UN to Five Eyes nations: Your mass surveillance is breaking the law Edward Snowden should be shielded from prosecution because the world needs people willing to expose violations of human rights, says the UN's High Commissioner for Human rights Navi Pillay. Speaking at the launch of a report into digital privacy, Pillay said Snowden's revelations “go to the core” of the UN's concerns about …
And what are YOU, Sabroni, going to do about it? See, that little game can go on ad nauseum. By the way, I'm doing nothing because I firmly believe that neither myself as an individual nor we in our collective millions can stop, slow down or deter anybody from amassing data, simply because knowledge is power. Besides, the only thing I can do is withdraw from the system, get rid of my cell phone, landline, internet connection then computer, bank accounts (with my credit and debit cards), employer, multiple insurance policies, driver's license and vehicle, library card, cable tv, magazine subscriptions, and soon, cash transactions, and finally go live in a hole in the ground. Oh wait, didn't Saddam try that already? We are not little guys to the real power brokers; we are nothing guys. And nothing, that is, zero times x, whether x is one or a billion is still zero.
The old cliche is you can't fight city hall. We know that isn't quite true because some individuals have done just that by expending prodigious amounts of effort and resources. Now multiply that by the size of the national or world stage. The godfathers of this world don't owe us; we owe them and they will never relent on any issue unless it gains them more money or power, not less. You want to live in a different world, go join a commune, but be aware, while you are hiding under your communal rock the rest of the world will keep on turning, and when you emerge blinkingly from under that rock you will only find it even more difficult to suffer the world order.
You can change your own little corner of the world, but unless you want the rest of the world to rain down on your head like some kind of metaphorical Armageddon, you'll have to go along to get along. It all makes me so sad, Sigh.
Guys, if you can't think of anything to do yourself, it's not a bad idea to support the people who require your funding to work in the right direction for you:
Electronic Frontier Foundation
Open Rights Group
Liberty
Big Brother Watch
Or any of the others listed at the bottom of this page: https://www.dontspyonus.org.uk/org
If you're not already supporting one or more of them, may I urge you to set up a small monthly donation at your earliest convenience.
At this point, the UN is nothing more than the world's conscience.
If governments want to know how they SHOULD act for the benefit of all mankind then they should listen to the UN.
However as was proved with the Iraq invasion, just as with our own conscience, it's easy to ignore that voice saying you shouldn't be doing something when all of your instincts are reaching out for the things you desire.
The UN is powerless because selfish national interests keep holding back the human race from breaking the historical cycle of greed, war and conquest that always seems to occupy the minds of those with power.
it is EFFECTIVELY powerless because nations who wish it to do their bidding are all the rest of the time content to frustrate its ability to act.
And because (as they say in Nigeria) a tree that won't hold your weight when you lean on it can't hurt when it falls on you.
it is a lost cause. Only public noises that mention UN these days seem to be social engineers or panic merchants. Usual FUD from the Fat Man yesterday if we don't encourage additional snooping and data retention. Odd given that under Oz law, such as it is, there is no restraint already. Loyally serving his masters in the USSA I suppose. Perhaps costs should come out of pollies superannuation and secret police budget so auditing of activities can be done by forensic accountants.
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." - Edmund Burke
Or to say nothing. Technology has given those who govern unprecedented capabilities to monitor and record the details of an individual's life. They are using it, and will continue to expand its use, unless voices are raised against the practice.
This is a case where silence is assent. The fact that an individual or institution lacks the power to take action does NOT excuse them from the obligation to speak out for what they believe is right.
"You can present the material, but you can't make me care." - Bill Watterson
I am constantly amazed and infuriated by the widespread apathy when it comes to privacy and the invasion of it. Governments exist to protect the rights of citizens to live in a certain way, not to dictate what that way is/should be. I used to be proud of the fact that I could walk down the street without someone in a uniform saying “Papiere, Bitte”; proud of my country and for the countless men and women who fought for my freedom to do exactly that.
