back to article Bulk comms spying is not mission creep, insists UK foreign sec

The minister responsible for the oversight of GCHQ has today defended the interception of bulk communications data, saying it does not amount to mission creep by Blighty's intelligence agencies. Speaking at the Royal United Services Institute, Foreign Secretary Philip Hammond said it was necessary to address public concerns …

Anonymous Coward

Re: Bulk comms spying is not mission creep

Of course it is not mision creep . How can it be mission creep if they've been doing it all along? It's just "business as usual", silly. :-)

9
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: Bulk comms spying is not mission creep

...and it's damn important that they continue to do this work. If you don't understand why then you're not qualified to even comment on the subject.

1
15
Silver badge
Facepalm

Re: Bulk comms spying is not mission creep

I think you were being a bit too subtle with your sarcasm there AC, hence all the down votes.

1
0

Am I allowed to call this guy a cunt?

What a cunt.

20
0
Anonymous Coward

Am I allowed?

there's a slight danger, that you hereby fall under the Extremism Disruption Order [discussed in Parliament by one/all of the westminster parties: October 2014]

...aim of the orders would be to “eliminate extremism in all its forms” and that they would be used to curtail the activities of those who “spread hate but do not break laws"...

...would allow judges to ban people deemed extremists from broadcasting, protesting in certain places or even posting messages on Facebook or Twitter without permission...

Hence Dogged, did you seek permission before broadcasting the C* word?

"Our proposal to introduce Extremism Disruption Orders reflects the need to go further on challenging the threat from extremism and those who spread their hateful views so that we can keep that democratic society safe."

8
1

Re: Am I allowed?

> Hence Dogged, did you seek permission before broadcasting the C* word?

Yes I did. I said "Am I allowed to call this guy a cunt?"

Did you miss that bit?

7
0
Anonymous Coward

Am I allowed

No, you are not allowed, until you preface the C word with the F word.

5
0
Silver badge

In public yes - there is no way the government would curtail free speech.

Online no - it falls under the vaguely worded Malicious Communication Bill and could get you arrested

1
0
Silver badge

Is...

Trying to bring down a completely lawful public company from an allied state mission creep (last I checked we signed the Maastricht Treaty - by any basic EU legal standard we're actually attacking ourselves; and our own economic well-being in this particular case). Is stalking - and one imagines compromising the security of - employees of completely legal businesses mission creep?

Yes, no?

4
0
Silver badge

Re: Is...

Didn't we recently admit to a state sponsored attack on the telecommunications network of a Nato country ?

Shouldn't we in the spirit of "an attack on one is an attack on all" bomb ourselves?

3
0
Silver badge

Re: Is...

>Shouldn't we in the spirit of "an attack on one is an attack on all" bomb ourselves?

Ala Catch-22. Long live the Syndicate which deep down is what this all about.

0
0
Gimp

Another nail in the coffin

of any intentions I had of voting tory.

5
2
Anonymous Coward

Re: Another nail in the coffin

of any intentions I had of voting tory.

The current prick aside, you would do well to detect when surveillance started to increase dramatically (at its start mostly through CCTV). Hint: that was not under the Tories.

6
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: Another nail in the coffin

"of any intentions I had of voting tory|labour|libdem|ukip." FTFY

7
0
Mushroom

Re: Another nail in the coffin

And you think that Labour (or any other party) would be any better?

Spoilt ballot papers all round!

8
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: Another nail in the coffin

How do we get Plaid Cymru to stand in England? They seem like the least worst party.

0
1
Silver badge

Re: Another nail in the coffin

>Hint: that was not under the Tories.

They were tories - it was just a sneaky undercover op.

2
0
Silver badge

Re: Another nail in the coffin

@ Yet Another Anonymous coward

"They were tories - it was just a sneaky undercover op."

I hope your joking but I see and hear this so often by people who actually mean it that I cant help but feel pitty on the fanatical supporters of labour. Democracy is a moving target with people voting for those who represent their views. Instead we have this tribalism where one is voted to keep the other out, and attempts to justify bad behaviour by claiming the party was infiltrated but that was then.

I do think our school education fails the democratic system but also parents either dont teach or they dont know any better. Hopefully the time of voting blue/red/yellow is coming to an end and we start voting for people to represent our views.

