Obama and Cameron Converse about Terror & Cyber Security

Osvir · January 17, 2015

http://www.c-span.org/video/?323842-1/news-conference-president-obama-british-prime-minister-david-cameron

Pretty interesting in my opinion. It felt very open and honest (the speech was, I think, intentionally written to give that feeling to the viewers), felt like a conversation.

(Very) Simplified summary, I highly recommend you watch the conference:

On terror: More of it is going to boil up in Europe. Cameron talks as if a large scale attack is going to happen, unless....

Big Brother/Cyber Security can prevent it.

Also, later this year: UK vs America: The Cyber Games, who'll win?

BruceVC · January 17, 2015

http://www.c-span.org/video/?323842-1/news-conference-president-obama-british-prime-minister-david-cameron

Pretty interesting in my opinion. It felt very open and honest (the speech was, I think, intentionally written to give that feeling to the viewers), felt like a conversation.

(Very) Simplified summary, I highly recommend you watch the conference:

On terror: More of it is going to boil up in Europe. Cameron talks as if a large scale attack is going to happen, unless....

Big Brother/Cyber Security can prevent it.

Also, later this year: UK vs America: The Cyber Games, who'll win?

Yes I'm very supportive of these types of joint information sharing initiatives

Both countries, and other places, have probably invested the most into trying to stop the spread of fundamentalism, Both countries are targets of extremist attacks so its make sense to pool resources

Walsingham · January 17, 2015

I don't think you can 'win' this. If the internet continues in its current open form then tiny packets of hackers can always find ways to overmatch specific targets.

What this means, kids, is that no entity you give your data to - or who generates data on you - is guaranteed safe.

Given that most people I know these days only frequent a tiny handful of the bazillion sites available, I would put money on the internet itself changing.

BruceVC · January 17, 2015

I don't think you can 'win' this. If the internet continues in its current open form then tiny packets of hackers can always find ways to overmatch specific targets.

What this means, kids, is that no entity you give your data to - or who generates data on you - is guaranteed safe.

Given that most people I know these days only frequent a tiny handful of the bazillion sites available, I would put money on the internet itself changing.

Agreed but if they pool resources as far as improved monitoring of Internet communication is concerned it makes there overall effectiveness better and they are more likely to detect suspicious behavior

I know some people will see this a "more big brother" but its not. It makes sense

Walsingham · January 17, 2015

I don't think you can 'win' this. If the internet continues in its current open form then tiny packets of hackers can always find ways to overmatch specific targets.

What this means, kids, is that no entity you give your data to - or who generates data on you - is guaranteed safe.

Given that most people I know these days only frequent a tiny handful of the bazillion sites available, I would put money on the internet itself changing.

Agreed but if they pool resources as far as improved monitoring of Internet communication is concerned it makes there overall effectiveness better and they are more likely to detect suspicious behavior

I know some people will see this a "more big brother" but its not. It makes sense

So your options are have criminal buffoons spying on your every move by hacking, or have bureaucratic buffoons doing it.

I would hope that Mankind would choose neither.

Osvir · January 17, 2015

Ideally, it wouldn't be different than handling Orders in a warehouse. Which I have done. Lots of private information and private documents of goods, pricing, inventory, buy/sell stuff that fundamentally becomes numbers on a computer.

I don't remember any of that data today that I processed, paperwork that gets archived etc. I presume this is what Snowden was doing, and it became a super big deal when he leaked it (because people are people). I do think it was healthy that he blew the whistle, otherwise there wouldn't have been much of a discussion about it.

How do we not know that the Snowden case was just an orchestrated plot to start a discussion too? Right? *shrug* it's far-fetched of course, but I can't help to look at that angle too.

It is harmless if a cyber security a la Big Brother would work like this, and work out the kinks in the system (the kinks being terrorists). But, a friend of mine said something smart about it and that's... well... we don't know how the next President in America will use the power, or the one after that, or even in 100 years and so on.

It is a risk, of course, to engage in such a practice. Because we can't say how future leaders will abuse an initially good intentioned idea.

Myself? I don't care if the government or police or whatever looks at my information or whatever, as long as they don't make stuff public or try to shame me or whatever. I have nothing to hide to them, some stuff maybe a bit reluctantly, but I don't mind as long as they don't use it to put pressure on me (I.E. Blackmailing or overstepping legal boundaries, or private prisons/police trying to fulfill their provisional quota *shakes fist* I hate that system but that's another discussion. Private owned prisons/police = *insert middle finger*).

But let's say that one agent has a list of 1'000 people to process in a week or whatnot, and I am in the compiled list of intelligence they get automatically, I wouldn't mind them going past me whilst going for that terrorist that might exist within one of those 1'000 people.

Not to mention social studies, psychology, history. Imagine the leaps of discoveries that could be made to accomadet society! Though, a "Minority Report" (the movie) society/mentality does feel a bit scary, even if it'd be much safer for the majority. Untested grounds.

EDIT: And I am fully aware and conscious of this being a public statement ^_^

Edited January 17, 2015 by Osvir

Walsingham · January 17, 2015

Ideally, it wouldn't be different than handling Orders in a warehouse. Which I have done. Lots of private information and private documents of goods, pricing, inventory, buy/sell stuff that fundamentally becomes numbers on a computer.

I don't remember any of that data today that I processed, paperwork that gets archived etc.

It is harmless if a cyber security a la Big Brother would work like this, and work out the kinks in the system (the kinks being terrorists). But, a friend of mine said something smart about it and that's... well... we don't know how the next President in America will use the power, or the one after that, or even in 100 years and so on.

It is a risk, of course, to engage in such a practice. Because we can't say how future leaders will abuse an initially good intentioned idea.

I don't in any way mean to mock your post, but I think you're being naive. Data has value, that can be mined. And that's today, with today's data-mining technology. Who the hell knows what value data is going to have in the next twenty to forty years.

Data mining equals prediction of system behaviour - in this case people. Prediction enables control.

This is one of the things which annoys me about conspiracy theories. Running around beloowing about how we've already lost all our freedoms undermines doing anything about real threats to those freedoms.

Osvir · January 17, 2015

I don't in any way mean to mock your post, but I think you're being naive.

Hello Walsingham, nice to meet you again I've been in these forums for 2+ years now (I'm trying to say "Duh")

If I had joined the Obsidian Order it'd either have been "Captain Concept of the Obsidian Order" or "The Naive One" haha ^_^

Edited January 17, 2015 by Osvir

Marcvs Caesar · January 17, 2015

Ideally, it wouldn't be different than handling Orders in a warehouse. Which I have done. Lots of private information and private documents of goods, pricing, inventory, buy/sell stuff that fundamentally becomes numbers on a computer.

I don't remember any of that data today that I processed, paperwork that gets archived etc. I presume this is what Snowden was doing, and it became a super big deal when he leaked it (because people are people). I do think it was healthy that he blew the whistle, otherwise there wouldn't have been much of a discussion about it.

How do we not know that the Snowden case was just an orchestrated plot to start a discussion too? Right? *shrug* it's far-fetched of course, but I can't help to look at that angle too.

It is harmless if a cyber security a la Big Brother would work like this, and work out the kinks in the system (the kinks being terrorists). But, a friend of mine said something smart about it and that's... well... we don't know how the next President in America will use the power, or the one after that, or even in 100 years and so on.

It is a risk, of course, to engage in such a practice. Because we can't say how future leaders will abuse an initially good intentioned idea.

Myself? I don't care if the government or police or whatever looks at my information or whatever, as long as they don't make stuff public or try to shame me or whatever. I have nothing to hide to them, some stuff maybe a bit reluctantly, but I don't mind as long as they don't use it to put pressure on me (I.E. Blackmailing or overstepping legal boundaries, or private prisons/police trying to fulfill their provisional quota *shakes fist* I hate that system but that's another discussion. Private owned prisons/police = *insert middle finger*).

But let's say that one agent has a list of 1'000 people to process in a week or whatnot, and I am in the compiled list of intelligence they get automatically, I wouldn't mind them going past me whilst going for that terrorist that might exist within one of those 1'000 people.

Not to mention social studies, psychology, history. Imagine the leaps of discoveries that could be made to accomadet society! Though, a "Minority Report" (the movie) society/mentality does feel a bit scary, even if it'd be much safer for the majority. Untested grounds.

