Total surveillance

[hibsbollah]

http://m.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jun/21/gchq-surveillance-civil-liberties-debate

Total government surveillance of everything we do online is now almost a reality. Is losing privacy a price worth payiing for alleged 'security'? And how many third parties will be able to buy (or steal) information about us?

Or do you believe William Hague that 'if you arent a criminal you have nothing to fear'?

[Mon Dieu4]

I think it would be naive to think the don't already do it to be honest

[Sergey]

Use a VPN to browse the web.

There's a report on the BBC today that the EPL are going to block the Front Row streaming site to all UK residents through their ISP's. Using a VPN alleviates this minor problem.

Hotspot Shield is a good one (and free)

[Sylar]

To be honest, I'd simply feel sorry for anyone who was to look through my online activity as it's usually boring/work related.

The danger is indeed 3rd parties gaining access, particularly if things like online banking, purchases can be monitored.

[PeeJay]

http://m.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jun/21/gchq-surveillance-civil-liberties-debate

Total government surveillance of everything we do online is now almost a reality. Is losing privacy a price worth payiing for alleged 'security'? And how many third parties will be able to buy (or steal) information about us?

Or do you believe William Hague that 'if you arent a criminal you have nothing to fear'?

No - Seems to me that the UK is one of the most policed states in the Western world - the number of CCTV cameras "accepted" by the populace is something I find just as worrying, if not more so than the obvious online surveillance ... Tempora/Prism, GHCQ, NSA - who actually voted these people into power, on whose behalf are they spying on us all, who approved their remits - are they really following UK government/US government orders or are they perhaps pursuing their own agendas: who knows? Who are they ultimately all responsible to - governments are voted out of power every so often, but these guys? To think we pointed our fingers at the Ostblock with their KGB and Stasi - they had nothing on this lot, it seems - I expected the Commies to eavesdrop on us, but our own security services?? Protecting us from terrorists - sure!

[Jack]

To be honest, I'd simply feel sorry for anyone who was to look through my online activity as it's usually boring/work related.

The danger is indeed 3rd parties gaining access, particularly if things like online banking, purchases can be monitored.

Kinda agree with you. Its not the government good guys like us need to worry about.

[--------]

http://m.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jun/21/gchq-surveillance-civil-liberties-debate

Total government surveillance of everything we do online is now almost a reality. Is losing privacy a price worth payiing for alleged 'security'? And how many third parties will be able to buy (or steal) information about us?

Or do you believe William Hague that 'if you arent a criminal you have nothing to fear'?


I would rather not answer this question, bollah.

You never know who might be looking in .... :paranoid:

[hibsbollah]

No - Seems to me that the UK is one of the most policed states in the Western world - the number of CCTV cameras "accepted" by the populace is something I find just as worrying, if not more so than the obvious online surveillance ... Tempora/Prism, GHCQ, NSA - who actually voted these people into power, on whose behalf are they spying on us all, who approved their remits - are they really following UK government/US government orders or are they perhaps pursuing their own agendas: who knows? Who are they ultimately all responsible to - governments are voted out of power every so often, but these guys? To think we pointed our fingers at the Ostblock with their KGB and Stasi - they had nothing on this lot, it seems - I expected the Commies to eavesdrop on us, but our own security services?? Protecting us from terrorists - sure!

Thats my take on it as well, its worrying that all this is happening without any democratic mandate. You can't just place unconditional trust in the State.

You can see from the kind of physical security that surrounds Data Centres, (with razor wire palisade fences, armed private security and electricity generation sufficient for a small town), how important protecting computer servers is.

[SHODAN]

http://m.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jun/21/gchq-surveillance-civil-liberties-debate

Total government surveillance of everything we do online is now almost a reality. Is losing privacy a price worth payiing for alleged 'security'? And how many third parties will be able to buy (or steal) information about us?

Or do you believe William Hague that 'if you arent a criminal you have nothing to fear'?

