Now Snowden is whining about the US breaking the law by trying to capture him. Pot kettle black.
Printable View
Now Snowden is whining about the US breaking the law by trying to capture him. Pot kettle black.
Yeah surely Snowden knew when he leaked that the US was breaking its own laws, that they'd risk breaking it again to get him?
Apparently you're only breaking the law if you do something he doesn't approve of.
Khend posted that before the update on the article was appended. He didn't see that it turned out the story was wildly misunderstood-
Looks like a very different case from the initial rumor.Quote:
The Suffolk County Police Department released a statement this evening that answers the great mystery of the day.
Quote:
Suffolk County Criminal Intelligence Detectives received a tip from a Bay Shore based computer company regarding suspicious computer searches conducted by a recently released employee. The former employee’s computer searches took place on this employee’s workplace computer. On that computer, the employee searched the terms “pressure cooker bombs” and “backpacks.”
After interviewing the company representatives, Suffolk County Police Detectives visited the subject’s home to ask about the suspicious internet searches. The incident was investigated by Suffolk County Police Department’s Criminal Intelligence Detectives and was determined to be non-criminal in nature.
Yes, because real terrorists will be so clever as to actually search for such things without using TOR and the like. :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
You know that there's a thing called "false positives" and if you are too sensitive (like in this case) you'll absolutely drown in them?
So they have a quick conversation and then leave with an attitude of "nothing wrong here". Oh the horror.Quote:
Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro
Looks like the only group that screwed up here is the company that reported their own employee. Its not illegal (or anyone's concern) how curious the public can get, especially around recent events. But once a report is filed, the authorities have to follow up. The public is really really stupid, and the police, feds, code enforcement, never get the full picture, so they have to go out and figure out whats really going on. You wouldn't believe the kind of bullshit I have to report from people trying to get their neighbors in trouble.
So, you actually think nothing problematic of having hundreds of such visits per month to citizens' homes who have done nothing wrong? Doesn't strike you a bit Orwellian?Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
I mean, this is the government telling you: "Yeah, we're watching your every move!"
That's creepy. I can understand how public libraries (using tax dollars) might justify some kind of National Security threat/alert mechanism. But why should it fall to the Librarian? :confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer
money.
my library system enjoys a rather nice tax bracket, something most other county agencies don't have. Yet we're part of the county. So while we don't suffer to greatly from extreme amounts of mismanagement, the county administrator sees us as a empty hole for which he can throw county services that he doesn't want to or cant afford to fund.
Within the last 7 years, without raises, the libraries in my county have been tasked with taking in code enforcement complaints, being the intake line for all county departments (including shit like the suicide line), and they are also looking to have us take in permitting.
Sounds like you have a jerk of an admin
If the company feels they have a reason to be concerned is it that unreasonable to put a tip in? Are they discouraged from doing so? Is it better for them to do nothing and then treat the guy awkwardly because they're suspicious of him and "monitor" him for further suspicious activity - or fire him for it (you do have "at will employment" right) as its a hassle they don't want - or just to raise a concern, get it dealt with and a line be drawn in the sand?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer
Besides can you imagine the stick they'd get if the guy did turn out to be a terrorist and it leaked that they knew he'd been searching for bombs at the company and they'd ignored it?
If it was from NSA monitoring as was implied - yes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro
If those visits cause major harassment or are from ethnic or other dubious profiling - yes.
If its from people reporting what they reasonably think is genuinely suspicious activity - no.
On the one hand it sucks, on the other hand its better in this environment to have others responsibilities be given to you - rather than your responsibilities be given to someone else and get shut down.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer
Besides as I've said before, I suspect libraries of the future will either diversify their interests (as yours is) or close (as others are). At least by making yourself more useful the probability of closing is slashed.
In other words, Florida is fairly fucked up?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer
most of the state is yes. a lot of my county operates as best it can, but some of the recent decisions are either there to save the most money no matter what, or to screw over the library because future raises will be based on department performance. The library has, for decades, blown the other departments out of the fucking water when it comes to customer satisfaction. Starting next week we will begin answering all animal control calls. The 2 day training for something this extreme consisted of "go shadow them, but be careful, they know you are taking their jobs and might be hostile to you". The decision to move animal control over the library was done when both the animal control director and the library director were on vacation. And yeah, they had zero people skills over there.
