- Feb 14, 2002
- 17,797
- 6,858
- AFL Club
- Brisbane Lions
- Other Teams
- Lexton, Northcote Park
I might be lying. After all, this is the internet.
'Modern heroes'? Assange, Manning, Snowden, Hammond...
- Thread starter Smiling Buddha
- Start date
- Tagged users None
- Banned
- #127
Cool, so how long till we find out they do this with skype, facebook, chatroulette, or any other video messaging service:
Likewise passive monitoring via mobile phone, google glass (so wearable devices) or kinect should one day be a concern.
Likewise passive monitoring via mobile phone, google glass (so wearable devices) or kinect should one day be a concern.
they got me with chatroulette. pretty easy mark i will be to blackmail.
prone? kama sutra?
Tas
Premium Platinum
Veteran
10k Posts
30k Posts
North Melbourne - 2022 Kaitlyn Ashmore and Aileen Gilroy Player Sponsor
North Melbourne - 2022 Aaron Hall and Flynn Perez Player Sponsor
North Melbourne AFLW - 2021 Aileen Gilroy and Kaitlyn Ashmore Player Sponsor
North Melbourne - 2021 Taylor Garner and Flynn Perez Player Sponsor
TheBrownDog
- Dec 23, 2002
- 62,054
- 60,118
- AFL Club
- North Melbourne
- Other Teams
- There can be only one...
It is hard to say, never heard anything about Assange before he became famous for the wikileaks stuff. It is not like the US are not unethical enough to buy or threaten off this writer to write stuff to tarnish Assange. Could be the truth but like with anything post wikileaks you have to wonder about motivation people have all of a sudden.
- Sep 23, 2008
- 7,283
- 4,943
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
- Other Teams
- Man City
I wonder what this bloke
woulda done, had he been brought up in the age of the internet.
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/opinion/article4019876.ece
Edward Snowden isn’t a hero. He’s a traitor
He’s not just made the security services’ job of combating dictatorships more difficult — he’s fled to an enemy regime
Edward Lucas
Rogue intelligence agencies stalk cyberspace, beyond any form of legal or political control. They ruthlessly collect our most intimate data and exploit it for their masters’ political ends. Only the brave dare challenge them.
That is the worldview of the “Snowdenistas” — the followers of Edward Snowden, a former contractor for America’s National Security Agency who has now sought refuge in Russia. To prove their point, they have leaked secrets swiped by Snowden from the NSA’s servers last year, in the biggest breach in Western intelligence history. Mostly in the form of internal presentation slides, these illustrate how the NSA and its British counterpart GCHQ infiltrate adversaries’ computer games, identify them by trawling data collected from webcams, analyse their email and telephone traffic, play mind-games to disrupt their online communities, and much more besides.
It is worth pointing out that that none of these slides is conclusive. It is often unclear whether the capabilities and programmes described are merely under consideration, already implemented, or discontinued. The information comes without context. Journalistic fact-checking is all but impossible.
Moreover, it is unsurprising that intelligence agencies actually engage in espionage, and that GCHQ and the NSA have formidable skills. Nonetheless, outrage reigns.
What is surprising is that that even from the documents released by the Snowdenistas — cherry-picked to show the agencies in a bad light — there is no sign that British or American spooks are deliberately breaking the law. Indeed, the real impression from the slides is of bureaucrats who may chafe against the rules, but are acutely aware of them. GCHQ spymasters even worry about the effects on their staff who may be exposed to indecent images: hardly something that would have fazed James Bond.
Crucially, the Snowden documents show no sign whatsoever that the agencies have unlawfully targeted people. Were they really out of control, one would assume that they had built up detailed files on their critics and opponents. These could easily include opposition political groups, or individuals such as the Berlin-based hacker Jacob Appelbaum, or the Brazil-based blogger Glenn Greenwald.
Yet nothing of the kind has emerged. Snowden would certainly have looked for such material — it would be damning proof that the agencies were abusing their powers for political ends. But he didn’t find it, for a simple reason: it doesn’t exist.
Whistle-blowers must meet three tests. They must be trying to expose wrongdoing which cannot be remedied in any other way. They must bear public safety in mind. And the material they steal must be proportionate to the problem.
Snowden fails all of these tests. He has not shown endemic, systematic wrongdoing. And he has been astonishingly reckless in handing over a trove of secret material to newspapers that lack the skills, or the motivation, to keep it safe.
Nothing he has leaked suggests that the NSA or GCHQ deliberately flout their legal, political and constitutional constraints. To be sure, they make mistakes. They have rows with their oversight bodies. But they are not out of control.
