NSA: Linux Journal is an"extremist forum" and its readers get flagged for extra surveillance
========= SCRAPER REMOVED AN EMBEDDED LINK HERE ===========
url was:"http://www.linuxjournal.com/content/nsa-linux-journal-extremist-forum-and-its-readers-get-flagged-extra-surveillance"
linktext was:"http://www.linuxjournal.com/content/nsa ... rveillance"
====================================
__{{emoticon}}__
topic title: NSA: Linux Journal is an "extremist forum"
5 posts
• Page 1 of 1
-
Posts: 1,445
- Joined: 09 Feb 2012
#2
Congratulations. If you're just now getting around to reading that, hopefully it's because you have a real life (vs just continually surfing the net)
3 July, I read (and bookmarked) a TheRegister article titled"Use Tor or 'extremist' Tails Linux? Congrats, you're on an NSA list"
========= SCRAPER REMOVED AN EMBEDDED LINK HERE ===========
url was:"http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/07/03/nsa_xkeyscore_stasi_scandal/"
linktext was:"http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/07/03 ... i_scandal/"
====================================
in which
"NSA targets the privacy-conscious" (3 July)
========= SCRAPER REMOVED AN EMBEDDED LINK HERE ===========
url was:"http://daserste.ndr.de/panorama/aktuell/nsa230_page-1.html"
linktext was:"http://daserste.ndr.de/panorama/aktuell ... age-1.html"
====================================
was cited as the source
Afterward, of course 30,000+ other sites (including high-profile sites, like wired.com) have published regurgitated versions...
but I think the TheRegister article still stands as the best
(even better than the LinuxJournal article you've linked to, which is why I'm motivated to post this reply)
3 July, I read (and bookmarked) a TheRegister article titled"Use Tor or 'extremist' Tails Linux? Congrats, you're on an NSA list"
========= SCRAPER REMOVED AN EMBEDDED LINK HERE ===========
url was:"http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/07/03/nsa_xkeyscore_stasi_scandal/"
linktext was:"http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/07/03 ... i_scandal/"
====================================
in which
"NSA targets the privacy-conscious" (3 July)
========= SCRAPER REMOVED AN EMBEDDED LINK HERE ===========
url was:"http://daserste.ndr.de/panorama/aktuell/nsa230_page-1.html"
linktext was:"http://daserste.ndr.de/panorama/aktuell ... age-1.html"
====================================
was cited as the source
Afterward, of course 30,000+ other sites (including high-profile sites, like wired.com) have published regurgitated versions...
but I think the TheRegister article still stands as the best
(even better than the LinuxJournal article you've linked to, which is why I'm motivated to post this reply)
-
Alanarchy
Posts 0 Alanarchy
#3
I just found this too __{{emoticon}}__ __{{emoticon}}__
========= SCRAPER REMOVED AN EMBEDDED LINK HERE ===========
url was:"https://firstlook.org/theintercept/article/2014/07/23/blacklisted/"
linktext was:"https://firstlook.org/theintercept/arti ... acklisted/"
====================================
The Obama administration has quietly approved a substantial expansion of the terrorist watchlist system, authorizing a secret process that requires neither “concrete facts” nor “irrefutable evidence” to designate an American or foreigner as a terrorist, according to a key government document obtained by The Intercept.
Now here is the really creepy bit:
========= SCRAPER REMOVED AN EMBEDDED LINK HERE ===========
url was:"https://firstlook.org/theintercept/article/2014/07/23/blacklisted/"
linktext was:"https://firstlook.org/theintercept/arti ... acklisted/"
====================================
The Obama administration has quietly approved a substantial expansion of the terrorist watchlist system, authorizing a secret process that requires neither “concrete facts” nor “irrefutable evidence” to designate an American or foreigner as a terrorist, according to a key government document obtained by The Intercept.
Now here is the really creepy bit:
It also allows for dead people to be watchlisted.
-
Posts: 7
- Joined: 23 Jan 2014
#4
Alanarchy, thanks for the link.
Arthur
Arthur