Slashdot Mirror
British Foreign Secretary on Surveillance Worries: '"Law Abiding Citizens Have N
Bruce66423 writes "The government minister in charge of GCHQ, the UK's equivalent of the NSA, has used those immortal words, 'Only terrorists, criminals and spies should fear secret activities of the British and US intelligence agencies.' From the article: '...In an interview on the BBC’s Andrew Marr Show on Sunday, Mr Hague refused to say whether the British government knew of the existence of Prism before it emerged last week. “I can’t confirm or deny in public what Britain knows about and what Britain doesn’t, for obvious reasons,” he said. However, he implied that the revelations had not taken him by surprise.'" While many are concerned about the reach of PRISM overseas, the Finnish Foreign Minister says he plans to continue using Outlook for email.
And this surprises who, exactly?
Come on, are any of us shocked or surprised by any of this, or is it really just yet another confirmation of how the governments really consider us all
guilty of something, and how common law (yes, that English institution) went by the by a long time ago?
I am waiting for the other penny to drop, when people start realising how much of that information gets funneled back in to large US corporations
when they are working on major overseas deals, etc..
Perhaps people will start realising they need to protect their own privacy - by which I mean encryption, not our insightful American friends ideas about
armed militias (hmm, yeah right). The tools have been there for a long time now, most people just dont take it seriously.
At least then they need to let you know they want your information (at least for email, etc...).
so they could seize the UK assets stored in failed Icelandic banks (failed after being privatized on the suggestion of UK/US "experts")
"hard right racist fascists like the BNP" = right wing
"a party like the national socialists" = left wing
so you're arguing that neither left nor right oriented parties should ever get access to these tools when in power. May I add the center?
I think he's implying that extreme parties of either persuasion would use the laws to enforce their ideology. Any group that believes that they are right to the exclusion of all other viewpoints is a danger and should be feared in power.
You may think me a tired, old, cynic. I'd have to disagree about the tired bit.
What there is to fear.
Arrest, often extremely violent, even lethal.
Confiscation of all electronic goods for months (replace at own expense, no choice in today's connected era).
Extended trials and legal fees (measured in months if not years, Bradley Manning a glaring example).
Freezing of Assets
Imprisonment during extended trial, due to inability to fund high bail costs.
Threats of extended prison terms, measured in decades.
Trial by government compliant media, found guilty upon accusation and guilt spread far and wide to ensure all possible juries are tainted against you.
Threats against family members and friends to receive similar treatment.
Family members and friends actually receiving similar treatment.
Coercive tactics continue until you falsely plead guilty to a lesser charge and agree to remain silent.
Anyone recognise this pattern. It hasn't happened just once but time and time again. All this surveillance provides them with ample ammunition to make spurious and circumstantial claims to attack anybody, well at least anybody not extraordinarily wealthy and what happens when it is all over. Well, tough luck chump, tens of thousands of dollars gone, months behind bars, family members and friends fear association with you and unemployment. As for the government, hmm, whoops tee hee, our wrong and they can do it to you all over again.
The whole idea of due process was to keep abuse of power in check, not let strumped up liars like Uncle Tom Obama or The Shrub or Darth Cheney to abandon the whole process to empower the CIA and it's private for profit contractors.
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
The debate about Nazi and where they sit gets skewed. Hilter found much that he shared and created the Nazi party from the German Workers party. He aligned himself with the socialists, until he was famously able to turn to them and stated in Parliament 'And now I don't need you any more'.
Politics is circular, not so much left or right. If middle ground sits at the tp of the circle, offering a level of moderate landscaping, other hardline doctrines slide down the circle, and meet at the bottom, which is where you'll actually find Nazi'ism and communisim and other foul totalitarian and political ideals on near common ground.
I laugh at leftists who persist in trying to find a big enough gap away from Nazi'ism. Socialism IS linked to nazi'ism both in history and idealogy. Hilter nationalised industry. He made enrolled people into the state, and he grew the fucking shit from the German workers party. He carried out a class war - many aspects of his bullshit came directly from socialism.It is true that parts of his evil craven idealogy were not socialist in nature, but parts of it were.
I agree that at both ends of the spectrum, you'll find a strange similar evil to achieve control in a totalitarian aspect share a commonality. Its why you'll find at rally's the right wing hardliners carry stanley knives and the hard left scum carry claw hammers. Neither side believes in open democracy.
In the 30's in Germany - it fell to gangs of brown shirts, or communists, and as the violence and loss of control escalated, the rule of law and democracy was lost. Democracy is not to be decided by small bands of thuggery precahing their twisted idealism as a new religion.
We`re all equal
Reminds me of:
Göring: Why, of course, the people don't want war. Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship.
Gilbert: There is one difference. In a democracy, the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare wars.
Göring: Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, 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.
"Because we are not employing at entry level, offshoring will kill our industry stone dead."