Did NSA, GCHQ steal the secret key in YOUR phone SIM? It's LIKELY The NSA and Britain's GCHQ hacked the world's biggest SIM card maker to harvest the encryption keys needed to silently and effortlessly eavesdrop on potentially millions of people. That's according to documents obtained by surveillance whistleblower Edward Snowden and leaked to the web on Thursday. "Wow. This is huge – it's …
I'm glad Snowden is releasing this info as a trickle, thus ensuring it gets regular headline coverage. Now we know that our government agencies essentially treat the electorate (whom they should serve) as the enemy, and the laws are bent or just ignored so they can do as they please. The only recourse ordinary folk have is at the ballot box, but what option do we have to change anything?
Is it too late to mount a national campaign to stand independents* in the upcoming general election, to fight for our rights? Would joe public actually vote for a candidate who truly represents them (as opposed to the interests of the elite) or just carry on voting the same old way?
* political parties are hierarchical structures open to corruption and infighting. Standing as independents but with a common campaign and set of policies would avoid those problems up front.
It's an intriguing concept but historically, independents basically stand a snowball's chance in hell of getting elected at the Federal level and the few that have been elected over the years are about as effective as that snowball since they are a super minority.. The electorate just follows along once things get beyond state level. The big reason is probably money. It takes some serious cash to be elected as a CongressCritter.
Sorry, didn't mean to shout.
Hold on to your teddies, make wishes to the stars, think nice thoughts about your leaders...
This is not a U.S.A. matter but worldwide. Along with someone (jest mebbe the NSA) planting rootkits in everyone's hard drives (and probably thumb and flash drives), we're all screwed.
Getting back to the OP, it really doesn't matter who you vote for. It has been written.
> The safest solution, albeit the more expensive solution, is to invest in a lock that requires a custom key that cannot be duplicated.
http://www.wmbfnews.com/story/22184016/key-to-danger-who-else-has-a-key-to-your-house
That was a US survey. British door locks are all made by one firm these days. Chubb, Union, Yale all in the same few factories.
Your best bet is to get two "Yale" locks and a five lever dead bolt on each door. Put the Yales within reach (top and middle, say) and the deadlock at the other extreme. Don't get caught in a fire though.
Unfortunately we just need to vote for the best of a bad bunch.
Right now neither Labour or Conservatives seem to care about freedom...
The world is a messed up place
For the first time in my lifespan (nearly 35 years) the USA has a sensible president who actually cares about freedom, how backwards is that!
The only party (in England) outside the current block is the Greens. They're a long way from perfect, but they're way, way better than the blue, red and yellow Tories. Someone worked out that if people voted for policies rather than parties, the Greens would be the biggest party in parliament.
Have a look at Vote for policies
"Most of UKIPs members are baying idiots. Genuine quote from a prospective UKIP member standing for election this year:"
In theory a lot of UKIP policies make sense, eg EU referendum. In practice a lot of them are a bunch of half witted muppets mixed in with a sprinkling of racists. Farage himself might be a sound bloke but one man isn't enough to run a party never mind a country, and unfortunately the people under him couldn't run a whelk stall.
"whereas the Greens policies are just bonkers e.g nuclear power"
The greens nowadays are just a far left party with some greenwash painted over them. And yes, their views on nuclear power are absurd as is their idiotic assertion that renewables could provide us will all our electrical power.
"It is an absurd assertion that non renewable could do that indefinitely. (By definition)"
Long enough for us and the next few generations, yes. With nuclear reprocessing - which naturally the hippies don't like either - we'd have enough nuclear fuel to literally last centuries and thats assuming we didn't find any new sources in the meantime. But unfortunately those feckin unwashed dimwits in their organic peace hats sitting up a tree knitting yoghurt still think civilian nuclear power is a subversive way by The Man to make more nuclear bombs.
Yes, the nuclear power bit is one of the main reasons I said that the Greens are a long way from perfect. But they don't deliberately leave people starving on the streets to give more money to their rich pals.
They are human. They do wrong things. They do stupid things. But they don't do vile things.
