[Discussion] US and UK spy agencies defeat privacy and security on the internet

Calvin Rainey spielburg99 at gmail.com
Wed Sep 11 08:23:08 NZST 2013


So Germany didnt invade Poland? Didnt bomb Guernica as practice?
Whatever the social and economic factors, I think they kicked it off.
CK


On Wed, Sep 11, 2013 at 8:15 AM, Jeremy Read <jeremy at plt1.com> wrote:

>
>
>
> On Mon, Sep 9, 2013 at 10:26 PM, Robin Paulson <robin at bumblepuppy.org>wrote:
>
>> /On 2013-09-09 20:04, Jeremy Read wrote:
>> > realize it had been broken was the reason why WW2 was won by the
>> > allies. If this had not happened it is uncertain how the war would
>> > have ended.
>>
>> well, ze germans may have been identified as the culprits post war, all
>> neat and tidy like, but it's safe to say corruption, stupidity and greed
>> by the government of britain and other european powers over the 18th,
>> 19th and early 20th century, played more than a minor role in both wars.
>> perhaps if we hadn't had governments with those attitudes there would
>> have been no wars, and again there would be no necessity to read
>> people's mail?
>>
>> to bring it into a modern context, and the war on terror (as an aside,
>> terrorism is a form of war, so we are fighting a war on war...), the
>> obama/blair/bush/cameron administrations say the spying is necessary, we
>> need to protect everyone from bad people. again, british and american
>> greed in the middle east is a gigantic part of that, there have been
>> endless acts of violence, repression, etc. caused by the governments of
>> those countries. are we really surprised people like al quaeda
>> retaliate? perhaps if that lying f*** blair hadn't got us into iraq in
>> 2003, we wouldn't need to defend ourselves constantly from them, and
>> there would be no necessity to read everyone's email for "protection".
>>
>> adam curtis made an excellent documentary called "the power of
>> nightmares", which says that politicians no longer entice us with
>> promises of utopia, but with promises of protection from the bogey man,
>> drawing particular references to blair and bush versus al quaeda. it's
>> free and legal to download from:
>> http://www.archive.org/details/ThePowerOfNightmares
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_of_nightmares
>>
>
>
> I would disagree whether the Germans were the culprits of WW2.
> However whether it was stupidity or greed isn't important, those things
> aren't going to change, everyone is like that.
> In war the important thing is that there was a choice between who won.
> The difference is that one side allows this sort of conversation to even
> happen.
>
> Also it's not actually about war. It's about finding french agents before
> they blow up ships in our harbours. It's about finding out which business
> people aren't on our side (it is extremely common for people who travel
> regularly who see things of interest to be paid for what they see).
>
>
>
>
>>
>> > The general assumption is that all traffic can be intercepted by the
>> > NSA.
>> >
>> > I'm of the opinion that the NSA can decrypt all civilian ciphers.
>> >
>> > I'm of the opinion that RSA is broken, most likely through fast
>> > factoring of primes via some method.
>> >
>> > I'm of the opinion that the NSA can read Tor traffic, however
>> > recommends its use because nobody else currently can.
>> >  The NSA also intercepts emails from US politicians. Why? Well how
>> > else do you know if they're spies?
>>
>> the above appears at least partly true, based upon earlier conversations
>> around d-wave systems, and the info from the guardian/snowden
>>
>> > And you'll find there are a lot of people happy about this. You'll
>> > even find a lot of support for pro-actively using the information they
>> > gather and giving it to the police for more minor offenses.
>>
>> firstly, you really need to back that up. secondly, it doesn't make it
>> right. anglo-saxon law/liberal democracy holds probable cause very
>> highly as a protection against the state's power, that principle is
>> being smashed here:
>> from wikipedia:
>> probable cause is "a reasonable amount of suspicion, supported by
>> circumstances sufficiently strong to justify a prudent and cautious
>> person's belief that certain facts are probably true". where is the
>> probable cause here? mass collection of data (evidence gathering) is
>> illegal, and at the very least breaks the social contract.
>>
>
>
>
> http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2013/7/29/1375098467920/pew.png
>
> http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2013/7/29/1375098892863/pew1.png
>
> There's tonnes of polls like that. From anecdotal evidence it tends to
> have much higher support from engineers, doctors and women.
> Especially anyone who's enjoyed the pleasure of being robbed.
> The vast majority of the population doesn't enjoy having a meth lab in the
> same building as them, or being robbed.
>
> An analog would be that the population goes along with metal detectors at
> airports, even though it impedes on their privacy, because the privacy
> trade-off compared to the risk of dealing with metal weapons in flight is
> more annoying.
>
>
>
>>
>> > And although people might not be happy with the NSA collecting their
>> > information, they'd be significantly less happy if they weren't.
>>
>> which people? who have you asked? be careful of lumping billions of
>> individuals together into a homogeneous mass, it's somewhat dehumanising
>>
>> when do we get to decide? or do we always get treated as children: "we
>> know what's best for you, now go back to watching X-factor and leave the
>> important decisions to us"?
>>
>
> Well I was going to go with just NZ.
>
> Which people? Well if you enjoyed not losing WW2, that's you, though for
> most the importance wasn't winning WW2, but in that it the worst atrocities
> of the 20th century went for as brief a period of time as possible. But in
> modern times you've got a whole host of things ranging from passport
> control, counter espionage  to economic advantage. As well as continued
> good will from allies. From what's been declassified up until about 1975
> they've done a very good job.
>
> Whether we get to decide. Directly, well of course we shouldn't.
>
> 1) The value of if it in it's secrecy
> 2) A person is smart, people are stupid.
>
> But indirectly your vote chooses who gets elected, which does have an
> influence.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>>
>> --
>> robin
>>
>> What the world needs now, is love sweet love
>> _______________________________________________
>> Discussion mailing list
>> Discussion at tangleball.org.nz
>> http://www.tangleball.org.nz/mailman/listinfo/discussion
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Discussion mailing list
> Discussion at tangleball.org.nz
> http://www.tangleball.org.nz/mailman/listinfo/discussion
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.tangleball.org.nz/pipermail/discussion/attachments/20130911/759179c0/attachment.htm 


More information about the Discussion mailing list