Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Bauglir]

I'll side with GCHQ here. Between 3% and 11% is a surprising number, in that it's so low. Obviously, there's no number so high that it could be surprising, unless it were to exceed the actual number of all captured images.

[Frumple]

Maybe, not sure.  I'm saying, in a very poorly worded way, the internal politics and policies of the organization may have prevented this stuff from being taught in any meaningful way.  Teaching psychology on human sexuality/urges may just not fit in the 'professional' spy business viewpoint.

... if it doesn't, someone needs to be drug out into the street and shot (... or at least fired with extreme prejudice), because they're doing more damage to their country's intelligence operations than their actual enemies.

Seriously, you basically don't get human psych at all if you leave that out. It's right up there with food for major human motivations. Leaving that stuff out in regards to data processing and whatnot is just... incompetence isn't even a strong enough word...

I'll side with GCHQ here. Between 3% and 11% is a surprising number, in that it's so low. Obviously, there's no number so high that it could be surprising, unless it were to exceed the actual number of all captured images.

Ha. Yeah, I guess they could have been coming from that angle...

[LeoLeonardoIII]

I think they were trying to position themselves as the straight-laced Man Of The House who is surprised (oh my) that anyone would be so filthy as to enjoy pornography. I bet a higher percentage of their work computers have porn on them than the percentage of captured chats that contained porn.

[LeoLeonardoIII]

"You've been Greatordered!" Huahaha

[Korbac]

What I'd do if I worked there would be:
Take pics of my dick
Tell coworker to check on a certain skype call (one I'm on)
Laugh as soon as they see my dick on their screen

He who has no shame cannot be blackmailed!

[LeoLeonardoIII]

Tangentially, and you can thank Reddit for this tidbit, it's extremely likely that some of those inappropriate pictures were of minors, which means they're in possession of a lot of what may be considered child pornography.

It's ok for the government to do illegal things, see, because we don't know that they're doing them.

Oops!

[Baffler]

Doublepost to serve as a bump:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-26512369
Seems politicians have had the amazing revelation that monitoring the internet makes people less trustful of using it!

Who'd have known?!

I'll alert the media! Someone get on the line with Silicon Valley! This is big, people!

More seriously though, she's even more right than she realizes. Frankly, I have no reason to believe she isn't just paying lip service either. If they want trust, it will take action: something we've yet to see as far as I'm aware.

Webcam stuff

*turns kinect toward the wall, and applies sticky tape to laptop webcam.

[Aqizzar]

It probably wasn't too unknown, but the Senate Intelligence Committee has been running a long investigation on the use of "waterboarding" and other such practices used on detainees in prior years, which President Obama officially called acts of torture (along with most of the civilized world).  It's a long investigation because it involved trawling through millions of documents, trying to get the CIA to explain itself, which is something the CIA has been reticent to do since the day it was founded.  Somewhere along the way, a tiff started up between the CIA and the Senate, after the committee started finding documents the CIA probably didn't mean to provide (namely, that didn't want anyone to read), and after the CIA found out about it became really really interested in knowing how the Senate got them.

This lead to a whole series of weird hidden shit that ultimately culminated in Chairwoman Feinstein publicly accusing the CIA of tampering with computers and intimidating investigators this morning.  Main reason for suspicion?  The stuff being investigated happened mostly under the detainee program overseen by then deputy director John Brennan, who is now the CIA's overall director.

Meanwhile, Edward Snowden thinks it's hilarious for a politician to be crying foul about the CIA reading her emails when she had no problem with the NSA's wiretapping program.  He said so himself.

[nenjin]

And so, bizarrely, Snowden and the Conservatives who'd like to hang him for treason find themselves laughing at the same joke, using the same punchline.

Goddamn, our politics are so stupid.

[XXSockXX]

Crap, I totally forgot to post this. It's from the carnival in Düsseldorf.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

[Sheb]

Also, that document wasn't some super-duper secret undercover agent list or something. It was a index of all the files the CIA had handed over. Basically, the CIA just dumped millions of documents on the Intelligence Committee, both to make it hard to investigate and so they could removed documents as needed (Some investigators saw 900 files disappears from the database).

We're looking at a cover-up of a cover-up.

[Helgoland]

Düsseldorf

THat explains this rather well. Did you see the Tebartz-van Elst one from Mainz?

[XXSockXX]

Düsseldorf

THat explains this rather well. Did you see the Tebartz-van Elst one from Mainz?

Yeah, that was funny. I saw a whole gallery of different wagons and thought for a second about posting them in the appropriate politics threads, but I forgot. Also some (the Russia/Ukraine ones) seemed not funny enough anymore when shit got more serious.

BTW I accidentally wrote "Cologne" instead first, because that's Carnival Central, don't hit me...

[Zangi]

Also, that document wasn't some super-duper secret undercover agent list or something. It was a index of all the files the CIA had handed over. Basically, the CIA just dumped millions of documents on the Intelligence Committee, both to make it hard to investigate and so they could removed documents as needed (Some investigators saw 900 files disappears from the database).

We're looking at a cover-up of a cover-up.

So basically, they dumped a bunch of data, maybe more then intended... and thought they could take some of it back without saying a thing?  Or they planned to take back the incriminating data without saying a thing from the beginning.

Yup.

[LeoLeonardoIII]

Sounds like they wanted to blanket the senate with too many papers so they wouldn't be able to find all the good stuff, but the CIA could still say they delivered everything the senate requested. But the CIA made a mistake and gave away stuff they didn't want to. If they hadn't tried to bury the interesting info in a pile of fluff they wouldn't have screwed up. It's their own fault.