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.
That statement might have more credibility if it were not for the well documented use of RIPA powers for things unconnected to terrorism and serious crime.
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
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...).
Think about it. Everyone knows that the government is made up of perfect angels who would never abuse their powers or make mistakes, so what do innocent people have to fear? Nothing! History has shown us time and time again that corrupt governments simply don't and can't exist, and if you say otherwise, you just have an overactive imagination.
I say our next move should be to install government-owned surveillance equipment in everyone's houses. After all, if you have nothing to hide, what do you have to fear? People could be committing crimes in their houses, so it's justified.
You think it matters what you use for email? If its not encrypted, you can assume PRISM is reading it
..does not mean you have any business going through my life with a fine tooth comb.
The "Nothing to Hide" argument is a fallacy that falls apart upon examination:
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110524/00084614407/privacy-is-not-secrecy-debunking-if-youve-got-nothing-to-hide-argument.shtml
https://chronicle.com/article/Why-Privacy-Matters-Even-if/127461/
It's nothing to raise a Führer over!
Interesting comment from Mr. Hague, a minister of the country that gave us the infamous Star Chamber.
From wiki:
The Star Chamber (Latin: Camera stellata) was an English court of law that sat at the royal Palace of Westminster until 1641. ...The court was set up to ensure the fair enforcement of laws against prominent people, those so powerful that ordinary courts could never convict them of their crimes. Court sessions were held in secret, with no indictments, and no witnesses. Evidence was presented in writing. Over time it evolved into a political weapon, a symbol of the misuse and abuse of power by the English monarchy and courts.
I'm sure the victims of the Star Chamber at that time were equally comforted by the thought that if they were innocent, they had nothing to fear from the men in power. Of course.
My point being that any proceedings undertaken in secret, and therefore without oversight from the public will inevitably lead to abuses of power.
I am also troubled by the fact that the present US administration appears to go to great lengths to hide their workings from the US public whom they claim to serve. Just look at the Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership as an example. When even free trade agreements are being negotiated in secret, something is not right.
"Only terrorists, criminals and spies should fear secret activities of the British and US intelligence agencies." William Hague, the utter of this sentence, left one very important phrase, this being, "if you trust the government." If I were a Brit I wouldn't trust the government. Brits have been guaranteed fewer civil rights than Americans. But as an American I wouldn't trust the American federal or any state or local government to do the "right thing". Politicians make their careers on doing the wrong thing. It is my hope that the revelations of this unwarranted snooping will raise such a stink that some big heads will roll. And I don't believe for a minute that the government only massages this information for patterns when there is a threat. That is government-issued, anti-FUD bullshit at its best. They are always looking for patterns. That's what the NSA and friends do.
It's really quite a simple choice: Life, Death, or Los Angeles.
It seem too me that the capacities of surveillance tech has evolved much faster than public understanding and emotion on the issue. As a non-US citizen, I am disgusted by the idea of my emails or metadata derived from them are massively stored away if they pass through the US, or even my own country. I understand and respect that some level of this must exist in modern society, but we need to have checks and balances that can be vetted by he public.
And can it not be wrong, even though I have nothing to fear? Have I nothing to fear from this system even if I am not a criminal?
Ethically, it is limiting to my freedom that there exists a stash of information somewhere that might be abused when taken out of context. Does that not limit my freedom to express radical opinion in private discussions, or even do so satirically? Can I no long play with unpopular ideas using electronic communications? Can I no longer listen to the voice of my opponent without fear of at some point being labeled one of them?
Legally, how can it be that an email is less of my property than a letter I store in a deposit box in my bank, or send in the mail? Is it not mine or the recipients only? If the state had an army of people standing by to make copies of every letter sent, the situation would be perfectly analogous. Is that not ransacking me, or confiscating my property only to provide me a copy?
