Slashdot Mirror
UK Prime Minister Threatens To Block Further Snowden Revelations
Bruce66423 writes "From the article: 'In a statement to MPs on Monday about last week's European summit in Brussels, where he warned of the dangers of a "lah-di-dah, airy-fairy view" about the dangers of leaks, the prime minister said his preference was to talk to newspapers rather than resort to the courts. But he said it would be difficult to avoid acting if newspapers declined to heed government advice.' So that will achieve something won't it? Don't these politicians understand that blocking publication in just the UK achieves nothing? The information is held outside the UK, and will be published there; all he's doing is showing his real colors."
I remember reading about these NSA revelations years before Edward Snowden disclosed them...on the Russian Times web site.
Guess we'll have to go back to relying on the Russian press to defend freedom and print the truth.
Ugh...I think I just threw up in my mouth.
"Once we've identified and embraced our sickness, we'll have strength...and that's when we get dangerous." - John Waters
Wonder how much pressure the PM is getting from Washington?
Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
...complete lack of surprise.
Will someone remember Snowden is pointing out info to everyone. The most important info. Heck, the Russians pale in comparison to the dangers of the NSA. Ever heard of transparency? Got a clue?
um. No he's revealing info to everyone.. No country claiming to be a bastion of freedom should be in the business of mass data collection of its citizens' comings and goings. The criminals are the politicians in washington DC. Hell, the russian government probably already knows more about the USA domestic spying activities than its own citizens do.
Will someone point out that Snowdon is probably revealing info to the Russians?
Why? Don't they have their own subscription to The Guardian?
Have gnu, will travel.
Over and over governments have fallen and change has been driven when secrets become known. This is because information is the only real source of power. Controlling what information gets out, and what information you have is real power. Any person who has been in government or even a large organization quickly realizes this and those who thrive in these organizations have taken this to heart.
So this is why governments spend so much effort in "massaging" information and are happy to have things kept secret for a hundred different reasons such as "privacy" or "security" but the simple truth is that once the population has this information they now have the power and this is the scariest of all scenarios for people who want power.
As I said, just look at the history of leaks, in the UK you had ministers that were terrible and people wanted them gone, yet they not only stayed but were regularly re-elected because people didn't have the solid information that could sway an electorate. Then the expenses scandal came out with solid information about people lying, cheating, and repairing their moats and in a flash they were gone. Prior to the leak the public was fed a filtered version of the MP expenses. In the US you had Nixon get turfed from office when he lost control of the information. The key being concrete evidence of what was happening in the oval office. The media loves their dueling opinions but people can tell the differences between narrative, opinion, and cold hard facts. I very much doubt these bozos care one iota about the whole protecting the country part of these revelations but they do care about losing their ability to spy on anyone who is making them look bad or getting in the way of their rich friends. And they really hate the fact that these revelations prove them to be liars themselves.
But the worst part for these people is that the media is no longer just a few media barons that they can be clubby with. In years past they may very well have been able to keep a lid on this through that alone. But now the traditional media is no longer local. So even if none of the press in one country runs a story other countries' press cores will and then there are the million micro media sites. They will all run with anything they can get their hands on.
I love it!
Cameron is a COMPLETE idiot!
First the government abused foreigners, and the press did nothing.
Then the government started abusing its own citizens, and the press did nothing.
Then the government started abusing the press...
"Once we've identified and embraced our sickness, we'll have strength...and that's when we get dangerous." - John Waters
Can someone explain it to me, why US/UK/etc. governments are so freaking afraid of leaks, when apparently it's such a common knowledge that everyone spies on everyone, including their friends and allies?!
Shouldn't it be, if you haven't done anything wrong, you shouldn't be afraid of the truth? Since enemies of any state already assume they are being spied on anyway?
I mean, I can understand if the leaks included real names of agents and informants, or were putting real people in real danger of being killed in some other way. But at this point it's all just about governments lying to the people and each other, and about politicians losing all credibility. Oh, wait, I think I just answered my own question...
Why? Don't they have their own subscription to The Guardian?
One interesting thing about threats is that you absolutely must be able to follow through and the threats most be seen as a positive action. Cameron has just put his head in a noose. (Well, more than usual)
When The Guardian publishes again --- which it absolutely will --- he can choose to do nothing and further relinquish control, further harming himself politically. Or he can take it to the courts like he threatened, spending a fortune trying to get an unpopular order which will also harm him politically. If he succeeds at getting the order all it will do is make the UK government and the crown look even more the fools. He is playing a game that has no winning moves.
By all means, I hope he continues to make threats like this. If he doesn't follow through he will be seen as weak, and if he does follow through he will become even more unpopular. Boris Johnson is already twice as popular in the polls, Cameron is already less popular than his party (which is also rapidly sinking) and idiotic statements like this will just cause the ship to sink faster.
Mr Cameron, every time you open your mouth you make it easier for those who will oppose your party in 2015. Please carry on.
//TODO: Think of witty sig statement
That's probably just a consequence of having the ability to collect such data. I'm more worried about they way they encourage people they have a problem with to engage in illegal activities just so that they can arrest them. Or the way the way laws have been passed prohibiting recreational drug use, effectively declaring 10% or so of the population to be criminals. Them tracking our comings and goings wouldn't be such a problem if our innocent activities weren't illegal in the first place.
Wrong Cameron. The political twat is David, the film-maker is James.
Nihil in publicum sputa.