Well, the biggest problem is WHAT CAN WE DO? One poster mentions social media. I think as far as the big governments are concerned, social media has the significance of, as Robert Heinlein put it "squeals of kittens in box." Here in the US, you can vote for the Republicans, who favor mass surveillance, or you can vote for the Democrats, who favor mass surveillance. Gotta run out and vote! So, my question is what, exactly, should the good men do to try to put an end to the horror? Much of the apathy isn't really apathy, it's just that those opposed to Big Brother don't have any effective plan of action.
I am opposed to mass survelillance, but surely UN has bigger rights issues on it's plate than this?
Women/gays being stoned to death, soccer playing Palestinian kids being straffed by Isrealies,...
The 5 eyes nations are all reasonably democratic, with citizens who are reasonably empowered to act. It is not like they're in dictatorships where the citizens have no control over the issues.
It is far more important that the UN help those who lack the power to help themselves.
So by your reasoning, we should simply ignore every issue and problem in the world until the single worst one (as defined by you) has been solved, and thus resolve them one at a time in order of importance?
You are aware that there are enough people on this planet, that we can examine and solve multiple problems simultaneously, right?
There is no moral authority if we do bad shit at home. It becomes do as I say, not as I do, which invalidates every sentiment we send out. Human rights are cajoled on other nations through embarrassment more than anything else and if we're 1984 what the heck place do we have telling anyone else anything. Plus the US executes minors and the mentally incompetent, so, ya know...
I don't pay much attention to the UN and when I do I'm wary of it, worrying that it looks to usurp national sovereignty, but this, this changes things a bit. The organization I was concerned about taking away my rights and freedoms is now the one standing up for them. That's the wrong side of the issue for the USA to be on. If the UN can arrange protection for Snowden and keep up the pressure on this issue I'll be suitably impressed and at the least, will feel they're due some respect.
@Charles Manning
Funny you should say that here with the supposed last name of Manning. Just because there's murders who haven't been caught yet doesn't mean the those who break and enter shouldn't be brought to justice.
@Charles Manning. Sorry about taking issue with your name I see you have a long posting history here, you got in just before I did. It has been shown that governments take an interest in social media and other such things. If we haven't seen their effects yet we most certainly will in the coming months and years. I do reiterate however, Just because there's murders who haven't been caught yet doesn't mean the those who break and enter shouldn't be brought to justice.
This worries me. Whatever else Snowden is, he is an alleged criminal. He stands accused of crimes against his country and he is a fugitive from justice. He has not stood trial, and yet this person seems to be suggesting that he should receive immunity from prosecution on the basis of the crimes he has allegedly committed.
Where does the line get drawn?
I think the Nuremberg trials established that simply obeying orders and laws is not an acceptable defence against actions that are clearly morally abhorrent.
By implication, those who speak out and act against said actions should be protected against perverse laws or illegal orders.
It is the whistle-blower's charter on a grand scale: If you have evidence of wrong-doing you should not be punished for revealing it, but that is kind of hard when the evidence is against the government who is also in charge of the trial & punishment.
Firstly comparing any potential trial against Snowden to the Nuremberg trials - against individuals complicit in the torture and death of millions of people - is at best questionable.
Secondly at least the Nuremberg trials actually had a trial. The individuals faced some form of justice and answered for their crimes. Snowden has had no such "opportunity".
Thirdly - I never said anything about punishing him, I pointed out that he has not faced trial.I don't care where he stands trial - it can be an international court if he feels he will not get justice in the US - but to suggest he should be completely protected from prosecution at all is just wrong.
> Firstly comparing any potential trial against Snowden to the Nuremberg trials - against individuals
> complicit in the torture and death of millions of people - is at best questionable.
At this point, possibly. However, the infrastructure has been put in place what the Nazis or the Soviets could only have dreamt of for spying on their own people. All we need a a financial jolt large enough to make a lot of people hungry and people will accept any leader charismatic enough to persuade them that he has a solution to their problems.
I have little fear of Islamic international terrorists - they have a track record of doing very little damage. National governments on the other hand have a long history of terrorising and slaughtering their populations.
" I have little fear of Islamic international terrorists - they have a track record of doing very little damage. National governments on the other hand have a long history of terrorising and slaughtering their populations."
Can you give me an example of where a national government has "terrorised and slaughtered their population"?
"Can you give me an example of where a national government has "terrorised and slaughtered their population"?"
Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot, Amin, Milosovic and Hussein are all names that spring instantly to mind.
British colonial administrations been involved in massacres of populations that they were governing.
You might also want to include the "USA" in how it dealt with the native Indians (not to mention the first appearance of prisoner camps in the civil war), and the Spanish in various south America countries.
Not to mention government-church sanctioned massacres throughout Europe in the late middle ages, oh yes, and that bit of bother caused by the Romans earlier...
A few nutters have nothing on the ability of national organisation to cause suffering.
Are you speaking with forked tongue about the killing fields? That could end up with you being sent to the gulags, if Robespierre does not drive you across the Atlantic on the mayflower, and no one expects that (their chief weapon is surprise...surprise and fear...fear and surprise.... our two weapons are fear and surprise...and ruthless efficiency.... Our three weapons are fear, surprise, and ruthless efficiency...and an almost fanatical devotion to the Pope.... Our four...no... amongst our weapons.... amongst our weaponry...are such elements as fear, surprise.... ).
<can I stop now please?>
go read a history book, preferably one the ex minster of education would disapprove of
>I have little fear of Islamic international terrorists - they have a track record of doing very little damage. >National governments on the other hand have a long history of terrorising and slaughtering their >populations.
This is exactly my view on this subject. The whole "we need these laws to protect you from terrorism" argument just doesn't stand up.
Rewind back to 1939-1945. If a German had released a cache of documents showing that the Nazis were building concentration camps, would you be "worried" that this German was being excused, after all he was an "alleged criminal" and by releasing the documents was now "accused of crimes against his country?", and it was setting a dangerous precedent that people were calling for his immunity from prosecution?
Theres nothing criminal about going against your country, when your country is committing criminal acts in the first place. Blind, unquestioning loyalty to "your country" is how situations like this arise in the first place. Thats what fascist authoritarian regiemes want, its how they operate.
Where does the line get drawn?
Here, among other places. To wit:
The Whistleblower Protection Act of 1989, Pub.L. 101-12 as amended, is a United States federal law that protects federal whistleblowers who work for the government and report agency misconduct. A federal agency violates the Whistleblower Protection Act if agency authorities take (or threaten to take) retaliatory personnel action against any employee or applicant because of disclosure of information by that employee or applicant. Whistleblowers [1] may file complaints that they believe reasonably evidences a violation of a law, rule or regulation; gross mismanagement; gross waste of funds; an abuse of authority; or a substantial and specific danger to public health or safety.
The public outcry and indignation of allies and domestic US companies co-opted into spying on their users for Uncle Sam has resulted in precisely nothing being done.
The US and UK are still busy at it, they're even rubber-stamping new laws with opposition support. They're talking about improving oversight and so on, but it's just fluff. They're going to keep spying on everyone just as before regardless.
But now thanks to Snowden, we know this. If we want to be protected, we're going to have to do it ourselves. There is probably no hope to make everyone NSA/GCHQ proof, but widespread use of encryption and other technologies could realistically make blanket surveillance impractical and uneconomic.
but widespread use of encryption and other technologies could realistically make blanket surveillance impractical and uneconomic.
sure...
Is that whilst their in the midst involved in all aspects of design/implementation of ecnryption standards ?
Or when you use encryption that they can not decypher and they come knocking on your door?
boom and thats when they pass a law anyone caught will be put in jail for blahdeeblahhh and then a few public cases made out of those they wish to pursue to set examples..
Anyhow whilst their agencies are involved in all aspects of design/implementation of h/w s/w there is no winning I am afraid...
I'm beginning to wonder whether excessive surveillance is a similar thing - 'we cant take action because we are onto something bigger at the moment and dont want to spoil it' and no doubt the big thing will evaporate while they drink their coffee. Or why didn't you spot that? Well we had so much data that by the time we'd trawled through it it was too late - GCHQ and the NSA are packed with coffee drinking Wallys.
