PRISM

[Drewbert]

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/06/08/what_about_a_us_tech_boycott/

[Avtal]

If you decide to boycott US-based tech companies, Google might be high on your list. But Baidu and Yandex are not free of government interference either.

Avtal

[domainguru]

If you think Skype is "safe", you might wanna think again. Its just too much of an inviting "information pit" not to have the NSA all over it. And now Skype is owned by M$, putting a back-door in wouldn't have been a problem.

Talking of Google .... a couple of months ago I got an email from a parking company, it was like:

"Our upstream provider wants to know everything about you, including phone number and physical address. If you don't provide this info, we'll close your account"

That's how bizarrely one-sided "privacy" has become. Google can demand stuff off you, but demand that they themselves not be named as the people demanding "full information" from you.

I told the parking company to fuck off and to tell Google, I mean "your upstream provider" to fuck off as well.

The world is becoming so Kafka-esque, and there is seemingly little can be done. Every piece of info we send out (probably including this discussion) is being sucked up by the NSA and stored forever.

Enjoy your freedom, while it lasted.

[Drewbert]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPKKQnijnsM

[sbe18]

ancient cities were built at junctures of rivers for a reason.
commerce and control.

London, Paris, NY, Nanjing, Cairo, Bagdahd, and kolkatta etc.....

Yottabyte ISP's are the new river junctions

[Avtal]

From the article:

Our addiction to US technology and services leaves us vulnerable to the whims of those who make the laws.

It doesn't seem to bother him that his addiction to these services puts all his personal information in the hands of companies whose business model is to sell this information for a profit. So what is his real complaint? That these companies are giving his information to the NSA for free? Would he be happier if the NSA had to pay market rates? At least the NSA won't use the information to clutter his browser with ads.

If I were to start putting my personal information in the hands of private companies, I would choose European companies wherever possible, because European privacy laws make it harder for my information to be sold to others. But that has nothing to do with government snooping.

Avtal

[Rubber Duck]

Enjoy NSA while it lasts.

US economy is all smoke and mirrors.

The reality is that they cannot afford their bloated defence establishment.

And what is more, it does not defend them against the biggest threat. Themselves.

[123]

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/06/08/what_about_a_us_tech_boycott/

I had been complaining about this a few months ago.

Basically G and the others know:

your location 24/7 (via smartphones), what your searched for (at least when you're logged in, saved irreversibly. what content your emails have (via gmail), what you like, what websites you visit (Google Chrome, +1 button) what friends you have, what's your cellphone number is (if you gave it away), your full name in many cases

it is possible or likely that this data gets saved forever.

now with google glasses this might be taken to the next level.

They've been defending this saying we are a company not the governement and we're doing this to make your life easier and for marketing purposes.

but what is the difference between a government agency building such a database and using it or having a private company building the database that can be accessed by the government when they want to?

There is none. Sooner or later there will be abuse.

What is even worse is that the data is likely collected globally so even searches and messages that are being initiated on non-us territory are affected.

[clipper]

This was news when I was at university, before 9/11, and before IDNs existed. Google was about five months old at the time:

The chief executive officer of Sun Microsystems said Monday that consumer privacy issues are a "red herring."
"You have zero privacy anyway," Scott McNealy told a group of reporters and analysts Monday night at an event to launch his company's new Jini technology.
"Get over it."


http://www.wired.com/politics/law/news/1999/01/17538

So, the news is, it takes 14 years for people to start caring.

[alpha]

I just don't get it.

If you have nothing to hide, why should you care?

you think the security agencies want to hack in to see your embarrassing FB college photos, or steal your credit card number to buy their office a new printer?

purlease

[bumblebee man]

I just don't get it.

If you have nothing to hide, why should you care?


That's an argument which justifies just about everything.

Got a webcam in your bathroom? No? Looks like you've got something to hide...

[alpha]

That's an argument which justifies just about everything.

Got a webcam in your bathroom? No? Looks like you've got something to hide...

That's not the same thing.

If for some weird reason I had a webcam in my bathroom, no I wouldn't care.
If for some weirder reason I decided to have a Facebook account, I wouldn't care either if someone from an agency was snooping.

If I chose to share with others, then what's the harm in government agencies snooping in on it.