-----------------------
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2...cy-violations/
Newly published leaks show NSA’s thousands of privacy violations
Screw-ups big and small lead to citizens' info getting sucked into NSA databases.
That's what I was saying - at least you're the one having the responsibilities transferred TO and not FROM. It could be worse.
FROM wouldn't effect us at all. staffing hasn't changed since the absorption of the phone duties. our library duties have simply suffered. One reason why the main library isn't part of the maker space, genius bar, or open teaching objectives that the regionals are moving forward with. the main library doesn't have the staff to support the library expansions.
Its causing problems with turnover too, add in the extra stress from the unrelated duties and people have been dropping like flies. There had been at least one vacant spot in the main library for 3 years now. Even I'm ditching at the end of the month, and that leaves a huge hole in their web department.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23763625Quote:
Using the Terrorism Act to detain the partner of a Guardian reporter who wrote about US and UK security services was "legally and procedurally sound", Scotland Yard has said....
He was detained under schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act 2000. This allows police to hold someone at an airport, port or international rail station for up to nine hours for questioning about whether they have been involved with acts of terrorism....
Scotland Yard, which has not revealed on what grounds he was detained, said in a statement on Monday night that the "examination" of Mr Miranda was "subject to a detailed decision-making process"....
"They took my computer, my video games, my mobile phone and memory cards - everything."
:bulb:
http://www.theguardian.com/world/201...stroyed-london
destroying physical property to destroy digital file copies. straight up intimidation.
Maybe someone familiar with UK power structures and legislation can explain who's in charge of their oversight, or how it works there?
I don't really know how different branches or agencies interact, between PM/Parliament/Scotland Yard/MI6, etc. I don't know much about British laws surrounding "Freedom of the Press", either. (All the Rupert Murdoch fiascos and conflicts-of-interest are fairly complicated and confounding.)
Is there an equivalent to US "special" congressional committees that are briefed on classified documents/programs, or something comparable to our secret FISA courts (whose judges are appointed by SCOTUS Chief Justice) approving warrants for any agency, under the auspice of National Security?
And what's the British equivalent to US "Freedom of Information" laws, aka sunshine laws, meant to inform the public about what their government is doing?
Edit---how did the UK manage to install "surveillance cameras" practically everywhere, while convincing the British public it was for "their own good"?
Snowden: NSA targeted journalists critical of government after 9/11
By Jonathan Easley - 08/13/13
Leaker Edward Snowden accused the NationalSecurity Agency of targeting reporters who wrote critically about thegovernment after the 9/11 attacks and warned it was “unforgivably reckless” forjournalists to use unencrypted email messages when discussing sensitivematters.
Snowden said in an interview with the New YorkTimes Magazine published Tuesday that he came to trust Laura Poitras, thedocumentary filmmaker who, along with Guardian reporter Glenn Greenwald, helpedreport his disclosure of secret surveillance programs, because she herself hadbeen targeted by the NSA.
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefi...#ixzz2cGWW8MQY
Because they work. Don't have figures to hand but I believe most security cameras are privately owned not publicly. The Police can then ask permission to review the coverage but I'd never run a business nowadays with any security details without them. CCTV has come in handy far too many times and stopped/caught a surprising amount of theft.Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
I used to have philosophical 1984-style concerns but frankly CCTV works.
That didn't answer my question about public consent or government oversight. :confused:
I thought they did some research into that a while back and found that it didn't have that much effect?Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
GGT, if most are privately owned, you don't need government oversight.
no supporting evidence for stopping crime, and the best research they have for catching crime is the recent riots, so its a little bit lopsided.
I'd like to see such evidence.Quote:
Originally Posted by Flixy
Given that officially crime rates have collapsed I find that hard to believe.
I have more confidence in CCTV for catching stupid criminals than in our revolving door justice system "rehabilitating" them.
Crime rates have collapsed practically anywhere.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
I'd like to see your evidence too, since you made the claim in the first place, but sure, here you go, from your own government:
https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/publicatio...aspx?ID=232616
And the system that did show a decrease is in car parks, which could also lead to simply moving the problem. Or, in the words of the guy who did the research:Quote:
Of the 13 systems evaluated, 6 showed a relatively substantial reduction in crime in the target area compared with the control area, but only 2 showed a statistically significant reduction compared to the control area; and in 1 of these cases, the change could be explained by the presence of confounding variables.
