SOPA - Internet as we know it about to be gone?

Beeing an ex-mod... no wait, I still am and I usually don´t derail threads. I though that this little picture is a nice symbol for valuing control and "public safety" more than personal freedom. Most of the points on that board make sense, but others are plain ridiculous and speak of paranoia.

(Unless Tonci was just trolling and derailing the thread, being an ex-moderator(not here) I'm sure that couldn't be so?)

No one was, just thought that US politics thread exists to talk directly about that aspect that's all, this was more tech based/online.

Minority Report moves step closer as Lord Sugar launches face recognition adverts

Minority Report-style adverts have moved a step closer to reality after Lord Sugar's Amscreen launched an innovative face detection system in thousands of its advertising screens that can tell how many people are looking at an advert, as well as their age and sex.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/mediatechnologyandtelecoms/media/10170020/Minority-Report-moves-step-closer-as-Lord-Sugar-launches-face-recognition-adverts.html

Face recognition (sorry "detection" Phew!), now, where have I seen that on the internet for millions to use recently as one large database??

They wouldn't link it would they? Surely not? If you didn't "opt out" of the features ... ?

Im waiting for the link to happen to "Update your wall with what you bought!".

I do love how its soft sold as facial detection NOT recognition!? But ... once its in place, it can be expanded on, dont question its paranoia if you do.

Where the democratic public's individual right to vote if we want this shit detecting anything anyway just for advertisers only benefit of 'stream data'? Only to force more shit to "consume" into our "face"? Ah yes, its to be allocated & stored on private property so you have no input on it.

Not sure how this would sit with people who commute and are tired, how Fkg' annoying would this be.

Beeing an ex-mod... no wait, I still am and I usually don´t derail threads. I though that this little picture is a nice symbol for valuing control and "public safety" more than personal freedom. Most of the points on that board make sense, but others are plain ridiculous and speak of paranoia.

What do people do in parks on public holidays now? They do drugs. Yes look carefully and the incidence of spaced out chavs is increasing. I see it every weekend now. It's not very nice, the smell is annoying to me but the needles they leave behind are a danger to children. So the sign and cameras is acting as a deterrent, it makes those thinking of taking a little something along to spice up the 4th of July, think again. Perhaps this doesn't happen in Germany? Maybe in liberal Germany you dont mind people taking drugs infront of your young children and you are all immune to HIV and hepatitus? Perhaps before you accuse other countries of paranoia you should check a few facts 1st.

No doubt we will have more lessons in thinking things through herr mod?

@Cash - agree with the adverts and train window thing. I'm sure a blow up pillow will be a suitable antidote to the 'talking window'? I did a study on bone conduction once, there needs to be very good contact for this to work or you need a suitable shaped space where you can create a standing wave. Can the facial recognition thing cope with a hoodie or do I need a paper bag with eyeholes and a picture of my butt stuck too it?

Oh come on, we both know that the bag searching and surveillance isn´t because of drugs but because of feared terror attacks. And since this sign is propably in some smaller town it becomes quite unlikely that something like this will ever happen there. So why are the people afraid of it?

What do people do in parks on public holidays now? They do drugs. Yes look carefully and the incidence of spaced out chavs is increasing. I see it every weekend now. It's not very nice, the smell is annoying to me but the needles they leave behind are a danger to children. So the sign and cameras is acting as a deterrent, it makes those thinking of taking a little something along to spice up the 4th of July, think again. Perhaps this doesn't happen in Germany? Maybe in liberal Germany you dont mind people taking drugs infront of your young children and you are all immune to HIV and hepatitus? Perhaps before you accuse other countries of paranoia you should check a few facts 1st.

No doubt we will have more lessons in thinking things through herr mod?

@Cash - agree with the adverts and train window thing. I'm sure a blow up pillow will be a suitable antidote to the 'talking window'? Can the facial recognition thing cope with a hoodie or do I need a paper bag with eyeholes?

See how easy it is to defend your diminishing freedom - and even applaud it :)

See how easy it is to defend your diminishing freedom - and even applaud it :)

I actually disagree with the cameras, you can't get away with dispensing your own justice on junkies now.;)

@Tonci it's not about terror at all - every park in a large town has a drug problem that is what it's for. That sign appeared in Lakewood Ohio (Cleveland suburb), which has.............a significan't problem with drugs. Turn the lightbulb on now, I know it will not switch on by itself.

So I really went and checked the crime statistics for that place. it has a low rate of crime, in fact it is far beyond the US average. It also has less police officers per 1000 people than the US average.

http://www.city-data.com/crime/crime-Lakewood-Ohio.html

http://spotcrime.com/oh/lakewood

Seems like a rather peacefull little town.

And I seriously doubt that junkies would dare to go after their buisness in a crowded park on independence day.

Where did you get your information from?

Can the facial recognition thing cope with a hoodie or do I need a paper bag with eyeholes and a picture of my butt stuck too it?

Ah now that would be "hiding something" and the CCTV will kick in and take over to watch you acting suspiciously on private property.

The Anti-Internet Bill has NOT Been Postponed To 2012 … The Committee Members Who Support SOPA Sneakily Changed the Hearing Date to December 21st, Trying to Trick the American People Into Thinking It Was Over Until After the Holidays So We Won’t Fight Back!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-23328520

[h=1]Yahoo wins battle over Prism court papers[/h] Details of the official justification for the US National Security Agency's wide-ranging Prism surveillance programme look set to be revealed.

INTELLIGENCE AND SECURITY COMMITTEE OF PARLIAMENT

Statement on GCHQ’s Alleged Interception of Communications under the US PRISM Programme

"we have concluded that GCHQ has not circumvented or attempted to circumvent UK law"

https://b1cba9b3-a-5e6631fd-s-sites.googlegroups.com/a/independent.gov.uk/isc/files/20130717_ISC_statement_GCHQ.pdf?attachauth=ANoY7coHCoAPcYqluULl4PmE324GRzxcsvsmBU5txtR1xFjGWX5W3RzGe4oyOs7dueoPUOW4bti_GJ3OnEwtk-DNFnUOfD1PJIuwWBxTsIuk_ph_NkfzA-zR-wBczRTSB3J6dvvEjYSzFaQmfxXb7EQekatqq6GPpmzV8daDR3SObNuQU1Z6Sd7Wmbg2Y3uS4nMiwt7ukW2ABaQCmyelCuHHSSpB0BApP744Hx6-kLcLqov4VfnXqWA%3D&attredirects=0

NSA Surveillance Leaks: Facts and Fiction

Office of the Director of National Intelligence (DNI)

http://www.dni.gov/index.php/newsroom/speeches-and-interviews/195-speeches-interviews-2013/887-transcript-newseum-special-program-nsa-surveillance-leaks-facts-and-fiction?highlight=YToxOntpOjA7czo1OiJwcmlzbSI7fQ==

what we cannot do – and I’m repeating this – is go out and target the communications of Americans for collection without an individual court order

So the first of the programs that I want to talk about that was leaked to the press is what’s been called Section 215, or business record collection. It’s called Section 215 because that was the section of the Patriot Act that put the current version of that statute into place. And under that – this statute, we collect telephone metadata, using a court order which is authorized by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, under a provision which allows a government to obtain business records for intelligence and counterterrorism purposes. Now, by metadata, in this context, I mean data that describes the phone calls, such as the telephone number making the call, the telephone number dialed, the data and time the call was made and the length of the call. These are business records of the telephone companies in question, which is why they can be collected under this provision.

Despite what you may have read about this program, we do not collect the content of any communications under this program. We do not collect the identity of any participant to any communication under this program. And while there seems to have been some confusion about this as recently as today, I want to make perfectly clear we do not collect cellphone location information under this program, either GPS information or cell site tower information. I’m not sure why it’s been so hard to get people to understand that because it’s been said repeatedly.

Some people have expressed concern, which is quite a valid concern in the abstract, that if you collect large quantities of metadata about telephone calls, you could subject it to sophisticated analysis, and using those kind of analytical tools, you can derive a lot of information about people that would otherwise not be discoverable.

The fact is, we are specifically not allowed to do that kind of analysis of this data, and we don’t do it. The metadata that is acquired and kept under this program can only be queried when there is reasonable suspicion, based on specific, articulable facts, that a particular telephone number is associated with specified foreign terrorist organizations. And the only purpose for which we can make that query is to identify contacts. All that we get under this program, all that we collect, is metadata. So all that we get back from one of these queries is metadata.

The last thing I want to talk about a little bit is the myth that this is sort of unchecked authority, because we have extensive oversight and control over the collection, which involves all three branches of government. First, NSA has extensive technological processes, including segregated databases, limited access and audit trails, and they have extensive internal oversight, including their own compliance officer, who oversees compliance with the rules.

