Obama Admin. admits to surveillance methods: Beating a Dead Horse Pt. 74

lol exactly.

Whether or not a smearing campaign, ars technica posted some older chats of the Snowden. Quite an enjoyable read, imo.

  Quote

d Snowden was 23 years old when he moved to Geneva in 2007. Soon after arriving, he was looking for a taste of home.

 

It wasn't that he was unhappy. Snowden's life was becoming the adventure he'd been looking for. Moving to Switzerland hadn't been his first choice—his dream picks were in Asia and Australia—but it certainly wasn't bad. Hired by the CIA and granted a diplomatic cover, he was a regular old IT guy whose life was elevated by a hint of international intrigue.

 

Snowden would soon move into a four-bedroom apartment covered by the agency. He'd blow off parking tickets, citing diplomatic immunity. He'd travel the continent. He befriended an Estonian rock star ("the funniest part is he's a SUPER NERD"), raced motorcycles in Italy, took in the Muslim call to prayer from his Sarajevo hotel room, and formed opinions about the food and the women in Bosnia, in Romania, in Spain.

 

But as his first spring dawned in Switzerland, it must have felt cold, foreign, and expensive. Two days after his arrival in Switzerland, Snowden logged onto #arsificial, a channel on Ars Technica's public Internet Relay Chat (IRC) server. He'd been frequenting this space for a few months, chatting with whomever happened to be hanging out.

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/06/nsa-leaker-ed-snowdens-life-on-ars-technica/

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/06/exclusive-in-2009-ed-snowden-said-leakers-should-be-shot-then-he-became-one/

  On 6/27/2013 at 5:01 AM, wabby said:

When something loses it's primary utility due to changes in the environment, after a period of irrelevancy it inevitably reinvents itself in a more gestural and expressive way. How will the security and surveillance industries adapt to a mostly non-violent world? BDSM?

what makes you think this is even close to a possibility?

it would be possible, if humans' natural tendencies, as produced by evolution itself, were somehow subdued.

and yes i was making a bit of a snarky point in there. the idea that violence is some 'evil' thing... well i'm not saying it is or isn't, but it just seems kind of funny to me that the people who place all this emphasis on being against violence, are also often the kind of people who think that nature and earth and gaia the godess mother and all that shit is perfect.

its what fucking made us violent animals.

so either:

a) violence is perfect and great because it was given to us as a gift from nature itself, which spawned animals with sharp teeth and made them have to constantly rip each other to shreds to survive (and yes i do understand that there is a difference between lions and people, but our violent behaviors come from the same parts of the brain and are there for the same evolutionary reasons as they are in animals that live in the wild).

b) nature really isn't so perfect and great after all. it made a bunch of shitty violent beasts. does it get off on watching us tear into each other? are there any earth/mother nature worshipping types around who can explain this for me? why their goddess is so SICK? gaia couldn't have made all of us creatures work off of something like photosynthesis? maybe it couldn't provide enough energy, but surely in all her infinite wisdom there must have been SOME other alternative?

in closing,

mother nature- one sick bitch.

back on topic though, i'm getting a kick out of the snowden truther conspiracies that naturally have sprung up from the conspiracy theory machine that is the internet, where everyone is an expert on all things.

every time I glance at the thread title I see "Obama admits to beating off a dead horse".

Not to diminish the importance and seriousness of this thread. Sorry

i honestly don't think i've seen such a stark contrast in government propaganda peddlers and real 'journalists' on TV since maybe 2003 Iraq war launch. I have a whole new respect for Anderson Cooper and Jake Tapper now (of CNN) for seeing their very fair treatment of Glenn Greenwald and Snowden. It's almost as if they are the only 2 other journalists (of the big media networks) to understand that if Greenwald is treated like a criminal, work they may want to do in the future to expose corruption might also be classified as criminal. They are simply seeing the big picture

twilight zone part 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9xkWGiWpQ_c

Sean Hannity more pro Snowden than the entirety of all the 'liberal' MSNBC staff

  On 6/27/2013 at 3:18 PM, theSun said:

 

  On 6/27/2013 at 5:01 AM, wabby said:

When something loses it's primary utility due to changes in the environment, after a period of irrelevancy it inevitably reinvents itself in a more gestural and expressive way. How will the security and surveillance industries adapt to a mostly non-violent world? BDSM?

 

what makes you think this is even close to a possibility?

  On 6/27/2013 at 7:50 PM, MisterE said:

it would be possible, if humans' natural tendencies, as produced by evolution itself, were somehow subdued.

As is happening through our symbiosis with technology, but as John Ehrlichman has mentioned: those pushing FUD agenda would have us believe the world is becoming more dangerous. Internationally co-operative netizens are bad for big business.

  On 6/28/2013 at 7:22 AM, John Ehrlichman said:

twilight zone part 2

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9xkWGiWpQ_c

 

Sean Hannity more pro Snowden than the entirety of all the 'liberal' MSNBC staff

wow .. and it's only cause obama is in power. Helps 'em to sell snuggys.

It's completely ridiculous. Where are they going to get the man power to look through all these videos? Needle in a haystack mate. Waste of time.

