Yahoo secretly scanned customer emails on behalf of U.S. intelligence

[Renton 17765]

No, I've covered this and you've misrepresented what I said intentiaonally with block capitals for emphasis. There is evidence that many folied attacks are actually facilitated by security services. Any number of foiled attacks presented to the public should therefore take that into consideration on the sensible conclusion that the attacks would never have taken place anyway without the help of security services.

 

There is always a risk of terrorist attacks. No "war on terror" can EVER be won or seen as temporary in response to a short lived escalation, so the question is what is a proportional response to the actual danger faced that balances security and liberty. I'm sure you are well aware of the statistics on the liklihood of being killed by various things which places terror attacks among the lowest threats we face daily. I don't agree with it being the justification for a litany of erosions to our freedom. From emails snooping to travel bans, from outlawed protest to criminalised whistleblowing.

Like I said to J69 before he flounced and called me a cunt, I think we need to separate technological advances from the politics here. Is it desirable for us all to communicate in a way which fully protects our privacy? I'm really not sure, even if it is technically possible. Is it politically acceptable for all e-mails to be scanned? I'll admit I'm somewhat ambivalent on the matter until I find out who "they" are.

[Happy Face 29]

To be fair to Renton, I'd say it's clear his view is that of the vast majority and I appreciate his efforts to justify that view, all while thinking it's a bankrupt argument.

[Renton 17765]

Renton couldn't care less about the people who's lives have been degraded and impacted by illegal surveillance. He deserves to be on a watch list for his holier than thou - leisure-fair approach to this important topic. War on Renton!

 

*Nice bit of auto-correct there.

All I've done is queried how my life is being impacted (degraded now apparently) and who is doing this. If someone can specify this then perhaps I'll be somewhere further in assessing this risk versus that of being killed in a terrorist attack.

[Rayvin 4964]

All I've done is queried how my life is being impacted (degraded now apparently) and who is doing this. If someone can specify this then perhaps I'll be somewhere further in assessing this risk versus that of being killed in a terrorist attack.

 

This is an interesting statement. So you're effectively accepting the lesser evil here (i.e. being 'watched' rather than being exploded, assuming that it's an all or nothing principle). I actually think that this viewpoint is entirely rational, and I would support it.

Edited October 6, 2016 by Rayvin

[Renton 17765]

To be fair to Renton, I'd say it's clear his view is that of the vast majority and I appreciate his efforts to justify that view, all while thinking it's a bankrupt argument.

What I'm trying to say is that personally I think there are more pressing concerns, such as wealth inequality. Kim Kardashian was robbed of her jewels at gunpoint this week, jewels worth more than I would earn in several lifetimes. I honestly don't even know what she is famous for. So forgive me for feeling virtually zero sympathy for her. Which is horrible, if you think about it.

[Dr Gloom 19822]

maybe we should put it to a poll? watched or exploded? 

[Andrew 4218]

What I'm trying to say is that personally I think there are more pressing concerns, such as wealth inequality. Kim Kardashian was robbed of her jewels at gunpoint this week, jewels worth more than I would earn in several lifetimes. I honestly don't even know what she is famous for. So forgive me for feeling virtually zero sympathy for her. Which is horrible, if you think about it.

 

I do, you should check it out some time, its not hard to find...

[Rayvin 4964]

maybe we should put it to a poll? watched or exploded? 

 

In such extreme terms, I'd choose watched.

[Gemmill 34441]

Renton seems absolutely terrified of being caught up in a Tynemouth suicide bombing.

[Renton 17765]

In such extreme terms, I'd choose watched.

It's watched or have 0.001% of being exploded though. The compromise is to put the used panties over the web cam.

[Happy Face 29]

Like I said to J69 before he flounced and called me a cunt, I think we need to separate technological advances from the politics here. Is it desirable for us all to communicate in a way which fully protects our privacy? I'm really not sure, even if it is technically possible. Is it politically acceptable for all e-mails to be scanned? I'll admit I'm somewhat ambivalent on the matter until I find out who "they" are.

 

I've been very specific I think.  I don't refer to "they" at any point.  Given examples where FBI, NSA and that have implemented secret programs (where it's shocking what abilities they have branded legal) and abuses of those programs that extend into illegality.

 

All private citizens communications should be entirely private.  All investigations into private citizens private affairs should be court (Not FISA court) approved and only applied from the point of obtaining the warrant where wrongdoing has been identified as probable.

 

The ironic thing is that the backlash would not have occurred to the extent it has if security services made legal court approved approaches specifically targeting those they have reason to target.  There would have been no Snowden if that were the case.  Unencrypted service providers could openly respond to those requests and people would be reasonably safe in the knowledge that their modern comms weren't being intercepted unless they were suspected of crimes.  No more privacy loss than they would have with their phone calls or post 30 years ago.

 

As it is, the blanket approach of secretly sweeping up every piece of correspondence on the globe pushes anyone with any concern for privacy towards encrypted services that cannot  provide courts any content whatsoever, even if they want to.  It harms the security services ability to find information assumed to be private as wrongdoers ensure anything they do is certainly private.

[Renton 17765]

Renton seems absolutely terrified of being caught up in a Tynemouth suicide bombing.

I'm not. But I'm not afraid of surveillance either.

[Rayvin 4964]

It's watched or have 0.001% of being exploded though. The compromise is to put the used panties over the web cam.

 

 

But yes, the risk has to be proportionate. Still though, that's your personal risk (I appreciate you've plucked that number out of nowhere) - the actual likelihood of a fatal exploding happening to *anyone* would be significantly higher, if you looked at the nation as a whole. Therefore I think you could extend this view to 'how many exploded people are worth not being watched'? Because explode they would, without this surveillance.

 

I'm imagining something like the end of Kingsmen presently

Edited October 6, 2016 by Rayvin

[Renton 17765]

I do, you should check it out some time, its not hard to find...

Okay, I will check out Kim Kardashian some time.

[Happy Face 29]

..and as loathe as I am to agree with Parky, much of what he says is true, if presented in crazed terms.  The blanket dredging of ALL communication around the globe isn't being done to target you or I or to target terrorists or child pornographers.  That's a positive side effect or a useful justification.

 

It's technology that has the primary use of spying on other governments and their top corporations, friendly or not.  It's there so that people at the very top of government can have any edge  in the competition between nation states.  Merkel, Petrobras, the Swift network for global bank transfers, the French foreign ministry have all been shown to be targets outside of  the "legitimate" security uses.

[Alex 30396]

The problem I have with all this surveillance is how it can potentially be used. There's a sort of drip, drip effect whereby stuff that was introduced for one reason ends up being used for something else entirely. There was a story some time ago about legislation that allowed surveillance that was intended as an anti-terror measurement being used for things far more trivial by local councils. Forgive me but I can't remember the exact details. Then you have things like speed cameras. Initially they were only to be used in places where it was all but impossible for a police officer to check the speeds of cars. Now, in many cases, they're basically a money making racket. You used to only normally get done for doing 10% over the speed limit +1 but now any breaking of the limit (by one mile per hour) can lead to something like a £100 fine. Seems a bit harsh. I do know someone who got done for doing 32 in 30 zone. Seems a bit disproportionate to get 3 pts on your licence and a fairly hefty fine for that. Anyway, I'm probably getting away from the point I was trying to make is that, if something like this is unchecked, then it could potentially be used to impose future laws which are draconian. I know it sounds a bit V for Vendetta but I do have genuine concerns. I wonder how high the terror threat really is. Is the impingement of civil liberties proportionate to that threat? I don't really know but the general unquestioning acceptance that it is troubles me. It mirrors a wider acceptance of the 'facts' as presented to us by (for want of a better word) the establishment.

[Alex 30396]

I do, you should check it out some time, its not hard to find...

I've checked it out several times.

[Happy Face 29]

The problem I have with all this surveillance is how it can potentially be used. There's a sort of drip, drip effect whereby stuff that was introduced for one reason ends up being used for something else entirely. There was a story some time ago about legislation that allowed surveillance that was intended as an anti-terror measurement being used for things far more trivial by local councils. Forgive me but I can't remember the exact details. Then you have things like speed cameras. Initially they were only to be used in places where it was all but impossible for a police officer to check the speeds of cars. Now, in many cases, they're basically a money making racket. You used to only normally get done for doing 10% over the speed limit +1 but now any breaking of the limit (by one mile per hour) can lead to something like a £100 fine. Seems a bit harsh. I do know someone who got done for doing 32 in 30 zone. Seems a bit disproportionate to get 3 pts on your licence and a fairly hefty fine for that. Anyway, I'm probably getting away from the point I was trying to make is that, if something like this is unchecked, then it could potentially be used to impose future laws which are draconian. I know it sounds a bit V for Vendetta but I do have genuine concerns. I wonder how high the terror threat really is. Is the impingement of civil liberties proportionate to that threat? I don't really know but the general unquestioning acceptance that it is troubles me. It mirrors a wider acceptance of the 'facts' as presented to us by (for want of a better word) the establishment.

 

good blog post on slippery slopes in light of the Yahoo reveal...

 

https://medium.com/@_decius_/about-yahoo-email-scanning-and-robocop-48c29bfbb0ee#.61rozfgwr

[Dr Gloom 19822]

I've checked it out several times.

 

never seen it. should i seek it out or is it as shit as the paris hilton effort? 

[Alex 30396]

never seen it. should i seek it out or is it as shit as the paris hilton effort? 

I meant her arse rather than the home made porn movie (which I assume you're referring to - didn't know about it). All I know about her is she's a reality TV star, married to Kanye West and has a very nice hint-end.

[Rayvin 4964]

I assumed the sex tape would be rubbish so haven't bothered with it. Says it all about the culture we live in that we can afford to be choosy about this kind of thing.

[Happy Face 29]

It's watched or have 0.001% of being exploded though. The compromise is to put the used panties over the web cam.

 

Risk analysist writing about France in the independent calculated the risk over the last 2 years and says you're 5 times too high with that estimate. Risk is "less than two ten-thousandths of one per cent" - 0.0002% in the European nation to have suffered most in the last couple of years.

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/nice-attack-do-you-feel-like-youre-more-likely-than-ever-to-be-hit-by-a-terror-attack-this-is-why-a7140396.html

[Rayvin 4964]

Risk analysist writing about France in the independent calculated the risk over the last 2 years says you're 5 times too high with that estimate. Risk is "less than two ten-thousandths of one per cent" - 0.0002% in the European nation to have suffered most in the last couple of years.

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/nice-attack-do-you-feel-like-youre-more-likely-than-ever-to-be-hit-by-a-terror-attack-this-is-why-a7140396.html

 

Aye but still - taken as a whole, the chance of *anyone* dying is higher. And I do think then that you need to start weighing up lives against freedoms.

[Dr Gloom 19822]

I meant her arse rather than the home made porn movie (which I assume you're referring to - didn't know about it). All I know about her is she's a reality TV star, married to Kanye West and has a very nice hint-end.

 

it's fake. 

 

allegedly

[Dr Gloom 19822]

her arse that is, not the sex tape.