MPs to review laws on UK spy-snoopery after GCHQ Tempora leaks Parliament's intelligence services watchdog is to hold an inquiry into whether or not UK surveillance laws need updating in light of Edward Snowden's revelations into GCHQ's activities. The Intelligence and Security Committee (ISC) will also consider the impact on personal privacy of intercepting people's communications as …
(From article) "Although we have concluded that GCHQ has not circumvented or attempted to circumvent UK law, it is proper to consider further whether the current statutory framework governing access to private communications remains adequate," a statement by the Committee issued on Thursday explains.
Translated: "We thought we had everyone sewn up tighter than a kipper's arse, but somehow that guy Snowden got through. We need to be able to snoop more to ensure that no further leaks embarrassing to us get out."
".....Translated: "We thought we had everyone sewn up tighter than a kipper's arse, but somehow that guy Snowden got through. We need to be able to snoop more to ensure that no further leaks embarrassing to us get out."
You need to fix your Babel fish, the actual translation should be as follows: "It was and is legal, but seeing as certain people can't get over it we'll do a review, juggle the wording, and continue as before."
The actual translation is " we have concluded that GCHQ has not circumvented or attempted to circumvent UK law*
*For parts of their work which involved scooping data out of US systems, we didn't bother looking at all the data they're hoovering up *inside* the UK's borders which is covered by RIPA, and that CGHQ were clearly breaking that law in spirit and in fact.
**We took their word for it on the first part and didn't bother turning up with police to check for ourselves, because frankly we didn't want to know."
Or another translation would be "They said they didn't do it and we believed them".
Now, I'm all for invasive surveillance - in a different way I want to see more of it - but it should be targeted at specific individuals. You go around hoovering up a whole internet's worth of data it's going to be expensive, and you're going to end up with massive volumes of data you can only deal with by sampling. Then you get into a situation where you're going to miss things because you're only really looking at 1MB in every TB or whatever and that's all youtube videos.. Then to get to that point you're massively invading the privacy of innocent people and pissing off supposedly friendly foreign governments - and for what? Where are the success stories of all this?
Bin Laden was caught by an anonymous tip-off not broad surveillance - and they've patently missed many obvious terrorist incidents where the people involved were pretty well welded to the internet previous to the attacks and followed some shady people on twitter (which you can look at as public data rather than slurping up bandwidth).
"....Bin Laden...." Was forced into the life of a virtual recluse, and his ability to communicate with his followers massively disrupted by EXACTLY the monitoring you're whining about, AFTER it had been used to track and kill or capture many of his followers. His being forced to relie on human couriers massively reduced the speed with which his network could respond to threats, meaning whilst he might have to wait a whole week for the message "don't have a polio jab", the CIA's planners knew anything new about his whereabouts within minutes. The example of Bin Laden only supports the use of such measures.
I'm greatly in favour of a robust intelligence service when regarded as part of our military capability. I'm also happy with high levels of secrecy in such work, as we all know that giving the enemy clues about our capabilities is to their advantage, not ours.
But when that military capability is deployed against the bulk of civilians and in particular against civilians in the same country, and when GCHQ is funded by the NSA to conduct spying on their behalf raising the question of a conflict of interest, then a good number of lines have been crossed.
It's little different to if we had other military capability (say soldiers with guns) deployed on our streets. There'd need to be a darned good reason (like a major war) and we'd want to know exactly what that reason was and when it would end. Saying "Ooh, its secret, we can't tell you, trust us" just doesn't cut it, especially given the repeated and continuing evidence that all the explanations we're given are lies.
"I'm greatly in favour of a robust intelligence service when regarded as part of our military capability....." Great, except fighting terrorism and organised crime is usually not a military action. When the terrorists do find a hidey-hole in a foreign country that openly supports and shields them, such as Afghanistan under the Taleban, then it does become a military action. But when the threat is coming from radicalised Muslims living in Bradford, Birmingham or Bolton, then it is very much a police and secret services matter. Please note the London Tube bombers, the Madrid bombers, and the 9/11 nutters ALL did not "fight" as an organised military, did not wear a uniform, and definately did not folllow the rules of war, so expecting our services to do the same is - frankly - either incredibly moronic or deliberately obtuse.
"Was forced into the life of a virtual recluse, and his ability to communicate with his followers massively disrupted by EXACTLY the monitoring you're whining about, AFTER it had been used to track and kill or capture many of his followers"
Seems to be the case that a) he wasn't a recluse at all - just an electronic recluse - and b) the Pakistani intelligence services knew where he was and they didn't pick that up either. Regardless of all that he was still able to command a very large international terrorist organisation from his front porch so..
It may reduce terrorists to a position where they have to pass paper around but hey, stock markets used to work like that too. It's slightly less efficient, but in an emergency you can also use more public means - [provably] basically none of what they're doing is having any effect and it's costing the taxpayer in both the US and the UK pretty huge volumes of cash.
"....Regardless of all that he was still able to command a very large international terrorist organisation...." No he wasn't, indeed one of AQ's problems has been the splintering of their different franchises and the lack of control over them because of the interference with coms. The co-operation between the Sunni Anbar Awakening and the US military in Iraq in 2005 came about because the local AQ in Iraq went off on a rampage without central control from Bin Ladin. Their acts so shocked the Iraqi Sunni's they stopped supporting AQ and started working with the Yanks instead, a 180 degree shift. Bin Ladin and his number two, al Zwahiri (now the AQ leader) publicly chided AQ in Iraq for their mindless brutality. More recently, al Zwahiri was taken completely by surprise by the recent merger of AQ in Iraq and the largest Islamist rebel group in Syria (http://www.fpri.org/geopoliticus/2013/06/al-qaeda-iraq-publicly-rebuts-al-qaedas-leader-ayman-al-zawahiri) because those coms links have been broken. One reason that the Iraqi AQ leader did so was because he accused the current AQ leadership of hiding away "like frightened women".
"....It may reduce terrorists to a position where they have to pass paper around but hey, stock markets used to work like that too....." Not a problem when ALL stockmarkets worked that way, big problem when one got a competitive advantage over the others by being first to go electronic. The problem for AQ is all their opponents have superior coms and capability, they are the last ones trying to run on paper. The ultimate proof of that is that Bin Ladin is feeding the fishes.
".....basically none of what they're doing is having any effect and it's costing the taxpayer in both the US and the UK pretty huge volumes of cash." You do realise the US has assets worth $200tn? The amount being spent on the WoT are big but not unsustainable at all. In real terms, the amount the UK has spent fighting the WoT plus the Iraq and Afghan campaigns has yet to match the amount we spent in almost a century of fighting the IRA - guess who blinked first in that one.
Oh yawn, here we go again. ANY kind of surveillance has to be justified, supervised and the use of the outcome of that snooping has be very carefully controlled - provided it's justified in the first place which is a question that's always gingerly danced around in such discussions.
The whole BS about fighting terrorists is quite simply NOT a justification for mass violation of the rights of (in this case) literally millions of people, it doesn't matter what the excuse is. As I said before, it's equivalent to arresting every 10th person on Oxford Street during a busy Saturday and then claiming success because you're statistically going to catch at least 1 or 2 thieves.
I lived in London at the height of the IRA repurposing of fertiliser, and I know how much work the Met did to prevent much of that using the existing legal structures. They did a good job (by its nature isn't never perfect), but with have the invasive powers police now seems to somehow consider an entitlement. Any law that damages the due diligence process and makes a citizen defenceless to an invasion of privacy must be fought. I have no problem with law enforcement having those privileges, but they MUST be controlled, supervised and its use must become transparent after a few years to prevent the sort of abuse that is now already rampant (we all focus on the US, but there is a lot more happening).
I'll sit back now while you'll start on all the emotional stuff, like think of the children etc.
BTW: want to see any evidence of the damage uncontrolled, legalised mass surveillance can do? Easy: anyone with any duty of confidentiality will now not touch ANY US originated service. Not because they hand off data by default (as some allege), but because it can no longer be guaranteed they do not. I can see a lot of BS emerging now with apparent "crack down" on privacy violations, but they do not repeal the laws that are the problem in the first place. So it's privacy theatre all over again.