Quote:
Prof Martin Gill, who led the CCTV Initiative study, said: "For camera supporters these findings are disappointing. For the most part CCTV did not produce reductions in crime and it did not make people feel safer."
Sure we do....to watch the watchmen! Data collected privately (like CCTV records) can be seized by police with or without a warrant, and used in prosecuting unrelated crimes found on them. It's the same with 'private' companies like Google or Verizon or ISPs etc. collecting data, then turning it over to NSA or other agencies, or allowing them to sort of piggy-back behind the scene for their meta-data collection.Quote:
Originally Posted by Flixy
Yeah, I think it matters when we "Agree" to let private companies collect our information, and even sell it to third parties....when it ends up in unknown or secret databases, including government ones the public is surprised to learn about.
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/201...ved-ones.shtml
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2013/0...ove-interests/
LOVEINT: when the NSA abuses its powers to spy on people for personal reasons. It happens so often they created a term for it :bulb:
OTOH, "a handful of times in the last decade" does not strike me as often. Now that may be a not particularly accurate depiction, or it may be the creation of the term LOVEINT has less to do with how often it has happened and more to do with someone being a smartass.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer
Well, they might fit on just fine here.
Well said :)
Does anyone doubt that Cain was involved?
He would have just sold the data in exchange for cash and hookers.
It is - all. Even the CIA Chief. When the Feds needed, they just pick up an email from their data storage: Remember Petraeus?Quote:
PRISM -- NSA Monitoring Web Services We All Use?
747. Petraeus case is an extortion (11/27/2012)
On Nov. 10, CIA ChiefPetraeus resigned from his post because the FBI had found his affairs inBroadwell’s email. On Nov. 20, we havesuch a news:
Obviously, the FBI activatesits accessories in Senate to change the law to justify its action on the CIAChief. The cause they applied on Petraeus case is weak, fragile andunreasonable.Quote:
Senate bill rewrite lets feds read youre-mail without warrants
by Declan McCullagh
| November 20, 2012
A Senate proposal touted asprotecting Americans' e-mail privacy has been quietly rewritten, givinggovernment agencies more surveillance power than they possess under currentlaw.
CNET has learned thatPatrick Leahy, the influential Democratic chairman of the Senate Judiciarycommittee, has dramatically reshaped his legislation in response to lawenforcement concerns. A vote on his bill, which now authorizes warrantlessaccess to Americans' e-mail, is scheduled for next week.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57...news&tag=title
What made the FBI crossing the path to create ascandal? There must be a reason. I think it was a potential extortion case. TheFBI tried to blackmail CIA Chief Petraeus with the affair scandal but failed.Then we saw such a stage showQuote:
In unusual CIA case, FBI detoured from usualpath
By RICHARD LARDNER |Associated Press
WASHINGTON (AP) — The waythe FBI responded to Jill Kelley's complaint about receiving harassing emails,which ultimately unraveled or scarred the careers of ex-CIA Director DavidPetraeus and Marine Gen. John Allen, is the exception, not the rule.
The FBI commonly declines topursue cyberstalking cases without compelling evidence of serious or imminentharm to an individual, victims of online harassment, advocacy groups andcomputer crime experts told The Associated Press.
Instead, the FBI consideredthis from the earliest stages to be an exceptional case, and one so sensitivethat FBI Director Robert Mueller and Attorney General Eric Holder were keptnotified of its progress.
Civil liberties groups havecriticized the FBI for pursuing the investigation of the emails to Kelleybecause there is no indication the messages contained any threatening languageor classified information. The episode underscores the need to strengthen thelegal protections for electronic communications, according to the AmericanCivil Liberties Union.
http://us.mg5.mail.yahoo.com/neo/launch
What happens when the FBI demands the SSL keys to all the protected web traffic to your site?
You type it out in 4 point font. (page 145).
This also means that (at best), not a single US business that uses SSL is secure.
The decision is much more "anti-tech" than anything Dread has come up with yet.
I'm not convinced that Dread believes any of this is real.
Didn't you watch the first South Park episode this season? :o
No, enlighten us.