TCP/IP protocols were initially developed as part of the research network developed by the United States Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA or ARPA).
Typerwriters for all on sys admin appreciation day - certainly less issues to fix for the system admins
I'd say it was the monitoring of the general population for aberrant behaviour, and the ability to do something about it. Which is just about impossible, look at the efforts North Korea goes to, and still fails. All states, since time immemorial, have done this by monitoring the chatter in the general population. At one time it was about having someone in the right ale house at the right time, someone standing outside to see who goes in and out. Now, that just won't work, the virtual ale houses are much bigger and move around, you can't stick an individual outside, you need to monitor it, see who talks to whom, and listen in to random conversations to pick up intelligence.
How you would detect unknown groups any other way, I don't know, but I do know that the logistics of actually monitoring every individuals behaviour is way beyond the capabilities of any government, let alone doing something about it.
I think a lot of commentators here would change their minds after a close brush with a terrorist or criminal action. Think, how would you identify a cyber criminal or terrorist, if you don't know who they are, and can't find out, unless you have a warrant that identifies them. By the time you have a warrant to look at an identity, it probably isn't there any more. The trick of intelligence is to identify things before they happen, and prevent them happening. Remember that criminals and terrorists look just like you and me, and can come from nice families as much as anywhere else, they can be your friends and neighbours.
"I think a lot of commentators here would change their minds after a close brush with a terrorist or criminal action."
It's a risk I, for one, am prepared to take to live in a free society where I am not treated as a potential terrorist by my government and monitored 24/7.
Terrorism alone can't bring down a nation. Anti-terror laws, however, can.
Isn't that the sad irony.
Bin Laden has won. He'd won on September the 12th, but our betters and wisers were too full of their own cleverness to spot this.
that's the trouble with democracy :-) look around you.... how would you feel about those people organising your pension? picking a retirement home for you? what's the odds that collectively they couldn't even sit the right way round on a toilet.
and they decide who gets to play with the big levers.
.. all we need now is to find a better way to do it :-D
No!
I am sick of reminding people of this!
Terrorists do not use Facebook, Google+, Skype, Twitter, Email etc etc in order to discuss their latest plot, they do not buy bombs from Amazon.
This whole "it's for your own good" argument would be great if it actually held any weight - but - did it stop 9/11? Did it stop the Boston Bombing? Does it help prevent School shootings? Shopping Mall shootings? Airport shootings? Cinema shootings?
It does none of these things!
Anyone who thinks a terrorist group setup a Skype call to plan where to bomb next really ought to get a reality check. We have now reached the point where not only do we know the extent of the NSA/GCHQ surveillance - we also know it's bound to go much much deeper than what has been revealed so far. Yet with all the "intelligence" at hand - they are still unable to stop the majority of what they claim they needed the intelligence for in the first place.
Look at the recent "tools" that we found out about -
the ability to artificially increase traffic to a website,
to change outcome of online polls,
The document also details a range of programs designed to collect and store public postings from Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn and Google+, and to make automated postings on several of the social networks.,
Capabilities to boost views of YouTube videos, or to boost the circulation of particular messages are also detailed
None of these things are even vaguely related to terrorism, or preventing it. They are about altering the outcome of an event - what sort of event? Sticking my tin foil hat on for a moment - GCHQ could easily use that collection of tools to manipulate the outcome of something like - oh I don't know.... who you elect to run the country!
Very well put I would also add that surveillance of your own citizens does nothing to prevent the evil. Going around blowing up things/removing regimes also does nothing to change the underlying strive of those that feel differently to the outlook of others.
The reality is very much related to this topic:
http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/europe/03/12/northern.ireland/index.html?iref=newssearch
You have years of killing going on and none of the security measures actually stop the threat.
What appears to be a good fix is to sit around like grown up adults and discuss the differences. Sort out the underlying issues.
If you ask me this is all an excuse / noise created whilst one side takes advantage of the other and fuels further generations of the same.....
Questions we need to raise to our political leaders is why did they after 10 years decide to sit around in the case of NI.. why not sooner? Why do they not apply this theory to all issues faced around the world ? if not why what is there to gain?
