British spy agency intercepted Yahoo webcam images

[Flames66]

-Passwords to banking services
-Private conversations about sensitive medical issues

Valid, directly relates to personal security of the individual.

-Pornography browsing habits
-Embarrassing incidents

Invalid. Implies that your right to not have some random analyst briefly know what porn you watch it somehow matters. This goes back to my "Arrogance" argument - people are genuinely arrogant enough to think that an Analyst at GCHQ cares what porn you watch.

That analyst is getting paid to provide Intelligence that the UK can use in a world of ongoing threats, where Intelligence is probably the most important element in successfully defeating or mitigating those threats.

Your choice of Hardcore gay bondage porn is not a part of that process, they don't give a fuck about it, and your personal embarrassment at looking at it is not enough of a reason for that analyst to be handicapped in doing his job.

The things you have labelled as invalid could and likely would be used in smear campaigns against people running for political office or lobbying for change. Many times in the past supposedly "secure" government data has been accessed, both due to carelessness and hacking. I also don't trust the government not to use data in this way themselves.

Active Surveillance of any kind should not be permitted without due process.

I actually agree.

I feel, however, that we may differ on what we mean by "due process" - I, for example, don't think it involves letting the Guardian know everything you're up to, or that the individual you're gathering information on should know you're doing it.

What's your idea of due process?

Both of those cases directly compromise the very Intelligence effort being undertaken.

Before any active surveillance can be carried out (reading internet history, beginning to gather web cam images or chat logs, phone tapping or accessing emails) a warrant must be obtained from a high court judge. This must also be done for each new instance of surveillance.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Not to mention, what about the many people who have something to hide that isn't actually wrong?

Such as?

I was thinking if someone was gay or trans, or if they've done something in the past present employers might not approve of.

Teachers, for example...lots of outrage when a teacher turns out to be trans or have worked in the porn industry.

Up until recently, gay people couldn't serve in the US military, trans people still can't. That sort of attitude applies to lots of things.

 

[Stu35]

[Before any active surveillance can be carried out (reading internet history, beginning to gather web cam images or chat logs, phone tapping or accessing emails) a warrant must be obtained from a high court judge. This must also be done for each new instance of surveillance.

Yep, I am more-or-less in agreement with that.

I was thinking if someone was gay or trans, or if they've done something in the past present employers might not approve of.

Teachers, for example...lots of outrage when a teacher turns out to be trans or have worked in the porn industry.

Up until recently, gay people couldn't serve in the US military, trans people still can't. That sort of attitude applies to lots of things.

The things you have labelled as invalid could and likely would be used in smear campaigns against people running for political office or lobbying for change. Many times in the past supposedly "secure" government data has been accessed, both due to carelessness and hacking. I also don't trust the government not to use data in this way themselves.

These both come down to protecting information - Something I also believe is of great importance. Once Intelligence has been gathered it needs to be protected. Unfortunately we live in a world where the very people who are going out of their way to violate this are Journalists looking to bring about the "I don't want the government spying on me!" brigade.

In effect - Journalists demand transparency. They get a sniff of it, they abuse that to bring about fear of government intelligence agencies, they use that to demand further transparency. The whole thing falls apart.

I suppose what I'm trying to get at here is this:

The Intelligence agencies don't care if you're gay, what porn you watch, etc. etc. They have a job to do that has nothing to do with this - as a result the focus shouldn't be on the fact they gather this information as part of a wider process, but on the securing of that information (including limiting who gets access to it).

That's my opinion anyway.

 

[Thaluikhain]

I suppose what I'm trying to get at here is this:

The Intelligence agencies don't care if you're gay, what porn you watch, etc. etc. They have a job to do that has nothing to do with this - as a result the focus shouldn't be on the fact they gather this information as part of a wider process, but on the securing of that information (including limiting who gets access to it).

That's my opinion anyway.

"Shouldn't care", not "don't care". They didn't replace everyone once they got rid of Section 28 and DADT, their supporters are still around.

 

[Flames66]

[Before any active surveillance can be carried out (reading internet history, beginning to gather web cam images or chat logs, phone tapping or accessing emails) a warrant must be obtained from a high court judge. This must also be done for each new instance of surveillance.

Yep, I am more-or-less in agreement with that.

Does this mean you agree that these web cam images should not have been gathered without a warrant for each and every person involved in the chat? That is what I'm saying and I want to make sure I know where we are before I continue.

 

[Gunner 51]

Well, that's put me right off from buying an X-box One.

The way I see it is that the government does not have the right to be spying on anyone, I see it as rude at best and oppressive at worst. Even the benevolent government doesn't have a right to be spying on all of it's population like this.

I don't think it's any of the government's buisness if I wanted to make a social call to chums via the X-box Live Party system. As a law abiding person, I beleive that I have the right to privacy, to be fair - I beleive that everyone should have this same wonderful right. Even the so called terrorists. They can plot and scheme and hate on the people of this country as much as they like - until they put thier poisonous little thoughts into actions and someone gets hurt or killed as a result. As the saying goes "Your rights end at someone else's nose."

But if an attack does happen, I can understand the need for a reactive intelligence service. But during peace-time, I find it to be excessive, invasive, paranoid and oppressive.

This terrorism malarky is a modern day witch hunt. I don't know whether it's more tragic or sad that people are more scared of their own government than violent religious extremists. And to be blunt, I'm not sure who is worse - the largely sectarian terrorists who kill people due to their abhorrent ideology, or the incompetent and cowardly government who destroys everyone's freedom, privacy and civil liberties in the name of security.

Who knows how many people have been falsely imprisoned or killed because of the government surveillance or more worringly, getting the gathered intelligence wrong?

Just ask a certain Jean Charles de Menezes who was spied upon, chased, humiliated, terrified and outright murdered by police. Those policemen are pretty much off the hook and their commander (Cressida Dick) has since been promoted. So I say screw government snooping and as before, it's excessive, invasive, paranoid and oppressive and it sure as hell doesn't have any place in gaming.

 

[Stu35]

I suppose what I'm trying to get at here is this:

The Intelligence agencies don't care if you're gay, what porn you watch, etc. etc. They have a job to do that has nothing to do with this - as a result the focus shouldn't be on the fact they gather this information as part of a wider process, but on the securing of that information (including limiting who gets access to it).

That's my opinion anyway.

"Shouldn't care", not "don't care". They didn't replace everyone once they got rid of Section 28 and DADT, their supporters are still around.

I'm talking about the Intelligence agency. The Intelligency agency and those who work for it have a job to do - they literally DON'T care about your sexual preferences because it's got fuck all to do with their overarching mission.

The sorts who DO care - Daily Mail readers, Guardianistas, Tories, Labour, Lib Dems... Fuck it, anyone really. That's where protecting the information comes into play - Schools and Political Candidates simply CAN'T be afforded access to this kind of information. That means preventing them from having access to it.

Less transparency. More secure information. Less chance innocuous information will be used by cunts with nefarious agendas.

Again - the key is to realise the difference between an Intelligence Agency and the government that you're scared of having that information. When done correctly, the government gets the intelligence it needs and can't be abused by those evil nazi-gestapo-types everyone seems so afraid of.

 

[Thaluikhain]

I'm talking about the Intelligence agency. The Intelligency agency and those who work for it have a job to do - they literally DON'T care about your sexual preferences because it's got fuck all to do with their overarching mission.

They are not supposed to care. Not the same thing.

Again - the key is to realise the difference between an Intelligence Agency and the government that you're scared of having that information. When done correctly, the government gets the intelligence it needs and can't be abused by those evil nazi-gestapo-types everyone seems so afraid of.

"When done correctly".

How do we know this is being done correctly?

 

[Saltyk]

Okay, for those who don't seem to get why this sort of thing is wrong, allow me to explain.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

That's the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America. Now, obviously, not everyone here is American, but I'm fairly certain that many other Western nations have similar laws. Why do I bring it up and what does it mean?

Basically, the government has no right to look through my stuff without a warrant which can only be obtained through probable cause. They can't search my house without a reason. They can't search my car without a reason. They can't even give me a pat down without a reason.

Basically, according to the Ultimate Law of the Land, this sort of practice SHOULD be illegal. Hence why it's wrong on a legal stance.

Beyond that, I just don't like the idea of someone looking through my stuff. Imagine coming home and finding a government agent looking through your underwear drawer.

I may not have anything to hide, but I shouldn't have to. My own private information and conversations should be private.

 

[Ed_Fox]

I think Frank Turner summed this up quite well in Sons of Liberty, especially at the end:

So if ever a man should ask you for your business or your name
Tell him to go and fuck himself, tell his friends to do the same
'Cause a man who'd trade his liberty for a safe and dreamless sleep
Doesn't deserve the both of them and neither shall he keep

This issue is also about setting a dangerous precedent, if you don't express your unhappiness about government intrusion, then you're allowing it to continue. Essentially sacrificing personal liberty for being 'safe'.

 

[HardkorSB]

If you are put in a position of power and have no one to check whether you're abusing it or not, you will abuse it.

I hate the whole "nothing to hide, nothing to fear" mentality.
Imagine you're a political activist. You're not doing anything illegal but your views strongly disagree with the current status quo and you're slowly getting more and more followers.
Do you really thing that they won't do anything to you? They will watch you 24/7, looking for anything suspicious that can get you arrested or in the very least, discredit you in the eyes of the public. They will know who you talk to, when and about what, it will make it easier for them to prepare a "controversy" surrounding you.

If you're just an average schmuck working 9-5 then nothing will happen to you because you're no threat but if by any chance you will want to become something more, without affiliating yourself with someone who's already in a position of power, you're fucked.

 

[Stu35]

"When done correctly".

How do we know this is being done correctly?

When folks like Julian Assange and Edward Snowden find themselves spending a long time in jail for espionage and treason respectively, instead of being lauded by Newspapers as heroes fighting for truth and justice.

The truth and justice they fight for involves giving out all that precious information about your sexuality and life choices.

The Intelligence agency spends it's life trying to protect that information against the very people that people in this thread are terrified of.

I'm talking about the Intelligence agency. The Intelligency agency and those who work for it have a job to do - they literally DON'T care about your sexual preferences because it's got fuck all to do with their overarching mission.

They are not supposed to care. Not the same thing.

I'm going to try rephrasing what I'm saying here...

They literally CAN'T care about your sexuality etc. They don't have the time.

An Intelligence analyst has the same number of hours in her day as you do - She has a job to do, and objectives that need achieving, none of which involve what you do with your dangly bits on a webcam. She needs to provide actionable, useful, or informative Intelligence which contributes to the overarching objectives of the agency she works for.

If she doesn't, she gets fired. Same as if you spend all your time at your job looking at wangs instead of doing your job.

I hate the whole "nothing to hide, nothing to fear" mentality.
Imagine you're a political activist. You're not doing anything illegal but your views strongly disagree with the current status quo and you're slowly getting more and more followers.
Do you really thing that they won't do anything to you? They will watch you 24/7, looking for anything suspicious that can get you arrested or in the very least, discredit you in the eyes of the public. They will know who you talk to, when and about what, it will make it easier for them to prepare a "controversy" surrounding you.

If you're just an average schmuck working 9-5 then nothing will happen to you because you're no threat but if by any chance you will want to become something more, without affiliating yourself with someone who's already in a position of power, you're fucked.

Except you know who DOESN'T do that? Intelligence agencies.

You know who DOES do that? The free-and-open media of the west.


People always seem to think that it's the likes of the Guardian and Daily Mail who are for truth, justice, and freedom.

Yet every slander, every allegation, every attempt to suppress anything that isn't the "Status quo", comes from the Media.

It doesn't come from GCHQ, MI5, etc. - If the source is GCHQ, MI5, etc, then you can guarantee it was obtained and released illegally by the media.


In the UK we've literally got ongoing investigations and trials into this very thing - Everyone remember the phone-hacking scandal? You should, it's still fucking happening.

People don't give a fuck though, because instead of being presented (by the media) as a wide rot within the whole system, it's being presented as a few bad eggs.

On the other hand people are scared because the government is up to something, and you're told not to trust ANYTHING the government does - by the media.

snip

Ah yes the old "Anyone who'd trade saftey for freedom deserves/gets neither" argument.

Be lovely if it was that black and white. It really would.

Should we also just get rid of the police altogether? After all, part of their very existence involves preventing you doing whatever the fuck you want, whenever the fuck you want. All in the name of security.

 

[omega 616]

I love that line, "to partly comply with human rights" ... "I mean we wont brake the law completely, just flex them to almost braking".

Not really shocking anymore, the big bad government spies on you, listens in, watches you and is just generally corrupt ...this is all pretty old news.

 

[Smeatza]

When folks like Julian Assange and Edward Snowden find themselves spending a long time in jail for espionage and treason respectively, instead of being lauded by Newspapers as heroes fighting for truth and justice.

Gawd, yeah. It would have been so much easier for the intelligence agencies to carry on doing an unethical, shit job with no accountability if Snowden hadn't said anything.
And wouldn't that make the world a better place......

The truth and justice they fight for involves giving out all that precious information about your sexuality and life choices.

What? No it doesn't. Name a single document the Snowden has released that contains any personal details for anybody.
Have you even read reports and what the Snowden docs contain?

The Intelligence agency spends it's life trying to protect that information against the very people that people in this thread are terrified of.

"Don't worry guys, I'm taking really good care of all the stuff I stole from you."
You can make excuses for intelligence agencies getting lazy and simply hoarding data instead of doing their jobs all you want.
But it doesn't change the fact that intruding on everybody's privacy because there's a possibility that somebody, somewhere might be doing something illegal is morally abhorrent, ineffective and a massive waste of resources.

They literally CAN'T care about your sexuality etc. They don't have the time.

An Intelligence analyst has the same number of hours in her day as you do - She has a job to do, and objectives that need achieving, none of which involve what you do with your dangly bits on a webcam. She needs to provide actionable, useful, or informative Intelligence which contributes to the overarching objectives of the agency she works for.

If she doesn't, she gets fired. Same as if you spend all your time at your job looking at wangs instead of doing your job.

Completely besides the point and shows either a willful ignorance or complete misunderstanding of the issue at hand.
It doesn't matter if they don't care about sexually explicit materials or have no official interest in then. It doesn't even matter if they only employ lobotomised, asexual drones.
The sheer fact that extremely private and sensitive webcam conversations are being recorded and stored with no consent from the participants and no reason to believe that such conversations are pertinent to any potential crimes is morally wrong, as well as being ineffective, a waste of resources, and the hundreds of other flaws that are inherent to such archaic and inaccurate methods employed in today's modern age.

I can't believe I have to spell this out, it is wrong to record people doing incredibly private things without their permission.
If I record a video through your window and at some point catch you fucking your wife you're hardly going to be appeased by the excuses,
"well I didn't expressly set out to record sexually explicit material, and I don't have any real interest in it, it's just sitting on a tape on my shelf, I've only kept screenshots and I'll discipline any employees who publish the shots to the internet."
You're still going to call the police and I'm still going to go to jail.

Any intelligence professional worth their salt will tell you that the NSA and GCHQ data hoarding tactics are a massive breach of privacy that takes a massive amount of work to run for minimal to no benefits. It is a lazy, ineffective tactic that the public has a right to know when it's being employed.

 

[josemlopes]

To be honest, I'm actually fine with spy agencies going through my personal files. First, I'm not exactly doing anything illegal, so what do I have to hide? Second, so long as it's not being publicly disseminated, then why should I worry? Third, it's kind of the nature of their jobs: they have to root through everything, because you never know how people are going to try and sneak things by them.

I imagine that jobs like the FBI and NSA are pretty thankless, because when you do your job and people find out, they get angry; but when you screw up your job and people get hurt, people get angry. The "best" case is you're doing your job and nobody finds out, in which case nobody cares about what you're doing.

that sort of attitude honestly dumbfounds me. i honestly cant get my head around it.

maybe its because younger people are used to sharing everything online already but the very thought of this screams something so wrong and that its creepy as all fuck to me. im 40 by the way so lived through the end of the cold war where that sort of surveillance was both sci-fi and the very thought of letting cameras into your house like with the x-box brings a gut reaction that is hard to describe.

its just plain wrong and people accept it because "i have nothing to hide"

Its not like they are going to post it on Facebook and say "lolz, look at this guy jerking off with a carrot in his ass! What a looser, am I right?", they honestly dont care about what is on there and would probably be much happier to not have to go through a shitload of useless data. Their antennas only lift when there is a potential danger to anyone, that is when they actually pay attention to what they are doing and have the intention of using that data for something.

Its not even a case of "I have nothing to hide", its more like "I can show these guys whatever personal shit I want because they will have zero input on my life (unless I commit a crime)".

They dont care about you unless you did (or will do) a crime, its not like they wake up in the morning thinking "Well, lets see how Mr. Robert is doing and if he will indeed go to that doctor appointment like he told his mother"

 

[Stu35]

I can't believe I have to spell this out, it is wrong to record people doing incredibly private things without their permission.

You know what else is wrong? Attempts to bomb Mosques in Walsall, Wolverhampton, and Tipton [http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-birmingham-24675040]

Y'know what I'm okay with?

Operation Pitsford [http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22305095]

The prevention of attacks on civilian populations [http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22344054]

This prevention isn't done by nicely asking people if the Intelligence agencies can have a look at their personal information, it isn't done by giving the Guardian and the Daily Mail a long list of what intelligence operations are taking place.

Yes, in an ideal world no innocent person would ever have their information captured without their knowlege and consent - but in that ideal world everybody looking to commit acts of violence in the United Kingdom would make it blatantly obvious who they were by wearing some kind of uniform.


Now, I don't want to be one of those flag waving 9/11 inspired fearmongers - far from it. I simply think that there is a balance to be struck between successfully preventing a very real and ongoing threat, and protecting ones privacy.

Fact is, whether you want to accept it or not, you're being spied on by your own government.

Whether you want to accept it or not, that spying amounts to... Nothing. Not until you become worth fucking spying on.

You can whinge about it, and yeah, probably the end result will be a nice, clean, transparent intelligence agency that doesn't gather information on people without it's consent.

Taken to it's logical conclusion, you'll also get angry men and women freely accessing the internet to exchange bomb making information, intelligence about suitable target sites, and the other general niff-naff and trivia that comes with 7/7 style attacks.

Personally, I'll take the occasional video of me jacking off to a ladyboy stored deep in some vault somewhere in exchange for that not happening.

If I record a video through your window and at some point catch you fucking your wife you're hardly going to be appeased by the excuses,
"well I didn't expressly set out to record sexually explicit material, and I don't have any real interest in it, it's just sitting on a tape on my shelf, I've only kept screenshots and I'll discipline any employees who publish the shots to the internet."
You're still going to call the police and I'm still going to go to jail.

Depends on how that video came about - if it came about because you were filming a bloke cycling past my house carrying a bomb then I'm sure I could overlook it.

Or, y'know, close my curtains. Because that tends to be what I do when I'm shagging my wife and don't want people to see.Same as how if I don't want anyone to know personal information about me on the internet, I don't put it on the internet.

I do appreciate the analogy you're going for, but it doesn't quite fly in this instance. It ignores too many of the other key variables.

 

[Weaver]

I legitimately can't believe more than one person in this thread is okay with the government taking personal snapshots without your knowledge or consent.

 

[Jamash]

It looks pretty bad when taken at face value, but at least they're doing it for national security, which is better than faking moral outrage to try and sell your Keylogging software to the users of this website.

It seems pretty hypocritical that you're trying to suggest that the British Intelligence Services are bad for gathering webcam data, yet you're trying to sell similar spying software to private citizens which will allow them to do the same to each other.

Why is it bad when public servants do it for a job, but good when private citizens do it in their free time for their own ends?

I'm confused. Who involved in this conversation is trying to sell key-logging software? How is this in any way relevant to the topic at hand?

The link in the OP. It's not a link to a news site, it's a link to a website that sells Keylogging and spying software.

The OP itself is just a copy and pasted section of another writer's article, with a link to their website and a bit of fake indignation to make it appear like a normal post.

The intention behind this is to promote Keylogging and spying software, not to condemn Governments for using it

 

[Smeatza]

You know what else is wrong? Attempts to bomb Mosques in Walsall, Wolverhampton, and Tipton [http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-birmingham-24675040]

Y'know what I'm okay with?

Operation Pitsford [http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22305095]

The prevention of attacks on civilian populations [http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22344054]

What an alarmist response.
Notice how the people in your examples were caught not because of some bullshit mass surveillance scheme, but because of proper, targeted surveillance.