Safety wise, if a record of my life is aggregated in a single source that I have no knowledge of, how can I know that it is truly safe? How can I ensure politicians spend enough on it's safety? I keep my IDs safe to prevent identity theft. What happens the day my life is stolen, but the theft is classified?
And last but not least, what happens to the balance of power between a state and its people here? The state is the servant of the people, and it should always respect that. When the people become submissive to the state, nothing good happens. We've spend much blood in the past to put it where it belongs, but it always threatens to slip back. We need people like Edward Snowden to blow the whistle when that happens. The very fact that he is now in hiding shows how the power-balance has it's centre of gravity atm.
The limited revelations so far have focused on the technical scheme and said little about the regulatory scheme, how it was used operationally. Leaving out that sort of data is like noting that almost everybody has in their house or on their person a device which has a microphone and transmits all it hears to remote listeners, that is a telephone, but leaving out the fact that it is off until you pick it up or turn it on. The existence of this technology and program says very little about if it is legal and if it has been used appropriately.
Turning off telephone service is inconvenient. Turning off the intelligence services ability to gather timely intelligence can perilous.
Bali death toll set at 202
London 7/7 terrorist attacks
Madrid train attacks
9-11 attacks
What has MI-5 had to say?
U.K. tracking 30 terror plots, 1,600 suspects - updated 11/10/2006
British authorities are tracking almost 30 high-priority terrorist plots involving 200 networks and 1,600 suspects, the head of Britain’s domestic spy agency said, adding that many of those under surveillance are homegrown terrorists plotting suicide attacks and other mass-casualty bombings.
What did the next head of MI-5 say a year later?
New MI5 chief says terror suspects in Britain have doubled in the last year - November 6, 2007
The new chief of Britain's intelligence service MI5 painted a troubling picture of growing terrorist threat in Britain, saying the number of suspects in the country has more than doubled in the past year – and that many of the new recruits are teenagers....
and more:
At Least 4,000 Suspected of Terrorism-Related Activity in Britain, MI5 Director Says - November 6, 2007
LONDON, Nov. 5 -- British security officials suspect that at least 4,000 people are involved in terrorism-related activities in Britain and that al-Qaeda's "deliberate campaign" against Britain poses the "most immediate and acute peacetime threat" to the nation in a century, the head of Britain's domestic spy agency said Monday.
And in 2012?
MI5 warns al-Qaida regaining UK toehold after Arab spring
You cripple the security services at your peril. Unlike the IRA, al Qaida doesn't tend to phone in warnings before a blast.
Cheers
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
so they could seize the UK assets stored in failed Icelandic banks (failed after being privatized on the suggestion of UK/US "experts")
British Foreign Secretary on Surveillance Worries: '"Law Abiding Citizens Have N
What is N? Where can I get rid of N? Can I buy more N at the store? Should I be worried if I have N?
FFS, editors. FFS.
*head in hands*
Kid-proof tablet..
This is a conspiracy theory that a good friend of mine passed along. I have no reason to believe it is true, but I think it can still illustrate the problem with that attitude.
First off, to recap, Anthony Weiner was a member of congress from New York City. He accidentally tweeted a "calvin klein underwear ad" of himself on his official twitter feed. Within minutes he deleted the tweet, but the damage was done. He ended up resigning and the seat he held, which had been held by democrats for something like 80 years, went to a republican.
It turned out Weiner had two twitter accounts, a personal one and the official one. He had been regularly using the private account to send suggestive photos to women across the country. Not illegal, but douchey. Although for all we the public know, his (brilliant and hot) wife was fine with it, maybe they had a look-but-don't-touch agreement. Whatever it was, it was their business alone.
Now, just imagine that somebody at the NSA who was "friendly" to the republicans decided to do a little checking into Weiner and discovered what he was doing on his "private" account. Then they logged into his official twitter account using some back-door or even just something sloppy like a cookie they sniffed off the wire from his own most recent login. Once logged in, they "accidentally" posted the picture and then deleted it a few minutes later.
