The dangers of our new normal...

[FireChan]

 

Not to me there isn't. I filter things through a prism of what's truly important and what is going to affect my life. And by extension that is probably the same for most people. So to borrow a line from a podcast king, think of fixing things small to big. But that's not how people are wired. People look at big things and get scared and think that it's a really big problem for them, when in reality it's not. Yeah mass data surveillance capture is big and sounds scary. But is it really affecting lives of 99.99% of the people? No. Global warming sounds scary. But it will be a blip on the reality scale for most people over the next century.

 

But what's getting the disproportionate share of headlines? It's the big stuff, because the people who have access to the Internet megaphone are scared of the big stuff because they think the little stuff is beneath their worries. Then it turns into a self perpetuating echo-chamber, because I honestly can't tell all the new Internet publications apart, other than guessing that one slants right and another slants left (and only due to the proclivity of the posters here who source it). In my life in dealing with journalists, I have a sense that the modern day reporters already have the story in mind and are talking to sources/experts to reinforce the theory. If they hear a logical counter-argument, it will not make it into the story.

 

So when you look at the history of the NSA snooping, there is evidence that vast amounts of data were collected. What's been swept under the rug is that collecting the tangential data on innocent Americans is inevitable in any such exercise, and the important part is what has been done with that data once its been collected. The analysis that I have seen and the subsequent investigations have not shown any abuse of that data. So I'm fine with the program, because I'm not afraid of its bigness.

 

But, I am afraid of the small. Because the small is the regular, day to day interaction you and I have with the state. It's the TSA checkpoints, it's the regular shakedowns of government agents and inspectors of small business, it's the thousands of droplets of taxes, fees and charges at every step. It's the thousands of little check boxes and forms that your life is increasingly controlled by, with no apparent rationale other than having to check the box, so that a bureaucrat can justify his existence. That to me is far more dangerous.

Why are you afraid of the small problems? They are obstructions, yes, but waiting an extra 40 minutes at the airport makes you afraid?

 

The flaw in your argument is that the "small" problems that we agree upon have root "big" causes. One of Greg's main points is that there is widespread fear mongering on the possible threats of terrorism. That built up fear is used as a blanket justification. Will the TSA stop running ineffective checkpoints within the next year? Absolutely not. One of your "small" problems is a symptom of a big one. And that's why you might want to sweat the big stuff.

 

FYI: the rest of your examples are symptoms of larger problems, but I just framed this point in one to keep it focused.

Edited June 12, 2015 by FireChan

[Tiberius]

 

There's a giant flaw in that logic.

Brilliant analysis. Tell him about how its about control

 

Not to me there isn't. I filter things through a prism of what's truly important and what is going to affect my life. And by extension that is probably the same for most people. So to borrow a line from a podcast king, think of fixing things small to big. But that's not how people are wired. People look at big things and get scared and think that it's a really big problem for them, when in reality it's not. Yeah mass data surveillance capture is big and sounds scary. But is it really affecting lives of 99.99% of the people? No. Global warming sounds scary. But it will be a blip on the reality scale for most people over the next century.

 

But what's getting the disproportionate share of headlines? It's the big stuff, because the people who have access to the Internet megaphone are scared of the big stuff because they think the little stuff is beneath their worries. Then it turns into a self perpetuating echo-chamber, because I honestly can't tell all the new Internet publications apart, other than guessing that one slants right and another slants left (and only due to the proclivity of the posters here who source it). In my life in dealing with journalists, I have a sense that the modern day reporters already have the story in mind and are talking to sources/experts to reinforce the theory. If they hear a logical counter-argument, it will not make it into the story.

 

 

Sorry, I agree with you mostly. But picking on "journalists" is off base. Blog spot people love this scary crap, people like Glen Greenwald make a living stirring up the ignorant and screaming this is about controlling people. Also, politicians are in the act to get attention that they would normally not get.

 

That's all

[GG]

Why are you afraid of the small problems? They are obstructions, yes, but waiting an extra 40 minutes at the airport makes you afraid?