Now.. it would be very different if you said a government agency was forcing me to have a webcam in my bathroom, or to create and maintain a FB account, just so they can monitor me - but as far as I know, that's not law yet.

[Drewbert]

I just don't get it.

If you have nothing to hide, why should you care?


Do you have curtains on your house?

[alpha]

Do you have curtains on your house?

only in the bathroom. I found that without them, the webcam gets glare - is it better now?

[123]

I just don't get it.

If you have nothing to hide, why should you care?

you think the security agencies want to hack in to see your embarrassing FB college photos, or steal your credit card number to buy their office a new printer?

i think it is more about the bigger picture and the general directions things are moving.

of course with the current situation the average guy will not be affected by this but
consider this:

20 years ago or even today it would have been unthinkable to have the government install a video camera in all houses and record everything.

Now we are getting close to this and no one seems to care.

Or let's say the camera will be installed just over your desk to record everything you write and read. Without your permission or possibility to opt-out.

Does it matter? is it intrusive? Does it violate the privacy of the individual? I would say yes.

So where is the difference? Your PC is just a virtual desk.

And then the bigger picture.

We assume that we live in a modern and a free society. Does one want to live in a society where the government records and monitors everything we do without even admitting it? What does that say about the government? Do they respect their citiziens?

another thing to consider:

most of this is done under the pretense of fighting and preventing terrorism. since the war on terror has become a delusional activity based on mostly immaginary threats how do they justify their actions?

i doubt they can rationally or morally justify it.

so either they do it because they can, they want to and they get away with it or because they are completely delusional and think it's needed for public safety.

[alpha]

most of this is done under the pretense of fighting and preventing terrorism

so if not that, why do you think they are doing this?

[123]

so if not that, why do you think they are doing this?

i don't know the reasons but i would say because technology makes it possible and which security agency wouldn't dream of having full access to everything?

[Avtal]

i don't know the reasons but i would say because technology makes it possible and which security agency wouldn't dream of having full access to everything?

Nowadays we make it easy. We now each carry a small portable device with built-in camera, microphone, GPS locator, and data connection. Some naive people believe that they have control over when the camera and microphone are active.

Avtal

[Drewbert]

http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/regions/americas/united-states/130607/what-if-journalists-covered-us-like-they-cover-world

[alpha]

Nowadays we make it easy. We now each carry a small portable device with built-in camera, microphone, GPS locator, and data connection. Some naive people believe that they have control over when the camera and microphone are active.

Avtal

Does your Tinfoil Hat not protect you from that?

[sbe18]

When 4 billion people in the world have smartphones, the value of dumb networks can only be improved with a vacuum cleaner .
Just the mention of viruses on Twitter is accurate enough for the WHO to track disease outbreaks in wide open search queries.

the best way to hide a needle in a stack of needles is to be in plain site actually.

the NSA is using massive brute force on Arabic, Farsi, and Urdu since the US doesn't have a enought native speakers.

Relative to domestic terrorism...
we Yanks need to worry about 10 vs 30 magazine clips.
Brits need to worry about machete wielding interview videos.

Meanwhile the Syrians, and Iraqis will endure the Sunni vs Shiite proxy world cup.

s/

[welkin]

U.S. citizens still have more freedom than most. If the NSA were illegally hacking into Google or Alpha's bathroom cam to acquire this data rather than it just being given to them (which really should already be assumed), that would be a different story, and immoral (especially for the poor NSA analyst).

[bumblebee man]

That's not the same thing.

If for some weird reason I had a webcam in my bathroom, no I wouldn't care.
If for some weirder reason I decided to have a Facebook account, I wouldn't care either if someone from an agency was snooping.

If I chose to share with others, then what's the harm in government agencies snooping in on it.

Now.. it would be very different if you said a government agency was forcing me to have a webcam in my bathroom, or to create and maintain a FB account, just so they can monitor me - but as far as I know, that's not law yet.

Well, for the same reasons I don't have a Facebook account either, but still it's getting incredibly hard to maintain any form of privacy unless you live on a tree.

You're not forced to use a smartphone but if you want mobile internet your data is property of Google or Apple already. And standards seems to shift more and more towards collecting data first and allowing* you to opt out later. Instead of asking you first they just do it and make it your problem in case you don't want it.

So to stay with the bathroom example, the webcam will be installed already when you move in. You're not forced to move in or use your bathroom, you can just as well live in the woods and shit in a hole. You might be able to deactivate* the webcam if you follow the instructions in the display department. You'll find it in a cellar with broken lights if you go down the broken stairs. They are on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying 'Beware of the Leopard'.

* It's not like Facebook or Google or the government is going to delete any data even if you ask them to.

[123]

i think FB data can't even be deleted. they have a close account function and everyone believes when they close the account your data is gone. it isn't. you could still reactivate your account and everything is there again.

FB thinks that everything you post is their property.

[domainguru]

so if not that, why do you think they are doing this?

You have a right to privacy. Its not about whether "if you are doing nothing wrong, you have nothing to hide". Its about not being spied on 24/7. Its about people in the State knowing everything about you and what you are doing 24/7.

If you have nothing to hide, please send me all your email accounts passwords, and naked pictures of yourself. Do you mind that? Doesn't it bother you that google or your government or the NSA might have that info already?

The government is there to represent their citizens, nothing more than that. History has taught us one thing. All power eventually leads to abuse of power by people that have it.

There one was argument I followed on Twitter. This lady trotted out the "I've got nothing to hide" line. She said she trusted her government, and trusted her President. She said "I have nothing to hide, you can see all my emails" (although of course she never did reveal them), but then someone asked her "What if Dick Cheney had all this info?"

"Oh" she said, "I don't trust that guy. I wouldn't like him getting his hands on it ..."

By handing over all this data, you are trusting it to your current government, of all future governments of your country, and the government of the USA, plus anyone capable of hacking any of the systems where the data is held, or the backdoors where the data is collected.

The current WikiLeaks trial reveals how STUPID the US Military are when it comes to protecting all the info they collect. So this data WILL be hacked, and the terrorists will say "fuck you very much for collecting it for us".

[Avtal]

Does your Tinfoil Hat not protect you from that?

Wrapping one's phone in tinfoil would be more effective than covering one's head with the stuff. But then the phone would not work work very well as a phone.

Seriously, the technical capabilities are there, and the "smarter" the phone, the easier it is for someone to install a back door by means a virus or a rogue app. Once someone else has control of your phone, they have control of your camera, microphone, and GPS, not to mention your personal data.

We can debate whether the government should be allowed to do this, but there is no reason to doubt that they can do it if they wish.

Avtal

[123]

http://www.extremetech.com/gaming/156515-kinect-for-xbox-one-an-always-on-works-in-the-dark-camera-and-microphone-what-could-possibly-go-wrong

The Xbox One will feature, by default, an always-on, works-in-the-dark, microphone and camera that’s constantly connected to the internet and 300,000 servers. What could possibly go wrong?

Most likely often in your living room or your bedroom.

http://www.extremetech.com/gaming/139706-microsofts-new-kinect-patent-goes-big-brother-will-spy-on-you-for-the-mpaa

Microsoft has filed for a Kinect-related patent, and it’s a doozy of an application. The abstract describes a camera-based system that would monitor the number of viewers in a room and check to see if the number of occupants exceeded a certain threshold set by the content provider. If there are too many warm bodies present, the device owner would be prompted to purchase a license for a greater number of viewers.

No, really. It’s that blunt. From the abstract: “The users consuming the content on a display device are monitored so that if the number of user-views licensed is exceeded, remedial action may be taken.”

[Ben]

i think FB data can't even be deleted. they have a close account function and everyone believes when they close the account your data is gone. it isn't. you could still reactivate your account and everything is there again.

FB thinks that everything you post is their property.

If you live in the UK (or anywhere in Europe I think) then by law under the data protection act you can request your data to be removed from their servers and they must oblige. You may think this does not affect them as they're a US company but their international head office is in Dublin. I'm not sure if anyone has ever actually tried doing this... you can also request to see all the data they hold on you, would be interesting to see.

[bumblebee man]

If you live in the UK (or anywhere in Europe I think) then by law under the data protection act you can request your data to be removed from their servers and they must oblige. You may think this does not affect them as they're a US company but their international head office is in Dublin. I'm not sure if anyone has ever actually tried doing this... you can also request to see all the data they hold on you, would be interesting to see.

Some people have tried this. Basically what Facebook does when you hit the delete button is making it invisible for you and keeping it for themselves. And yes, this is illegal in Dublin. Their answer is "sue us".