Viola, career ruined and republicans get a chance to pick up a seat they would never have had a chance at if nobody had been snooping on Weiner.
Like I said at the start, I have zero reason to believe that is actually what happened. He probably just forgot what account he was logged into - all the blood had left his brain for other parts of his body. But, what matters here is just how plausible this theory is. The only thing standing in the way of this sort of corruption is the personal integrity of basically everyone with access to these programs at the NSA. Imagine just how easily this kind of ubiquitous surveillance apparatus can be turned to political corruption. We have way too much of that already, no need to make it any easier.
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
After all, you, as a law abiding citizen, have nothing to fear, right ?
Yeah, that quote is really, really old and gets used by politicians a lot.
Lately, here in Germany, we've started throwing it back at them whenever they are hiding something from us. Like who gives them how much money or which companies they work for after their term, or who paid their campaign, or indeed their last holiday.
The "if you have nothing to hide..." should be told to them a lot more often, because they've been abusing it for a long, long time.
Also, since we know that sexual favours are as successful in swaying people as financial incentives, I would like a full record of who my politicians have been sleeping with during their terms. As there are more lies in this area than in any other, we should have 24/7 surveilance and automated reporting. What? You don't have anything to hide, do you?
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
Has our society become so timid and fearful that we are willing to sacrifice long cherished rights to freedom, liberty and privacy to the state in return for a dubious promise of security?
I say dubious, because for all the vaunted survelliance ongoing right now, it failed to stop the Woolwich stabbing attack. It failed to stop the Boston marathon bombings.
In all the gruesome examples you cited, note that the acts of terrorism took place despite all the surveillance already taking place then. The effort has failed. How much more freedom and privacy will you demand the public sacrifice in order to achieve greater efficacy?
I think we are on a very slippery slope, where the temptation is all too great for the ruling parties to take the path of least resistance and extend the coverage gradually to all undesirables and enemies of the state - from terrorists to child pornographers to murderers to robbers to copyright infringers and finally to common members of the public. If you think this is impossible, look to China where it is happening even as we speak. The Chinese government even justified its censorship and surveillance of the internet on the basis of public security in a White Paper , including the following gem :-
China advocates the rational use of technology to curb dissemination of illegal information online. Based on the characteristics of the Internet and considering the actual requirements of effective administering of the Internet, it advocates the exertion of technical means, in line with relevant laws and regulations and with reference to common international practices, to prevent and curb the harmful effects of illegal information on state security, public interests and minors.
What lies at the end of the slippery slope? Alan Moore might have the answer. I suggest you look at his book, it is an intriguing read.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landsbanki_Freezing_Order_2008
"Get off the cross - we need the wood" - Tori Amos
before mass prosecution of certain ( ethnic ) groups broke out, the government also told its citizens: "Ordinary German citizens in good standing have nothing to fear from GeStaPo or SD, which services are there to protect them".
Religous speak to God. Insane are spoken to by God. When all shut up, one can finally hear Shostakovich in peace
Oh good grief. They didn't declare Iceland to be "terrorist".
They used a law called the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act (note how two of those three things aren't "terrorist") to freeze the assets of an Icelandic bank branch in the UK. They did so under provisions of the law that involve preventing actions harmful to the UK economy.
One can certainly question whether this was warranted or not, but it had nothing to do with terrorism. Nice try though.
Life needs more saving throws.
The Act was mostly about terrorism, so when it was voted on in Parliament if you opposed it you were supporting terrorism. They tacked that bit on and were careful to word it such that it didn't only apply to terrorism. The House of Lords actually picked up on that but were unable to fix it.
It is a classic example of using terrorism to pass all kinds of bullshit into law by making it extremely difficult to oppose. We looked like complete dicks for using it against Iceland when it was clear to most people that that was never its intended purpose, or at least not the stated purpose of the Act when pitched to Parliament and the voting public.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC