I'm not sure if you're being ironic ? The Wassenaar Arrangement already applies to both conventional arms and computer exploit technologies. That's what you're referring to, correct?
> Israel does it, but only for Arabic or Muslim tourists
Arabic is a language and speaking it is absolutely no guarantee that you are a muslim. Lots of non-muslims speak Arabic both inside and outside Israel, including a significant number of Israeli Jews who routinely engage in good mannered and friendly commerce and friendship with fellow Israeli citizens who are Muslim or Druze or Bedouin. Being bi-lingual Arabic & Hebrew is quite common in Israel. I visited a school in Tel Aviv where Muslim and Jewish children were taught together in Arabic and Hebrew; they were all fluently bi-lingual and completely integrated. They are part of a long term plan for the future Israel by removing barriers and segregation and building an integrated country together.
Having visited Israel multiple times, I know for a fact that speaking Arabic does not get you refused entry nor does it single you out for prejudiced treatment.
However, a track record of making anti-Israel statements - not the language you speak nor your religion - will get you questioned and may lead to refused entry. Most people refused entry this way are not Muslim, they are white westerners from left-leaning Christian or secular groups who are active in BDS. That's exactly the same as a track record of making anti-America statements will get you questioned at US borders and quite probably refused entry (see other comments in this thread for examples of that). Israel are doing nothing different from what America or Canada or the UK or Turkey or Saudi Arabia or any other country does.
I see what you did there. You're suggesting a moral high ground by insinuating you are against prejudice but are really being prejudiced against Israel for doing something that every country does. I just don't know if its through ignorance or if it's an intentional slur.
I said Arabic OR Muslim because they are different. Maybe it would be useful for you to start reading properly what people write.
I said Arabic people and not people speaking Arabic because that is completely different. Most of my friends in Tel-Aviv speak arabic or understand it because Arabs represent a significant proportion of Israel's population/residents.
I said "only for Arabic OR Muslim tourists" because they are treated differently at the borders. Just go to Ben Gurion airport or the Wall and you will see that Israeli soldiers are asked to pay special attention to Arabic and Muslims. That has nothing to do with racism or anything like that: they just know that there has never been a terrorist attack conducted by a white Christian guy.
What I said is based only on facts [1] and what my friends in the army told me. Because, yes, I lived in Tel-Aviv for 2 years so: yes I know a bit about Israel / no, I'm not really the guy who is going to discriminate Israel.
Next time keep your mouth shut. Really.
> I've always been reasonably confident that if I'm out of the country, the American embassy will help me.
You and many Americans. Helpfully aided in that belief by TV programs like Beyond Borders where US authorities act as the World Police jumping into other countries and taking over investigations and rescuing US citizens from any and every scrape they get themselves into.
Outside your own country, your local authorities have very little ability to do much and certainly won't help you in any relatively minor scrapes (nor in most major ones either). Although the US exerts more external influence than it really should, that's limited to guarding US interests (like copyright protection or drug related things).
Unless you happen to be key to US national interest, you'll be on your own, apart from a visit in prison from the embassy staff to let you know that they know you're there - just like the citizens of every other country, as Andrew Nõmm found out.
The Barbary wars were conducted because of the economic impact of taking American sailors as slaves. Free-ing the enslaved sailors was just a value-added benefit.
> all he has to do is wait for the statute of limitations to expire.
The Swedish investigation may well expire (parts have already). This has never really been about the Swedish charges.
The English charges (relating to failing to comply with bail) do not expire. Very few offences in English law expire - something I'm sure will surprise Americans who are used to relatively short statute of limitations on even some serious crimes (e.g. the Bill Cosby sexual assault allegations). England routinely prosecutes and jails people for alleged offences 50 & 60 years ago; many are elderly men in their 80's & 90's with little chance of mounting any sort of defence due to their age, but that's another issue.
