Slashdot Mirror


Secret Policy Allows GCHQ Bulk Access To NSA Data

hazeii writes Though legal proceedings following the Snowden revelations, Liberty UK have succeeded in forcing GCHQ to reveal secret internal policies allowing Britain's intelligence services to receive unlimited bulk intelligence from the NSA and other foreign agencies and to keep this data on a massive searchable databases, all without a warrant. Apparently, British intelligence agencies can "trawl through foreign intelligence material without meaningful restrictions", and can keep copies of both content and metadata for up to two years. There is also mention of data obtained "through US corporate partnerships". According to Liberty, this raises serious doubts about oversight of the UK Intelligence and Security Committee and their reassurances that in every case where GCHQ sought information from the US, a warrant for interception signed by a minister was in place.

Eric King, Deputy Director of Privacy international, said: "We now know that data from any call, internet search, or website you visited over the past two years could be stored in GCHQ's database and analyzed at will, all without a warrant to collect it in the first place. It is outrageous that the Government thinks mass surveillance, justified by secret 'arrangements' that allow for vast and unrestrained receipt and analysis of foreign intelligence material is lawful. This is completely unacceptable, and makes clear how little transparency and accountability exists within the British intelligence community."

54 of 95 comments (clear)

  1. Time for a Layman's TOR? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    What would it take to produce a seamless, idiot-proof, and completely secure and encrypted Tor for every layperson to pick up and use? What would it take for it to have low impact on latency and bandwidth? And how could it be distributed in a extension-type way, like Adblock, where its presence is almost unnoticeable?

    This technology is possible today and could turn the lights out on all of our data and web activity (at least on the ISP end). Where is it?

    1. Re:Time for a Layman's TOR? by cyn1c77 · · Score: 1

      What would it take to produce a seamless, idiot-proof, and completely secure and encrypted Tor for every layperson to pick up and use?

      A lot, given that most people don't even encrypt or password protect their smartphones.

      Government oversight would likely be required to enforce its usage!

    2. Re:Time for a Layman's TOR? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      This was launched today on Kickstarter; https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1227374637/cloak Looking good so far.

  2. Five Eyes by Travis+Mansbridge · · Score: 5, Informative

    Be aware that the same "arrangement" likely exists for all members of the Five Eyes spying network, a.k.a. the ECHELON group, sometimes referred to as "AUSCANNZUKUS" for its members, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the UK and the US. As long as any of these nations allows Orwellian surveillance, all five nations (and the rest of the world) will be in the same position.

    1. Re:Five Eyes by davester666 · · Score: 1

      "their reassurances that in every case where GCHQ sought information from the US, a warrant for interception signed by a minister was in place"

      you just need to parse the sentence correctly.

      It means that, when the minister was first appointed, he/she was instructed to sign a warrant that authorized access to all data until they are removed as minister + 30 days, just to cover the time until the next minister is appointed.

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    2. Re:Five Eyes by spacepimp · · Score: 1

      The key word being SOME. If it is only a small insignificant portion, why not make that data... you know the personal and identifying data inaccessible. No one here is claiming it is all personal data, you are making it a false argument, that it is either irrelevant due to its small amount of the total being shared, or that it can't be uncoupled easily and respectfully from the rest.

  3. Oh! So it's unacceptable is it? by fustakrakich · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Waddya gonna do about it, eh? Tell us again next week?

    --
    “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    1. Re: Oh! So it's unacceptable is it? by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      it's interesting that you ask that today of all days - the way the news cycle works, today is the last day to drop a big story to affect the US midterm elections. Greenwald promised Snowden that he would publish to maximize political impact (to effect the most change) and an October surprise was strongly hinted at. There's nothing of great surprise on The Intercept today - some decent confirmatory stories but nothing politically destabilizing.

      Many people have been of the mind "Greenwald's got this" but it seems now that they've gotten to him. Not to diminish the work he's done in any way but apparently he's passed the torch and forgot to tell anyone - well, I guess as of today he has through silence. If Greenwald (as Snowden's advocate) is done, that changes the political landscape for many currently observing the consuming power structure.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
  4. Conversely they spy on Brits for the NSA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The the flip side of this is they spy on British people for the NSA, and each uses the other to circumvent those pesky privacy laws.

    GCHQ, intercepts all of politicians and potential politicians, family, friends, employees, communications, hands that to the NSA who can trawl through it freely without restriction, and use that to shape who wins elections in the UK.

