ginush

4 ms·

1.
by ginush 10mo ago
That supports my point. If there really was a mass surveillance regime as the paranoics claim, there would be no need for the border control agents to ask for social media posts to be shown on entry. They would already have this information
2.
by ginush 10mo ago
Of course it is used. But unless you're a target of interest to intelligence analysts, the metadata generated by your online activities will be of no interest whatsoever. It won't even be looked at.
3.
by ginush 10mo ago
An analyst who is tasked with investigating, say, terrorist threats, is not going to be remotely interested in the browsing habits of random people who pose no threat whatsoever. It's just pure paranoia. Yes, we know bulk interception
4.
by ginush 10mo ago
Yes, and this is the only feasible approach given the huge technical advances in communications over the past few decades.
5.
by ginush 10mo ago
He sought revenge after not getting a desired job promotion. There was nothing noble about his intentions, just narcissistic fury with what he, in his narrow world view, saw as unfairness towards himself. I find it amazing how many people h
6.
by ginush 10mo ago
No it doesn't. Think about it. Some computer somewhere that is involved in bulk interception happens to record your browser connecting to, say, the Hacker News website, at various dates and times. This is stored in a dataset. No-one ev
7.
by ginush 10mo ago
We know now that communications are being intercepted in bulk as a matter of intelligence gathering, but that does not equate to everyone being surveilled by the government. What this actually provides, first and foremost, is the capabilit
8.
by ginush 10mo ago
I hope he's still not deluding himself into thinking he did anything positive.