Arrange cannot wait out the English charges and England is well documented as an enthusiastic participant in torture and rendition of both it's own citizens and foreign nationals. The UK-US extradition treaty is a shocking travesty of justice and is routinely used to send people from the UK to the US for activity carried out in the UK and considered lawful in the UK but which has upset US authorities. [1]
He has good reason to remain in the Embassy. Unfortunately he's likely to be there for many years to come and either be grabbed when he requires hospital treatment at some point in the future, or, the UK will decide it can live with some diplomatic protests and expulsion of UK diplomats after sending the SAS in to grab him from the embassy and hand him over to the US.
[edit: I see a comment attributes creation to Ken Dakin instead of Dr. Robert Mais. I've made some adjustments as a result.]
Sometimes I cannot fathom the logic of Wikipedia, especially wanting to delete this article. From my understanding of the discussion, this is because the entry was made by one of the development team of WRS.
That's the same logic that would have articles created by Albert Einstein deleted because he was documenting his own work and that alone is sufficient reason to discard it, regardless of the actual content or how noteworthy it is/was.
I find the logic perverse as it actively discriminates against potentially valuable information being documented and detailed by original creators; the WRS gives good prior art on some uses of spreadsheet concepts (especially across time dimensions). You don't need to think too much to understand the value in documenting such a concept, especially by the creator/first implementor (which in normal mortal circles would be considered a coup).
While the intention is to stop any random person filling wikipedia with their random nonsense thoughts, it seems quite evident from a quick review of the article that it has merit on a number of levels.
I wonder what Ken Dakin did to upset the Wiki-Overlords?
While I would identify as Wikipedia inclusionist [1], I find this article quite problematic.
It is (quite) impossible for a reader to verify any of the claims made in the article.
Five years ago, someone (probably Ken Dakin) wrote this article and no other person on the whole planet earth has apparently been able or willing to add information or support the claims of the article.
For all that we know, the WRS might just be an elaborate hoax [2] or part of a plot by someone who hates VisiCalc.
(A quick Google search turned up some further sources that suggest that at least someone calling himself Ken Dakin actually exists and claims to have worked on WRS [3].)
As the person who started the AFD, I don't have anything against Ken Dakin personally, but part of the problem is that he obviously has a bias in analysing the historical significance of his own career. He thinks some (obscure) system he worked on in the early-to-mid-1970s was very similar to what (much more well-known) people did a bit later in the 1970s and into the 1980s (such as VisiCalc). Maybe he's right, but then again maybe what he did isn't actually as close to what those later people did as he thinks (and might even be unfair to those later people); since none of us have seen this 1970s system he worked on, it's a hard question to answer. What's really needed is someone neutral and authoritative to do that evaluation – and searching reliable sources (e.g. academic journals, books from reputable publishers, etc) I can't find anything approaching that. (What little I can find seems more focused on studying on-Wikipedia controversies about WRS than evaluating WRS in its own right.) Deletion is never permanent, and an article deleted from Wikipedia today could be recreated in a few more years if better sources appear for it during that time. (There are journals that cover this stuff; e.g. IEEE Annals of the History of Computing – if someone wrote a paper about this system, and had it published there, Wikipedia could then cite that as a reliable source.)
No, Wikipedia does not accept first-party posts as notable, from my understanding. Me mentioning it on my personal blog would also be insufficient, it has to be a third-party publication that is itself notable enough.
As the article mentions, UK agencies have always conducted intense snooping under the 1984 Telecommunications act (spying suggests some target or objective in mind when what's happening is really just hoovering up data on people, 'just in case it's needed'). The 1984 act was a useful fig leaf to cover what had been a long-standing activity (as witnessed by the preposterous Wilson Doctrine to supposedly protect MPs from the snooping that everyone else was subject to).
