Reading your email..
Discussion
Governments are the least of my worries. Supermarkets, banks, internet providers all keep reams of data about customers so they can send us more marketing crap. But most of us don't want to give up our loyalty cards, or our credit/debit cards, or stop browsing the internet.
And will all this government monitoring stop terrorism? Probably not, but it will stop terrorists using the internet to help plan their attacks. Bin Laden used couriers carrying zip drives, so no amount of snooping would have picked him up, but having to communicate this way certainly made organizing his attacks harder.
And will all this government monitoring stop terrorism? Probably not, but it will stop terrorists using the internet to help plan their attacks. Bin Laden used couriers carrying zip drives, so no amount of snooping would have picked him up, but having to communicate this way certainly made organizing his attacks harder.
If A tells B something, but C cannot hear it, then should C; 1) Ask A and B about it or 2) hire agent D to follow A and B and keep a record of their meetings/conversations just in case?
Is it human nature or legitimate enquiry to know what others are saying (even if you're not paranoid - despite what THEY say about YOU).
Moving up the scale, isn't it better that an all caring benevolent government is listening in/reading my mum's email messages in case she's planning (another) massive jihadist outrage tomorrow? After the bring and buy sale.
I met a man in 1992 who manufactured fish tank cleaning apparatus. In a previous life he wrote early computer programmes for the Home Office. In his office he showed me somebody else's bank statements and proof they were receiving state benefits (said person being a debtor and company director whilst also an undischarged bankrupt). His access to this info was via mainframe computer and totally illegal. But it didn't stop him using it for commercial advantage. Even after signing the OSA.
Nothing changes.
Is it human nature or legitimate enquiry to know what others are saying (even if you're not paranoid - despite what THEY say about YOU).
Moving up the scale, isn't it better that an all caring benevolent government is listening in/reading my mum's email messages in case she's planning (another) massive jihadist outrage tomorrow? After the bring and buy sale.
I met a man in 1992 who manufactured fish tank cleaning apparatus. In a previous life he wrote early computer programmes for the Home Office. In his office he showed me somebody else's bank statements and proof they were receiving state benefits (said person being a debtor and company director whilst also an undischarged bankrupt). His access to this info was via mainframe computer and totally illegal. But it didn't stop him using it for commercial advantage. Even after signing the OSA.
Nothing changes.
That ^; lending credence to that train of thought is a reply from Snowden:
"Q: Is it possible to put security in place to protect against state surveillance?
A: "You are not even aware of what is possible. The extent of their capabilities is horrifying. We can plant bugs in machines. Once you go on the network, I can identify your machine. You will never be safe whatever protections you put in place.""
"Q: Is it possible to put security in place to protect against state surveillance?
A: "You are not even aware of what is possible. The extent of their capabilities is horrifying. We can plant bugs in machines. Once you go on the network, I can identify your machine. You will never be safe whatever protections you put in place.""
Mr_B said:
Why worry so ? Theres 65 million or so people in the UK and a handful employed to read your email, if you come to their attention.
Although they will have software monitoring 'key words'/'sentences'. (in a variety of languages.).But you're right....why worry?
The average citizen that has no intention of law breaking will have no cause to be 'noticed' on their system.
The only issue I can see is that information that is worth any value can and will be mis-used (as history has proven time and time again). Namely where there are large amounts of vested interest profits ie. business.
Edited by AJI on Tuesday 11th June 08:50
AJI said:
Although they will have software monitoring 'key words'/'sentences'. (in a variety of languages.).
But you're right....why worry?
The average citizen that has no intention of law breaking will have no cause to be 'noticed' on their system.
The only issue I can see is that information that is worth any value can and will be mis-used (as history has proven time and time again). Namely where there are large amounts of vested interest profits ie. business.
The danger is rarely to do with what current governments can do with it. The danger is in what future governments can use it for.But you're right....why worry?
The average citizen that has no intention of law breaking will have no cause to be 'noticed' on their system.
The only issue I can see is that information that is worth any value can and will be mis-used (as history has proven time and time again). Namely where there are large amounts of vested interest profits ie. business.
Edited by AJI on Tuesday 11th June 08:50
We've had a relatively peaceful few years in Western Europe which seems to have lulled many into a false sense of security. Many reckon there's no chance of seeing another war in our life time. That some how we're better and more matured by the horrors of war to ever do it again.
Well we're not and as history has shown, it can take very little in real terms to plunge us into conflict.
I wonder if the story was orchestrated to get out.
It is a win-win for the intel agencies.
1. Their ability to hack (assuming that isn't being overstated in some clever PR campaign) remains secret and they intercept miscreants' emails.
2. It is made public and miscreants avoid internet communication for fear of interception, thereby being denied easy communications.
It is a win-win for the intel agencies.
1. Their ability to hack (assuming that isn't being overstated in some clever PR campaign) remains secret and they intercept miscreants' emails.
2. It is made public and miscreants avoid internet communication for fear of interception, thereby being denied easy communications.
That isn't how intel agencies 'think'.
They don't want you to know anything about them - at all.
They'd rather everyone communicated in a totally free manner so intercepts can be as broad and productive as possible. They want chatter, so that they can collect it and piece it together. The more info in any format that they can collect, the better. Data is King.
They don't want you to know anything about them - at all.
They'd rather everyone communicated in a totally free manner so intercepts can be as broad and productive as possible. They want chatter, so that they can collect it and piece it together. The more info in any format that they can collect, the better. Data is King.
coanda said:
That isn't how intel agencies 'think'.
They don't want you to know anything about them - at all.
They'd rather everyone communicated in a totally free manner so intercepts can be as broad and productive as possible. They want chatter, so that they can collect it and piece it together. The more info in any format that they can collect, the better. Data is King.
I wonder if this is all a smokescreen and soon there'll be a whole world of encryption tools available. That the NSA, et al, didn't have a hand in developing. Oh no. Not at all They don't want you to know anything about them - at all.
They'd rather everyone communicated in a totally free manner so intercepts can be as broad and productive as possible. They want chatter, so that they can collect it and piece it together. The more info in any format that they can collect, the better. Data is King.
Apparently Snowden isn't welcome in the UK: http://news.sky.com/story/1103567/prism-whistleblo...
k off.Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff