Slashdot Mirror


Lord Blair Calls for Laws To Stop 'Principled' Leaking of State Secrets

An anonymous reader writes with an excerpt from the Guardian: "Tougher laws are needed to prevent members of the public from revealing official secrets, former Metropolitan police commissioner Lord Blair has said. ... The peer insisted there was material the state had to keep secret, and powers had to be in place to protect it. The intervention comes after police seized what they said were thousands of classified documents from David Miranda – the partner of Guardian journalist Glenn Greenwald, who has been reporting leaks from the former US intelligence officer Edward Snowden. ... He warned there was a 'new threat which is not of somebody personally intending to aid terrorism, but of conduct which is likely to or capable of facilitating terrorism.' He cited the examples of information leaks related to Manning and WikiLeaks."

26 of 395 comments (clear)

  1. Government vs terrorists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    No thanks, I'm more afraid of the Government than Terrorists.

    1. Re: Government vs terrorists by enigma32 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This. Exactly.
      Terrorists are a sometimes-maybe-sorta threat. Government is much more terrifying because it is always there protecting itself rather than its citizens.

      How do we fight this nonsense?
      It goes way beyond the role of groups like the EFF... What groups can I support to prevent nonsense like this?

    2. Re:Government vs terrorists by NoKaOi · · Score: 5, Informative

      Next /. poll:
      Who are you most afraid of?
      -Terrorists
      -My government
      -The voices in my head
      -CowboyNeal

    3. Re: Government vs terrorists by WaywardGeek · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The EFF is a good start, and maybe the ACLU. All Snowden and Manning did was tell the truth. We should be *very* careful about outlawing the truth in America.

      --
      Celebrate failure, and then learn from it - Nolan Bushnell
    4. Re:Government vs terrorists by suso · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Missing option: Answering this poll

    5. Re:Government vs terrorists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This is true in the US at least.

      A US citizen is more likely to be murdered by the government than by terrorists and it's been that way for decades.

      In fact, more US soldiers have died from suicide than from enemy fire over the entire course of the war.

      When questioned, the number one reason enemy combatants give for attacking us, is that we killed a family member of theirs.

      The US built Iran's nuclear reactor, not Russia. The US built North Korea's nuclear reactor, not China. The CIA trained Osama to fight the USSR. The Pentagon supplied Saddam to fight Iran while the CIA supplied Iran to fight Iraq. It turns out even the USSR was propped up by endless loans and food supplies from the US - from the 70s - long before Reagan's Evil Empire speech, he knew they were a paper mache devil.

      Does a global global anti-government organization even exist or is it all a fabrication ala Stakeknife and Operation Northwoods?

    6. Re: Government vs terrorists by Imrik · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If we were well informed of its activities this wouldn't be an issue in the first place.

    7. Re: Government vs terrorists by EzInKy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      There is no need to be terrified of a government where there is democracy and a public that is well informed of its activities.

      Unless, of coure, the majority of the public doesn't like the minority to which you belong. In many countries, for example, you still can become a criminal for ingesting a substance that the majority doesn't approve of.

      --
      Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
    8. Re: Government vs terrorists by You're+All+Wrong · · Score: 5, Insightful

      False. Things which were true in the past, but not now, are false. He is not a top ranking policeman any more than George Bush is the US president.

      For reference, he's the cunt who tried to prevent an investigation into the shooting of an innocent Brazillian electrician in cold blood by his poorly-trained (but apparently the best you've got) underlings who thought he was a middle-eastern terrorist bomber.

      Everything this man says about secrets is tainted. He's Captain Coverup.

      --
      Your head of state is a corrupt weasel, I hope you're happy.
    9. Re:Government vs terrorists by MrBigInThePants · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You are arrogantly assuming they give two shits about your opinion on the matter or are even asking. They are not.

      Notice that the reaction around the world to being caught out on spying has been to...

      - shut the CIA declassification department
      - Make the illegal spying legal (e.g. NZ)
      - Make it clear whistle blowing is not ok and hunt whistle blowers and call them criminals
      - torture existing whistle blowers
      - Lie about the extent of spying in THEIR country while condemning it in others (e.g. europe)

      Face it. The noose has tightened. The sheep are in the fields blissfully unaware for the most part.

      Its the new world phenom! Its trending baby! Yeah!

    10. Re: Government vs terrorists by erikkemperman · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Unlike your earlier links (about Syria and Iran), this one actually is on topic... But the interesting bit of your link, in my opinion, is not what this unnamed official says (there is zero information in that because it is entirely predictable) I think the more telling quote is from a named source, viz Snowden:

      "Anyone in the positions of access with the technical capabilities that I had could suck out secrets, pass them on the open market to Russia; they always have an open door as we do. I had access to the full rosters of everyone working at the NSA, the entire intelligence community, and undercover assets all over the world. The locations of every station, we have what their missions are and so forth," he said.

      "If I had just wanted to harm the U.S. You could shut down the surveillance system in an afternoon. But that's not my intention," he said.

      He could be lying about that, I suppose, but it does seem consistent with his actions as far as I can see (which, like all of us, admittedly isn't very far). Also, while I am obviously in no position to know either way... The one person who does, Snowden himself, has indicated that he is seeing stories that did not originate with him, suggesting that these are being planted specifically to be able to say, "look! Real damage due to this whistleblowerleaky traitor"

      --
      Gosh, thanks. That must be why the other ships call me Meatfucker -- GCU Grey Area (Eccentric)
    11. Re: Government vs terrorists by MrMickS · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You have a great luxury in that the police and security services have been effective to date in keeping terrorism under control with a fairly regular series of arrests and convictions. That can change, just ask the Iraqis. They thought they had terrorism under control and now it may be spiraling out of control. At its height, there were probably tens of bombs going off daily around the country. Things are bad enough now they would like the US to come back.

      Iraq seeks help from US amid growing violence

      Have we? Who can say? Without information being open for public scrutiny we have only the police and security services word on this to know if they have in fact kept terrorism under control. With all of the powers in place they seemed to miss a fairly obvious suspect that was involved in the Boston Marathon bombing. Was this an aberration or about par for the course? We just don't know.

      By all means keep currently operational information secret but allow review of past operations, both successes and failures. It would increase public support and security. The idea that things have to be kept secret so as not to reveal operational information to terrorists is security through obscurity, such a thing only protects against the ignorant. I suggest that terrorist organisations, rather than individuals, already know how they were caught before and will update their procedures accordingly.

      --
      You may think me a tired, old, cynic. I'd have to disagree about the tired bit.
    12. Re: Government vs terrorists by hughbar · · Score: 5, Informative

      Pretty lousy cop too: http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2008/oct/02/ian.blair.resigns very political and not very coply [to use Jess Stone's lovely word].

      --
      On y va, qui mal y pense!
  2. Laws to protect the rich and powerful by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    To hide their dirty work, to keep secret the things that would outrage the public if they knew. This has got nothing to do with enabling or even potentially enabling terrorism. Only protecting the established status quo which some perceive to be at risk of the serfs are properly informed.

  3. Definitions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    So they're hoping to redefine this in a way to ensure that future Mannings / Snowdens face harsher consequences for exposing criminal behavior. They couldn't get Manning seated in the electric chair, so let's make the definition of leaking == aiding the enemy even when there is no intent.

    So the new political calculus: Intentionally kill innocent civilians, get a promotion, expose those illegal killings, get hunted down like a rabid dog. Yep, it all adds up!

