[ Date Index ] [ Thread Index ] [ <= Previous by date / thread ] [ Next by date / thread => ]
On Wed, 26 Jun 2013 10:16:16 +0100
Martijn Grooten <sweetwatergeek@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hello Martijn,
>Yes, that. It makes it a _lot_ easier and our activities are a _lot_
>more traceable.
But you'll only get tracked if you're of 'interest' to GCHG, NSA or
whoever. You and I probably aren't.
>'Dissident organisations' like family and friends of a murdered black
>teenager?
If that's what the govt. decide, then yes. The 'rules' don't have to
make sense or be right. Their game, their rules. Unfortunately.
>Although I have performed activities such as 'being a member of a
>political organisation' and 'supporting gay rights', they weren't
>illegal, or even controversial, in the time and place where they
>happened. But they are illegal elsewhere and have been illegal in the
>past. It's good to keep this in mind.
I do, I assure you. In the mid to late 1970s it was not uncommon for
people that liked a particular form of music to be regarded as a threat
to civilisation (seriously). Same thing back in the 1950s. During the
'70s it was not uncommon for a police patrol to pass me whilst walking
along the road and for me to see the same patrol a couple of minutes
later, and a couple of minutes after that. Why? Because I had green
spiky hair, wore skin tight white jeans with fluorescent leopard spots
on them, bright red winkle picker shoes and a red leather jacket with
the names of various bands written all over it. Yes, just being a punk
rocker in a small community was enough to get you watched by the cops.
Seems laughable now, nearly 40 years on.
>I actually think the vast majority of the people at the NSA and GCHQ
>mean well. They are misguided and wrong, not evil. But the information
Most of them probably don't care enough; It's just a way of earning a
living.
>is there for anyone to access. It would take one bad person, or one
>change of government, or one change of public definition of evil, for
>this to have really bad consequences.
That's still true if you remove the NSA & GCHQ. Any govt. department
has large amounts of data that is considered "sensitive" and kept hidden
from public scrutiny. For example, some 20 years ago I worked at the
Crown Prosecution Service. I had to sign papers binding my by the
Official Secrets Act. When I left, I had to sign again, reminding me of
my duty of silence on certain matters. I'm no longer bound, as the
expiry was ten years. Knowledge of criminal activities more than 10
years old is probably not much use to anyone.
>operation of the NSA's surveillance program. Perhaps next time it is
>information on certain activities that are deemed evil by a small but
>violent minority.
It's always the minority that promote change; Most people aren't
motivated enough to do anything about the status quo. Sometimes
violence ensues. Not always wrongly, either.
--
Regards _
/ ) "The blindingly obvious is
/ _)rad never immediately apparent"
I guess I shouldn't have strangled her to death
Ugly - The Stranglers
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
-- The Mailing List for the Devon & Cornwall LUG http://mailman.dclug.org.uk/listinfo/list FAQ: http://www.dcglug.org.uk/listfaq