Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by janrinok on Saturday September 06 2014, @05:44PM   Printer-friendly
from the tell-me-it's-not-so dept.

The Intercept (Glenn Greenwald) runs an article on US plans to use their spook agencies for economic espionage - based on a secret National Intelligence 2009 report:

Throughout the last year, the U.S. government has repeatedly insisted that it does not engage in economic and industrial espionage, [...] an NSA spokesperson emailed The Washington Post to say (emphasis in original): “The department does ***not*** engage in economic espionage in any domain, including cyber.”
After that categorical statement to the Post, the NSA was caught spying on plainly financial targets such as the Brazilian oil giant Petrobraseconomic summitsinternational credit card and banking systems; the EU antitrust commissioner investigating Google, Microsoft, and Intel; and the International Monetary Fund and World Bank. In response, the U.S. modified its denial to acknowledge that it does engage in economic spying, but unlike China, the spying is never done to benefit American corporations.

[...]

But a secret 2009 report issued by Clapper’s [James Clapper Director of National Intelligence] own office explicitly contemplates doing exactly that. The document, the 2009 Quadrennial Intelligence Community Review—provided by NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden—is a fascinating window into the mindset of America’s spies as they identify future threats to the U.S. and lay out the actions the U.S. intelligence community should take in response.

One of the principal threats raised in the report is a scenario “in which the United States’ technological and innovative edge slips”— in particular, “that the technological capacity of foreign multinational corporations could outstrip that of U.S. corporations.” Such a development, the report says “could put the United States at a growing—and potentially permanent—disadvantage in crucial areas such as energy, nanotechnology, medicine, and information technology.”

[...]

... the report describes itself as “an essential long-term piece, looking out between 10 and 20 years” designed to enable ”the IC [to] best posture itself to meet the range of challenges it may face.” Whatever else is true, one thing is unmistakable: the report blithely acknowledges that stealing secrets to help American corporations secure competitive advantage is an acceptable future role for U.S. intelligence agencies.

Hey, US govt.... three cheers and all the world's love.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 3, Interesting) by maxwell demon on Saturday September 06 2014, @05:52PM

    by maxwell demon (1608) on Saturday September 06 2014, @05:52PM (#90256) Journal

    In response, the U.S. modified its denial to acknowledge that it does engage in economic spying, but unlike China, the spying is never done to benefit American corporations.

    So it it is not to benefit American corporations, then to whose benefit is it?

    --
    The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    • (Score: 1) by Horse With Stripes on Saturday September 06 2014, @05:59PM

      by Horse With Stripes (577) on Saturday September 06 2014, @05:59PM (#90258)

      Our government's benefit. Economic and financial power = political power. Other countries that need our help - either direct financial aid or the US buying their currency to help keep it stable - know they have to side with the US or their economy can (and certainly will) suffer. What's money good for if you can't use it to buy friends and influence people?

      Money, it's not just for blow and hookers anymore.

      • (Score: 5, Insightful) by ilPapa on Saturday September 06 2014, @06:29PM

        by ilPapa (2366) on Saturday September 06 2014, @06:29PM (#90273) Journal

        Nonsense. It's all about US corporations, which are the sole owners of the US Govt.

        Just look at the "free trade" agreements, which are negotiated in secret, except for the most powerful corporations, who call the shots. In fact, there's not a single agency of the US Govt where corporations do not call the shots.

        It's been some time since the US Gov't had any independent agency of their own.

        --
        You are still welcome on my lawn.
        • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Aighearach on Saturday September 06 2014, @06:56PM

          by Aighearach (2621) on Saturday September 06 2014, @06:56PM (#90289)

          All Treaties are negotiated in "secret." That is the whole point of negotiations. If negotiators have to announce to the public what they are proposing, they do not negotiate; they sit on their hands and have to wait for a final draft... to be written behind the scenes... so that they can propose it.

          That is true of all types of treaty between nations, it is not a special feature of trade negotiations.

          That you for taking an interest in civics. I hope after years of such interest, you will eventually learn some basic 101 level civics things like, "what is a negotiation?"

