PRISM
- Started
- Last post
- 260 Responses
- GeorgesIV0
Don't worry, you shouldn't have to worry if you have nothing to hide,
There's no way our gubment will use this data in a bad way, fuck look at all the freedom we have compared to china,
I don't care what rights are violated as long as it keeps the bad people away,AMIRITE???
- In many ways, this is my feeling on the matter, even though you may be trollingmonospaced
- I know mono, this why i like you, we're at complete opposite when it comes to these matters but you never troll, unlike me ;)GeorgesIV
- I don't think we're that "opposite," I just try to view these matters from all sides before making conclusions.monospaced
- yet you don't see to grasp the importance of privacy in this world, if I followed your train of thoughts, the great firewall of china is a good thing, the only difference is that they openly monitor the net, instead of doing it covertlyGeorgesIV
- of china is a good thing, the only difference is that they openly monitor the net, instead of doing it covertlyGeorgesIV
- I grasp it, please don't accuse me of that.monospaced
- I'm not grasping at anything really, you commented that you're ok with this, forgetting all the tyrannical gov. that would have dreamt to have this kind of power, what makes you think the us is somehow differentGeorgesIV
- would have dreamt to have this kind of power, what makes you think the us is somehow different?GeorgesIV
- I said in many ways. Not that I completely agree. I can see it both ways.monospaced
- detritus0
If ECHELON had a practical handle on analysing the majority of international comms traffic back in the 80s, how much traffic do you think they'll be able to monitor 30 years and 20 generations of Moore's law later? Especially as it's all conveniently digitised and mapped before they even get their paws on it?
Honestly, I'm no conspiracy nut (well, any more) but it's fucking childlike-naivety to suppose that the governments of the world DON'T have access to every last snippet they want to.
You're over-rating how complex it is and totally underestimating the resources thrown at the problem. Never mind all the logical efficiencies they can build in with algorithms that sort 99% of the content out as chaff before getting to the juicy stuff.
Computationally, this shit's easy if you've got billions of dollars and the best minds in the world to throw at it..
- What is available in high technology for military is 50-100 years ahead of the consumer marketyurimon
- of course, yes, the military had Petaflop supercomputers and ipads in WWI didn't they ? Pft.mikotondria3
- had the stealth fighter in the 60'syurimon
- detritus0
Witness the German Government - these days seen as a shining light of decent humanist representation...
...recently busted for installing rootkits on unwarranted suspects.
- GeorgesIV0
Wasn't the internet invented by darpa for military use, what make you think it was ever free?
It's like everyone just woke up and realised that everything they ever wrote, saw, read wasn't private,
Anyways the final of GoT is sunday, can't wait to see dragons kick ass,
- yurimon0
We are dealing with scenario oriented organizations. They have contingency plans for almost any scenario. Its obvious there is more preparation for civil unrest which has been going on for many years. There is also an increasingly centralizing of authority and claimed authority.
Its obvious that there are people who still value their liberty and people who are revivalist in understanding that this far beyond the scope of reach of designated authority, because authority comes from the people, not from Gov.
right now it is more in an information war stage. hearts and minds, Word play, double speak. Propaganda. get you guys to except nicely if possible, win consent. etc.
and surveillance is a key component for swift decisive action in a contingency plan preparation. this was learned from old soviets, german days. It works as a military strategy.
every one is complacent. move along.
</the end>
- identity0
If this were Bush or Romney - this thread wouldn't have nearly as many jokes in it.
- ukit20
- interesting. IAO is a magickal formulascarabin
- http://www.sacred-te…scarabin
- Thats Weird scara ;/Hombre_Lobo
- Krassy0
Facebook CEO denies knowledge of NSA's PRISM program
- zaq0
^ So had Google CEO...
however http://www.google.com/transparen…
- ukit20
Notice all the caveats...no "direct access" was given
Sure, we didn't give direct access we just collected up all your emails and searches and indirectly handed it off to the NSA.
- BrokenHD0
I guess this goes here.
Wired Magazine cover story on the Bluffdale NSA Data Center (Mar 2012):
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel…
A fascinating read for tech heads and (non) conspiracy theorists alike.
- ukit20
Gotta love it...contrast this with Zuckerberg's statement today
"We strongly encourage all governments to be much more transparent about all programs aimed at keeping the public safe. It's the only way to protect everyone's civil liberties and create the safe and free society we all want over the long term."
vs
- suckerberg would throw his mother under the bus to get where he is if he had to.yurimon
- Krassy0
Google: “We have not joined any program that would give the U.S. government—or any other government—direct access to our servers.”
Facebook: “Facebook is not and has never been part of any program to give the US or any other government direct access to our servers.”
AOL: “We do not have any knowledge of the Prism program.”
Microsoft: “If the government has a broader voluntary national security program to gather customer data we don’t participate in it.”
- Direct access is the legal loophole to their statements. Access sure, but not direct.instrmntl
- identity0
AND - then there's THIS:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/0…
- instrmntl0
Ihttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v...
ts a renewal of what has been legal 7 years ago...etc etc. Amazing these companies deny it. They're denying based on the phrase " direct access."
also watch democracy now
http://dncdn.dvlabs.com/ipod/dn2…its obvious the journalist isn't tech savy and will be denied based on misstatements, but his findings are solid.