EDIT: And I am fully aware and conscious of this being a public statement ^_^

You haven't realized how valuable information is have you? That sort of thinking is naive at best and ignorant at worst.

JadedWolf · January 17, 2015

Sometimes I think we should just barge into parliament naked while they were discussing yet another scheme to slowly erode our privacy. They wanted to know everything about us? Well, they can. Have fun.

Perhaps we should embrace this as a new sort of freedom. Since we can't keep secrets anymore, why not share? Tell all your co-workers about your foot fetish, let the neighbours know you like to wear a pink tutu during the weekends, finally admit to your wife that you're bi-curious.

After all people, you have nothing to hide, right?

Edited January 17, 2015 by JadedWolf

Osvir · January 17, 2015

@Marcvs Ceasar: Care to elaborate your statement/question? There's nothing much for me to go on or reply on. I am not the subject, please: What did you think about the conference?

All I can deduce is that you're opposing it, why? Fear? Trust? Opinion? Rebellious? Insecurity? Principle? Egoism? Selfishness?

I want singularity to happen, one planet, one race, one government. I'm all for a one world order or a one world council. Globalism yo.

Edited January 17, 2015 by Osvir

Osvir · January 17, 2015

Sometimes I think we should just barge into parliament naked while they were discussing yet another scheme to slowly erode our privacy. They wanted to know everything about us? Well, they can. Have fun.

Perhaps we should embrace this as a new sort of freedom. Since we can't keep secrets anymore, why not share? Tell all your co-workers about your foot fetish, let the neighbours know you like to wear a pink tutu during the weekends, finally admit to your wife that you're bi-curious.

After all people, you have nothing to hide, right?

#JeSuisKurosawa

EDIT: Also, Walsingham:

I don't think you can 'win' this.

If this is a reply to the "Cyber Games" UK vs US link I posted and the question of "Who will win?"... then I don't think you read the article.

It's about a joint operation, a friendly war game on the internet between the US and UK intelligence organizations. They'll probably both use this time to spy on each other whilst at the same time defend against each other, US blackhats vs UK whitehats and vice versa. It's supposed to target the financial sector of each equivalent country.

It sounds fun, but we'll see how serious they go at it. War can start for the stupidest reasons after all. A friendly boxing match can go wrong if one accidentally hits too hard.

Edited January 17, 2015 by Osvir

Marcvs Caesar · January 17, 2015

@Marcvs Ceasar: Care to elaborate your statement/question? There's nothing much for me to go on or reply on. I am not the subject, please: What did you think about the conference?

All I can deduce is that you're opposing it, why? Fear? Trust? Opinion? Rebellious? Insecurity? Principle? Egoism? Selfishness?

I want singularity to happen, one planet, one race, one government. I'm all for a one world order or a one world council. Globalism yo.

What do you think governments need in order to operate properly? It's control. And control derives mostly from intelligence, information. There's one aspect that you should always take into consideration: Human nature. Giving too much control to someone or a group of people is too risky.

About the conference, well aside from the silly diplomatic flattery and national self-interest, there was one thing that bothered me and that is the reaction to the Islamist fanaticism. Religious pluralism is, in my opinion, foolish. I agree with the stance that the Roman Empire had towards religion, if a religion can't tolerate other religions or our values then it should be banned. Same way Christianity was banned in the Roman Empire for its intolerance.

I also want one planet, one government and globalism but not at the cost of my values.

Zoraptor · January 17, 2015

David Cameron is a grubby little fascist. Co-opting an 'attack on free speech' to justify your own, far more insidious and effective assault on free speech should be seen as grossly offensive, and his constant pandering to the Daily Fail set is ridiculous. As for Obama, he is outright persecuting people like Manning and Snowden who have done more to defend free speech than all his pontificating, vacillating and politically spun convenient sound bites could ever do even if they weren't designed to justify and enhance the US vision of TIA while allowing a vestigial, facile, trivial parody of free speech to subsist as a sop to those who think the ability to talk about unimportant rubbish constitutes 'free speech'.