    I noticed the latest leaks show that they have field work operatives, who work in agencies and break into systems. Someone in GCHQ pushed the idea of this, and that person is a traitor to the UK and potentially a spy.

    None of the giant data centers being built by these agencies have been cancelled and no company has been brought up on charges for feeding NSA data from UK citizens.

    1. Re: Conversely they spy on Brits for the NSA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure they really care about elections. Politics is ephemeral; these guys will be listening to your phone calls and reading your mail no matter who wins. At their level, spying on politicians for politics' sake probably seems dirty and vulgar, too banal. When you have root to the world's comms, Mittens vs Obummer looks like the joke that it is: the tawdry showmanship of the electoral gutter. The Five Eyes, if they're really as supranational and omniscient as they are made out to be, wouldn't give a damn who's in the White House or Downing Street.

    2. Re:Conversely they spy on Brits for the NSA by thesupraman · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I dont think you quite understand...
      Why would they use it to craft who wins elections?
      They only need it to drop a few hints to the politician of choice at the time, that they know all their secrets, so they better vote X on Y.
      You think any career politician is going to stand up to them with that hanging over their heads? Not a chance.

      The interesting thing with all of this is how much evidence of criminal activity must they be IGNORING in this data, to keep their capabilities quiet.

      They are of course now solidly and effectively above all laws, including international law (thanks to their cooperation).

      Have a nice day.

  5. Called it! Fed scewed us again. by MonsterMasher · · Score: 1

    We once wrote that these federal gov people can't not fuck up every day.

    That when the time is right, just pointing this out will be 'shooting-fish-in-barrel' or some such statement. (Check yourself: facebook "Steven.Work", start about Christmas maybe.)
    .
    So, case in point .. NSA handing out my information so others in other countries may victimize me and everyone .. priceless!

  6. Re: Yes, what are YOU going to do? by xiando · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    There are actually several things you can do if you do not like the massive government spy-programs. The first thing you should do is to look into how you can pay nothing or as little as you can in taxes. Most countries have laws against not paying taxes but you are screwed anyway: Most "free" western countries have passed laws against financing terrorist organizations and criminal networks the last decade which means that it is illegal to pay taxes - so you are screwed anyway.

    The second thing you can do is to make it as hard as possible for them to gather information. Use Tor, do not use Facebook or other In-q-tel/CIA products, use ixquick/duckducktogo/etc instead of Google and so on. Do not make it easy for them.

    The third and probably most important thing is to talk to your friends and family about privacy and why it matters. Try to make them care. I know this is hard to do if the people in question watch television but do try. Western governments are out of control because a whole lot of people (almost all people above 50) love automatism and fascism and think people who think that they should not be forced to have a camera in their living-room by law are nuts.

  7. Re: Oh! So unacceptable... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    All Governments Lie
    http://www.ifstone.org/macpherson.php

    Educate your children. Teach them that ideals should inform their morality and ethical systems. But their governmental leaders should be required to prove their loyalty. Faith should be reserved for deities.

    Teach them to encrypt their email, their hard drives and consider Google to be another iteration of, " the slime oozing out of your TV set."

  8. I wonder if they honor the right to be forgotten by Crashmarik · · Score: 1

    Just saying, it's probably impossible to have privacy these days. Probably far better to democratize this so there is greater access to information instead of having a privileged class.

  9. Is this news? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I thought we knew about this in the late 1980's. I guess we didn't care as much then with the cold war going on and no one was using email. Echelon has been around a long time

  10. Re:I wonder if they honor the right to be forgotte by Crashmarik · · Score: 1

    If it's not the NSA/GCHQ it will be google/facebook/verizon. If you think you can stuff this genie in the bottle think again because it gets easier and cheaper every year.

  11. Bankers to that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    No they don't just spy on countries for no purpose, they shape policies to be more favorable to the USA by shaping politics to be more favorable. We even have examples of shaping from Snowden, see is discussion about the CIA and the Swiss Banker, and he wasn't even involved in most of it.

    http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jun/09/edward-snowden-nsa-whistleblower-surveillance

    And this idea that being powerful is *not* having control of the Bundesstag or Parliament is the exact opposite of what the dictionary definition of power is. So of course they want leverage, but they also want to ensure the people who get to the top are the people who support their agenda, hence its worth spending 10 billion a year spying on them.

    GCHQ on the other hand are tasked with the job of securing British communications from foreign spying, and for some reason, someone in there has risen to a position of power, where he thinks his job is to spy on Britain for a foreign power. It doesn't take a genius to see what's happened there. I'm sure a considerable amount of effort was expended to ensure he got into that position.