I'd assume that we can bug Hague's phone, internet connection and house and release the findings to the public on a regular basis, along with removing his curtains? After all, if he has nothing to hide then he has nothing to fear.

[yeezus.]

It's very worrying. I've herd people say they use incognito browsing or private with Internet explorer - can anyone explain what that hides exactly? Not a lot I'm guessing...

[Scouse Hibee]

I have nothing to hide so couldn't care less really. People talk about too much CCTV cameras watching our every move yet the footage from so many CCTV cameras has been invaluable in thousands upon thousands of investigation by both the Police and the Security services. Carry on regardless is my thought.

[whiskas]

It's very worrying. I've herd people say they use incognito browsing or private with Internet explorer - can anyone explain what that hides exactly? Not a lot I'm guessing...

They don't store any locally cached pages/images, cookies or show up in your Internet history in Incognito mode. No effect on incoming/outgoing traffic for which you'd need something like a VPN to encrypt.

[Scouse Hibee]

Use a VPN to browse the web.

There's a report on the BBC today that the EPL are going to block the Front Row streaming site to all UK residents through their ISP's. Using a VPN alleviates this minor problem.

Hotspot Shield is a good one (and free)

What's a VPN?

[whiskas]

I have nothing to hide so couldn't care less really. People talk about too much CCTV cameras watching our every move yet the footage from so many CCTV cameras has been invaluable in thousands upon thousands of investigation by both the Police and the Security services. Carry on regardless is my thought.

They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.

[Sergey]

What's a VPN?

Wikipedia explains it better than I can.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_private_network

I use Hotspot Shield and it's served me well. Free to download via http://www.hotspotshield.com/

I can't vouch for their mobile version. I'm using it on a PC (XP Service Pack 2)

[Scouse Hibee]

Wikipedia explains it better than I can.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_private_network

I use Hotspot Shield and it's served me well. Free to download via http://www.hotspotshield.com/

I can't vouch for their mobile version. I'm using it on a PC (XP Service Pack 2)


:aok: Cheers Sergey.

[Scouse Hibee]

They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.

Yeah okay then.

[Big Ed]

I have nothing to hide so couldn't care less really. People talk about too much CCTV cameras watching our every move yet the footage from so many CCTV cameras has been invaluable in thousands upon thousands of investigation by both the Police and the Security services. Carry on regardless is my thought.

I watched a programme on Discovery tonight about Watergate. It was a historical thing: totally unrelated to internet security.

It got me thinking. Imagine what Woodward and Bernstein would have come up against, if the internet had been available to them in the 1970's?

Intercepted e-mails, character assassination and destroyed credibility by a malign authority; probably more.

Do you still think that having nothing to hide, should mean that the state should have access to electronic communication at the expense of civil liberty?

[Scouse Hibee]

I watched a programme on Discovery tonight about Watergate. It was a historical thing: totally unrelated to internet security.

It got me thinking. Imagine what Woodward and Bernstein would have come up against, if the internet had been available to them in the 1970's?

Intercepted e-mails, character assassination and destroyed credibility by a malign authority; probably more.

Do you still think that having nothing to hide, should mean that the state should have access to electronic communication at the expense of civil liberty?


Yes.

[Big Ed]

Yes.

Well, that was predictable.

How about a little closer to home?

Would it have been acceptable for the Hillsborough Family Support Group to have been placed under surveillance?

[Scouse Hibee]

Well, that was predictable.

How about a little closer to home?

Would it have been acceptable for the Hillsborough Family Support Group to have been placed under surveillance?


Yes, wouldn't have made any difference............in fact they probably were!

[Big Ed]

Yes, wouldn't have made any difference............in fact they probably were!

So, a group of people come together and end up spending more than two decades trying to salvage the reputation of their families and bring to account, those who smeared, evaded and lied.

They appear to be of impeccable character and pose no obvious threat of violence; yet you think that the very people who these smearers, evaders and liars are ultimately answerable to, should be allowed to clandestinely listen into the policies and tactics of their accusers.

I find that truly remarkable.

[Scouse Hibee]

So, a group of people come together and end up spending more than two decades trying to salvage the reputation of their families and bring to account, those who smeared, evaded and lied.

They appear to be of impeccable character and pose no obvious threat of violence; yet you think that the very people who these smearers, evaders and liars are ultimately answerable to, should be allowed to clandestinely listen into the policies and tactics of their accusers.

I find that truly remarkable.


Going by your other posts I fully expected you would. Given the whole web of deceit I would not be so naive to believe that surveilance was not carried out. Intelligence gathering through whatever means possible is okay with me. I fully appreciate and respect yours and many other views on the matter, however my stance will not change.

[Big Ed]

Going by your other posts I fully expected you would. Given the whole web of deceit I would not be so naive to believe that surveilance was not carried out. Intelligence gathering through whatever means possible is okay with me. I fully appreciate and respect yours and many other views on the matter, however my stance will not change.

Fair enough: we’ll agree to disagree.

For what it’s worth, I don’t have a problem with things like CCTV on the streets etc. which you alluded to earlier. My main concern is when Government or Government institutions use these powers to undermine the people who are perfectly entitled to hold them to account.

[Beefster]

If you don't want to be watched online, it's a piece of piss to ensure that you're not.

However, a US whistle-blower who despises surveillance of citizens is doing a tour around China, Russia, Cuba and Venezuela apparently - none of whom noted for their human rights or trust of the citizens. No hypocrisy there whatsoever.

[LeighLoyal]

As long as it's pinpointed at terrorists I don't have a problem. We have to sacrifice liberty to save lives unfortunately, it's the price we pay for having so many Jihadi's in our midst.

[Scouse Hibee]

As long as it's pinpointed at terrorists I don't have a problem. We have to sacrifice liberty to save lives unfortunately, it's the price we pay for having so many Jihadi's in our midst.

:faf: Unreal.

[jonty]

a VPN will only make your traffic appear as though it coming from somewhere else. Unless the endpoint has encryption running too (ie the sites your accessing), then there will always be some hop of unencrypted traffic.
Things link Tor and Onion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tor_(anonymity_network)) only make it more difficult to trace internet activity - not impossible. Everything is logged. even VPN server access/usage, if only for troubleshooting/management/scalability.

Given the mass of data generated by internet/ip traffic and the encryption levels possible they can't monitor ALL traffic realtime. They have to target specifics. That's not to say in 10 years time they couldn't go back an replay the data, but by then its 10 years out of data and current info then will just be as unobtainable.

I couldn't give a monkeys if they record usage (the same as mobile companies do, banks do, speed cameras do). I could give a monkeys about who then has access to it once its been recorded and how long its going to be kept.

I've spent many years monitoring internet/email usage and access (in education) and can count on two hands the number of times the data has been required to be made available (one hand if I was a yam)


But lets not kid ourselves- the people the govt are trying to track are way beyond tor and vpns. And they're still caught.
No-one is safe - govt machines are caught out by viruses and malware as much as anyone else.

I've no doubt in a few years when activities become obsolete/unclassified we'll find out the full extent of the methods used and attacks/activities stopped. Its self-defeating to announce them now though.

Its a necessary evil - like speed cameras, bank/account usage monitoring, mobile trackign. we'll never all agree on it but it'll have a positive impact on all of us whether we know it or not.

[hibsbollah]

If you don't want to be watched online, it's a piece of piss to ensure that you're not.

However, a US whistle-blower who despises surveillance of citizens is doing a tour around China, Russia, Cuba and Venezuela apparently - none of whom noted for their human rights or trust of the citizens. No hypocrisy there whatsoever.

Its only a 'piss of piss' if youve got the knowledge of how to keep your activity private. Despite the snippets from posts above I wouldnt know how to, and I guess the vast majority of the public dont know either. A lot of people still dont know to turn off a webcam when not in use!

As to Edward Snowden, I dont know about him 'touring' the countries mentioned but he seems to be taking a principled stand from what ive read. Hes certainly not dumped lots of highly sensitive data online, like Assange did. If hes going to countries like China and Russia he may well be a liberalising influence? And even if hes not, hes now the CIAs most wanted and will probably go wherever he thinks hes safest. Im not sure he can be criticised for that.

..hes on a plane to Moscow now, according to reports.

[Beefster]

Its only a 'piss of piss' if youve got the knowledge of how to keep your activity private. Despite the snippets from posts above I wouldnt know how to, and I guess the vast majority of the public dont know either. A lot of people still dont know to turn off a webcam when not in use!

What I meant was that online surveillance is, in general, a waste of time. Anyone with the inclination to do so can counter it fairly easily.

[--------]

They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.


Welcome to the board, Mr Franklin. You're absolutely right. :agree:

[Betty Boop]

Its only a 'piss of piss' if youve got the knowledge of how to keep your activity private. Despite the snippets from posts above I wouldnt know how to, and I guess the vast majority of the public dont know either. A lot of people still dont know to turn off a webcam when not in use!

As to Edward Snowden, I dont know about him 'touring' the countries mentioned but he seems to be taking a principled stand from what ive read. Hes certainly not dumped lots of highly sensitive data online, like Assange did. If hes going to countries like China and Russia he may well be a liberalising influence? And even if hes not, hes now the CIAs most wanted and will probably go wherever he thinks hes safest. Im not sure he can be criticised for that.

..hes on a plane to Moscow now, according to reports.

Edward Snowden has requested asylum in Ecuador, he is booked on a plane from Moscow to Havana tomorrow. Wikileaks reportedly involved in organising his safe passage. Good luck to the guy.

[LeighLoyal]

:faf: Unreal.


50 major terror plots averted by the intense surveillance that Mr Snowden is in Moscow chatting to ex KGB chief Putin about. Roll on the floor at that son. Unreal, if only.

[Scouse Hibee]

50 major terror plots averted by the intense surveillance that Mr Snowden is in Moscow chatting to ex KGB chief Putin about. Roll on the floor at that son. Unreal, if only.


Oh dear I know that, I was referring to your comment that only terrorists should be targeted which was a silly statement! They don't know they're terrorists until they gather intelligence which is why my argument that we're all fair game and I have no objection to surveillance stands. And by the way only my Dad has the right to call me son!

[HUTCHYHIBBY]

They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.

Wtf? care to elaborate?

I think we now live in slightly different times to say the least.

[hibsbollah]

Wtf? care to elaborate?

I think we now live in slightly different times to say the least.

He's quoting Benjamin Franklin, one of America's founding fathers. The essence of the quote is that liberty is absolute, and if, through fear, you attack these fundamental liberties, you lose both liberty, and eventually, the security you're trying to create. Because those who are threatening you have beaten you by making you change your model of government.

Youve just edited your post; to respond, Franklin lived in far more threatening times than we do now. Im not sure the relevance of what Franklins saying has changed over the years, if anything its probably more relevant now.

[whiskas]

He's quoting Benjamin Franklin, one of America's founding fathers. The essence of the quote is that liberty is absolute, and if, through fear, you attack these fundamental liberties, you lose both liberty, and eventually, the security you're trying to create. Because those who are threatening you have beaten you by making you change your model of government.

Youve just edited your post; to respond, Franklin lived in far more threatening times than we do now. Im not sure the relevance of what Franklins saying has changed over the years, if anything its probably more relevant now.

Cheers, yes I was quoting Benjamin Franklin however as I was on the iphone I couldnt really elaborate with links / sources. Id say the premise of what he says is as true now as it ever was, as shown by the situation recently with Snowden.

[HUTCHYHIBBY]

I suppose I just dinnae spend as much attention on the clandestine events going on throughout the world as some of you guys, how do you get anything done? ;-)

[Hibrandenburg]

More CCTV means more funny videos on TV, surely this can only be a good thing?

[khib70]

If you don't want to be watched online, it's a piece of piss to ensure that you're not.

However, a US whistle-blower who despises surveillance of citizens is doing a tour around China, Russia, Cuba and Venezuela apparently - none of whom noted for their human rights or trust of the citizens. No hypocrisy there whatsoever.
This:agree:

Another attention-seeking thief becomes a Guardianista posterboy and heads off to various centres of free and unmonitored internet use as mentioned above. You've got to love the narcissism of people who believe that highly-trained GCHQ analysts are after their lunch photos and cat memes.

And by the way, what exactly did Snowden think he was joining when he voluntarily started work with the NSA?

[Sylar]

Oh dear I know that, I was referring to your comment that only terrorists should be targeted which was a silly statement! They don't know they're terrorists until they gather intelligence which is why my argument that we're all fair game and I have no objection to surveillance stands. And by the way only my Dad has the right to call me son!

Don't be daft - if they have a Muslamic name, they're obviously terrorists :wink:

[Betty Boop]

The Metropolitan police tried to smear the Lawrence family, as revealed by another whistleblower.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23022634

[Phil D. Rolls]

As long as it's pinpointed at terrorists I don't have a problem. We have to sacrifice liberty to save lives unfortunately, it's the price we pay for having so many Jihadi's in our midst.

He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he cviolates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself. Thomas Paine

I notice you don't have a problem, but we have to sacrifice liberty. How does that work then?

[hibsbollah]

This:agree:

Another attention-seeking thief becomes a Guardianista posterboy and heads off to various centres of free and unmonitored internet use as mentioned above. You've got to love the narcissism of people who believe that highly-trained GCHQ analysts are after their lunch photos and cat memes.

And by the way, what exactly did Snowden think he was joining when he voluntarily started work with the NSA?

Snowden shouldnt be the story, what he's revealed should be. Its very convenient that hes become so.

[jonty]

Snowden shouldnt be the story, what he's revealed should be. Its very convenient that hes become so.

And what he has revealed was blown out of proportion, misunderstood by the press on which they subsequently backtracked.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jonathanhall/2013/06/07/washington-post-updates-hedges-on-initial-prism-report/

And the statement added by the reporters in a later update "The court-approved program is focused on foreign communications traffic, which often flows through U.S. servers even when sent from one overseas location to another."

If the information had been released as we know it now, it wouldn't have been as big a deal. I'm not saying that it wouldn't have been an issue, just not as bid a deal.

It was a bigger deal yesterday, that the plane left Moscow carrying dozens of reports expecting to quiz Snowden, and he wasn't event on the flight - his seat was empty.

[khib70]

And what he has revealed was blown out of proportion, misunderstood by the press on which they subsequently backtracked.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jonathanhall/2013/06/07/washington-post-updates-hedges-on-initial-prism-report/

And the statement added by the reporters in a later update "The court-approved program is focused on foreign communications traffic, which often flows through U.S. servers even when sent from one overseas location to another."

If the information had been released as we know it now, it wouldn't have been as big a deal. I'm not saying that it wouldn't have been an issue, just not as bid a deal.

It was a bigger deal yesterday, that the plane left Moscow carrying dozens of reports expecting to quiz Snowden, and he wasn't event on the flight - his seat was empty.
:agree:Absolutely right. And Snowden is the story because he wants to be the story.

[rj hibs]

:agree:Absolutely right. And Snowden is the story because he wants to be the story.

Oh dear. First of all, I'm quite concerned at some people's apathy towards the issue of civil liberties. Secondly, if it was not for people like Snowden, we would not be able to have this debate properly in the first instance. To attack Snowden on personal grounds is cheap and ignorant. It's always the first tactic of an intelligence agency or government to demonize the whistle blower in order to discredit them. Watergate came to public attention largely due to the Nixon administration's attempt to break into Daniel Ellsberg's psychiatrist's office. To say that Snowden just wants the limelight is seriously misguided. I'd urge you to think of Snowden's motives behind leaking these papers. If he wanted to become rich he could have sold all kinds of damaging NSA files to other countries. The leaks have been carefully put together in the Guardian so it does not truly endanger the national security of the US. What's more, it would have been easy for Snowden to do continue his $200,000 a year job in Hawaii without concern for citizens' rights. Instead, he decided to throw that away for what he believed was the greater good. You may not think his actions were valuable, but you cannot deny that he had altruistic motives. Your suggestion that he is the story because he wanted to be the story is utterly false. In fact, that was his greatest fear, that we are talking about HIM rather than the implications of what he has released. You would not throw away the kind of life that Snowden had just because you wanted to be on the news for a bit. Now he faces either life in jail or perpetually being hounded by the American intelligence forces without being able to see his family or ever return home.

[rj hibs]

And for those who are happy to trust Hague's selective testimony and believe there is already enough oversight:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/jun/25/david-davis-spy-agencies-law

[khib70]

Oh dear. First of all, I'm quite concerned at some people's apathy towards the issue of civil liberties. Secondly, if it was not for people like Snowden, we would not be able to have this debate properly in the first instance. To attack Snowden on personal grounds is cheap and ignorant. It's always the first tactic of an intelligence agency or government to demonize the whistle blower in order to discredit them. Watergate came to public attention largely due to the Nixon administration's attempt to break into Daniel Ellsberg's psychiatrist's office. To say that Snowden just wants the limelight is seriously misguided. I'd urge you to think of Snowden's motives behind leaking these papers. If he wanted to become rich he could have sold all kinds of damaging NSA files to other countries. The leaks have been carefully put together in the Guardian so it does not truly endanger the national security of the US. What's more, it would have been easy for Snowden to do continue his $200,000 a year job in Hawaii without concern for citizens' rights. Instead, he decided to throw that away for what he believed was the greater good. You may not think his actions were valuable, but you cannot deny that he had altruistic motives. Your suggestion that he is the story because he wanted to be the story is utterly false. In fact, that was his greatest fear, that we are talking about HIM rather than the implications of what he has released. You would not throw away the kind of life that Snowden had just because you wanted to be on the news for a bit. Now he faces either life in jail or perpetually being hounded by the American intelligence forces without being able to see his family or ever return home.
Ah, how noble you make him sound.
He's a thief and a traitor who is currently touting himself around a string of countries which are total strangers to the idea of civil liberties. I suspect Mr S will be being handsomely compensated by someone with an interest in what he knows.

But the idea of anything being "carefully put together" in the Guardian is quite amusing, I'll grant you.

[rj hibs]

Ah, how noble you make him sound.
He's a thief and a traitor who is currently touting himself around a string of countries which are total strangers to the idea of civil liberties. I suspect Mr S will be being handsomely compensated by someone with an interest in what he knows.

But the idea of anything being "carefully put together" in the Guardian is quite amusing, I'll grant you.

There is clearly nothing sinister about his motivations. He was only provided the public with information that they were not given, that the citizens were collectively being spied on by their own government on a level that the Stasi could have only dreamed of. Democracy is supposed to be transparent. Moreover, if he's a traitor, please explain how he has damaged the US and its citizens, most importantly.

I'm quite frankly stunned that you think he's planning to sell the documents now. If he wanted to be rich he would have carried on with his job or would have sold them secretively without involving the Guardian. He seems to care about the fourth amendment of the constitution, unlike the US politicians who swore to uphold it, with the exception of some such as Ron Wyden, Mark Udall, ect. He is most definitely not "touting" himself, so much as trying to seek refuge where the extensive US intelligence forces cannot take him. Hong Kong was chosen because of its history of free speech, which would buy him time to get in contact with Glenn Greenwald. Russia will not be his planned final destination but for the time being it should allow him to evade the US forces. The Chinese and Russian governments have also made it clear that they have never had any dealings with Snowden. Thus, your suggestion that he is a defector is mute.

As for the Guardian comment, yes, Greenwald, a former constitutional lawyer, along with other journalists, did indeed carefully select extracts to come out from the data that Snowden had given them. I say carefully because they made sure they did not endanger the lives of spies working in other countries, nor did they publish the exact technical means of collecting the information so totalitarian countries were not able to copy them.

[hibeedonald]

a VPN will only make your traffic appear as though it coming from somewhere else. Unless the endpoint has encryption running too (ie the sites your accessing), then there will always be some hop of unencrypted traffic.
Things link Tor and Onion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tor_(anonymity_network)) only make it more difficult to trace internet activity - not impossible. Everything is logged. even VPN server access/usage, if only for troubleshooting/management/scalability.

Given the mass of data generated by internet/ip traffic and the encryption levels possible they can't monitor ALL traffic realtime. They have to target specifics. That's not to say in 10 years time they couldn't go back an replay the data, but by then its 10 years out of data and current info then will just be as unobtainable.

I couldn't give a monkeys if they record usage (the same as mobile companies do, banks do, speed cameras do). I could give a monkeys about who then has access to it once its been recorded and how long its going to be kept.

I've spent many years monitoring internet/email usage and access (in education) and can count on two hands the number of times the data has been required to be made available (one hand if I was a yam)


But lets not kid ourselves- the people the govt are trying to track are way beyond tor and vpns. And they're still caught.
No-one is safe - govt machines are caught out by viruses and malware as much as anyone else.

I've no doubt in a few years when activities become obsolete/unclassified we'll find out the full extent of the methods used and attacks/activities stopped. Its self-defeating to announce them now though.

Its a necessary evil - like speed cameras, bank/account usage monitoring, mobile trackign. we'll never all agree on it but it'll have a positive impact on all of us whether we know it or not.

Don't think the government has the ability to catch people using Tor, or else there wouldn't be sites selling guns, drugs etc. Think there's only ever 1 been on silk road related arrest.

[jonty]

Don't think the government has the ability to catch people using Tor, or else there wouldn't be sites selling guns, drugs etc. Think there's only ever 1 been on silk road related arrest.
Using todays technology and assuming you stay on the tor network.

With the processing power of cloud computing, there's no guarantees that the encrypted data couldn't be cracked in the future. It just needs to be archived.

[Beefster]

Oh dear. First of all, I'm quite concerned at some people's apathy towards the issue of civil liberties. Secondly, if it was not for people like Snowden, we would not be able to have this debate properly in the first instance. To attack Snowden on personal grounds is cheap and ignorant. It's always the first tactic of an intelligence agency or government to demonize the whistle blower in order to discredit them. Watergate came to public attention largely due to the Nixon administration's attempt to break into Daniel Ellsberg's psychiatrist's office. To say that Snowden just wants the limelight is seriously misguided. I'd urge you to think of Snowden's motives behind leaking these papers. If he wanted to become rich he could have sold all kinds of damaging NSA files to other countries. The leaks have been carefully put together in the Guardian so it does not truly endanger the national security of the US. What's more, it would have been easy for Snowden to do continue his $200,000 a year job in Hawaii without concern for citizens' rights. Instead, he decided to throw that away for what he believed was the greater good. You may not think his actions were valuable, but you cannot deny that he had altruistic motives. Your suggestion that he is the story because he wanted to be the story is utterly false. In fact, that was his greatest fear, that we are talking about HIM rather than the implications of what he has released. You would not throw away the kind of life that Snowden had just because you wanted to be on the news for a bit. Now he faces either life in jail or perpetually being hounded by the American intelligence forces without being able to see his family or ever return home.