I am afraid our media over here is also pretty much under the control of the same bunch that make all the excuses. Since they do not give a neutral view and properly question the elected to find out why they are doing what they are doing - what the real costs are - what has been gained - what has been lost
ACCOUNTABILITY is what is missing
10 years on from Iraq why is there still violence, thought this was all resolved by their initial process - if no what was GAINED and by whom
I gave you an upvote for believing what you say and for bringing up accountability.
However, I should also downvote you. Yes, things should be discussed and sorted out. However, when dealing with the Middle East, you're dealing with old grudges, religion, minor and major power brokers who's only goal is either to maintain the status quo or to get more power.
Democracy is a great idea, but in many places it won't work as the people have no foundation in it.
As for Iraq, or any place else in that neck of the woods, review it under the context of the guy in power has to be the biggest barbarian on the block in order to control it. If you want to go further west to Isreali/Gaza/Hamas/PLO/etc. area, look at the history of lies and broken promises from the powers further to their east. The Palestinians were offered citizenship but the players and power brokers to east promised them much if they said "no" and fought it. The powers then reneged on their promises.
There's damn little accountability in that area.
We spent a huge chunk of our GDP on defence, had spies, spy planes, satellites electronic intelligence gathering for 50years and failed to notice the USSR ending (in the case of the MoD failed to notice it 2years after it happened).
So spotting terrorists is probably a little tricky.
"I'd say it was the monitoring of the general population for aberrant behaviour"
And who decides what aberrant behaviour is and when it is wrong? Much of what this government indulges in may not be seen as aberrant, but it is certainly abhorrent to many. Anyone who feels that way could well be targetted because they represent a miniscule threat to the status quo, which cannot be allowed. It's odd to feel increasingly like an extremist because I would like everyone to be a bit nicer to each other and I'd rather the country had a bit of genuine democracy rather than being run by corporations. I don't want to be spied on all the time because of those apparently aberrant opinions.
"have you ever stopped to ask what the cause of the potential threat is or why there is a threat"
Despite absence of a question mark, I assume that's posed as a question.
Answer, yes I have. My answer: terrorists, extremists, other enemies of the state hitherto unidentified but who may be identified because of surveillance (and thus prevented from doing harm)
lol rather dumb answer back
So what makes lets take 1st point
terrorists?
Define terrorists for all of us - who are they ? what made them terrorists ?
Research Osama since he was one but befor he was labelled as one he had been working as part of the CIA.. so What made someone working for them turn against them.
The question is again what or who defines a terrorist since to us what may appear as a terrorist is another's freedom fighter.
The same thing is happening again with ISIS - were they not funded not too long ago by the west to over turn Syrian regime ? the same regime whos leader/wife was educated in the west ?
I think you are clueless about what garbage they have fed you for years and here you trying convince us that you do understand it - it is what the system dictated to you
The truth is a lot more complex but all related to wealth/resources
Without oil I doubt there be any hair terrorists making you feel unsafe in your concrete/lead ridden prison that you call freedom
"Define terrorists for all of us - who are they ? what made them terrorists ?"
OK, as an example. The members of the IRA, who defined themselves as terrorists because they disagreed with the decision of a democratically-elected government. The members of the IRA who murdered friends and colleagues.
Another example? OK. I guess we'd agree that the perpetrators of the September 11th attacks were terrorists. I lost a friend in those attacks as well.
So....please do excuse me for having reason to be p***ed off about terrorists an dthe fact that they've taken friends away from me...and for wondering if maybe it would be a good idea to do things which can stop similar things happening again.
please do excuse me for having reason to be p***ed off about terrorists
That makes it out fault ? or do you really feel more comforted knowing everything anyone does in these 5+ nations is being observed by others and thus this equates to a safer life that you will have ?
ok here is my first answer
ahhhhhh hahahahahahahhahahahaa
Here is something for you to look into, mayebe if your friend's name had been Salman Rushdie he would have already known about it and kept well clear, I know this is not a great reliable source but you will find it other places, conspiracists sure - but I don't believe the real version for 1 second: http://www.prisonplanet.com/911/warned.htm
. Which leaves 7/7 http://www.rense.com/general67/says.htm go look up David Shayler and 7/7. The media tried to make a joke out of him for his revelations but seriously you think about it if you were whistle blowing truth would the people that be uncovered for lying not do the same to you.