    See if you were the Secret Service, and being investigated for hookers and blow in Columbia and the investigator was a little too vigorous, you too might simply leak a few details of his Florida hooker friend, so he gets replaced with someone more helpful.

    1. Re:Bankers to that by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      GCHQ on the other hand are tasked with the job of securing British communications from foreign spying, and for some reason, someone in there has risen to a position of power, where he thinks his job is to spy on Britain for a foreign power. It doesn't take a genius to see what's happened there. I'm sure a considerable amount of effort was expended to ensure he got into that position.

      Individuals' goals have nothing to do with it.

      In organisations like the Civil Service or the Armed Forces, you get to the top by embracing the culture of that organisation.

      GCHQ is not a bunch of radical libertarians tragically perverted by one evil genius mole working for A Foreign Power.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  12. Re:I wonder if they honor the right to be forgotte by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Privacy is a basic human need. Opening it up to everyone would be even worse. Transparency in government is fine, but I'd rather not make everyone's information accessible to everyone.

    If it's not the NSA/GCHQ it will be google/facebook/verizon.

    I don't use any of that trash, and a lot of problems can be solved with reasonable privacy laws, which we're currently lacking.

    If you think you can stuff this genie in the bottle think again because it gets easier and cheaper every year.

    I think it's possible to greatly reduce the problem, yes. And it is, if people get off their asses and do something rather than just giving up (like what you're doing).

  13. Re: Yes, what are YOU going to do? by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

    The third and probably most important thing is to talk to your friends and family about privacy and why it matters. Try to make them care.

    And if that conversation goes anything like it does here on Slashdot - the tinfoil hat nuttery is going to cause them to tune you out pretty quickly.
     

    I know this is hard to do if the people in question watch television but do try. Western governments are out of control because a whole lot of people (almost all people above 50) love automatism and fascism and think people who think that they should not be forced to have a camera in their living-room by law are nuts.

    And your next two sentences just prove my point.

  14. Re: Yes, what are YOU going to do? by The+Ickle+Jones · · Score: 1

    And if that conversation goes anything like it does here on Slashdot - the tinfoil hat nuttery is going to cause them to tune you out pretty quickly.

    The thing that'll cause them to tune you out is their lack of principles and disrespect for the constitution and fundamental liberties.

    And your next two sentences just prove my point.

    Lots of people seem to be in favor of unconstitutional, rights-violating mass surveillance of our communications, so that's just a bit of an exaggeration. The mass surveillance is just less visible.

  15. Why? by NewtonsLaw · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Can someone remind me why it is that we, the people who elect and pay the wages of the politicians and public servants who seek to destroy our right to privacy in this way, continue to allow such outrageous behavior to continue?

    Has the concept of a democracy been replaced by one of serial fascism where voters are lulled into a false sense of empowerment by governments which collude with the *real* power-brokers to simply look after their own best interests and for who "voters" are synonymous with taxpayers -- a necessary evil required to keep the oily wheels of government turning?

    They say we get the governments we deserve -- if that's true, we must be truly evil bastards!

    1. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Here in the US, the government just ignores the constitution. Having a written constitution is nice and all, but if it's not properly enforced, they'll just do as they like.

    2. Re:Why? by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Can someone remind me why it is that we, the people who elect and pay the wages of the politicians and public servants who seek to destroy our right to privacy in this way, continue to allow such outrageous behavior to continue?

      Because unlike the colonists, we have never overthrown the British state and insisted on a written constitution to which the State is subject.

      Yes, because the US doesn't have the exact equivalent to GCHQ called the NSA or anything..

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    3. Re:Why? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately we waited too long to fix it democratically. All the realistic democratic options will keep spying on us.

      Because we left it so late, we have reached the point where the only option is to fight back. Hopefully we can win by making surveillance so expensive that they can't do it any more. Encrypt and anonymize everything, and make it the default option. If that fails, using violence to destroy GCHQ will be the only thing left, and I really want to avoid that.

      Not posting anon because it won't protect me, and I'm sure GCHQ already have a thick file on me. Just in case any dumb fucks from the police are reading this though: This isn't a threat to bomb GCHQ.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    4. Re:Why? by sudon't · · Score: 1

      Can someone remind me why it is that we, the people who elect and pay the wages of the politicians and public servants who seek to destroy our right to privacy in this way, continue to allow such outrageous behavior to continue?

