London Woolwich Knife Attack: Conspiracy theories debunked by Infowars

[JRBids]

Who knows... perhaps they didn't jump quick enough or high enough when ordered to.

Banksters have nothing to worry about because they are too big to jail, but the ordinary guy... well now that's a different story isn't it.

Who knows, one day you may wake up to find you did something 'wrong' lol... that'll be a shock for you won't it?

Just out of interest... do you see anything wrong in this guy being jailed or do you think it's ok?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...hday-greeting-Facebook-gagged-naming-him.html

I think you should get the law changed in the UK if it is wrong.

And what makes you think individual "banksters" wouldn't have something to worry about. How big do you have to be to not worry?

 

[JRBids]

For every terrorist killed by a drone, 10 innocent civilians are killed. These are facts. You know it and I know it so why be so deliberately obtuse?

For every soldier killed I'm sure there are innocent civilians being killed also, that is what happens unfortunately.

The question was 'how you would feel if your Country was invaded', and you respond with 'If I was a this or that'... how obtuse can you get? But more to the point, who do you think you are fooling?

I'm with BombDr on this one. You are posting "what if" scenarios that don't affect me.

 

[Oxymoron]

For every soldier killed I'm sure there are innocent civilians being killed also, that is what happens unfortunately.

Gobbledegook

I'm with BombDr on this one. You are posting "what if" scenarios that don't affect me.

So you would fight, that would make you a terrorist then?

 

[Oxymoron]

If the Uk was invaded I would fight them, after all that is what I am employed to to. I assumed your question was in the context of Iraq and Afghanistan. I would also fight any intelligence gathering.

But the Uk is not Iraq, nor Afghanistan, so the question is irrelevant.

Ah, missed your response for a bit.

Well I am pleased to hear you would fight. But that would make you a terrorist in the eyes of the invading force yes?

 

[Cairenn]

I want to hear about that spy TV you mentioned also.


Where is there any proof that the biometric data is being used for anything other than ID ?

You have set up an illogical question. If I want to drive in Texas, they demand my fingerprint. In a country where there may be hundreds of folks with the same name and the fact that there are no existing birth certificates or other ID, it seems reasonable to me. I don't see why you are having a problem with positive IDs, in the US, in the UK or in any country. It would seem that only conspiracy land would have a major objection to that.

 

[JRBids]

Originally Posted by JRBids
For every soldier killed I'm sure there are innocent civilians being killed also, that is what happens unfortunately.

Gobbledegook

I'm with BombDr on this one. You are posting "what if" scenarios that don't affect me.

So you would fight, that would make you a terrorist then?

I'm sorry, Oxy. To quote YOU, that's gobbledegook to me.

 

[BombDr]

Gobbledegook



So you would fight, that would make you a terrorist then?

No, I am a legitimate member of the Armed Forces of a Sovereign nation, with a democratically elected government. I have a salary, and ID card and rights under the geneva Convention. My government works in accordance with UN resolutions (debatable, I know).

The Taliban are not, and were never the legitimate representatives of anything. Nor are Al Qaeda, nor are the Hizbollah and nor were the IRA. Your comparison is invalid.

 

[BombDr]

Ah, missed your response for a bit.

Well I am pleased to hear you would fight. But that would make you a terrorist in the eyes of the invading force yes?

No, that would make me the enemy. When I invaded Iraq, we never discussed the 50th Medina Division of the Iraqi Army as terrorists. In any event, this is irrelevant as these two alleged murderers were British, and had not a hair on their heads harmed by the UK state, and they sought to change political policy by violence - aka terrorism.

 

[David Fraser]

Ah, missed your response for a bit.

Well I am pleased to hear you would fight. But that would make you a terrorist in the eyes of the invading force yes?

There is no clear definition of terrorists outside of someone that uses terror to get their point across. I think that is why in Afghanistan great pains have been made to call the Taliban insurgents. At the end of the day it is all semantics. I remember years back having an argument with an American as I had said the IRA were terrorists (to be fair in the army we called them "players"). He was calling them freedom fighters and insurgents which showed ignorance on the issue, but my definition is one that an organisation that intentionally targets civilians or positions covered by the Geneva Convention, as their main doctrine. That definition applies to any nations military as well.

 

[BombDr]

There is no clear definition of terrorists outside of someone that uses terror to get their point across. I think that is why in Afghanistan great pains have been made to call the Taliban insurgents. At the end of the day it is all semantics. I remember years back having an argument with an American as I had said the IRA were terrorists (to be fair in the army we called them "players"). He was calling them freedom fighters and insurgents which showed ignorance on the issue, but my definition is one that an organisation that intentionally targets civilians or positions covered by the Geneva Convention, as their main doctrine. That definition applies to any nations military as well.

I would disagree slightly, where my definition is that of someone who has left the democratic process to carry out their attacks. Ireland for examle had a democratically elected government, with a legitimate Army in the Irish Defence Force. The IRA however rebelled against the government of Ireland and illegally took up arms against both the British and irish governments. The French resistance were the representatives of the French government in exile. 'Resistance' movements are only legitimate if they represent a legitimate government.

 

[Oxymoron]

I would slo still like to hear about this TV with a spy camera in it...

I didn't say it was a 'spy camera', I said it is well known facial recognition software which is widely used in many things such as phones, computers and even tv. It is the use to which it is put which makes it a 'good' or 'bad' thing, depending on your outlook and intent.

All I said was the technology is widely available and undoubtedly has military and spying capabilities.

JR, Cairenn and yourself seem comfortable not having any privacy 'because you have nothing to hide' and infer that the only people to object to this invasion of privacy, (and I am not talking about the tv here), are people 'who do have something to hide'... the same old worn out mantra of all dictatorial and dystopic promulgators. No doubt your thinking is well in accord with the likes of Brzezinski

One has to wonder what else you are in favour of re public spying and control.

A very simple search results in at leas one such tv, I think there are a number if you are genuinely interested.

http://www.samsung.com/us/2012-smart-tv/

 

[BombDr]

I didn't say it was a 'spy camera', I said it is well known facial recognition software which is widely used in many things such as phones, computers and even tv. It is the use to which it is put which makes it a 'good' or 'bad' thing, depending on your outlook and intent.

All I said was the technology is widely available and undoubtedly has military and spying capabilities.

JR, Cairenn and yourself seem comfortable not having any privacy 'because you have nothing to hide' and infer that the only people to object to this invasion of privacy, (and I am not talking about the tv here), are people 'who do have something to hide'... the same old worn out mantra of all dictatorial and dystopic promulgators. No doubt your thinking is well in accord with the likes of Brzezinski

One has to wonder what else you are in favour of re public spying and control.

A very simple search results in at leas one such tv, I think there are a number if you are genuinely interested.

http://www.samsung.com/us/2012-smart-tv/

Oxy, with respect, it is difficult to follow your thinking. You started off with an idea of people being tracked in Afghanistan, and Sherrifs with mobile phones and speed cameras in the UK catching speeders, and you equate these things with facial recognition in cameras and phones. It is not compulsory for you to purchase one of these phones, or TVs and you are conflating the involuntary with the voluntary.

Then whe I do not see the sinister nature of your fears, that makes me happy to surrender all the rest of my rights to the state - wrong. In the UK we have more CCTV than most other places, but it only has a marginal effect on crime prevention. It does have a good effect on convictions though. Again, as a non-criminal I am unconcerned. You need to demonstrate, with facts, a situation in which the State can abuse this. What is your definition of 'control' as I have no idea what you mean.

 

[David Fraser]

How did the IRA from the '70's rebel against the Irish? At one stage the Irish where going to cross the border into Northern Ireland.

 

[BombDr]

How did the IRA from the '70's rebel against the Irish? At one stage the Irish where going to cross the border into Northern Ireland.

That was before the deployment of British troops and to 'relieve' the catholic communities of Derry and Belfast. I was Haughey's idea, that was declined by the Irish Defence Force. The IRA was still illegal in Ireland and the intervention plan was not an endorsement of IRA policy.

 

[JRBids]

JR, Cairenn and yourself seem comfortable not having any privacy 'because you have nothing to hide' and infer that the only people to object to this invasion of privacy, (and I am not talking about the tv here), are people 'who do have something to hide'... the same old worn out mantra of all dictatorial and dystopic promulgators. No doubt your thinking is well in accord with the likes of Brzezinski

One has to wonder what else you are in favour of re public spying and control.

"Not having any privacy"? A little hyperbolic, no?

 

[Oxymoron]

"Not having any privacy"? A little hyperbolic, no?

No

 

[Oxymoron]

Oxy, with respect, it is difficult to follow your thinking. You started off with an idea of people being tracked in Afghanistan, and Sherrifs with mobile phones and speed cameras in the UK catching speeders, and you equate these things with facial recognition in cameras and phones. It is not compulsory for you to purchase one of these phones, or TVs and you are conflating the involuntary with the voluntary.

I don't understand why you are having difficulty understanding.

I will try again. It falls into 2 categories. 1) The technology for facial recognition is available... it is even in the private sector as a desirable thing. So it cannot be disputed that it exists, which is what you and others appeared to be saying. I trust that is now not an issue. Obviously I am not concerned with the technology per se as it is up to the individual if or how they use it.

However, from a military and law enforcement perspective, many people are concerned about it's intrusive application in regards to violation of civil liberties and it's potential for abuse. I thought that was general knowledge.

Re Iraq applications, it is, in the view of many and in particular the Iraqi Afghan people's view, an extreme violation of their civil liberties. It has been rolled out across the population and it obviously is done for one reason, tracking/targeting. It has been carried out by an invading force which hardly anyone wants there. I trust that is now clear.

Then whe I do not see the sinister nature of your fears, that makes me happy to surrender all the rest of my rights to the state - wrong. In the UK we have more CCTV than most other places, but it only has a marginal effect on crime prevention. It does have a good effect on convictions though. Again, as a non-criminal I am unconcerned. You need to demonstrate, with facts, a situation in which the State can abuse this. What is your definition of 'control' as I have no idea what you mean.

Well you may not mind but as a non criminal, I do and so do millions of other non criminals and I will oppose it. I will not stand in the way of people who want to be on these databases and submit to being spied on but it is not for me.

It is ridiculous. Why should the civilian population be databased and catalogued and surveilled and phone calls and emails logged and all the other junk.

The government has no idea how many illegal immigrants are even in the Country but they want to spend billions in a recession spying on the public for the hell of it. Cut hospitals, schools, libraries, old folks care, benefits and every other conceievable thing but spend billions on illegal and immoral wars and spying on it's own people.

 

[Cairenn]

Where is your evidence for the government wanting to "spend billions in a recession spying on the public for the hell of it" or where the entire "civilian population be databased and catalogued and surveilled and phone calls and emails logged and all the other junk." is being done?

Let's see your evidence first.

 

[Joe]

Where is your evidence for the government wanting to "spend billions in a recession spying on the public for the hell of it" or where the entire "civilian population be databased and catalogued and surveilled and phone calls and emails logged and all the other junk." is being done?

Let's see your evidence first.

right here Utahs Data mining center everything will be stored http://www.theblaze.com/stories/201...ns-ribbon-cutting-for-giant-utah-data-center/ Drive thru any Florida Tool Booth The Raytheon cameras arent just looking at your plate , there not just cameras either . I had taken a picture of them but cant seem to find it Ill post it when i find it .

 

[Cairenn]

The Utah facility cannot process all of the internet, not even those items with key words in them. They may well be able to track some people, but take the word 'attack'. Folks playing a computer gave will talk about 'attacking'. Politicians and pundits talk about personal attacks, the same is true with many internet forums and FB. Dogs attack, homemakers 'attack' a messy house, a stain, the pile of laundry. Newscasters report many types of attacks, from criminal, to political to many others.

That facility will be huge, but it isn't large enough to even monitor 5% of the US internet traffic. Then there are cell phones, land lines and such.

 

[Mick West]

That facility will be huge, but it isn't large enough to even monitor 5% of the US internet traffic.

Do you have figures for what "huge" and "5% of the US internet traffic" actually are?

 

[Joe]

The Utah facility cannot process all of the internet, not even those items with key words in them. They may well be able to track some people, but take the word 'attack'. Folks playing a computer gave will talk about 'attacking'. Politicians and pundits talk about personal attacks, the same is true with many internet forums and FB. Dogs attack, homemakers 'attack' a messy house, a stain, the pile of laundry. Newscasters report many types of attacks, from criminal, to political to many others.

That facility will be huge, but it isn't large enough to even monitor 5% of the US internet traffic. Then there are cell phones, land lines and such.

I heard there is enough capacity to track almost everything .

 

[Joe]

http://nsa.gov1.info/data/index.html

[BUNK]

Your Data: If You Have Nothing to Hide, You Have Nothing to Fear

Our value is founded on a unique and deep understanding of risks, vulnerabilities, mitigations, and threats. Domestic Surveillance plays a vital role in our national security by maintaining a total information awareness of all domestic activities by using advanced data mining systems to "connect the dots" to identify suspicious patterns.


Why We Collect Your Data

Under the authority of Homeland Security Presidential Directive 6, which defines the integration and use of screening information to protect against terrorism, the NSA is authorized to collect and disseminate information about suspected foreign and domestic terrorists. In the past, this meant gathering information AFTER a target had been identified. This often led to missed intelligence and lost opportunities.

But what if we could collect the information in advance, before the target was known? What if the mere act of collecting information could result in the identification of new targets? What if we could build a national data warehouse containing all available information about every person in the United States? Under the authority of the classified Homeland Security Directive 15 (U.S. Strategy and Policy in the War on Terror), we can.

What Data We Collect

Every day, people leave a digital trail of electronic breadcrumbs as they go about their daily routine. They go to work using electronic fare cards; drive through intersections with traffic cameras; walk down the street past security cameras; surf the internet; pay for purchases with credit/debit cards; text or call their friends; and on and on.
There is no way to predict in advance which crucial piece of data will be the key to revealing a potential plot. The standard operating procedure for the Domestic Surveillance Directorate is to "collect all available information from all available sources all the time, every time, always".
For security reasons, it is unrealistic to expect a complete list of information we collect for our national citizen database. In the spirit of openness and transparency however, here is a partial list:

• internet searches
• websites visited
• emails sent and received
• social media activity (Facebook, Twitter, etc)
• blogging activity including posts read, written, and commented on - View our patent
• videos watched and/or uploaded online
• photos viewed and/or uploaded online
• music downloads
• mobile phone GPS-location data
• mobile phone apps downloaded
• phone call records - View our patent
• text messages sent and received
• online purchases and auction transactions
• bookstore receipts
• credit card/ debit card transactions
• bank statements
• cable television shows watched and recorded
• commuter toll records
• parking receipts
• electronic bus and subway passes / Smartpasses
• travel itineraries
• border crossings
• surveillance cameras
• medical information including diagnoses and treatments
• prescription drug purchases
• guns and ammunition sales
• educational records
• arrest records
• driver license information

[/BUNK]

 

[Mick West]

You might want to look at the bottom of the page on that site Joe:

This is a parody of nsa.gov and has not been approved, endorsed, or authorized by the National Security Agency or by any other U.S. Government agency.
Much of the content on this site has been derived from the news articles, privacy groups, and government website links found on the left sidebars of each page.

http://nsa.gov1.info/about/about.html

This parody website has no connection whatsoever to the National Security Agency.

The "Domestic Surveillance Directorate" is a fictitious entity I created to raise awareness of important privacy issues. I'm not an expert in this subject matter nor am I associated with any privacy group. The Domestic Surveillance Directorate seal was created using an image I found on the Electronic Frontier Foundation's (EFF) website.

The sidebars on each page of this site contain related links from government websites, news media, and privacy groups. Today's technology provides the opportunity for the creation of a massive surveillance apparatus that, if left unchecked, could have a permanent impact on our privacy. Continual advances in processing power and storage technology over time could make something like a "Domestic Surveillance Directorate" economically feasible under the right circumstances.

Shortly after his inauguration in 2009, President Obama issued a memo declaring his commitment to an "unprecedented level of openness in Government". He wrote: "Transparency promotes accountability and provides information for citizens about what their Government is doing." This website is my attempt to apply that unprecedented level of openness to a subject matter that is anything but.

Contact: my email

 

[Joe]

You might want to look at the bottom of the page on that site Joe:

This is a parody of nsa.gov and has not been approved, endorsed, or authorized by the National Security Agency or by any other U.S. Government agency.
Much of the content on this site has been derived from the news articles, privacy groups, and government website links found on the left sidebars of each page.

http://nsa.gov1.info/about/about.html

This parody website has no connection whatsoever to the National Security Agency.

The "Domestic Surveillance Directorate" is a fictitious entity I created to raise awareness of important privacy issues. I'm not an expert in this subject matter nor am I associated with any privacy group. The Domestic Surveillance Directorate seal was created using an image I found on the Electronic Frontier Foundation's (EFF) website.

The sidebars on each page of this site contain related links from government websites, news media, and privacy groups. Today's technology provides the opportunity for the creation of a massive surveillance apparatus that, if left unchecked, could have a permanent impact on our privacy. Continual advances in processing power and storage technology over time could make something like a "Domestic Surveillance Directorate" economically feasible under the right circumstances.

