31–40 of 71 posts
The British are so strange. This kind of abuse of power would never be contemplated by American authorities.
I hope you're being sarcastic? NSA was caught snooping in a Supreme Court justice's data. (I think it was before he was on the Supreme Court, but nonetheless.) I find it unlikely that they're not intercepting American legislators' data, along with everyone else's.
What if there are terrorists in parliament? How will the security agencies be able to find them if they are allowed privacy?
This is a dreadful article, and the title is deeply misleading. Literally the only information this article contains is that MPs use Office365 and MessageLabs. That they've felt the need to clarify, right at the end of the article: > Computer Weekly also points out that we have not made > any suggestion in this story that GCHQ “routinely > reads” MPs’ emails. I would say that is exactly the suggestion that the verb "…
This is a dreadful article, and the title is deeply misleading. Literally the only information this article contains is that MPs use Office365 and MessageLabs. That they've felt the need to clarify, right at the end of the article: > Computer Weekly also points out that we have not made > any suggestion in this story that GCHQ “routinely > reads” MPs’ emails. I would say that is exactly the suggestion that the verb "…
So you are suggesting that accessing metadata about emails (senders, recipients, subject) is by no mean relevant? I think in 90% of the email traffic, the content can pretty much be inferred from the subject, and that's intended, it is meant to refer precisely to the most important point of the email. And the sender/recipient/other emails give you the context. In my book that pretty much qualifies to accessing emails…
The article headline - and its very existence - suggests that politicians were being targetted, or there was some suggestion that GCHQ agents are reading politicians email in particular. That the published had to clarify (at the end, ad views already banked) that they didn't mean the emails are being read tells you that the article is woefully unclear.
Neither is true: all the article actually says is that digital communication in the UK is being collected for possible future analysis, and because parliamentarians are in the UK, their data is included.
Next up: ALL POLITICANS ARE TIME-TRAVELLERS[1]
1: They can go forward in time at the same speed as everything in their immediate vicinity
The British are so strange. This kind of abuse of power would never be contemplated by American authorities.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So you are suggesting that accessing metadata about emails (senders, recipients, subject) is by no mean relevant? I think in 90% of the email traffic, the content can pretty much be inferred from the subject, and that's intended, it is meant to refer precisely to the most important point of the email. And the sender/recipient/other emails give you the context. In my book that pretty much qualifies to accessing emails…
No, I'm suggesting that we already knew the NSA and GCHQ were doing mass data collection. The article headline - and its very existence - suggests that politicians were being targetted, or there was some suggestion that GCHQ agents are reading politicians email in particular. That the published had to clarify (at the end, ad views already banked) that they didn't mean the emails are being read tells you that the arti…
[edit] and I am unfairly picking on amazon. I just checked, they do use TLS on their mailer. Let's stay Eurostar, ebuyer or disqus who do not seem to have heard of TLS.
But surely this is a tiny fraction of the email traffic? Chances are anyone sending an email from a gmail to a yahoo address, the email will not even transit through the UK, and if it does it will pass through encrypted. The spam and commercial emails are more likely to be unencrypted, but even then chances are an amazon order confirmation to a gmail address will not even transit through the UK. So outside of PRISM-l…
A) There's reason to believe commonly used encryption is broken. The Snowden documents suggested VPNs in particular had been poorly set up, which allowed their encrypted traffic to be sniffed. There will be more things we currently believe to be encrypted and are not
B) Session cookies and tracker cookies make it easy for your HTTP requests to be linked back to you
But surely this is a tiny fraction of the email traffic? Chances are anyone sending an email from a gmail to a yahoo address, the email will not even transit through the UK, and if it does it will pass through encrypted. The spam and commercial emails are more likely to be unencrypted, but even then chances are an amazon order confirmation to a gmail address will not even transit through the UK. So outside of PRISM-l…
So there are two problems: A) There's reason to believe commonly used encryption is broken. The Snowden documents suggested VPNs in particular had been poorly set up, which allowed their encrypted traffic to be sniffed. There will be more things we currently believe to be encrypted and are not B) Session cookies and tracker cookies make it easy for your HTTP requests to be linked back to you
The British are so strange. This kind of abuse of power would never be contemplated by American authorities.
There are many things that are curious in the UK legal system. This week, a guy has been sentenced to 30y in jail for gun trafficking. I'm not condoning gun trafficking but in my book smuggling is much more venial offense than rape or murder, and smuggling items that are not even illegal in countries like the US. I am sure many murderers took a lot less than that. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-36446462
If you tried to smuggle this:
http://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/624/cpsprodpb/0B22/production/_...
and this:
http://ichef-1.bbci.co.uk/news/624/cpsprodpb/11A62/productio...
into the USA, you'd be facing about 630 years in jail, not 30.
