Slashdot Mirror
GCHQ Officials Given Immunity From Hacking Charges
An anonymous reader writes with news that members of British intelligence agency GCHQ have been granted immunity from prosecution for any laws they might have violated while hacking into citizens' computers or cellphones. The immunity was granted by changes to the Computer Misuse Act that weren't noticed until now, and not discussed or debated when implemented. While different legislation has long been thought to grant permission for illegal activities abroad, civil rights groups were unaware that domestic hacking activities were covered now as well. The legislative changes were passed on March 3rd, 2015, long after domestic spying became a hot-button issue, and almost a year after Privacy International and several ISPs filed complaints challenging it.
......this just formalizes it for the plebs .
"James Bond has a license to kill, does he not?"
"That's right."
"Shoot someone, get off scot-free?"
"Yes, why?"
"So then, why do computer crimes carry a worse sentence than murder?"
How can I believe you when you tell me what I don't want to hear?
What the UK is doing really frightens me, for the people that live there, and for the rest of the world.
That's not the future I want.
Good thing Aaron Swartz got similar immunity from any laws broken.
Oh, wait, my bad. That's not what happened. Instead they tried to destroy his life. For fuck-all social harm, and arguable social good, compared to the NSA and GCHQ who have caused incalculable harm to our society.
This immunity from criminal prosecution also forms a large part of their claim that spying on Brits for a foreign power IS LEGAL.
They are NOT permitted to do bulk surveillance of British internet traffic,they are not supposed to spy on politicians, journalists, lawyers, campaigners,....but they DO bulk surveillance of internet traffic on all of those people, and hand access to that data to NSA staff. They claim its legal because they have immunity from prosecution.
The Snoopers charter was not passed into law, it was rejected despite lies told by Jacqui Smith MP. It was rejected repeatedly, rejected in the House of Lords when it was slipped into an amendment. Theresa May, (a Jacqui Smith clone from the other party) tried and failed to get it made law. She's said she'll try it again now they got elected. But as it stands, it was REJECTED and domestic surveillance is not legal.
We have a weird situation where a spy agency is spying on MPs in Britain, making that data available to the US, who in turn leverage British politics to get their way. The politicians who are compliant to US wishes (Theresa May et al), in turn are now trying to legalize the very surveillance that helps them get in power.
This is happening all across the 5 eyes countries.
If you scratch your head and wonder why East German STASI spied on East Germans for Russia, look no further than GCHQ's actions.
MPs who oppose the passing of Snoopers charter can have their data, their families data, their friends data, all pulled by the US spooks and it can be used against them courtesy of GCHQ, and you cannot prosecute GCHQ for any of it, because of the immunity amendments.
We all know Western Civilization has fallen to Fascism, so why not just come out and announce it? Why bother with these pieces of meaningless paper such as "Laws" and "Constitutions"? It's clear the rule of Law only applies to the Subjects, not the Wealthy or the Government. How about Marshall law? How about jackboots and arm bands and "show me your papers" and "up against the wall"? We're pretty much there anyway, but we all seem so intent on playing this bullshit game and pretending we still live in a free society.
When will someone just fucking go ahead and blink already????
As a member of the GCHQ I should take time to explain this to my fellow britons and the international community as a whole. You see, whilst portrayed to be a loveable middle-class eccentric bunch the average pint-pounding football-chanting briton, or as we know them 'bastard' isnt to be trusted with so much as a modicum of personal freedom. We've learned nearly every citizen to be a terrorist on some level (children are actually just very small terrorists.) and have taken great measures to protect actual god fearing pension clutching cloistered elite, whom we've found to be the real true citizenry of our great nation. So, in summation, Everything from VAT to the automated system of bollards and yes, even the chavs we strategically scatter along each and every mode of public transit charged with tactically dispersing vom, is part of this plan. Naturally retroactive immunity from prosecutorial oversight was necessary as in order to obtain critical knowledge of terrorisms. the knowledge that you, yes you, Chester Cleveston on Ellington road, have thrice now failed to finish a pint of Boddingtons because the foamy bit at the bottom puts you off, helps keep normal godfearing patriots of the jack accidentally gifting you a pint despite knowing full well you're a salaried man and can easily afford his own. So, in summation, should you be at this moment to have found yourself with a monocle perched upon your cheek then disregard this 'news.' However if you've just finished your sixth chesterfield and are at this moment urinating on a police car, you'll find solace and comfort in knowing we're here to protect you from Darryl Mansclover, working at the Lydsgate post office, who every morning puts lemon as well as milk in his tea in keeping with his savage tradition of domestic terrorism.
Good people go to bed earlier.
Maybe all of this government sponsored asshattery will encourage more people to get off their asses and invest more effort into fixing all of our broken shit.
If governments want to piss away their capabilities hacking their own people because they can then let them do it and fuck themselves over.
be put alone in a corner where they feel very very unwell?
Something like a podest, where they have to stand on, maybe chained and everyone is free to spit at them.
At one point, enough will be enough.
But you understand don't you that they have to take away your rights and privacy in order to keep you safe. I'm sure you feel safe now, don't you?
One advantage of an unwritten Constitution; the Courts might give you back your rights at some later point.
WE SLEEP
You may admit agent 00000111 for his debriefing. Oh, and send away all those nasty little people in police uniforms.
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
What the UK is doing really frightens me, for the people that live there, and for the rest of the world.
That's not the future I want.
Then kill the fascist bastards and form a new government. That's what's going to happen very soon in the US if things don't change.
Strat
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
Trust is not the point. Power is. Something the plebs can't comprehend. Only a fool would believe that given the power to infiltrate an unsuspecting enemy without them noticing, would their enemies stay their hand.
Advice for the ignorant: if you can avoid putting data into a device, do so. If you can avoid using a device, do so. If you can't avoid it minimalize your use of it as much as possible. Don't let a device monitor or control you to the best of your ability. Because at the end of the day the only safe bet is this: if the device can be abused it will be, and those who abuse it (like the story proves) will be perfectly protected from any and all repercussions caused by said abuse.
If any of you still need proof as to why laws are useless against those who write them, I have only one thing to say to you: Grow up, and quit living in your fantasy world.
An enemy of your way of life is not bound nor shackled by the same morals and ethics as you. That enemy will use that fact to their advantage to defeat you. If you stay your hand because of your morals and ethics, then all you will accomplish is the removal of a person who believes in them. You don't get to pick your choices in life, sometimes you have to pick from choices you don't want to pick from. Although someone may question your morals and ethics because of your actions, at least then they can still be passed on. If your enemy defeats you, then your morals and ethics loose a believer and are one step closer to oblivion.
"As long as there are rulers, we can't have rules"
Because they're always going to make exceptions for themselves and their cronies, and use the rules to stick it to everyone else, while loudly decrying that they speak *for* us.....
Liberty.
Quite obviously so. Otherwise, if what they were doing was legal, they would not need immunity. This also means Britain does not have "rule of law" anymore, because with that everybody is subject to the law. One more step into the abyss.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
Indeed. And the law has become a tool of oppression, not of justice.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
You seem to have made the easy but very big mistake of believing Braveheart to be historical. There are some bits of history mixed into the plot to support the illusion, but there are also massive errors of fact, and that is one of them. (Don't get me started on the chronology...)
Protip: If someone has to give them to you, they aren't rights; they're privileges.
-- "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
Immunity from criminal law is immunity from criminal law. GCHQ do a FULL TAKE on the internet, those links carry mostly British, and EU data, including MPs, their families, journalists, the lot. NSA staff are given free access to that full take.
GCHQ did the hack of the Belgian phone system, i.e. spying on the EU. Which is also part of the British democracy.