On a deeper level there is no terrorism, it is a negligible afterthough compared to the real terrorism being conducted daily by those same people that have set up and run this sinister system. Therefore even if you were to accept the paranoid logic behind such a system, there still is no justification for the system, well unless they dispenced their ability to keep secrets, allowing us to track and monitor the goings on of today's true terrorists.

  Quote

 

The administration, though, would rather marginalize Snowden, a former National Security Agency systems analyst who is thought to have custody of more classified documents.

"Calling him a hacker, as opposed to a government contractor or an NSA employee, brings him down a notch to someone who's an irritant, as opposed to someone who has access to integral intelligence files," Pauker said. "To externalize him and brand him with a black-hat hacker tag distances him from the government."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/28/obama-edward-snowden-hacker_n_3515562.html

Interestingly, the administration calls Snowden a "hacker". I wonder what the impact might be in the situation where Snowden is brought in front of a jury. I'm imagining the maximal "punishment" might already be lowered because of this.

I have to say I'm kind of glad Kerry didn't get elected, he's such a twat

  Quote

 

 

Just Monday, Secretary of State John Kerry was talking tough against China and calling Snowden a traitor whose actions are "despicable and beyond description." By Tuesday, Kerry was calling for "calm and reasonableness" on the matter, and adding, "We're not looking for a confrontation. We are not ordering anybody."

the funny thing about the US government calling other people hackers is that the US along with Israel launched what is widely considered the most dangerous cyber attack in history, Stuxnet. A virus which effects machinery driven by Seimens (used in power plants and industrial factories across the world) which can spread on it's own. Stuxnet is so powerful that even before the US acknowledged that it had a hand in it, most people who examined it said it was so sophisticated and so hard worked on that only a multi billion dollar intelligence organization could have been able to come up with it. It's capable of literally shutting down the electricity grid of an entire country without the person who originally sent the infection intending it. The consequences of Stuxnet being released, just to disrupt IRanian nuclear enrichment is one of the most irresponsible things the US has ever been a part of since the Manhattan Project.

on a side note anyone here this just outright bizarre claim by former Bush/clinton anti terrorism czar Richard Clarke, saying Michael Hastings might have been killed in a 'cyber car attack'.
Wasn't this the 'line' that Putin apparently crossed where he sort of went full dictator, you know murdering journalists? I'm not saying Clarke is right, but it's still a pretty extreme accusation to make coming from a former insider.

  On 6/28/2013 at 11:50 AM, wabby said:

but as John Ehrlichman has mentioned: those pushing FUD agenda

I'm not sure what this in reference to, but that acronym makes me cringe real hard, If I used it in this thread in a serious fashion i deeply apologize

  On 6/28/2013 at 9:59 PM, John Ehrlichman said:

It's capable of literally shutting down the electricity grid of an entire country without the person who originally sent the infection intending it.

Waaaat? source?

this does a pretty good presentation of Stuxnet (before the US gov admitted to helping make it with Israel)

i think my claim above was in reference to Iran's official statement when they finally admitted the damage of Stuxnet to their infrastructure. Technically speaking though it can theoretically do this. Any electronic/software driven infrastructure that uses a combination of windows operating system and siemens hardware interfaces can be shut down with Stuxnet. It gets a lot more scary when you imagine what something like this could do to a nuclear power plant. I'd like to believe that they don't run windows, and a simple software virus wouldn't ever be able to cause a meltdown, but i'm not so sure.

i just find it hilarious every time, the confidence with which you speak about things you have no way of understanding or possessing a 0.000001% of the facts about.

could you at least once look at the things you spew out endlessly with a slight hint of doubt and criticism ? i mean, do you seriously hope to convince someone that allegedly some sophisticated virus you have absolutely no clue how it works, the info about you grabbed from some random sources with no understanding of their interests is the most irresponsible thing since manhattan project ?

you're gonna link another 10 videos from youtube to prove you point now ? fucking lol...jesus.

it seems like it might be a good idea to find out yourself especially if you live in one of the countries that helped create the most dangerous computer virus in the world? Don't take my word for it. I 'apologize' for doing my research and speaking confidently about what I know to be facts.

do you really find it 'hilarious' though? It seems like every-time you say you do you're actually being pretty reactive and emotionally upset. You even childishly followed me to a release thread of mine to make some kind of political point about Watmm rules, when are you going to stop riding on my dick? I also don't really see many attempts to actually discredit what I'm saying, seems like you just want to criticize me as a person, which again points to your dishonesty and obvious emotional investment into the wrong side of history. Try arguing a coherent point again, when you did that instead of being a whiner you were a lot more formidable.

here's a rundown for you in case you missed it

- Stuxnet has been widely referred to as the 'most dangerou's computer virus ever created by the heads of Symantec, Mcafee and other computer software companies
- it uses authentic security certificates that required industrial espionage to acquire, most viruses forge these certicates, Stuxnet does not.
- it is capable of interfering with any system in the world that uses a combination of Windows OS and seimens hardware interfaces. In theory the virus could infect anything from an industrial factory to a electrical power or water grid
- it spreads on it's own and has already been found in places where there is no explanation (random factories in Indonesia)
- it is one of the most hard worked and expensive computer viruses ever created. Most people who've looked at the code say that only an organization with a lot of funding could create it, and specifically intelligence agencies who are very well funded.
- The United states denied it's involvement in Stuxnet, as did Israel for over 2.5 years
- less than a year ago the NY times quotes several anonymous whitehouse officials, who acknowledged that Stuxnet was a covert operation done in part with Israel and it got final approval from Obama. Obama was also very proud of the accomplishment.
- the whitehouse has never overtly denied their denial, and no one came out and said the NY times lied. Most people who've been paying attention agree that the 'leak' of anonymous whitehouse officials would be the final word on who created it. the Obama administration did not want to make headlines with the pronouncement.

do you have anything to say to contest any of these points, or do you want to continue trying to attack my character?

there's is absolutely no way you or i or anyone on watmm can possibly come close to revealing some significant facts about such program if it even existed, especially the people or countries behind it, are you at least capable of understanding this ? that the most you can get is some speculation ?

what possible serious proof can you bring to back the idea that stuxnet is the most irresponsible program since manhattan project ? some snippets of some "experts" from rt news talking about ?

my motives are fighting this laughable ignorant idiocy that you're so keen on spreading which sadly enchants some of the younger watmmers.

  Quote

 

- Stuxnet has been widely referred to as the 'most dangerou's computer virus ever created by the heads of Symantec, Mcafee and other computer software companies

 

  Quote

- the whitehouse has never overtly denied their denial, and no one came out and said the NY times lied. Most people who've been paying attention agree that the 'leak' of anonymous whitehouse officials would be the final word on who created it. the Obama administration did not want to make headlines with the pronouncement.

 

 

and that's seriously enough for you to conclude that it must be the who's u.s behind it all and it's the most irresponsible thing since nukes ?

  On 6/29/2013 at 12:28 AM, eugene said:

there's is absolutely no way you or i or anyone on watmm can possibly come close to revealing some significant facts about such program if it even existed, especially the people or countries behind it, are you at least capable of understanding this ? that the most you can get is some speculation ?

what possible serious proof can you bring to back the idea that stuxnet is the most irresponsible program since manhattan project ? some snippets of some "experts" from rt news talking about ?

 

my motives are fighting this laughable ignorant idiocy that you're so keen on spreading which sadly enchants some of the younger watmmers.

 

  Quote

 

- Stuxnet has been widely referred to as the 'most dangerou's computer virus ever created by the heads of Symantec, Mcafee and other computer software companies

 

what's a "most dangerous virus" ? does the screen of the computer blow into the face of the operator ?

  Quote

- it uses authentic security certificates that required industrial espionage to acquire, most viruses forge these certicates, Stuxnet does not.

 

source ?

 

  Quote

- it is capable of interfering with any system in the world that uses a combination of Windows OS and seimens hardware interfaces. In theory the virus could infect anything from an industrial factory to a electrical power or water grid

 

almost every virus on the world was made for windows os's, how is this an important point ?

 

  Quote

 

- it spreads on it's own and has already been found in places where there is no explanation (random factories in Indonesia)

 

 

what is "spreads on its own" ?

 

  Quote

- it is one of the most hard worked and expensive computer viruses ever created. Most people who've looked at the code say that only an organization with a lot of funding could create it, and specifically intelligence agencies who are very well funded.

 

you can quantify the cost of allegedly super secret program and compare it to all other virueses made ? flol

 

  Quote

- The United states denied it's involvement in Stuxnet, as did Israel for over 2.5 years

 

that obviously means it must be them behind it.

 

 

  Quote

- less than a year ago the NY times quotes several anonymous whitehouse officials, who acknowledged that Stuxnet was a covert operation done in part with Israel and it got final approval from Obama. Obama was also very proud of the accomplishment.

 

anonymous officials, great source.

 

  Quote

- the whitehouse has never overtly denied their denial, and no one came out and said the NY times lied. Most people who've been paying attention agree that the 'leak' of anonymous whitehouse officials would be the final word on who created it. the Obama administration did not want to make headlines with the pronouncement.

 

 

and that's seriously enough for you to conclude that it must be the who's u.s behind it all and it's the most irresponsible thing since nukes ?

the sexual tension between you two has me on edge!

lol

  On 6/28/2013 at 10:32 PM, A/D said:

 

  On 6/28/2013 at 9:59 PM, John Ehrlichman said:

 

It's capable of literally shutting down the electricity grid of an entire country without the person who originally sent the infection intending it.

 

Waaaat? source?

  On 6/28/2013 at 10:01 PM, John Ehrlichman said:

 

  On 6/28/2013 at 11:50 AM, wabby said:

but as John Ehrlichman has mentioned: those pushing FUD agenda

 

I'm not sure what this in reference to, but that acronym makes me cringe real hard, If I used it in this thread in a serious fashion i deeply apologize

My bad. Apparently it causes JE to cringe real hard. Probably a thing to do with fear.