US in hot water over Prism

[pap]

It's not really been a sterling week for the Land of the Free ™.

 

The Guardian have been plugging away at the Prism data surveillance program and have had some interesting pieces over the last few days.

 

Essentially, the US has been using a program called Prism to get access to individuals' personal data, the sort of common-or-garden stuff you see on social networks. Details are sketchy. Big IT corporates like Google have insisted they've not given unfettered access to user data, but then, they've also had to admit they're under some serious non-disclosure agreements. We're currently in the weird position where these companies are currently determining how much of what they've disclosed they can disclose.

 

Apple and Facebook are also confirmed to be involved, while many other US companies are reported to be responding to data access requests.

 

This hasn't gone down too well in the EU. The Justice Commissioner has written to the US Attorney General asking some very direct questions.

 

Her view is that information should only be released in "clearly defined, exceptional and judicially reviewable situations", things that the US has not been overly strong on in the past decade.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-22872884

 

For the record, I've no intention of turning this into a conspiracy-style thread. The intention here is to gather opinions about how we feel about a foreign government being able to look at almost any of your electronic communications, supported by major corporations that people place a lot of implicit trust in.

 

Let's do it.

[CB Saint]

If the outcome is a terrorist attack is prevented then fine, I have nothing to hide. If the data is then used commercially, then I have an issue.

[pap]

If the outcome is a terrorist attack is prevented then fine, I have nothing to hide. If the data is then used commercially, then I have an issue.

 

Well, data is already used commercially. Targeted advertising is pretty much how Google and Facebook make their money.

[Colinjb]

Governments using data beyond the apparent realms of the DPA? No, surely not!

 

I have no doubt that this happens. The only difference will be that in Europe it's done even more quietly.

 

Just imagine, a file in a secret facility holding the records of every single piece of porn you have ever viewed....

[Hamilton Saint]

Governments using data beyond the apparent realms of the DPA? No, surely not!

 

I have no doubt that this happens. The only difference will be that in Europe it's done even more quietly.

 

Just imagine, a file in a secret facility holding the records of every single piece of porn you have ever viewed....

 

 

This is how they scared me when I was growing up as a Catholic kid: "Don't ever do that, God is watching everything you do."

Edited 12 June, 2013 by Hamilton Saint

[pap]

This is how they scared when I was growing up as a Catholic kid: "Don't ever do that, God is watching everything you do."

 

The politics of fear. Sadly, it's all we've had since 2001.

[Hamilton Saint]

Fear and paranoia, indeed.

 

2996 people died because of the 9/11 terror attacks. In just five months since the massacre of those children in Newtown, Connecticut, 4499 people in the US have been killed by guns. The fall-out from the events of 9/11 have had an incalculable effect on the rights and privacy of citizens all over the globe. Obama's all-out effort to get some significant changes to gun laws achieved virtually nothing. People fear the perceived "enemy" without, but they do not see the real enemy within.

[Colinjb]

The politics of fear. Sadly, it's all we've had since 2001.

 

Not just since then, it's permeated human history since the very beginning!

[Picard]

In America sales of '1984' have soared on Amazon moving from 6208th to 193rd place.

The Americans know where they are heading.

[pap]

Not just since then, it's permeated human history since the very beginning!

 

You're right, but when the Berlin Wall came down, there were was a little while when I thought it might all work out.

[Barry Sanchez]

The politics of fear. Sadly, it's all we've had since 2001.

 

No, I think thats quite wrong pap, the politics of fear have been going on since the dawn of time.

[Johnny Bognor]

We used to be god fearing. We're now terrorist fearing. Fear is a useful mechanism for controlling populations.

[hutch]

All these busybodies showing an unhealthy interest in what information is collected, and what is done with it, should go straight to the top of the terrorist watch list in my book. They'll be suggesting we should outsource the data analysis to a call centre in Pakistan next, because it's cheaper.

[pap]

Fair play to Edward Snowden, the chap who leaked all of this. Obama's administration is prosecuting whistleblowers at an unprecedented rate. He was raking in the cash in his job ( $200K p.a. ) and a lot of his family members also work for the US government.

 

He is currently hiding out in Hong Kong, where he describes all of his options as bad. His best hope is political asylum in Iceland, although he is not too optimistic.