[123]

If you live in the UK (or anywhere in Europe I think) then by law under the data protection act you can request your data to be removed from their servers and they must oblige. You may think this does not affect them as they're a US company but their international head office is in Dublin. I'm not sure if anyone has ever actually tried doing this... you can also request to see all the data they hold on you, would be interesting to see.

I don't mind if my account still exists or not. Not worth the trouble.

When social networks became popular i joined one or two before regging at Facebook. With the first i used a fake username and picture, i wasn't even thinking about privacy i was doing it for fun. my friends knew who i was anyway. When we moved to FB i did the same thing and after a while my account got deleted without warning because i wasn't using my real name.

That's when i started to feel that FB sucks, i mean hey this was supposed to chat and have fun with friends not about joining a business network.

i mean it's my and my friends business how we interact an how we call each other.

Don't use your real name and you are the bad guy, an intruder , violator of their TOS. How silly!!

so they forced me to use my real name and used it for a while. Eventually i felt that this FB thing was getting out of control so eventually i removed myself and never looked back.

when deleting the account i realised that there was no such thing as deleting it, only deactivation. I would not have expected that they even ignore deletion requests. Not even a friendly request will do?

So i think this was designed to get and lock your data right from the start.:yes:

[catchnames]

I am happy that now if I delete my email accidentally, I may request NSA/CIA to provide my email from their backup! :-)

[blastfromthepast]

Some people have tried this. Basically what Facebook does when you hit the delete button is making it invisible for you and keeping it for themselves. And yes, this is illegal in Dublin. Their answer is "sue us".

It may be illegal, but Europeans have been reluctant to enforce their own privacy laws as regards to Facebook:

For nearly two years we have seen that Ireland does not enforced the rights of EU citizens. Over 1,000 complaints against Facebook were factually not processed by the Irish Data Protection Authority (ODPC). Instead of a legally binding decision on our 22 complaints, there were only "non-binding reports" with endless superficial text. Facebook was blindly believed, a critical investigation and an in depth review of Facebook’s submissions was not conducted.

About 100 people have already complained to the EU Commission because the ODPC has not processed their individual complaints. We have observed that the authority responds to complaints only with standardized e-mails. Requests for a formal decision by the complainants were simply ignored according to many people we stay in regular contact with.

http://europe-v-facebook.org/EN/en.html

Campaign group europe-v-facebook, which has been lobbying for reforms at the U.S. company for more than a year, said it would appeal against decisions by the data protection regulator in Ireland, where Facebook has its international headquarters.

The group has filed 22 separate complaints against Facebook, winning some concessions including pushing the social network to switch off its facial recognition feature in Europe.

But it said on Tuesday the changes did not go far enough and it was disappointed with the results of an audit carried out by the Irish Data Protection Commissioner (DPC) in response to its complaints, which it now plans to challenge in court.


http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/12/04/us-facebook-ireland-lawsuit-idUSBRE8B307Z20121204

http://www.techcentral.ie/20435/europe-v-facebook-tools-up-for-court-battle

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/law-group-to-sue-over-facebook-privacy-1.752628

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2242744/Facebook-hit-European-legal-threat-students-privacy-policies.html

http://www.pcworld.com/article/2018981/facebook-sued-over-app-center-data-sharing-in-germany.html

[domainguru]

http://www.extremetech.com/gaming/156515-kinect-for-xbox-one-an-always-on-works-in-the-dark-camera-and-microphone-what-could-possibly-go-wrong



Most likely often in your living room or your bedroom.

http://www.extremetech.com/gaming/139706-microsofts-new-kinect-patent-goes-big-brother-will-spy-on-you-for-the-mpaa

Yeah, one reason why I'm not getting an XBOX one.

Is it merely a coincidence that M$ with the XBOX ONE will now demand you connect to their servers at least once per day or all your games stop working? God only knows what data they will be uploading ............. they can sure collect enough with the necessarily always on Kinect camera + microphone.

I'm actually really pleased though. I've always detested M$ as a company and they are getting a massive backlash for various "control freak elements" on the xbox one. M$ won't even let you buy or sell used games. Who the fuck do they think they are?

All the indicators are saying people will vote with their wallet and ignore the XBOX one, however stunning some of the games look.