The UK Government loves making supposed legal rules for what is essentially a no-holds-barred snoop-fest. Any legislation which would limit what are, in effect, unrestrained powers, are neutered. e.g. The Data Protection Act has blanket exclusions for "prevention and detection of crime" (handy for snooping employers too!) and the Protection From Harassment Act specifically permits law enforcement bodies to harass people without the ability of people to seek redress [that bill itself was initially a device created for Huntingdon Life Sciences to have a way to deal with animal rights protesters (which was a real problem - no matter where you sit on that issue); it's since been usefully pivoted by those being harassed by debt collectors to turn the tables and gain compensation, so it's not all bad.[1]).
This new law will do nothing to protect UK residents, nor anyone unfortunate enough to have any data transiting UK routing nodes, where their data is recorded by bulk surveillance.
The pretense that something is being improved or balances and safeguards of peoples liberty are somehow being created, is insulting.
Lots of crypto-Scots on HN it appears. My test locations gave a more Weegie focused translation (perhaps it's clever and localizes for the weather location you enter too).
Yup. I actively work in security consultancy. Everyone outside of tech thinks and treats me like some sort of tinfoil hat salesperson. I get sent all sorts of crazy conspiracy theory links because "that's the stuff you're really into." on a daily basis.
Even when people read about Snowden, they just don't get it. This past weekend, he came up and the response was, yeah, but Snowden was saying the spying is only on terrorists, they don't collect any information on people who are not terrorists because that would be way more information than they want. Trying to explain that is the opposite of what Snowden was saying was pointless and futile because it just made me sound like the crazy one.
The NSA must be rolling around laughing as they listen in to peoples naive conversations about Snowden.
edit: oops, removed link added on the wrong posting. Sorry. And a typo. Sorry again.
I get the same from most, including a couple in tech who really should know better.
I've heard all the variations on "if you have nothing to hide..." through "well we have to catch the terrorists".
Every time a story comes up that some killing or terrorist act happened and one of the perpetrators made a post on twitter, or was already known to security services, the opinion always seems to be along the lines of "well I guess we need to monitor more". Never once have I heard a variation on "if they're known to security already why wasn't something done to arrest or prevent".
Meanwhile there is some belief in chemtrails amongst a few of the younger people I know going on FB group posts I see them share.
I've given up trying to explain either security things or humidity, dew points and the basics of flying.
I don't have the energy to fight a battle that feels like Canute vs the Ocean. I wish I knew something that would make people care.
> Meanwhile there is some belief in chemtrails amongst a few of the younger people I know going on FB group posts I see them share.
Reminds me of a thing I learned here on HN recently. The US was in fact intentionally spraying germs on unsuspecting civilians in San Francisco, among other places, as a part of research related to biological warfare. Turns out there's some grain of truth even in the chemtrails crackpottery.
There was a story with some discussion here on HN that I can't sadly track down via Algolia now. It told about a person that tracked down information about those tests, motivated by death of some relative who was undergoing surgery at the time, and got infected with a germ that shouldn't even be there.
When the Snowden leaks initially came up, my mom thought that he was spy selling secrets to the Chinese (because he was in Hong Kong at the time). When I tried to explain what it was actually about she rolled her eyes on me.
Thanks for asking. I confess my comment was a vent rather than a reasoned argument. I've been annoyed with Snowden's leaks ever since they came out.
I believe leaks about domestic spying on the American people are thoroughly justified (and utterly necessary), and I believe leaks about spying on foreign goverments and foreign nationals are thoroughly unjustified (and frankly, verging on traitorous). pascalmemories seems to be saying that the issue of spying on foreign nationals ("terroists") has completely overshadowed the issue of domestic spying in the popular consciousness to the extent that his associates don't even realise that domestic spying is happening. This is yet another nail in my personal coffin for Snowden.
I'll reply since you've specifically referenced me.
I don't think people are distinguishing between 'domestic' or 'foreign' spying. For most people, it's way too complex to have an understanding of domestic US laws on agencies spying powers. Also remember, it's not just the US either. Remember the UK is probably the most prolific gatherer (they have a much more strategic point on internet routing than the US does).