The most essential part of free speech is not having David Cameron, Barack Obama, Frankie Hollande, Pope Francis or Grand Mufti sitting on the end of a microphone listening and recording every utterance every bit as much as it was not having Stalin or Hitler listening in. Horrible, horrible little maggots the both of them- and most people will get obsessed with front pages of a small circ french magazine featuring Yoda annoying adherents of the The Force; all while nodding along to their crap and feeling good about how enlightened and superior our values are and how we simply must be in favour of free speech because it's us and we're the heirs of Athens and all that is good in civilisation.

Dear Yoda, I'm sure you could fire our politicians into the sun. Please? And remember, do or do not, there is no try.

Walsingham · January 17, 2015

It's not a fascist conspiracy, any more than opposable thumbs are. Both are a natural evolution dictated by the rules of the game being played out to their conclusions.

Has anyone else noticed that the French security services have had been reamed over the attacks?

If the public punish the security services for absolutely any deaths which occur then the security services have no option but to ask for every power they can think of. Their only defence when attacks occur is to argue that they should have had more power.

Politicians, in turn, have to grant the increased powers or THEY get blamed.

Edited January 17, 2015 by Walsingham

Guard Dog · January 18, 2015

This will be a straight waste of Cameron's time. Obama refuses to even admit terrorism IS terrorism.

Zoraptor · January 18, 2015

It's not a fascist conspiracy, any more than opposable thumbs are. Both are a natural evolution dictated by the rules of the game being played out to their conclusions.

Has anyone else noticed that the French security services have had been reamed over the attacks?

If the public punish the security services for absolutely any deaths which occur then the security services have no option but to ask for every power they can think of. Their only defence when attacks occur is to argue that they should have had more power.

Politicians, in turn, have to grant the increased powers or THEY get blamed.

Nah.

Not nah, as in it isn't the explanation for why, because it certainly is- at least if you have a charitable view of politicians- but nah as it's reasoning you can use to justify granting anything and everything, power wise, and as such I utterly reject it as a justification (as opposed to explanation) for anything. Mandatory DNA samples at birth, mandatory finger prints, 'thought chips' when they become feasible, a domestic informant network that would put the Stasi to shame, nerve stapling, purging the unbelievers, ethnic cleansing, eugenics- there is literally nothing you won't get if you accept "people are frightened of the boogie man and politicians bow to their stupidity" as an argument for stuff. From someone who knew intimately the process and how to manipulate it:

Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country.

Hasn't changed much since 1933, except for the labels, the enemies and the tools. And the PR spin. And the ease with which GCHQ/ NSA/ GCSB etc can listen at every keyhole; Goering, Beria, Himmler etc would wet themselves in ecstacy at the thought.

So ultimately that does explain why in one sense, but the other reason why is because politicians are both hungry to accumulate as much power as people can be stampeded into (or kept ignorant of) granting or at best unprincipled and gutless enough to only defend free speech as a convenient PR check box.

People are stupid, politicians take advantage of that. Statistically, I not only have far more chance of dying from lightning, drowning, flu, falling branches, suicide, earthquakes, car crashes, meningitis, anything; but if I had died of terrorism, here, then it would be 100% certain I'd been killed by... french spies.

Edited January 18, 2015 by Zoraptor

Walsingham · January 18, 2015

It's not a fascist conspiracy, any more than opposable thumbs are. Both are a natural evolution dictated by the rules of the game being played out to their conclusions.

Has anyone else noticed that the French security services have had been reamed over the attacks?

If the public punish the security services for absolutely any deaths which occur then the security services have no option but to ask for every power they can think of. Their only defence when attacks occur is to argue that they should have had more power.

Politicians, in turn, have to grant the increased powers or THEY get blamed.

Nah.

Not nah, as in it isn't the explanation for why, because it certainly is- at least if you have a charitable view of politicians- but nah as it's reasoning you can use to justify granting anything and everything, power wise, and as such I utterly reject it as a justification (as opposed to explanation) for anything. Mandatory DNA samples at birth, mandatory finger prints, 'thought chips' when they become feasible, a domestic informant network that would put the Stasi to shame, nerve stapling, purging the unbelievers, ethnic cleansing, eugenics- there is literally nothing you won't get if you accept "people are frightened of the boogie man and politicians bow to their stupidity" as an argument for stuff. From someone who knew intimately the process and how to manipulate it:

Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country.

