"GCHQ said it did not want to comment."
So it did, in fact, comment. And fron that, we infer guilt.
Protecting members of Parliament from mass surveillance by bulk collection is “exceedingly simple”, according to the US co-inventor of the high technology devices and programs now used by GCHQ to intercept optical fibre cables carrying Internet data in and out of Britain. Bill Binney, formerly Technical Director of the NSA’s …
"It isn't like people in power spend time with hookers, snort cocaine and wear bras. No security risks there, they are beyond reproach."
Don't forget David Mellor's toe sucking.
Oh, and of course some other things done by MPs/peers: sleeping with prostitutes (again), insider trading in Anglia Television shares (allegedly), stealing three suits, cheating at a sprinting race in 1964, perjury, perverting the course of justice, and so on. And that was all by the same guy.
You know, I really don't care what David Mellor gets up to in his bedroom. Or anyone else's really (with the exception of mine where I would care a very great deal if I found him there). I am totally and completely fine with MPs being exempt from this as I'm sick of politics being based around people's image / sex life / browsing habits. In fact, given that I want GCHQ and the Home Office to have as little leverage on those we elect to represent us as possible, I want them to be exempt.
I just want everyone else to be exempt as well.
So lets just not make this law. Sound good?
Lets see now - I'm an employed, taxpaying citizen and the power I have to cause actual trouble is minimal: probably an angry comment in the online newspapers. MPs don't give a flying f**k what I think after they've been elected.
An MP on the other hand has the power to influence governments, heads of industry and sundry other "high-ups", so I'd say that they're an obvious, nay, essential target to watch. What have they got to hide?
>An MP on the other hand has the power to influence governments, heads of industry and sundry other "high-ups", so I'd say that they're an obvious, nay, essential target to watch. What have they got to hide?
An MP also has constituents, who have a right to bring grievances to their representative, without their evidence being snorted up by GCHQ (who may well be the subject of that grievance).
@strum Since Parliament is supposed to be democratic, our politicians must be subject to the same protections and laws as the rest of us. That includes encryption and privacy on the net.
The ideal solution is just to forget about this whole sorry mess, and permit hard to break encryption.
The next best solution is to educate everyone how to use Tor, and write off the public internet as a sorry fucked up mess.
Finally, if we must have broken encryption, politicians must have broken encryption too - and whistleblowers will have to fall back on the old, non electronic methods.
An MP also has constituents, who have a right to bring grievances to their representative, without their evidence being snorted up by GCHQ (who may well be the subject of that grievance
Fine that the MP doesn't have his email snaffled, but what of the aggrieved constituent who's emailing them? Their email isn't exempt from being hoovered, is it? I'm failing to see the protection being afforded the "little guy" in this scenario.
I can think of several MPs that I'd want to except from this in the national interest, and I'm not being snide about expenses or anything, some of them have apparently been communicating with our enemies and not in an "engaging for the purposes of reasonable negotiation" kind of way.
It's a toughie.
It's not tough at all, either everyone's data is hovered or no ones is. I prefer the latter.
There's no justification in saying MP's should be exempt so that their constituents communications are confidential because the constituents email is hovered at their ISP.
There's no justification for saying MP's should be exempt because of national security because it's our spooks doing the hovering we're talking about.
Everyone or no one - anything else is Animal Farm.
The Civil Service is expected to live up to a Code they are not allowed to meet.
Most parts of the civil service have been under that Orwellian Boot for some time, those that weren't sold off to the commercial arm of an American organisation.
Bark, the neutered and de-voiced Civil Service cant even dream about barking.
Galloway seems not to be a saint if you do some research. The jury's out on the green lady.
Now if it was David Davis complaining he might have had a piont but I suspect he's far too aware of the galloping hypocrisy of doing so whilst still remaining a pro-privacy campaigner.
On the one hand we have promises that bulk interception will just be the 'envelope' and 'no more intrusive than an itemised phone bill'.
On the other the ground work for a reaffirment that the Wilson Doctrine will be abided by. The only way I can see to do this is to scan the contents of the traffic. So they can construct laws that will mean they can publicly promise the information is not being 'read' to protect privacy, while simultaneously obliging themselves to 'process' the information to protect privacy.
It is neither really intelligent nor virtually smart for any party/organisation to allow, or for anyone to think one is somehow allowed especial and exclusive protection and/or exemption from comprehensive surveillance, in these days of ways and means and memes of right dodgy deals and perverse and corrupt practices.
Therefore will any and all services which supply intelligence and provide security ignore such a nonsense and waste no time or effort at all in even thinking to debate and elaborate further on the matter.
Such an exclusion for any sector or vector of opinion will always be fully abused to create all manner of unpleasantnesses.
"He conceded that parliamentarians’ emails “may have been collected” by GCHQ in these operations, but claimed that, technically, this could not have been prevented because the data could not be understood."
So, if it couldn't be understood there would be no point in collecting it would there.
Well, JassMan, what ever do you expect? It's all smoke and mirrors and obscure obfuscation in spookdom, is it not, and whenever nothing is as it seems, is everything different and a surprise to uncover and discover, and with IT in Creative Command and Cyberspace Control with Computers and Communications, is it a Brave New Orderly World Order Play for Dummies if one doesn't have the Constructive Force and Destructive Power to both Secure Secret Anonymous Supply and Protect Vast Autonomous Delivery of Alternative Virtual Reality Programs ....... Sublime and Seductive Alien Product to Code XSSXXXX Standards.
Is that what Sovereign Defence of the Realm and Nations via a Variety of Proxy Networks is/are doing nowadays in these days with zerodays to exploit with vulnerabilities, GCHQ?
And what say you, Duncan? Certainly more than just likely and probable, or quite an IMPossible Mission for Certifiable Intelligence Agencies to Complete to Compete ?
And the latter half of this earlier post …… http://amanfrommars.blogspot.ru/2015/08/150813.html …. asks the same questions of supposed Secretive and Special Intelligence Services as the ones above, and in so doing proves that necessary future better beta intelligence to rule and reign quite differently, and successfully without mounting deficits, is still missing from those organisations and companies/deluded individuals presuming to be leaders in the Great Game and Greater IntelAIgent Games Fields.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019