Current Affairs Surveillance in the US reaches new levels

[leviramsey]

Obama hasn't turned out to be "all that" has he?

About what I was expecting circa '08, maybe slightly worse.

You elect someone from Chicago, you expect a cavalier attitude towards rules.

Edited August 23, 2013 by leviramsey

[peterms]

Something here about how PRISM is being used not for counterterrorism, but for furthering the financial interests of corporations.  Or is Kim Dotcom a terrorist?  Does terrorism now mean doing things which annoy US corporations?

[AVFCforever1991]

[OutByEaster?]

Something here about how PRISM is being used not for counterterrorism, but for furthering the financial interests of corporations.  Or is Kim Dotcom a terrorist?  Does terrorism now mean doing things which annoy US corporations?

Now?

[blandy]

I'm still waiting to hear about cases where real people have actually been endangered by what Manning did, rather than vague assertions about lives being put at risk.

 

On the other hand, a great many lives have been lost, and millions more placed at risk, by the things the US government has done and is doing.  What has been the impact of Abu Ghraib on recruitment to terrorist groups, for example?  Or is the problem not what the US soldiers did there, but the fact of publicising it more widely and demonstrating it with proof, instead of leaving it as denied and uncorroborated accounts by prisoners?

 

I don't know if it would have been at all feasible for him to have sifted the information and downloaded only that pertaining to war crimes - sounds like many months work to me.  Or perhaps you mean just download one thing that came to his attention, and leave the rest unseen?

 

It's not at all analogous to media phone tapping.  That was eavesdropping for financial gain.  This is realising from information to which his employer has willingly given access, that his employer is engaged in widespread and systematic unlawful conduct, and deciding that he should do something about it; classic whistleblowing.

 

As for his being troubled and confused, there's an attempt in the media at the moment to use his gender issues as a way of discrediting his whistleblowing actions.  It's about on a par with trying to explain the history of the FBI by reference to J Edgar Hoover's prediliction for cross-dressing; a titillating detail, but not the issue.

I separate out the two things. That the US has done bad things is undeniably true. That's not the question on the specifics of Manning. Nor is the exposure of wrong doing by Manning, Snowden or anyone else. That's one thing.

 

The other thing is that a soldier illegally, as even he admits, collected from their system the entirety of the data he could get, and then passed it on to wikileaks. His state of mind appears to have been a factor. He is clearly a troubled person. That's nothing to do with titillation, it's to do with whether he was capable of really understanding what he was doing, or whether his life and experiences had basically caused him to lose a level of reason.

I haven't read anything that explains his motivation. Maybe I've missed it. It doesn't seem that his motivation was to expose something he knew to be wrong  - those journalists gunned down from a helicopter, for example. If that was the case, if he was clear what he was doing and why, then I'd do with him being "right" and "brave". But I don't think that was the case. I think from what I've read that it is more likely just a kind of random act, in a sense. He did it because he found out he could do it, and his reasoning didn't tell him to stop. I think it was the act of someone who was through circumstance and upbringing, unfortunately not capable of exercising sound judgement. That the US was exposed as....was a consequence that many people welcomed, but wasn't an intended consequence of Manning.

That's the parallel with Gov't media random data gathering - the result of which is also masses of dull data, and some stuff which is of interest - whether that be to the police or to a tabloid rag - they do something wrong, and a consequence of their wrong-doing is a result showing an MP is a criminal, or some other thing that was hitherto hidden. It doesn't excuse the actions, just because something was discovered.

 

I think the question " perhaps you mean just download one thing that came to his attention, and leave the rest unseen?" is missing the point. If it was hisintention, as implied by people saying he was right to do what he did, then it would be relevant. That would be a genuine whistle-blowing act.

 

But if someone isn't doing something to expose a crime, then it's not a factor. Like the kleptomaniac who steal a laptop that turns out to have details of a crooked lawyer on it, the motivation for the act, and the consequences are not linked by intent. He wasn't an intentional whistle-blower, he wasn't brave, he wasn't "right".

 

As for who was endangered, or is yet to be, we'll never know who had to go into hiding, who stopped working for the US, who "had an accident" in Syria, or Iraq or wherever. That subsequently, the Guardian and other media, redacted names where they saw there was a danger - that wasn't Manning's doing. He just passed on the stuff.

[peterms]

The other thing is that a soldier illegally, as even he admits, collected from their system the entirety of the data he could get, and then passed it on to wikileaks.

I don't see what is added to the discussion by referring to his actions as being illegal. Any leaking against the wishes of a government will be defined as illegal (whereas they leak all the time, in their own interest, more so in the US even than here). It's just a way of saying the go0vernment doesn't like it, it doesn't propel the act into a new sphere of badness. If we accept that leaking shouldn't happen if it is illegal, then we completely accept that no leaks against a government should ever happen.

 

I haven't read anything that explains his motivation. Maybe I've missed it. It doesn't seem that his motivation was to expose something he knew to be wrong  - those journalists gunned down from a helicopter, for example. If that was the case, if he was clear what he was doing and why, then I'd do with him being "right" and "brave". But I don't think that was the case. I think from what I've read that it is more likely just a kind of random act, in a sense. He did it because he found out he could do it, and his reasoning didn't tell him to stop. I think it was the act of someone who was through circumstance and upbringing, unfortunately not capable of exercising sound judgement. That the US was exposed as....was a consequence that many people welcomed, but wasn't an intended consequence of Manning.

You haven't read anything about his motivation, but you seem to have a clear view about what it was? I don't follow.

There's something about his motivation here. We know that he didn't sell the stuff, or pass it to foreign powers. I don't see that disputed. His account of becoming concerned about what the US was doing, and feeling that people should know about it, is plausible and consistent with his actions. Although the prosecution tried to make a case that he was motivated by hatred of his country, they failed to do so. Is there a reason why we shouldn't accept that his motivation was as he says?

 

As for who was endangered, or is yet to be, we'll never know who had to go into hiding, who stopped working for the US, who "had an accident" in Syria, or Iraq or wherever. That subsequently, the Guardian and other media, redacted names where they saw there was a danger - that wasn't Manning's doing. He just passed on the stuff.

The prosecution failed to establish that anyone had been harmed by his actions. The trial would have been the right place to do so. Instead, the government claimed that such harm had occurred, without ever demonstrating it. He passed it to people he thought would use it responsibly (he tried first to give it to the NY Times, but they failed to reply to him). What else would a concerned whistleblower do? And if he was not a concerned whistleblower but someone motivated by malice, isn't that about the last thing he would do, with so many other options available, like posting it to the Chinese embassy or whatever?

[peterms]

Something interesting in today's Guardian about leaked stories which might have security implications.

 

Snowden: UK government now leaking documents about itself

The NSA whistleblower says: 'I have never spoken with, worked with, or provided any journalistic materials to the Independent.'

 

 

The Independent this morning published an article - which it repeatedly claims comes from "documents obtained from the NSA by Edward Snowden" - disclosing that "Britain runs a secret internet-monitoring station in the Middle East to intercept and process vast quantities of emails, telephone calls and web traffic on behalf of Western intelligence agencies." This is the first time the Independent has published any revelations purportedly from the NSA documents, and it's the type of disclosure which journalists working directly with NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden have thus far avoided.

 

That leads to the obvious question: who is the source for this disclosure? Snowden this morning said he wants it to be clear that he was not the source for the Independent, stating:

I have never spoken with, worked with, or provided any journalistic materials to the Independent. The journalists I have worked with have, at my request, been judicious and careful in ensuring that the only things disclosed are what the public should know but that does not place any person in danger. People at all levels of society up to and including the President of the United States have recognized the contribution of these careful disclosures to a necessary public debate, and we are proud of this record.

 

"It appears that the UK government is now seeking to create an appearance that the Guardian and Washington Post's disclosures are harmful, and they are doing so by intentionally leaking harmful information to The Independent and attributing it to others. The UK government should explain the reasoning behind this decision to disclose information that, were it released by a private citizen, they would argue is a criminal act."

 

In other words: right as there is a major scandal over the UK's abusive and lawless exploitation of its Terrorism Act - with public opinion against the use of the Terrorism law to detain David Miranda - and right as the UK government is trying to tell a court that there are serious dangers to the public safety from these documents, there suddenly appears exactly the type of disclosure the UK government wants but that has never happened before. That is why Snowden is making clear: despite the Independent's attempt to make it appears that it is so, he is not their source for that disclosure. Who, then, is?

 

The US government itself has constantly used this tactic: aggressively targeting those who disclose embarrassing or incriminating information about the government in the name of protecting the sanctity of classified information, while simultaneously leaking classified information prolifically when doing so advances their political interests.

 

One other matter about the Independent article: it strongly suggests that there is some agreement in place to restrict the Guardian's ongoing reporting about the NSA documents. Speaking for myself, let me make one thing clear: I'm not aware of, nor subject to, any agreement that imposes any limitations of any kind on the reporting that I am doing on these documents. I would never agree to any such limitations. As I've made repeatedly clear, bullying tactics of the kind we saw this week will not deter my reporting or the reporting of those I'm working with in any way. I'm working hard on numerous new and significant NSA stories and intend to publish them the moment they are ready.

Related question

For those in the media and elsewhere arguing that the possession and transport of classified information is a crime: does that mean you believe that not only Daniel Ellsberg committed a felony, but also the New York Times reporters and editors did when they received, possessed, copied, transported and published the thousands of pages of top-secret documents known as the Pentagon Papers?

 

Do you also believe the Washington Post committed felonies when receiving and then publishing top secret information that the Bush administration was maintaining a network for CIA black sites around the world, or when the New York Times revealed in 2005 the top secret program whereby the NSA had created a warrantlesss eavesdropping program aimed at US citizens?

 

Or is this some newly created standard of criminality that applies only to our NSA reporting? Do media figures who are advocating that possessing or transmitting classified information is a crime really not comprehend the precedent they are setting for investigative journalism?

UPDATE

The Independent's Oliver Wright just tweeted the following:

"For the record: The Independent was not leaked or 'duped' into publishing today's front page story by the Government."

 

Leaving aside the fact that the Independent article quotes an anonymous "senior Whitehall source", nobody said they were "duped" into publishing anything. The question is: who provided them this document or the information in it? It clearly did not come from Snowden or any of the journalists with whom he has directly worked. The Independent provided no source information whatsoever for their rather significant disclosure of top secret information. Did they see any such documents, and if so, who, generally, provided it to them? I don't mean, obviously, that they should identify their specific source, but at least some information about their basis for these claims, given how significant they are, would be warranted. One would think that they would not have published something like this without either seeing the documents or getting confirmation from someone who has: the class of people who qualify is very small, and includes, most prominently and obviously, the UK government itself.

[leviramsey]

I did not realize that Greenwald's partner was named Miranda...

If this was fiction, the editors at any publisher would laugh you out of the building for submitting it!

[peterms]

I did not realize that Greenwald's partner was named Miranda...

If this was fiction, the editors at any publisher would laugh you out of the building for submitting it!

 

I'm only surprised we haven't seen lots of headlines about "They've got him bang to rights".  Or does the UK-US crossover not work for that one?

[blandy]

The other thing is that a soldier illegally, as even he admits, collected from their system the entirety of the data he could get, and then passed it on to wikileaks.

I don't see what is added to the discussion by referring to his actions as being illegal. Any leaking against the wishes of a government will be defined as illegal (whereas they leak all the time, in their own interest, more so in the US even than here). It's just a way of saying the government doesn't like it, it doesn't propel the act into a new sphere of badness. If we accept that leaking shouldn't happen if it is illegal, then we completely accept that no leaks against a government should ever happen.