          Also note that trade agreements only cover the nations involved in the agreement. You've got a lot of "us and them" type attitude towards the USA, but these are symmetrical agreements between nations. Both sides negotiate, and both sides have local supporters, almost all of whom will be local business-people. Why is it the American corporations (funny term, because all the big corps that could "call... shots" are multinational) that you think are deciding it, and not the Canadian, Mexican, Chinese corporations? If you thought one side gets everything they want... then why would there be entire multi-year rounds of negotiations without any Treaty signed? Oh, because nobody "calls... shots," all the sides have to discuss the details, (in secret because they haven't agreed to anything and people might try to hold them to their ideas later without offering the trades they were asking for) and all the sides then have to agree. The fact that they go to all the expense to organize and attend these negotiations, with no result, is fairly strong circumstantial evidence that they are indeed negotiating.

          • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 06 2014, @07:20PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 06 2014, @07:20PM (#90298)

            So treaties are negotiated in secret, because otherwise nothing would ever get done. Fine. We can understand that.

            Now suddenly the treaty is passed and goes into effect, influencing many citizens in participating nations who now have to live with the terms of that treaty, even if they consider these terms unacceptable for whatever valid reasons. Protesting is now useless because the treaty has already been signed. The damage has already been done and international treaties cannot easily be undone.

            How can such a chain of events EVER be considered a good thing in a society that values democracy?!

          • (Score: 3, Informative) by SlimmPickens on Saturday September 06 2014, @10:21PM

            by SlimmPickens (1056) on Saturday September 06 2014, @10:21PM (#90359)

            I agree with much of what you said, however if you think these treaties are fair and balanced, have a look at the criticism [wikipedia.org] of the US-Australia FTA

        • (Score: 2, Interesting) by Horse With Stripes on Saturday September 06 2014, @07:46PM

          by Horse With Stripes (577) on Saturday September 06 2014, @07:46PM (#90311)

          US corporations may buy our politicians, but what the NSA is doing is not done on behalf us US corporations. If the NSA worked for US corporations then it would be those companies, and not the US government, dictating what back doors, trace traps, etc would be put into networking & computer gear, cell phones, and who knows what else. But that's not how it works, is it?

          Our senators and congressmen may be for sale, bit TFA is about what the NSA is up to. Since they have leverage over every politician (they know every skeleton in every closet) they make the rules.

    • (Score: 2) by khallow on Saturday September 06 2014, @10:03PM

      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Saturday September 06 2014, @10:03PM (#90349) Journal

      It can't be that hard to think of something. I imagine the pretext would be to level the playing field by counter other, more corrupt countries's intelligence efforts which give their businesses an unfair advantage.

  • (Score: 1) by xtronics on Saturday September 06 2014, @06:15PM

    by xtronics (1884) on Saturday September 06 2014, @06:15PM (#90266) Homepage

    A lot of our large corporations get money and information from the spooks for 'favors' they preform.

    It is also a good way to start a war.

    China also does it - probably the biggest transfer of technology ever.

    • (Score: 4, Insightful) by Thexalon on Saturday September 06 2014, @06:24PM

      by Thexalon (636) on Saturday September 06 2014, @06:24PM (#90272)

      It is also a good way to start a war.

      Bear in mind that a war is usually very good news for the corporate bigwigs you're talking about, because it allows the suspension of the rules that usually limit the transfer of public funds to private companies. And as long as that war is in a far-away place, no direct supply lines or corporate assets will be adversely affected.

      As for the civilians caught in the middle, and the military folks who have to fight and get killed or wounded, and the taxpayers that have to foot the bill, the attitude mostly amounts to "screw 'em".

      --
      The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Thexalon on Saturday September 06 2014, @06:17PM

    by Thexalon (636) on Saturday September 06 2014, @06:17PM (#90267)

    The more vehemently a person or organization denies something, without providing exculpatory evidence, the more likely they are to have actually done whatever they're accused of.

    For example:
    "I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky." - Bill Clinton
    "People have got to know whether or not their President is a crook. Well, I am not a crook." - Richard Nixon
    "We do not torture." - George W Bush

    This goes doubly so for organizations who's job it is to lie to foreign governments, because it is of course very easy for that to morph into lying to our own government.