  4. Just let me get this straight by paiute · · Score: 5, Informative

    Flying your jet into a building: Terrorism
    Blowing up yourself in a marketplace: Terrorism
    Leaking information about government crimes: Terrorism
    Google "where to buy a pressure cooker": Terrorism
    Picking your nose: Terrorism

    --
    If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
    1. Re:Just let me get this straight by kawabago · · Score: 5, Insightful

      you forgot Thinking: Terrorism

  5. Protection of Corruption Laws by rtb61 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Basically corrupt conservative 'er' exploiters governments, are looking to implement laws to hide corruption at all levels of government. Of course never to forget sheer incompetence. So basically it's all about creating a raft of laws to bury corruption and incompetence in government under national security.

    You know what's really funny about this, this is exactly what corporations try to do with NDA's. Of course who is doing the corrupting of governments, why it's the multi-national corporations, where else do you think the incompetent corrupt fuckers in government got the idea from. Expose the corruption in government and you'll expose the corporations behind it. Hmm, not so funny after all.

    --
    Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
  6. Not state secrets by NoKaOi · · Score: 5, Insightful

    A state secret is something that needs to be secret in order to protect the lives of the citizens of that state (yeah, I know that's not how the law/precedent words it, but that's the fundamental idea of it). These are not state secrets. These are coverups of illegal activity that are labeled as "state secrets" in order to perpetuate the cover-up and not get power-abusers in trouble.

  7. facilitating by coma_bug · · Score: 5, Funny

    conduct which is likely to or capable of facilitating terrorism

    like, say, building roads?

  8. And I call for laws against secrets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    There should be a very small set of fine grained categories under which government data can be kept secret. Secrecy for government programs, and the content of said programs needs to be white listed, and the list of categories needs to be public.

    If we are going to have a secret court, I want to at least know there is such a court, or know that some system with the authority to create it exists so I can object if appropriate. Every secret should classified under one (or more) of the categories in the white list, and each category should have some eventual schedule for disclosure and process for oversight.

    There needs to be a public system for adding and removing categories (via laws from congress I guess).

    This is a democracy: if the people don't know what the government is doing, how can it possibly work in the people's favor?

  9. This is what I like about the UK by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    In the USA, you have to surmise that somebody is an elitist douche who fancies himself to be God. In the UK, they do us the courtesy of labeling themselves, "Lord".

  10. Leaks happen for a reason by wickerprints · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Generally, leaks by the public happen not because such individuals wish to do harm, but because they feel it is in the public's interest to know such information. Therefore, in order to stop such leaks from occurring, it is the government's responsibility to conduct themselves in a manner so as to permit accountability and oversight by those who presumably elected them.

    In short, if you don't want leaks of "sensitive" information, then don't do business in a way that creates such secrets to begin with. We aren't talking about corporate espionage, or nuclear missile launch codes. We are talking about actions at the behest of some government entity that purports to serve the public, but that same public has not even the slightest degree of oversight with respect to determining whether such actions are in fact legitimate.

    To talk about needing more laws and more restrictions to hide government secrets in the name of "security" is the height of sophistry and hubris. It is Machiavellian and Orwellian reasoning, and it is the very thing that achieves what the actual terrorists intend. No sovereign nation will be brought to its knees by the direct loss of life and safety through sporadic murders, bombings, and violent mayhem. Nations fall for two reasons: conquest by another nation's military, or because the governments that rule over its citizens become so egregiously corrupt that a revolution occurs from within. The essential aim of terrorism is to achieve such a collapse through the latter means, because terrorists are aware that they lack the resources to do the former. It makes no difference whether the draconian behavior of a government is well-intentioned. The loss of basic democratic freedoms, in any form, is a win for terrorists.

  11. The U.S. government is EXTREMELY corrupt. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The U.S. government is EXTREMELY corrupt.

    1. Re:The U.S. government is EXTREMELY corrupt. by Clsid · · Score: 5, Insightful

      That they do not do petty corruption is one thing, but what is lobbying exactly if not a nice term for legalized corruption. The ability of individuals or corporations to pressure the government into changing laws by the sheer strength of the mighty dollar has nothing to do with democracy, justice or any other moral guidelines a government should have.