You don't see what is added to a discussion about someone's trial and conviction, by mentioning illegal actions? OK. We were discussing (amongst other things) his sentence. He knowingly, deliberately broke the law. It wasn't argued that there was a defence of (some of) the revelations over-riding that law, or of a "duty" to reveal what came out being higher than the "duty" to abide by his terms of employment and the obligations he had to maintain confidentiality of the data and so on. There are of course occasions where leaks against a Gov't should happen. His actions were not of that nature, certainly by intent. In essence he dumped all of the data, of all types, he could get hold of, indiscriminately to an organisation whose purpose seems to be the dissemination of all information, freely and without restraint.

I accept that there are things which it's best not being in the open - and that works at all levels, from individual relationships, to Gov'ts. The release of hitherto hidden data is only brave or heroic or right where the intent is to reveal something that needs to be revealed, while having the sentience to not reveal that which is harmful or dangerous.

I haven't read anything that explains his motivation. Maybe I've missed it. It doesn't seem that his motivation was to expose something he knew to be wrong  - those journalists gunned down from a helicopter, for example. If that was the case, if he was clear what he was doing and why, then I'd do with him being "right" and "brave". But I don't think that was the case. I think from what I've read that it is more likely just a kind of random act, in a sense. He did it because he found out he could do it, and his reasoning didn't tell him to stop. I think it was the act of someone who was through circumstance and upbringing, unfortunately not capable of exercising sound judgement. That the US was exposed as....was a consequence that many people welcomed, but wasn't an intended consequence of Manning.

You haven't read anything about his motivation, but you seem to have a clear view about what it was? I don't follow.

There's something about his motivation here. We know that he didn't sell the stuff, or pass it to foreign powers. I don't see that disputed. His account of becoming concerned about what the US was doing, and feeling that people should know about it, is plausible and consistent with his actions. Although the prosecution tried to make a case that he was motivated by hatred of his country, they failed to do so. Is there a reason why we shouldn't accept that his motivation was as he says?

I didn't say I haven't read anything about his motivation, only that I've read nothing that explains it. That link is an example - it takes some of the things he's said and ascribes multiple different motivations. It appears to show confusion in his mind - like him saying on the one hand "If you had unprecedented access to classified networks 14 hours a day 7 days a week for 8+ months, what would you do?. That doesn't support your view, does it?

It points to another similar view - he was a "well intentioned idealist" and he felt "it belongs in the public domain -information should be free - it belongs in the public domain - because another state would just take advantage of the information… try and get some edge - if its out in the open… it should be a public good. So he copied and released all that data because he just thought people should have it? Again, if that's true, then that's not whistle-blowing.

But it also says he said i had always questioned the things worked, and investigated to find the truth ... but that was a point where i was a *part* of something ... i was actively involved in something that i was completely against and also said he did it because he was "feeling horrified that his fellow soldiers were cheering the fact that they had escaped a roadside bomb attack which seriously injured an Iraqi family of five. Then there's the view that "motivated by mental instability stemming from his gender and sexual orientation crises

So basically, there's a website which says his motivation to steal and pass on more than 260,000 U.S. diplomatic cables, plus over 90,000 intelligence reports was maybe because he believes in everyone having access to all information, or because he was upset he was ignored, or because he couldn't understand why some soldiers were happy that they'd survived a bomb attack, when some civilians didn't.

In other words like I said I think from what I've read that it is more likely just a kind of random act, in a sense. He did it because he found out he could do it, and his reasoning didn't tell him to stop. I think it was the act of someone who was through circumstance and upbringing, unfortunately not capable of exercising sound judgement. So no, I don't agree with your conclusion on his motivation. We don't really know why he did it.

As for who was endangered, or is yet to be, we'll never know who had to go into hiding, who stopped working for the US, who "had an accident" in Syria, or Iraq or wherever. That subsequently, the Guardian and other media, redacted names where they saw there was a danger - that wasn't Manning's doing. He just passed on the stuff.

The prosecution failed to establish that anyone had been harmed by his actions. The trial would have been the right place to do so. Instead, the government claimed that such harm had occurred, without ever demonstrating it. He passed it to people he thought would use it responsibly (he tried first to give it to the NY Times, but they failed to reply to him). What else would a concerned whistleblower do? And if he was not a concerned whistleblower but someone motivated by malice, isn't that about the last thing he would do, with so many other options available, like posting it to the Chinese embassy or whatever?

.

I'm sure if they could have proved people had been harmed by his actions, they would have done. I see that as "open" - as in not proven, rather than didn't happen or did happen.

I don't think it was malice against the US. Nothing seems to support that.

[peterms]

You don't see what is added to a discussion about someone's trial and conviction, by mentioning illegal actions? OK. We were discussing (amongst other things) his sentence. He knowingly, deliberately broke the law.

In a context where leaking information against the wishes of the state is by definition illegal, but where the question is whether such action is nevertheless right (which as you acknowledge, it sometimes is), no, I see nothing which is added by stating that it's illegal. We know it's illegal. That's the starting point, not a reason for accepting that it's wrong. That's true not just of this case, but of all discussions of whether conscience is a sufficient reason to break a law, and saying "But it's illegal!" doesn't move us on.

 

It wasn't argued that there was a defence of (some of) the revelations over-riding that law, or of a "duty" to reveal what came out being higher than the "duty" to abide by his terms of employment and the obligations he had to maintain confidentiality of the data and so on. There are of course occasions where leaks against a Gov't should happen. His actions were not of that nature, certainly by intent. In essence he dumped all of the data, of all types, he could get hold of, indiscriminately to an organisation whose purpose seems to be the dissemination of all information, freely and without restraint.

That is manifestly not the purpose of Wikileaks, and neither is it what they have done. He handed the information to people who would be better placed than him to deal with it. What has been released is not the names and addresses of agents and informants who have now been murdered by repressive regimes, but a whole set of information which we are better for knowing about. Apart from the "Collateral Murder" video, a partial list (from here) is

 

-Yemeni president lied to his own people, claiming his military carried out air strikes on militants actually done by U.S. All part of giving U.S. full rein in country against terrorists.

-Details on Vatican hiding big sex abuse cases in Ireland.

-U.S. tried to get Spain to curb its probes of Gitmo torture and rendition.

-Egyptian torturers trained by FBI—although allegedly to teach the human rights issues.

-State Dept memo: U.S.-backed 2009 coup in Honduras was 'illegal and unconstitutional.'”

-Cables on Tunisia appear to help spark revolt in that country. The country's ruling elite described as “The Family,” with Mafia-like skimming throughout the economy. The country's First Lady may have made massive profits off a private school.

-U.S. knew all about massive corruption in Tunisia back in 2006 but went on supporting the government anyway, making it the pillar of its North Africa policy.

-Cables showed the UK promised in 2009 to protect U.S interests in the official Chilcot inquiry on the start of the Iraq war.

-U.S. pressured the European Union to accept GM — genetic modification, that is.

-Washington was misled by our own diplomats on Russia-Georgia showdown.

-Extremely important historical document finally released in full: Ambassador April Glaspie's cable from Iraq in 1990 on meeting with Saddam Hussein before Kuwait invasion.

-The UK sidestepped a ban on housing cluster bombs. Officials concealed from Parliament how the U.S. is allowed to bring weapons on to British soil in defiance of treaty.

-New York Times: “From hundreds of diplomatic cables, Afghanistan emerges as a looking-glass land where bribery, extortion and embezzlement are the norm and the honest man is a distinct outlier.”

-Afghan vice president left country with $52 million “in cash.”

-Shocking levels of U.S. spying at the United Nations (beyond what was commonly assumed) and intense use of diplomats abroad in intelligence-gathering roles.

-Potential environmental disaster kept secret by the U.S. when a large consignment of highly enriched uranium in Libya came close to cracking open and leaking radioactive material into the atmosphere.

-U.S. used threats, spying, and more to try to get its way at last year's crucial climate conference in Copenhagen.

-Hundreds of cables detail U.S. use of diplomats as “sales” agents, more than previously thought, centering on jet rivalry of Boeing vs. Airbus. Hints of corruption and bribes.

-Millions in U.S. military aid for fighting Pakistani insurgents went to other gov't uses (or stolen) instead.

-Israel wanted to bring Gaza to the ”brink of collapse.”

-The U.S. secret services used Turkey as a base to transport terrorism suspects as part of its extraordinary rendition program.

-As protests spread in Egypt, cables revealed that strong man Suleiman was at center of government's torture programs, causing severe backlash for Mubarak after he named Suleiman vice president during the revolt. Other cables revealed or confirmed widespread Mubarak regime corruption, police abuses and torture, and claims of massive Mubarak famiiy fortune, significantly influencing media coverage and U.S. response.

That's quite a public service he's done there.

 

I didn't say I haven't read anything about his motivation, only that I've read nothing that explains it.

OK, misread you, sorry.

 

That link is an example - it takes some of the things he's said and ascribes multiple different motivations. It appears to show confusion in his mind - like him saying on the one hand "If you had unprecedented access to classified networks 14 hours a day 7 days a week for 8+ months, what would you do?. That doesn't support your view, does it?

It points to another similar view - he was a "well intentioned idealist" and he felt "it belongs in the public domain -information should be free - it belongs in the public domain - because another state would just take advantage of the information… try and get some edge - if its out in the open… it should be a public good. So he copied and released all that data because he just thought people should have it? Again, if that's true, then that's not whistle-blowing.

But it also says he said i had always questioned the things worked, and investigated to find the truth ... but that was a point where i was a *part* of something ... i was actively involved in something that i was completely against and also said he did it because he was "feeling horrified that his fellow soldiers were cheering the fact that they had escaped a roadside bomb attack which seriously injured an Iraqi family of five. Then there's the view that "motivated by mental instability stemming from his gender and sexual orientation crises

So basically, there's a website which says his motivation to steal and pass on more than 260,000 U.S. diplomatic cables, plus over 90,000 intelligence reports was maybe because he believes in everyone having access to all information, or because he was upset he was ignored, or because he couldn't understand why some soldiers were happy that they'd survived a bomb attack, when some civilians didn't.

In other words like I said I think from what I've read that it is more likely just a kind of random act, in a sense. He did it because he found out he could do it, and his reasoning didn't tell him to stop. I think it was the act of someone who was through circumstance and upbringing, unfortunately not capable of exercising sound judgement. So no, I don't agree with your conclusion on his motivation. We don't really know why he did it.

I'm sure he was confused. Anyone would be. You might expect someone to wonder if what they were seeing was really true, to be astonished that others didn't seem concerned about it, to ask why their expressed concerns were not taken seriously, to wonder if they might have misread the situation. Later, you would expect someone to go through some very difficult thinking about the consequences both of releasing the information and of not doing so, fear and apprehension, all the rest of it. I should think anyone would be confused. But what's happening in parts of the media, no doubt at the behest of the government, is to create a storyline that it's because he's confused about his gender and had a difficult childhood that he's done this, ie he's mad, no-one sane would have done this.

On the point about not understanding why soldiers were glad they had escaped death, the way you put it makes him sound like someone severely autistic who can't appreciate the most obvious things about others. The way I read it is that this is one of many things which demonstrate that the US has no regard for the civilians whose lives are at risk from their constant invasions, not that Manning doesn't understand that people place a value on their own life. Though I suppose we should say "she" not "he", now.

[BOF]

Toshiba has invented a quantum cryptography network that even the NSA can’t hack

Toshiba has invented a quantum cryptography network that even the NSA can’t hack

If you’ve got communications that absolutely cannot be intercepted—whether you’re a NSA whistleblower, the president of Mexico, or Coca-Cola—quantum cryptography is the way to go.

It harnesses the bizarro-world properties of quantum physics to ensure that information sent from point A to point B isn’t intercepted. The laws of physics dictate that nobody—not even the NSA—can measure a quantum system without disrupting it.

The problem, as Edward Snowden could probably tell you, is that quantum cryptography is still in its infancy. It only works over relatively short distances, and the required gear—including lasers and a dedicated fiber optic network—is prohibitively expensive, limiting its use to a handful of research labs, corporations and governments.

A new research paper from scientists at Toshiba brings quantum cryptography a baby-step closer to the masses. The paper, published today in Nature, explains how to expand a point-to-point quantum network with only two users into a “quantum access network” with up to 64 users.

“This kind of communication cannot be defeated by future advances in computing power, nor new mathematical algorithms, nor fancy new engineering,” said co-author Andrew Shields, head of the Quantum Information Group of Toshiba Research Europe. “As long as the laws of physics hold true, it will ensure that your communications are fully secured.”

A quantum network uses specially polarized photons to encode an encryption key—a very long series of numbers and letters that can unlock a digital file. The photons are then sent down a fiber optic cable until they reach their destination, a photon detector, which counts them, and delivers the key to the intended recipient. If the photons are interfered with, the individual packets of information are forever altered and the recipient can see the telltale signs of tampering.

The Toshiba team focused its efforts on improving the photon detector, and created a system that counts up to 1 billion photons per second, which makes it feasible to add more people to the network. “Our breakthrough is we’ve developed an architecture that is point-to-multipoint. This greatly increase the number of potential users in the network, and reduces costs,” Shields said.

Current quantum cryptography systems from companies like ID Quantique start at around $50,000, and only connect two parties at a time. “If up to 64 people can share a single photon detector than you can spread out those costs,” Shields said.

The next step toward mainstreaming quantum crypto is increasing the distance that photons can travel before they degrade—currently the record is 200 km (124 miles) using a dedicated fiber optic cable. But researchers are working on ways to transmit quantum bits on so-called “noisy” fiber that carries other information, which means that the day may not be far away when your Gmail may have a quantum key.

Until then, it’s probably safer to assume that Big Brother is listening.

[CarewsEyebrowDesigner]

[BOF]

It's perfectly reasonable to assume that technology this secure simply won't be allowed to be mass-market. The NSA are already shamelessly shutting down other secure email services. So even if you can make security, you're not allowed to have it if it goes through the land of the free. The difference here hopefully is that Toshiba are not American so they don't automatically have to bend over a barrel and spit on their sphincter.

[peterms]

 

"...the president [barack Obama], and all of us, are listening carefully to all of our friends," Kerry said.

 

Quite.

[peterms]

[peterms]

So, some dork in the US defends their actions in suppressing internet freedom.  Ex-head of NSA and CIA.  He seems to think the internet was created by and belongs to the US, so they can do what they want with it:

 

"We built it here, and it was quintessentially American," he said, adding that partially due to that, much of traffic goes through American servers where the government "takes a picture of it for intelligence purposes."

 

I gather a lot of internet traffic goes through servers based in the US.  Perhaps it would be a good idea to stop this, and make the US entirely marginal to the internet.  We could still let them use it, just not attempt to control it, police it, and use it as a tool for spying on the world's population.

[leviramsey]

Hey, we built it, we let you use it on our terms.

[peterms]

Now, I'm used to the police advising us to take security measures, like locking doors and not leaving your wallet, phone and house keys on the table in the pub while you go for a piss.

 

But it seems the police in New York are pressing commuters to change to a new operating system for their Apple devices.  Like, handing out leaflets at underground stations.

 

In the light of all the recent revelations about the astonishing degree to which these people subvert supposedly secure technology to spy on people, I suppose some may be suspicious of this.  But I expect it's all innocent and above board.

 

[peterms]

Hey, we built it, we let you use it on our terms.

 

Thanks.  We see your terms, but we are interested in other options.

 

Let's have two internets.  One for the US, and one for everyone else.

 

Next stop, world reserve currency.  Why should it be the dollar?  Well, no good reason.  Is it feasible to change?  Yes.