People reduce a complex and difficult to understand story into something they think they understand. In this case, Snowden is 'about spies' and 'spies track[/kill] terrorists' combined with 'I'm not a terrorist, so they won't be interested in tracking me' hence the whole story is irrelevant and only conspiracy nuts think the Government spies on them.
Any attempt to counter this and say, actually it is important because in 5, 10, 20 or more years, an agency can take a dislike to you (or some relative/connection) and then start to revisit things you have long since forgotten, and target you for some throw away comment, just sounds so far fetched as to be lunacy.
But, as the submitted article shows, it's exactly what is happening in other countries and there is no reason why 'our country' [insert name of wherever you live - not just the US] won't do the same. For domestic US readers, imagine a future President Trump issuing an executive order to track down those who insulted him, even in private personal e-mail conversations - it may be a crazy scenario, but the NSA database allows such a thing to happen.
The mass collection and storage of data is a real risk to any democratic society, because of the threat of misuse. Don't fool yourself that some official will say no when asked to carry out some heinous act made possible by access to the stored communications.
Getting tied up in whether Snowden is a traitor or a hero is missing the point. It's also where the NSA has focused on steering the conversation at every opportunity.
Or imagine a future President Clinton using the collected data agains her eternal enemy, the "vast right-wing
conspiracy." I know which scenario I think is more likely....
I have to kind of disagree. I think that the whole release was necessary to put it all in context. The capabilities to spy on terrorists is what made it all to easy to spy on our own folks.
Where I completely agree with you is presentation of topics. If he had focused only on domestic spying in the beginning, the conversation could have focused on that first and foremost, and then later the other stuff could be brought in without clouding the issues.
But this is only because I think that indiscriminate spying is wrong, no matter what your nationality. And I say this coming from a military spy background where I know that spying is completely necessary.
But shit, choose your targets, and choose them for a reason.
If you mind answering, why do you think that passive spying from the gov is wrong?
Asking the government to choose their target for a reason sounds like requiring the gov to follow a longer path to do something wrong -- such that it'll be harder to abuse that power.
By engaging in illegal activity, the agency undermined it's legitimate spying of targets outside the country. If there were no illegal activity, there would be no need for whistleblowing. I'd chalk up any damage to the legitimate spying as a collateral damage and put the people who authorized the illegal activity responsible for such damage.
Thanks for elaborating a bit. I still have to disagree.
I find the argument that Snowden's actions didnt justify the consequences to our agents or relationships with other nations just short-sighted.
Although it may not feel like it to those of us immersed in tech as a culture and as an industry, we are still in the very early days of the Internet. We're still setting precedents that are going to be in place for lifetimes. That America has to patch some relationships, that a couple events may escape our gov'ts control, are small prices to pay to ensure that future generations are able to freely and safely explore and express themselves on the internet without fear of prosecution or persecution.
Sucks in the short term, but these are important issues to get resolved for the long term.
Snowden (and the world) would have been much better off if the only thing he took with him was about the illegal domestic spying, but of course he didn't have the time to analyze the data, he just took it all and ran and let journalists publish parts of it. Because some of the data was about legitimate US intelligence work overseas, people could accuse him of harming US interests on top of whistleblowing.
Some people got their information about Snowden from a "news source" that told them "this traitor / Russian spy leaked the details of the US intelligence work overseas", and did not tell them about the warrantless domestic wiretapping.
That's the beauty of paper - it allows anything to be put on it but does absolutely nothing to actually make you do whatever you promised. Those promises are, quite literally, not worth the paper they are written on.
If a Government (or TLA or whoever in power) wants some Evil Thing, a piece of paper from somewhere promising not to do Evil Things will not be a hindrance to either asking [or, depending on where, compelling] you to take part. If you have the option to decline, they will keep asking people (and increasing the financial reward) until someone agrees.
