MPs to review laws on UK spy-snoopery after GCHQ Tempora leaks Parliament's intelligence services watchdog is to hold an inquiry into whether or not UK surveillance laws need updating in light of Edward Snowden's revelations into GCHQ's activities. The Intelligence and Security Committee (ISC) will also consider the impact on personal privacy of intercepting people's communications as …
"You are sacrificing a massive amount in terms of privacy...." No I'm not - the data gathering does not equal the actual analysis, so the chances that even the complete loons that post on these forums have ever had their coms actively monitored are simply so minute as to make the National Lottery look like a sure thing. If you want to claim otherwise then please do provide proof of how you personally have had your privacy "invaded" and how it caused you any ill effect.
"....while opening the door for the state to take more and more control of your, and my life." Frankly, why you think anyone would be interested in your life, other than as part of a study of delusional paranoia, is completely beyond me. Please do supply some information on why you think your are so gosh-darn interesting to anyone, let alone the security services.
@Plump 'n Bleaty
> the data gathering does not equal the actual analysis
so you're claiming that it's not going to be gathered but not analysed? Howzat work, plumps?
> Some people feel the need to rock the boat on moral grounds. Let's use them for examples
From <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/05/fbi-occupy-wall-street_n_2410783.html>
"
If there was a unified mission behind the Occupy surveillance, it appears the purpose was to pass information about activists' plans to the finance industry. In one memo from August 2011, the FBI discusses informing officials at the New York Stock Exchange about "the planned Anarchist protest titled 'occupy Wall Street', scheduled for September 17, 2011.[sic] Numerous incidents have occurred in the past which show attempts by Anarchist groups to disrupt, influence, and or shut down normal business operations of financial districts."
The documents reveal that the FBI met with officials from four banks and one credit union, and spoke over the phone with a representative from a fifth bank. The FBI also talked with officials from the Richmond Federal Reserve, a branch of the central bank that covers much of the American South.
"
from <www.justiceonline.org/commentary/fbi-files-ows.html>
"
Documents released show coordination between the FBI, Department of Homeland Security and corporate America. They include a report by the Domestic Security Alliance Council (DSAC), described by the federal government as “a strategic partnership between the FBI, the Department of Homeland Security and the private sector,” discussing the OWS protests at the West Coast ports to “raise awareness concerning this type of criminal activity.” The DSAC report shows the nature of secret collaboration between American intelligence agencies and their corporate clients - the document contains a “handling notice” that the information is “meant for use primarily within the corporate security community. Such messages shall not be released in either written or oral form to the media, the general public or other personnel…” (The DSAC document was also obtained by the Northern California ACLU which has sought local FBI surveillance files.)
"
So they're also suppressing knowledge of the use of monitoring (just right for plump & bleaty apologists!)
There's plenty more.
The sad thing is that I do actually have some understading and agreement with large scale monitoring because terrorism is a real issue and it's only likely to grow, however having cringing, bleating, obsequious sheep trying to defend what many find indefensible... well, it actually undermines the point they're trying to make. I believe we need to know and all agree, democratically, what is acceptable and for that we need to be informed.
Have a blindfold, plumps, as it makes you feel better. But not us.
"....so you're claiming that it's not going to be gathered but not analysed? Howzat work...." Hmm, how to explain such a concept to one who obviously doesn't work in IT (if you even work at all)? I suppose the best example is the copper on the beat - all the time he is on the beat, he is looking around at people and cars and going-ons, his brain gathering data, but it is only when he suspects a crime that he takes out his notebook and starts to record details for later investigation and analysis. The copper probably forgets most of the day's sights not related to crime. You want the copper to walk around blindfolded and only allow him to remove the blindfold when a definite and undoubted crime has already taken place, and you do not want him to be able to scan back through CCTV in case he should see some normal and innocent activity (which he has zero interest in) whilst looking for evidence. You are so scared the copper might "invade your privacy" by seeing your ugly mug on the street that you want to completely curtail his ability to proactively detect and prevent crime, and all because some celebrity told you that was "a good idea". I'm sure the muggers in your town would like you. Even Snowden and Greenwald amdit that the data from PRISM and TEMPORA is selectively analysed, and unanalysed data is disposed of after so many years. So your determined bleating that the NSA and GCHQ are reading ALL your coms ALL the time is just sheep manure.
"....the FBI discusses informing officials at the New York Stock Exchange about "the planned Anarchist protest titled 'occupy Wall Street', scheduled for September 17, 2011...." Gosh! You mean officers of the law thought it might be a good idea to forewarn inncoent companies of the criminal plans of known ne'erdowells, after said ne'erdowells had spoken of their intent to attack and damage their property? Well, I suggest you don't ever come drinking down my way, you'll only think the pub landlords are the worst thing since the Gestapo. The local coppers not only provide them with mugshots of know hooligans when there's a match on at the local football ground, but also of known drug dealers!!! "OMFG, the landlords are EEEEEVVVVVIIIIILLLLLL!!!!" Or maybe not. In fact, this effort at co-operation between pubs and coppers will probably have your "liberal" head exploding (http://www.thisisthewestcountry.co.uk/news/somerset_news/8737107.print/)!
"....Have a blindfold, plumps...." I suggest you change your handle to Pavlov's Sheep so it more accurately reflects the nature of your tiresomely predictable bleating.
@plump & bleaty (again)
> he is looking around at people and cars and going-ons, his brain gathering data, but it is only when he suspects a crime
If while looking around he suspects a crime then he's processed the data. Not as deeply as his subsequent activities if he gets suspicious (reviewing cctv etc), but he's analysing it nonetheless. If he was not then he would effectively be wearing a camera and a blindfold. So, you lose.
> You are so scared the copper might "invade your privacy" by seeing your ugly mug on the street
The issue is it's not about coppers on the beat but pervasive surveillance. That bothers me lots (but it's ok with plump sheep). There is a tradeoff, I'd like some say in this tradeoff.
> you want to completely curtail his ability to proactively detect and prevent crime
You really are not the smartest. I don't want to 'completely curtail' but a democratic say in where the line is drawn. I've explained this before.
> inncoent companies of the criminal plans of known ne'erdowells
Oh dear, getting desperate. You presume the companies are 'innocent' (because it suits your argument) and that the protestors are criminal (because it suits your argument). Per your standard, where are they defined as criminal. Please show a court verdict that the entire Occupy collective, as a whole, was illegal, or withdraw your claim.
> criminal plans of known ne'erdowells, after said ne'erdowells had spoken of their intent to attack and damage their property?
well: "As Mara Verheyden-Hilliard, executive director of the PCJF, put it, the documents show that from the start, the FBI – though it acknowledges Occupy movement as being, in fact, a peaceful organization – nonetheless designated OWS repeatedly as a "terrorist threat":"
You lose again. Try not inventing 'facts'.
Rest of your post is MBZCC (matt bryant zero content condescension, just to remind you and everyone else), plumps.
In the US (and I think also the UK) companies, like natural persons, are entitled to a presumption of innocence in any criminal proceeding.
Although violence associated with Occupy * groups was uncommon, it was not entirely absent, and not all of it was initiated by the police. It also is not unknown for subgroups in a mainly peaceful large group to have discrepant motives and intent to guide the larger group in ways that not all members would favor, so classification of the Occupy groups as peaceful, while still considering them to be a threat. From a police perspective, every crowd presents a threat of possible violence, even if because of a potential mass panic.
@tom dial
> violence associated with Occupy * groups was uncommon, it was not entirely absent, and not all of it was initiated by the police
Obviously. I never said it was.
> It also is not unknown for subgroups in a mainly peaceful large group to have discrepant motives ...
Yeeeees, we know this.
> From a police perspective, every crowd presents a threat of possible violence, even if because of a potential mass panic.
Every *person* presents a possible threat of violence, let's presume they too are domestic terrorists just to be sure, right? You deal with individuals not the crowd otherwise that's collective punishment, right? The occupy movement was not illegal (AFAIK) and was mostly peaceful (AFAIK) so what's your point, that criminalising a whole group of people is ok, or state-backed and arguably illegal surveillance of notable members for undesirable opinions (AKA political dissent) in a democracy was acceptable? What exactly are you trying to say?
"....so you're claiming that it's not going to be gathered but not analysed? Howzat work....
" Hmm, how to explain such a concept to one who obviously doesn't work in IT (if you even work at all)?
With your attitude and reasoning you certainly wouldn't have a job in my company for long.
"With your attitude and reasoning you certainly wouldn't have a job in my company for long."
Well, I never actually wanted to work at McDonalds, thanks.
Good repartee, so one point for humour, but you don't know who are behind the various ACs. You talk *way* too much for someone who genuinely has to handle protectively marked information.
BTW, if you're such an expert, how come you haven't worked out the use of HTML tags yet?
".....You talk *way* too much for someone who genuinely has to handle protectively marked information....." Really? Please do point to any post where I have revealed any classified information? Oh, you can't, because I haven't. You just want to whine becasue you can't handle a dissenting voice. Dissent is just not tolerated in the herd. I note you have given up all pretence of trying to post an opion on the topic thread, having instead concentrated rather clumsily on attacking the person that doesn't agree with your blinkered and spoonfed POV. What a surprise, not.
".....if you're such an expert, how come you haven't worked out the use of HTML tags yet?" Gosh, you make such incisive points - not. Yawn. If you had tried more than just your OLPC XO laptop you would know that not all El Reg's functions display perfectly on all devices. Safari is particularly buggie in that respect. Cutting and pasting the whole link does seem to work, though I can see you never bother to actually read any of the links by the way your posts are continually shot down.
".....if you're such an expert, how come you haven't worked out the use of HTML tags yet?" Gosh, you make such incisive points - not. Yawn. If you had tried more than just your OLPC XO laptop you would know that not all El Reg's functions display perfectly on all devices. Safari is particularly buggie in that respect
It's spelled "buggy", but we'll let that slide. I'm glad you finally go into specifics by stating that especially Safari is buggy - I just used to Safari to enter this post. Strangely, it works for me, and that's with all the stuff enabled that sometimes gets in the way on other websites (Adblock, Incognito, Ghostery and Disconnect - I figured that was enough). Any more real facts you want to share?
"....It's spelled "buggy"...." Apologies, auto-correct on an iPad, something you're probably not at all familiar with.
"....but we'll let that slide...." Really? So I assume you have no points to raise at all then?
"....Any more real facts you want to share?" Ah, I see you didn't have any points to share. So, once again, having had your ass handed to you on a plate in yet another debate, where your pitiful non-arguments have been thoroughly debunked, and your laughable attempts to intimidate have been exposed, you fall back on trying to deny issues with Safari? LOL! What, nothing new been spoonfed to the sheeple?
Police being police (and the FBI is a kind of police), they will keep an eye on activities they think might lead to disorder. That will include, in the normal course of events, planting undercover agents, if they can, in what appear to be organized groups that they think might bring about disorder. And they may pass warnings to those they discover are targets of such activities or groups. They also will attempt to prevent disorder, although the comment fails to mention it, e. g., if it appears inflamed opinions may lead to violence or property damage. That is, after all, why we hire them.
To prevent abuse, there are internal controls, and when those fail there are prosecutors and courts.
It's not a perfect system, and likely is improvable, but there is no news here except in some of the details.
Please do supply some information on why you think your are so gosh-darn interesting to anyone, let alone the security services.
