7 ms·

Mass surveillance was conspiracy nut territory. Wide spread market fixing, libor, gold, silver was conspiracy nut territory. The US engaging in blscksites and

Mass surveillance was conspiracy nut territory. Wide spread market fixing, libor, gold, silver was conspiracy nut territory. The US engaging in blscksites and systematic torture was conspiracy nut territory. But criticizing your pro Government apologia only results in comments being banned and removed -- perhaps just more conspiracy nut territory?

DashRattlesnake 10y ago
So where's your evidence that the US is secretly stockpiling chemical weapons? Note: a cynical claim that "they're all liars." is not evidence. Or am I supposed to trust a stopped clock [the nuts] since it was shown to be right twice a day?
no_wizard 10y ago
I am taking issue with this. This was not conspiracy wing nut theory. As far back as 2004 cybersecurity (for lack of a better term) experts were reporting repeatedly that governments (not just the USA) were exponentially using exploits, as were other unknown or non-govt actors, and other techniques for malicious reasons, from spying on citizens to hacking infrastructure. Here's just a nice litmus of that: http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d04321.pdf http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d04321.pdf http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB424/docs/Cyber-027.pdf http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB424/docs/Cyber-027.pdf https://www.forbes.com/forbes/2004/0920/070.html https://www.forbes.com/forbes/2004/0920/070.html here is even a hertiage foundation report talking about sharing privacy keeping technologies with the government in the name of 'fighting terrorism' http://www.heritage.org/homeland-security/report/technologies-can-protect-privacy-information-shared-combat-terrorism http://www.heritage.org/homeland-security/report/technologie... http://www.heritage.org/defense/report/information-oversight-practical-lessons-foreign-intelligence http://www.heritage.org/defense/report/information-oversight... and here is the ACLU sounding the alarm in August of 2004: https://www.aclu.org/files/FilesPDFs/surveillance_report.pdf https://www.aclu.org/files/FilesPDFs/surveillance_report.pdf Ironically, its around the same time the NSA purported to have their own 'rules' in how they gather, which were obtained here: https://epic.org/privacy/nsa/foia/EPIC-NSA-USSID-18-and-Domestic-Procedures.pdf https://epic.org/privacy/nsa/foia/EPIC-NSA-USSID-18-and-Dome... and of course, not more than a few years later we have these reports: https://www.eff.org/pages/calea-faq https://www.eff.org/pages/calea-faq https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2008/12/behind-the-legal-fight-over-nsas-stellar-wind-surveillance/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2008/12/behind-the-legal... It was never a wing nut conspiracy theory. Its just nobody was looking close enough to care.
- ionised 10y ago
  It was the scale of this kind of thing that was considered conspiracy theory.
  - no_wizard 10y ago
    It's not even that. Reading through the ample material I have cited it's clear that the scale was well defined. The ACLU even cited it as one of their primary concerns and even in the PBS doc they mention that it's a atrial evolution and that was in 2001. I'm not convinced in any way this couldn't be foreseen if people would've paid more attention
Bluestrike2 10y ago
There's a bit of difference between mass surveillance and the infrastructure necessary for a viable chemical weapons program. Assuming a major nation state would even want to, considering their rather limited tactical value on the modern battlefield. Anyhow, the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons out of The Hague oversees compliance with the Chemical Weapons Convention. That includes verifying the destruction of stockpiles and weapons facilities as well as industry inspections that closely monitor precursors, as well as investigating cases of alleged production or usage. As of last October, 93% of declared stockpiles has been destroyed and independently verified by the OPCW. You don't have to take the US government's word for their numbers.

DashRattlesnake 10y ago

So where's your evidence that the US is secretly stockpiling chemical weapons? Note: a cynical claim that "they're all liars." is not evidence. Or am I supposed to trust a stopped clock [the nuts] since it was shown to be right twice a day?

no_wizard 10y ago

I am taking issue with this. This was not conspiracy wing nut theory. As far back as 2004 cybersecurity (for lack of a better term) experts were reporting repeatedly that governments (not just the USA) were exponentially using exploits, as were other unknown or non-govt actors, and other techniques for malicious reasons, from spying on citizens to hacking infrastructure. Here's just a nice litmus of that: http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d04321.pdf http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d04321.pdf http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB424/docs/Cyber-027.pdf http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB424/docs/Cyber-027.pdf https://www.forbes.com/forbes/2004/0920/070.html https://www.forbes.com/forbes/2004/0920/070.html here is even a hertiage foundation report talking about sharing privacy keeping technologies with the government in the name of 'fighting terrorism' http://www.heritage.org/homeland-security/report/technologies-can-protect-privacy-information-shared-combat-terrorism http://www.heritage.org/homeland-security/report/technologie... http://www.heritage.org/defense/report/information-oversight-practical-lessons-foreign-intelligence http://www.heritage.org/defense/report/information-oversight... and here is the ACLU sounding the alarm in August of 2004: https://www.aclu.org/files/FilesPDFs/surveillance_report.pdf https://www.aclu.org/files/FilesPDFs/surveillance_report.pdf Ironically, its around the same time the NSA purported to have their own 'rules' in how they gather, which were obtained here: https://epic.org/privacy/nsa/foia/EPIC-NSA-USSID-18-and-Domestic-Procedures.pdf https://epic.org/privacy/nsa/foia/EPIC-NSA-USSID-18-and-Dome... and of course, not more than a few years later we have these reports: https://www.eff.org/pages/calea-faq https://www.eff.org/pages/calea-faq https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2008/12/behind-the-legal-fight-over-nsas-stellar-wind-surveillance/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2008/12/behind-the-legal... It was never a wing nut conspiracy theory. Its just nobody was looking close enough to care.

ionised 10y ago
It was the scale of this kind of thing that was considered conspiracy theory.
- no_wizard 10y ago
  It's not even that. Reading through the ample material I have cited it's clear that the scale was well defined. The ACLU even cited it as one of their primary concerns and even in the PBS doc they mention that it's a atrial evolution and that was in 2001. I'm not convinced in any way this couldn't be foreseen if people would've paid more attention

Bluestrike2 10y ago

There's a bit of difference between mass surveillance and the infrastructure necessary for a viable chemical weapons program. Assuming a major nation state would even want to, considering their rather limited tactical value on the modern battlefield. Anyhow, the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons out of The Hague oversees compliance with the Chemical Weapons Convention. That includes verifying the destruction of stockpiles and weapons facilities as well as industry inspections that closely monitor precursors, as well as investigating cases of alleged production or usage. As of last October, 93% of declared stockpiles has been destroyed and independently verified by the OPCW. You don't have to take the US government's word for their numbers.