Second, the Department of Justice and my office, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, are specifically charged with overseeing NSA’s activities to make sure that there are no compliance problems. And we report to the Congress twice a year on the use of these collection authorities and compliance problems. And if we find a problem, we correct it. Inspectors general, independent inspectors general, who, as you all know, also have an independent reporting responsibility to Congress, also are charged with undertaking a review of how these surveillance programs are carried out.

Any time that information is collected in violation of the rules, it’s reported immediately to the FISA court and is also reported to the relevant congressional oversight committees. It doesn’t matter how small the – or technical the violation is. And information that’s collected in violation of the rules has to be purged, with very limited exceptions.

Both the FISA court and the congressional oversight committees, which are Intelligence and Judiciary, take a very active role in overseeing this program and ensuring that we adhere to the requirements of the statutes and the court orders. And let me just stop and say that the suggestion that the FISA court is a rubber stamp is a complete canard, as anybody who’s ever had the privilege of appearing before Judge Bates or Judge Walton can attest.

MR. LITT: Can you make clear what kind of FISA you’re talking about here? Because I – we didn’t talk about that earlier, and it might be useful to explain that.

MR. BOWMAN: OK. The – at the present time I’m talking about the – a FISA application to target a person. So that makes a difference here. But the point of the matter is that the judges are focused on privacy from the day they walk into this new office they’ve got. And so they’re looking at privacy issues for the 215 program and for the 702 program as well.

But the application starts in the field, the application goes to the headquarters of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, where it must be approved there by operators; it’s already been approved by an operator, a significant administrator and a lawyer in the field. When it gets to the headquarters, it has to be approved by the supervisors there, then it goes to the lawyers at the FBI, where it has to be approved by at least two lawyers there. It then goes to the Department of Justice, where at least three more lawyers will look at it.

Now, I will tell you, in approximately 70 percent, maybe 80 percent of the cases that application is going to be sent back at at least one of those stops along the road for more information, for more justification. Many of them are sent back several times. When it finally gets to the court, the court is now looking at something that, as I said, is really beyond their normal experience and they are suspicious of secrecy and they are concerned about privacy. And the court will ask questions and frequently, very frequently, they will – they will hold a FISA application to make sure they understand what is going on and to get more information to them. I’ve seen FISA applications held over for months at a time to make sure that the applications are properly prepared and that there is no issue of privacy that would trump over the issue of national security.

I called out Glenn Greenwald on this and Bart Gellman on that, and they responded quite in character. Gellman said quite truculently, yo, the Post did the same thing; do they hate America too? And Bart wrote a thousand words. A – but – and I’ve put it on my blog, skating on Stilts, if you want to read it. But it – I don’t think either of them fully defended themselves from the accusation of what they did. Their withholding of that information was the act of an advocate who had an ax to grind and wanted to create an impression that disclosing these documents earlier would not have allowed them to create.

What the Prism Stories Tell Us About the Press

http://www.skatingonstilts.com/skating-on-stilts/2013/06/stewart-baker-nsa-minimization-interception-greenwald-guardian.html

Other interesting news:

Arabian Al Qaeda Number Two Killed By Drone

Said al Shehri was released from Guantanamo in 2007 and went on to become al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula's second-in-command.

http://news.sky.com/story/1116749/arabian-al-qaeda-number-two-killed-by-drone

Pussy Riot: New Video Attack On Putin

Group members cavort in short skirts as they accuse the Russian leader of sharing the nation's oil wealth with his "friends".

http://news.sky.com/story/1116855/pussy-riot-new-video-attack-on-putin

Other interesting info:

The Guardian guide to metadata:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/interactive/2013/jun/12/what-is-metadata-nsa-surveillance

Insider threats

http://www.ncix.gov/issues/ithreat/docs/Insider_Threat_Brochure.pdf

Economic espionage

http://www.ncix.gov/issues/economic/index.php

Cyber security

http://www.ncix.gov/issues/cyber/index.php

http://www.nsa.gov/ia/_files/factsheets/Best_Practices_Datasheets.pdf

So it was all about metadata only? And they have processes in place not to target a single person? I never knew that, apparently we all thought it was a man in a room wandering around getting everyone's data and looking at it for fun without any legal proceedings, I cant believe I thought of such piffle.