"..... it's equivalent to arresting every 10th person on Oxford Street during a busy Saturday and then claiming success because you're statistically going to catch at least 1 or 2 thieves......" Complete male bovine manure of the most stupid and deceitful form. GCHQ are not arresting every tenth person at all, that's just hyperventilating, paranoid melodrama. They are not even reading the coms of every tenth person, merely storing it for a finite period during which very narrow searches are made. What, are you going to insist the Royal Mail are reading all your letters just because the postie had them in his sack? How about BT, are you going to accuse them of reading all your emails because they spent a finite time in a BT switch? How about your email provider? Complete male genitalia.
".....they MUST be controlled, supervised and its use must become transparent after a few years....." Firstly, they are controlled and supervised, just not by complete cretins like you. Secondly, terror investigations (and many criminal ones) can last for many years, even decades, so the idea that we should routinely announce to the crims and terrorists the information we hold on them is simply monumentally moronic.
".....I'll sit back now while you'll start on all the emotional stuff, like think of the children etc...." If anyone is spouting mindless "emotional stuff" they it is you and the people that have been spoonfeeding you.
The Snoopers' Charter seemed like an attempt to update the laws to match GCHQ's current practice more than anything else. So how on earth can the committee conclude that they did not circumvent or attempt to circumvent UK law?
"The outcome of Rifkind's review is likely to favour leaving the UK's surveillance laws as they are, or even strengthening them" - i.e., The Snoopers' Charter's going to make a comeback.
But... "There is a balance to be found between our individual right to privacy and our collective right to security. "
Is there a balance to be found? My individual right to privacy is paramount. There is no balance to be made when it is primarily the governments actions and policies that are the root cause of many of the threats to our collective security.
Your privacy is not paramount to the safety and security of others. That'll be the argument from the screaming right wing cowards anyway.
That's the weirdest part, to me, of all 'security' measures put in place in 'The West' over the last 13-14 years. It is the minimalist government supporters that push these massive government expansions. I thought they were supposed to be 'strong'. It is most certainly not a sign of strength if you're afraid of every shadow.
"....It is most certainly not a sign of strength if you're afraid of every shadow." So who is scared of shadows? When was the last time you stepped out of your house and checked your car for a bomb? Or had to check the street for any discarded rubbish that might be hiding an IED? Or made a point of remembering what people hanging around on your street looked like just in case they were actually part of a gang waiting to kidnap your family? I have colleagues that have to do so as a matter of course in their countries. I don't have to do any of those in the UK, but I did in many countries I have visited and worked in (and not just the Mid East, I've known people kidnapped and/or murdered in Mexico City, Johanesburg, and Bangkok). In fact, it's a case of the opposite, that I'm not afraid of the shadows. You, however, seem very good at imagining all types of spooky shadows. Maybe you need to get out in the World a bit more?
...last time you stepped out of your house and checked your car for a bomb? Or had to check the street for any discarded rubbish that might be hiding an IED? ...
I did this in the UK in the 1970s when there was a genuine threat to me and my collegues from terror organizations who were successful in blowing-up mainland UK targets. Then ECHELON was "all pervasive" in monitoring of threats, but most of us carried on with our normal lives without intrusion. Even the Prime Minister walked from Downing Street to Parliament.
There was one important difference between then and now - The Bulk of our treasure to "keep us safe" was spent on the perceived threat of the Soviet Union now, without them, the money must be spent on the War on Terror so we must all be kept frightened and under serveillance.
The AC icon is quite appropriate ----------------------------------->>
Those words, apparently widely current in the English colonies during the lead in to the American Revolution, generally are attributed to Benjamin Franklin. However, both Franklin and Jefferson thought too subtly to allow a single brief quotation to state their full belief about anything.
Another Franklin quote that, in the context, might be relevant: "For having lived long, I have experienced many instances of being obliged, by better information or fuller consideration, to change opinions, even on important subjects, which I once thought right but found to be otherwise."
