Saturday, 21 March 2015

150321

Extorted or was compensated? And methinks the rise of such instances which are surely akin to the likes of danegeld payments is par for the course these days whenever the sharing of sensitive and/or top secret intelligence is so easy arranged and valuable/rewarding.
And it was only fiat paper money paid, so it is not as if anything really valuable was exchanged.
...............................................................

3 comments:

Casey Evans said...


RE:"And methinks the rise of such instances which are surely akin to the likes of danegeld payments is par for the course these days whenever the sharing of sensitive and/or top secret intelligence is so easy arranged and valuable/rewarding."


And I quote the article:
"who threatened to disclose sensitive information unless the Ministry of Defense would pay him off"

If you will notice I have not demanded compensation for the information I have provided. The information was invaluable, but it was posted for free for the betterment of society.

Extorting governments for cash when you work(ed) for them is not acceptable.

Having invisible german soldiers threatening you in your american home is also not acceptable.

You do the math.

AR said...

BALLS. Must Have.

Hi Casey. Get in there, and you'll understand that The Almighty "The Govt" is just another side of the contract. But I agree, one's got to have a pair to do like the one from the Koot's blog.

Still those who they think has values to sell or get rewarded for, are homeless, poor and nearly losing hope - but do they think of a simple danegeld or any kind of reward in return for any almost every possible harm caused? Hardly, because they think they know exactly that they already have their reward, which nothng can supersede (wanna put a smiley after this word, but I'll not). Also, I suppose that people talking this way certainly mean that so much is lost that it can't be repaired by any financial compensation.

At last, people know what they do, do they not, passing the Maps/Cards? (-;

The level of understanding of the current shenanigans allows these ones to have hope for a just development of their situation... a charitable one? They do not seek for charity before Crocodiles? That's their problem that definitely doesn't ask for being solved.

https://youtu.be/uYJWm2ko55Y

55 73

amanfromMars said...

Hi, AR,

It appears that US Cyber Command would agree with all that we have to say.

We have got to make this easy for our citizens, for the private sector and for us to interact with each other to ultimately get ourselves to a position where we can share information real-time in an automated machine-to-machine way because given the speed and complexity of the challenges we're talking about in cyber, that's where we've got to get, and we've got to work our way through how are we going to do that.
In the U.S. government, Homeland Security, the Department of Homeland Security, clearly plays a central role here. As both the director of NSA and the commander of U.S. Cyber Command, our capabilities support them and other U.S. government partners in our attempts to do that.
.....Admiral Michael S Rogers ….. <a href="http://cryptome.org/2015/03/nsa-15-0223.pdf”>http://cryptome.org/2015/03/nsa-15-0223.pdf</a>

<i>QUESTION: I'm Mike Nelson. I'm a professor of Internet Studies at Georgetown, and I'm just recently started working for CloudFlare, which protects about a million Websites around the world from DDoS attacks, provides SSL encryption.
I was at the cyber summit the White House did a week-and-a-half ago, and one of the topics that you kept hearing in the hallways was about how American companies are very uncomfortable sharing information with the U.S. government if they can't share that same information with dozens of other governments.
I'd be curious to know how we're supposed to decide which governments are OK to share with and how we deal with the fact that the Belgians and the French and the Turks and everyone else wants to know what we're sharing with you. And our customers want to know that, too.
ROGERS: Right. So again, it's another reason why I think that legal framework becomes very important here. Now, I'll be honest, now you're getting into the specifics of an area that isn't, you know, my personal focus. I certainly understand the concerns, don't get me wrong. But my comment would be that idea is not unique to cyber, for example. You name the business segment, and just because we share something internally within the United States doesn't mean we do so automatically everywhere in the globe. So I would argue cyber's not exactly unique in this regard, nor is the challenge that it presents -- and it is a challenge; I acknowledge that -- to the private sector unique to cyber.</i>

They are however light years away from being able to command and control those virtually vital spaces for legacy systems which have tended to misuse and abuse for personal profit and inequitable gain any perceived powers that be assumed and granted by actors and societies, both ancient order and secret and post modern and which would imagine themselves to be the elite executive powers that driver and deliver the future for current markets and failing mercantalism and consumerism for ancient orders and/or past secret societies.

And for that is there a price to be paid whenever lacking effective necessary unique mutually beneficial intelligence and that is exclusion and banishment from future lead. There be no place in leadership nowadays for the intellectually challenged and imaginatively bankrupt, the selfish and the arrogant.