Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

British Spies Are Free To Target Lawyers and Journalists

Posted by samzenpus on from the lets-see-what-you're-doing dept.

Advocatus Diaboli writes British spies have been granted the authority to secretly eavesdrop on legally privileged attorney-client communications, according to newly released documents. On Thursday, a series of previously classified policies confirmed for the first time that the U.K.'s top surveillance agency Government Communications Headquarters has advised its employees: "You may in principle target the communications of lawyers." The country's other major security and intelligence agencies—MI5 and MI6—have adopted similar policies, the documents show. The guidelines also appear to permit surveillance of journalists and others deemed to work in "sensitive professions."

11 of 184 comments (clear)

  1. Whom does this surprise? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Anybody at all?

    The purpose of a government under crony capitalism is to ease the flow of cash toward those prepared to offer kick-backs.

    People who are highly talented in very narrow fields - thus unable to analyse the bigger picture - are employed as civil servants to facilitate this.

    Whence GCHQ, NSA, etc.

  2. Erosion is little by little. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Hardly anyone will notice one right removed at a time.

  3. There can be no defense of this. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    There can be no defense of this. This is the government engaging in totalitarianism as standard practice. There cannot possibly be a moral or ethical defense of this practice.

    1. Re:There can be no defense of this. by Thanshin · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yet on the other I don't see why, if you were trying to stop a serious threat, spies shouldn't be able to monitor these communications in principle, with some clear restrictions:

      Because we have been proven over and over again, incapable of defining "serious threat".

      Therefore, virtually everything can be identified as a "serious threat" and any law that requires that identification is ineffective.

      It's as saying on a law "you can only do this if you believe you're right.". It's as unacceptable as a CEO justifying himself with "at the moment I thought it was the correct course of action." The obvious answer on the latter case "well, it was your job not to be wrong" should be applied to government monitoring.

      So, the law should replace "if it's believed to be a serious threat" with "if it later proves to be a serious threat.". And if later we prove it wasn't a serious threat, well, tough luck, you are governing a country, you are expected not to make mistakes and to pay for those you make.

    2. Re:There can be no defense of this. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      ad 1) Parallel construction

      Grandparent is 100% correct. It is totalitarianism. The communication of lawyers and journalists is protected for a reason. You can not protect civil rights by giving them up. Lawyers and journalists ARE checks and balances!

    3. Re:There can be no defense of this. by IamTheRealMike · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Please show me the abundance of dangerous terrorists/serial killers that are simultaneously practicing lawyers or journalists.

    4. Re:There can be no defense of this. by Thanshin · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You say that as it was silly, and it does sound that way if you use terms like "magical invisibility". However, to the actual question of:
      Should we protect the privacy of the lawyer-client relation to maintain a good quality judicial system, even though we are quite sure that protection is being abused by criminals and terrorists and whatever other enemies of our country we may find, the answer is a strong and convinced "Yes".

      Justice is more important than security. Freedom is more important than security.

      I have no interest on how much secure is an unjust and non free society. Without justice nor freedom, it's not even possible to know if there actually is security, because the enemy of the individual is the unjust and non-free society he lives in.

  4. Re:Art Of War - Chapter 13 - The use of spies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    If fighting is sure to result in victory, then you must fight!

    Sun Tzu said that, and I'd say he knows a little bit more about fighting than you do, pal, because he invented it, and then he perfected it so that no living man could best him in the ring of honor.

    Then, he used his fight money to buy two of every animal on earth, and then he herded them onto a boat.

    And then he beat the crap out of every single one.

    And from that day forward any time a bunch of animals are together in one place it's called a 'zoo'!

  5. Re:It's what you do with it that counts by The+Ickle+Jones · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Spies should listen in to whatever they need to listen in to.

    Spies should respect laws and constitutions, at the very least those of their own country. If they don't, everyone - including those who ordered the illegal spying - should be punished severely. We already know this is not happening.

    Freedom is far more important than a spy's ability to do whatever they "need" to do.

    That's what they're there for. Nations spy on other nations. It's not pretty, but it's reality.

    Murderers murder people. It's not pretty, but it's reality.

    What an amazing defense.

  6. Re:It's what you do with it that counts by The+Ickle+Jones · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The worrying aspect is that they're collecting the data at all. If they have the data, it will be misused; that is a historical guarantee. Privacy is violated through the mere collection of data. Mass surveillance should not be permitted. Targeted, legal surveillance at best. This is not what is happening.

  7. Re:It's what you do with it that counts by The+Ickle+Jones · · Score: 5, Insightful

    So when London or insert your European capital or major city here, has 30 or 40 Boston style bombings in month will you still be saying this?

    I'll say the same as I said on 9/11: There's no such thing as perfect safety, and the very idea is terrifying. I rejected the TSA, the Patriot Act, and all the nonsense that followed, because I actually have principles and understand the concept of probability to a far greater extent than so many fools who, if they were truly rational, wouldn't get into a car. Freedom is more important for safety. If you feel otherwise, North Korea may be right up your alley.

    But hey, let's using this stupid logic in an alternate scenario. If you were a murderer who was caught murdering someone, would you still be saying there should be laws against murdering? I'm going to assume the answer would be "No." Why? Because I can. And because I assumed that, your arguments for why there should be laws against murder are somehow invalid. And if that's not the sort of point you intended to convey, then why bring up that stupid nonsense about how I supposedly might believe differently if X happened? It serves no useful purpose.