You first. After all, you seem to agree with all "this nothing to hide" and other guff they have been trying to feed people whilst at the same time breaking every law in the book designed to contain these data gathering exercises to what is really legal. If you don't (probably with the argument that you don't supply it to this forum), then explain what gives you the right to demand that for someone else. What you don't seem to get is that the very fundamentals of a lawful state are being undermined by this crap. But hey, you are scared of your own shadow by now, I get it, so please go ahead and bend over for the nice, non-lubricated glove.
Just don't ask other people to do the same.
"....You first. After all, you seem to agree with all "this nothing to hide" and other guff...." As I have already revealed, I have previouly signed the OSA and been vetted, so I have voluntarily already undergone much more stringent "invasion of my privacy" than you will ever be subjected to. That means I will probably also be subject to some form of monitoring my whole life. One of the resulting benefits is I am not on the "naughty list" but the "good list", which means I don't have trouble getting through US immigration whenever I visit.
".....whilst at the same time breaking every law in the book...." Oooh, you still can't get over the fact it has all been decalred quite legal and above board, can you? Maybe you should seek professional help with that denial problem of yours.
".....probably with the argument that you don't supply it to this forum...." I had no problem with the authorities going right back and interviewing relatives and childhood friends, because I understand the processes and checks and balances used not just by those interviewers but also in the methods by which those people qualified for the job. On the other hand, the type of sheeple that post their shrieking bleats here I wouldn't trust with anything.
".....What you don't seem to get is that the very fundamentals of a lawful state are being undermined by this crap...." Really? How? I see you're still ignoring the legal bit.
"....you are scared of your own shadow by now...." Covered this already - I am not scared in the UK or US because I know the security services are on the job, but I sure am cautious in a lot of other countries. That's because I have been to other countries and seen some real nasty shadows, whereas all your shadows were dreamt up for you by Z-list celebrity wannabes.
".....Just don't ask other people to do the same." Oh, I wasn't expecting to talk some sense into you lot, it was more a matter of poking fun at you!
@ Plump & Bleaty
> so I have voluntarily already undergone
Yeah. Voluntarily. That's the difference. But I suppose you are a free agent whereas we are all sheeple so don't deserve a choice.
Oh, you still haven't answered, if you google for your name as you suggested, are you the Guildford, Crewe or other, at <http://uk.linkedin.com/pub/dir/Matthew/Bryant>. Because you haven't answered after 2 requests which must be an oversight because you endorse the "nothing to hide so nothing to fear" motif, and you downvoted my post so you certainly read it. And you told us to google your name, too.
Hurry up lambchop, we're waiting.
".....Yeah. Voluntarily......" <Sigh> Just because I volunteered for the extra, doesn't mean I wasn't perfectly happy with the involuntary level (or non-level, seeing as it is selective analysis and the majority of gathered data NEVER GETS READ) that happens regardless. The point was I am quite satisfied with the authorities doing so because I understand the process, whereas it is very obvious the sheeple bleating here haven't a clue.
".....you still haven't answered, if you google for your name as you suggested, are you the Guildford, Crewe or other, at <http://uk.linkedin.com/pub/dir/Matthew/Bryant>....." I did answer already when I pointed out I use a nom de plume. You do understand the concept of a nom de plume, right?
As I have already revealed, I have previouly signed the OSA and been vetted, so I have voluntarily already undergone much more stringent "invasion of my privacy" than you will ever be subjected to. That means I will probably also be subject to some form of monitoring my whole life. One of the resulting benefits is I am not on the "naughty list" but the "good list", which means I don't have trouble getting through US immigration whenever I visit.
Oh dear.
1 - if you're subject to OSA you're not supposed to talk about that in public, and any vetting doubly so. Unless it's a soldier's BC which doesn't mean anything beyond not having any outstanding parking tickets and no criminal record.
2 - if you have taken your ignorant aura near anything sensitive I'd be very worried about those who sponsored you, so the only reason I don't punt this one into the records office to get you a formal warning is because it would have an impact on The Register itself. You're not worth that.