This prevention isn't done by nicely asking people if the Intelligence agencies can have a look at their personal information, it isn't done by giving the Guardian and the Daily Mail a long list of what intelligence operations are taking place.

It also isn't done by hoarding millions of useless screen captures and wastefully sinking resources into having thousands of people sift through them.

Yes, in an ideal world no innocent person would ever have their information captured without their knowlege and consent - but in that ideal world everybody looking to commit acts of violence in the United Kingdom would make it blatantly obvious who they were by wearing some kind of uniform.

No, that's a black and white way of looking at things.
Good and productive intelligence work does not involve pointlessly spying on millions of innocent people. Doing so prevents nothing and never even creates any leads.

Now, I don't want to be one of those flag waving 9/11 inspired fearmongers - far from it. I simply think that there is a balance to be struck between successfully preventing a very real and ongoing threat, and protecting ones privacy.

And invading the privacy of millions of innocent people for absolutely no benefit is not a good balance.

Fact is, whether you want to accept it or not, you're being spied on by your own government.

A fact that would be easier to follow if the spying wasn't irresponsible and ineffective.

Whether you want to accept it or not, that spying amounts to... Nothing. Not until you become worth fucking spying on.

That's not your decision, it's not even the decision of intelligence agencies (although the certainly think that's the case).

You can whinge about it, and yeah, probably the end result will be a nice, clean, transparent intelligence agency that doesn't gather information on people without it's consent.

Oh no, this slope is so slippery, I'm going to die, aahhhhhhhhhh.
An intelligence agency does not need to disregard all ethics regarding privacy in order to effectively operate.
In fact operating in such a way is simply lazy and is not good intelligence work.

Taken to it's logical conclusion, you'll also get angry men and women freely accessing the internet to exchange bomb making information, intelligence about suitable target sites, and the other general niff-naff and trivia that comes with 7/7 style attacks.

Logical Conclusion? That is genuinely ridiculous.
Horribly sensationalist and hyperbolic conclusion maybe.
I will repeat, spying on everybody in the hopes you might catch something is irresponsible, ineffective and unethical.
Intelligence agencies are still accountable for doing a really shit job.

Personally, I'll take the occasional video of me jacking off to a ladyboy stored deep in some vault somewhere in exchange for that not happening.

It's just a shame that mass surveillance techniques are ineffective in catching any kind of attack.

Depends on how that video came about - if it came about because you were filming a bloke cycling past my house carrying a bomb then I'm sure I could overlook it.

And what if I was doing it on the off chance that you could possibly have a bomb, but without any real reason to believe you would?

Or, y'know, close my curtains. Because that tends to be what I do when I'm shagging my wife and don't want people to see.Same as how if I don't want anyone to know personal information about me on the internet, I don't put it on the internet.

Oh but I've had to film around the curtains on the off chance you might have a bomb.
An e-mail is private, a private webcam conversation is (guess what), private.
The fact that it's digital doesn't mean privacy ethics don't apply.

I do appreciate the analogy you're going for, but it doesn't quite fly in this instance. It ignores too many of the other key variables.

It's an apt summary. Privacy is being invaded without probable cause but just on the possibility that someone, somewhere is up to no good.

Thing is, we don't have to worry. At some point these agencies are going to have to answer for the fact they're sinking shitloads of resources into projects that don't achieve anything.

 

[Flames66]

It looks pretty bad when taken at face value, but at least they're doing it for national security, which is better than faking moral outrage to try and sell your Keylogging software to the users of this website.

It seems pretty hypocritical that you're trying to suggest that the British Intelligence Services are bad for gathering webcam data, yet you're trying to sell similar spying software to private citizens which will allow them to do the same to each other.

Why is it bad when public servants do it for a job, but good when private citizens do it in their free time for their own ends?

I'm confused. Who involved in this conversation is trying to sell key-logging software? How is this in any way relevant to the topic at hand?

The link in the OP. It's not a link to a news site, it's a link to a website that sells Keylogging and spying software.

The OP itself is just a copy and pasted section of another writer's article, with a link to their website and a bit of fake indignation to make it appear like a normal post.

The intention behind this is to promote Keylogging and spying software, not to condemn Governments for using it

Ah thanks, I didn't follow the link.