Americans listening to our facebook and emails

[woolybanana]

Do you care if Uncle Sam is mining information about us from Google and other sources? Does it matter if we are safer and bombers, drug dealers and other nasties get caught? What do we have that is secret anyway?

[idun]

Don't care, as I assumed that they were already doing this and always have.

Much ado about nothing and I reckon that journalists have far more important things they could be reporting. In fact I despair of journalists at the moment.

Do they not realise that anyone in their 90's is in 'extra time' and that they could quite easily be poorly and death is quite a natural thing to happen.

[YCCMB]

How do they listen to Facebook? Mine appears to be in silent mode.

[Clarkkent]

If they listen to mine then they must be bored out of their skulls!

[Mr Ceour de Lion II]

Thing is, it's really hard to listen to facebook and email. You don't really hear much.

[Pierre ZFP]

I always knew they were watching out for key words anf phrases, why wouldn't you when there is such a rich vein of data.  The bits that make me unspeakably made is that the Yanks justify it by

1. saying they don't snoop on US Citizens.  Oh yeah, and you believe that? Anyway how do you know if the message is from a US citizen or not?

2.the arrogance of point 1. implying that it's perfectly OK to snoop on anyone else !  [:@]

[HoneySuckleDreams]

Who watches the watchmen ?

[PaulT]

[quote user="Pierre ZFP"]

I always knew they were watching out for key words anf phrases, why wouldn't you when there is such a rich vein of data.  The bits that make me unspeakably made is that the Yanks justify it by

1. saying they don't snoop on US Citizens.  Oh yeah, and you believe that? Anyway how do you know if the message is from a US citizen or not?

2.the arrogance of point 1. implying that it's perfectly OK to snoop on anyone else !  [:@]

[/quote]

Because if it is spelt correctly then it is not from a US citizen [:D]

[Clair]

I can't say I'm surprised. but if it's all legal and above board, why make it a secret?

Many, many years ago, a teacher friend of mine wanted to transfer to New Caledonia where he had worked for a few years before returning to France. He had already been told his application was unlikely to be approved because of his age.

He received a phone call one day, telling him to go to such and such train station at such and such time, one day that week. He was met there by two guys who proceeded to tell him his life story, from his school-days to his mistresses via his work colleagues. They knew a lot, so he told me.

They told him his transfer application would be approved if he agreed to report on the activities of his would-be work colleagues in New Caledonia. At the time, there was a lot (more than usual) of political unrest, aggravation and talk of independence.

He never told me what he decided. All I know is that he got a job there.

Another story about a young French student I knew when I was in England. She returned to France after a couple of years and got a job in Paris, transcribing surveillance reports concerning the activities of the various ministers and political big wigs of the first Mitterrand presidential cabinet.

One story she told me that stuck with me was the one about a minister with a predilection for young boys...

This was way back in the 80s, when technology was nowhere near as advanced as it is now. So no, I can't say I'm surprised.

[Clair]

I'll send myself this for a laugh... [:D]

More details here...

[Mr Ceour de Lion II]

Clair wrote the following post at 11/06/2013 8:56:

I can't say I'm surprised. but if it's all legal and above board, why make it a secret?

Trouble is, I don't think it is legal. It's in conflict with the 4th amendment for a start. This Patriot Act urgently needs looking at again, it was implemented so quickly after 9/11 that it was ill thought out.

In the meantime, Facebook has already updated their site settings.

[Clair]

They (= US president + NSA + William Hague for the UK and GCHQ) are saying it's all within the parameters of the laws...

I'm quite sure there are ways to justify it all!

I listened to Hague's statement to the Commons, then read THIS article in the Guardian to get some clarification.

Years ago, there was a long article in The Times about how an everyday chap came to be homeless. I haven't been able to find it again, but I do wish I could re-read it.

Someone somewhere was arrested during a street protest and was found to have tenuous links with some suspected terrorists. His phone contacts were analysed and this chap happened to be listed, as they had met years previously for some innocuous reason.

The chap's employer was visited by an MI5 person, told his employee was under investigation and to not mention the visit or the investigation to him.

The employer, whose business relied on government contracts, got worried about possible ramifications and washed his hands off the whole thing by making the chap redundant at the first opportunity.

To cut a long story short, this everyday chap found himself unable to find a job because of an ongoing security investigation he knew nothing about, eventually lost his home and his wife and ended up sleeping in the street and eating in soup kitchens, all because his name was found on the phone of someone he had met once years before.

I don't know or remember how much was fact or fiction, but it didn't seem so far-fetched at the time I read it and it feels even less far-fetched now.

[woolybanana]

Yes, Clair, fair example. But what about the other possibility; thanks to the stupidity of the whistleblower, various people who wish harm to the West will now be aware that their communications are being listened to/read and will now go underground where they cannot be, and their potential to cause harm will probably be enhanced as a result.

Whistleblowing can be a cause of good, as in the case of the NHS where it should be compulsory, and a cause of great harm, as in this case which potentially allows small children to be blown apart by bombers who would otherwise have been detected and stopped.

In fact, I wonder if this present case is whistleblowing or treason?

[Clair]

[quote user="woolybanana"]Yes, Clair, fair example. But what about the other possibility; thanks to the stupidity of the whistleblower, various people who wish harm to the West will now be aware that their communications are being listened to/read and will now go underground where they cannot be, and their potential to cause harm will probably be enhanced as a result.

Whistleblowing can be a cause of good, as in the case of the NHS where it should be compulsory, and a cause of great harm, as in this case which potentially allows small children to be blown apart by bombers who would otherwise have been detected and stopped.

In fact, I wonder if this present case is whistleblowing or treason?[/quote]

If those who wish to harm the US/UK/ or their allies are under the belief their communications haven't been tracked/traced/decrypted, they must surely belong to the Fred Flinstone school of spies!

IMO, the greatest risk is posed by individuals like the Boston bombers or the Woolwich nutters, those who do not belong to a known or suspected group, those who act alone and on impulse.