They do indeed collect and store colossal quantities of information and trawl it for clues about connections that may reveal information about terrorists, foreign spies, international criminals, and our countries’ political and economic rivals. But that is their job. These activities are legal and authorised.
They also spy against foreign countries, and details of these operations — such as snooping on Angela Merkel’s private mobile phone — are embarrassing. But all countries with the capability to do so engage in espionage. Given Germany’s troubling history of private deals with China, Russia and Iran it is quite reasonable for Anglo-American decision-makers to want to know what is going on.
Even more scandalous are the leaked details about how we spy on revolting dictatorships such as China, or corrupt authoritarian regimes such Russia. What is the public interest in revealing, as Snowden has done, how democracies spy on their enemies?
I was initially mildly sympathetic to Snowden. I am instinctively mistrustful of government agencies, especially those that shun scrutiny. As a journalist, I like ferreting out secrets. And I am sympathetic to whistle-blowers, who risk their careers or their freedom to expose wrongdoing. I think that a wider public debate about the way companies and governments use the personal data which we entrust to the internet is healthy and overdue.
But I was soon revolted by the narcissism and recklessness of the Snowden camp. They seem to think that the Bourne Identity and similar Hollywood films are documentaries, not fanciful thrillers. Even Snowden himself admitted that the NSA was not abusing individual privacy right now — he was just worried that it could do so in future. Some of his allies seem to think that espionage is inherently evil.
The Snowdenistas are entitled to their odd political views, but not to pursue them by sabotage and treason. They seem oblivious to the catastrophic effects of their actions. Our intelligence agencies are paralysed by the ongoing damage-control effort (even trying to work out what exactly has been stolen, let alone what the implications are if and when it falls into Russian or Chinese hands, is a huge task). At a time when cooperation between Western countries has never been more important, it is crippled by suspicion and public hostility — a direct result of the Snowden leaks.
The Snowdenistas also seem not to realise that the West does not live in a bubble, where we can mull the niceties of intelligence oversight rules. We are faced with ruthless rivals and enemies — not least Russia, which seems to be risking all out war in Ukraine just to save Vladimir Putin’s dignity after the failed crackdown in Kiev. Whether or not Russian intelligence actually aided Snowden (a conjecture which I outline in my book) there is no doubt that the Kremlin has been a huge beneficiary of his actions — and we have been the losers.
Edward Snowden isn’t a hero. He’s a traitor
He’s not just made the security services’ job of combating dictatorships more difficult — he’s fled to an enemy regime
Edward Lucas
Rogue intelligence agencies stalk cyberspace, beyond any form of legal or political control. They ruthlessly collect our most intimate data and exploit it for their masters’ political ends. Only the brave dare challenge them.
That is the worldview of the “Snowdenistas” — the followers of Edward Snowden, a former contractor for America’s National Security Agency who has now sought refuge in Russia. To prove their point, they have leaked secrets swiped by Snowden from the NSA’s servers last year, in the biggest breach in Western intelligence history. Mostly in the form of internal presentation slides, these illustrate how the NSA and its British counterpart GCHQ infiltrate adversaries’ computer games, identify them by trawling data collected from webcams, analyse their email and telephone traffic, play mind-games to disrupt their online communities, and much more besides.
It is worth pointing out that that none of these slides is conclusive. It is often unclear whether the capabilities and programmes described are merely under consideration, already implemented, or discontinued. The information comes without context. Journalistic fact-checking is all but impossible.
Moreover, it is unsurprising that intelligence agencies actually engage in espionage, and that GCHQ and the NSA have formidable skills. Nonetheless, outrage reigns.
What is surprising is that that even from the documents released by the Snowdenistas — cherry-picked to show the agencies in a bad light — there is no sign that British or American spooks are deliberately breaking the law. Indeed, the real impression from the slides is of bureaucrats who may chafe against the rules, but are acutely aware of them. GCHQ spymasters even worry about the effects on their staff who may be exposed to indecent images: hardly something that would have fazed James Bond.
Crucially, the Snowden documents show no sign whatsoever that the agencies have unlawfully targeted people. Were they really out of control, one would assume that they had built up detailed files on their critics and opponents. These could easily include opposition political groups, or individuals such as the Berlin-based hacker Jacob Appelbaum, or the Brazil-based blogger Glenn Greenwald.
Yet nothing of the kind has emerged. Snowden would certainly have looked for such material — it would be damning proof that the agencies were abusing their powers for political ends. But he didn’t find it, for a simple reason: it doesn’t exist.
Whistle-blowers must meet three tests. They must be trying to expose wrongdoing which cannot be remedied in any other way. They must bear public safety in mind. And the material they steal must be proportionate to the problem.