      Has the concept of a democracy been replaced by one of serial fascism where voters are lulled into a false sense of empowerment by governments which collude with the *real* power-brokers to simply look after their own best interests and for who "voters" are synonymous with taxpayers -- a necessary evil required to keep the oily wheels of government turning?

      Something like that. I don't know how they do it where you live, but here in the US, we're given a choice between two pre-vetted candidates. The ruling class decides who we'll get to vote for. Which is to say, it's not really a choice, but the illusion of choice. It's certainly not a democracy.

      --
      -- sudon't

      Air-ride Equipped

    5. Re:Why? by strikethree · · Score: 1

      They say we get the governments we deserve -- if that's true, we must be truly evil bastards!

      Sure, just like that cute little girl gets the rapist she deserves. WTF?

      --
      "Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
  16. The laws protecting citizens are a sham by msobkow · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The laws protecting citizen's rights in the Five Eyes nations are a sham. They just use the data collected by their partners to spy on their own citizens. They all do it, including Canada.

    --
    I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
  17. Re: Yes, what are YOU going to do? by serviscope_minor · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The first thing you should do is to look into how you can pay nothing or as little as you can in taxes.

    The trouble is that the world isn't black and white. I don't like having massive government spy programs. However, I do like the existence of infrastructure. You know, good roads, schools, a health service, mass transportation and so on. You can't opt out of one without opting out of others unfortunately.

    --
    SJW n. One who posts facts.
  18. Two years? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Yeah, right. If they are doing this, they are storing it indefinitely. Who is kidding whom?

  19. Re: Yes, what are YOU going to do? by A+Pressbutton · · Score: 2

    you are under 40 and _dont_ use facebook or google ... suspicious in and of itself!

  20. Re: Yes, what are YOU going to do? by tehcyder · · Score: 2

    The first thing you should do is to look into how you can pay nothing or as little as you can in taxes.

    You missed out the stage where you become an independently wealthy Criminal Mastermind with a secret lair hidden inside a Carribean volcano first. Twat.

    a whole lot of people (almost all people above 50) love automatism and fascism

    Fuck you, you ignorant piece of shit. If anything it's the younger generation who are quite happy to share everything on facebook and the rest of the "social media".

    --
    To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  21. Re:I wonder if they honor the right to be forgotte by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Bullshit. Even in caves, privacy existed. Privacy of the mind. Being able to wander elsewhere to get privacy.

    Privacy is a basic human need. Otherwise, people wouldn't seek it out. Privacy is also necessary to keep the government in check.

    Stop judging everyone and then privacy wouldn't matter.

    It would matter. Even absent government corruption (impossible) and judgement, you want to keep others from seeing you do embarrassing things, and you want to keep some things secret. Nothing wrong with that.

  22. Legal Loophole by secondhand_Buddah · · Score: 2

    What this effectively does is create a legal loophole through which the US intelligence agencies can request data from the GCHQ, on US citizens thereby bypassing surveiling citizens directly.

    --
    Participatory Governance : The only feasible option for a real democracy, where everyone really does have a say.
    1. Re:Legal Loophole by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      What this effectively does is create a legal loophole through which the US intelligence agencies can request data from the GCHQ, on US citizens thereby bypassing surveiling citizens directly.

      If only they'd had such systems in place before 9/11, the world's most spectacular terrorist outrage might have been prevented.

      If only...

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    2. Re:Legal Loophole by secondhand_Buddah · · Score: 1

      Well, its a classic chicken and the egg situation. If the measures were in place, Al Quaeda would have used different channels, like I presume they do now.

      --
      Participatory Governance : The only feasible option for a real democracy, where everyone really does have a say.
    3. Re:Legal Loophole by koan · · Score: 1

      Uh huh, because our government did not willingly ignore warnings and allow it to happen.

      --
      "If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
    4. Re:Legal Loophole by koan · · Score: 1

      What does Al Quaeda have to do with 9/11?

      --
      "If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
    5. Re:Legal Loophole by jittles · · Score: 1

      Well, its a classic chicken and the egg situation. If the measures were in place, Al Quaeda would have used different channels, like I presume they do now.

      The CIA has been using British intelligence to spy on US citizens since they were first banned from spying on citizens in 1976.

  23. Can anyone claim that TOR is totally secured? by Taco+Cowboy · · Score: 1

    Many people says that TOR is the only weapon we have left to keep ourselves out of the prying eyes of the spooks - but is it truly secured ?

