In the News

[Othko97]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/06/us-tech-giants-nsa-data
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/07/clapper-secret-nsa-surveillance-prism
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2013/jun/07/uk-gathering-secret-intelligence-nsa-prism
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-22809541

All this makes this: http://i.imgur.com/ffOqkI4.jpg more worrying...

[joek]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/06/us-tech-giants-nsa-data
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/07/clapper-secret-nsa-surveillance-prism
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2013/jun/07/uk-gathering-secret-intelligence-nsa-prism
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-22809541

All this makes this: http://i.imgur.com/ffOqkI4.jpg more worrying...

Yes indeed. The Guardian reckons that Microsoft and Google denied knowledge of PRISM, but if tech companies that big can't secure their data properly, that's another reason to be worried, frankly...

[Othko97]

The best thing was the US defence of PRISM - "We were only going to use it to spy on foreigners outside of our jurisdiction..." LIKE THAT MAKES IT ANY BETTER?!

[Clockwork]

Honestly, I don't mind. So what if the US intel knows who you are and what you're doing (which by the way, they won't)? A) They don't care about us. At all. B) They aren't going to sell our bank account details or anything. They're looking for national threats and the like, tighter security from terrorist threat and the like is only a good thing. If it's true, I'd be in favour.

The best thing was the US defence of PRISM - "We were only going to use it to spy on foreigners outside of our jurisdiction..." LIKE THAT MAKES IT ANY BETTER?!

Yes actually it does. Spying on foreigners is expected, spying on your own people is telling them that their own national security doesn't trust them.

[Jubal]

I don't mind on a personal level, if the US government wants to waste money looking through my internet history it's their problem.

On a theoretical and general level though, I think it's profoundly dangerous. I just don't think governments should have the ability to spy on individual citizens - yeah, the current US security apparatus with its current priorities doesn't particularly care about me, but do I trust that there will never be a US administration that might ever want to interfere with anything I could conceivably do? Because I don't think that's the case at all. Privacy of communications is a fairly integral right as far as I'm concerned, it's really important for the maintenance of political and religious freedoms. People have a right to oppose actions by their government or another that they disagree with, and they have a right to express those views without those governments being able to snoop on them and thereby take action against them. Whilst terrorist groups of the sort we have at the moment I clearly oppose, the US has been known to prop up pretty nasty dictatorships and regimes in the past and if they're into large-scale international communications tapping there are worries there too.

Clearly where the security services believe there's a real threat, they're going to need to look at communications, but that's what judicial warrants are for. Pre-emptively scanning and tapping communications or doing so without a warrant opens up fundamental issues in terms of personal freedoms, because even if the current security services are hunting for terrorists who I vehemently oppose, if they can read everyone's communications then supposing a government wanted to start opening files on their political opponents (McCarthyism style) they could just roll ahead and do it.

[Clockwork]

It's military intelligence, they aren't on any one politicians payroll and surely even they can see that the fallout for using this tool as a means for a politician or government to spy on opponents undermines any sort of foreign relations they require for ease of intel among allies such as GB. I don't doubt that the potential uses for this are worrying but in reality, I would feel safer with this in place. There is a lot less to fear from military intelligence than the people they're trying to hunt down. Given this, sharing of this intel even with the UK would be highly unlikely at most.

Judicial warrants must have a lead to go on, this is a tool to find those leads. It has completely different applications.

[Othko97]

Military intelligence is one thing, and I can admit that anything used to spy on terrorists is useful. However, can you imagine al-Qaeda organising a Google Hangout? Or a Skype conference call? No, the very concept of a terrorist organisation, especially ones in the poorer areas of the world, using multinational corporations from the "West" who they despise so is quite frankly laughable. It's uses in counter-terrorism are limited at best. Can you imagine a Taliban facebook page? Only the most foolish of people would plot an attack using a method of communication that can be so easily intercepted.

No, this technology is much more likely going to be used to counter piracy. We've already seen from what's happening to Kim Dotcom that the US doesn't give an armadillo about where they can and can't arrest someone, as he is standing trial for a crime which isn't a crime in a country he's never visited. Combine this with the fact that the current government receives a LOT of their funds from Hollywood and an interesting picture is built.I know that that sounds a little tinfoil hat but you have to admit, things add up. Not to mention that Dotcom's arrest was the day after SOPA failed. Anyway, back to topic, PRISM is not exactly the most useful tool possible in counter-terrorism, save from suspects in first world countries as it takes away another form of communication.

[Clockwork]

Well you kinda hit the nail on the head there. Using it on dumbass terrorists already integrated in the west is almost certainly their target. I don't have any confidence that it can be used to effectively track down Al-Qaeda or Taliban or Majuahadin or whatever in the mid east, not because they lack technology and aren't hypocritical enough to use it but simply because it would be nigh on impossible to distinguish the actual terrorists from sympathisers, which I think isn't punishable by fiery death just yet. But finding the ones here before they do any damage seems like a pretty good thing to me.

We've been using a form of this for even more years, any phrases repeated enough times or that have a pattern sent via text(don't believe this works with calls) are flagged up with our counter-terrorist guys.

[Jubal]

http://www.buzzfeed.com/jordanzakarin/turkish-protestor-chorus-sings-les-mis

Les Mis, as practically applied by Turks. 

[Othko97]

That is brilliant

[Othko97]

There's a lot about arming the Syrians at the moment, with Russia and the BNP wanting us to arm the government, while others want to arm the rebels. Which side do you support, if any?

[Jubal]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-23092817
And a bunch of armadillo in Egypt is burning again.


I definitely don't support Assad, he's a straight-out dictatorial asshole. I'm dubious about supporting the rebels and we certainly don't want to be giving them a no-strings credit card for military hardware, because they're a mix of people "on our side" AKA democrats and people who are basically after a theocratic/sectarian state which would be an appalling mess.

[Pentagathus]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23401076

Oh noes they are stealing all of teh porn.

Any thoughts on this? I like the idea of it myself. Also
"In addition, the prime minister will say possessing online pornography depicting rape will be illegal."
armadillo I'd always assumed that was already the case.

[comrade_general]

This isn't really about porn though is it? This is the thin end of the wedge whereby my Glorious Leaders will soon decide which sites are right for me and which aren't.

[Lady Grey]

http://www.buzzfeed.com/jordanzakarin/turkish-protestor-chorus-sings-les-mis

Les Mis, as practically applied by Turks. 

This is amazing.