[pap]

No, I think thats quite wrong pap, the politics of fear have been going on since the dawn of time.

 

You asked in a different thread why lefties love Bill Hicks so much. He had some pretty interesting things to say about fear.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GGTWRYMmnuY

[Suomi Saint]

It's the thin end of the wedge really. They are probably watching you through your webcam as we speak. 1984 is well and truly here. The Yanks are going too far - they are monitoring everyone else when they should be monitoring themselves. They and Israel are the root cause of terrorism, and our idiotic Govt. blindly follows them. They will be bleating on about 9/11 forever.....what about the 60M who died in WW2? They control their own people through fear; we shouldn't allow that to happen here.

[CB Saint]

Well, data is already used commercially. Targeted advertising is pretty much how Google and Facebook make their money.

 

I choose to use google and facebook and accept that they are profit driven. I mean if the government collected all this data about my viewing habits and email content and then sold it on, I would have a problem with that. If they look at my emails and browsing habits for security reasons only - then if the invasion of my privacy means some terrorist scum bag gets prevented from letting off a bomb on the the Underground., then thay can fill their boots.

[Viking Warrior]

I'm not concerned about eavesdropping as I have nothing to hide . I'm all for covert listening particularly if it saves lives . Stop kidnapping murders , terrorist activities etc .

 

Only those who have something to hide will need to be worried.

 

On to the American in Hong Kong . He is a traitor and has potentially put millions of lives at risk with his stupidity . If he thinks running to china will help his cause . Then he is thicker than I give him credit for . So he thinks china is an open and honest society . What a ****** . China are monitoring Hong Kong citizens 24/7

[Barry Sanchez]

If snopping or suppose stops deaths why should we care? The enemy within are forever looking for weak spots, is this a war or not?

[View From The Top]

I'm not concerned about eavesdropping as I have nothing to hide . I'm all for covert listening particularly if it saves lives . Stop kidnapping murders , terrorist activities etc .

 

Only those who have something to hide will need to be worried.

 

On to the American in Hong Kong . He is a traitor and has potentially put millions of lives at risk with his stupidity . If he thinks running to china will help his cause . Then he is thicker than I give him credit for . So he thinks china is an open and honest society . What a ****** . China are monitoring Hong Kong citizens 24/7

 

He's no traitor, he's a genuine whistleblower.

 

It would appear that you're happy to live in a 1984 style society. The majority of us are not.

 

Sent from my GT-P3110 using Tapatalk 2

[jjsaint]

If it stops at least some terrorist activity and child pornographers, then I'm all for it.

[buctootim]

Im not so much concerned about electronic eavesdropping in isolation - its the combination of that and the gradual but seemingly irreversible move to globalisation that scares me. At present the UK electorate can vote in or vote out the British Government, if they do anything we hate they're gone. However the internationalisation of politics / trade / law is gradually removing the nation states' capacity to act alone - so power is being removed from national electorates.

 

Where we are now if fine imo, but if you look at the trend of the past 60-70 years projecting forward another 60-70 years looks very worrying indeed.

[CB Saint]

He's no traitor, he's a genuine whistleblower.

 

It would appear that you're happy to live in a 1984 style society. The majority of us are not.

 

Sent from my GT-P3110 using Tapatalk 2

 

When it comes to National Security - where is the line between the two?

[badgerx16]

When it comes to National Security - where is the line between the two?

 

The best way to maintain national security is to not start illegal wars.

[badgerx16]

If it stops at least some terrorist activity and child pornographers, then I'm all for it.

 

The security services knew about the Woolwich attackers for years before Drummer Rigby was killed, this knowledge failed to prevent the attack. The problem is as much about how the data is used as the process of collating it - incompetent data management and flawed analysis generate significant risks.

[Batman]

The best way to maintain national security is to not start illegal wars.

 

so, everything is done is because of Iraq 2003. that is to blame for everything, then?

[Verbal]

When it comes to National Security - where is the line between the two?

 

Oh I think in this case it's quite an easy line to draw.

 

Whatever we may think of the Bradley Manning case, it was clearly the leak of substantive classified information of a highly sensitive nature, including, at its worst, caught-on-camera indiscriminate murder.

 

Snowden, on the other hand, has not, as far as I know, revealed a single state secret that might have been gleaned from all the communications intercepts and data harvesting done by the NSA. All he has done is reveal that such massive, probably illegal harvesting goes on, that it is done secretly and with the collusion of the "do No Evil" internet giants.

 

He has not compromised any NSA or CIA or FBI investigation, but merely made public an intelligence-gathering process that is aimed far wider than at terrorists and criminals.

 

Incidentally, what's happened is another splendid argument for our remaining in the EU. While the coalition government maintains its traditional pusillanimous cringe to US hegemony, the EU is considering legal action to prosecute and prevent this kind of massive private data-harvesting. When our rights to the privacy of our data are secretly infringed by NSA and GCHQ collusion, we can hardly expect the British government to stand up for us. The EU, on the other hand, is doing just that.

[buctootim]

so, everything is done is because of Iraq 2003. that is to blame for everything, then?

 

No, but how did the war benefit anybody? Tens of thousands of Iraqis dead and a more unstable society. In excess of £50bn spent. More terrorism in US and Europe. Just like Afghanistan, a total **** up. Al Queda has been strangled by intelligence and seizing financial assets, not by sacrificing bodies on the ground.

[Batman]

No, but how did the war benefit anybody? Tens of thousands of Iraqis dead and a more unstable society. In excess of £50bn spent. More terrorism in US and Europe. Just like Afghanistan, a total **** up. Al Queda has been strangled by intelligence and seizing financial assets, not by sacrificing bodies on the ground.

you are correct. so how come you are not trying to hack someones head off?

[pap]

Certainly doesn't help, and perspectives change depending on culture and geography.

 

To many in the world, the UK & US are seen as bad guy imperialists and murderers, with some justification.

[Batman]

Certainly doesn't help, and perspectives change depending on culture and geography.

 

To many in the world, the UK & US are seen as bad guy imperialists and murderers, with some justification.

the same could be said of the russians, the chinese and many gulf states to some degree.

[badgerx16]

so, everything is done is because of Iraq 2003. that is to blame for everything, then?

 

Iraq, Afghanistan, sending guns to the Syrian opposition, Libya - what have they got in common ? You cannot impose democracy on a country - people have to find their own way; you may not like the outcome but you are duty bound to respect it.

[Batman]

Iraq, Afghanistan, sending guns to the Syrian opposition, Libya - what have they got in common ? You cannot impose democracy on a country - people have to find their own way; you may not like the outcome but you are duty bound to respect it.

 

you said illegal wars. Was afghanistan and illegal war? scores of nations are involved in the fighting

[buctootim]

you are correct. so how come you are not trying to hack someones head off?

 

Probably because my country wasn't invaded, had the **** kicked out of it, the infrastructure destroyed and then everbody ****ed off leaving all the problems behind. Im sure if Iraq had done that to Britain you'd be advocating head hacking for some Iraqi Halliburton employee going about his routine repression in the Plymouth green zone.

[Batman]

Probably because my country wasn't invaded, had the **** kicked out of it, the infrastructure destroyed and then everbody ****ed off leaving all the problems behind. Im sure if Iraq had done that to Britain you'd be advocating head hacking for some Iraqi Halliburton employee going about his routine repression in the Plymouth green zone.

 

Your country? the same country that the killers of Lee Rigby are from?

[buctootim]

Your country? the same country that the killers of Lee Rigby are from?

 

Those guys are saps who have been mislead by radical preachers who tell them its Godly to kill people in the name of Allah. Its no different to cults where the religious principles are to **** the leader who made the doctrine up in the first place.

Edited 13 June, 2013 by buctootim

[OldNick]

Iam amazed that people are surprised this has been happening. The Chinese and Russians will be doing the same and after all I doubt our listening posts in Cheltenham are pure.

As long as it is being used for the right reasons then fine, if only it had listened in to Rosie the dogs telephone it would have been good.

There was a Hollywood film some time ago that basically told us this was happening.

[badgerx16]

you said illegal wars. Was afghanistan and illegal war? scores of nations are involved in the fighting

 

It is an unnecessary, unwinnable, and technically illegal war. I find it odd that the USofA, which fought a war of independence to free itself from foreign tyranny and imposition, now sees fit to impose it's view of 'world order' on those areas of the world with resources that may prove valuable to American consumers..

[hutch]

It is an unnecessary, unwinnable, and technically illegal war. I find it odd that the USofA, which fought a war of independence to free itself from foreign tyranny and imposition, now sees fit to impose it's view of 'world order' on those areas of the world with resources that may prove valuable to American consumers..

In the same way you are seeking to impose yours on us, albeit on a bit of a smaller scale.

[Batman]

It is an unnecessary, unwinnable, and technically illegal war. I find it odd that the USofA, which fought a war of independence to free itself from foreign tyranny and imposition, now sees fit to impose it's view of 'world order' on those areas of the world with resources that may prove valuable to American consumers..

what technicality makes it illegal?

[buctootim]

what technicality makes it illegal?

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3661134.stm

[Batman]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3661134.stm

 

if was on about the other one

[buctootim]

if was on about the other one

 

Same applies. The war wasnt approved by the UN Security council. Under the UN charter, which is a binding international treaty ratified by the United States, it is illegal to attack another nation except: 1) when authorized by the Security Council; or 2) when necessary for self-defense and then only for as long as necessary to get the matter to the Security Council.

[Batman]

Same applies. The war wasnt approved by the UN Security council. Under the UN charter, which is a binding international treaty ratified by the United States, it is illegal to attack another nation except: 1) when authorized by the Security Council; or 2) when necessary for self-defense and then only for as long as necessary to get the matter to the Security Council.

 

in 2001, the security council established ISAF in afghanistan which counted on 43 nations to be involved. in 2003, NATO took over from leadership of ISAF

[buctootim]

in 2001, the security council established ISAF in afghanistan which counted on 43 nations to be involved. in 2003, NATO took over from leadership of ISAF

 

Actually I think you're right, there was an anti terrorism resolution. Nobody felt able to deny the US just a couple of months after the 9/11 attacks. Doesn't change the fact that it was a bad idea to agitate for the resolution at the UN and to put troops on the ground though.

Edited 13 June, 2013 by buctootim

[badgerx16]

what technicality makes it illegal?

 

Neither the Government nor the people of Afghanistan perpetrated 9/11 - the war was effectively declared against OBL and his clique; the fact that parts of the country have been bombed back to the stone age, thousands of innocents have died, and there is currently no effective administrative control over large swathes of land is merely collateral damage.

[Batman]

Neither the Government nor the people of Afghanistan perpetrated 9/11 - the war was effectively declared against OBL and his clique; the fact that parts of the country have been bombed back to the stone age, thousands of innocents have died, and there is currently no effective administrative control over large swathes of land is merely collateral damage.

 

so, was the war illegal or not.?

[badgerx16]

so, was the war illegal or not.?

 

There is legal opinion that it is, there is similarly legal opinion that it is not. You can pick whichever opinion best supports your position.

[Batman]

There is legal opinion that it is, there is similarly legal opinion that it is not. You can pick whichever opinion best supports your position.

 

as it stands, it is not illegal.

as for terrorist threats to the UK being the fault of 'illegal wars'. What of the Parisian official who got his neck stabbed by an islamic extremist? France were opposed to action in Iraq in 2003 and tend not to provide much (if at all) in offensive elements to NATO.

[badgerx16]

as it stands, it is not illegal.

as for terrorist threats to the UK being the fault of 'illegal wars'. What of the Parisian official who got his neck stabbed by an islamic extremist? France were opposed to action in Iraq in 2003 and tend not to provide much (if at all) in offensive elements to NATO.

 

As I said, you can pick & choose the legal opinion, ( from WIKI ):

The UN Charter

is a treaty ratified by the United States and thus part of US law. Under the charter, a country can use armed force against another country only in self-defense or when the Security Council approves. Neither of those conditions was met before the United States invaded Afghanistan. The Taliban did not attack us on 9/11. Nineteen men – 15 from

Saudi Arabia

– did, and there was no imminent threat that Afghanistan would attack the US or another UN member country. The council did not authorize the United States or any other country to use military force against Afghanistan. The US war in Afghanistan is illegal.

—

Marjorie Cohn

, professor at

Thomas Jefferson School of Law

, president of the

National Lawyers Guild

^[3]