Joe Miner Posted August 1, 2016 Share Posted August 1, 2016 Here's one for you DR: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-07-31/whistleblowers-stunning-claim-nsa-has-all-hillarys-deleted-emails-it-may-be-leak Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted August 1, 2016 Author Share Posted August 1, 2016 Here's one for you DR: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-07-31/whistleblowers-stunning-claim-nsa-has-all-hillarys-deleted-emails-it-may-be-leak I was going to post this article this morning, It is a little amazing to me it's taken this long for this accusation to be made. If there's any merit to it, it would demonstrate fully the ongoing power struggle happening behind the scenes. Of course, if it's true, we'll never hear anything more about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted August 1, 2016 Share Posted August 1, 2016 I was going to post this article this morning, It is a little amazing to me it's taken this long for this accusation to be made. If there's any merit to it, it would demonstrate fully the ongoing power struggle happening behind the scenes. Of course, if it's true, we'll never hear anything more about it. Except for those of us watching the Obits column. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted August 1, 2016 Author Share Posted August 1, 2016 Except for those of us watching the Obits column. True. But those people get laughed off before they get killed off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted August 4, 2016 Author Share Posted August 4, 2016 After a back and forth with Assange this week, Snowden released a cryptic tweet today: 'It's time': Edward Snowden, the former National Security Agency contractor turned whistleblower, issued a mysterious call for former colleagues to reconnect with him on Wednesday, tweeting "It's time" to his more than 2 million followers: Follow Edward Snowden ✔@Snowden Did you work with me? Have we talked since 2013? Please recontact me securely, or talk to @bartongellman. It's time.https://twitter.com/bartongellman/status/760841244704669697 … 9:15 AM - 3 Aug 2016 570570 Retweets 1,0951,095 likes Snowden also quoted a tweet by journalist and author Barton Gellman, who said that he is seeking information on Snowden's work in the intelligence community so he can "tell it truthfully." http://www.businessinsider.com/edward-snowden-issued-a-cryptic-warning-on-twitter-2016-8 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted August 5, 2016 Author Share Posted August 5, 2016 More: http://mashable.com/2016/08/05/edward-snowden-tweet-code/#wAZ8lHiokOq5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted September 18, 2016 Author Share Posted September 18, 2016 WashPost Makes History: First Paper to Call for Prosecution of its own Source (After Accepting Pulitzer) THREE OF THE FOUR media outlets which received and published large numbers of secret NSA documents provided by Edward Snowden – The Guardian, The New York Times and The Intercept – have called for the U.S. Government to allow the NSA whistleblower to return to the U.S. with no charges. That’s the normal course for a newspaper, which owes its sources duties of protection, and which – by virtue of accepting the source’s materials and then publishing them – implicitly declares the source’s information to be in the public interest. But not The Washington Post. In the face of a growing ACLU-and-Amnesty-led campaign to secure a pardon for Snowden, timed to this weekend’s release of the Oliver Stone biopic “Snowden,” the Post Editorial Page not only argued today in opposition to a pardon, but explicitly demanded that Snowden – their paper’s own source – stand trial on espionage charges or, as a “second-best solution,” “accept[] a measure of criminal responsibility for his excesses and the U.S. government offers a measure of leniency.” In doing so, The Washington Post has achieved an ignominious feat in U.S. media history: the first-ever paper to explicitly editorialize for the criminal prosecution of its own paper’s source – one on whose back the paper won and eagerly accepted a Pulitzer Prize for Public Service. But even more staggering than this act of journalistic treachery against their paper’s own source are the claims made to justify it. (snip) If the Post Editorial Page editors really believe that PRISM was a totally legitimate program and that no public interest was served by its exposure, shouldn’t they be attacking their own paper’s news editors for having chosen to make it public, apologizing to the public for harming their security, and agitating for a return of the Pulitzer? If the Post Editorial Page editors had any intellectual honesty at all, this is what they would be doing – accepting institutional responsibility for what they apparently regards as a grievous error that endangered the public – rather than pretending that it was all the doing of their source as a means of advocating for his criminal prosecution. WORSE THAN THE INTELLECTUAL DISHONESTY of this Editorial is its towering cowardice. After denouncing their own paper’s PRISM revelation, they proclaim: “worse — far worse — he also leaked details of basically defensible international intelligence operations.” But what they inexcusably omit is that it was not Edward Snowden, but the top editors of The Washington Post, who decided to make these programs public. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted September 26, 2016 Author Share Posted September 26, 2016 A WALKING TOUR OF NEW YORK’S MASSIVE SURVEILLANCE NETWORK The building is home to the city’s Domain Awareness System, which collects and analyzes information from police cameras, radars, license plate readers and more. The Domain Awareness System was built in partnership with Microsoft, which is selling the software to other cities, with New York getting a cut of the profits. According to Burrington, a number of the system’s cameras belong to private entities, including companies like Goldman Sachs and Pfizer, who have access to the facilities at 55 Broadway. ...Because Goldman Sachs and Pfizer are on the front lines when it comes to fighting terrorism... wait, did I say fighting. I meant money laundering. Makes total sense to give them access to NYC's entire surveillance system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted October 5, 2016 Author Share Posted October 5, 2016 Exclusive - Yahoo secretly scanned customer emails for U.S. intelligence: sources Yahoo Inc last year secretly built a custom software program to search all of its customers' incoming emails for specific information provided by U.S. intelligence officials, according to people familiar with the matter. The company complied with a classified U.S. government demand, scanning hundreds of millions of Yahoo Mail accounts at the behest of the National Security Agency or FBI, said three former employees and a fourth person apprised of the events. Some surveillance experts said this represents the first case to surface of a U.S. Internet company agreeing to an intelligence agency's request by searching all arriving messages, as opposed to examining stored messages or scanning a small number of accounts in real time. https://www.yahoo.com/tech/yahoo-secretly-scanned-customer-emails-us-intelligence-sources-170638369--finance.html What? But we were assured this kind of stuff wasn't happening... (Separate but connected, Yahoo was up to quite a bit more than just scanning emails: https://www.engadget.com/2016/06/22/drug-trafficker-gets-20-years-thanks-to-emails-he-never-sent/ ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted October 5, 2016 Share Posted October 5, 2016 Exclusive - Yahoo secretly scanned customer emails for U.S. intelligence: sources Yahoo Inc last year secretly built a custom software program to search all of its customers' incoming emails for specific information provided by U.S. intelligence officials, according to people familiar with the matter. The company complied with a classified U.S. government demand, scanning hundreds of millions of Yahoo Mail accounts at the behest of the National Security Agency or FBI, said three former employees and a fourth person apprised of the events. Some surveillance experts said this represents the first case to surface of a U.S. Internet company agreeing to an intelligence agency's request by searching all arriving messages, as opposed to examining stored messages or scanning a small number of accounts in real time. https://www.yahoo.com/tech/yahoo-secretly-scanned-customer-emails-us-intelligence-sources-170638369--finance.html What? But we were assured this kind of stuff wasn't happening... (Separate but connected, Yahoo was up to quite a bit more than just scanning emails: https://www.engadget.com/2016/06/22/drug-trafficker-gets-20-years-thanks-to-emails-he-never-sent/ ) Is this a post here we're supposed to believe that the US government surveillance program is used to help low level English drug traffickers? Or is this a post that disputes the claim that Internet and media companies know more about people than governments do? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted October 5, 2016 Author Share Posted October 5, 2016 Is this a post here we're supposed to believe that the US government surveillance program is used to help low level English drug traffickers? Or is this a post that disputes the claim that Internet and media companies know more about people than governments do? Your claim was that I work in an industry that violates consumer privacy "more than any act of government in the history of man". Which of course is nonsense. Like this question. The jingoism runs deep in you, GG. You should get that looked at. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted October 5, 2016 Share Posted October 5, 2016 You've been called out as a Tinfoil conspiracy dude from numerous posters on this board and you have the gall to criticize others? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted October 5, 2016 Share Posted October 5, 2016 Your claim was that I work in an industry that violates consumer privacy "more than any act of government in the history of man". Which of course is nonsense. Like this question. The jingoism runs deep in you, GG. You should get that looked at. If you are going to level an accusation, at least get the quotung part right Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted October 5, 2016 Author Share Posted October 5, 2016 You've been called out as a Tinfoil conspiracy dude from numerous posters on this board and you have the gall to criticize others? From two posters, both blind jingoists with proven track records of missing the boat when it comes to these issues. So, yeah. I do. If you are going to level an accusation, at least get the quotung part right I showed as much care as you do when you purposefully and repeatedly misquote me. That was what you said, though. You made a big deal that I profit from an industry that violates privacy -- and then proceed to get not only my industry wrong but used Google as your example... which just shows you know nothing about the entertainment business or Google. Like warning us about the coming police state, when there's nothing remotely supporting it. While you're profiting from an industry that's done more privacy intrusions into people's lives than any government action known to man. But I'm the jingoistic one. So... to recap... you misstate my argument -- an argument you admit you don't know anything about but continue to argue against -- and then double down on that ignorance by getting the field I work in wrong and claiming Google is tied more to the entertainment industry than it is to the DoD. It might be one of the dumber posts made on this forum not authored by Gatorman. So own it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted October 5, 2016 Share Posted October 5, 2016 From two posters, both blind jingoists with proven track records of missing the boat when it comes to these issues. So, yeah. I do. I showed as much care as you do when you purposefully and repeatedly misquote me. That was what you said, though. You made a big deal that I profit from an industry that violates privacy -- and then proceed to get not only my industry wrong but used Google as your example... which just shows you know nothing about the entertainment business or Google. So... to recap... you misstate my argument -- an argument you admit you don't know anything about but continue to argue against -- and then double down on that ignorance by getting the field I work in wrong and claiming Google is tied more to the entertainment industry than it is to the DoD. It might be one of the dumber posts made on this forum not authored by Gatorman. So own it. If I'm not mistaken, you've been wrong about the defense industry, oil & gas industry, financial industry and obviously the media industry. Alphabet controls 12 percent of all global media spend, which primarily comes from Google and YouTube's ad sales. The company collects $60 billion in U.S. ad spend—a figure 166 percent larger than No. 2 ranking The Walt Disney Company. To compare, Google's ad revenue was 136 percent larger than Walt Disney last year. Alphabet's overall ad revenue is up 17 percent year-over-year. No matter how you slice it, Google is now a dominant force in media, whether it's measured in ad dollars or by the quantity of content that is streamed over its online properties or Google Fiber. But go ahead and tell me how you know more about it. I know, you read the Intercept and ZeroHedge, so you are more informed than those of us who are duped by the media. PS - It's impossible to misquote you because you never provide your own thoughts. At least B-Man doesn't pretend to be something opposite of what he posts. And again, what is the Pentagon's, Chevron's, and Exxon's RoI from an ongoing military engagement in Syria? How does it compare to an RoI of increasing its business in the US? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted October 5, 2016 Author Share Posted October 5, 2016 No matter how you slice it, Google is now a dominant force in media, whether it's measured in ad dollars or by the quantity of content that is streamed over its online properties or Google Fiber. No matter how you slice it, this was the stupid point you made: Like warning us about the coming police state, when there's nothing remotely supporting it. While you're profiting from an industry that's done more privacy intrusions into people's lives than any government action known to man. But I'm the jingoistic one. You can bob and weave all you want from your original ignorant statement, it only makes you look worse. You could admit you were wrong, about what I do, who I work for and what Google is... or you can keep moving the goal posts and running from your own ignorance. Choice is yours. Google was not started by the entertainment industry nor is it a part of the entertainment industry. As a start up it was funded by DoD and continues to play an active role in the intelligence apparatus we're operating under, which of course undercuts your entire argument and supports my argument. But facts don't matter to blind jingoists desperate to change the narrative when they're getting their asses handed to them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted October 5, 2016 Share Posted October 5, 