 

The flaw in your argument is that the "small" problems that we agree upon have root "big" causes. One of Greg's main points is that there is widespread fear mongering on the possible threats of terrorism. That built up fear is used as a blanket justification. Will the TSA stop running ineffective checkpoints within the next year? Absolutely not. One of your "small" problems is a symptom of a big one. And that's why you might want to sweat the big stuff.

 

FYI: the rest of your examples are symptoms of larger problems, but I just framed this point in one to keep it focused.

 

Because a build up of a hundred small problems at nearly every step is what adds up to the Chinese water torture, but nobody wants to address them because the response is always, "why sweat the small stuff?"

 

Of course fear-mongering is a huge selling feature of many of these programs. But many of them are justified, because the threats are there. Let's use the Binney example. He's a whistleblower because he didn't like the new program the NSA was running which was gathering a lot more data on Americans. The trouble is that the program he was supporting was also gathering info on Americans, but his program had a better filter and encryption of data related to Americans. Well that sounds better, until somebody asks, "Who's developing that filter and exactly how does the automatic filter know the good actors from bad, when you're processing billions of bits of information?" So the reporters take Binney at his word that his snooping program was safer and more legal than the other program that was exposed. I'm of the mind that the two programs were very similar, and you still needed human intervention to determine which data was kosher to analyze and which wasn't. And I'm not too worried about either one.

 

If I were to define the big vs little programs a bit deeper is that I'm going to be prejudiced to the design & scope of the programs. I can take a page out of the scaremongering in the financial industry. Whenever politicians want to get mileage out of a story, they'll aggregate transactions together to show a far greater risk than what actually exists. That's why any talk about financial derivatives runs in the billions or trillions of dollars, when the amount at risk to regular people is probably pennies. Big numbers scare most people. They don't scare me.

 

That's why I'm ok with the spooks running computer algorithms of billions of bits of data, knowing that a handful of analysts won't have the capacity to do anything to the millions of people whose data was caught in that wide net.

 

On the flipside, when you have tens of thousands of local aparatchiks watching your every move with a summons at hand, that does move the needle on the daily life meter.

[Deranged Rhino]

 

I have no problem with that either because I also recognize that once I place a phone call on a telephone network that I do not own, and am subject to the ToS of that network, that call can be intercepted by virtually anyone. I also recognize that if the US government intercepts my communication, anything they get without proper authorization will be inadmissible in a court of law.

 

 

 

Not to me there isn't.

 

There is a giant flaw because your reasoning relies upon the courts and government acting constitutionally to protect your right to due process and privacy -- when that same government and court system has been actively and repeatedly violating those same constitutionally protected rights on a daily basis. What possible hope could you be clinging to that they'd offer you the very constitutional protections they're working so hard to strip away? If you're hope is to rely on "checks and balances" like Gator, that's abdicating your responsibility as a citizen in favor of the path of least resistance. Worse, it's reinforcing blind faith in a system that's been manipulated to work against you. Nothing changes that way, it just continues us down the path we're on which is to live in a permanent surveillance state where there is no right to privacy. If you think the TSA is a "shakedown" of your rights but what's happening to your data is "tangential"... you're looking at this whole situation backwards.

 

The founders didn't trust government, they didn't trust themselves, yet you're continuing to blindly trust what the government says about the scope and legality of these programs. You're taking the government's word at face value when it's been proven repeatedly they've done nothing but mislead, lie, and abuse the American public's trust on the issue of privacy and domestic surveillance. How could you possibly trust a single thing they say about these programs when it's been proven they've been lying about them for over a decade? That's not "seeing beyond the hype", that's self inflicted blindness.

 

What was it Franklin said when asked in Philadelphia "what kind of government have you given us?" He said, "a republic, if you can keep it." The most expedient way to lose our republic is to forgo our right to privacy and due process without even blinking an eye because we think it'll keep us safe.

 

You've been had. In a BIG way. These programs aren't there to fight terrorism. That was never their intention.

[GG]

There is a giant flaw because your reasoning relies upon the courts and government acting constitutionally to protect your right to due process and privacy -- when that same government and court system has been actively and repeatedly violating those same constitutionally protected rights on a daily basis. What possible hope could you be clinging to that they'd offer you the very constitutional protections they're working so hard to strip away? If you're hope is to rely on "checks and balances" like Gator, that's abdicating your responsibility as a citizen in favor of the path of least resistance. Worse, it's reinforcing blind faith in a system that's been manipulated to work against you.

That's quite the logical leap. Weren't you the one citing the 2nd circuit decision as evidence that the program was illegal? So which is it? Is the program illegal, because it was authorized under the Executive war powers, or under FISA. Or is it illegal, as per latest 2nd circuit decision?

 

You can't have it both ways, and still claim that the checks and balances don't work.

 

Nothing changes that way, it just continues us down the path we're on which is to live in a permanent surveillance state where there is no right to privacy. If you think the TSA is a "shakedown" of your rights but what's happening to your data is "tangential"... you're looking at this whole situation backwards.

 

The founders didn't trust government, they didn't trust themselves, yet you're continuing to blindly trust what the government says about the scope and legality of these programs. You're taking the government's word at face value when it's been proven repeatedly they've done nothing but mislead, lie, and abuse the American public's trust on the issue of privacy and domestic surveillance. How could you possibly trust a single thing they say about these programs when it's been proven they've been lying about them for over a decade? That's not "seeing beyond the hype", that's self inflicted blindness.

 

What was it Franklin said when asked in Philadelphia "what kind of government have you given us?" He said, "a republic, if you can keep it." The most expedient way to lose our republic is to forgo our right to privacy and due process without even blinking an eye because we think it'll keep us safe.

 

You've been had. In a BIG way. These programs aren't there to fight terrorism. That was never their intention.

All I see is that you're worried about the bigness of the program, as opposed to looking at the actual affect on an individual. The TSA checkpoint tangibly affects and personally violates every single person who goes through the screening process. The NSA surveillance may pick up routing information of your phone call or email, and then sit in a data center for eternity without anyone looking at it.

 

I know which one bothers me a hell of a lot more.

[Tiberius]

Ask the second circuit court. job exactly?

Checks and balances

[Deranged Rhino]

That's quite the logical leap. Weren't you the one citing the 2nd circuit decision as evidence that the program was illegal? So which is it? Is the program illegal, because it was authorized under the Executive war powers, or under FISA. Or is it illegal, as per latest 2nd circuit decision?

 

You can't have it both ways, and still claim that the checks and balances don't work.

 

 

I'm not trying to have it both ways, you asked me what part of the program was deemed illegal and by whom, the second circuit court made their ruling while punting the resolution to Congress. That's not checks and balances, certainly not when the executive meets the court's decision with this:

 

 

The Obama administration has asked a secret surveillance court to ignore a federal court that found bulk surveillance illegal and to once again grant the National Security Agency the power to collect the phone records of millions of Americans for six months.

The legal request, filed nearly four hours after Barack Obama vowed to sign a new law banning precisely the bulk collection he asks the secret court to approve, also suggests that the administration may not necessarily comply with any potential court order demanding that the collection stop.

 

So, it is entirely possible in this situation for the judicial branch to rule one way and for the executive/police state to do whatever the hell it wants -- WHICH IS THE ENTIRE POINT OF CONCERN.

 

The TSA checkpoint tangibly affects and personally violates every single person who goes through the screening process. The NSA surveillance may picks up routing information of your phone call or email the content, duration, and all metadata, of every American who uses digital or analogue communications and then sit in a data center for eternity without anyone looking at it stores it in perpetuity without oversight or accountability.

 

I know which one bothers me a hell of a lot more.

Of course the TSA bothers you more, you're still in denial about the scope of what's really happening. This bulk collection "tangibly affects and personally violates every singe" American's right to privacy and due process. It's an egregious violation of our fourth amendment rights -- far more than the TSA who at least ostensibly serve an identifiable purpose in keeping passengers safe. It's not only "tangential" Americans being swept up by this net, it's EVERY American who communicates electronically. If you look into the matter more fully, you'd see from first hand accounts inside NSA that this information isn't being stored and ignored, it's the constant source of interoffice gossip and part of the "NSA culture". And that's just with the grunts, who knows what the higher levels of the organization are doing with the data -- they certainly are not just storing it.

Time to open your eyes, GG. If you really think the TSA is more of an infringement on your constitutional rights than a nameless, faceless, government organization with zero oversight and accountability sopping up every bit of not just your communication and correspondence, but every American's, then I don't know what to tell you other than you've been had.

Checks and balances

 

It was stupid when you first suggested it, it's even more idiotic to bring it back up again in light of what has happened the past week.

 

Then again, that conclusion would require you to have an understanding of what's happening in the world around you -- which is entirely unfair of me to expect from you. Clearly, as you've demonstrated numerous times throughout your tour as PPP's own pinata, you don't have the grey matter to understand anything more complex than a cotton swab. So, apologies for lashing out, I shouldn't call someone with obvious learning disabilities an idiot. It's just not right.

 

What are you good at? What do you do for a living? There must be something you're good at, we should figure out what that is so you can stop making yourself out to be such a giant, and I do mean GIANT, asshat.

 

 

The Obama administration has asked a secret surveillance court to ignore a federal court that found bulk surveillance illegal and to once again grant the National Security Agency the power to collect the phone records of millions of Americans for six months.

The legal request, filed nearly four hours after Barack Obama vowed to sign a new law banning precisely the bulk collection he asks the secret court to approve, also suggests that the administration may not necessarily comply with any potential court order demanding that the collection stop.

 

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jun/09/obama-fisa-court-surveillance-phone-records

[Deranged Rhino]

http://thehill.com/policy/cybersecurity/244888-report-second-major-fed-hack-hit-military-intel-workers

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/13/us/white-house-weighs-sanctions-after-second-breach-of-a-computer-system.html?_r=0

 

 

Is the irony intentional or not? State sponsored hackers steal data about federal government employees and it is viewed by many as an outrageous violation worthy of potential sanctions against China. Yet, revelations about the American government doing the exact same thing to its citizens is viewed as "necessary" to keep us safe from terrorists.

 

I write fiction for a living and I couldn't come up with something as absurdly ironic as this. I doubt Swift could have either.

[3rdnlng]

http://thehill.com/policy/cybersecurity/244888-report-second-major-fed-hack-hit-military-intel-workers

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/13/us/white-house-weighs-sanctions-after-second-breach-of-a-computer-system.html?_r=0

 

 

Is the irony intentional or not? State sponsored hackers steal data about federal government employees and it is viewed by many as an outrageous violation worthy of potential sanctions against China. Yet, revelations about the American government doing the exact same thing to its citizens is viewed as "necessary" to keep us safe from terrorists.

 

I write fiction for a living and I couldn't come up with something as absurdly ironic as this. I doubt Swift could have either.

I thought you only wrote fiction here. Actually I'm enjoying the debate you and GG are having and appreciate not only the well presented positions of you both, but the civility. This a conversation/debate that should not get derailed by an idiot injecting his 2 1 cents worth. Gator, do you get the hint?

Edited June 14, 2015 by 3rdnlng

[Deranged Rhino]

I thought you only wrote fiction here. Actually I'm enjoying the debate you and GG are having and appreciate not only the well presented positions of you both, but the civility. This a conversation/debate that should not get derailed by an idiot injecting his 2 1 cents worth. Gator, do you get the hint?

 

A good conversation / debate on the topic is great and what really should be happening more in the national discourse. Though I don't agree with GG's position (and I'm sure he thinks I'm insane), it's been a good back and forth.

 

 

***********************************************************************************************************************

 

Just as the public was beginning to come around on this issue, yesterday's report of both the UK and US having to pull agents from the field allegedly due to information garnered from Russia and China's analysis of Snowden's stolen documents could change the tide. Which may have been the plan all along.

 

Not sure what to make of this quite yet, but here's the first shot fired back from Snowden's camp:

 

 

 

Last night, the Murdoch-owned Sunday Times published their lead front-page Sunday article, headlined “British Spies Betrayed to Russians and Chinese.” Just as the conventional media narrative was shifting to pro-Snowden sentiment in the wake of a key court ruling and a new surveillance law, the article (behind a paywall: full text here) claims in the first paragraph that these two adversaries “have cracked the top-secret cache of files stolen by the fugitive US whistleblower Edward Snowden, forcing MI6 to pull agents out of live operations in hostile countries, according to senior officials in Downing Street, the Home Office and the security services.” It continues:

 

Western intelligence agencies say they have been forced into the rescue operations after Moscow gained access to more than 1m classified files held by the former American security contractor, who fled to seek protection from Vladimir Putin, the Russian president, after mounting one of the largest leaks in US history.

Senior government sources confirmed that China had also cracked the encrypted documents, which contain details of secret intelligence techniques and information that could allow British and American spies to be identified.

One senior Home Office official accused Snowden of having “blood on his hands”, although Downing Street said there was “no evidence of anyone being harmed”.

Aside from the serious retraction-worthy fabrications on which this article depends – more on those in a minute – the entire report is a self-negating joke. It reads like a parody I might quickly whip up in order to illustrate the core sickness of western journalism.

Unless he cooked an extra-juicy steak, how does Snowden “have blood on his hands” if there is “no evidence of anyone being harmed?” As one observer put it last night in describing the government instructions theseSunday Times journalists appear to have obeyed: “There’s no evidence anyone’s been harmed but we’d like the phrase ‘blood on his hands’ somewhere in the piece.”

 

The whole article does literally nothing other than quote anonymous British officials. It gives voice to banal but inflammatory accusations that are made about every whistleblower from Daniel Ellsberg to Chelsea Manning. It offers zero evidence or confirmation for any of its claims. The “journalists” who wrote it neither questioned any of the official assertions nor even quoted anyone who denies them. It’s pure stenography of the worst kind: some government officials whispered these inflammatory claims in our ears and told us to print them, but not reveal who they are, and we’re obeying. Breaking!

 

(SNIP)

 

The beauty of this tactic is that the accusations can’t be challenged. The official accusers are being hidden by the journalists so nobody can confront them or hold them accountable when it turns out to be false. The evidence can’t be analyzed or dissected because there literally is none: they just make the accusation and, because they’re state officials, their media-servants will publish it with no evidence needed. And as is always true, there is no way to prove the negative. It’s like being smeared by a ghost with a substance that you can’t touch.

 

 

https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/06/14/sunday-times-report-snowden-files-journalism-worst-also-filled-falsehoods/

Edited June 14, 2015 by GreggyT

[GG]

http://thehill.com/policy/cybersecurity/244888-report-second-major-fed-hack-hit-military-intel-workers

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/13/us/white-house-weighs-sanctions-after-second-breach-of-a-computer-system.html?_r=0

 

 

Is the irony intentional or not? State sponsored hackers steal data about federal government employees and it is viewed by many as an outrageous violation worthy of potential sanctions against China. Yet, revelations about the American government doing the exact same thing to its citizens is viewed as "necessary" to keep us safe from terrorists.

 

I write fiction for a living and I couldn't come up with something as absurdly ironic as this. I doubt Swift could have either

 

For a fiction writer, the NSA story is much better because it's ripe for a great fantasy tale, with a sinister secretive group hoarding mountains of data somewhere in a secret lair to be used against an innocent duped population somewhere down the line. And along comes a photogenic hero, with help of brave reporters who are using the base of that great defender of human rights, Brazil, to uncover the brazen plot. And once and for all, the evil that is the US government and all the harm that the nation has brought to the world and its citizenry will finally come to an end, with an assist from the other vanguards of human liberty - Putin & Xi.

 

Who's doing the casting?

 

Yours is a much better script than when a US government agency is using its powers to suppress political activity, stonewalls Congress, and lies under oath. That is simply the way DC does its business and won't move a needle on the interest scale.

 

So let's get back to the NSA story. You hang your hat on the 2nd Circuit decision. But did you actually read it? The biggest decision that came down was that the appeals court ruled that NSA program exceeded the Section 215 guidelines. Also, by not granting an injunction, the court didn't send a forceful message that the program is as egregious as the critics make it out to be. I'm obviously biased, but the original district court ruling was correct in looking through the data collection and argued that a hypothetical harm of data collection did not have standing because ACLU could not demonstrate actual harm of the data being collected and stored.

 

If this was a clear Constitutional violation, the 2nd circuit would have been very vocal on whether the program violated 1st & 4th amendments. But it did no such thing, and agreed that there's plenty of precedent that shows that obtaining telephone metadata does not violate privacy. But the court did find concern over the program's "bigness" And that's what this argument is about.

 

ACLU threw out a hail mary by arguing that because technology is changing, privacy laws need to be updated. But it was an argument lacking in logic. If precedent is established that individuals lose the right & perception of privacy once they decide to use a third-party analog telephone network, why should they expect different privacy protection because now they use a third-party digital telephone network? The argument at stake is that law enforcement has better tools at gathering & storing that data. And that's what makes for better script writing, but no difference from privacy protections.

 

No one has answered yet, why metadata collection of telephone routing data and storage is wrong, but collecting my picture and license plate while crossing the George Washington Bridge is ok.

[Deranged Rhino]

 

For a fiction writer, the NSA story is much better because it's ripe for a great fantasy tale, with a sinister secretive group hoarding mountains of data somewhere in a secret lair to be used against an innocent duped population somewhere down the line. And along comes a photogenic hero, with help of brave reporters who are using the base of that great defender of human rights, Brazil, to uncover the brazen plot. And once and for all, the evil that is the US government and all the harm that the nation has brought to the world and its citizenry will finally come to an end, with an assist from the other vanguards of human liberty - Putin & Xi.

 

 

You honestly believe this has all been a ploy to destabilize trust in the US government by Russia and China?

[GG]

 

You honestly believe this has all been a ploy to destabilize trust in the US government by Russia and China?

 

Of course not. I was just giving you a courtesy treatment of the screenplay.

 

I think that Snowden is an idealogue who thought that he was doing the right thing and turned out to be this century's greatest useful idiot.

 

It also highlights the stupidity of the government running a different set of rules than what it writes for the rest of us. There's a codified process for whistleblowers in corporate America. If something like that existed for the NSA insiders, maybe there wouldn't have been a need for Snowden to steal state secrets.

[DC Tom]

It also highlights the stupidity of the government running a different set of rules than what it writes for the rest of us. There's a codified process for whistleblowers in corporate America. If something like that existed for the NSA insiders, maybe there wouldn't have been a need for Snowden to steal state secrets.

 

There is one (albeit not a very good one, but it does exist).

 

Over the weekend, the Russians and Chinese broke the encryption on some of the documents Snowden gave them. The Brits are now in a scramble to evacuate the intelligence agents identified in those documents before the Russians and Chinese arrest and execute them. Snowden's not a whistleblower, he's just an ass.

[GG]

 

There is one (albeit not a very good one, but it does exist).

 

Over the weekend, the Russians and Chinese broke the encryption on some of the documents Snowden gave them. The Brits are now in a scramble to evacuate the intelligence agents identified in those documents before the Russians and Chinese arrest and execute them. Snowden's not a whistleblower, he's just an ass.

 

I'm sure he started off with intentions as a whistleblower, and turned into a full traitor

[DC Tom]

 

I'm sure he started off with intentions as a whistleblower, and turned into a full traitor

 

"Whistleblower" implies working within some sort of structure or procedure of oversight to effect change. Snowden intentionally went outside any sort of oversight, and firehosed classified data to the world.

 

I don't think he intended to be a traitor...but he sure as hell didn't intend to be a whistleblower. Really, he's just a ****head. A Julian Assmange wanna-be.

[Deranged Rhino]

 

Of course not. I was just giving you a courtesy treatment of the screenplay.

 

 

In that case, I need all the help I can get.

 

 

There is one (albeit not a very good one, but it does exist).

 

Over the weekend, the Russians and Chinese broke the encryption on some of the documents Snowden gave them. The Brits are now in a scramble to evacuate the intelligence agents identified in those documents before the Russians and Chinese arrest and execute them. Snowden's not a whistleblower, he's just an ass.

 

Except they didn't break the encryption of Snowden's documents, the entire story is a fabrication and a lie designed to smear Snowden and slow the movement down.

 

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/journalists-slam-article-claiming-russia-china-cracked-edward-snowden-files-1.3112907

Edited June 15, 2015 by GreggyT

[GG]

 

In that case, I need all the help I can get.

 

 

Except they didn't break the encryption of Snowden's documents, the entire story is a fabrication and a lie designed to smear Snowden and slow the movement down.

 

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/journalists-slam-article-claiming-russia-china-cracked-edward-snowden-files-1.3112907

 

Are you saying that the UK is doing the USA's bidding to discredit Snowden?

 

Exactly what movement are you referring to? Canonization of a traitor?

[Deranged Rhino]

 

Are you saying that the UK is doing the USA's bidding to discredit Snowden?

 

Exactly what movement are you referring to? Canonization of a traitor?

 

10000000% to your first question.

 

To the second, look at the issues Parliament is deliberating about this week and ask yourself about the timing of this "story".

Edited June 15, 2015 by GreggyT

[Deranged Rhino]

http://thehill.com/policy/cybersecurity/244888-report-second-major-fed-hack-hit-military-intel-workers

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/13/us/white-house-weighs-sanctions-after-second-breach-of-a-computer-system.html?_r=0

 

 

Is the irony intentional or not? State sponsored hackers steal data about federal government employees and it is viewed by many as an outrageous violation worthy of potential sanctions against China. Yet, revelations about the American government doing the exact same thing to its citizens is viewed as "necessary" to keep us safe from terrorists.

 

I write fiction for a living and I couldn't come up with something as absurdly ironic as this. I doubt Swift could have either.

 

More to this:

 

http://www.nationaljournal.com/tech/does-nsa-spying-leave-the-u-s-without-moral-high-ground-in-china-hack-20150614

 

 

 

 

All signs point to China being responsible for one of the worst hacks in U.S. history, exposing sensitive records of millions of federal employees.

But the U.S. is an awkward position in deciding how to respond to the humiliating blow. That's partially because in the two years since Edward Snowden's leaks about U.S. surveillance, the Obama administration has repeatedly argued that hacking into computer networks to spy on foreigners is completely acceptable behavior.

It won't be so easy for the U.S. to express indignant outrage just because it's on the opposite side of the surveillance this time.

 

 

******************************************************************************

 

 

Except they didn't break the encryption of Snowden's documents, the entire story is a fabrication and a lie designed to smear Snowden and slow the movement down.

 

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/journalists-slam-article-claiming-russia-china-cracked-edward-snowden-files-1.3112907

 

And some more info: 5 Reasons why the MI6 story is a lie

 

https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2015/06/five-reasons-the-mi6-story-is-a-lie/

 

 

 

The alleged Downing Street source is quoted directly in italics. Yet the schoolboy mistake is made of confusing officers and agents. MI6 is staffed by officers. Their informants are agents. In real life, James Bond would not be a secret agent. He would be an MI6 officer. Those whose knowledge comes from fiction frequently confuse the two. Nobody really working with the intelligence services would do so, as the Sunday Times source does. The story is a lie.

 

(SNIP)

 

This anti Snowden non-story – even the Sunday Times admits there is no evidence anybody has been harmed – is timed precisely to coincide with the government’s new Snooper’s Charter act, enabling the security services to access all our internet activity. Remember that GCHQ already has an archive of 800,000 perfectly innocent British people engaged in sex chats online.

 

Edited June 15, 2015 by GreggyT