0
0
Silver badge

Re: Another nail in the coffin

Fortunately under new labour we were able to abandon the old tribalism and choose freely between two parties run by identical public school->PPE->lawyer->think tank->MP clones with identical polices.

At least with coke and pepsi the sugar water tastes slightly different

1
0
Silver badge

Re: Another nail in the coffin

@ Yet Another Anonymous coward

"Fortunately under new labour we were able to abandon the old tribalism and choose freely between two parties run by identical public school->PPE->lawyer->think tank->MP clones with identical polices."

Thats the problem. People didnt want the country crippling old labour party, but the voters who did want those socialist policies didnt move to voting for socialist parties but instead convince themselves that they still need to vote labour because its the working mans party. the party of 'tory lites' took the popular vote for 13 years of stuffing the economy and labour supporters still supported them. If they are tory lite then why would labour supporters vote that way?

The most distressing point you make is what you start with- freedom to choose between 2 parties. Is it the parties fault they dont care when people obviously dont? With many parties over the spectrum of communist to shy of fascist most peopl choose blue or red on the basis of being blue or red. Even consoling themselves with the idea it is necessary to keep the other out.

0
0
Silver badge
Black Helicopters

How long ?

How long will this have to continue before people start showing up at GCHQ headquarters with pitchforks and torches ?

6
1
Silver badge

Re: How long ?

"How long will this have to continue "

For a very long time yet. So long as the hoi-polloi have access to Farcebook and Youtube they neither know nor care about data privacy. And that's why this lightweight and ineffectual minister is demanding that a line be drawn under the debate. Lets face it, he doesn't want any chance that stasi should be foiled in grasping the powers they need to "keep us safe", does he?

But funnily enough, the limp-wristed, vacuous nature of all recent governments is highlighted by his comment that Russia is now the biggest threat to our national security. If that's the case how come the clowns of Westminster rubber stamped a "strategic defence review" that scrapped ALL of our airborne anti-submarine capabilities, signed up for expensive & vulnerable aircraft carriers without aircraft (and is reliant post 2020 on the unproven, over-budget F35B), shredded our army, reduced the RAF to a handful of squadrons without any modern strike capability....

Whether its IT, defence, foreign policy, civil liberties, energy, immigration, I really don't know how the British government manages to be so world-class clueless about everything at once. If they reduced everything to a simple yes no decision and tossed a f***ing coin they'd at least be right half of the time.

11
1
Silver badge

Re: How long ?

That is why "this debate cannot be allowed to run on forever".

Just in case you were confused and thought that politicans worked for you or something.

8
1
Silver badge

Re: How long ?

+1 people don't generally tend to give a toss, I can't figure out why beyond they believe the claim that we're somehow being protected - which is plainly nonsense.

2
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: How long ?

They've had to cut back on costs so that they can afford to pay the various privatised operations that are taking over most parts of the military infrastructure ( apart from the dangerous/difficult bits ).

In the next parliament the plan is to do the same with the emergency services, with companies like Capita promising to save money by merging the operations support etc.

Essentially its a master class in how to move to smaller government while increasing costs.

I'm still irritated by a joyful email from Virgin East Coast Trains telling me how much better the service will be:

- its not Virgin, its StageCoach with 5% Virgin so they can use the name;

- the up-front cost of the brand new trains promised will be paid by the taxpayer;

- franchise contracts are front-loaded so the operator makes most of their money on the first few years, after which they appear to be free to renegotiate the agreement or else walk away if the business becomes "unprofitable" (e.g. if it fails to grow to meet their own projections)

My personal opinion is that the London civil service saw the writing on the wall back in the 1980s and have left the increasingly gullible politicians far behind.

2
0
Silver badge

Politicians. Who needs them, except they themselves*?

Ledswinger, it is almost as if the current Cabinet crowd were a Cambridge Five clone in the thrall of City forces and special interests. And how strange of Hammond to insist on making himself a live target for opposition attack/neutralisation with his musings and broadcast opinions/scripted memes. Doesn't he realise the way things are played nowadays?

* Surely they do not think themselves, vital and indispensable? That would be proof indisputable of hubris and madness.