    --
    The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
    • (Score: 3, Interesting) by Aighearach on Saturday September 06 2014, @07:02PM

      by Aighearach (2621) on Saturday September 06 2014, @07:02PM (#90291)

      Yeah, everybody knows, the only way to convince anybody of your innocence is with a mild, uninterested denial.

      "I don't think I killed that man. There is no evidence that says I did it." Oh, right, innocent.
      "What the *&#^ he was my friend, $#% you, I loved him, I would never have killed him! :,,,,,(" GUILTY!

      I remain unconvinced.

      "I did not have sex with that underage girl. And if it was *me* that did something like that, I wouldn't have left evidence on her phone of our friendship." You say innocent, I say guilty.

      • (Score: 4, Insightful) by Thexalon on Saturday September 06 2014, @08:30PM

        by Thexalon (636) on Saturday September 06 2014, @08:30PM (#90326)

        It's not the denial that suggests otherwise, it's the denial without evidence that contradicts the claim being denied.

        So "He was my friend, I loved him, I would never have killed him!" is nowhere near as strong as "He was my dearest friend. Had I not been in Chicago when it happened, and instead been by his side, maybe I could have stopped what happened."

        --
        The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
    • (Score: 4, Funny) by Tork on Saturday September 06 2014, @09:00PM

      by Tork (3914) Subscriber Badge on Saturday September 06 2014, @09:00PM (#90332)
      Question: How were they supposed to phrase their denials if it turned out the accusations were false?

      "I did not have sexual relations with that woman. Here is my diary where I wrote every day about how that woman was in the building but I explicitly stated I didn't have unprofessional contact with her."

      "People have got to know whether or not their President is a crook. Well, I am not a crook. Here's a memory test that proves I didn't know anything about the burglary. "

      "We do not torture. Here's a list of reviews on Amazon of our guests at Gitmo giving us an average of 4 stars."

      I wouldn't mind, but you cherry picked examples that supported your point without showing us somebody who produced a proper denial and was vindicated. In light of your point, that's actually kinda funny.

      --
      🏳️‍🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️‍🌈
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 06 2014, @09:32PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 06 2014, @09:32PM (#90342)

        How about all the accusations that the president was born in kenya?

        For the most part accusations that are refuted with clear proof tend to be quickly forgotten because it is by definition a non-story. So coming up with a list of such cases takes a lot more work than coming up with a list of vehement denials that were then shown to be false because that makes for a good story.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 06 2014, @10:14PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 06 2014, @10:14PM (#90355)
          The point you missed is that in many practical cases it's hard, possibly even impossible to prove the non-existence of something.
          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 07 2014, @03:32PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 07 2014, @03:32PM (#90497)

            > The point you missed is that in many practical cases it's hard, possibly even impossible to prove the non-existence of something.

            Especially when your vehement denials are followed by hard proof to the contrary!!!

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 07 2014, @06:25PM

              by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 07 2014, @06:25PM (#90522)
              That is a strange answer. "There are cases where that proof doesn't exist" "Especially when you have hard proof!" Yeah, I don't get your meaning.
              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 07 2014, @06:58PM

                by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 07 2014, @06:58PM (#90529)

                If you have to reword the statement to say the opposite of what it originally said, that's more than strange, it's intellectually dishonest.

                Just in case you are stupid rather than dishonest, I'll spell it out for you. The contrary of proof of non-existence is proof of existence.

                • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 07 2014, @07:56PM

                  by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 07 2014, @07:56PM (#90546)

                  > If you have to reword the statement to say the opposite of what it originally said, that's more than strange, it's intellectually dishonest.

                  Except that is not what happened. You're having trouble keeping up with what this conversation is actually about.

                  > Just in case you are stupid rather than dishonest, I'll spell it out for you. The contrary of proof of non-existence is proof of existence.

                  While we're on the topic of stupidity and needing things spelled out: Things that don't happen typically don't leave evidence that they didn't happen. This is what one of the original OPs was asking about. The hypothetical Nixon example perfectly illustrated that. You can't prove he didn't know, you can just fail to prove that he did. So if he really didn't know about it, then how would his denial of it change in a way to indicate that it's true?

                  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 07 2014, @09:25PM

                    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 07 2014, @09:25PM (#90565)

                    > The hypothetical Nixon example perfectly illustrated that.

                    And the hypothetical Clinton example perfectly illustrated my point.
                    Guess I'm not the only one having trouble keeping up.
                    Next time read the words on the page not the words in your head.

                    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 07 2014, @11:57PM

                      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 07 2014, @11:57PM (#90591)
                      I'm trying to make those words appear so I can read them. Got an actual answer?
                    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 08 2014, @05:20PM

                      by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 08 2014, @05:20PM (#90853)
                      I take it that's a 'no'?
    • (Score: 2) by Rune of Doom on Sunday September 07 2014, @02:45AM

      by Rune of Doom (1392) on Sunday September 07 2014, @02:45AM (#90396)

      I've gotten to the point with NSA news that I got with banking news about two years ago - I just assume that any given report details unconscionable violations of the spirit and/or letter of the law that ought to end in the responsible parties being tried, convicted, and jailed for the rest of their natural lives, but that in fact nothing will actually happen. Then I go back to contemplating the likely collapse of the American way of life within my lifetime, and working to ensure that myself and my family survive it in relative prosperity, if possible.

  • (Score: 3, Interesting) by Aighearach on Saturday September 06 2014, @06:46PM

    by Aighearach (2621) on Saturday September 06 2014, @06:46PM (#90283)

    Some lies jumped right out at me, especially the Petrobras one. What surprised me is that it was a link I followed before, not anything new.

    And I already looked into it. It is just lies. They didn't investigate Petrobras, that was a real life, legit terrorist financing investigation.

    Look, people, if you include dishonest propaganda in your accusations, it renders your accusations unworthy of notice or consideration. Only fools, or the NSA themselves, would do that, and discredit their critics. And the critics will repeat these accusations even on video, so I know that the NSA didn't make up fake lies about itself here. These are real critics, who really are stupid. And dishonest.

    If there was some real accusation buried in there, my advice is next time stick to the accusations that are likely to be true, don't just throw everything at the wall including known propaganda.

    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 06 2014, @09:44PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 06 2014, @09:44PM (#90343)

      > They didn't investigate Petrobras, that was a real life, legit terrorist financing investigation.

      Come on, extraordinary claims like that require extraordinary evidence, or you know, at least one URL.

      I just spent five minutes trying to verify your claim and either it is bogus or my google-fu is bad. The best I could find was one of those misdirects that Clapper is famous for: "It is not a secret that the Intelligence Community collects information about economic and financial matters, and terrorist financing." [dni.gov] Given his record of manipulating language to tell the "least untruthful" lies while under oath a vague press release from his office carries no weight at all.

      If you have something more substantial than that, by all means tell us!

    • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Sunday September 07 2014, @11:39PM

      by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Sunday September 07 2014, @11:39PM (#90587) Journal

      It is just lies. They didn't investigate Petrobras, that was a real life, legit terrorist financing investigation.

      [Citation needed]

      --
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
  • (Score: 3) by evilviper on Saturday September 06 2014, @07:59PM

    by evilviper (1760) on Saturday September 06 2014, @07:59PM (#90316) Homepage Journal

    Like pretty-much all the Snowden leaks, this is nothing new or surprising, and I don't understand the feigned shock and surprise over it. This has been confirmed going on for a couple decades:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ECHELON#Concerns [wikipedia.org]

    --
    Hydrogen cyanide is a delicious and necessary part of the human diet.
    • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 06 2014, @09:46PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 06 2014, @09:46PM (#90344)

      > I don't understand the feigned shock and surprise over it.

      Because not everyone is a paranoid spy nerd. Most people live their lives worried about what's right in front of them.
      Step outside of your own head for a minute and realize your personal experience of life is not the same as anyone else's.

      • (Score: 3) by evilviper on Sunday September 07 2014, @07:31AM

        by evilviper (1760) on Sunday September 07 2014, @07:31AM (#90443) Homepage Journal

        Most people live their lives worried about what's right in front of them.

        "The system has been reported in a number of public sources."

