has been allowed to stand.
One among many I thought generous gestures towards you. Sadly, I have to say though, since I find that drags the whole forum down since I find even myself more ready to make disparaging remarks towards you as a result (though I'll never get anywhere near your levels of vitriol).
How exactly do you think the moderator(s) is/are biased against you?
And the sheeple are still dodging the question posed. Not a surprise. BTW, your fellow sheeple broke forum rule 9 - don't make libelous statements. Apparently, it was unsporting of me to draw attention to his little tantrum.
BTW, Gaz, is it OK to point out they are still dodging the question or will that also somehow become "abuse" in your eyes?
@BlueGreen, misquoting or just making up shit appears to be Matt's way of coping.
I'm somewhat entertained that the Urban Dictionary definition of "having your ass handed to you" offers up this fantastically well addressed example:
"Matt, having your ass handed to you a couple of times can teach you a little humility"
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