"Someone worked out that if people voted for policies rather than parties, the Greens would be the biggest party in parliament."
VoteForPolicies had over half a million people do its surveys, tens of thousands a week in recent weeks. Compare that with the few thousand people that the commercial pollsters ask. Until a few days ago the survey was based on policies from last time round.
Their results had the Greens in front on 27%, Labour in the low 20s, and the rest I can't remember.
The 2015 policy questions are now up (except for Northern Ireland).
Have a look, maybe even fill in the survey - but don't expect it to be quick if you want to make an informed choice.
No results (that I could see) as yet. Early days.
What a load of tosh that site is.
They lump a load of policies together and ask you to decide if you'd consider voting for them or not.
"Cut the number of MPs and make constituencies more equally sized to give everyone’s vote a more equal weight." does not go with "Maintain the First-Past-The-Post voting system that makes it easy to kick out unpopular politicians, and delivers stable government."
If they really want it to be representative, they should split them all up.
Incidentally, first past the post doesn't make it easy to kick anyone out, due to voter apathy and voting for parties, rather than policies/personalities
"What a load of tosh that site is.
They lump a load of policies together and ask you to decide if you'd consider voting for them or not."
Readers may like to have a look for themselves and see if this gentleman may perhaps have misunderstood.
The policies being offered to you on that site are de-branded, de-tribalised, summarised versions of published policies being offered by the major parties in the General Election.
Participants compare the policies that interest them (having perhaps ruled some out earlier on) and pick a winner for each policy sector of interest to them e.g. Education, Welfare, Environment.
Any apparent inconsistencies within a particular party's de-branded policy offering are (or should be) matched by inconsistencies in the corresponding party's published offerings.
Have a look. Don't take my word for it.
Someone worked out that if people voted for policies rather than parties, the Greens would be the biggest party in parliament.
Perhaps. Voting based on policy is very ideological and makes no difference unless parties were actually required to fulfill their policies and pre-election promises. As we all know the policies are not worth the paper they're written on as they only exist to try to gather the most votes without any intention to actually do any/some of it.
'...is the Greens. They're a long way from perfect...'
Yeah, perhaps. ...But like all pollies, put them into power and things change (as I've mentioned here in another post).
What's really wrong isn't so much the politicians (although many are far from perfect and we deserve better), but it's the system of the so-called democracy that we have today. For various and complex reasons, this form of representation simply doesn't work effectively anymore (that's if it ever did). By 'effectively' I mean that it doesn't work best for what most of us understand to be the citizenry.
It doesn't take Einstein to figure out that essentially all politicians are more susceptible to influence from those who already have power (through lobbying or whatever) than poor, just-about-disenfranchised Joe Bloggs voter. Similarly, no matter what a politician's persuasion, he/she's very brave to buck The Establishment. Of course, the establishment is many and varied--the truly powerful are not only large corporations, organizations etc. but especially senior public servants who wield very considerable 'hidden' power (and like Sir Humphrey are so very powerful).
Couple the Sir Humphreys with secrecy, scare tactics and FUD and the average politician is easily outwitted, outnumbered and out-powered--not to mention misled through omission, obfuscation and outright deception by smart public servants; thus it's a very 'brave' one who'll put his/her neck directly on the line. Experience shows most don't.
Gone are the days of great statesmen, Pitt et al, and of principle and what's right and best for citizens, and the Millian principle of utility/greatest good for the greatest number. Unfortunately, times have changed.
"Standing as independents but with a common campaign and set of policies would avoid those problems up front."
Yeah, nice idea. Sadly in the real world power corrupts and any independents would soon become exactly the same as the party wonks they replaced. I suggest you read Orwells Animal Farm.
Would joe public actually vote for a candidate who truly represents them
Don't be daft. People don't vote for candidates they want, they vote against the ones they don't want.
Anyway, spend 10 minutes in any crowded place and you'll realize that Joe Public doesn't give a damn about who listens to their phone conversations.