[domainguru]

i think FB data can't even be deleted. they have a close account function and everyone believes when they close the account your data is gone. it isn't. you could still reactivate your account and everything is there again.

FB thinks that everything you post is their property.

Not to mention the fact that PRISM implies everything you ever write goes directly to NSA. Do not pass go, do no collect $200. Do not think you will ever get the data "deleted", even if it is pulled from fb's website.

[123]

I am happy that now if I delete my email accidentally, I may request NSA/CIA to provide my email from their backup! :-)

maybe they should offer a global data recovery service ;) NSA data recovery.

[Avtal]

Nowadays we make it easy. We now each carry a small portable device with built-in camera, microphone, GPS locator, and data connection. Some naive people believe that they have control over when the camera and microphone are active.

Avtal
Does your Tinfoil Hat not protect you from that?

From the New York Times Magazine (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/18/magazine/laura-poitras-snowden.html), quoting Glenn Greenwald, who seems to always be in the news (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/18/glenn-greenwald-guardian-partner-detained-heathrow):

“She was very cautious,” Greenwald recalled. “She insisted that I not take my cellphone, because of this ability the government has to remotely listen to cellphones even when they are turned off..."

I'm trading in my tinfoil hat for one made from carbon nanofibers, but I don't think it will help.

Avtal

[Clotho]

I just don't get it.

If you have nothing to hide, why should you care?

you think the security agencies want to hack in to see your embarrassing FB college photos, or steal your credit card number to buy their office a new printer?

purlease

I weep for the world your children and grandchildren will inherit due to the apathy of people like yourself.

You have been sold a bill of goods and you have accepted it, hook, line and sinker.

Having something to hide or not is irrelevant. What is relevant is the erosion of humanities rights and freedoms. We are on the downward slope and it will only get worse. Individuals like yourself are accelerating this awful reality. You probably believe some line you have been fed about this being for security. As if relinquishing these inherent rights will make you more secure.

Anyone with any critical thinking skills can see that the opposite is actually the case.

[Rubber Duck]

I don't worry too much as PRISM will soon disappear under budget cuts as the US struggles to buy rice.

[123]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship_in_the_United_Kingdom

On 21 July 2013, the BBC[10] and the Daily Mail[11] revealed that Prime Minister David Cameron plans to bring in legislation later this year which will require ISPs to block access to pornography to all households, with customers having to opt in to receive pornography. By the end of 2013, all Internet Service Providers (ISPs) will censor pornography by default according to the government.[12] ISPs will also block access to other material, including: "content tagged as violent, extremist, terrorist, anorexia and eating disorders, suicide, alcohol, smoking, web forums, esoteric material and web-blocking circumvention tools".[13] Some smaller ISPs expressed their reluctance to take part in filtering, citing concerns over costs and civil liberties[14] but the government stated: "We expect the smaller ISPs to follow the lead being set by the larger providers".[15]

The gov knows what is good for you and what isn't. Does that mean if you want to access a web forum you have to call your ISP and tell them please enable my internet porn stuff?!

[alpha]

I weep for the world your children and grandchildren will inherit due to the apathy of people like yourself.

You have been sold a bill of goods and you have accepted it, hook, line and sinker.

Having something to hide or not is irrelevant. What is relevant is the erosion of humanities rights and freedoms. We are on the downward slope and it will only get worse. Individuals like yourself are accelerating this awful reality. You probably believe some line you have been fed about this being for security. As if relinquishing these inherent rights will make you more secure.

Anyone with any critical thinking skills can see that the opposite is actually the case.

I'm actually quite shocked by the number of ultra paranoids bouncing around this forum.

The thing is, I'm not naive, I do understand what you are saying, but I still don't give a crap about any of it. And nor for my kids future either... that I think is where you are being naive... so tell me, what do you want to happen here? You want all the world leaders to pinky-swear they'll stop eavesdropping? Really? and you'd believe that would you? the thing is, it wouldn't matter what bills are passed or not, what people promised to do or not do, it would probably still go on anyway; and if it wasn't going on, then all the paranoids with their tin hats would be convinced it would be either way.. so actually, is that any better?

I repeat my point. If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear. Assuming you can't control it anyway, or believe what anyone tells you is happening or nor, why bother getting into a bluster about it.

[bwhhisc]

Technology and some computer algorithms just might save you or your fellow countrymen from some horrific acts of some untold crazy person. ;)

No country is safe from the loons. If you could stop an act of terror, is it worth it? Too many billions of messages flying to really pay attention, only certain keywords or unusual traffic might prompt a look. If you don't like it don't like what the US might be doing, be glad your not in China or Russia.

[Rubber Duck]

I repeat my point. If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear. Assuming you can't control it anyway, or believe what anyone tells you is happening or nor, why bother getting into a bluster about it.

I think McCarthy proved that was not true.

[Rubber Duck]

Technology and some computer algorithms just might save you or your fellow countrymen from some horrific acts of some untold crazy person. ;)

No country is safe from the loons. If you could stop an act of terror, is it worth it? Too many billions of messages flying to really pay attention, only certain keywords or unusual traffic might prompt a look. If you don't like it don't like what the US might be doing, be glad your not in China or Russia.

Yes, but unfortunately the Loons I fear most come from your country.

Frankly, I am a little dismayed at what is going on in Egypt and would like to know a little more about the level of US involvement. One minute we are restoring democracy, the next minute we have the US President backing off an association with a Military that has just seized power again after being bankrolled by the US for decades.

The problem is that there are millions of Muslim Brotherhood Supporters, most of whom were not extremist. At least they weren't until they were radicalised by the violence of the last few weeks.

One of the things that US needs to understand about democracy is that it has to respect the outcome. Recent episode suggest it has problems doing that it it in its own backyard let alone abroad.

Hounding whistleblowers around the globe does not bode well for the freedoms of the rest of us. Frankly, there is a very dark and dangerous side to the US adminstration and personally resent my country acting as their lackies.

If you allies shows that level of distrust, you can see why the like of Russia and China may not always see eye to eye.

Democracy is more than a badge as states from East Germany to North Korea have proven.

[bwhhisc]

One of the things that US needs to understand about democracy is that it has to respect the outcome. Recent episode suggest it has problems doing that it it in its own backyard let alone abroad.


Agree with you on that, most American citizens want out of foreign meddling etc. but obvious our government can't get the message until we can change leadership in Washington. In this case, maybe they fear uncontainable escalation that could spread across the Middle East.

[Rubber Duck]

One of the things that US needs to understand about democracy is that it has to respect the outcome. Recent episode suggest it has problems doing that it it in its own backyard let alone abroad.


Agree with you on that, most American citizens want out of foreign meddling etc. but obvious our government can't get the message until we can change leadership in Washington. In this case, maybe they fear uncontainable escalation that could spread across the Middle East.

Yes, but the lesson of history is that most of the problems result from similar meddling in the past. Even if one avoids moral judgements past interventions have generally been counter-productive. Ask yourselves how many problems have countries like Switzerland experienced?

[Edwin]

No country is safe from the loons. If you could stop an act of terror, is it worth it? Too many billions of messages flying to really pay attention, only certain keywords or unusual traffic might prompt a look. If you don't like it don't like what the US might be doing, be glad your not in China or Russia.

No, it's not worth it.

Acts of terror (in most developed nations) kill dozens, occasionally hundreds. In the very worst case in history, a few thousand people.

That's shocking, and profoundly regretful, but their real impact (except on the victims and their immediate family and friends) is the chilling effect they have on the ability of normal people to go about their regular, every-day lives free of "fear".

One of the biggest chilling effects is the total destruction of privacy that's being introduced through programs like PRISM (and previously Echelon and others).

The impact of such programs - and the consequences they bring - is felt by everyone. So you're forcing billions of people to cower forever under an ever more rigid, proscriptive Panopticon regime for the sake of (perhaps) saving as many people in a year as die in an automobile accident in a single day.

In other words, make cars 1% safer to drive and you'll have a much larger impact on the overall mortality rate of a country, with none of the side-effects.

[Edwin]

This is extremely relevant to the discussion
http://www.infowars.com/statistics-show-you-are-not-going-to-be-killed-by-terrorism/
http://www.salon.com/2013/08/20/5_myths_about_terrorism_including_that_it_works_partner/singleton/

[alpha]

No, it's not worth it.