Dude they knew about it and yet they did nothing to tell us - why ? the question lies in pearl harbour.
The answer is reason to fuel war - to make war you need to win the hearts of your nation - and no better way than fear.
So I am afraid all of this other nonsense about wanting to know when I fart or pick my nose or turning on any ones android to spy on them etc is all to excessive since before they were doing any of this they knew about all of them....
So please do us all a favour find a nice cell 10 layers down and lock your self up in there - you will be safe.
"OK, as an example. The members of the IRA, who defined themselves as terrorists because they disagreed with the decision of a democratically-elected government. The members of the IRA who murdered friends and colleagues."
just answered about 9/11 and 7/7 and forgot about IRA. I don't think any means introduced to spy on the UK citizens helped resolve IRA situation, I posted to another comment earlier : Anonymous Coward Re: What do you think mass surveillance is? (on page 1) which has a link to a new headline about IRA peace talks being actual solution to long on going issues.
In 2014 their no longer terrorists in the eyes of the UK, Sin Fein can speak on TV etc etc. I think its a big label like the red skull you would see on sulphuric acid and over night after peace talks you are neatural ph7 friendly h2o. Seriously is this possible ?
Says a lot my friend about the state of our world and the so called labelling our elite define and redeem as they see fit.
Surely by now lots of questions should be riddling through your mind ? as in if you read that other post and start asking what is to gain from doing one thing one way and one another....
when logically putting humanity into the question
Over historical events resembling current situation has happened over and over again and the answer has always been we just need to find a way to get along. since killing one another in the end resolves nothing.
So if it can be stopped and when no real effort/push is made to sit and talk. To clear up issues from the very early days then alarm bells should ring...... why and for what reason and for what gains..
Looking at the up/down votes, it appears that the writer is in a minority. The will of the majority of the people runs strongly counter to the sentiment expressed.
The majority of humans appear to be built to accept a certain amount of risk in return for the freedom to make certain life choices--my favorite example being that so many choose to live on top of the San Andreas fault in San Francisco.
The majority, in fact, pay a quite a bit--in dollars, and in blood--to provide a measure of security for all. The minority who desire to have guaranteed security do not have the right to insist that the majority relinquish rights that are essential to what gives quality and meaning to their lives.
The statement attributed to Ben Franklin to the effect that those who would trade freedom for security will get and deserve neither applies here.
"It makes me feel safe to know that the powers-that-be are watching for potential threats to the safety and welfare of me and my country."
Except that the only people they're watching are the innocent and the idiots. The actual threats can still evade detection if they choose.
People are commenting that this is of no consequence because most states ignore the UN. I disagree: By laying down the legal arguments that show mass surveillance to be unlawful, and giving said arguments the moral authority and independence of the UN, I believe that the report provides much greater scope for legal challenges against the snooping, from both individuals and corporations. Even if such challenges fail, the existence of a clear and authoritative legal position make it difficult for such challenges to be simply batted-away by the government - the cases would have to be heard, and would not be lawful if heard in closed court. The securocracy could very quickly find itself mired in thousands - even millions - of law suits.
The report also makes clear that corporations that act illegally, even if at the behest of their host state, are still acting illegally and therefore can themselves be open to legal challenges no matter what supposed indemnity is granted by the state. Again, we could make it extremely expensive and difficult for corporations to "cooperate" with government snooping.
Furthermore, having laid down (in no uncertain terms) the unlawfullness of mass surveillance, the way is paved for the "Five-Eyes" nations (not to mention others) to be de-listed from the signatories of the UN Declaration of Human Rights. "Big deal" you may say, but I suspect that US, UK, Oz, etc. etc. governments would have a very hard time explaining to their electorates why they were being censured by the UN - after all, this is the sort of thing that only happens to rogue states.
I recommend you all read Navi Pillay's report - it's not long, it's not overly complex and it's not packed with legalese nor impenetrable language, yet it demolishes the claims of governments that their mass surveillance is in any way lawful or proportionate. Worth 15 minutes of your time, I promise.
And it's not such a long time since 'we' all made a long nose at the East Germans and Russians and all 'that lot' for their oppressive societies riddled with mass surveillance. Didn't need no steeeeenkin UN to tell us it was wrong back then.
go figure.
(not a comfortable parallel to draw is it?)
I been reading some book Freakonomics and it talks about some ancient civilisation and a theory, the story went like this.
They did a study and found the town with the most Doctors had the most illnesses. The ruler had all the Doctors in that town shot the next day....
So since it seems the terrorist of today all seem to have a beard, surely study into wiping out the beard gene and mutating humanity is the answer and not spying on one another...
Having read all the posts and the reasons given so far that give any pro support to this agenda.. Well here is one for you ....
It would be as effective as the current measures...and if KFC can have hairless chicken why can't we have beardless men ? comeon GCHQ/NSA you have failed big time to resolve the actual issue starring us all in the face...
no beard = no terrorist = ahh we are all safe now
Idiot... Try reading up about Drone Murder.. Then you'd understand that the US president has killed more people with drones than the last one, why the spy agencies are so upset is simple to ratify, they enjoy stealing all your pictures and document's, that way they can retire from the life of spying and use any patents or idea's you had to fund there retirement plans. Furthermore if you dont understand who's been behind it all, perhaps you should read-up and find out which ISP is pure evil incarnate that goes around quoting there manifesto of "Dont be Evil" whilst they pay 7 Million to the presidential campaign fund and align themselves with the same In-Q-Tel companies that produce the Optic Perv enhancements they enjoy to glare at you via your own device! Also that same device, is how those drones then select you as a SELECTOR and that is how they are used to Kill You! Sadly the new US president who was supposed to have curtailed these invasive measure's simply expounded upon them after winning the election in 2009 and his buddy working for the afore mentioned ISP is the one who went around with floating Barges everywhere digging up the under-water cables with the HMB1 Mining Barge.. You see in order for all those weapons contracts to go ahead with RAYTHEON and LOCKHEED MARTIN which stand to make him BILLIONS of bucks he need's very much for his Drone Murder machine to be working without a hitch!
The War on Terror was touted to the General Public as being all about stopping weapons of Mass Destruction, so the CIA & NSA went right ahead and created the biggest weapon of Mass Destruction that has ever existed in History! Congratulations, those American's really know how to do things BIG!
They where not the one's who broke the Enigma in WWII that was the British! Contrary to what they teach in an American School room, they did not invent RISC Architecture that was also the British contrary to what they teach in an American School room and they did not invent the Sinclair ZX or the Z80 that's so loved by one of there own software GURU's that was also the British, contrary to what they teach in an American School room... Now that the rest of the world knows what's going on and who's been behind it all, you can see relationships with America slowly cooling on all side's of the atlantic, with huge lay-off's happening in some of there technical firms whilst they all scrabble to ty and figure out who's been shafting them all.. They've managed to single handedly piss off the French, the Germans, the Russians, Oh and some of us Brits whilst they've violated international Law and the trade in services agreement along with violate many of there own Security standards and now it looks like our own PM is buttering up to the EU...
I cant imagine why!
I must have missed the part of the Licensing policy that said "Warning your usage of this website or it's software constitutes your acceptance of Monitoring by the Central Intelligence Agency and it's use of SELECTORS...!" It's like Winning the Lottery - only there is no fiscal reward, instead you get to play for your Life!
Losers will be Bombed! :(
In the post-naughty, resource-starved, sub-prime-melted, financially corrupt world, where the "Five Eyes" are TERROR-ified of the next world order duality from Asia: It is obvious that collaborative spying is a cover for commercial, military, political advantage. Anti-terrorism has nothing to do with it. They are creating an database of everyone to CONTROL.
rgds, a different AC to all previous.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