Well thats the storm in a teacup over, I do hope the pesky whistle-blower come terrorists get what's coming to them, trying to undermine our feelings of online safety the swines. I also hope they get billed for the waste of federal's time on this mess along with any other punishments.

I will take them at their every word on this as it seems I was duped from the get go, what stupid paranoid person I have been, I have learned my lesson now. I hope this thread gets locked & removed, its just a nest of complete disinformation up to this point, what a joke.

The fact is, we are specifically not allowed to do that kind of analysis of this data, and we don’t do it.

Strange its only pointless metadata why would they not be allowed to do such a search on it if it only has limited reading anyway? What would it take so you are allowed? Its stored and therefore can be at any time based on caveats. How many global terrorist groups are there now for all this metadata to be stored pre selectively in case its "needed" on request? Although I will take their word for it.

The metadata that is acquired and kept under this program can only be queried when there is reasonable suspicion, based on specific, articulable facts, that a particular telephone number is associated with specified foreign terrorist organizations.

So collect first (everyone) ask any question and pick at the data later ... thats sounds good. Only for simple metadata, seems alot of time and resource spent on something thats so small and hardly ever to be looked at. Its as if they collect the metadata and then fire it to the moon in a safe so you can hardly get to it, seems logical, also seems very "pre crime" based to me.

None of this fog will ever show anything other than "we dont" the moment it got leaked that would be the end result, its no surprise what so ever. Although this is a spoke in a bigger wheel of data gleaned from all areas online and that also includes "opt out" options (where private flags for certain places are switched on by default) the free will of the advert of social media of data openly thrown into the web like its a sock draw. Bigger picture not these smoke screen narrow avenues.

And still legislation with go back into the system in order to open out the "reasonable suspicion, based on specific, articulable facts" every process has a fast track process and things like SOPA and the like all when put together assist on this narrow field of "trigger process" the thing that fires right through this set of safety stages. When your blur the lines of the trigger process then its more easy to fire it.

I do remember a time when the idea of pre storing any data was a massive issue, now that's all clear and open (no shock, but more open) its now .. "its only meta data, dont worry"). Simple fact is, its a global data sweep and pick later if needed process, that in itself should speak strongly on its own.

I still often wonder about this event and if this end result was the desired outcome anyway, but hey, we can ponder :)

Here's another video.

At 53.48 William Binney is having his speech . . . he'll give you an insight because he was directly involved with developing the surveillance system.

It is very interesting and I can recommend to watch the whole video if you are interested in gaining some more knowledge about what is really going in the UStaziA.

cheers

At 53.48 William Binney is having his speech . . . he'll give you an insight because he was directly involved with developing the surveillance system.

It is very interesting and I can recommend to watch the whole video if you are interested in gaining some more knowledge about what is really going in the UStaziA.

cheers

Do you get all your info from youtube? Do you realise you have taken it out of context and got the timeline wrong?

Binney left the NSA in 2001 (12 years ago) because he was upset that his program wasn't successful, thought the bid process for the successful program was corrupt and flawed and could see the start of the excesses under George W. Bush that ended in the warantless wire tapping scandal which ceased in January 2007.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warrantless_wiretapping_program

So what he is refering to is past history and his experiences in 2001. That is not what is happening now is it? So what fantastic revelation is in the video? Couldn't find anything new, also have to say that they skip over the detail, avoid being specific, skip over all the legal safeguards and law involved.

That video was recorded in January 2013. So is Jesselyn Radack telling lies about her deleted emails? It's a matter of public record and was verified by a judge that 33 documents were submitted to the Virginia District Court on March 1, 2002, and March 11, 2002 which include all Radack's emails (the John Lindh case)? So just how truthfull is this and how relevant is it to PRISM? She must know by now that her version of events isn't accurate?

I am also suspicious of speakers that get basic facts wrong, blur historical timelines and miss out pertinent details. Also notice that they don't express any self doubt or self criticism at any stage? Whilst the activities of George W Bush & Co trampled all over ethical and constitutional boundaries and these 3 obviously paid the price for being obstructive, they don't really have anything to offer on current events?

Do you get all your info from youtube? Do you realise you have taken it out of context and got the timeline wrong?

Wikipedia is an editable & changeable format so dont ask that and link wiki :)

Binney left the NSA in 2001 (12 years ago) because he was upset that his program wasn't successful, thought the bid process for the successful program was corrupt and flawed and could see the start of the excesses under George W. Bush that ended in the warantless wire tapping scandal which ceased in January 2007.

