
US and UK struck secret deal to allow NSA to 'unmask' Britons' personal data - shill
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/nov/20/us-uk-secret-deal-surveillance-personal-data
======
shn
There's no democracy only a shadow of it. We are pushed and shoved and most of
the time did it ourselves voluntarily after listening patriotic brainwashing.
We are ruled by elites, by big money, period. Worse is some really think that
they own the country. I remember in a movie (can't remember now) a guy asks
Matt Damon, Italians has this, that owns this, what you own? And he answers
"we own the country". Those NSA people think exactly that way, they think they
own you. Big companies think they can bend any rule. So don't expect anything
change much for the benefit of the "taxpayer".

I find it extremely weird that these agencies need to hide what they are
doing. Why do it in secret if this is democracy? What is wrong with what they
are doing if they are not harming people? Gathering intelligence is their job,
we need it. Bogeys know that too. But still they need to do it in secret. Then
there must be something wrong with not what they do, but what they do with it.

~~~
vellum
That would be from the Good Shepherd.

[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pwve70eeTqg](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pwve70eeTqg)

------
andy_ppp
At this point you can't trust the government to even bother to lie to you;
just a no comment, as if it's none of your fucking business. Carry on eating
twinkles and let us protect you from The Bad Guys.

Wasn't there a time when people accepted the risk of random terrorism as being
small, but worth it for our freedoms? I 'd prefer that over "trust me we're
doing this for your (our?) own good".

At this point you can't trust the government.

------
prawn
Fiveyesia. Effectively operating as one bloc when it comes to security and
domination; at war with whatever parts of Eastasia or Eurasia seem
threatening. And the security of that bloc trumps the personal rights of any
of its members who aren't wealthy enough to dictate the maintenance of power.

------
contingencies
Snowden's NSA leaks truly are the gift that keeps on giving.

------
brianbarker
The new revelations on this NSA stuff aren't surprising; the theme has been
set and now we're just thinking, "yeah, no surprise there."

~~~
bmelton
And if they just "stay the course", then the next generation won't think
anything about it -- it'll just be par for the course, similar to how random
DUI stops work now, which are a warrantless invasion of one's privacy without
grounds.

The problem is that nobody really fought that fight, because to do so would
have been a defense of drunk drivers, basically. Now DUI checkpoints are
commonplace (though some areas _are_ making progress), and things like Stop &
Frisk are only problems for those affected.

"The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one’s
time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws
are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to
be stopped at all." — HL Mencken

~~~
smtddr
_> it'll just be par for the course, similar to how random DUI stops work now,
which are a warrantless invasion of one's privacy without grounds._

I think I'd like the DUI comparison to be expanded on a bit. How are they
being used to invade one's privacy without grounds?

~~~
GauntletWizard
Many states have now set up DUI Checkpoints. These are not targeted based on
behavior: Every car traveling between point A and point B is expected to pull
over and take a breathalyzer. These are often targeted based on neighborhoods
or proximity to 'party' districts. They are conducted without warrants, and
cast a wide net on individuals traveling.

~~~
smtddr
I see. Okay, I didn't know that happened. I've only ran into one such
checkpoint in my life and the policeman just asked me where I was coming from
and where I was going, asked if I had anything to drink while pointing his
flashlight into my car; I assume looking for an open can/bottle or anything
suspicious. That last like 4 seconds, then I was on my way.

~~~
chc
I'm going to guess you're white and probably look reasonably mainstream.
Somebody more "suspicious"-looking will often end up with a less smooth
experience.

~~~
smtddr
[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MUptDkpfLhY](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MUptDkpfLhY)
... ;-)

This happened in San Jose, California near Club Wet(now closed), officer was
white.

(Ironic I'm saying this, given some of my other past comments)

------
summerdown2
At least in the Uk, there seems no democratic lever to adjust to change this.
I don't know of a single national party that wants to roll back the
surveillance.

Following Russel Brand's interview about why there's no point in voting:

[http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/nov/05/russell...](http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/nov/05/russell-
brand-democratic-system-newsnight)

... all parts of the establishment rallied around, saying how people had
fought for years for the right, and how important it was in a democracy:

[http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/ignore-
russell...](http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/ignore-russell-
brand-vote-and-make-mps-notice-you-says-think-tank-8930949.html)

[http://edition.cnn.com/2013/11/05/opinion/liu-not-voting-
for...](http://edition.cnn.com/2013/11/05/opinion/liu-not-voting-for-suckers/)

[http://www.newstatesman.com/2013/10/russell-brand-robert-
web...](http://www.newstatesman.com/2013/10/russell-brand-robert-webb-
choosing-vote-most-british-kind-revolution-there)

... but really, what's the point? I know there are big differences between the
parties, and that voting will make a difference. But so many of the places
where their policies are identical are the ones I care about.

I wish this post wasn't coming from a place of deep frustration, but the only
way I can imagine this working is as described by Daniel Ellsberg, where
learning top secret knowledge changes people:

"... it will have become very hard for you to learn from anybody who doesn't
have these clearances. Because you'll be thinking as you listen to them: 'What
would this man be telling me if he knew what I know? Would he be giving me the
same advice, or would it totally change his predictions and recommendations?'
And that mental exercise is so torturous that after a while you give it up and
just stop listening. I've seen this with my superiors, my colleagues....and
with myself.

"You will deal with a person who doesn't have those clearances only from the
point of view of what you want him to believe and what impression you want him
to go away with, since you'll have to lie carefully to him about what you
know. In effect, you will have to manipulate him. You'll give up trying to
assess what he has to say. The danger is, you'll become something like a
moron. You'll become incapable of learning from most people in the world, no
matter how much experience they may have in their particular areas that may be
much greater than yours."

[http://m.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2010/02/daniel-
ellsberg-...](http://m.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2010/02/daniel-ellsberg-
limitations-knowledge)

But if politicians always believe they know better on this subject, what does
that say about democracy? And how does this line up with the same people
happily admitting they don't understand modern technology?

~~~
rwmj
Politicians do look at how people vote. This is why UKIP has such a
disproportionate influence on the policy of the current government.

"Alternatives" to democracy aside, you should vote every time, even if it's
for a throwaway candidate that you believe in but think will never get in.

~~~
summerdown2
Could you expand on why it's important to vote, because at the moment I can't
see it. Arguably, lots of voting has got us to where we are now.

The main problem I see is that the winning party uses voting numbers to claim
a mandate.I'm currently reaching the conclusion that the only way to get
meaningful change is for enough people to avoid voting that any idea of
mandate becomes ludicrous and the disillusion has to be addressed directly.

~~~
emess
From the perspective of who wins, voting does seem pretty pointless if you
disagree with all candidates who have a chance. People will often claim that
to vote for a candidate who can't win is to throw away your vote. I disagree.
Voting for any person that you don't want to see in office is throwing away
your vote because no matter what happens, you'll be unhappy with the outcome.
Not voting at all will mean politicians assume a mandate to do as they think
best. They'll assume most people are content with the status-quo.

Elections are a platform for national debate and the candidate you support is
your spokesperson. The winners do claim a mandate, but that mandate won't be
so strong if 25% of the population votes for the candidate who runs on an
anti-surveillance platform.

If your "throwaway" candidate is a good speaker and can convey their ideals
effectively, supporting them is an opportunity to spread your message to
people who haven't heard it in a way that they will connect with (if they've
heard at all). Voting is good, but supporting the campaign financially or
through volunteer work is even better. It also demonstrates to those who share
your point of view that, although they may be in the minority, they aren't
alone. I try not to focus on who wins the next election, instead focusing on
the long term goal of sharing ideals thereby shifting public opinion.

It's most frustrating when there isn't even a decent third party candidate. I
suppose at that point all you can do is run yourself or find someone more
qualified and encourage them to run.

~~~
ds9
You guys refer to "voting" based on an implicit definition which I don't think
you can support empirically. Do you mean "interacting with the machine in such
a way that text indicating your choice shows up on the screen"? Or do you mean
"actually influencing the outcome to the extent of 1/x where x is the number
of voters in the election"?

In other words, you go thru the motions at the polling place, then some
official announces some numbers as the result. What assurance do you have that
the numbers announced have any definite relation to what people did in the
voting booths?

If you can't show, or the government officials can't prove that deterministic
relation to the public, then the talk about how voting affects political
outcomes is fallacious. The last vestige of democracy was abolished when
computers replaced paper ballots in an electorally significant fraction of
districts.

------
Eye_of_Mordor
I think we're almost at the point where we all live in this secret state
reading the same media and suffering the same banks. It doesn't matter what
country you live in or who you vote for - the results are the same. People
fought and died for this 'democracy' 70 years ago and it's rotten to the core.
Every time I see a politician, I'm looking at a loser, someone who is useless
and not part of my life at all. Just a mouthpiece of a failed state.

------
veganarchocap
I would normally make better points and comments on articles like this, but
all I have left to say on this is: What a bunch of utter cunts.

