In the techdirt article they say the Snoopers Charter 3.0 is "Not exactly the terrorist-hunting, child kidnapper-finding wonderbill it's being depicted as -- often in its own pages." For me that sentence encapsulates what the intention of this bill is, it was and never will be about keeping people safe, it's nothing more than a tool of oppression and social control. Jacob Appelbaum makes some very good points in the video VipersGratitude posted, it's a sorry state of affairs when your own government seeks to take away hard fought for liberties.
So the home office have responded to the FOI request that this guy submitted.. As one commenter said it seems like a commentary on the snoopers charter "it has adopted a scattergun approach and seems solely designed for the purpose of ‘fishing’ for information without any idea of what might be revealed" Isn't that same scattergun approach and 'fishing’ for information without any idea of what might be revealed exactly what the snoopers charter is designed to do?
I was always a bit suspicious of Snowden. I mean here was a guy who came from nowhere, disappeared back in to nowhere...and everyone took him at face value despite the fact he worked for an alphabet agency, whose day job is often been shown to be conceiving convincing stories and controlling the public with that narrative. Thing is, I could never figure out why they'd advocate more encryption, however a researcher speaking recently at a security conference has a suggestion - http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/01/27/nsa_loves_it_when_you_use_pgp/ The plot thickens.
I don't think there is anything particularly new there. Correlating meta data is always going to be a problem, encryption or not. Between the sort of people they hire and the amount of pure computing power and money available to them, there isn't anything that can really stop them from doing what they do. If you become a target its game over to be honest.
That's understandable and if he was the only whistle blower i too would be very suspicious, but hes just the most prominent, probably because he had proof, lot of it, there's been other whistle blowers (William Binney, Mark Klein, Thomas Tamm, Russ Tice, Perry Fellwock, and Diane Roark) but afaik we only had their word to go on. I think Snowden had seen how previous whistle blowers had been targeted/treated so he decided to do things a little differently.
Snowden is a setup, he released a bunch of data that lets be honest most was already guessed at. Nothing can stop the government accessing your data your tracked every day all day. If you work in London your on cctv about a 1000 times a day due to the cctv levels in the city. All your banking stuff is tracked. To actually never put information on the internet requires more than a simple VPN that if the alphabet agencies ask for information will give them it.
I just don't see how what Snowden has done would benefit the CIA. I doubt the CIA or GCHQ would ask to see VPN logs, I would think they could get the information some other way.
You're probably right that nothing can stop the government accessing your data your tracked every day all day, rollo. Even I'm starting to think privacy, innocent until proven guilty, reasonable grounds, and other rights that we used to hold dear are slowly being eroded and there's little we can do about it, to think in the space of 25 years we seem to be inexorabley heading down the very same road as states that we were once highly critical of for the very same practices.
You are probably correct Shadow but legally they have to ask for it even if they dont need or use it. If I was thinking smartly about it id say once they get rid of Cash and everything is by cards or Apple pay style payments, Your entire life will be tracked effectively from Start to end. Bit coin has kinda grown on this kinda fact that cash may one day not be around as we know it. BitCoins biggest thing is its untraceable by said goverments.
Bitcoin keeps an open ledger of every transaction that has taken place. So it's likely that it is traceable. Although I haven't looked into it properly.
The idea is he makes people with something to hide feel paranoid. They then use encryption whose traffic pattern is identifiable to the feds. The feds then cross-reference the metadata the encrypted signal provides to identify the end-user, and once a person of interest is identified they are tracked by less-intrusive channels; However, because tech is so readily integrated in our day-to-day lives, it and social networks become transparent to the agencies, if not the contents of the encrypted communications.
I don't know. Letting an entire planet know what you are doing and the tools you use seems like bad spying to me. Whilst it may trigger a shift in behaviour patterns it also seems kind of short sighted. The lasting I saw from Snowden he was advocating for the creation of any technology which was impossible for anyone to abuse in the manner state agencies currently do. I'm not convinced on your point but at the same time if I learned you were right in the future it wouldn't suprised me.
Good, I'm not convinced of my point either. I just don't think it's sane to blindly trust former members of the intelligence community with appealing narratives to sell without first eliminating potential ulterior agendas.