So what he is referring to is past history and his experiences in 2001. That is not what is happening now is it?

If you think for one second that comment doesn't eats its own tail then I really dont know. You honestly think things in place by Bush & Co from 2001 stop at 2007 and dont link directly to everything in place and expanded upon now? That mate, is a joke in itself.

The bad cops left and the good cops arrived? Man alive, I have read it all now.

2001 is massively linked to now like an umbilical chord in time, faces switch, processes dont .. they just expand, rename, re apply via alternative process titles you name it the link to that time is THE most relevant of all, one doesn't exist without the other ... keyword reminder "terrorism".

Wikipedia is an editable & changeable format so dont ask that and link wiki :)

If you think for one second that comment doesn't eats its own tail then I really dont know. You honestly think things in place by Bush & Co from 2001 stop at 2007 and dont link directly to everything in place and expanded upon now? That mate, is a joke in itself.

The bad cops left and the good cops arrived? Man alive, I have read it all now.

2001 is massively linked to now like an umbilical chord in time, faces switch, processes dont .. they just expand, rename, re apply via alternative process titles you name it the link to that time is THE most relevant of all, one doesn't exist without the other ... keyword reminder "terrorism".

Got any evidence of your own to back that up or just mouthing off conspiritard nonsense as usual? You saying domestic warrantless wire tapping still occurs, what a scoop you must have, Pulitzer Prize material, can't wait to read about it! Also please don't misrepresent what I wrote, that video applies to the past and fact checking it is relatively easy. What Drake says doesn't happen, Binney simply talks about his experiences in 2001 and Radack is still coming up with the wrong conclusions simply because she wasn't aware of the facts. It's in the public record.

-Links and evidence are on the previous page, see FISA controls, legal and congressional oversight etc.

PS the info on the wiki page about warantless wiretapping is fairly accurate and balanced I don't post wiki links without checking them first ;)

Something that may interest you is that the FISA Act was challenged at the Supreme Court:

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/11-1025_ihdj.pdf

respondents cannot manufacture standing by choosing to make expenditures based on hypothetical future harm that is not certainly impending. Because they do not face a threat of certainly impending interception under §1881a, their costs are simply the product of their fear of surveillance, which is insufficient to create standing.

Because respondents do not face a threat of certainly impending interception under §1881a, the costs that they have incurred to avoid surveillance are simply the product of their fear of surveillance,

Second, our holding today by no means insulates §1881a from judicial review. As described above, Congress created a comprehensive scheme in which the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court evaluates the Government’s certifications, targeting procedures, and minimization procedures—including assessing whether the targeting and minimization procedures comport with the Fourth Amendment.

Does that remind you of anyone MrCash? Unfounded fear of surveillance (paranoia)? If you read through the judgement it details all the controls and why you, Amnesty, ACLU and others are speculating and suffering from paranoia and flawed logic.

Your having a busy day today Mattar.

Got any evidence of your own to back that up or just mouthing off conspiritard nonsense as usual? You saying domestic warrantless wire tapping still occurs, what a scoop you must have

Ah yes, back to the name calling and insults, doesn't take long does it mate (yawn). I didnt say it does or it does not, you just twisted my words, I said that 2001 up to now shows a vast amount of linked change to process based on "triggers" that being "terror" but whats happening with those processes in place and expanded on is the thin line of "terror" when there is plenty of examples showing how patriot act/terror laws have been used out of the main context they were designed. And so ... these processes and legal structures have one flaw, and that is the next set of implemented frameworks and changes based on key wording and triggers see SOPA (the thread this is for and you wont read as you think its conspiritard shit).

So information prior and through are all relevant, chew the meat, spit the bones, that was all.

-Links and evidence are on the previous page, see FISA controls, legal and congressional oversight etc.

Concerns about how this can be fast tracked past such safety measures like this is solid stone cold secure via other connecting bills and legislation see this thread you wander around in for a taster.

You can post as much high brow responses as you see fit, link as many PDF's and official documentation as you like, and it will all prove that everything is fine. Thats a given no question about it, and in some ways for that alone this thread needs to be removed and any questions what so ever in the world. Although you will never look at anything other than this, for example, judges and courts and corruption, questionable affiliations within the people that work within these areas and upper levels of them, the world is not corrupt, nothing has shown it, so none of this implemented infrastructure can ever be used for anything more than absolute safety from terror (the thing that clearly is a threat to everyone daily *taking a shit and dying of cardiac arrest is more of a threat *at any time so we need mass rape of 'low level' meta data to be stored "just in case").

Does that remind you of anyone MrCash? Unfounded fear of surveillance (paranoia)?

I dont fear any surveillance, its peoples *cough, actual version, cough* "concerns on how things are progressing and for the future" if I can quote my thoughts ... isnt unfounded and is logical and is most certainly not just some shortlist of groups you spit out.

Run with the official line my friend absolutely in light of everything from history and current unveiling and corruption, if you think at this stage in the game there is nothing to be remotely 'concerned' about (difference from your projected view of it) I pitty you.

You desperately find what you can to counter, please be my guest, meanwhile the real world will question and will carry on with or without your background noise my friend, happy digging in the perpetual coldesac of what you need to know & only want to know to fit an argument in far reaches of internet-ville & be happy, you win nothing, guess why .... this shit still rolls on regardless :)

No evidence then.....

No I dont have any evidence to argue with you I dont feed ego's, I have questions based on the official responses about certain 'measures' that you cant answer as you do not work for them, I guess I loose *sniff*. Official reports have been posted the world is all well again, nothing to see here folks. Last time I read this thread it never had "prove to Mattar" written on it or in the forum rules, so be pleased with yourself my friend, your work here is done, you have saved us from ourselves & proved there is no corruption and your an all knowing being who works for all agencies at all levels of disclosure right to the top of CIA/NSA and the like, and all these processes are for the greater good of mankind, you have been correct all along.

Go at peace and "be safe" I wish you the best of luck in your next online ventures, please keep me informed of the next court case you win online.

Meanwhile .... questions will be asked and things still continue as per normal, SOPA and the like and legislation and centralisation and everything connecting to it will still come back into the system to be re tried again, you win, move along, this thread is now null and void to you ;)

Here's another great video concerning mass surveillance. It's always recorded at the same event.

IMO it's worth to watch it.

@Mattar_Tharkari

Would you mind doing me the favor to add me to your ignore list I would really very much appreciate that. :D

Thanks in advance

cheers

@Mattar_Tharkari

Would you mind doing me the favor to add me to your ignore list I would really very much appreciate that. :D

Thanks in advance

cheers

You would like to post crap (got no problems with the above) without it's validity being challenged? Sorry, request denied ;)

Regarding Appelbaum he seems strangely conflicted, he has a problem with surveillance yet hacks into yahoo email accounts?

No doubt they only belong to bad people so I guess that's ok and no doubt he has the correct legal and ethical oversight from someone? Or is he a self appointed guardian of our freedom?

You would like to post crap (got no problems with the above) without it's validity being challenged? Sorry, request denied ;)

Regarding Appelbaum he seems strangely conflicted, he has a problem with surveillance yet hacks into yahoo email accounts?

No doubt they only belong to bad people so I guess that's ok and no doubt he has the correct legal and ethical oversight from someone? Or is he a self appointed guardian of our freedom?

This is the first and only reply that you will ever get from me. You are on my ignore list for a long time now.

You would like to post crap (got no problems with the above) without it's validity being challenged?

None of your arguments or links to so called evidence that you ever posted could challenge my view on the current situation of the world or Geo politics in general. It is no challenge to me.

Furthermore I gonna keep posting what you call "crap" as long as I wish and as long as they don't break any forum rules

The complete absence of any critical thinking from your side concerning government in general leads me really to believe that you must work for a government agency in RL, that would explain your blind trust in governments.

It is obvious that you haven't learned anything from history.

I've learned something.

How about this . . .

The biggest enemy of a nation is it's own government.

That you can trace back to ancient times.

Concerning Jacob Applebaum. He's fighting the system with everything that is available to him and If I had to choose whom to trust I would trust him a million times more than any politician in this world.

Everything what doesn't fit in your view is dismissed immediately as "Conspiracy theory" which makes you look just like an ass to me.

Your naivety is appalling and really mind boggling.

There are not enough insults in this world to describe what I think of you.

You are the biggest and most annoying troll I ever came across this forum . . . Maybe Pelham was on the same level.

Have a nice day :D

Wrong, wrong and wrong again, I don't work for a government agency and never have. Also I am not a troll I simply do not like the sort of activism that is prepared to lie, cheat and steal and break the law to achive it's goals. So when I see something I know is complete garbage I point it out backed up with evidence. If you didn't post it, I wouldn't have anything to say. If it was true, reasonable and logical how could I possibly criticise it? Who / what is Pelham?

I also don't mind people criticising governments at all, I just prefer them to be reasonably truthful and not make it up. If all these activists are fine upstanding people why is it I am able to show them telling lies and embellishing the truth so regularly? Quiet often it isn't intentional, they simply believe some of the nonsense journalists write. So the obvious lesson is, check the news very carefully before you rush to beleive it.

The conspricy theories you and other post fall down under the simplest scrutiny, if not you would be able to post evidence to back up your claims but never do.

Everything you accuse governments of (often falsely) could easily apply to the hackers/hacktivists you support. Where is the oversight, legal framework, warrants etc for them? Do they collect metadata or simply hack email accounts and read everything because they think their cause is just? Can I ask how much data they have collected and how much refers to 'innocent people'? How is it safeguarded? What if they make a mistake, where's the compensation? What mandate do they have to act on behalf of the world? No one asked me if I wanted them to hack on my behalf?

It also surprises me that you and others claim to be fighting for freedom but refuse to answer questions, resist scrutiny and engage in dirty tricks when someone catches you posting untruthful / biased items. That is not the way to convince others that your way is a better way than the system we have. To me it looks like you engage in everything that you accuse the government of - how is that ethical?

Also I am not a troll I simply do not like the sort of activism that is prepared to lie, cheat and steal and break the law to achive it's goals.

Why dont you set yourself up a blog about it instead of chiming in on peoples shadow, there are other points of view in the world. You seem a smart chap, you have the answers and the proof, set one up. Yet you waste your energies in these lowly places with all the non proof "conspiritards" nut jobs, not that smart is it.

I also don't mind people criticising governments at all, I just prefer them to be reasonably truthful and not make it up.

History must be the biggest lie thus far then based on what governments & agencies do and have done over time.

If all these activists are fine upstanding people why is it I am able to show them telling lies and embellishing the truth so regularly?

Thats your problem you have a bugbear and treat everyone the same, they have to be an activist or some other name tag, guess what you dont have to be that at all to question and see things a certain way you know.

Quiet often it isn't intentional, they simply believe some of the nonsense journalists write.

You also do the same with your recent posted fears of why things are needed, if you think that you are 100 percent solid in your belief system and foundations then that says a fair bit.

check the news very carefully before you rush to beleive it.

Preaching to the choir me thinks.

Everything you accuse governments of (often falsely) could easily apply to the hackers/hacktivists you support.

Look at the way you word things, always groups supporting some left/right group, ever thought people simply post with a point of view and thats all?

Using hackers as some scape goat for NSA/GCHQ is beyond ridiculous, seen how many they hire at all? The magnitude and power of computing for those agencies vs hackers ... pure and utter comedy.

It also surprises me that you and others claim to be fighting for freedom but refuse to answer questions,

So now not only activists its freedom fighters posting here? You must be watching too much TV.

resist scrutiny and engage in dirty tricks when someone catches you posting untruthful / biased items.

In your opinion only. You have now aligned people who post in this forum to be activist/freedom fighter/hacking group supporters ... how utterly ridiculous & laughable. Stop watching too many films, your not the spokes person for anyone, no one is changing minds or trying too, the difference is balance, a thread topic with a forum to discuss differing views. You want to clamp down on freedom fighter/activists/hackers and all that shit (most of them even I dont warm too becuase you do get "funded groups") then as I say, start up a blog.

Funny part is the compartmentalised mindset you have of groups is actually the "keyword" groups trying to be used to trigger processes. IE: Loose terms for questioning the government = "domestic terror" and so on and so forthe. As SOPA as an example shows with its "triggers" to start a process and green light to take information. You set the infrastructure you then bring in legislation to broaden the terms of its uses, that's the juicy part.

This isnt a Mattar-Centric thread or forum, its all about information and you take as you find, people have their own minds and can make their own minds up, if this was a thread based on official documentation then what balance does it hold as a discussion forum, post the PDF's .. lock and sticky the thread, that was fun. It just ends up being Mattars one man army against the "tards" ... and nothing to do with the threads topic(s) and overall perspectives.