Shortly after his inauguration in 2009, President Obama issued a memo declaring his commitment to an "unprecedented level of openness in Government". He wrote: "Transparency promotes accountability and provides information for citizens about what their Government is doing." This website is my attempt to apply that unprecedented level of openness to a subject matter that is anything but.

Contact: my email

Good one I heard it had enough capacity to do what was listed . is that possible ?

The Utah Data Center, also known as the Intelligence Community Comprehensive National Cybersecurity Initiative Data Center,[1]​ is a data storage facility for the United States Intelligence Community that is designed to be a primary storage resource capable of storing data on the scale of yottabytes (1 yottabyte = 1 trillion terabytes, or 1 quadrillion gigabytes)

????

 

[Cairenn]

Mick, I was looking and I can't find a number for US internet traffic.

This is from Wikipedia on the Utah facility

The Utah Data Center, also known as the Intelligence Community Comprehensive National Cybersecurity Initiative Data Center,[1] is a data storage facility for the United States Intelligence Community that is designed to be a primary storage resource capable of storing data on the scale of yottabytes (1 yottabyte = 1 trillion terabytes, or 1 quadrillion gigabytes).[2][3] Its purpose — as the name implies — is to support the Comprehensive National Cybersecurity Initiative (CNCI), though its precise mission is secret.[4] The National Security Agency, which will lead operations at the facility, is the executive agent for the Director of National Intelligence.[5] It is located at Camp Williams, near Bluffdale, Utah, between Utah Lake and Great Salt Lake.

The data center is alleged to be able to capture "all forms of communication, including the complete contents of private emails, cell phone calls, and Internet searches, as well as all sorts of personal data trails—parking receipts, travel itineraries, bookstore purchases, and other digital 'pocket litter'."[2] According to the FISA Amendments Act of 2008, the federal government is legally prohibited from collecting, storing, analyzing, or disseminating the content of the communications of US persons, whether inside or outside of the United States, unless authorized by an individual warrant from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.[6]

The planned structure is 1 million or 1.5 million square feet[3][7][8] and it is projected to cost from $1.5 billion[9][10][11] to $2 billion when finished in September 2013.[2][3] One report suggested that it will cost another $2 billion for hardware, software, and maintenance.[3] The completed facility is expected to have a power demand of 65 megawatts, costing about $40 million per year.

I would like to point out this part of that post "According to the FISA Amendments Act of 2008, the federal government is legally prohibited from collecting, storing, analyzing, or disseminating the content of the communications of US persons, whether inside or outside of the United States, unless authorized by an individual warrant from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court."

The government is PROHIBITED from collecting, storing or using the content of US citizens without a warrant'.

 

[Joe]

Mick, I was looking and I can't find a number for US internet traffic.

This is from Wikipedia on the Utah facility

The Utah Data Center, also known as the Intelligence Community Comprehensive National Cybersecurity Initiative Data Center,[1] is a data storage facility for the United States Intelligence Community that is designed to be a primary storage resource capable of storing data on the scale of yottabytes (1 yottabyte = 1 trillion terabytes, or 1 quadrillion gigabytes).[2][3] Its purpose — as the name implies — is to support the Comprehensive National Cybersecurity Initiative (CNCI), though its precise mission is secret.[4] The National Security Agency, which will lead operations at the facility, is the executive agent for the Director of National Intelligence.[5] It is located at Camp Williams, near Bluffdale, Utah, between Utah Lake and Great Salt Lake.

The data center is alleged to be able to capture "all forms of communication, including the complete contents of private emails, cell phone calls, and Internet searches, as well as all sorts of personal data trails—parking receipts, travel itineraries, bookstore purchases, and other digital 'pocket litter'."[2] According to the FISA Amendments Act of 2008, the federal government is legally prohibited from collecting, storing, analyzing, or disseminating the content of the communications of US persons, whether inside or outside of the United States, unless authorized by an individual warrant from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.[6]

The planned structure is 1 million or 1.5 million square feet[3][7][8] and it is projected to cost from $1.5 billion[9][10][11] to $2 billion when finished in September 2013.[2][3] One report suggested that it will cost another $2 billion for hardware, software, and maintenance.[3] The completed facility is expected to have a power demand of 65 megawatts, costing about $40 million per year.

I would like to point out this part of that post "According to the FISA Amendments Act of 2008, the federal government is legally prohibited from collecting, storing, analyzing, or disseminating the content of the communications of US persons, whether inside or outside of the United States, unless authorized by an individual warrant from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court."

The government is PROHIBITED from collecting, storing or using the content of US citizens without a warrant'.

LOL Tell Eric Holder that . If you believe that one I have some swamp land down here in Florida For sale

 

[Mick West]

Good one I heard it had enough capacity to do what was listed . is that possible ?

See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utah_Data_Center

Officially and legally it can only intercept foreign communications.

The figures posted sound like bullshit, but it's very hard to explain large numbers to people.

They talk about yottabytes. (10^24). The reason that sounds like BS is that the entire worlds internet traffic is for 2015 is only projected to be 1/1000th of that (966 exabytes), and the vast majority of that is going to be streaming video.

Some perspective: A yottabyte is a trillion terabytes (TB). Realistically they are only going to be using at most 10TB hard drives (and more likely 4TB, seeing at 10TB don't exist yet), so that's 100 billion hard drives. Or:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yottabyte

To store a yottabyte on terabyte sized hard drives would require a million city block size data-centers, as big as the states of Delaware and Rhode Island.[1] If 64 GB microSDXC cards (the most compact data storage medium available to public as of early 2013) were used instead, the total volume would be approximately 2500000 cubic meters, or the volume of the Great Pyramid of Giza.

Besides the space, the the cost of storage would be in the trillions of dollars.

I think it's probably about a millionth the size of a yottabyte, somewhere in the exabytes range.

However, storing all the voice and email communications is probably not entirely out of the question.

 

[Joe]

This is a older story from Fox news . Im sure nobody really knows except the NSA what the capacity is ?

The NSA says the Utah Data Center is a facility for the intelligence community that will have a major focus on cyber security. The agency will neither confirm nor deny specifics. Some published reports suggest it could hold 5 zettabytes of data. (Just one zettabyte is the equivalent of about 62 billion stacked iPhones 5's-- that stretches past the moon.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2013/04...r-liberty-security-and-privacy/#ixzz2V7VcwAOq

Global IP traffic will exceed a Zettabyte for the first time- Cisco predicts approximately 1.3 Zettabytes of traffic will pass through the global pipeline in the year 2016. This is approximately 109.5 exabytes of traffic per month, or 12.5 petabytes every five minutes.

 

[Mick West]

This is a older story from Fox news . Im sure nobody really knows except the NSA what the capacity is ?

The NSA says the Utah Data Center is a facility for the intelligence community that will have a major focus on cyber security. The agency will neither confirm nor deny specifics. Some published reports suggest it could hold 5 zettabytes of data. (Just one zettabyte is the equivalent of about 62 billion stacked iPhones 5's-- that stretches past the moon.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2013/04...r-liberty-security-and-privacy/#ixzz2V7VcwAOq

More reasonable, but still likely a very high end estimate.

Facebook generates about 7 Petabytes per month. Their new (2013) high end data center is just one exabyte (1/1000th of a zettabyte).
http://storageservers.wordpress.com...p-with-exabyte-data-centers-for-cold-storage/

So I'd suspect the NSA center is in the multiple exabyte range.

See here:

The number after the 10 is the number of zeros. So each thing is 1000 times the thing above it.

It's an easy thing to confuse people with, as most people only have a vague idea of numbers bigger than a million, so the tera+ range is not generally understood.

 

[Cairenn]

The new HPC center will be housed in a three-story, 110,000 square foot facility with room to accommodate BP's computing needs today and into the future. Equipped with more than 67,000 CPUs, it is expected to have the ability to process data at a rate of up to two petaflops by next year. The existing HPC now has a peak rate of 1.227 petaflops.

BP's new supercomputer will also boast total memory of 536 terabytes and disk space of 23.5 petabytes – the equivalent of 147,000 Apple iPods with 160GB memory. If stacked vertically, those iPods would climb nearly five times higher than the Empire State Building.

http://www.bp.com/genericarticle.do?categoryId=2012968&contentId=7081252

That is currently possible. It does seem that Dell is overwhelmed in supplying the computers for it. According to the IT guy where my hubby works, they are not taking any large commercial orders right now.

 

[Joe]

It's an easy thing to confuse people with, as most people only have a vague idea of numbers bigger than a million

that would explain the trillions wasted in Government ?

 

[Mick West]

The new HPC center will be housed in a three-story, 110,000 square foot facility with room to accommodate BP's computing needs today and into the future. Equipped with more than 67,000 CPUs, it is expected to have the ability to process data at a rate of up to two petaflops by next year. The existing HPC now has a peak rate of 1.227 petaflops.

BP's new supercomputer will also boast total memory of 536 terabytes and disk space of 23.5 petabytes – the equivalent of 147,000 Apple iPods with 160GB memory. If stacked vertically, those iPods would climb nearly five times higher than the Empire State Building.

http://www.bp.com/genericarticle.do?categoryId=2012968&contentId=7081252

That is currently possible. It does seem that Dell is overwhelmed in supplying the computers for it. According to the IT guy where my hubby works, they are not taking any large commercial orders right now.

That 23.5 petabytes is low (0.023 exabytes), as it's not a data center, it's a computing center. Facebook is a better comparison, as they actually DO store all the FB messages, photos, posts, and videos. Other comparable big players are Google/Youtube, Amazon, Flickr, Twitter, and Microsoft.

 

[Mick West]

that would explain the trillions wasted in Government ?

It would explain the idea that trillions are wasted. In reality it's billions wasted, but since people don't really understand the difference then trillions sounds better.

Unless you are referring to the entire budget that is, $3.5 trillion.

A "yotta" would be a trillion trillion. Nobody knows how much that is

http://www.hark.com/clips/fyvswydldg-i-dont-even-know-what-that-is

 

[Cairenn]

I think some of the NSA hopes are just that, hopes.

Facebook would be a better comparison.

The numbers are so BIG it is hard to understand them.

 

[Joe]

It would explain the idea that trillions are wasted. In reality it's billions wasted, but since people don't really understand the difference then trillions sounds better.

Unless you are referring to the entire budget that is, $3.5 trillion.

A "yotta" would be a trillion trillion. Nobody knows how much that is

http://www.hark.com/clips/fyvswydldg-i-dont-even-know-what-that-is

No if the entire budget is 3,5 trillion I would say at least half is wasted . Wow a Trillion Trillion ?

 

[Mick West]

No if the entire budget is 3,5 trillion I would say at least half is wasted

The half spend on defense?

I think we have drifted a little off topic now.

 

[Jazzy]

Seems like revenge/retaliation to me, in fact the guy says so in no uncertain terms. It is a terrible tragedy but I can't help but hear the hollowness and hypocrisy of Cameron and Obama etc condemning terrorism whilst at the same time ordering it carried out on a grand scale, abroad.

I too thought him sincere, intelligent, literate. I hear you. I don't live there any more. It's rather like being a vegetarian. You feel more alert afterward.

I am conflicted between this guy's nobility and his brutality, of course. Kamikaze without the plane. I just wish we didn't so freely confuse greed with conscience while murdering, abroad.

 

[Oxymoron]

I think we have drifted a little off topic now.

Interesting drift nonetheless. Thanks to all.

This was also an interesting link in Joe's post.

http://chronicle.com/article/Why-Privacy-Matters-Even-if/127461/

There are many other forms of invasion of privacy, such as blackmail and the improper use of your personal data. Your privacy can also be invaded if the government compiles an extensive dossier about you. Privacy, in other words, involves so many things that it is impossible to reduce them all to one simple idea. And we need not do so.


But the problem with the nothing-to-hide argument is the underlying assumption that privacy is about hiding bad things.

As the computer-security specialist Schneier aptly notes, the nothing-to-hide argument stems from a faulty "premise that privacy is about hiding a wrong." Surveillance, for example, can inhibit such lawful activities as free speech, free association, and other First Amendment rights essential for democracy.

The deeper problem with the nothing-to-hide argument is that it myopically views privacy as a form of secrecy. In contrast, understanding privacy as a plurality of related issues demonstrates that the disclosure of bad things is just one among many difficulties caused by government security measures. To return to my discussion of literary metaphors, the problems are not just Orwellian but Kafkaesque.

Government information-gathering programs are problematic even if no information that people want to hide is uncovered. In The Trial, the problem is not inhibited behavior but rather a suffocating powerlessness and vulnerability created by the court system's use of personal data and its denial to the protagonist of any knowledge of or participation in the process.

Another potential problem with the government's harvest of personal data is one I call exclusion. Exclusion occurs when people are prevented from having knowledge about how information about them is being used, and when they are barred from accessing and correcting errors in that data. Many government national-security measures involve maintaining a huge database of information that individuals cannot access. Indeed, because they involve national security, the very existence of these programs is often kept secret. This kind of information processing, which blocks subjects' knowledge and involvement, is a kind of due-process problem. It is a structural problem, involving the way people are treated by government institutions and creating a power imbalance between people and the government. To what extent should government officials have such a significant power over citizens? This issue isn't about what information people want to hide but about the power and the structure of government.