3 - the fact that you volunteer for the rubber glove treatment does not automatically imply you're not up to something. As a matter of fact, given your "protest doth too much" attitude online it would not be beyond the pale to suspect ulterior motives in seeking clearance, so some extra deep probing may be in order. If I were you I'd start taking some strong laxatives, that apparently helps. Also helps with a strong cough (I'll leave you to work that one out).
".... if you're subject to OSA you're not supposed to talk about that in public...." Wrong. You are not supposed to IDENTIFY yourself (and I haven't) and talk about the DETAILS of your vetting (which I again have not). You can not only admit to signing the OSA, but you can include your level of security clearance in CVs and job applications (http://www.contractoruk.com/security_clearance/security_clearance_it_contractor.html). There are many examples of people talking about their experience of being vetted available in books printed in the UK. You might try reading one some time. A book, any book, that is. I wouldn't expect you to have progressed any time soon to actual adult books that might cover the subject.
".... the only reason I don't punt this one into the records office to get you a formal warning is because it would have an impact on The Register itself. You're not worth that....." LOL, please do try, if only for the comedy value, and please do explain how it would affect El Reg? What complete male genitalia!. Gosh, was that another pointless and tired attempt at silencing dissent? You really do have a Stalinesque level of clumsiness.
"....the fact that you volunteer for the rubber glove treatment does not automatically imply you're not up to something...." Even after a stiff whiskey that last "point" makes no sense at all. Seriously, try posting BEFORE inhaling, chap. Trying to superimpose your self-deluding paranoia onto everyone else just isn't going to work. Now, seeing as you really should abandon your dull attempts at intimidation, do you have anything even remotely original to say about the actual thread topic? Thought not.
That's certainly your right to do so, but it's not a little privacy you're being expected to give up. However if you're happy with that go ahead, just don't expect everyone to do the same.
Personally my view is they can fuck off with their supposedly benevolent snooping, I want my privacy and I'm quite willing to take care of my own personal security.
BTW, vehicles in the UK are only required to stop at a crossing once a pedestrians foot has crossed the line of the curb and touched the crossing itself. (unless they've changed that since I last looked which was some time ago).
"....but it's not a little privacy you're being expected to give up...." And again, please demonstrate how you have personally been effected by the decades of monitoring which - presumably - you happilly went about without worrying about prior to Snowden, but are now crippling your freedom.
".....Personally my view is they can fuck off with their supposedly benevolent snooping...." I congratulate you on speaking your mind and encourage you to pursue your democratic right to vote for a politician or representative that will reflect said view, just don't expect everyone else to have the same POV, and please try not to be too upset when your one-issue politician gets hammered at the polls.
".... I want my privacy and I'm quite willing to take care of my own personal security....." I too want my privacy, it's just I want some other things more. I would also question your ability to take care of yourself - what, you're going to declare yourself a state, pay for your own army and police force of one, and refuse any help from others? Sorry, that's not how society works, joining a social group has always been a compromise right back to caveman days.
"....BTW, vehicles in the UK are only required to stop at a crossing once a pedestrians foot has crossed the line of the curb and touched the crossing itself...." Half-right. The Highway Code states (https://www.gov.uk/using-the-road-159-to-203/pedestrian-crossings-191-to-199);
"1. look out for pedestrians waiting to cross and be ready to slow down or stop to let them cross
2. you MUST give way when a pedestrian has moved onto a crossing"
BTW, the police can charge you for not driving with due care and attention, or reckless driving (bigger fine, more points), if they observe you driving in a manner where you would be unlikely to stop in time at a crossing. Can I suggest you take some time off reading alarmist sheeple websites and instead spend it more productively in reviewing your Highway Code?
Actually Matt, a pedestrian does have an absolute right to cross anywhere they choose and if they are struck by a vehicle then the driver has a case to answer whether or not there is a crossing marked or not. There are, of course, defences to the charge of causing death or injury by careless or dangerous driving but they are not of the form "he wasn't on a pedestrian crossing".
[...] I'm quite happy to sacrifice a little privacy.
On this side of the pond, Matt, one of our founders (you know, the guys who kicked the Crown's ass (or arse, as you'd spell it) some 250 years ago) had a little saying that goes along the lines of the following:
They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.. Even though you may think it doesn't apply to you, you might want to consider it.
Benjamin Franklin surely was wise enough to recognize that between individuals rights might come into conflict, and for the same individual, different rights might occasionally be in competition, and that whether a particular liberty is "essential" might depend some on circumstances.
In all of the discussion about collection of communication data by the NSA and (occasionally by other SigInt agencies) the connection between collection and analysis of the data and sacrifice of liberty is left extremely vague, perhaps intentionally so as to avoid the need to think hard. There is an enormous difference between collecting, storing, and analyzing communication metadata, most of it not personally identifiable, and constructing individual dossiers on the whole of the population for use at convenience in controlling them. For all the yelling there is little or no evidence that the NSA or other SigInt agencies engage in the latter or, for that matter, assist internal police type agencies in doing so. Passing information to the FBI or DEA, as has been reported, would be inappropriate under the NSA authorization if it came from a purely domestic communication, but might be OK otherwise. Whether the evidence obtained thereby would be admissible in a criminal trial would be for the trial court to decide if it were questioned. I suspect DEA were told to find alternative explanations primarily to sidestep a possible need to expose classified programs in open court proceedings.
there is little or no evidence that the NSA or other SigInt agencies engage in the latter or, for that matter, assist internal police type agencies in doing so.
OK, let's play with that one for a moment. If they do not collect that data to start with, the potential for abuse is astonishingly close to zero, so that seems to me a good Modus Operandi to start with. Only when there is a reason (like a defendable "reasonable suspicion") should they collect data.
You may find this staggering: that principle already exists, and was even in use in the US for a while. It is called "due process". It is a bit annoying because you have to convince someone else that you are serious about this and will go about things lawfully, but it is a democratically agreed process.
"Only when there is a reason (like a defendable "reasonable suspicion") should they collect data"
The point at which they start to collect data from people is the point at, lets say the police, want to tap your phones. They go to a court and say "here's the evidence this guy is a Tango - can we please do this".
Government agencies are woefully ignorant of IT security. There's several issues - the (relevant, UK) law clearly states they shouldn't be doing this anyway. They're going to lose it all to some kid with aspergers who's going to pwn your bank account with the information he collects from them or just use it to embarrass people - and chances are that's going to be you. On top of that it's just a really expensive way of getting no relevant intelligence at all.
And all those reasons are just related to GCHQ boasting about how well connected they are into the UK infrastructure - it ignores the fact that the backdoors they've apparently had inserted all over the shop damage the security of *everybody* - and this is in a country where you can be compelled to produce crypto keys by a court or face prison for an unlimited time anyway. Why would they need backdoors in that situation if they didn't know for a fact courts would agree at the stuff they're up to?
Personally, I put my requirement to carry on breathing above my right to privacy (or my right to cross pedestrian crossings in the face of oncoming traffic), and seeing as people like Al Quaeda and co have the intent to stop me breathing I'm quite happy to sacrifice a little privacy
Ah, well, it is of course your right to join the sheeple if you so choose. Just don't entertain the illusion you're speaking on someone else's behalf when you advocate giving up inalienable Human Rights. Because they are inalienable, and some people spent an awful lot of time in 1948 coming up with something they could all agree to.
"....when you advocate giving up inalienable Human Rights. Because they are inalienable...." What complete cobblers. No right is "inalienable", they are all granted through the power of society and society can remove tham any time it likes, especially when under threat. Basically, every government reserves the right to remove rights if required, such as happened most widely in the West during WW2.