So basically you'll trust a whistleblower who has climbed the ranks high enough to access top secret information in the U.S.'s intelligence service, Russia's intelligence service, and China's intelligence service? But what if this whistleblower dosn't release information that's embarrassing to Paraguay, too? How could you then trust that he wasn't just a shill for some Latin American strongmen? Hmmmm?
Not true; many parts are still missing. But he's pulling himself together, so to speak.
The Grauniad is printed as several editions in several locations. The best way to answer this would be to print the British edition with large amounts of white space entitled "Censored" on the pages that the foreign editions have articles that contain information obtained from Snowden. The British people would then go online to see the information which would harm the British press but harm the British government more.
When The Guardian publishes again --- which it absolutely will --- he can choose to do nothing and further relinquish control, further harming himself politically. Or he can take it to the courts like he threatened, spending a fortune trying to get an unpopular order which will also harm him politically. If he succeeds at getting the order all it will do is make the UK government and the crown look even more the fools. He is playing a game that has no winning moves.
Let's change how we look at David Cameron. Instead of viewing him as the PM, look at him instead as a very expensive property of the Murdochs. How much would Rupert and his clan pay to finally silence the Guardian or any joint willing to publish in the UK? Who cares if their latest pawn (Cameron) goes down in flames - they'll just bribe the opposition or push one of their other pawns forward.
Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
He is playing a game that has no winning moves.
True. But he's undoubtedly doing it under orders from his US masters - who don't care whether he gets re-elected or not. The UK has for a very long time now been a client kingdom of the US. One of their main roles on behalf of their masters is to disrupt the EU as much as possible, but they have to carry out other menial tasks too.
It's quite unimportant how much some Edward Snowden has been lying (not so much, it would seem by the way). The salient point is how much your own government has been lying to you, and how much your secret services have been lying to both your government and you. Nobody so far has tried claiming that the released documents were doctored by Snowden. So the veracity of the relevations is not in question.
Snowden could be a shill for Hitler and that would not be relevant. What is relevant is that your government chooses to be a shill for Hitler, bringing back fascism into the world.
At no point have the people or organisations outed by these allegations claimed his information is fabricated; in effect they've admitted its truth, so there's no libel involved. Given that Snowden DID have access to the data and turned it over promptly, the most likely hypothesis is that it's accurate, and certainly the sight of Obama in practice admitting that the NSA had intercepted Merkel's personal phone calls gives the rest of it credibility. There is a debate to be had as to whether there has been damage to the appropriate data gathering abilities of the intelligence services; that's the argument that is being advanced by both Cameron and Alexander. However their credibility is rather shot given that they've been shown to have misled about it in the past. The Guardian has claimed that it's offered spooks the chance to comment on the material before publication, and that they have been careful to avoid the obviously damaging. Overall it is clear that there has been an abuse of power and that this has been the only way that it has been exposed to the point where something has been done about it (the NSA has stopped intercepting Merkel's phone calls). Coincidence?
Unless there is even MORE damaging things which the US and NSA have done.
More recently, as a form of damage control no doubt, were assertions by both the POTUS and the NSA that the POTUS didn't know about many things. Okay great. If it's true, then shut down the NSA as it is clearly an executive branch activity which is not within the knowledge or control of the executive. "It's not his fault! He didn't know!!" Really? You're that far out of control? And he's not in control?! Get rid of both! That's a pretty damning admission if you ask me.
Even if they try their best to do this. Every article, blog post, every news program always reflects point of view of whoever created this content. Even if such person tries his/hers best to be as objective as possible, it is impossible to avoid bias.
The only truth is what you see yourself which is of course impossible for practical reasons. The second best approximation is to snort though raw footage and original materials. This is very time consuming task and it is also impractical for anyone who is not a professional investigative journalist.
This brings us to preprocessed and prepackaged information spewed by either mainstream or alternative media. What works for me is to assume that they all have a lot of spin in their content and that every spin doctor uses at least partially true arguments supporting his/her position at first, is quiet about arguments contrary to his/her position and resorts to lies and fabrications only if all other alternatives fail. So I'm trying to read arguments of all adversary sides (US media, european media, russian media, chinese media, iranian media) and then use my head to sort out things - pretty much 'Scherlock style' deduction. Unfortunately this requires some time and effort, which most of people do not want to expend.
Very unpleasant thing about this is that western media perform very poorly in this regard, especially since run-up to Iraq war. I attribute this to general situation and 'lack of good arguments' on western side - which directly correlates to our latest economic (2008 crash and afterwards) and social (rise of police state) troubles. We now see things going from bad to worse: UK blocking PressTV, UK government forcing Guardian to destroy its computers, now UK PM threatening all newspapers if they do not obey his demands. The same in the US: Obama prosecuting and jailing more than twice as many whistleblowers as all his predecessors combined, US blocking RT, huge assault on journalists, with some of them propably murdered by government thugs to silence and send a message (Michael Hastings). We are certainly not better in this regard than government controlled eastern media and I suspect we might even crossed point of no return in our way have only to strictly controlled, totalitarian media spewing nothing but lies and propaganda.
You said, of Snowden ...
Technically he is a traitor ...
Would you be so kindly tell us how would you define your term of " Technically " ?
What Mr. Edward Snowden did was not treacherous to the country of the United States of America.
No.
Just because the Obama Administration that called Edward Snowden a "traitor" doesn't make it so.
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !