Am I right in assuming that the US is the only country who has its own subjects PLUS a good deal of the world under close surveillance? Perhaps the government of china does a similar thing, but obviously only inside china? Other governments like, say, the japanese government or the european governments don't have these clearly nazi surveillance programs?
On 30 September 2013 21:45, Juan Garofalo <juan.g71@gmail.com> wrote:
Am I right in assuming that the US is the only country who has its own subjects PLUS a good deal of the world under close surveillance?
I would say you are incorrect. The UK and the US cooperate very, very closely. Likewise, the Echelon/Five Eyes program is a publicly documented SIGINT sharing program (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ECHELON). -tom
--On Monday, September 30, 2013 10:08 PM -0400 Tom Ritter <tom@ritter.vg> wrote:
On 30 September 2013 21:45, Juan Garofalo <juan.g71@gmail.com> wrote:
Am I right in assuming that the US is the only country who has its own subjects PLUS a good deal of the world under close surveillance?
I would say you are incorrect. The UK and the US cooperate very, very closely.
Yes, sorry, that was a silly overlook on my part =) Also, I see the anglo-american government plus a couple of its provinces like australia and new zealand (oh, and canada) as virtually a single entity... So, the question should be : apart from the anglo-americans, and perhaps the chinese, is there any other cyber police state out there? Likewise, the Echelon/Five Eyes program is a publicly
documented SIGINT sharing program (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ECHELON).
-tom
On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 7:38 PM, Juan Garofalo <juan.g71@gmail.com> wrote:
... So, the question should be : apart from the anglo-americans, and perhaps the chinese, is there any other cyber police state out there?
russia, of course. and ... perhaps the question you need to ask is who isn't a cyber police state? even the third world is buying tools from the first for this purpose...
Is there any reason to assume any country with an intelligence service *doesn't* try to record and decrypt tons of internet traffic, domestic or foreign? Is there any reason to think domestic surveillance isn't way worse in China than it is in the US? On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 10:46 PM, coderman <coderman@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 7:38 PM, Juan Garofalo <juan.g71@gmail.com> wrote:
... So, the question should be : apart from the anglo-americans, and perhaps the chinese, is there any other cyber police state out there?
russia, of course. and ...
perhaps the question you need to ask is who isn't a cyber police state?
even the third world is buying tools from the first for this purpose...
-- konklone.com | @konklone <https://twitter.com/konklone>
--On Monday, September 30, 2013 11:25 PM -0400 Eric Mill <eric@konklone.com> wrote:
Is there any reason to assume any country with an intelligence service *doesn't* try to record and decrypt tons of internet traffic, domestic or foreign?
Of course there is. To put it bluntly, the anglo-americans are the only 'superpower' and so they act like one. The rest of the countries don't have inclination nor the means.
Is there any reason to think domestic surveillance isn't way worse in China than it is in the US?
Says who, apart from propagandists of western 'democracy'? What county has the highest incarceration rate in the world, which might just suggest if they are police state or not...?
On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 10:46 PM, coderman <coderman@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 7:38 PM, Juan Garofalo <juan.g71@gmail.com> wrote:
... So, the question should be : apart from the anglo-americans, and perhaps the chinese, is there any other cyber police state out there?
russia, of course. and ...
perhaps the question you need to ask is who isn't a cyber police state?
even the third world is buying tools from the first for this purpose...
--
konklone.com | @konklone
Apparently the UK is worse than the US even - less pretense about not spying on their own subjects, less legal restrictions (to the extent the NSA and their nominal oversight even respected the restrictions, which clearly they did not much respect and subverted with clear internal complaints of the oversight to the extent that the info was disclosed to them.). You are her majesty's subject not a citizen, and the royal family hasnt exercised their powers nor even expressed displeasure such is the etiquette in a century. The best you've got is the house of lords, however even their powers have been weakened and dilluted by politically appointed peers by parliament, which in my view was two steps backwards; at least the hereditary peers were a break on change, are typically wealthy people who dont want the politicians to screw up the country and to some extent have more aligned interests with the people than policitians who typically have no actual views, just play to opinion with no regard for the direction their actions push civil society and democracy. It may well be that for most westerners the best you could do is use a russian or chinese internet proxy for internet, voice SIP, video chat/IM etc. The chinese are interesting in having their own source of backdoors (electronics manufacturing) possibly rivaling the US software and key backdoors. They may have a state level interest and competence to find and eliminate US originated backdoors. Similarly for russia. Adam On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 10:08:35PM -0400, Tom Ritter wrote:
On 30 September 2013 21:45, Juan Garofalo <juan.g71@gmail.com> wrote:
Am I right in assuming that the US is the only country who has its own subjects PLUS a good deal of the world under close surveillance?
I would say you are incorrect. The UK and the US cooperate very, very closely. Likewise, the Echelon/Five Eyes program is a publicly documented SIGINT sharing program (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ECHELON).
-tom
The most common for of spying for all countries is that for assuring payment of taxes. These agencies have dossiers, agents, informants and contractors (tax lawyers) which put the other spies to shame (and put as much fear in the oft-blamed spies as in citizens). In the US the main function of early spies was to catch tax evaders. Not to overlook that the birth of the US was about who got the bloodily-extorted taxes. No greater cooperation among world governments exceeds that for catching tax evaders. The few refuges stings. Tax laws allow far greater intrusion than those for national security. And terrified citizens are obligated to spy and rat themselves, family, neighbors, bosses, co-revolutionaries in particular. Taxpayers are paid bonuses for spying on and ratting each other, and jump to obey tax obligations, albeit with an acceptable amount of shaving the truth. Bribes are endemic, whistleblowers deputies of the state. Presumably the fashionista excitement of bitching about the rest of the spies is aimed at curring favor with the most persistenlty threatening of the TLAs which will swoop in like the angel of death to remind of the inescapable collusion of both death and taxes to meticulously spy on futile efforts to wiggle out of what is due. Discussing this topic can get a citizen is more trouble than viewing kiddie porn or whatever is the country's favorite fashionista criminalization Fortuitiously, terror was invented to payback tyrants for their overdue abuse of taxation; today, shilled as sequestration. Before being forfeited into submission Let us now honor the two brave and revolutionary cypherpunks sent to prison for defying the top spies of the way over-taxed earth. Hail Jim, hail CJ, fuck you Agent Gordon.
--On Tuesday, October 01, 2013 7:09 AM -0400 John Young <jya@pipeline.com> wrote:
Discussing this topic can get a citizen is more trouble than viewing kiddie porn or whatever is the country's favorite fashionista criminalization
You think so? Seems to me that so called tax evasion is rampant, especially among people who can hire lawyers and other lawyer-like creatures. 'kiddie porn' on the other hand will get any 'pervert' lynched in no time in, say, a western cesspool like the US.
Fortuitiously, terror was invented to payback tyrants for their overdue abuse of taxation; today, shilled as sequestration.
Before being forfeited into submission Let us now honor the two brave and revolutionary cypherpunks sent to prison for defying the top spies of the way over-taxed earth.
Hail Jim, hail CJ, fuck you Agent Gordon.
On Tue, Oct 01, 2013 at 12:28:11PM +0200, Adam Back wrote:
Apparently the UK is worse than the US even - less pretense about not spying on their own subjects,
This, depressingly, does seem to be true in just about every sense. To make matters worse, there are far more open debates at the political level about increasing the ongoing level of surveillance, even in response to what has become known recently. At least the US has the decency to be ever-so-slightly ashamed in public.
less legal restrictions (to the extent the NSA and their nominal oversight even respected the restrictions, which clearly they did not much respect and subverted with clear internal complaints of the oversight to the extent that the info was disclosed to them.).
The advantage that the UK, or at least its population, has over the US comes mainly from European law and the protections afforded there. (Of course, this is all predicated on the fact that most laws seem to be largely ignored behind the scenes, but let's work with that while we're talking legal restrictions.) There was an interesting discussion of this recently on the ietf-privacy mailing list, based on Caspar Bowden's research note for the European Parliament. The whole thread, and the note, are worth a read for people who haven't seen them: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf-privacy/current/msg00326.html
You are her majesty's subject not a citizen
This, at least, is just incorrect. Since the British Nationality Act of 1981 came into force in 1983, only a small (and diminishing) set of people are British Subjects, and as far as I understand it it is no longer possible to become a British Subject. The overwhelmingly vast majority of the British population are, in fact, British Citizens. See, for example: http://www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/britishcitizenship/ and, specifically, http://www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/britishcitizenship/othernationality/britis... (The term 'subject' does still occur in old laws and traditions for historical reasons.) Joss -- Joss Wright | @JossWright http://www.pseudonymity.net
--On Tuesday, October 01, 2013 12:30 PM +0100 Joss Wright <joss-cypherpunks@pseudonymity.net> wrote:
You are her majesty's subject not a citizen
This, at least, is just incorrect.
"Citizen" is a meaningless term. Politically there two kinds of people. State agents (who are above the law) and their subjects.
Since the British Nationality Act of 1981 came into force in 1983, only a small (and diminishing) set of people are British Subjects, and as far as I understand it it is no longer possible to become a British Subject. The overwhelmingly vast majority of the British population are, in fact, British Citizens. See, for example:
http://www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/britishcitizenship/
and, specifically, http://www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/britishcitizenship/othernationality/bri tishsubjects/
(The term 'subject' does still occur in old laws and traditions for historical reasons.)
Joss -- Joss Wright | @JossWright http://www.pseudonymity.net
On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 10:08:35PM -0400, Tom Ritter wrote:
On 30 September 2013 21:45, Juan Garofalo <juan.g71@gmail.com> wrote:
Am I right in assuming that the US is the only country who has its own subjects PLUS a good deal of the world under close surveillance?
I would say you are incorrect. The UK and the US cooperate very, very closely. Likewise, the Echelon/Five Eyes program is a publicly
It's Six Eyes, as Sweden is also part of the big vacuum, due to special geography.
documented SIGINT sharing program (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ECHELON).
participants (8)
-
Adam Back -
coderman -
Eric Mill -
Eugen Leitl -
John Young -
Joss Wright -
Juan Garofalo -
Tom Ritter