"....and some people spent an awful lot of time in 1948 coming up with something they could all agree to." ROFLMAO! Half the countries that dreamt up to the UDHR had zero intention of implementing it - it wan't until 1976 that enough members of the UN General Assembly could even agree to make it international law! Eleanor Roosevelt only intended it to be used to beat up on the Soviets and their allies (it had a clause 13 stating free movement of citizens between countries, which was a dig at the USSR). One of the reasons the Saudis refused to agree it on 1948 is the equal rights it gives to homosexuals, all religions, and the right to change religion. Since then a large number of Islamic countries have hypocritically signed up but refused to give those rights to their own citizens. You really do need to take a breather from your moral hobbyhorse and actually do some background reading on whatever mumbojumbo has been spoonfed to you.
What complete cobblers. No right is "inalienable", they are all granted through the power of society and society can remove tham any time it likes, especially when under threat. Basically, every government reserves the right to remove rights if required, such as happened most widely in the West during WW2.
You know, the more you talk, the more ignorance shines through. You really have no clue at all, don't you?
To wit:
Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,
Maybe you should have paid attention to this:
Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and to remove all doubt.
— ABRAHAM LINCOLN.
... but it's clearly too late.
"....You know, the more you talk, the more ignorance shines through. You really have no clue at all, don't you?...." LOL, it is so obvious you just couldn't wait to type that, so much so you completely faield to do any research (hey, at least I throw you the bone of pretending I think you could actually do research). Since you didn't take the time, I'll do it for you.
In the case of the UK, you might want to consider the Emergency Powers Bill of 1939 (http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1939/aug/24/emergency-powers-defence-bill) and the Treachery Bill of 1940 (http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1940/may/22/treachery-bill), both of which trampled all over a lot of those "inalienable rights".
In the US not only did you have censorship of the press (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_of_Censorship), which would probably be enough to have you sheeple shrieking if Obambi put a similar Office to work today, you also had the War Powers Act of 1941, which gave Roosevelt the powers to trample all over Abe's "inalienable rights". In particular, it removed safeguards on government confidential census data, which allowed the FBI to quickly track down and intern US citizens judged to be of enemy origin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franklin_D._Roosevelt#Internment_of_Germans.2C_Japanese_and_Italians), completely pissing all over their "inalienable rights". In short, it is very clearly YOU that is completely ignorant, uneducated and blinkered. And probably far too late to rectify the problem.
Your individual right to privacy may be paramount. Would you have said the same about the individual right to privacy of those who left backpacks full of explosives in the London subway on 7/7/2005 or those who carried out the recent attack on the Westgate Mall in Kenya, the Spanish train bombings in March, 2004, or the Beslan school massacre in September of the same year?
I make no claim that these atrocities could have been prevented but for inadequate surveillance and insufficient sifting of inadequate data. Such claims are mostly rubbish. However, the claim that your privacy (or other) rights, and, by extension, mine and everyone else's, are not subject to limits is equally rubbish.
We establish (US) or allow (UK) governments partly to establish and enforce those limits. That they do not always do so to everyone's satisfaction is certain. That they begin to act like rulers more than agents of the electorate is, to a large extent our fault in choosing those who represent our interests, watching them to ensure that they continue to do so, and electing their successors when they fail. As a wise 'possum once was quoted "we have met the enemy and he is us." I suspect that part of the anger about intelligence agency data collection derives from the unmentioned recognition of this fact.
Would you have said the same about the individual right to privacy of those who left backpacks full of explosives in the London subway on 7/7/2005 or those who carried out the recent attack on the Westgate Mall in Kenya, the Spanish train bombings in March, 2004, or the Beslan school massacre in September of the same year?
So, you're suggesting that by building a huge warehouse of irrelevant data burying the most important facts those events would have been discovered? You really believe that?
Oh dear. I though Matt was bad.
so the same committee that basically said move along, nothing to see here is now going to be in charge of determining if the laws need changing.
Anyone willing to offer odds on them making a proposal that simply requires all data to be routed through GCHQ with criminal charges against anyone who dares to question what is being collected. Of course the wording will be slightly different because they are doing it for our benefit and of course lets not forget TERRORISTS!!1!.1!1!!! with a side order of Think of the Children!
On Hard Talk, Stephen Sackur asked Malcolm Rifkind whether he and the ISC knew the extent to which NSA and GCHQ were hoovering up the Internet. If you listen carefully to his answers, you'll see that he never actually said 'Yes' or 'No'.
Now, if he'd said 'Yes', we all might shout at him and argue that it was grossly excessive and why did he allow it -- a courageous answer, but at least honest.
If he'd replied 'No', however, that would have been an excellent sign of ISC's failure to exercise adequate oversight.
What's my conclusion? Well, 'Yes' would have been bad, but 'No' would be a complete disaster. As I don't see how answering 'Yes' would have in any way compromised security, I begin to suspect the true answer would have been 'No'
Not to comment on Rifkind's interview per se (which I didn't hear) - but, to be fair to politicians, the Beeb's current batch of journalists seem to positively revel in aggressively asking mind-bogglingly overly-simplistic, often highly slanted questions to which no-one in their right mind would give a simple yes or no. Presumably they think it makes their interviews look "tough", and they go to bed dreaming of the golden moment when someone will actually make the mistake of a straight answer. It's piss-poor journalism of the very worst kind - the best interviewers of the past (Robin Day comes to mind) were fully capable of skewering their victims with incisive, razor-sharp questions in the most polite manner, and then hanging politely but doggedly in there until they either got an answer or it became crystal clear to everyone listening that the interviewee was dodging the issue - but aggression and hoping for a gaffe seems to be all that today's poor dears are capable of.
"....you'll see that he never actually said 'Yes' or 'No'....." Apart from the impossibility of putting a politician in front of a TV camera and then expecting them to just answer "yes" or "no", I find it quite amusing that you think the pointing of a TV camera at a politician somehow magically forces them to speak only the truth.
Indeed, neither a TV camera nor the presence of an official inquiry committee has no effect on the degree of dishonesty spewing forth from politicians.
There jobs do not require honesty. In fact they've gamed the system so hard it is against the law for them to disclose the truth of 'national security' related matters.
We've already heard from many MPs associated with Intelligence and Security topics and they all say that they were not aware of what was being done by GCHQ as being able to do just that was part and parcel of the Snoopers' Charter bill being debated earlier in this parliament.
We ought to be asking, what else don't we know about that is illegal and being done in our name?
Assuming MPs are similar to US Senators or Representatives:
- almost all of them can plausibly (for the constituents) deny knowledge at no real cost, as the programs are classified;
- a "yes" answer would be equivalent to admitting outright that they didn't look after their constituents' interests.
The correct answer is obvious, and has no truth value at all.
..at least, not technically. How could they? The internet in its current form basically didn't exist when most of our current batch of security and privacy laws were drawn up, and those laws simply don't cover it. But - and it's a BIG but - GCHQ undoubtedly DID do things that, had they involved older modes of communication that WERE covered by those laws (obvious parallels would be mass tampering with and copying of letters, or tapping and recording every phone line in the country without a warrant) most certainly WOULD have been illegal. And with that in mind, their behaviour was morally dubious, to say the least - obeying the letter of the law whilst clearly breaching its spirit.No, it's not surprising that any intelligence agency would do (at least) everything the law lets it get away with, but we've been here before, had the discussions, and come to conclusions that don't support what they were (and, presumably, still are) doing. And we therefore have every right to be very suspicious of any attempt to avoid, prevent or back-pedal on, a significant legal crackdown on the scope of what is permitted without proper and independent oversight.
"....The internet in its current form basically didn't exist when most of our current batch of security and privacy laws were drawn up...." How so? The RIPA laws that underpin the current selective monitoring date to 2000 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulation_of_Investigatory_Powers_Act_2000). Please do explain how the Internet was "completely different" in 2000 compared to today? Email has been widely available since 1993, text messaging as part of the GSM standard in 1985, H.323 standardised VoIP in 1996 and even Google Search has been around since 1997.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