 

[BombDr]

I don't understand why you are having difficulty understanding.

I will try again. It falls into 2 categories. 1) The technology for facial recognition is available... it is even in the private sector as a desirable thing. So it cannot be disputed that it exists, which is what you and others appeared to be saying. I trust that is now not an issue. Obviously I am not concerned with the technology per se as it is up to the individual if or how they use it.

However, from a military and law enforcement perspective, many people are concerned about it's intrusive application in regards to violation of civil liberties and it's potential for abuse. I thought that was general knowledge.

OK got it. You be concerned, I am not. If you are still not happy, write to your local representative, but what I struggle with is your inferrence that it is a done deal when it is not. They could tap your phone for the last 60 years, but they do not. They could open your mail for the last 1000 years ... come up with some actula evidence that it is being done then I might take more notice, but right now all you have is 'its possible'.

Re Iraq applications, it is, in the view of many and in particular the Iraqi Afghan people's view, an extreme violation of their civil liberties. It has been rolled out across the population and it obviously is done for one reason, tracking/targeting. It has been carried out by an invading force which hardly anyone wants there. I trust that is now clear.

They also consider a law to outlaw murdering their female relatives a violation of their civil liberties. The 'Invading Force' cannot biometrically enroll anyone without the consent of the Afghan Government. ISAF there as a result of UNSCR 1378, so it is not an 'Invading Force'. As for your assertion that 'hardly anyone wants there', that is simply incorrect:

"Polls indicate that 59 percent of Afghans have confidence that their country is moving in the right direction. Seventy percent of Afghans supported the presence of international forces, which indicates that Afghans understand that international forces are not those of an empire seeking to conquer and occupy Afghanistan, but a UN-mandated multinational operation designed to support their national goals and ambitions. The Afghan government also has the support of the majority of Afghans: 55 percent of Afghans believe their government is successful while the ANSF earned a 75 percent approval rating among Afghans. This compares very favorably with the Taliban popularity rate below 8 percent."

James G. Stavridis National Defence University.

I suppose you could dismiss that as propaganda, so here is some polling from the Asia Foundation, which last time I checked were not CIA or Zionsist stooges:

http://asiafoundation.org/publications/pdf/1163

Table 7.1: Do you have a great deal of confidence, a fair amount of confidence, not very much confidence or no confidence at all in the following institutions? (Q-42a&b, Base 6290)
Confidence (%) (Great deal + Fair amount)

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Afghan National Army 87 88 89 91 91 93 93
Afghan National Police 86 83 82 84 79 83 82


The most commonly cited reasons for optimism are good security (41%) and reconstruction/rebuilding (35%), followed by the opening of schools for girls (14%), improvement in the education system (13%), and having an active Afghan National Army (ANA) and Afghan National Police (ANP) (13%).

These guys do the majority if biometric enrollments, not ISAF.

"About two-thirds of Afghans support the presence of ISAF forces in Afghanistan, according to a reliable ABC/BBC/ADR poll conducted in December 2009."


So again, it is utterly incorrect to suggest 'hardly anyone wants ISAF there', as is demonstrated above. I like facts, not emotive assertions.

Well you may not mind but as a non criminal, I do and so do millions of other non criminals and I will oppose it. I will not stand in the way of people who want to be on these databases and submit to being spied on but it is not for me.

No one is making you buy a smart TV. You still have not demonstrated the intent to 'spy'.

It is ridiculous. Why should the civilian population be databased and catalogued and surveilled and phone calls and emails logged and all the other junk.

Which civilians? Again, please demonstrate the actual spying you percieve. Bear in mind, the government can't effectively compell the population to pay the right taxes, so I think you might be exaggerating the potential for this surveillance that you imagine. Secondly, they would have to employ lots of intelligence analysts to collate all this information and for what purpose?

The government has no idea how many illegal immigrants are even in the Country but they want to spend billions in a recession spying on the public for the hell of it. Cut hospitals, schools, libraries, old folks care, benefits and every other conceievable thing but spend billions on illegal and immoral wars and spying on it's own people.

Again, please demonstrate the spying. Just repeating it does not make it so.