Snowden fails all of these tests. He has not shown endemic, systematic wrongdoing. And he has been astonishingly reckless in handing over a trove of secret material to newspapers that lack the skills, or the motivation, to keep it safe.
Nothing he has leaked suggests that the NSA or GCHQ deliberately flout their legal, political and constitutional constraints. To be sure, they make mistakes. They have rows with their oversight bodies. But they are not out of control.
They do indeed collect and store colossal quantities of information and trawl it for clues about connections that may reveal information about terrorists, foreign spies, international criminals, and our countries’ political and economic rivals. But that is their job. These activities are legal and authorised.
They also spy against foreign countries, and details of these operations — such as snooping on Angela Merkel’s private mobile phone — are embarrassing. But all countries with the capability to do so engage in espionage. Given Germany’s troubling history of private deals with China, Russia and Iran it is quite reasonable for Anglo-American decision-makers to want to know what is going on.
Even more scandalous are the leaked details about how we spy on revolting dictatorships such as China, or corrupt authoritarian regimes such Russia. What is the public interest in revealing, as Snowden has done, how democracies spy on their enemies?
I was initially mildly sympathetic to Snowden. I am instinctively mistrustful of government agencies, especially those that shun scrutiny. As a journalist, I like ferreting out secrets. And I am sympathetic to whistle-blowers, who risk their careers or their freedom to expose wrongdoing. I think that a wider public debate about the way companies and governments use the personal data which we entrust to the internet is healthy and overdue.
But I was soon revolted by the narcissism and recklessness of the Snowden camp. They seem to think that the Bourne Identity and similar Hollywood films are documentaries, not fanciful thrillers. Even Snowden himself admitted that the NSA was not abusing individual privacy right now — he was just worried that it could do so in future. Some of his allies seem to think that espionage is inherently evil.
The Snowdenistas are entitled to their odd political views, but not to pursue them by sabotage and treason. They seem oblivious to the catastrophic effects of their actions. Our intelligence agencies are paralysed by the ongoing damage-control effort (even trying to work out what exactly has been stolen, let alone what the implications are if and when it falls into Russian or Chinese hands, is a huge task). At a time when cooperation between Western countries has never been more important, it is crippled by suspicion and public hostility — a direct result of the Snowden leaks.
The Snowdenistas also seem not to realise that the West does not live in a bubble, where we can mull the niceties of intelligence oversight rules. We are faced with ruthless rivals and enemies — not least Russia, which seems to be risking all out war in Ukraine just to save Vladimir Putin’s dignity after the failed crackdown in Kiev. Whether or not Russian intelligence actually aided Snowden (a conjecture which I outline in my book) there is no doubt that the Kremlin has been a huge beneficiary of his actions — and we have been the losers.
- Banned
- #134
Not even a very good bit of apologism, I have read better.
Also Sanders, there are quoting rules FFS, save us the wall of text.
- Banned
- #136
Nope, also completely incorrect use of the phrase confirmation bias.What you mean is your confirmation bias matched more closely
That implies that I agreed with other examples of apologism that I have read.
It's a s**t piece, with a snide, condescending tone, that makes it's points poorly. No wonder you like it.
raskolnikov
Cancelled
10k Posts
30k Posts
Wordler
Werewolf Player
Essendon Player Sponsor 2021 - Anthony McDonald-Tipungwuti and Archie Perkins
Essendon Player Sponsor 2020 - Orazio Fantasia, Anthony McDonald Tipungwuti, Shaun McKernan
Essendon Player Sponsor 2019 - Orazio Fantasia, Anthony McDonald Tipungwuti, Shaun McKernan
Song Contest Winner - 5+ Rounds
Has anybody mentioned James Hird yet?
hes over at INSEAD, reminds me of Melissa George
http://www.thepunch.com.au/articles/melissa-george-has-a-point/
- Banned
- #141
you got a new tv?
Disrupted speech & text patterning makes automated surveillance programs suicidal. I hear anyway. Don't use algorithm in everyday speech.
ur right. they cant place a blackcat archetype within said algorithm. until i start getting all these fathers day cards from the roots i aint getting. but i hear evo is gonna lend me game from the game
when u rnt usin chatroulette, do u papermache over the webcam?
Last edited:
evo
Let's hit the f*ken road!
Citizenfour is a must watch.
hey Chief, he of unmatched wisdom, you need to change the forum codes so you can like ur own post. I read this back, and did not see that it was one of my posts, but i wanted to hit the like button, but you prevented me from liking it. its a bit like inverted defamation
todd solondz ftw
i dont watch crap american movie industry, but when i do I watch john waters and todd solondz
#brown_bunny
Similar threads
