| View previous topic :: View next topic |
Ishmael
In: Toronto
|
|
 |
|
And there's another winner on the way.
His name was Seth Rich.
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
| I was thinking Britain, but I wouldn't be surprised if it were both. Almost exactly a year ago Amber Rudd was demanding that WhatsApp have some kind of backdoor to get around encryption after the London terror attack. So the desire's there in the UK at least. |
Aren’t you getting your conspiracy theories in a twist? Amber Rudd is titular head of MI5 who set up WhatsApp in the first place. Why would they need a backdoor when it was designed that way and why advertise the fact that they might do thereby ensuring everybody minds what they are saying?
This is why AE forbids the agnostic position. Anybody over the age of six knows this is unlikely in the extreme but people who’d like it to be true can say, “Well, it could be.â€
This is a fair enough comment. Though I disagree with the "unlikely in the extreme". The CIA has been creating front operations and co-opting already existing media companies pretty much from its inception. |
This is why AE forbids the agnostic position. It doesn’t matter the degree of unlikelihood, you have no business believing anything without evidence.
| This is quite a good example. |
A case in point. Nobody knew about the modern art scam until everybody knew about it i.e. an ordinary common-or-garden conspiracy that got latterly exposed. It is not agnostic to believe that the CIA runs black ops. They do.
I'd like to have your faith, but I've just watched those same people compare Putin to Hitler.
|
Very perspicacious of them.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Wile E. Coyote
In: Arizona
|
|
|
|
| Mick Harper wrote: | Scottie, if you want to launch a conspiracy theory, here's one
1. Cambridge Analytica's origins were in the security services
2. When Facebook went in to 'inspect the books' they were prevented from doing so by a British regulatory body.
3. That same regulatory body said this was because they had applied for a warrant to do their own inspection
4. Despite warrants being issued if necessary within five minutes, and despite the entire world watching on, this warrant has still not been issued.
5. Leaving plenty of time for Cambridge Analytica to get their books in order.
You didn't hear it here first. |
I don't see what all the fuzz is about, if you take out the breach (or not, of Data Laws), this is the oldest whinge in the world ie that nasty politicians have been spinning fake news (NB for seniors this is what you call propaganda) that either there will be catastrophe or unlimited jam if you don't vote the "right way" in the next election. In ye olden days this used to be achieved by running "stories" in selected papers (Viscount Lynddybottom likes boys, or there are reds under the duvet)......(tax cuts or rises in benefits tommorrow) etc, and nobody except obsessives ie sore election losers gave a toss, as BOTH sides do this, and most people can spot snakeoil, because if they are daft enough to buy the first bottle, they quickly discover it don't work.
The only real difference is that younger spinners are now doing the same caastrophe/jam via social media and it is err cheaper and therefore your older media are really pissed off....... suddenly old media have discovered that elections/spinning are now really about telling the TRUTH and the last election could have been bought. (not from them... horror of horrors)
It aint going to stop the closure of papers or people getting their news from the internet, or spinners spinning.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
|
You took the words out of my mouth. It is the very essence of democracy to ensure that people's real desires are identified and addressed by our elected representatives. We need more of these data exposure devices rather than less.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
N R Scott
In: Middlesbrough
|
|
|
|
| Mick Harper wrote: | | Aren’t you getting your conspiracy theories in a twist? Amber Rudd is titular head of MI5 who set up WhatsApp in the first place. Why would they need a backdoor when it was designed that way and why advertise the fact that they might do thereby ensuring everybody minds what they are saying? |
The may be my fault for miscommunicating. Also I forget you lot don't think like conspiracy theorists. I'll give you the big picture.
Cryptography, not just digital but all codes and ciphers, has always been the preserve of the intelligence services. The ability to communicate secretly and to intercept secret communications obviously being a huge asset. Digital cryptography likewise has always been hugely guarded. In fact, digital cryptography used to be regulated much like the sales of arms were regulated. However, with the rapid rise of modern computing cryptography became more and more commonly used. The cat got out the bag so to speak.
Anyway, if you're the powers-that-be and you're not happy with normal people using peer-to-peer cryptography. Either because you want to spy on people 1984-style, or because you simply want to stop crime, terrorism etc. Then one way you could do this is by creating your own messaging app, or buying up an already existing one. Promoting this app so it becomes used almost ubiquitously. With the guise of it being independent (i.e. not owned by the government) and secure, but secretly having some type of backdoor in it so you can spy on its users. That way people are duped into believing they're using something that's secure, when really it's not.
Then a few years down the line. Let's say this plan isn't working entirely as people are still using other genuinely independent apps that are genuinely secured against spying. Then you can potentially use your app to create some drama or scandal that can create the necessary uproar and outrage to get the unwitting public and politicians to support some type of across-the-board ban or legislation.
The beauty of this is that you control both sides. So if you create the uproar, but don't get the desired legislation through, then you're still only giving publicity to your controlled app.
For example, let's say I own an app that's genuinely independent. If the state and media publicly attack me and my app then it's a double-edged sword as by putting my app on the Six O'Clock News, etc they're publicising my app to millions of people. So it could backfire. Also, unlike Zuckerberg who has simply capitulated and admitted his company's failings, I'd be more inclined to fight back, defend my business and point out the hypocrisy of the people attacking me.
This is why controlled opposition works so well.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
N R Scott
In: Middlesbrough
|
|
|
|
| Ishmael wrote: | | Perhaps she heard the story in reports and rumors relayed by family. Like many do who repeat such tales, they feel the need to make themselves the witness, to lend the story the credibility they believe in their hearts that it deserves. That's what makes telling lies in these situations so very easy. |
This wasn't just one girl lying. It was ran by an American PR firm. These people knew who she was and knew she was lying. It was one of the main emotional triggers that led to public support for that war. The idea of Iraqi soldiers taking children out of their incubators was such a vile and vivid image that I can still remember it now, even though I was only eight years old at the time.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
N R Scott
In: Middlesbrough
|
|
|
|
| Mick Harper wrote: | | This is why AE forbids the agnostic position. It doesn’t matter the degree of unlikelihood, you have no business believing anything without evidence. |
Is it possible for me to be a "believer" and an "agnostic" at the same time?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
| This wasn't just one girl lying. It was ran by an American PR firm. These people knew who she was and knew she was lying. It was one of the main emotional triggers that led to public support for that war. The idea of Iraqi soldiers taking children out of their incubators was such a vile and vivid image that I can still remember it now, even though I was only eight years old at the time |
This is true (and standard). Remember the single image of the emaciated Bosnian behind the camp wire (while the Bosnians behind him looked uncannily healthy)? That led pretty directly to the Serbian War.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
| Is it possible for me to be a "believer" and an "agnostic" at the same time? |
Can you be a Christian and an agnostic at the same time? I would guess that most Anglican ministers are nowadays, but AE-ists can't be. Although a certain leeway is permissible (even encouraged) when launching original theories. Have you done so lately, Scottie? They have to be original to you (or to us), remember. Not lifted from the internet.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
N R Scott
In: Middlesbrough
|
|
|
|
| Mick Harper wrote: | | Have you done so lately, Scottie? They have to be original to you (or to us), remember. Not lifted from the internet. |
All my thoughts re the Russian scandal are my own. Likewise with WhatsApp & Facebook, unless otherwise stated. It generally has to be this way with anything from a British point of view, as our conspiracy theorists generally aren't up to much. The Americans and Canadians are the Premier League and they generally don't care too much about UK affairs. Even the Aussies are much, much better than us.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
I don't want to cramp your style but everything everyone writes here is meant to be their own (otherwise you give the URL). Though we do have to put up constantly with saloon bar recitations in the sports and politics sections -- apparently people cannot help themselves in these most basic of human pursuits -- but otherwise it's either 'first here' or 'not here'.
So, Scottie, which of your theories are original?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Boreades
In: finity and beyond
|
|
|
|
Ya wanna theory?
OK how about this?
1) The US now has a surplus of natural fracked gas and is a net exporter of that. It could easily export a lot more if there were buyers in (e.g.) Europe
2) There would be buyers in Europe except that they are locked into long-term contracts with Russian natural gas suppliers.
3) Unusually cold winter weather patterns (don't call it climate change) is increasing the demand for the gas and forcing up the wholesale price.
4) A Really Big Excuse would be needed to unilaterally break the contract and switch to US sources, or force a "national emergency" to start fracking big-time in the UK.
5) Russia having a hissy-fit and turning off the gas supply would be the perfect excuse. Except, Russia hasn't had a hissy fit (yet).
Purely coincidentally:
Atlantic Convoys. It looks like we're starting a new era of those convoys.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/03/22/troubling-political-reality-of-europes-energy-reliance-on-russian-natural-gas-hits-home/
| The first tanker of liquefied natural gas to depart a new facility on the US east coast has changed course mid-Atlantic and is heading for the UK, the day after questions were raised in Westminster about rising UK imports of Russian LNG. |
https://www.thegwpf.com/us-shale-cargo-turns-towards-uk-as-spat-with-russia-rumbles/
To go along with the wood chip for the Drax wood-fired power station. More to come if the Russians turn off the natural gas pipeline?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
N R Scott
In: Middlesbrough
|
|
|
|
| Mick Harper wrote: | | So, Scottie, which of your theories are original? |
Again, all unless I've linked to something (or in the case of the Facebook/CIA claim suggested a Google search). I get the feeling you think there's some Internet conspiracy guru I'm getting my ideas from, but it's all simply based on watching the mainstream media. Especially with the Russian case.
My suspicions began the minute I started seeing the Skripal daughter plastered all over the media. There's no obvious reason why Putin would kill her, but it obviously makes sense to have an innocent victim when it comes to demonising an enemy. Then as I followed the news reports there was no proof of what we were being shown. Just hysteria. I kept my opinion to myself for a few days, but then as I watched the media ratchet up the rhetoric it looked less and less like a criminal investigation and more and more like a campaign. So then I had a little whinge on Twitter about it. Then when I came here and saw it being discussed I likewise expressed my scepticism.
That's pretty much it really. Nothing breathtakingly original, but as original as everyone else's speculation on here regarding it. I'll walk you through where my thoughts on WhatsApp originate from in my next post...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Hatty
Site Admin
In: Berkshire
|
|
|
|
Don't you think the attempted murder of Julia Skripal strengthens the case against the Russian state/FSB? Being a traitor (as Sergei is) undoubtedly carries the risk of assassination. So risking the assassination of your daughter must be a more effective deterrent to anyone considering this career path.
Not only does it increase fear of the state's power but it decreases possible lurking admiration of the traitor whose actions endangered his innocent child.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
N R Scott
In: Middlesbrough
|
|
|
|
My speculation about WhatsApp started last year. At the start of the football season a fantasy football league was started at the place I was working at the time (which I'm currently top of I might add). Two friends I worked with persuaded me to download WhatsApp so we could start a group chat about that and about football in general. Before that I'd heard of WhatsApp but wasn't hugely aware of it, or how it worked.
Anyway, I eventually downloaded it. It's free to download, but doesn't contain any advertising. So my immediate thought was how does this make money. I asked my friend and his reply was "huh, I don't know". So I just assumed it was some type of freeware. Then I found out it was actually owned by Facebook and that they'd paid $19 billion for the company. So the business model seemed a little odd to me.
Roundabout the same time I'd started using it there was also a lot in the media about our MPs using it. One of the big selling points being the security aspect. So I thought "what if it isn't secure, and how would I know either way?" Obviously I was already primed towards suspicion. Partly because of the "conspiracy theories" that already abound about Facebook, and also because Facebook is terrible for censorship.
Again, this is purely just speculation about WhatsApp on my part - but it is my speculation.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
The Library Index 
FAQ 
Search
Register
Profile 
Log in to check your private messages 
Log in 