Acts of terror (in most developed nations) kill dozens, occasionally hundreds. In the very worst case in history, a few thousand people..

that's not a fair comparison. what you are comparing is the status quo.

A fair comparison would be to imagine what terrorist acts might be allowed to happen should there be zero surveillance of any kind. A dirty bomb/nuke would eclipse your reference to dozens, occasionally hundreds.

Unlikely? maybe. but relative peace of mind has a price.

[123]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War

Associated Press 110,600 violent deaths March 2003 to April 2009
Costs of War Project 176,000–189,000 violent deaths including 134,000 civilians[1][2][3]
March 2003 to February 2013
Iraq Body Count project 112,667–123,284 civilian deaths from violence. 174,000 civilian and combatant deaths[4][5][6][7] March 2003 to March 2013
Iraq Family Health Survey 151,000 violent deaths March 2003 to June 2006
Lancet survey 601,027 violent deaths out of 654,965 excess deaths March 2003 to June 2006
Opinion Research Business survey 1,033,000 deaths as a result of the conflict March 2003 to August 2007
Classified Iraq War Logs[4][8][9][10] 109,032 deaths including 66,081 civilian deaths.[11][12] January 2004 to December 2009

The war on terror has killed 10 times more people than terrorism itself. The measures that are being taken thus don't work if success is measured in saved human lives.

The war on terror has killed even more americans(mostly soldiers) than terrorists managed to.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_military_casualties_of_war

http://channels.isp.netscape.com/whatsnew/package.jsp?name=fte/afraidtodie/afraidtodie&floc=wn-nx

Leading causes of death in the United States:
•Tobacco: 435,000 deaths, 18.1 percent of total U.S. deaths
•Poor diet and physical inactivity: 400,000 deaths, 16.6 percent
•Alcohol consumption: 85,000 deaths, 3.5 percent
•Microbial agents: 75,000
•Toxic agents: 55,000
•Motor vehicle crashes: 43,000
•Incidents involving firearms: 29,000 •Sexual behaviors: 20,000
•Illicit use of drugs: 17,000

If this were all rational and all about saving lives they would change gun laws and save far more people.

[Edwin]

tA fair comparison would be to imagine what terrorist acts might be allowed to happen should there be zero surveillance of any kind. A dirty bomb/nuke would eclipse your reference to dozens, occasionally hundreds.

There hasn't been "zero surveillance" for over fifty years, so that's just as unfair a comparison as anything else.

There is no threat level extant in the world today that justifies the big black hole that the NSA is building to suck in ALL data everywhere. Although they'd absolutely love you to think there is, as that provides the necessary "smokescreen" of legitimacy for them to do so...

Indeed, the world is no more dangerous than it was 3, 5, 10 years ago, nor is there any reason to believe it suddenly will be. Anyone who wants to get connected to anyone else for any reason already can, and has been able to for years and years. There's nothing "in the pipeline" to suggest that the world of the near or more distant future will be any more dangerous terrorism-wise than it is now.

[Edwin]

Here's a quick quiz for you...

Excluding 9/11, how many deaths do you think there have been as a result of terrorism in the US in the last 29 years?

Scroll down to see the answer AFTER you've had your guess.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

The answer is: 491 deaths, or an average of just under 17 people killed per year. See
http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/terrorism/terror-rate.html

Did you get close?

[Avtal]

Nuclear weapons in the hands of terrorists are a serious threat, and a threat that will increase with time. So in that sense, the world 5-10 years from now will be more dangerous than the world of 5-10 years ago.

But that's not my biggest worry.

I'm old enough to remember the era of J. Edgar Hoover (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Edgar_Hoover), who was essentially director-for-life of the FBI. He died in office at the age of 77; he had compromising material on everyone of importance in Washington, so no one dared force him to resign. Fortunately, he was content to run his law-enforcement empire; he didn't aspire to greater power.

You probably see where I'm heading. The greatest threat to our more-or-less democratic system of government is not a terrorist group armed with a nuclear bomb. It's a power-hungry director of some spy agency or other who succeeds in blackmailing his way all the way to the top. And with the surveillance tools available to him (or her), organized resistance would be just about impossible, once he secured his position.

So here's the dilemma: If our spy agencies are too weak, we risk losing some of our cities to nuclear-armed terrorists. But if our spies are too effective, and not carefully monitored, they may seize all power, and not let go.

If we're lucky, we'll find some compromise and muddle through.

Avtal

[Rubber Duck]

Here's a quick quiz for you...

Excluding 9/11, how many deaths do you think there have been as a result of terrorism in the US in the last 29 years?

Scroll down to see the answer AFTER you've had your guess.
..
.
.

The answer is: 491 deaths, or an average of just under 17 people killed per year. See
http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/terrorism/terror-rate.html

Did you get close?

And Japan. What are the figures from Japan?

Are they higher?

Or and they lower, and if so does this imply they have been doing a lot more spying than the US?

[Avtal]

The answer is: 491 deaths, or an average of just under 17 people killed per year. See
http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/terrorism/terror-rate.html

Did you get close?

491 seems a bit high. The cited list apparently includes the Oklahoma City bombing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oklahoma_City_bombing) in 1995, which which killed 168 people, but was an act of domestic terrorism. It also lists 218 people in the US killed by terrorism in 1999, but I can't figure out which incident(s) he is referring to. Any ideas?

Avtal

[Rubber Duck]

491 seems a bit high. The cited list apparently includes the Oklahoma City bombing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oklahoma_City_bombing) in 1995, which which killed 168 people, but was an act of domestic terrorism. It also lists 218 people in the US killed by terrorism in 1999, but I can't figure out which incident(s) he is referring to. Any ideas?

Avtal

Was there not some kind of mysterious plane crash off the Eastern Seaboard?

Guess rather than admit the planes were unsafe, they blame it on it on Middle East Terrorists.

[Rubber Duck]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EgyptAir_Flight_990

[Avtal]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EgyptAir_Flight_990

Thanks, that looks like the reason for the 1999 numbers. But I don't think I'd consider the victims of the crash to be victims of terrorism, in that there doesn't seem to have been an ideological motive.

Even Japan has suffered at least one terror attack, from a domestic source: Sarin_gas_attack_on_the_Tokyo_subway (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarin_gas_attack_on_the_Tokyo_subway). Norway as well, of course. So avoiding overseas "adventures" doesn't buy you immunity from terrorism.

Anyway, my conclusion, based on past statistics, is that we would save a lot more lives by redirecting the NSA's budget, spending it instead on finding ways to cut down on medical errors in hospitals, or on making automobiles (or automobile drivers) safer.

Avtal

[Rubber Duck]

Thanks, that looks like the reason for the 1999 numbers. But I don't think I'd consider the victims of the crash to be victims of terrorism, in that there doesn't seem to have been an ideological motive.

Even Japan has suffered at least one terror attack, from a domestic source: Sarin_gas_attack_on_the_Tokyo_subway (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarin_gas_attack_on_the_Tokyo_subway). Norway as well, of course. So avoiding overseas "adventures" doesn't buy you immunity from terrorism.

Anyway, my conclusion, based on past statistics, is that we would save a lot more lives by redirecting the NSA's budget, spending it instead on finding ways to cut down on medical errors in hospitals, or on making automobiles (or automobile drivers) safer.

Avtal

Saving is one of those False Friends in English. It clearly has a different meaning in your language than ours.

The Fed is considering raising interest, because if it doesn't then the market willl do it for it and just make it look stupid.

It is considering reducing the amount of Bond that it buys. Is that because the Obama administraion is cutting its budgets, not a bit of it, but refusal to increase the debt limit by the GOP in the House means they cannot borrow as much even if they want to waste money on the NSA etc. Additionally, the banks have now already junked all the mortgage back securities that are likely to go pear-shaped on the FED. Are we talking about reducing the rediculously huge amount of money that has been created not just buying up government but just about any form of crappy debt issuance you can imagine? No, we are only tentatively talking about not buying quite as much, and then probably only because there is not so much available. Even the Chinese and Japanese will eventually taper the rate at which they are dumping US debt.

[yanni]

.
.
http://ellasmedia.com/do.jpg
.
Do you feel safer now?
.
.
.

[Avtal]

.
Do you feel safer now?


No... there aren't any drones.

Avtal

[Rubber Duck]

If you decide to boycott US-based tech companies, Google might be high on your list. But Baidu and Yandex are not free of government interference either.

Avtal

Maybe, but if you catch one of those Google robot taxis then you had better be Feel Lucky.