I'm not sure why your heart-rending and descriptive tale of someone's inability to apply the green cross code at a zebra crossing reminds you that the UK security services secretly spent our tax money building systems to monitor the communications of its own citizens, but then the mind is a tricky thing to fathom.
As far as you willing to give up your privacy to feel safe, good for you. Unfortunately you seem to think that you can speak for me and give up mine too. And funnelling raw data for narrow analysis does surrender privacy, if the raw data being funnelled up for analysis is private. All you did there was dress up what they're doing in different clothes and claim they're someone else.
The cities you mention are among the most dangerous in the world, so the chances of being caught up in something are greatly increased, but their problems stem from criminal elements not terrorist.
So no, I don't have to perform any of the checks that you mentioned when I leave my house, but nor did I in the '70s and '80s when the IRA were at the height of their mainland terror campaign. I just got on with my life. Not because I thought that the security forces were out there guarding me, but because there were so few people out there capable of commiting those acts, making my chances of being affected so slim that there was no point in worrying about it.
Despite what the media try to portray I still believe this today, even though the cause for which modern terrorists fight is different.
I'm not afraid of shadows because there are very few of them that contain monsters, not because there are people out there trying to find every one and shine a light into it.
"I'm not sure why your heart-rending and descriptive tale of someone's inability to apply the green cross code at a zebra crossing reminds you that the UK security services secretly spent our tax money building systems to monitor the communications of its own citizens...." The point of the story is that the pedestrian was so wrapped up in his insistance that he had the right to cross it over-rode his natural instinct of self-preservation. When I see numpties writing such gumph as "my right to privacy is much more imortant than my personal safety", especially when their privacy is very likely not even being threatened, and the point of the exercise is to ensure their safety in the first place, then it is equally stupid and self-delusional as the poor chap that decided "I'll show that van driver." It certainly was his right, I'm sure the driver was eventually done for careless driving or the like, but by that time the pedestrian was beyond caring. People that sit in the comfort and safety of the West often don't have a clue what it's like in the rest of the World. Just ask Sir Bob Geldoff what it was like trying to convince people about the straving masses in Ethiopia, that is the same type of insular denial we get with terrorism. Every now and then there is an attack and the population wakes up, then they slowly drift off back to sleep and the numpties start bleating again.
Cobblers. The chances of a terrorist attack are significantly lower than being hit by lightning while being savaged by hyenas.
You're wrong. Aside from anything else, name ONE terrorist incident that has been thwarted by all this data slurping. The Boston bombers still achieved a 'result' despite the US being fucking told that those guys were dodgy by the Russians.
The data slurping, so far, has not improved our collective security one whit; whilst simultaneously opening up the possibility of that data being misused in a number or harmful ways. A more effective way of combating terrorism would be to stop carpet-bombing civilians and creating the terrorists in the first place,
"....The chances of a terrorist attack are significantly lower than being hit by lightning while being savaged by hyenas....." Whilst that is true in the UK, you might want to consider it is not so in many other parts of the World. It's not the best illustration given its preoccupation only with Islamic terrorist attacks that reach the media, but a quick perusal of the following list for attacks in the last thirty days alone might open your eyes a tad (http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/index.html#Attacks). The difference is the security you take for granted. As you seem so obsessed in claiming that GCHQ is reading all you post, maybe you'd like to post a thankyou? They probably won't see it, but it is the thought that counts after all.
While those were disturbing statistics; I note that a) many of those deaths are in parts of the world that are having active wars and b) the makers of that website do not seem to be wholly unbiased.
Also -and here's the point- hoovering my private data is going to do precisely fuck all to ameliorate any of it or to to increase the safety of UK citizens one iota. You've yet to provide any proof that all this data slurping provides any benefit -to safety or otherwise- at a considerable cost. And that's not even factoring in the way that this data can be used for harmful things for the rest of my natural life; not to mention possibly affecting my grandkid's credit scores or whatever. Quite the reverse; I would contend that alienating people in this manner may push marginal cases over the edge into joining whatever Rebel Alliance may be available at the time.
P.S. I downvoted you once in this thread for using the word 'sheeple'.
"....The chances of a terrorist attack are significantly lower than being hit by lightning while being savaged by hyenas....."
Whilst that is true in the UK, you might want to consider it is not so in many other parts of the World
Well, duh. Other parts actually HAVE hyenas.
> ".....Well, duh. Other parts actually HAVE hyenas." I'm guessing you were the clueless coward that also ignored the post before about the London Tube bombings? You are simply too stupidly self-delusional for words.
Mmm. They guy's point was that the UK does not have hyenas. Luckily for all the plump & bleaty sheep that safely graze here. Because sheep are a prey animal whereas hyenas are predators. Fortunately the sheep have Farmer to look after them in the pastures of crewe/guildford/linkedin...
"....They guy's point was that the UK does not have hyenas....." Just for those living in denial - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents_in_Great_Britain. Now take your head out of your arse and go learn something, you blinkered moron.
There is a logical problem here: success cannot be proved, but failure can. If a planned attack is identified based on analysis of collected data but did not occur, it may not be possible to prove that it did not occur "because of" the data analysis. In addition, if such analysis identifies potential attackers, and consequent police activities alarm or divert them, there is likely no way to claim reasonably that the snooping was beneficial. On the other hand, if an attack occurs, and indications of the preparation later are found in the collected data, that constitutes proof of failure.
As for the Boston bombers, your point is not clear. The FBI investigated Russian warnings, and the investigators concluded, incorrectly as it happened, that they had no basis for further action and no justification for surveillance - thus respecting the Tsarnaevs' civil rights. Similarly, there would have been no reason for the NSA to target their communications, and while absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, no indication that they did so.
My recollection is that the Afghanistan and Iraq wars followed after the 9/11/2001 terrorist attacks in the US.
"Or had to check the street for any discarded rubbish that might be hiding an IED?"
I did this in canary wharf like 3 days ago - some kind person had decided to dump a waitrose bag with unidentified stuff in it, and bankers were walking past it like they're not in a reasonably tight security cordon (it is easy to forget these things). I took a look inside it without touching because the obvious thing to me is it might be an IED (having spent a lot of time growing up on military bases and being aware of where I was at the time).
Because people don't give a damn doesn't mean they're not at risk - but it doesn't justify invasion in their *personal space* either. How often do GCHQ mass-trawl documents sent by snail mail? Oh yeah - never. Why is that I wonder?
".....How often do GCHQ mass-trawl documents sent by snail mail?....." You're missing the point - the authorities can and do monitor snail mail, right down to using x-ray scanners and the like to read through the envelope. It's just that the majority of coms between terror groups (and criminals) are via electronic means such as email, mobile phones, and apps like Skype.
"the authorities can and do monitor snail mail, right down to using x-ray scanners and the like to read through the envelope"
I don't doubt they monitor mail from targeted individuals - this is kinda my point - we're talking about a mass trawl of basically everybody regardless of who they are - it would be hugely expensive. And hey guess what you'd have to take the volumes of mail off civilian royal mail employees who frankly every now and then would say what was happening no matter how much you threatened them.
"......I don't doubt they monitor mail from targeted individuals....." During WW2 the UK censored EVERY letter manually with a body of approximately 10,000 people (IIRC, the biggest censor office was in the Littlewood Pools building in Liverpool). Nowadays they have much more electronic capability to scan letters as they pass through the automated sorting system at 350+ letters per minute. Commercial solutions for companies looking for dodgy items in their company mail are available to order (http://www.themailingroom.com/mail-scanners.php). More exact methods have been used by historians to read ancient texts (http://www.slac.stanford.edu/gen/com/images/technical%20summary_final.pdf). Modern printer inks contain elements that show up very well on x-rays as discussed here (http://sciencelinks.jp/j-east/article/200216/000020021602A0579753.php). At the expense of giving the sheeple something new to bleat about, do you still think your snail mail is unlikely to be read?
".... we're talking about a mass trawl of basically everybody regardless of who they are...." Male bovine manure. If you want to call it a "mass trawl" then it's about time you admitted the fact that 99.99999% of the catch gets thrown back overboard. Only a tiny fraction of the raw data recovered by PRISM and TEMPORA ever actually gets read, as admited right from the start by Snowden and Greenwald.
> Dong Jefe
WAAAAA HAAAA HAAAA HAAAAHAAAAHAAAAHAAAAHAAAAHAAAA! Hoooooooo Hoooooo!
Hawwwwwww hawww hawwwwwwwwwwwwwwww! HEEEeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee heeeeeeeeeeeeeee!!!!!!
That is so cool! The way you mutated his name to show him up! Utter smackdown...
Don Jefe -> Dong Jefe !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1111!!!!!1!
So good I had to repeat it!
Fantastic, plumps, every post of yours is a lesson in caustic, whetted put-downs that Wilde and H. H. Munroe would have sold their bollocks for. I'm on my fucking knees before you! We cringe before your dominance! I am but grass beneath your ravaging herviborous teeth. Sophistication is your middle name and now DONG Jefe knows it!
Roo -> Poo! Fuck me you are red hot. And spelling MY name in RUSKY, man you are so good it actually hurts! You actually put it through google translate to show me up as the leftie that I am, just using a brainless algorithm - imagine what you could have done if you actually had any imagination! I'm going to have to live with this for a very long time, and that is going to be my cross to bear, and it's crushing me.
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
more !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! because you're that good !!!!!!!!!!!
It might sound like I'm being sarcastic but I'm not, seriously you are good you are. No dissing, it's the truth. There's no element of petulant sprog round here, you embody emotional balance and intellectual reach in a way that I (no, WE!) cannot even aspire to. The sad thing is how long it's even taken for me to realise you've been doing this clever stuff with our names! Totally under the fucking radar. I take back everything I said about you - please quote me on it in every future post of yours!
Right. Onwards and upwards.
> Commercial solutions for companies looking for dodgy items in their company mail are available to order
Your link does not say anything about scanning for suspicious text, just 'suspicious items'. Try again.
> Modern printer inks contain elements that show up very well on x-rays as discussed here (http://sciencelinks.jp/j-east/article/200216/000020021602A0579753.php).
It says nothing about 'modern', and this is 'X-ray fluorescence', not x-rays as such.
> More exact methods have been used by historians to read ancient texts (http://www.slac.stanford.edu/gen/com/images/technical%20summary_final.pdf).
If you actually read the pdf you might find it's about iron gall inks NOT MODERN LASER TONERS. And they quote "30 hours to image half a folio from one side".
You lose, lambchop.
Again.
> "....I am in awe...." I assume there was nothing on the kiddie TV channels then?
Oh hell, another 110% razor sharp plump & bleaty putdown. Another angry sheep headbutt; you're starting to bruise my legs, plumps, take pity on me. Lord help us all if you ever sprout a pair of horns.
"....every post of yours is a lesson in...." self-delusional denial. You fail to ever deal with any point raise, simply instead pretending you have a new point when the previous has been soundly debunked, and never admitting your mistakes and continually exposed stupidity. You are the epitome of a loser.
"....Your link does not say anything about scanning for suspicious text, just 'suspicious items'. ...." The example was of a commercial scanner, not the type already in use by the UK and US governments. It was in preparation for your instant reflexive denial that such items could not possibly exist - oops, looks like you had to find another way of denying it instead. Try again.
"....It says nothing about 'modern', and this is 'X-ray fluorescence', not x-rays as such....." Splitting hairs much? I know you have zero technical knowledge so I suppose science is also a very short subject in your pitiful ehjookayshun. Here, open wide:
"X-ray fluorescence analysis (XRF) involves the emission of the characteristic fluorescent X-rays of the atoms of reference and analysis substances that have been excited by the discrete spectrum and the bremsspectrum of an X-ray tube."
Please note the bit about the x-ray tube, loser.
"....If you actually read the pdf you might find it's about iron gall inks NOT MODERN LASER TONERS...." Which is why I included the other link to how copper and other elements in modern inks play EXACTLY the same role as the iron in old inks. Again, I predicted your obvious and reflexive denial. You really are getting boringly predictable, loser. Your problem is you cannot accept the advice or knowledge of someone who's politics you find indigestible (I won't say disagreeable as that would imply you would understand anyone else's POV, which you obviously can't). In truth, you are just very sad in your blinkered, denying "outlook". You lose, again. Again. But don't worry, you can still deny it to yourself, even if every other forum reader will know it's so.
@Plump & bleaty
> You fail to ever deal with any point raise, simply instead pretending you have a new point when the previous has been soundly debunked, and never admitting your mistakes and continually exposed stupidity.
So masterful.... the stench of lanolin will always remind me of the time we spent together...
> The example was of a commercial scanner, not the type already in use by the UK and US governments.
You were trying to claim that our letters are read in the post. You posted some duff info about the wrong kind of scanner, and now claim that it was a different kind - but strangely provide no link. Because they don't exist? "I could tell you but it's a secret" - that's how kids do it.
> "....It says nothing about 'modern', and this is 'X-ray fluorescence', not x-rays as such....." Splitting hairs much?
Well, it's x-ray fluorescence rather than x-rays per se, is what I said, but if you claim that's splitting hairs, fair enough.
Now, the bit about 'modern' you did not answer, plumpywumpy. You have not established that these techniques are in use currently.
> Which is why I included the other link to how copper and other elements in modern inks play EXACTLY the same role as the iron in old inks
1. I'm not aware that copper is used in current toners, 2. where is that link that claims it is? link + exact page if it's a pdf 3. despite what I implied, current toners DO use iron (though in small amounts) and I imagine you read that, thought you'd made a mistake and tried the sheepie backpeddle about started spouting crap about copper.
And 4. let me re-quote it for you
> "30 hours to image half a folio from one side".
Which you didn't address (oh facts are SUCH nuisance aren't they).
And 5, which linkedin matt bryant profile is you - you still haven't answered
Guildford?
Crewe?
Another on that link <http://uk.linkedin.com/pub/dir/Matthew/Bryant>?
And if I was mean I might have taken a copy so if your profile disappears I'll know exactly which one it was immediately and I'll post it here... Feeling lucky, punk?
Oh yes, I know what a nom-de-plum is, I just don't believe you.
"....You posted some duff info about the wrong kind of scanner...." Nope, as I pointed out, commercial examples of mail scanners have been available for many years, I suppose it was simply far to big a jump for a cretin like you to think "hey, if that's what private companies can buy on the open market, I wonder what capability secret government kit could have?" After all, PRISM and TEMPORA are just like ordinary, everyday search engines, right? I apologise for making the mistaken assumption that you might have even the slightest hint of a clue.
"....Well, it's x-ray fluorescence rather than x-rays per se...." Just hurry up and admit you were wrong.
".... I'm not aware that copper is used in current toners...." Try the cyan inks in toners, where it's usually copper phthalocyanine. Here's an example (http://www.freepatentsonline.com/5556727.html), please ask an adult to read the long words for you. Diffferent toners also may use copper and cobalt in red and violet toners as well as "wet" ink cartridges. Oops, did I just show up your complete lack of technical knowledge and inability to do simple research AGAIN? I'll try my hardest to feel sorry for exposing your stupidity yet again, again, honest.
"....And if I was mean I might have taken a copy so if your profile disappears I'll know exactly which one it was immediately and I'll post it here... Feeling lucky, punk?...." Well, actually I'm feeling quite lucky seeing as IT'S A NOM DE PLUME. I'm going to take a wild guess that none of the linkedin entries for any Bryants have changed, but if you feel lucky, please do instigate some form of action against the list from linkedin, I'm just dying to see an El Reg article on another skiddie getting arrested, charged and sent down for another dumb online act. Enjoy your showers with Bubba, just don't drop the soap.
"....Oh yes, I know what a nom-de-plum is, I just don't believe you." Oh, I see it is another problem of your laughable desire to "baaaah-lieve" whatever fantasy takes your fancy. In which case logic is pointless and completely beyond you.
Now that we have dealt with your laughable denial of the technologies that might be used to read snail mail, and your twice as laughable attempts at intimidation (you must have got bullied a lot at school), would you care to provide another opportunity for humour by supplying an actual "thought" on the thread subject? Thought not. Again.
@Plump & Bleaty
> simply far to big a jump for a cretin like you to think "hey, if that's what private companies can buy on the open market, I wonder what capability secret government kit could have?"
You can't be wrong, you just make up some new sci-fi device and suppose the government has it. You lose, plumps. Your fantasy rocks, though.
> Just hurry up and admit you were wrong.
Ok, I was wrong.
> Try the cyan inks in toners, where it's usually copper phthalocyanine
Damnit, he's right again! Now all letters in cyan text can be read [*] by governments. Emo teenager girls of the world, quiver knowing that your missives to your BF can be read (and don't forget to put smiley faces over each letter 'i'). Well done lambchop, most convincing. All I have to do is print in black and the revolution can continue, eh?
> seeing as IT'S A NOM DE PLUME
Yes dear, it is.
[*] in a matter of hours, a point you have carefully neglected to address.
"....You can't be wrong, you just make up some new sci-fi device and suppose the government has it. You lose, plumps. Your fantasy rocks, though....." See, you really hate your lameness being predicted almost as much as you hate being proven wrong again. Again.
"....All I have to do is print in black and the revolution can continue, eh?...." Just as long as you ignore the black toner is rich in carbon, which shows up almost as good as iron and copper. Duh! But don't worry, I'm sure crayon is still OK, so all your missives should be safe.
Oh, BTW, I note you're still nto keen to return to the subject of the thread and get proven worng there too. Should I even pretend to be surprised, just out of politeness?
> Just as long as you ignore the black toner is rich in carbon, which shows up almost as good as iron and copper.
Wow. Grabbing defeat from the jaws of victory. Let me essplain... turns out black toner actually has much more iron in than I realised when I posted that (saw a figure of 40% which seems high but who am I to argue), so in fact black toner might show up quite well (in a process that takes hours, which you conveniently ignore...). So you were right and I was wrong. And now you're claiming that carbon works just as well.
Yeah, course it does... and you'll provide a link to prove it of course...?
And you'll be able to distinguish the carbon in the paper from the carbon in the toner...?
Daft plump pillock. You had it in the bag and because you couldn't admit you're wrong you blew it by inventing new 'facts'.
No, fucking seriously matt, what is it with you being unable to admit you're wrong. You think I'll think less of you if you own up to a mistake? - quite the opposite.
Do you think less of me because I admit I'm wrong (see a few lines above) - I doubt it, actually.
Why can't you just own up that sometimes you're right and you should hold your corner and sometimes you're wrong and you should concede gracefully, and sometimes people have different opinions to you and there isn't a right or wrong, just a difference of perspective.
LOL, whatever, loser! You are so desperate not to admit you've lost again you're now insisting I'm "inventing" stuff.
"....Do you think less of me....." Chap, it would be virtually impossible to think any less of you!
Like I said, what you worry,crayon is probably safe.
"....My individual right to privacy is paramount....." That reminds me of an event from several years ago - we used to have a zebra crossing outside one of our offices, but in rush hour it was quite common for cars to refuse to stop for pedestrians waiting to cross (foreigners may be confused by this but in the UK it is the law that vehicles have to stop to allow pedestrians to cross at certain crossings). One day an exasperated pedestrian stepped out in front of a van, the van couldn't brake in time, and I had the delightful job of using my suit jacket as a pillow for his bleeding head whilst we waited for an ambulance. Whilst he was lying their bleeding to death, he mumbled quite clearly "It was my right to cross...."
Personally, I put my requirement to carry on breathing above my right to privacy (or my right to cross pedestrian crossings in the face of oncoming traffic), and seeing as people like Al Quaeda and co have the intent to stop me breathing I'm quite happy to sacrifice a little privacy. And seeing as neither PRISM or TEMPORA actually spy on all of us, as claimed by the sheeple, but instead funnel raw data for very narrow analysis, it looks like I haven't actually surrendered any privacy at all, thanks.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