Hasn't changed much since 1933, except for the labels, the enemies and the tools. And the PR spin. And the ease with which GCHQ/ NSA/ GCSB etc can listen at every keyhole; Goering, Beria, Himmler etc would wet themselves in ecstacy at the thought.

So ultimately that does explain why in one sense, but the other reason why is because politicians are both hungry to accumulate as much power as people can be stampeded into (or kept ignorant of) granting or at best unprincipled and gutless enough to only defend free speech as a convenient PR check box.

People are stupid, politicians take advantage of that. Statistically, I not only have far more chance of dying from lightning, drowning, flu, falling branches, suicide, earthquakes, car crashes, meningitis, anything; but if I had died of terrorism, here, then it would be 100% certain I'd been killed by... french spies.

So... you accept the point, but refuse to follow it? Why? Because you want to blame politcians?

My point is _precisely and entirely_ that the people you are blaming are only behaving according to the rules of the game that we make them play.

You could make an enormous status of civil liberties and leave it somewhere everyone could see it, and it would make no damn difference. You can stop individual laws.

But it's pointless because the trend is being driven by other factors. You're like a paramedic trying to prevent a chronic smoking obese man from having heart trouble.

Edited January 18, 2015 by Walsingham

Osvir · January 18, 2015

@Marcvs Ceasar: Care to elaborate your statement/question? There's nothing much for me to go on or reply on. I am not the subject, please: What did you think about the conference?

All I can deduce is that you're opposing it, why? Fear? Trust? Opinion? Rebellious? Insecurity? Principle? Egoism? Selfishness?

I want singularity to happen, one planet, one race, one government. I'm all for a one world order or a one world council. Globalism yo.

What do you think governments need in order to operate properly? It's control. And control derives mostly from intelligence, information. There's one aspect that you should always take into consideration: Human nature. Giving too much control to someone or a group of people is too risky.

You contradict yourself.

"A government can't operate properly without control. But we can't give them that control". A one world government is risky, yet you also want it. I don't care if it's risky, I would be willing to bet on it. Because it will create unity. Lots of steps to take though, I think within 200-300 years.

@Zoraptor: What is your ideal society, just so I can get a grasp on the nature of your conspiracy and also what you are Pro.

Osvir · January 18, 2015

My point is _precisely and entirely_ that the people you are blaming are only behaving according to the rules of the game that we make them play.

A random dude came up to me when I was in Colorado, Boulder:

"The government is evil, dark! Devils!"

I answered him:

"Isn't it we who make them evil, dark, into devils? Is it not we who paint them black and make them evil by our words and actions?"

He looked at me, a bit shocked:

"You're right... but they are still a little bit evil"

I answered:

"You just proved my point"

BruceVC · January 18, 2015

It's not a fascist conspiracy, any more than opposable thumbs are. Both are a natural evolution dictated by the rules of the game being played out to their conclusions.

Has anyone else noticed that the French security services have had been reamed over the attacks?

If the public punish the security services for absolutely any deaths which occur then the security services have no option but to ask for every power they can think of. Their only defence when attacks occur is to argue that they should have had more power.

Politicians, in turn, have to grant the increased powers or THEY get blamed.

Nah.

Not nah, as in it isn't the explanation for why, because it certainly is- at least if you have a charitable view of politicians- but nah as it's reasoning you can use to justify granting anything and everything, power wise, and as such I utterly reject it as a justification (as opposed to explanation) for anything. Mandatory DNA samples at birth, mandatory finger prints, 'thought chips' when they become feasible, a domestic informant network that would put the Stasi to shame, nerve stapling, purging the unbelievers, ethnic cleansing, eugenics- there is literally nothing you won't get if you accept "people are frightened of the boogie man and politicians bow to their stupidity" as an argument for stuff. From someone who knew intimately the process and how to manipulate it:

Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country.

Hasn't changed much since 1933, except for the labels, the enemies and the tools. And the PR spin. And the ease with which GCHQ/ NSA/ GCSB etc can listen at every keyhole; Goering, Beria, Himmler etc would wet themselves in ecstacy at the thought.

So ultimately that does explain why in one sense, but the other reason why is because politicians are both hungry to accumulate as much power as people can be stampeded into (or kept ignorant of) granting or at best unprincipled and gutless enough to only defend free speech as a convenient PR check box.

People are stupid, politicians take advantage of that. Statistically, I not only have far more chance of dying from lightning, drowning, flu, falling branches, suicide, earthquakes, car crashes, meningitis, anything; but if I had died of terrorism, here, then it would be 100% certain I'd been killed by... french spies.

I agree that this really boils down to a perspective around " do you trust your politicians enough to believe that they won't they won't abuse the power that these types of initiatives give them" ...like Goering and Nazis did with their propaganda machinery in the last century. Personally I do, so thats not a concern for me

The Internet is the greatest source of information and allows the spread of information more easily than ever before in the history of mankind. But that also comes with real risks and security challengers. We know that many extremist groups use the Internet, and its various components like Social Media, to recruit members and spread propaganda. So what do you do as a government? Do you just ignore it? Do you start just blocking certain websites and banning Social Media....we see this already in places like Iran and China

But these solutions are not what Western countries fundamentally stand for, they generally don't believe in trying to control the Internet and what people have access to. So this just leaves increased monitoring of what people are saying and what information they access. And despite how people may think data is received using the Internet, countries and governments only have access to information within their own borders

So for example if I send an email from NY to Houston this email doesn't leave the borders of the USA. And this applies to people sitting in the UK and referencing a website based in Syria, the Americans won't be aware of this under most circumstances. So this new Cyber initiative from the UK and USA will give those respective governments more visibility on the type of communication between these countries. And thats a reasonable objective considering the fact the risk is about local citizens becoming " homegrown terrorists " and coming home from conflicts in Syria and attacking the country they are a citizen of

Now you may believe " but there is no risk from Islamic extremists, this whole thing is a creation of governments to move to a dictatorial system of control " but I think that most of us now accept there is a real danger from terrorist attacks from citizens of there own countries. So we should be supporting these ideas as they do add to better security for all its citizens

Zoraptor · January 18, 2015

So... you accept the point, but refuse to follow it? Why? Because you want to blame politcians?

I accept it as an explanation, but not as a justification. In effect I find that point to be at best parallel to the line of relevance rather than on it. Politicians are perfectly capable of refusing to follow public opinion when it's against their wishes, after all, so they ignore the 'rules' all the time and only obey them when it suits their purposes. Thus it isn't really a 'rule' at all- especially since the politicians are standing on the sidelines fanning the fear themselves.

BruceVC · January 18, 2015

So... you accept the point, but refuse to follow it? Why? Because you want to blame politcians?

I accept it as an explanation, but not as a justification. In effect I find that point to be at best parallel to the line of relevance rather than on it. Politicians are perfectly capable of refusing to follow public opinion when it's against their wishes, after all, so they ignore the 'rules' all the time and only obey them when it suits their purposes. Thus it isn't really a 'rule' at all- especially since the politicians are standing on the sidelines fanning the fear themselves.

So fundamentally we will never agree because you believe politicians are intentionally embellishing the risk from Islamic extremism to control public opinion?

For me the risk is real and needs increased attention on certain levels...we are at an impasse

Meshugger · January 18, 2015

*sigh*

These politicians will end up monitor torrent traffic on collage campuses and mothers exchanging recipies on Facebook. Of course the technology and capability to do this is outsourced to private enterprises that they already have connections with, all while the real bad guys have been using other channels like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_Web for their shenanigans.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMgqTWdk3tw

Obama and Cameron Converse about Terror & Cyber Security

Recommended Posts

Osvir

BruceVC

Walsingham

BruceVC

Walsingham

Osvir

Walsingham

Osvir

Marcvs Caesar

JadedWolf

Osvir

Osvir

Marcvs Caesar

Zoraptor

Walsingham

Guard Dog

Zoraptor

Walsingham

Osvir

Osvir

BruceVC

Zoraptor

BruceVC

Meshugger

Create an account or sign in to comment

Create an account

Sign in

Forums

Activity