    If TOR is not totally secured then we will end up fooling ourselves thinking that we are under protection but in actuality our every.move is being monitored / recorded / analyzed by spooks

    --
    Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
  24. Re:I wonder if they honor the right to be forgotte by dablow · · Score: 2

    Try to live without some sort of privacy...just try... Want to changes jobs. for a better position, more money etc. Bam your boss instantly knows and fires your ass. Thinking about starting up your own business? Say a franchise? Bam your neighbor who already has one outbids you on your location... Have a kid with a chronic disease? All your potential bosses know this and refuse to hire you because they do not want to pay for your expensive medical insurance and missed work days. Without privacy, it would be even harder for people to better their situation and elevate themselves from poverty than it already is. And before you say the door swings both ways, remember those with $$$ can hire people to sift through the mountains of data to find relevant information, where as you will be too busy just meeting your basic needs. Nobody is asking for a handout.....people just want to start at the same line in this rat race, and privacy is a big factor in this.

  25. Time for a Layman's TOR? by AHuxley · · Score: 1

    Under Tempora https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... any message in and out of 5 Eye nations and friends can be reconciled with a start and destination ip.
    If your still chatting, a back door or rootkit would get the rest.
    Anything encrypted just attracts interest until decoded or a plaintext way in is found.
    Then its the hops of friends, friends of friends and all networking usage.
    The only way around such systems is the number station or correct use of the one time pad.
    With data retention in other nations like Australia that ip is going back to a real user as discovered. http://www.itnews.com.au/News/... (Oct 30, 2014)
    "Generally they do this in real-time, so the two years of holding this data probably doesn't make a lot of difference. That process of resolving an IP address to an account name is relevant, and it happens all the time."
    The history of the UK RIPA, SIGINT Modernisation Programme efforts can be seen even after new changes.
    Thats the details surround a message to, from, when where, sent from and connection (gps or a house).
    Its getting very easy for gov and mil to put the internet back together over days or years.

    --
    Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
  26. Re: Yes, what are YOU going to do? by nblender · · Score: 2

    Lots of people seem to be in favor of unconstitutional, rights-violating mass surveillance of our communications, so that's just a bit of an exaggeration. The mass surveillance is just less visible.

    I think people aren't in favor of it so much as they'll only object in so far as it doesn't inconvenience them... ie: "I hate all the bullshit I have to go through at the airport but it's worth it if I can spend a week at an all inclusive in Mexico... I'm not doing to deny myself my semi-annual beach vacation!". "I know Facebook uses my data against me but it's the only way I can keep in touch with friends!" "I don't care if Facebook knows what I had for breakfast". "If you have something to hide ... "

    That's the sort of bullshit that allows it to continue. The average person has no principles.

    My wife and I have elected to take a personal stand against all this stuff by not participating but it's resulted in ridicule and mocking from family and friends... We've been accused of damaging our child because we haven't travelled out of country with him... etc ...

  27. Why? by AHuxley · · Score: 1

    From embassy details in the 1920's and 1930's to HOW (Home Office Warrant), to ENIGMA in ww2, to early satellite ground stations, Skynet (satellite) efforts, every call in and out of Ireland, to what is now understood of the internet under US/UK collect it all.
    Over years the UK likes to read about the world in plain text and in near real time.
    When tasked staff ask, they are told its legal in a domestic context.
    The tame press is told to talk of tracking Soviet/Russian movements. Thats sells the hardware sale and upgrade side.
    The good news is more people seem to understand that their cheap mobile is a beacon, microphone, gps and that voiceprints will always find that new phone.
    The press is also aware of what a laptop or phone can do when working on an interesting story.

    --
    Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
  28. Re: Yes, what are YOU going to do? by 91degrees · · Score: 1

    The thing that'll cause them to tune you out is their lack of principles and disrespect for the constitution and fundamental liberties.

    So what would you propose to do about it? Blame isn't going to get anywhere. Regardless of whether it's me being tinfoil hattish, or them being unprincipled, I'm not going to persuade them.

  29. Old news by koan · · Score: 1

    By the way Israel gets the data too.

    --
    "If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
  30. Re:I wonder if they honor the right to be forgotte by Wootery · · Score: 1

    Privacy is not a basic human need. We used to live in caves and huddle together for warmth. There's no privacy there.

    Even if that were true, it wouldn't matter. We evolved for life in small tribes, and now live in huge societies. Group dynamics change as scale increases.

    Stop judging everyone and then privacy wouldn't matter.

    Indeed. In a perfect world where all people are angels, there would be rather less need for privacy.

  31. Re: Yes, what are YOU going to do? by buck-yar · · Score: 1

    Translated:

    "However, I do like other people paying for things I can use. You know, good roads, schools, a health service, mass transportation and so on."

  32. No, you got it exactly backwards. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Your post makes you sound like an anarchist nut.

    If you don't like what the government is doing, you must apply political force to making the government stop.

    That means, first and foremost providing financial support to a lobby that has this cause as their primary purpose. Despite the popular preferences to this effect, in the real world money is what drives politics, and lobbies are how you can make your voice heard.

    People are very eager to be political when all it requires is a vote now and then. People who are truly earnest in their desire for change will put their money where their mouth is. Your money is your political power, so use it.

    Also, it doesn't hurt to write congressmen, participate in protests and other political events, etc. This sort of awareness-raising helps to demonstrate to congressional candidates how many votes they could win if they championed such a cause.

  33. Re: Yes, what are YOU going to do? by The+Ickle+Jones · · Score: 2

    I think people aren't in favor of it so much as they'll only object in so far as it doesn't inconvenience them

    I don't think that's true. A startling number of people are actively in favor of it, because they want safety over freedom. Certainly, there are also lots of apathetic people. When these two groups are combined, they're enormous.

    "If you have something to hide ... "

    That one is actually a statement in support of a police state, since it supposes (incorrectly, given history) that the government can do no wrong and make no mistakes. It's a statement made out of highly concentrated ignorance.

  34. Re: Yes, what are YOU going to do? by The+Ickle+Jones · · Score: 1

    I think the king is well aware that he's violating what many in the world consider fundamental rights.

  35. Re: Yes, what are YOU going to do? by frank_adrian314159 · · Score: 1

    Those who do it for "convenience" I can understand. Almost all of us have "principles" we attempt to live within the bounds of. But those principles are breakable by anyone because we're human and nature isn't black and white, but fuzzy and indirect. In addition, my principles may not be yours. So I understand their decision at their current level of awareness, knowledge, whatever you want to call it. Whatever we are, we're a free country and people have to have the right to choose their own values.

    The ones I don't understand are the ones who justify this in the name of "safety". Because history has shown that there is nothing more unsafe than a police state. And because you're human and nature isn't black and white, but fuzzy and indirect, what you get is a system for which everyone is guilty of something and you can no longer assume it's "if you have nothing to hide...".

    I guess I think of it this way: Information is power. But power accretes unless periodically dispersed. The larger the accretion, the more energy it takes to disperse it. But we are human and the world is not black and white, but fuzzy and indirect, so when we apply this energy, we're often as likely to blow apart the system as we are to disperse it gently. So we fear stepping in when the accretions are small and the collateral damage easily contained (plus there's always that awful nagging free agency thing that has to be balanced), allowing power to concentrate until the stakes of dispersal seem too high and still we don't disperse it until the pressure builds up, the system blows apart and we start again from square one. It's fucking tedious and wasteful. Civilizations, countries, economies, organizations, all the little ways we group together follow this law: Power accretes unless dispersed. Period.

    So, if you're making it easier for power to accrete, you are in one sense helping to bring about conflict and strife and destruction; contrawise, if you are dispersing energy to dissipate huge clots, then you're still bringing conflict and strife and destruction. If we all become wise enough to deal with these concentrations of power before they become too large, we will minimize conflict, strife, and destruction from this source and our lives will be happier. But we are all human and the world is not black and white, but fuzzy and indistinct, so all we all see different clots as too big. In the end, all you can do is laugh and do what we can to disperse the clots that look a bit too large to us. 'Cause that's what we do.

    But a police state is about the hardest clot we've ever allowed to form. Hopefully ours is still small enough to dissolve without a lot of collateral damage, but those holding ever more tenuously to power really seem to like them some police state.

    But the path towards education is pretty clear from this model... for those who trade safety for convenience, convince them that safety is more important. When you have them focused on the safety issue, then you can discuss short term vs. long term tradeoffs of relative safety.

    --
    That is all.
  36. Re: Yes, what are YOU going to do? by cduffy · · Score: 1

    "However, I do like other people paying for things I can use. You know, good roads, schools, a health service, mass transportation and so on."

    Well, uhh, yeah. The whole point is that that kind of thing is so expensive that no one person can pay for it alone.

    Is this supposed to be controversial?