        Here's just a few:

        * The New York Times
        * BBC News
        * The New Statesman
        * ZDNet
        * Heise
        * The Guardian
        * The Wall Street Journal
        * The Associated Press
        * Deutsche Welle
        * NPR
        * Der Spiegel
        * The Sydney Morning Herald
        * The Daily Telegraph
        * CNET
        * The New Yorker
        * The Economist
        * Le Monde
        * Computerworld
        * The Christian Science Monitor
        and many, many more.

        --
        Hydrogen cyanide is a delicious and necessary part of the human diet.
        • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 07 2014, @08:33AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 07 2014, @08:33AM (#90447)

          You can insist on being right in the face of something you find inexplicable, or you can chose to ask yourself what you are missing that would explain the things you don't understand.

    • (Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 07 2014, @02:08AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 07 2014, @02:08AM (#90390)

      Yeh, what the other AC said. Not everyone has a Cryptome Platinum account.

    • (Score: 2) by Yog-Yogguth on Monday September 08 2014, @05:22PM

      by Yog-Yogguth (1862) Subscriber Badge on Monday September 08 2014, @05:22PM (#90854) Journal

      Okay so let's feign that I started muttering on about how a late seventies mono cassette recorder shows there's nothing new or surprising about NEURON. That's the point you managed to make.

      --
      Bite harder Ouroboros, bite! tails.boum.org/ linux USB CD secure desktop IRC *crypt tor (not endorsements (XKeyScore))
      • (Score: 2) by evilviper on Monday September 08 2014, @07:12PM

        by evilviper (1760) on Monday September 08 2014, @07:12PM (#90922) Homepage Journal

        I already listed some of the extensive main-stream media coverage of the program in a reply to another comment in this thread:

        http://soylentnews.org/comments.pl?sid=3783&cid=90443 [soylentnews.org]

        It was even investigated by the EU Parliament... hardly a forum for conspiracy theorists.

        As for Snowden's most popular leak about domestic surveillance, the EFF uncovered the issue years before, and even started a trial. There was press coverage of the issue, as well. Hell, there was tons of press around the Congress debating the telcom immunity bill. EFF provides a handy timeline of revelations, starting back before Snowden was old enough to get a job:

        https://www.eff.org/nsa-spying/timeline [eff.org]

        --
        Hydrogen cyanide is a delicious and necessary part of the human diet.
        • (Score: 2) by Yog-Yogguth on Tuesday September 09 2014, @08:29AM

          by Yog-Yogguth (1862) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday September 09 2014, @08:29AM (#91139) Journal

          Am I being trolled by someone who feigns that they think musty old classical signal intelligence ECHELON that reaches back to before Margaret Thatcher became Prime Minister (it started in the 1960ies for fucks sake!) is relevant in scale, scope, efficiency, reach, and capability to even a SINGLE fully automatic subsystem like KEYSCORE?

          And KEYSCORE is not the only revelation in case you thought so.

          Do you also have a problem with ants stampeding over and crushing your car? Ever heard of the concept called scale? How about oversight?

          In case you're not trolling you're vastly underestimating what has been documented (and what is obvious from it) and that would be the primary reason why you think people are feigning shock and surprise.

          And at this point I'll give you some credit if you're a troll because if so you're doing a nice nifty double trolling: most people actually aren't shocked and surprised, not for real and not even feigned . Instead most people as well as most nerds or geeks or IT people or security consultants (lol) or whatever you call them are completely apathetic and clueless.

          And while such apathy is unlikely to make a negative difference it's still tragic and a damning verdict of humanity at large. Because in total it means humans are glass —replacement for silica substrate in a new environment— and at least to me it's incredibly sad if that's all we were ever able to be/become.

          I feel sorry for Snowden, because the people he has given the information to are such slow and likely compromised dullards as they are he even went out and tried to give them a little push by talking about MONSTERMIND and yet the silence is deafening.

          [Sure I have too high expectations considering people lack the analytic ability to realize it would take Russia half a day to invade Ukraine if that actually was what they were doing but I'm still disappointed. Looking on the bright side of things maybe we'll get some intercontinental fireworks before the curtain falls. Huck Fumans :D ]

          --
          Bite harder Ouroboros, bite! tails.boum.org/ linux USB CD secure desktop IRC *crypt tor (not endorsements (XKeyScore))
          • (Score: 2) by Yog-Yogguth on Tuesday September 09 2014, @06:47PM

            by Yog-Yogguth (1862) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday September 09 2014, @06:47PM (#91391) Journal

            I have to modify myself a bit: my exasperation is getting the better of my patience thus the tone could easily be read as a lot harsher than intended (I did too well on keeping it light in the first comment though since the point was completely lost).

