UKC

Just saw James Bond last night and the main plot was that MI6 was being disbanded in favour of a new surveillance organisation who could record and listen to every piece of communication from 9 counties collectively called 9 eyes.

All very science fiction. But is it really when Edward Snowden claims that GCHQ can control any smart phone it wants.

Is Snowden the world's greatest conspiracy theorist, or is there a grain of truth in his o interviews?

In reply to The Lemming: i imagine there's a very large grain of truth. Which bit do you doubt - they do collect a lot of material and certainly it is possible to get control of an android phone

In reply to The Lemming:

Lots of snippets of truth as well as scare-mongering bluster too.

Keep in mind the contrasts of the following:

1. The ABILITY to do something

vs.

2. The DESIRE to do something

vs.

3. The COST of doing something

vs.

4. The VALUE of doing something

vs.

5. The LEGALITY of doing something

most of the population don't fall into all 5 of those to be worried about this.

In reply to The Lemming:

Your first mistake may be taking a Bond film as your starting point.

Have you noticed that in films they track people by CCTV and the images are pin sharp but almost every time some CCTV footage pops up in relation to a real life crime or missing person it shows a blurred blob that could be just about anyone you've ever met?

In reply to Wiley Coyote:


I think this is art imitating reality rather than the other way round. Here are three randomly chosen links for the conspiracy theorists to peruse.

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/mar/05/new-zealand-spying-on-pacifi...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-24715168

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/06/is-the-five-eyes-allian...

In reply to Rampikino:

very easy to do so why bother with the rest?

In reply to The Lemming:

His spy name is Yr Wyddfa.

In reply to malk:

1/10 for that one

In reply to Rampikino:

i don't think GCHQ etc give a hoot about your list..

In reply to Rampikino:

?

I think he's being serious.

In reply to malk:

Worked for them via RAF intelligence for 9 years and still have loads of contacts there including someone who is in that very building doing many of those things Monday to Friday.

Your provenance is what? Online gossip? YouTube? James Bond?

In reply to The Lemming:

They just attract attention to him ( and give credence to him) by reacting the way they do to the things he says.

In reply to The Lemming:

Did you just give spoilers foot the recent bond film. Bastard.

In reply to Philip:

Spoiler?

Not really, you find out immediately. It's no secret twist plot at the end of the film.

In reply to Wiley Coyote:



That's a bloomin good point. With digital technology as it is i.e. the quality of footage from something as small and inexpensive as a Go-Pro or similar, why is CCTV footage so grainy and often apparently pointless?

In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:
My tin hat theory on this is that the footage may be pin sharp, yet the authorities blur the image to get more hits from the public on who the suspects may be.

This could be twofold. More people will give a name of the culprit. And even if the person squealed on is not the actual suspect, the authorities may investigate them simply because somebody thinks they are a Wong un.

In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:

because a lot of the cctv images/videos is taking it darkness or very low light

In reply to The Lemming:


Given that Edward Snowden was actually 'in there' then I'd suggest he can't really be a 'conspiracy theorist'. A fantasist, maybe. But his testimony IS believable.

In reply to The Lemming:

CCTV footage looks like it was shot by a drunk using a rubbish early naughties mobile phone because the camera probably contains a sensor that was old hat about 10 years ago.

In reply to Clauso:


How did you know?- go on, give us a lliwedd....

In reply to The Lemming:


I haven't seen the film yet, but is Yorkshire one of them? They can be right nosy-parkers.

In reply to The Lemming:

As a software engineer - I can confirm that there's a s(&^load of vulnerabilities at all levels of software, and that what Snowden says is 100% in the realm of possible. A recently (proven) one is that of encryption. Up until recently it was best practice to use Dual_EC_DRBG as part of the encryption process. It was then shown to contain a backdoor likely put in place by the NSA: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dual_EC_DRBG

This is no conspiracy theory... It's real. And this is just what's known. There are countless other places where the NSA (and GCHQ too) have likely intercepted - here's another (another way NSA has rendered much of modern cryptography insecure):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logjam_%28computer_security%29

Here's a recent bug that would've allowed unauthorized access to anyone to an Android phone: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stagefright_%28bug%29
It's no stretch of the imagination that this could've been intentional or covertly discovered and exploited.

I find it quite sad (but interesting to ask why) people doubt what Snowden has leaked (everything he says is pretty much attributable to a leaked document).