All you ever need to know about government is there in the "Yes, Minister" and "Yes, Prime Minister" BBC series.
It never was a comedy, but a detailed study on how we are on the gaff hook of bureaucracy.
Every time I hear any politician or bureaucrat talking, I just remember Jim Hacker, Sir Humphry Applebee and Bernard Wooley explaining the workings of government in detail.
Administration is eternal. Forever and ever. Amen.
With regard to security, FOI legislation etc., have you ever noticed what politicians say and promise when in opposition? These comments usually are about making the 'system' more transparent etc. but when in power they run scared and continually fail to implement them. It's not country specific either--well, anyway, certainly not in the English-speaking world.
It seems to me there's a secret, well-rehearsed magic script that security gnomes read to politicians (or more likely instruct them to follow) when they first get into government that scares the shit out of them and which simply puts the kibosh on any genuine well-intentioned plans.
Whatever it is would make Sir Humphrey very proud, methinks.
(Oh to be a fly on the wall at one of those briefings.)
It seems to me there's a secret, well-rehearsed magic script that security gnomes read to politicians (or more likely instruct them to follow) when they first get into government that scares the shit out of them and which simply puts the kibosh on any genuine well-intentioned plans.
I've often wondered about that myself so you could well be onto something.
"It seems to me there's a secret, well-rehearsed magic script that security gnomes read to politicians (or more likely instruct them to follow) when they first get into government that scares the shit out of them and which simply puts the kibosh on any genuine well-intentioned plans." -- RobHib
"I've often wondered about that myself so you could well be onto something." -- AbelSoul
Isn't it quite simple? "We know everything you've ever said, done, seen, searched for on the Internet. Do what we say and we'll get along fine. Cross us, and we'll ruin you for ever"
Late comment, but I know someone who was studying at one of the better Oxbridge colleges when Labour got into power in 1964 after thirteen years of Tory rule.
Various new ministers came to talk to them, and he particularly remembers Anthony Wedgwood Benn saying he'd been told some /very/ important things by civil servants and that he was /frightfully/ sorry that they were just too secret to share.
"Prosecute to hell and back."
I hate to break this shocking news to you - but governments reserve some powers for themselves that the ordinary citizen doesn't have. This includes breaking into computers as and when required. Now I'm not condoning what they've done, just giving you a bit of a reality check.
I hate to break it to you - when governments act like that, it's the end of the rule of law.
Government agencies are not above the law. They are allowed to do certain things, in certain circumstances, that private citizens are not - but it's not a carte blanche authorisation.
The Netherlands would certainly be well within their rights to prosecute any GCHQ agents they can tie to this break in... and the UK would have to extradite. The US generally considers that only its own laws are valid worldwide, anyway.....
"Government agencies are not above the law. They are allowed to do certain things, in certain circumstances, that private citizens are not - but it's not a carte blanche authorisation."
I think you'll find what they did was within the law, coming under the all encompassing anti terror legislation.
How the hell can we? The gnomes--paid for by our taxes--are secret, 'invisible' and unaccountable in any practical sense, and they'd be immune from prosecution anyway!
As Albert Jay Nock said in his 1935 book Our Enemy, the State* the true enemy of the citizenry is the State. The only difference 80 years on is that we're finding out the truth somewhat quicker with the Net.
* A quick Google will find it.
Nock's book Our Enemy the State was a fantastic insight and analysis into how elites, power coalitions and other pressure groups use government regulations to leverage themselves special favors, permissions etc. at the expense of the individual citizen.
It is something of a libertarian bible and ranks right up there with Orwell and co. Sad that it is so often ignored by the mainstream. The title was perhaps a little too radical for the 1930s and by extension, still too radical today.
He also valiantly tries to distinguish between "government" (agreed-on systems we mutually use to help govern our affairs as free citizens) and the "state" (a different beast altogether). Try to picture town hall politics vs the NSA/IMC, if you can.
You can find it online here:
http://www.barefootsworld.net/nockoets0.html
Read it (a fairly quick read) to gain some serious perspective on how much the world has changed in about 100 years.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
