Believe it or not, I've given you just a fragment of this incredibly important article. The list goes on and on and on. Lambert at Corrente coined the term "linky goodness" to describe a post heavy on HTML citations -- but in this case, the phrase "linky badness" might serve better.
People know fine. The implications are unpleasant. People pretend not to know.
I don't think you can put backdoors into encryption standards, only into implementations thereof, and no-one seems to have been caught doing so as of yet. Just to tone down the paranoia a bit.
But to tone it back up again, they missed a big one: http://tech.slashdot.org/story/13/06/29/138230/mit-researchers-can-see-through-walls-using-wi-fi http://www.hardware.slashdot.org/story/13/06/04/1924214/wi-fi-signals-allow-gesture-recognition-all-through-the-home
They can see through your walls. Although they've been able to do that for a long time, contrary to what the commenters over there say. And they've been able to see anything displayed on a CRT or LCD in your home for decades.
Do you have a wi-fi router in your house?
"Destruction through the advancement of technology."
Either people know, and don't care, or people know, and are impotent to do much.
posted by Anonymous : 2:45 PM
Dig Grung: If a blogger does NOT show his cites, critics call him lazy, or even a confabulator. If a blogger DOES list all of his sources, critics call call him insufficiently scholarly. Apparently, a mere blogger doing research into so large a topic as government overrreach is not supposed to publish a single word unless he can get first-hand sourcing on camera from named sources.
Of course, I've read books from university presses whose footnoting looks a lot like what you see here (or would do so, if you arranged the HTML in footnote fashion).
Fuck you, Grung. How much do trolls get paid these days?
All of this is quite scary, but I wonder what are elements are missing for a totalitarian state to be successful? By successful I mean exist for some time. Total control of media, security, economy...etc. What is missing, what other shoes need to drop for us to beyond the threshold?
On a family visit to Montreal, my cousin asked me why the U.S. seems to be "broken", meaning the healthcare, education, and other major institutions that she has not a worry about where she lives. I said, " It's not broken, it works exactly how it is set up to work and it's only getting better. It's just not set up for regular folks like me to be safe and content down there, like you are up here."
I'm just want to look for so I know when to call it George and learn to sing 'O, Canada' in french.
posted by Anonymous : 4:10 PM
"Oh Yeah, where's your proof? What's your source?" I don't have any. "I didn't think so fraud!"
"Oh Yeah, where's your proof? What's your source?" Right there in the article. "You're trying to make your article appear authoritative by drowning me with info!"
posted by DanInAlabama : 9:48 PM
Alex Jones has been out in front of this stuff for years.
I'm not defending him; not saying he's not ridiculously deluded about all manner of subjects; not saying that He isn't exhibiting symptoms of mild schizophrenia/sociopathy and not so mild God complex.
I'm saying he has been out in front of this stuff for years.
posted by Paul Rise : 9:52 PM
I've watched/read AJ for years, and I've never seen him, or his staff, do such an in-depth and comprehensive report on anything related to data collection as presented in the article posted above. And never in a manner that would give one an over arching view of the facts without the paranoia he tends to spout and cultivate. The problem with AJ, Info wars, Prison Planet, in my opinion, is that AJ is so over the top that a majority of people tend to tune him out.
I agree with AJ on some of his points, heck many of his points, but his style is not conducive to, and is in fact harmful to, the information he imparts, and makes anyone who points to him as a reference appear foolish to most people more often than not.
In other words in my opinion: AJ is a buffoon, and much like Hal Turner and the weak ass sacrificial Liberals on FOX Spews, he is a product of the powers that be.
If he really was a threat to said powers why is it that he has plenty of money while more informative sites are constantly begging for money and struggle to exist? By AJ's own reasoning wouldn't the ALL POWERFUL STATE crush him like a bug. Wouldn't Obummer kill him like they killed Michael Hastings?
posted by DanInAlabama : 1:47 AM
Which raises a question as to why the US government may have believed Edward Snowden flew off on Evo Morales's plane.
Make that a French-manufactured plane, out of a Russian airport.
Can't the NSA keep track of stuff properly in foreign countries?
Do I hear people say that that's precisely what this is all about?
Well let's apply it to the story itself!
1) faulty premise; they didn't think he was on the plane at all, but wanted everyone to watch them flex their muscles, and they've given up on the idea of getting an embassy back in Bolivia etc. etc.
2) they thought he was on the plane because the Mighty Wikileaks Organisation is fiendishly capable at deception, and fooled them
3) they thought he was on the plane because another spooking-'n'-counterintelligence organisation, which has a lot of clout at...er, which city is the airport in again? ah yes, Moscow...fooled them
The KGB is certainly a big player in this; or FSB and SVR as they're called nowadays.
Personally I go for 3 or 1.
A few hacks have noticed that one minute, the French government says how appalling it is that the NSA and its British sidekick spy on France, and the next minute, as soon as they receive the say-so from the US, they jump to attention and turn back Morales's plane, even if shortly afterwards they have to give a public apology to Bolivia.
Yes, that does make them look pretty pathetic.
But few have asked how the hell the NSA could have been fooled.
And few have noticed that while there have been stories about the US spying on 'Europe', there has been little or nothing about the US spying on Russia.
That suggests to me that that's the way the NSA, CIA, and KGB want it.
The Litvinenko case hasn't been reported much at all.
The late Boris Berezovsky, who died before he could give more evidence to the Litvinenko inquest, used to control Sheremetevo, by the way.
(I must mention that the term "cold war" has been used, including by German Chancellor Angela Merkel. It always pisses me off when idiots think this ended in 1989, when anyone who has actually studied the subject knows that it ended in the early 1960s. It's as if détente, Apollo-Soyuz, etc, have been thrown down the memory hole. When Bobby Fischer was being persecuted by the US government - and there are similarities with the persecution of Edward Snowden - and also when he died, many were the media outlets which said the Reykjavik chess match of 1972 happened at "the height of the cold war". Fukkinng morans! Not that I blame Merkel for any of this. The poor woman looks as though she hasn't got a clue what's going on, because nobody ever tells her anything whatsoever of any importance. But I digress.)
And I repeat: Russia is a player in this.
It does make me wonder whether certain recent events have constituted Russian retaliation for Pussy Riot and associated western jazz played against Putin recently.
Don't let's underestimate the KGB.
Wikileaks certainly ain't what it seems.
As for Wikipedia, what clearer case is there of western 'soft power'?
posted by b : 7:35 AM
Surely if anyone can outsmart the NSA it's the bloke who blew the whistle on them. He knows the score.