somebody's watching you

[eFestivals]

The Snowden revelations have been coming out since June, and it looks like there's many more to come. It should have its own thread.

The latest to come out - but completely ignored this morning by the BBC (anyone might think they've been got at!) - is that not only are our govt intercepting all of our online activity (plus all activity on any 'net cables that go thru UK territory), they're also giving all of that data to the USA.

Now you might say that this stuff is necessary to fight crime - but this is being done by the same people who failed to catch a single spy by their own methods in nearly 100 years. They even had one of the biggest UK paedos ever convicted working for them and they never knew.

Both GCHQ and the NSA They claim to have stopped attacked via their spying - and yet they can't name any instance (which by itself would give away no spying secrets).

The UK govt's default defence for what has been revealed prior to this is that what GCHQ does is legal (as if legality by itself is meaningful; what Hitler did was legal too) ... but I don't remember any law being passed that said the USA had spying oversight of the UK's population.

Some people are even suggesting that what has been happening falls within treason laws - giving state secrets to a foreign power.

Edited November 21, 2013 by eFestivals

[5co77ie]

Unfortunately as the husband of a trade unionist, and having been on marches in my youth (and openly photographed by random photographers) protests outside McDonalds and their ilk, festivals in the '80s and to Glastonbury in the '90s - I know they've been listening to us for at least 25 years.

As an activist, and shop steward in the past my wife's name has even come up on black lists since she was in her teens! In the early nineties we even used to have random vehicles parked outside our house for days with people in - made trying to score a bit of a paranoid exercise!

Until I had to get a bank account, and ID for Glastonbury I'm not sure they had me on their system - which probably meant they kept an eye on me.

I suspect the USA would have already had access to this data - particularly due to our participation in campaigns against their corporations - McDs, Starbucks, Walmart, Shell, etc

Edited November 21, 2013 by 5co77ie

[Rufus Gwertigan]

Is it this you are talking about?

http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-25028495

[russycarps]

Unfortunately as the husband of a trade unionist, and having been on marches in my youth (and openly photographed by random photographers) protests outside McDonalds and their ilk, festivals in the '80s and to Glastonbury in the '90s - I know they've been listening to us for at least 25 years.

As an activist, and shop steward in the past my wife's name has even come up on black lists since she was in her teens! In the early nineties we even used to have random vehicles parked outside our house for days with people in - made trying to score a bit of a paranoid exercise!

Until I had to get a bank account, and ID for Glastonbury I'm not sure they had me on their system - which probably meant they kept an eye on me.

I suspect the USA would have already had access to this data - particularly due to our participation in campaigns against their corporations - McDs, Starbucks, Walmart, Shell, etc

[5co77ie]

have you or your wife ever been to America? I wonder if you'd get through the border controls.

[eFestivals]

Is it this you are talking about?

http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-25028495

yeah. When I said 'BBC', I was meaning TV.

And that's a shit article btw. Go find the original on the Guardian's website.

[t8yman]

Embarrassingly, I've resigned myself to these facts. I've given up, theres nothing I can do outside of voting. The only thing that could possibly change the status quo is a revolution, something I would welcome with both arms.

They know who we talk to, what we talk about, where we go, and who we go there with. I just dont see any other way of avoiding it if you want to use a phone or a computer - both of which I dont think I could go without.

I just feel utterly helpless about it all.

I'm absolutely against it, but the "nothing to hide, nothing to fear" brigade have contributed to this.

[eFestivals]

Embarrassingly, I've resigned myself to these facts. I've given up, theres nothing I can do outside of voting. The only thing that could possibly change the status quo is a revolution, something I would welcome with both arms.

They know who we talk to, what we talk about, where we go, and who we go there with. I just dont see any other way of avoiding it if you want to use a phone or a computer - both of which I dont think I could go without.

I just feel utterly helpless about it all.

I'm absolutely against it, but the "nothing to hide, nothing to fear" brigade have contributed to this.

"nothing to hide, nothing to fear". It's a wonderful line, isn't it?

I'm not really so concerned for what insignificant morsels they might have on me, I'm most concerned about the possibility - surely even a probability? - that the information they gather is being used to blackmail politicians and others in powerful positions into doing their bidding.

Just about everyone has episodes in their lives that would shame them in some way if they were made public, and that applies more-so with politicians and those in the public eye.

And when the right loves to bang on about how important a free press is to a democracy, it's covering up the shameful secret that that supposed 'free press' is at the beck and call of those secret services - as shown by the very little reporting of what Snowden has revealed by that self-proclaimed 'free press'.

Snowden has already revealed that the level of spying is not about terrorism as we're told it is, and that some of it is spying for commercial purposes.

Are the spies the politicians and press' puppet masters? It looks like it more and more each day.

Edited November 21, 2013 by eFestivals

[5co77ie]

"nothing to hide, nothing to fear". It's a wonderful line, isn't it?

I'm not really so concerned for what insignificant morsels they might have on me, I'm most concerned about the possibility - surely even a probability? - that the information they gather is being used to blackmail politicians and others in powerful positions into doing their bidding.

Just about everyone has episodes in their lives that would shame them in some way if they were made public, and that applies more-so with politicians and those in the public eye.

And when the right loves to bang on about how important a free press is to a democracy, it's covering up the shameful secret that that supposed 'free press' is at the beck and call of those secret services - as shown by the very little reporting of what Snowden has revealed by that self-proclaimed 'free press'.

Snowden has already revealed that the level of spying is not about terrorism as we're told it is, and that some of it is spying for commercial purposes.

Are the spies the politicians and press' puppet masters? It looks like it more and more each day.

[mrtourette]

Embarrassingly, I've resigned myself to these facts. I've given up, theres nothing I can do outside of voting. The only thing that could possibly change the status quo is a revolution, something I would welcome with both arms.

They know who we talk to, what we talk about, where we go, and who we go there with. I just dont see any other way of avoiding it if you want to use a phone or a computer - both of which I dont think I could go without.

I just feel utterly helpless about it all.

I'm absolutely against it, but the "nothing to hide, nothing to fear" brigade have contributed to this.

[eFestivals]

we've seem that across governments (and across parties) in the US, UK and Austrailia that the same attitudes are being taken towards the 'need' for this kind of behaviour.

Yep, we have.

How is it possible that every elected politician of any party of power in 5 different countries have identical views on how much and how their citizens should be put under surveillance?

Given that fact, the question needs to be asked: are they all operating under just one master?

I'm no fan of conspiracy theories, but in the absence of anything else making sense they seem to provide the only workable answers for such massive conformity across continents and cultures.

[fred quimby]

- but this is being done by the same people who failed to catch a single spy by their own methods in nearly 100 years. They even had one of the biggest UK paedos ever convicted working for them and they never knew.

[fred quimby]

"nothing to hide, nothing to fear". It's a wonderful line, isn't it?

I'm not really so concerned for what insignificant morsels they might have on me, I'm most concerned about the possibility - surely even a probability? - that the information they gather is being used to blackmail politicians and others in powerful positions into doing their bidding.

Just about everyone has episodes in their lives that would shame them in some way if they were made public, and that applies more-so with politicians and those in the public eye.

And when the right loves to bang on about how important a free press is to a democracy, it's covering up the shameful secret that that supposed 'free press' is at the beck and call of those secret services - as shown by the very little reporting of what Snowden has revealed by that self-proclaimed 'free press'.

Snowden has already revealed that the level of spying is not about terrorism as we're told it is, and that some of it is spying for commercial purposes.

Are the spies the politicians and press' puppet masters? It looks like it more and more each day.

[eFestivals]

So it looks like we are safe then

Or not. Yeah.

I simply don't believe them when they claim this is all about keeping us safe from terrorism. Since when has Angela Merkel been a terrorist, or the President's of both Brazil and Mexico, for examples?

Every public service is being savagely cut, despite there often being an irrefutable social and economic case against those cuts to justify why they shouldn't happen. Meanwhile the security services are getting huge increases in funding without making even the smallest public case to justify why they need it.

Spying against allies is proven. Spying for commercial gain is proven. Spying on everyone is proven. The claim of spying against terrorists is being used as a false justification for their activities.

Edited November 21, 2013 by eFestivals

[LondonTom]

If we do indeed have puppet masters pulling our politicians strings. Then there is a great video on youtube about the federal reserve and who actually owns it/its purpose etc, it did seem a bit mad when I first watched it...I'll try to find it when i get home tonight

Saying that I am still a bit wary of the Snowden leaks tbh. It seems odd if they are doing this much spying, that his managed to get so much out there...

[eFestivals]

Saying that I am still a bit wary of the Snowden leaks tbh. It seems odd if they are doing this much spying, that his managed to get so much out there...

Not one jot of what he's revealed has been denied by the countries involved. That's worth remembering!

Snowden's accuracy has been so spot-on that it's caused the head of the NSA to re-appear before Congress to apologise for having lied to them at a previous appearance before them.

(BTW: lying to Congress is a crime. He's been forgiven that crime against democracy!)

But ultimately, it's much like the Bradley (Chelsea) Manning massive leak to Wikileaks - that the USA has a massive security operation all around the world, but have forgotten to make that security operation secure within its own borders.

There is (or at least, was) around 10 million people with full access to what Manning leaked - which was just about the entire diplomatic history of the USA, much of its military operations archive, etc, etc.

Likewise, although Snowden worked for the NSA indirectly as a contractor, he had access to all of the same stuff as 850,000 other people - just about the full archive of everything the NSA is involved with.

[mrtourette]

Yep, we have.

How is it possible that every elected politician of any party of power in 5 different countries have identical views on how much and how their citizens should be put under surveillance?

Given that fact, the question needs to be asked: are they all operating under just one master?

I'm no fan of conspiracy theories, but in the absence of anything else making sense they seem to provide the only workable answers for such massive conformity across continents and cultures.

[fred quimby]

Saying that I am still a bit wary of the Snowden leaks tbh. It seems odd if they are doing this much spying, that his managed to get so much out there...

[eFestivals]

Your use of the word master does conjure up some hilarious images

I think what they are all being lead by is not one person (not that that's what you're saying) but rather a conviction in the belief that such uniformity, control and partnership is required for the continuation and security of global capitalist economics.

what, when they also work for those "global capitalist economics" but against the best interests of their individual nations, and this doesn't change no matter what the stated policies were of those in power before they held power?

There's a hidden hand in there somewhere. What's not clear is who exactly it is and just how much influence it exerts.

(my money is currently on Bilderberg BTW, tho given how much that's come out of the shadows recently, perhaps it's something a step above that).

Edited November 21, 2013 by eFestivals

[zero000]

Did anyone see that all the spies who appeared in front of the select committee knew the questions in advance? It's a farce to think that they were subject to proper questioning about the Snowden revelations. Also worryingly there is very little news coverage on it, this is the only thing I could find bar a paywalled article from the Times:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2508779/Spy-chiefs-fed-questions-advance-parliamentary-committee-hearing.html

[t8yman]

the "threat of terrorism" thing has never held water for me, wether its spying on the populace, or over zealous policing and security. I simply dont believe that the threat is as high as they try and make us believe. It suits their purpose to have a frightened population, we are easier to shepherd, easier to control, and easier to fob off if we are terrified of planes falling from the sky or buses and trains blowing up.

with the few exceptions such as 9/11, 7/7 etc - almost all of the attempted terror attacks that we hear about are fucking laughable - the shoe bomber, the glasgow airport attack, the car bombers who turned up late - even the government arent that incompetent.

[mrtourette]

what, when they also work for those "global capitalist economics" but against the best interests of their individual nations, and this doesn't change no matter what the stated policies were of those in power before they held power?

There's a hidden hand in there somewhere. What's not clear is who exactly it is and just how much influence it exerts.

(my money is currently on Bilderberg BTW, tho given how much that's come out of the shadows recently, perhaps it's something a step above that).

[Spindles]

The most frightening thing about states (and beyond state entities) having this level of power is not how it might be used today, but how it might be used on another. Imagine the world today if this level of power had existed during the McCarthy era, or in Stalinist Russia. In a way we are lucky that the shower of shit in charge at the moment are only concerned about punishing the people they despise and shoring up the finances of their friends, they might be tw*ts but they aren't the pure evil that could exist, just greedy, selfish, narrow viewed fools.

Revolution is needed, but I feel it is a long, long way off and would not resemble revolution as we understand it.

[eFestivals]

I dunno, the idea of it being one person rather than self-perpetuating paranoia is a bit too much for ny feeble brain to handle.

I'm not necessarily meaning that the direction of the spying in all five eyes is down to just one person.

If it were being done thru Bilderberg, for example, then presumably it would be the result of what is mutually beneficial to the senior personnel (if not all members).

Let's use Blair as an example. Up until about 1995 he was the sort of standard opposition politician you'd expect. Then off he goes to present himself to Murdoch, and then shortly afterwards starts to attend Bilderberg meetings.

He then gets into power, and what is done with that power is often very different to his pre-election pledges - the 'socialism' is all benign while a neoliberal agenda for the benefit of global corporations but not the country is pursued vigorously.

He then leaves office; he becomes mysteriously hugely wealthy; he gets a bunch of standard 'jobs for the boys' stuff too - directorships with banks, "important" world positions but where he always takes the establishment line. Etc, etc, etc.

(Brown attended Bilderberg too).

And then you have Camoron - the man who spends the days after the election telling us just how important it is to start work on tackling the country's problems whilst he puts a coalition together. He then gets the keys to Downing Street, and less than 24 hours after that he has Murdoch round for a meeting lasting several hours..... and then, only AFTER that, does he appoint his cabinet to get on with tackling the country's problems.

Everything about this stinks, even if it's nothing to do with spying.

[eFestivals]

PS: John Major - Bilderberg; leaves office; director of Carlisle Group, suddenly hugely wealthy.

Can you recognise a pattern here?