            Nope, this is not feigned :)

            --
            Bite harder Ouroboros, bite! tails.boum.org/ linux USB CD secure desktop IRC *crypt tor (not endorsements (XKeyScore))
            • (Score: 2) by evilviper on Wednesday September 10 2014, @02:36AM

              by evilviper (1760) on Wednesday September 10 2014, @02:36AM (#91556) Homepage Journal

              Not so much "harsh"... More like "psychotic raving".

              Just FYI.

              --
              Hydrogen cyanide is a delicious and necessary part of the human diet.
              • (Score: 2) by Yog-Yogguth on Thursday September 11 2014, @10:31PM

                by Yog-Yogguth (1862) Subscriber Badge on Thursday September 11 2014, @10:31PM (#92150) Journal

                I don't mind that you're dong this for laughs and I'll even help you improve your game since you've missed so much.

                Let me first remind you that it is always bad to give no direct response to actual content. With such mistakes it usually doesn't matter whether people think you are a troll or not since there is no mutual conversation taking place.

                There's likely no one among those who have actually read the released information who aren't fully aware of how much any meaningful conveyance of the facts as portrayed by the leaks or attempts at discussion about it sounds exactly like lunatics on parade. This is partly why I wanted to moderate myself and my dismissal of those slowly releasing some of the files. I can fully sympathize with them for example having trouble with releasing things they find wildly unbelievable, impossible, or insane, no matter what the documentation says —but they still have a duty to do it and let the material speak for itself.

                Have you not noticed how quite a few people including some on this site have stated that “the conspiracy theorists were right” as far as it concerns the topics? That is a widely accepted opinion among those who have paid any attention at all. You can not reasonably have been one of those conspiracy theorists since you think ECHELON can be used as any kind of valid argument along the lines of “nothing new under the sun”, yet that is the gist of your statements and that would make you not only irrational but also in a strange denial.

                Your statements are incongruous and remain incongruous both if the leaks are false and if they are true. I'm sure you'll claim otherwise but it is blatant :)

                And lastly, if you claim “psychotic raving” at such idle chat as this then you having nothing left to taunt your mark with if they ever speculate freely: you're standing at the entrance of the rabbit hole claiming the darkness is the bottom of the hole and you reduce yourself to ignorant spam …or should one instead say “a worthless piece of glass”? :)

                Further with “psychotic raving” any future response from you reflects badly upon you; either you were only name-calling (and nothing else at all) or you continue to find it valuable despite being mad. You've ceded the effective last word, handed it on a silver platter, even if retracting it. You need a modicum of knowledge on rhetoric and fallacies if you want to be a real troll or you'll just end up being trolled yourself and taken for an idiot either way.

                On the plus side your tinge of desperation makes you seem believable, well done if it wasn't accidental.

                Thank you for making me smile several times, it is much appreciated (no sarcasm) and was worth the moments of consternation (don't worry; I don't believe you're feigning idiocy). Also even your input works as test data so there's that as well, I am interested in fuzzing parts of the various systems and this conversation has been useful in that regard (the files are enough to explain how that works, doubt you're interested and it wouldn't matter if you were).

                --
                Bite harder Ouroboros, bite! tails.boum.org/ linux USB CD secure desktop IRC *crypt tor (not endorsements (XKeyScore))
  • (Score: 1) by wonkey_monkey on Saturday September 06 2014, @08:19PM

    by wonkey_monkey (279) on Saturday September 06 2014, @08:19PM (#90323) Homepage

    The Secret U.S. Plans for Economic Espionage

    FTFY

    --
    systemd is Roko's Basilisk
    • (Score: 2) by wonkey_monkey on Monday September 08 2014, @09:43AM

      by wonkey_monkey (279) on Monday September 08 2014, @09:43AM (#90675) Homepage

      Great, someone corrected it. Now I look like an idiot! ;)

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk