Recent disclosures over domestic surveillance and GCHQ spying on citizens aren't much of an issue to the public, according to Prime Minister David Cameron. Speaking to Parliament on the government's National Security Strategy, the Prime Minister said that while the media has made a stink about Edward Snowden's disclosures on …

COMMENTS

House rules Send corrections

This topic is closed for new posts.

Page:

1. Friday 31st January 2014 09:02 GMT Rich 11
  
  And to terrorists who have been successfully prosecuted and jailed, rather than put under some half-arsed control order (or if not British-born, have their citizenship revoked merely on suspicion, as Theresa May now wants) because they couldn't gather enough evidence even with all the spying.
  
  12 0
Thursday 30th January 2014 20:58 GMT Anonymous Coward

GCHQ surveillance is illegal says top lawyer ..

`GCHQ's mass surveillance spying programmes are probably illegal and have been signed off by ministers in breach of human rights and surveillance laws, according to a hard-hitting legal opinion that has been provided to MPs.'

"An individual involved in passing that information is likely to be an accessory to murder. It is well arguable, on a variety of different bases, that the government is obliged to take reasonable steps to investigate that possibility" link

13 0
Thursday 30th January 2014 21:05 GMT David 45

First-rate cattle excrement

More indications that Cameron is not in the real world.

17 1
Thursday 30th January 2014 21:09 GMT I. Aproveofitspendingonspecificprojects

Look you have all taken this the wrong way.

I can understand this as a lot of you are plebs BUT...

Most of you are nerds. So you see.

If you really wanted to do something about all this you'd say so on change dot org or somewhere. But you are not going to. So shut up.

It all started with privatisation and ALL the utilities became secret services.

>>>>You never even noticed it!<<<<

Now you don't know who to speak to when you can't get something sorted out with your gas meter because that isn't controlled by the same company as the the people you pay for gas.

All the local gas and electricity supply/repair offices went in the 1970's and YOU BOUGHT BLOODY SHARES IN IT. And there was a lot more going on that you or your parents were a party to. And because the only ones to complain were the bloody miners you did fuck all!

So now shut the fuck up all of you.

4 27
1. Thursday 30th January 2014 22:03 GMT NomNomNom
  
  Re: Look you have all taken this the wrong way.
  
  "Now you don't know who to speak to when you can't get something sorted out with your gas meter because that isn't controlled by the same company as the the people you pay for gas."
  
  OH WHY DIDN'T WE LISTEN TO YOU??????!!
  
  10 1
2. Thursday 30th January 2014 23:10 GMT Toothpick
  
  Re: Look you have all taken this the wrong way.
  
  Who pissed on your fireworks ?
  
  4 1
3. Thursday 30th January 2014 23:14 GMT veti
  
  Re: Look you have all taken this the wrong way.
  
  Bollocks.
  
  When I was a kid, my father told me: "Always assume that if an official government spook wants to spy on you, they can and there's nothing you can do about it. They can bug your home, shadow you all day and tap your phone, and you'll never be any the wiser. If you ever want to do anything that would be of interest to those sorts of people, keep that in mind."
  
  That was in the mid-70s. Long before privatisation.
  
  When I grew up and started work as a technology journalist in the late 80s, I realised how true that was and always had been. It had nothing to do with "privatisation" or whatever other boogeyman you want to throw in there. It's just the way the UK is organised.
  
  So yeah, I actually agree with Dave on this one. I don't think it's a big deal, because I've been resigned to being spied upon like that since before I was in my teens. I do have my own ways of communicating when I want to be private - but believe me, they don't rely on anonymous net or phone access.
  
  5 12
  1. Friday 31st January 2014 00:02 GMT Anonymous Coward
    
    Re: Look you have all taken this the wrong way.
    
    So beforehand, when huge chunks of the infrastructure was controlled by the government, there was no spying? Because.... err... no, wait.
    
    OH! I get it now! The PRIVATE companies sell your data for a profit to the government, meaning that the Government does no spying of it's own.... no, not that one either.
    
    The Private companies are compelled by force and the threat of significant sanctions to provide information to the Government that augments their entirely publicly-funded, public-sector spying operation? Yeah, that's more like it.
    
    So (1) Privatisation made it harder to spy, because foreign-owned companies are harder to lean on than departments of your own government.
    
    and (2) Buying shares in the energy companies would have made you a decent profit; BT was sold at 130p/share and topped out at >£10/share (though it has collapsed again recently). Buy £1,000 of BT and take out about £8k. For no work at all, just for leaving your money in the company.
    
    (2.5) Having 'regular, honest' types buying shares is a Very Good Thing as it means that there's more 'regular, honest' representation at board meetings etc. to narc on wrongdoings or suchlike.
    
    4 0
  2. Friday 31st January 2014 06:00 GMT T. F. M. Reader
    
    Re: Look you have all taken this the wrong way.
    
    "Always assume that if an official government spook wants to spy on you, they can and there's nothing you can do about it. They can bug your home, shadow you all day and tap your phone, and you'll never be any the wiser. If you ever want to do anything that would be of interest to those sorts of people, keep that in mind."
    
    There is a difference between "they can if they want to" and "they do even if there is absolutely no need to". I don't do anything that can possibly be of interest to the security services (no, posting to The Register under a pseudonym does not count), so why are they spying on me? Surveillance state is not what I, for one, think the UK (or the US, for that matter) should be, even if it can be.
    
    13 1
  3. Friday 31st January 2014 06:55 GMT Anonymous Coward
    
    Re: Look you have all taken this the wrong way. @Veti
    
    My opinion is very much based on exactly the same understanding of the way things are in the UK as yours. Even the dates :).
    
    The question then is this a either good or bad thing? My opinion is that Cameron is right on balance the UK public accept domestic spying ....
    
    1 8
  4. Friday 31st January 2014 08:28 GMT Mike Smith
    
    Re: Look you have all taken this the wrong way.
    
    'Zackly.
    
    Do a wee bit of background reading - a good place to start is Peter Wright's Spycatcher. Then think about what these guys were doing, how much clout they had with the upper echelons of the Civil Service, the government of the day and ability to request certain services of BT's predecessor.
    
    Now jump forward from the Cold War to the present day. Do you really, really think that the intelligence agencies have all started being good little boys and girls, operating with complete transparency and obeying the law without question?
    
    If you think that, you're naive to say the least.
    
    Veti's bang on. Of course it happens and has done for a very long time. The only difference is that it's now a little easier to see what they're up to. And the paranoia over the power of the tinterwebs does indeed have the establishments of most countries running scared. Their reactions are entirely predictable, given the way they've reacted to crises in the past. America pulls out a gun, Britain turns to the statute book and the French take to the streets, etc :-)
    
    But think about this also - the intelligence agencies do indeed flout the law on occasion, or at least steer very close to the wind. They work on the basis of the 11th commandment - 'thou shalt not get caught.'
    
    Given that, are they really going to risk having their activities scrutinised in court unless there's an overwhelming reason to do so? Al-Quaeda or its affiliates, yes. Major plot to overthrow the government, certainly. A few Asian kids playing with fireworks and fancying themselves as mujahadeen? Probably not, apart from a phone call to the local plod. Someone pork-swording their neighbour? Nah.
    
    1 0
    1. Friday 31st January 2014 14:31 GMT Bluenose
      
      Re: Look you have all taken this the wrong way.
      
      Sorry, have to reject your comment on the pork swording. As with everything in the spying world the issue will always be who is doing the pork swording and who is their neighbour. Diana shagging James Hewitt likely to be a big thing for the security services. You shagging Mrs Cameron next door would probably be of interest if you both live in Oxfordshire or Downing Street.
      
      Knowledge of pork swording is I am afraid to say a nice bit of leverage for the spies of any country especially if one of the parties later moves in to a role that would be of interest.
      
      That said unless your posting pictures or videos it is unlikely that the spies will ever find out since pattern matching algorithms and intelligence analysis of phone calls and internet mails are meaningless without context. You need to know who at least one of the individuals involved is otherwise how the hell can you tell that the 72 calls last week to that number in Birmingham are possibly terror related and not some daughter phoning up her mum to complain about hubby's latest transgression (which may or may not have involved pork swording the neighbour)..
      
      1 0
  5. Friday 31st January 2014 09:42 GMT Voland's right hand
    
    Re: Look you have all taken this the wrong way.
    
    My dad (and granuncle who worked for the "company" in his country) used to say the same.
    
    However, there is a minor and insignificant difference between then and now. Then, they wanted to spy on YOU. YES YOU. YOU were selected as a target for whatever reason.
    
    What is going on today is spying on everyone. Indiscriminately. At a level which puts Stazi, Securitate or Шесто управление to shame.
    
    11 1
    1. Friday 31st January 2014 10:06 GMT John Smith 19
      
      @Voland's right hand
      
      "However, there is a minor and insignificant difference between then and now. Then, they wanted to spy on YOU. YES YOU. YOU were selected as a target for whatever reason.
      
      What is going on today is spying on everyone. Indiscriminately. At a level which puts Stazi, Securitate or Шесто управление to shame."
      
      That's the difference between then and now.
      
      The spies had to make decisions on who to spy on.
      
      Not any more. Now they can watch everyone all the time (GCHQ's new motto perhaps).
      
      This has f**k all to do with "threat" WTF that is.
      
      It's affordable and the data fetishists in charge with their obsessive compulsion to collect information without limit (and whatever Malcolm Rifkind thinks he knows about them) and oversight will continue.
      
      6 0
  6. Saturday 1st February 2014 13:36 GMT Anonymous Coward
    
    Re: Look you have all taken this the wrong way.
    
    > When I was a kid, my father told me: "Always assume that if an official government spook wants to spy on you, they can
    
    Methinks you misunderstood your father, my dear chap. Clearly we was bothered enough by it to warn his son from an early age about the ways of those in power.
    
    Which sort of contradicts the point that Mr. Whatshisface (the PM bloke) was trying to make.
    
    1 0
4. Friday 31st January 2014 10:07 GMT Anonymous Coward
  
  Re: Look you have all taken this the wrong way.
  
  I used to complain to my MP on a regular basis. I used to add my weight at Change.org. And funnily enough the only time I made a difference was when I set my Dad's MP - Maria Miller - on his housing association for not sorting out his nuisance neighbour. She was in opposition at the time; where as my MP is Lib Dem.
  
  I even went to Westminster to give Miller a Christmas card containing a thank you note.
  
  Now, as for who should 'shut the fuck up'...
  
  2 0
5. Saturday 1st February 2014 17:27 GMT Anonymous Coward
  
  Re: Look you have all taken this the wrong way.
  
  I was a young child then, and many here probably weren't even born then, so WTF could we do about this, if we were even aware of this; I wasn't!
  
  So STFU crusty, it was the adults then which FU most of this, including voting for that Common Market abomination, now called the EU, which is why most of the UK rules are made by foreigners now. and why there are too many damned immigrants here now!
  
  0 1
Thursday 30th January 2014 21:10 GMT Frank Zuiderduin

A politician who knows what the public thinks

I haven't laughed so much in years.

16 0
Thursday 30th January 2014 21:13 GMT Jim Wilkinson

I agree

"Recent disclosures over domestic surveillance and GCHQ spying on citizens aren't much of an issue to the public"

The trouble is that those who wish to create mayhem for whatever reason are not so easily identifiable and keep a low profile. So how do you find out if there is terrorist activity afoot? I'd rather GCHQ did their job than end up with a major terrorist incident. I guess most folks recognise that domestic surveillance is both a curse and a blessing. The question is whether surveillance is used for the right reasons. It's not an excuse for keeping tabs on everyone. It's also essential we maintain an independent press to bring wayward politicos to heel. My 2c.

1 14
1. Thursday 30th January 2014 22:39 GMT Anonymous Coward
  
  Re: I agree
  
  Wow! Thank you for your 2c there Mr. Cameron. Errrr, Mr. "Jim Wilkinson". Glad you could come on this board and share your thoughts with the "little people".
  
  7 0
2. Friday 31st January 2014 00:44 GMT Destroy All Monsters
  
  Re: I agree
  
  This speech brought to you by John Cleese
  
  0 0
3. Saturday 1st February 2014 13:41 GMT Anonymous Coward
  
  Re: I agree
  
  > So how do you find out if there is terrorist activity afoot?
  
  By your reasoning, Guy Fawkes would have never been caught.
  
  0 0
Thursday 30th January 2014 21:17 GMT Brent Longborough

Missed the point, didn't yer, Dave?

The point is not whether the man in the street is worried about it, Dave, it's whether you and your mates, and Clegg and his mates, and Milliband and his mates*, all realise that politicians are (a) meant to serve the people who elected them rather than control them; and (b), uphold the law rather than break it.

*A black plague descend upon you all.

25 0
Thursday 30th January 2014 21:19 GMT DiViDeD

Oh yes, That 'pub' reaction

"Yes, only last night I was at the pub - well, the Commons Bar, with a few of my (what was it again? Oh yes. Thankyou) 'mates', Simon and Tarquin from MI6, a couple of Johnnies from the Foreign Office and my secretary, and I mentioned surveillance.

Well, they all agreed with me that it was a jolly good thing, except my former secretary, so there you go. The Vox Populi has spoken and agrees with me.

On everything."

I think our Dave would look fabulous on a railing outside Westminster. Hell, in the old days, every one of the buggers would have been offered a once in a lifetime opportunity to never again have to buy a hat.

12 0
Thursday 30th January 2014 21:28 GMT Ashton Black

More people are killed...

Reported Road Casualties in Great Britain, 2012

Killed 1,754

Seriously Injured 23,039

.... and yet we don't spend literally billions trying to prevent it. Why?

16 1
1. Thursday 30th January 2014 23:18 GMT veti
  
  Re: More people are killed...
  
  Actually, we do.
  
  3 0
2. Friday 31st January 2014 10:09 GMT John Smith 19
  
  Re: More people are killed...
  
  Terrorist casualties in the UK over a 10 year period.
  
  About what are killed in DIY accidents or farm mishaps in 1 year.
  
  Do you get the sense the government reaction is a tad disproportionate
  
  4 0
  1. Monday 3rd February 2014 00:07 GMT DannyAston
    
    Re: More people are killed...
    
    @ John Smith 19
    
    DIY and Farm accidents are pretty constant, the other is unpredictable, if we did not invest in counter terrorism one year it could be the same as DIY and Farm accidents the next it could be cancer....
    
    0 1
Thursday 30th January 2014 21:38 GMT Sanctimonious Prick

I'm On A Rant!

What I don’t get, is why concern about spooks and their ability to use the slurped information for reasons other than preventing terrorist attacks (see Edward Snowden) isn’t on the front page of every newspaper (err, read, website), every day?! (I’m not saying Eddy did a really bad (wrong) thing, but he did use the information he came into contact with for reasons other than preventing a terrorist attack.)

Truly, there was an article on here about a muslim radical’s pr0n surfing habits, that were to be exposed if he didn’t do what the NSA wanted him to do. I mean seriously, What The Fuck?!!

What is to stop any of the NSA/GCHQ staffers (800,000 work for the NSA) from using any of the information they come into contact with to bribe someone?

NSA: Adrian, I need you to tell me all you know about your neighbour, Alice, which we know you know very well.

Adrian: No.

NSA: Well, you see, Adrian, we know you’ve been having sexual intercourse with Alice. You’d hate for your girlfriend, Dianne, to get wind of this, eh?

Adrian: OK.

Then escalate to head of Conglomerate X.

No. I’m not happy with all this spying. I feel violated. I don’t do anything online that I wouldn’t do in public (though I never get drunk online, compluters don’t work when I’m drunk).

6 0
1. Thursday 30th January 2014 22:06 GMT NomNomNom
  
  Re: I'm On A Rant!
  
  is it so hard to just stop fucking your neighbor?
  
  3 0
  1. Thursday 30th January 2014 23:14 GMT Sanctimonious Prick
    
    Re: I'm On A Rant!
    
    Now that she's of interest to the NSA, no way!
    
    1 0
2. Friday 31st January 2014 00:52 GMT Mephistro
  
  Re: I'm On A Rant! (@ Sanctimonious)
  
  What you wrote is true, but there is still a loophole. One day the people will finally notice that these blackmail threats are worth nothing, for the quite obvious reason that any 'proof' the spooks provide from electronic sources is worth less that their weight in pig shit, as said electronic evidence can be easily forfeited by said spooks. They -the spooks- have the means, the motivation and the gall to do it. There will be a growing number of cases where this evidence is contested, a trickle at first that will finally become an avalanche.
  
  Obviously the crooks will use the usual strategy of making charges related to terrorism/kiddy porn/drug peddling, so the people accused will receive little sympathy or support from the general public, but this strategy is already showing the first cracks. And then people receiving these threats from the intelligence agencies will start calling the press and blogging about the matter and calling the cops. See what happens after a few dozens of these events.
  
  The downside, of course, is that electronic evidence will lose any value as proof. Which will in turn help real paedos, narcs and terrorists. :-(
  
  3 0
3. Friday 31st January 2014 07:10 GMT Anonymous Coward
  
  Re: I'm On A Rant!
  
  What is to stop any of the NSA/GCHQ staffers (800,000 work for the NSA) from using any of the information they come into contact with to bribe someone?
  
  The fact that it would be totally illegal and if caught they would face a very substantial custodial sentence......
  
  Mind if you do feel the need to 'do the neighbour' my advice would be make sure it is either an MFF or MMF... and your significant is involved anyway.
  
  0 5
  1. Friday 31st January 2014 08:21 GMT hplasm
    
    Re: I'm On A Rant!
    
    " if caught they would face a very substantial custodial sentence......"
    
    And Hell would host the Winter Olympics.
    
    7 0
    1. Friday 31st January 2014 11:20 GMT Anonymous Coward
      
      Re: I'm On A Rant!
      
      Have you seen Sochi?
      
      2 0
  2. Friday 31st January 2014 17:03 GMT teebie
    
    Re: I'm On A Rant!
    
    "The fact that it would be totally illegal and if caught they would face a very substantial custodial sentence......"
    
    Your argument seems to be that people won't do something if it is against the law. If that were the case we wouldn't need security services.
    
    2 1
Thursday 30th January 2014 21:43 GMT John 98

Dave obviously wasn't in my local. Power corrupts, and anyone handed the power these people are being given will be corrupted. Once they are corrupted, we'll all be wondering if we weren't better off with Al Quaeda ...

8 0
1. Thursday 30th January 2014 22:07 GMT NomNomNom
  
  or Al Quiche
  
  0 0
2. Friday 31st January 2014 00:01 GMT dan1980
  
  "Power corrupts . . . "
  
  True, but in this instance, I think that such power as comes with political clout attracts those who are corrupt.
  
  6 0
This post has been deleted by its author
Thursday 30th January 2014 22:25 GMT Dodgy Geezer

In later news...

Cameron says that the British Public are strongly supporting his proposals for all taxes to be increased 400% and MPs to be given unlimited access to Treasury expense accounts.

He also claims that the man in the street feels that elections are a waste of money, and would be happy with MPs having life-time tenure...

10 0
Thursday 30th January 2014 22:41 GMT John 156

Why do we always finish up with a f**kwit as PM? Dave, of course, suggested in parliament that the Somerset floods were caused by Global Warming; the actual reason was the decision of the Environment Agency to stop dredging rivers and pumping flood water in order to return the Somerset Levels to the aquatic wasteland it was before being drained several centuries ago without asking the permission of the farmers or householders whose lives would be devastated. l

6 0
1. Friday 31st January 2014 01:57 GMT MrDamage
  
  Look on the bright side
  
  Tony Abbott decided to leave your shores and come to Australia to run for PM. He's doing is damnedest to make sure any pom visiting our shore doesnt miss out on random PM ass-hattery.
  
  3 0
  1. Friday 31st January 2014 02:14 GMT dan1980
    
    Re: Look on the bright side
    
    @MrDamage
    
    Your post seems to imply that the Hon. Tony Abbott spends periods of time as the PM engaged in something other than ass-hattery.
    
    3 0
  2. Friday 31st January 2014 04:28 GMT Winkypop
    
    Re: Look on the bright side
    
    Prime Minister David Cameron is Einstein when compared to Aussie Primate Tony Abbott !!
    
    0 0
    1. Friday 31st January 2014 07:19 GMT dan1980
      
      Re: Look on the bright side
      
      @Winkypop
      
      The problem with Abbott is not that he is stupid, it's that he's a sanctimonious git. (Rather like Cameron I suppose . . .)
      
      2 0
      1. Monday 3rd February 2014 23:33 GMT DiViDeD
        
        Re: Look on the bright side
        
        "The problem with Abbott is not that he is stupid, it's that he's a sanctimonious git. "
        
        Yes, but to be fair, he IS a STUPID sanctimonious git.
        
        0 0
Thursday 30th January 2014 23:22 GMT taxman

7th May 2015

Please tell me what happens when I wake up on the 8th May

1 0
1. Monday 3rd February 2014 15:58 GMT Vinyl-Junkie
  
  Re: 7th May 2015
  
  "There's nothing in the street
  
  Looks any different to me
  
  And the slogans are replaced, by-the-bye
  
  And the parting on the left
  
  Is now the parting on the right
  
  And the beards have grown no longer overnight"
  
  I think that about covers it.
  
  Meet the new boss....
  
  1 0
Thursday 30th January 2014 23:29 GMT Anonymous Coward

let's just give them benefit of the doubt

Dave reckons the public support it, that's good enough for me.

Like when Tony said 'trust me' Saddam has WMDs.

Sadly I think the politicians know that they can do what they like as elections are decided on economics rather than civil liberties or foreign policy.

2 0