What are his motives for briefing the Chinese and Russians on US secrets, if the speculation is to be believed?

[Hibrandenburg]

What are his motives for briefing the Chinese and Russians on US secrets, if the speculation is to be believed?

Think the US is more concerned that this info falls into the hands of its own citizens rather than any foreign powers and therein lies the conundrum.

[rj hibs]

What are his motives for briefing the Chinese and Russians on US secrets, if the speculation is to be believed?

Frankly I thought we could get past the point of just talking about Snowden and rather focus on the grave implications of a surveillance state. As I say, there is no evidence that he has given anything directly to Russia or China. For the second time, the Chinese and Russian governments have both strongly denied any sort of direct contact with him. Speculation - it's exactly that, unfounded gossip spread by lazy news organisations who are more interested in the chase than any critical analysis of the NSA leaks. The stuff being thrown around by government officials has nothing of substance and they know they have very little on him. It's interesting that many people on here hold extremely cynical attitudes and unfounded views toward Snowden for trying to aid the public debate, yet they are perfectly happy to take government officials such as William Hague and James Clapper at their word despite having been shown to be liars already.

[Beefster]

Frankly I thought we could get past the point of just talking about Snowden and rather focus on the grave implications of a surveillance state. As I say, there is no evidence that he has given anything directly to Russia or China. For the second time, the Chinese and Russian governments have both strongly denied any sort of direct contact with him. Speculation - it's exactly that, unfounded gossip spread by lazy news organisations who are more interested in the chase than any critical analysis of the NSA leaks. The stuff being thrown around by government officials has nothing of substance and they know they have very little on him. It's interesting that many people on here hold extremely cynical attitudes and unfounded views toward Snowden for trying to aid the public debate, yet they are perfectly happy to take government officials such as William Hague and James Clapper at their word despite having been shown to be liars already.

Given your plea to consider his motives, I thought it was a perfectly valid response to ask about his motives for other [suspected] actions.

PS I don't take politicians at their word ever.

[Future17]

What are his motives for briefing the Chinese and Russians on US secrets, if the speculation is to be believed?

Who is speculating on this and where would they be getting reliable info on this from? :confused:

[Beefster]

Who is speculating on this and where would they be getting reliable info on this from? :confused:

The US government, I think, and a lot of journalists and commentators. Guessing where they are getting it from would just be more speculation.

[rj hibs]

The US government, I think, and a lot of journalists and commentators. Guessing where they are getting it from would just be more speculation.
It appears that Snowden indeed did not provide any information to the Chinese or Russian governments, contrary to the unfounded speculation:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jul/10/snowden-denies-information-russia-china

[hibsbollah]

http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-23750289

Astonishing state intimidation, as the gloves come off.

[HKhibby]

I watched a programme on Discovery tonight about Watergate. It was a historical thing: totally unrelated to internet security.

It got me thinking. Imagine what Woodward and Bernstein would have come up against, if the internet had been available to them in the 1970's?

Intercepted e-mails, character assassination and destroyed credibility by a malign authority; probably more.

Do you still think that having nothing to hide, should mean that the state should have access to electronic communication at the expense of civil liberty?

Good job the internet or such surveillance was not around in 1988!...think Pan Am 103! who really blow that up...not the dead guy in Libia i bet!...Although involved somewhere along the line!...think the best good old friend accross the atlantic!...in fact look no further!

[steakbake]

Good job the internet or such surveillance was not around in 1988!...think Pan Am 103! who really blow that up...not the dead guy in Libia i bet!...Although involved somewhere along the line!...think the best good old friend accross the atlantic!...in fact look no further!

Amazingly, I find myself in agreement with one of your posts! ;-)

We'll never know the truth about Lockerbie, I don't think. Or at least when it does come out, we'll all be long gone.