Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 14th Jun 2013 17:32 UTC
Microsoft From Bloomberg: "Microsoft, the world's largest software company, provides intelligence agencies with information about bugs in its popular software before it publicly releases a fix, according to two people familiar with the process. That information can be used to protect government computers and to access the computers of terrorists or military foes." The lid has officially been blown off.
Thread beginning with comment 564856
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[6]: Great Firewall of China
by acobar on Mon 17th Jun 2013 15:56 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Great Firewall of China"
acobar
Member since:
2005-11-15

Now you're just being deliberately obtuse. It's bullshit because it's directly contradicted by numerous, widely known facts about the GFC. And it's bullshit because you haven't provided a single source or shred of evidence to substantiate up your claim. Hell, you haven't even provided any reason to believe that the GFC would actually be EFFECTIVE in preventing spying.


This is really getting ridiculous. I did not say that China did it because they already knew about PRISM, you created this in your own obtuse mind, I said that one of the reasons they probably did it was because paranoid states try to act preventively and, as you probably know, one of the nice functionalities of firewalls is to protect against external threats, and PRISM is clearly one. I said also that many public figures of USA power complained about GFC and that they probably already knew about PRISM, this is well documented, just google for it, and this is the same as a neighbor that likes to walk on others flowers complain that putting a fence makes the neighborhood ugly. You are the one arguing that China did it ONLY to prevent their citizens to get information abroad. A big and narrow minded assumption if you ask me. So burden of proof applies very well to your case.

False equivalence combined with confirmation bias - find me a single country in the world that DOESN'T classify information.


Please! I never said that other countries do not do that, what I said, again, is that paranoid government are more inclined to do so and that they can even do it in ways that do not follow their own legal systems.

More unsubstantiated claims. I'd challenge you to provide examples, but we both know that you either don't have any - or you would just toss out some more red herrings that didn't actually have anything to do with your claims. But hey, anything to justify your irrational, knee-jerk hatred of the US, right?


I guess you only studied history on USA books. USA invaded Iraq on false premises or, even worst, already knowing that the claims were false. Where are the mass destruction weapons? All that after, some years before, they tried to undermine Iran giving weapons to Saddam Hussein to act as proxy. What about the innocent people killed on Afghanistan by the many and documented irresponsible actions? The military of many South American nations actively overthrew legitimate democratic chosen leaders with USA help. Killings, torture and other forms of human rights violations were abound on all that cases and USA elite power has their fingers dirt with blood because of these. Ignoring history is really one option.

Note also that I never said the American people should be accountable for the bad things. I visited many times the country and I really like the place and the many friends I have there, but sure enough many from the elite should be lawfully punished.

The rest of your arguments are all alike, just nonsense ramblings or full of assumptions about not said things.

Reply Parent Score: 3

BallmerKnowsBest Member since:
2008-06-02

This is really getting ridiculous. I did not say that China did it because they already knew about PRISM


What? Where did I ever state otherwise? (Hint: I didn't). If you're really that incapable of basic reading comprehension, that would explain a few things...

you created this in your own obtuse mind


Hey look, I have my own personal copycat - how adorable.

In your next reply, be sure to include something along the lines of "no, YOU have bad reading comprehension" (if you're going to be lazy and witless, then you might as well be consistent about it).

You are the one arguing that China did it ONLY to prevent their citizens to get information abroad. A big and narrow minded assumption if you ask me. So burden of proof applies very well to your case.


You really are fond of the "I know you are, but what am I" schtick, aren't you? Hate to break it to you, but I never actually claimed that domestic censorship was the only reason for the GFC - just the primary reason. And 3 posts in, you STILL haven't provided anything to back up your claims, other than vague supposition.

Also, burden of proof doesn't work that way. You made the initial claim, you failed to substantiate it in any way, so the burden of proof was (and still IS) yours.

I guess you only studied history on USA books.


Too bad I'm not actually an American, genius. I was waiting for someone to make that lazy assumption - and you were the first one gullible enough to take the bait, congrats!

The rest of your arguments are all alike, just nonsense ramblings or full of assumptions about not said things.


Right, that must be why your counter-"arguments" have consisted of nothing more than dodging, backpedaling, and willful ignorance.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[8]: Great Firewall of China
by acobar on Mon 17th Jun 2013 17:39 in reply to "RE[7]: Great Firewall of China"
acobar Member since:
2005-11-15

Buwahahahaha! Riiiiiiiiiiiight, the GFW is purely a defensive measure... I'm sure it has nothing to do with China being one of the most censorship-happy regimes in the industrialized world ... but I never actually claimed that domestic censorship was the only reason for the GFC - just the primary reason.


Again, more of your assumptions, over which we can not be sure about. Perhaps you have some form of insider information. As I said, mine are suppositions about pattern behavior of paranoid states.

Too bad I'm not actually an American, genius. I was waiting for someone to make that lazy assumption


You again jumping on assumptions. I never said you had American citizenship, only that you where "following lessons" from "American books" for whatever reason. This is a big difference, but as I said, you like to put your thoughts on others minds.

Right, that must be why your counter-"arguments" have consisted of nothing more than dodging, backpedaling, and willful ignorance.


Not at all, you asked me to back my argument that USA and China elites are alike on the way they treat their citizens, granted, USA may not be as bad, but both are not examples of respect to privacy, liberty and human rights, as I have illustrated by history facts on USA case.

Reply Parent Score: 3