1
0
Silver badge

Re: Politicians. Who needs them, except they themselves*?

Oh, and whenever government and intelligence services know that markets are rigged, ... http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-03-10/former-sec-director-admits-truth-market-rigged .... and they say and do nothing at all effective in righting the wrong that is being done day and daily, what does that make them both, both before and after the fact?

Or do they live in inglorious bliss and arrogant pig ignorance of such facts and shenanigans and are then easily abused and misused for private and personal gain on an unprecedented scale by market makers and leaders and their camp followers?

And now that they know, for they hereby have been told and the Register shares the news and info freely, what are they going to do about it, to prove that they are not just as incompetent useless impotent idiots and totally unfit for the future and Great IntelAIgent Game purpose?

1
0
Silver badge

Re: Politicians. Who needs them, except they themselves*?

In a letter in the Times Lord Grade accused the broadcasters of: “grossly inflated and misguided ideas of their own importance”. ……. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/general-election-2015/11463428/Lord-Grade-BBC-must-end-threat-to-empty-chair-David-Cameron-in-debates.html

Methinks Lord Grade would not agree that politicians are of little true worth ….. but he would say that, wouldn’t he.

0
0
Silver badge

Reasonable access?

"Hammond said there will always be a tension between giving agencies reasonable access to information and the legitimate concern of law-abiding people to protect their private communications."

No there won't. No argument with giving them 'reasonable access' with proper judicial oversight. The tension arises when they take, or the government gives them, totally UNreasonable, indiscriminate, uncontrolled, unregulated access.

14
1

So, after all the reviews and investigations not to mention the court cases (don't mention human rights...they're listening).

What we'll finally end up with is a statement something like...

"After due consideration, the ministry for magi...".oops hang on that's for non-muggles.

"After due consideration, and taking into account the public's reasonable concerns

the Government has decided on the following action.

We will continue to spy on you and share your personal/private and

intimate information with all and sundry.

We will however tell you we are doing it on a monthly schedule.

This we believe covers the Governments responsibility in regards to Government transparency.

"this statement has been brought to you by the DfIaS (Dept for Information and Shrooming) keep em in the dark and feed them horseshit."

6
1

This post has been deleted by its author

Silver badge
Stop

"this debate cannot be allowed to run on forever"

Because something like the balance between individual liberty and the power of the government to set up secret programs to read your mail, browse your financial activity and tap your voice communications is easily solved and amenable to a permanent solution, kind of like the debate over whether it is a good idea to place stop signs at intersections.

Well I guess the British people should be happy that Mr. Hammond is decent enough to give them the option of taking the next one in the face or the crotch.

1
1
Silver badge
Black Helicopters

Interesting use of language...

"...in the wake of the Snowden allegations..."

So, they're just "allegations" now, are they, Phil?

10
1

Cheltenham

if there was ever a few days the people of cheltenham might be distracted by something else going on....

0
0
Silver badge
Stop

Can't any of you read? If you disparage the government's spying then you are as bad as the terrorists!

It must be true because an MP* said it.

*(an MP who thinks that gay marriage is equivalent to incest)

2
1
Big Brother

Apologists for the Security Services...

"The responsibility for acts of terror rests with those who commit them, but a huge burden of responsibility also lies with those who act as apologists for them"

- Philip Hammond

"The people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country."

Herman Goering

5
0
Silver badge

Re: Apologists for the Security Services...

I don't think it's as simple as that - you also need an easily identifiable ethnic group that you can blame for all the internal troubles.

0
0

So, after all the reviews and investigations not to mention the court cases (don't mention human rights...they're listening).

What we'll finally end up with is a statement something like...

"After due consideration, the ministry for magi...".oops hang on that's for non-muggles.

"After due consideration, and taking into account the public's reasonable concerns

the Government has decided on the following action.

We will continue to spy on you and share your personal/private and

intimate information with all and sundry.

We will however tell you we are doing it on a monthly schedule.

This we believe covers the Governments responsibility in regards to Government transparency.

"this statement has been brought to you by the DfIaS (Dept for Information and Shrooming) keep em in the dark and feed them horseshit."

.

.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-31845338

.

.

See told ya

0
0

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Forums

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2017