Hey look! the FBI and NSA are data-mining and analyzing your data!

[Spiced_Rum]

According to the BBC:

Mr Snowden told The Guardian he flew to Hong Kong on 20 May, after leaking information about the National Security Agency's surveillance programme,
He said that he chose Hong Kong because the city has "a spirited commitment to free speech and the right of political dissent".

This man is a criminal at best, having deliberately leaked classified intelligence. Not only has he betrayed his country, his treason further threatens Western democracy because he went to China. No doubt he was warmly welcomed there and has been thoroughly de-briefed by those friendly Hong Kong security officials.

[mookiemookie]

Don't shoot the messenger.

[mapuc]

An rhetoric question

what has he achieved by doing this? except from being on the run for the rest of his life.

NOTHING!! the only different will be that the NSA, CIA, FBI a.s.o will be more careful in the future.

Do you really think that they will stop monitor your life, now that they have been exposed?

Markus

[Catfish]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

Don't shoot the messenger.

They do not only shoot the messengers (meanwhile more than one), but completely ignore the reason why those people may have decided to let certain information be known by the public, despite knowing they had to face court martial sooner or later.
The information handed down itself does not seem to stir up most of the people either.


OT, but related to last paragraph - I just read a statistic, about which people in Germany vote for the right wingers, usually accepting what the government does without much questioning. To my astonishment it was not only the 'rich' who would have a reason to protect their property from the poor masses (if you would think of class war, which has died out), but foremost more poor and uneducated people - or, to say this in numbers, more than 70 percent of the population.
I do now understand where those numbers in elections come from, i somehow still do not understand why they do that.

There are a lot of people here you would call 'parasites', living from state welfare and never intending to work and get a job - but just of all those are the loudest bigmouths when it comes to condemning real poor people and foreigners who deserve welfare, as well those bigmouths always vote for the political 'right wingers'.
I admit i do not quite understand the mechanisms of opinion formation.


MM you are right, i also should buy a boat and ...

[MH]

Originally Posted by Catfish

They do not only shoot the messengers (meanwhile more than one), but completely ignore the reason why those people may have decided to let certain information be known by the public, despite knowing they had to face court martial sooner or later.
The information handed down itself does not seem to stir up most of the people either.

It probably does stir but not for everybody the goverment or services responsible for security for that matter are public enemy number one.
It also has nothing to do with left or right.
Actually maybe it does for some ....as it seems.

[Skybird]

A criminal committing a crime, is criminal.

Somebody revealing the crime, is not.

Snowden nevertheless miscalculated his choice for Hongkong maybe, although he hopes to finally end up in Iceland. His revelations not only reveal how far the surveillance state already is reality in the US (and the US monitoring all the globe), but they could also be painful for other states who are accomplice sin crime or running excessive surveillance themselves. If china is one such candidate, they might not want to to give him political asyl, but want to hand him over and have the US lock him and throwing away the key.

I wish Snowden well. Hopefully he made his homework on the Chinese.

For careless ordinary citizens this hopefully is a wakeup call to realise to what degree the total surveillance state already is reality. And since not only priovate people get overheared, but the ifnrasturcture gets used on everybody, we inevitably also talk about economic and industrial espionage as well. Knowing what the manmagers of a foreign company talk on the oh so well protected phone before meeting Americans in a business negotiation, can be worth millions and millions of dollars for the american side. It's like playing poker with marked cards.

And lets have no illusions. Not only will those data never be deleted, but they also will be used and abuse outside ans counter terrorism context. Just a question of time. The state never executes self-restraint, the state always wants more and more and more control and its citizens being naked, made of glass, pinned under the states microscope from the cradle to the grave.

The dream of the totalitarian dictatorships of the past century, and the secret polices of theirs, finally has come true. Of course we must allow getting told again and again that it all is just for our best. Yeah, sure. And the data is safe with almighty father state. Yeah sure. And there is laws and regulations. Yeah sure. And anti terror is the only motivation and there will be checks and balances against abuse. Yes, if I get some brain surgery done on myself, then I will believe all that, yes I will.

The Gestapo in the Third Reich acted on the basis of laws, too. So did the Stasi in the DDR that spied on its own people, and the KGB in the USSR. And yes, the White Rose indeed was illegal, from laws' point of view. Good that they caught them!

Our forefathers have been told the same bull last century, too. Now its our turn to swallow all that.

Morality and legality are two totally different things. And the modern states' morals can no longer be trusted.

Snowden acted on basis of his conscience, and by a moral argument that I find no reasonable way to argue with. He pays a high price and does not give me the impression to have done it for fame or to boast with it. I wish him well and that this under the circumstances he now is in will come to the best possible end for him. But I fear the opposite will become true. Many Americans will call fore revenge and retaliation.

This is a confused state of mind, because the rage should be directed against the state and against the shadow it casts over the people in the US, and outside the US.

A simpe question:
WHO MONITORS THE MONITORS, if the people do not even know they get monitored? And is a society where checks and balances fail, really free and "democratic"?

The answer to the latter can only be "No".

-

And now back to my letter to Oberon.

[Oberon]

I wonder if Neal is going to have enough bandwidth by the time you're finished Sky.

In other news, Snowden has 'gone missing'. He's believed to still be in Hong Kong but his whereabouts are unknown. He checked out of his hotel on Monday and hasn't been seen since. Four possibilities in my mind:

1) The CIA have got him. In which case he'll probably reappear in America within the week and face charges.

2) The MSS have got him. In which case he'll probably reappear in Beijing within the week and apply for political asylum

3) He's just moved position since he's gone public in order to try and shake some of the heat that's on him.

4) His body will be found later in the week.

Number four is unlikely but possible.

[Mr Quatro]

Originally Posted by Oberon

His body will be found later in the week.

Number four is unlikely but possible.

He's made too much noise to die of sudden death syndrome

A fair trial would answer a lot of unanswered questions

CNN has a poll showing 53% he's done nothing wrong
and 47% thinking he has.

[Catfish]

Originally Posted by MH

It probably does stir but not for everybody the goverment or services responsible for security for that matter are public enemy number one.
It also has nothing to do with left or right.[...].

Well, first this kind of state of war, regulations and censorship must be the wet dream of the right wing, don't you think so ? How unfortunate that just of all a demcrat fell for the exercise of influence, by the war hawks of the military complex. And don't tell me the latter are politically 'left', in any regard.

Yes, i must have completely misunderstood ..
Everyone being against eavesdropping, against killing terrorists and unfortunate bystanders without trial and by drones, does not like Guantanamo and what is done there, or has something against how the military acted against civilians, was considered as being left wing scum and 'unpatriotic'.

And now tell me how much left intellectuals do you think sit and work in the arms industry ? Or the NSA ? Or the CIA ?




On topic:
Maybe this is the solution .. but then the real list of what is listened to might not be made public anymore


Not that the english GCHQ or other dépendances in Israel, Germany or wherever would not do that. They all do, because they can.

[Mittelwaechter]

It's all about control.
Due to the internet our true rulers and their puppets have lost the sole sovereignty over their subjects reality. Those who control the information, the talk of the day and its interpretation, control our perception and therefore our reality, our motivation to think, to act, to consume, to attack etc.

Free, unlimited, uncontroled information and communication leads to the loss of their rulership, because the subjects do realize the difference between the prethought or "proclaimed" reality and their actual live situation. They talk about this discrepancy and realize a multiple interpretation of the once only truth, traditionally provided by the church - replaced by the classic media today. Suddenly it's not the proclaimed reality - our controled common view of the world - that motivates the subjects, but a wide, uncontroled diversity of truth provided by thousands of reporters and commentators via blogs, youtube, facebook, wikileaks, twitter, comments and discussions directly under the online articles of our prethought information, or - in our case - wistleblowers. Hence the rulers and their puppets have to regain control over our motivation or the puppets are at risk to lose their status - to be observed in the arabic world.

So what is their choice of actions to regain and strengthen their control? One well tried, tested and trusted measure is "to divide", to discourage and to prevent solidarity amongst the subjects. Every day we stumble over polarizing information about male vs. female, the elder vs. the youth, left vs. right, sick vs. healthy, west vs. east, natives vs. non-natives, families vs. those without kids, rich vs. poor, fat vs. well shaped, pedestrians vs. drivers, unemployed vs. workers, chistians vs. muslims etc. - just to breed bad blood, to split the society. Divide and rule!

But with the internet they have to go some steps further. It's necessary to know "in due time" all about the intentions of your subjects. You have to collect as much information as possible about their networks, their friends, their online and offline behaviour, their political opinion, about their wishes and fears, about their whole lives. As a result of this collection you can sort them, observe "critical" groups, predict their behaviour and act accordingly to answer any slight "unwanted" deviance.
Additionally you may want to distract and desinform the society, use propaganda and censorship to control the information flow and consequently the motivation of your subjects. Discredit any free source of information that may endanger your intentions, that may uncover your wheelings and dealings.
Keep the people busy and show them their life is nice, fine and "above average". Let them work and make them consume - it's their single purpose.
Teach your own kids in some elite schools how to run the system itself and let the others learn how to work flawlessly within in the system to keep it going.

After work we shall passively watch other people singing, dancing, cooking, eating, talking, working, housekeeping, raising children, fighting criminals sucessfully etc. Strange, eh?
It's a constant group of only "150 people" that has the privilege to explain the world, the situation and the causal relations on TV, providing opinions, arguments and positions we may sympathize with. Why? Because they reflect the view of our true rulers. Instead of thinking and researching about the situation, about the sense of it, about who profits from it, we shall accept the given prethought concepts. The leaders opinion becomes the leading opinion.
Most people don't have an own opinion, based on collected facts and own creative thinking. They simply rethink - often only parrot - the "prethought" provided by those we chose to support.
It's all about control.

In intentionally insulting question.

Is it?
If someone has claimed to be a legal expert can it not be mentioned when a legal issue is being discussed?

Now your trying to defend yourself while insulting him again.

No, evidence suggests that is a statement of fact which was made.

More personal insults.

No, it is no different from saying he is ignorant of the issue. Which has been proven.
It might be insulting if he showed he did know what the topic was and I called him oblivious of it as that would clearly be a false statement which woud be insulting.
ignorant, unaware, oblivious, unknowing, nescient, bewildered, uninformed....all the same as clueless. Which are insulting and which are not?
Or is it all down to your random interpretation depending on the quirk of the day?

And more. You were warned.

Really?
And what is offensive in that passage?
"irrelevant hot air" perhaps?

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Is it?
If someone has claimed to be a legal expert can it not be mentioned when a legal issue is being discussed?

As I've told him many times, it's not what you say, it's how you say it. You might not want to keep arguing about this if you don't want to make it worse.

It might be insulting if he showed he did know what the topic was and I called him oblivious of it as that would clearly be a false statement which woud be insulting.
ignorant, unaware, oblivious, unknowing, nescient, bewildered, uninformed....all the same as clueless. Which are insulting and which are not?

All of them. It's not debating, it's name-calling. Either debate the topic properly and show where he's wrong, or discuss it like a gentleman.
From the rules:

The Radio Room forum is not the place for flaming, spewing, or otherwise mouthing off. We do not allow posts where people are called idiots, morons, etc.

Or is it all down to your random interpretation depending on the quirk of the day?

Nothing random about it. It's all about the name-calling. Stop it.

Really?
And what is offensive in that passage?
"irrelevant hot air" perhaps?

First, calling him "bubbles". Part of your tactic seems to be to pervert peoples' names in a manner designed to insult. And yes, saying that everything he wrote is "irrelevant hot air" is an insult. If you take the time to prove it so, then it's proven. If you just say it, it's meaningless. Again, you say it in intentionally provocative ways. That is close to trolling again.

All of them. It's not debating, it's name-calling. Either debate the topic properly and show where he's wrong, or discuss it like a gentleman.

Is it name calling or an accurate description of the situation.
The evidence relating to the arrest is a matter of public record.
You had no problem finding that tip-ex had been used to falsify the custody record. For someone to insist that no documentation was falsified shows that they do not know even the most basic information available, that person can only fit one of those perfectly normal everyday words.

First, calling him "bubbles". Part of your tactic seems to be to pervert peoples' names in a manner designed to insult.

Is it?

And yes, saying that everything he wrote is "irrelevant hot air" is an insult.

How?
Everything relates to a specific set of actions, anything not related to those actions is hot air (bluster, empty talk, gas.....) Which is by its nature irrelevant.
However one aspect of that bluster can be relevant if you stretch it, the persecution complex.
But if you follow that stretch to its logical conclusion it only condemns the officer for illegally falsifying the record while giving the reason why he felt he had to illegally cover up his legal actions.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Is it name calling or an accurate description of the situation.

It's name calling.

The evidence relating to the arrest is a matter of public record.
You had no problem finding that tip-ex had been used to falsify the custody record.

Correct, and if you had left it there we wouldn't be having this conversation.

For someone to insist that no documentation was falsified shows that they do not know even the most basic information available, that person can only fit one of those perfectly normal everyday words.

Maybe, but as soon as you point it out, especially the way you usually do, you change the subject from the case in question to the other person. That's where you go wrong.

Is it?

Since you only do it when you're busy putting somebody down, yes it obvious.

How?

Because it's not aimed at what he wrote, but at him personally.

Everything relates to a specific set of actions, anything not related to those actions is hot air (bluster, empty talk, gas.....) Which is by its nature irrelevant.

It's also not relevant to your argument. It's name-calling, pure and simple, and you've been warned against it many times now.

No more name-calling or insults. You've made a habit of it for far too long.

[Julhelm]

Originally Posted by Spiced_Rum

This man is a criminal at best, having deliberately leaked classified intelligence. Not only has he betrayed his country, his treason further threatens Western democracy because he went to China. No doubt he was warmly welcomed there and has been thoroughly de-briefed by those friendly Hong Kong security officials.

Which western democracy are we talking about? The western democracy that spies on it's citizens, uses drones to execute without due process those it accuses of being terrorists and arbitrarily suspends certain citizens' rights and sends them into prison camps indefinitely; that invades and overthrows foreign governments that don't do as they're told to or just happen to have resources it needs. That western democracy?