2016 No matter how you slice it, this was the stupid point you made: You can bob and weave all you want from your original ignorant statement, it only makes you look worse. You could admit you were wrong, about what I do, who I work for and what Google is... or you can keep moving the goal posts and running from your own ignorance. Choice is yours. Google was not started by the entertainment industry nor is it a part of the entertainment industry. As a start up it was funded by DoD and continues to play an active role in the intelligence apparatus we're operating under, which of course undercuts your entire argument and supports my argument. But facts don't matter to blind jingoists desperate to change the narrative when they're getting their asses handed to them. A moving target I see. Who said anything about how Google was started. That's immaterial to the role it plays in today's media landscape. Quick, name another media company that generates $60 billion in advertising revenue and distributes more video content than Google. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted October 5, 2016 Author Share Posted October 5, 2016 A moving target I see. Who said anything about how Google was started. That's immaterial to the role it plays in today's media landscape. Quick, name another media company that generates $60 billion in advertising revenue and distributes more video content than Google. You're the one moving the target. You're wrong about what I do for a living. You're wrong about what Google's role in media is. You're wrong about what Google is. They're NOT a media company. And "media" is a broad brush, far too broad for the argument you're trying to make. Because of those things, everything you're saying while trying to back track from your original stupid comment has only made you sound more stupid. Like warning us about the coming police state, when there's nothing remotely supporting it. While you're profiting from an industry that's done more privacy intrusions into people's lives than any government action known to man. But I'm the jingoistic one. Ignoring how Google started, when it's fundamental to the role it plays in the world, is Gatorman level stupidity when you're trying to make the case you're trying (and failing) to. You used to be way better at this. Try admitting you were wrong. It'll help dig you out of this hole. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted October 5, 2016 Share Posted October 5, 2016 You're the one moving the target. You're wrong about what I do for a living. You're wrong about what Google's role in media is. You're wrong about what Google is. They're NOT a media company. And "media" is a broad brush, far too broad for the argument you're trying to make. Because of those things, everything you're saying while trying to back track from your original stupid comment has only made you sound more stupid. You are probably the only person in the world who doesn't consider Google to be a media company now. Intrusions are not the same as "violations" as you have twisted the words. Media companies are far more intrusive into ordinary people's personal lives than any government programs. And speaking of which, wonder why you never addressed this Appeals Court ruling? Looks like the program is still legal. A U.S. appeals court on Friday threw out a judge's ruling that would have blocked the National Security Agency from collecting phone metadata under a controversial program that has raised privacy concerns. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit said there were not sufficient grounds for the preliminary injunction imposed by the lower court. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted October 5, 2016 Author Share Posted October 5, 2016 You are probably the only person in the world who doesn't consider Google to be a media company now. That's not true, it's also once again straying away from your original point. Google at its inception was designed to invade privacy and was government backed. I don't work in media. So you're 0-2 on your assertions that I'm profiting from an industry that's done more privacy intrusions into people's lives than any government action known to man. Of course you've already amply demonstrated you don't know how my industry works and now you've shown you can't even define it. Plus you're arguing my case for me by using Google, so for your Gatorman level logic. Intrusions are not the same as "violations" as you have twisted the words. Media companies are far more intrusive into ordinary people's personal lives than any government programs. False, unless you group tech companies with government roots into "media". Then you're correct -- but it's about as stupid as it gets in terms of making the case you're trying to make. Keep digging. It's working great for you. Like warning us about the coming police state, when there's nothing remotely supporting it. While you're profiting from an industry that's done more privacy intrusions into people's lives than any government action known to man. But I'm the jingoistic one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts