I can’t hear you over the sound of how crazy you are.
Yes, you keep listening to yourself - keep screaming about crazy at the top of your voice, devoted NSA shill. It’s you, it’s always been you - and this is your chosen smokescreen, no more.
Thanks for also showing you’re a liar incidentally, since evidently I’m NOT your chief, as you said I was. (Or post that video, up to you!)
Sorry dude, your crazy is still too loud.
LOL. Thanks, thread. Eases the pain of working on Saturday.
One day you might read my posts. But not today, you’re screaming about how other people are “crazy” today.
“dude”…you’re a hippy now. Right. Magic Morphing Timex!
Got more excuses?
Does the Ourobouros eat its own tail out of revenge for have its tail eaten?
My excuse is that you are too crazy to have a conversation with.
That’s right, other people who might have other views are too crazy for you. So you don’t read their posts in the first place… hence you are measuring your own crazy.
Enidigm asked a good question. Do answer it.
I feel bad now.
This isn’t even fun any more, it’s just sad.
You are? Well, your choice. Perhaps tomorrow you’ll read people’s posts…change is possible.
Enidigm - Pfeh. People who chose not to read other people’s posts out of fear of ideological contamination have it coming.
Just ignore Dawn Starfalcon Light, guys. You can’t help him, you can’t fix him, you can’t have a productive discussion with him. Meds and psychiatry might make a difference, but nothing else can.
Yes, be Dave/Timex, refuse to read other people’s posts on one account. Refuse to have productive discussions on the other - and then admit you need meds and psychiatry for your issues. As you scream the same old social darwinist crap about people’s posts you haven’t and won’t read!
Your totalitarian credentials, demanding that other kinds of views need their owners “fixing”, just like your ideological precursors…all to defend the NSA, it seems, by your actions here. Go figure.
This is quite a good point of entry to the NSA/Snowden debate:
‘The NSA files’:
http://www.theguardian.com/world/the-nsa-files?INTCMP=mic_232382
It is a page with many of the key episodes and time lines etc. Good reading if you are even remotely interested in the subject (and why wouldn’t you be?).
‘NSA Australia allies ‘spied on US law firm’ in Indonesia row’:
Australian spies tapped a US law firm representing Indonesia in a trade dispute with the US, new leaks say. The 2013 document obtained by the New York Times does not identify the US law firm, but says the Australians offered the intercepts to their allies at the US National Security Agency (NSA).
Previous allegations of Australian spying on Indonesia has led to worsening ties. The alleged documents have been leaked by ex-NSA contractor Edward Snowden. Last month, Mr Snowden alleged that the NSA conducted industrial espionage.
In an interview with Germany’s ARD TV channel, the former contractor said the agency would spy on big German companies that competed with US firms.
The February 2013 document says the Australian Signals Directorate monitored a US law firm used by the government of Indonesia for trade talks, according to the New York Times (NYT).
Whatever the ultimate fallout of all the ‘reveals’ in our lifetimes, i think the most useful thing will be for future generations to see quite clearly when ends don’t justify the means (even if well intended), that is assuming we have things such as Democracy in the future?
Eh, I read that yesterday and the breathless headlines and first few paragraphs are at odds with the actual facts. Once you strip away all the righteous indignation, you have this:
The Australian version of the NSA was spying on an Indonesian trade delegation, presumably a routine occurrence. The Australians and Americans apparently have a reciprocal relationship where the two countries share this type of intelligence. But in this case, the intelligence involves a US law firm. This isn’t a problem for the Australians, but they are aware that (a) the NSA isn’t supposed to collect intelligence on US citizens, and (b) US law has all sorts of rules regarding attorney-client privileges. Thus the Australians don’t know whether the NSA will be able to accept this intelligence. They send a message to the NSA asking whether the US wants the data or not. The NSA runs it by their lawyers and responds back. No one knows what the reply was.
So there are some disturbing revelations in there, the biggest one being that Australia conducts signals intelligence collection not just for national security but also for economic advantage. The other being that Australia - who has had a rocky relationship with Indonesia recently - might be stepping up their game there.
But the headlines from the NYT and BBC are misleading at best: “NSA Spies on US Law Firm!” No, actually it seems like the law firm’s involvement was a surprise to everyone and the NSA may never have seen the information in question… by their own choice. “Australian spying on US law firm w/NSA knowledge!” Yeah… sort of; the Australians told the NSA after the fact, but it doesn’t sound like it was orchestrated by the NSA at all. “No Separation Between US and Australian Spy Agencies!” Except what this shows is… a great deal of separation; apparently they don’t just bulk-feed each other information, which is what I sort of assumed happened.
Still all the info that keeps coming out about this is fascinating. At one level it seems the depth and breadth of the modern spying game has moved far beyond the political and purely security basis, we are seeing evidence of industrial espionage etc.
Most countries do and I certainly wouldn’t think twice about it. Industrial espionage is a legitimate use of state resources.
When the industry is part of the state, sure! Last I checked means of production are generally privately owned in the US. Now, I’m not saying the US isn’t spying this way, and I’m sure they have in the past. But …
Since the companies are not state-owned, so who picks the winner(s) that get this information and advantage gained in this industrial usage? What about sectors where many of the players in the industry are foreign-owned (energy, auto, pharma come to mind offhand)? Who picks what private company benefits from state gathered industrial espionage? Oh the corruption opportunities! If industrial espionage is a legitimate use, why should any foreign firm place any manufacturing on US soil? They’re going to need a big PAC to make sure they get a cut (and yes it does work this way, one manufacturer I worked for made the PAC and is now successful in US, another saw it and bailed.) Is this really the way we want it to work?
Some of the companies that have refused to move manufacturing to China, have refused for this reason. Sure, there it is expected the government there will be complicit with the state-owned companies at stealing and/or using any illegitimately gained information, and complicit in the information collection. Saying it is legitimate, outside of old-style communist/socialist countries, opens a large can of worms. And if it is legitimate, not only why manufacture in the US … why buy US made routers, or data storage solutions?
Industrial espionage is a legitamate (NOT the same as legal, obviously) use of state resources when the industry in question benefits the state. Nationalized industry is just the most direct example. And quite bluntly, it’s not like there is a lack of opportunities for corruption without it. No “special” PAC’s needed. Likewise, it happens everywhere. Why wouldn’t a foreign company place manufacturing on U.S. soil unless it’s a cost of labor issue?