And yes it IS FUCKING TREASON but its un-prosecutable because they have immunity.
"You were doing well until the paranoid conspiracy theory about the US subverting British democracy."
No, another Snowden leaks shows that the NSA keeps data useful to it on Britain, despite the 5-eyes no spy agreement, and Snowden complained about the CIA getting a Swiss banker drunk driving in order to back/befriend him. You can kid yourself they do not do this to Britain because of the 'special relationship' but thats childish faith.
The US can and does use all the information it has to ensure governments are favorable to its wishes. GCHQ are helping them undermine democracy.
by allowing them to hack unfettered, eventually they will come across someone who will hack back. By giving them immunity, it removes any possibility of legal recourse; the only path left for those who've been wronged by GCHQ hackers is now to follow far more illegal paths for retribution. "From Hell's heart, I strike at thee"...once the courts deny this, it will become an even more dangerous game.
One would think that Britain has had enough past experience of what happens when their rulers remove accountability from specific segments of their subjects. When the Courts won't listen, the next step is often quite bloody.
I just watched Ex Machina last night...BEST ENDING EVER.
Won't happen in the US ever. Won't happen in the UK either. What might happen is an English version of Tiananmen square. Both governments will see it happening before it happens and it will be put down quickly. Thinking otherwise is little more than an invitation to be put down sooner than later.
Unlike GCHQ, the Queen is subject to the law.
They are getting immunity. That protects them against being prosecuted for _crimes_ they have committed. What prison guards do is not a crime as long as they follow their job description. For the police to execute a legally obtained search warrant is not a crime. Doing surgery with proper authorization from the patient or under emergency condition and with the proper authorization to do surgery of the type done is not a crime. None of these things require immunity, just exceptions in the law. Immunity means you can break the law without consequences (often retroactively), not that there is an exception for what you do in the law.
Really, have you even looked up what "rule of law" means? Because you certainly do not understand its meaning.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
Won't happen in the US ever. Won't happen in the UK either. What might happen is an English version of Tiananmen square. Both governments will see it happening before it happens and it will be put down quickly. Thinking otherwise is little more than an invitation to be put down sooner than later.
Yes, abandon all hope.If we lick their boots convincingly, maybe we'll be the last into the gulag.
Strat
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
civil rights groups were unaware that domestic hacking activities were covered now as well
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
Really?? Are you that stupid that you think the only way to change government is via violent revolution? I suppose you also think that whatever warlord replaces it will be the kind and gentle type that will gie you everything you ever wanted too.
I think people like you are dangerous to any thriving society and downright deadly to any less than thriving society. You will attract other idiots and eventually get them killed while justifying the jackboot tactics the government would use in response. Some twit in office will look at your writings and you will convince them that spying on citizens is just and reasonable. They will lower the bar for police killings and make a list of domestic terrorist. You will justify this by your own words.
Let's just hope they think you are little more than a retarded monkey that doesn't need to get on the list.
Or declared illegal. Even retroactively. ;-)
After all, our German Nazi-regime was ruling (and killing) (mostly) perfectly within its own laws.
Later on, after we lost the war, some people actually got the rope for their crimes (admittedly, only those who didn't run fast enough, weren't killed already, couldn't blame someone else or didn't have anything to bargain with (like a prospect of owning nuke-bearing ICBMs or a list of Soviet spies)).
So, if a future government, supported by enough people, wanted to override this exemption, I don't see that not happening. In theory.
Granted, it will be difficult to override, but as we know: the easy things are the most difficult
Windows 2000 - from the guys who brought us edlin
Really?? Are you that stupid that you think the only way to change government is via violent revolution?
Not at all. The four boxes (soap, ballot, jury, ammo) are to be used in that order. So far we've tried soap, ballot, and jury.
Next, I would try peaceful non-compliance, but I'm not naive enough to believe that the government would not respond violently.
I think people like you are dangerous to any thriving society and downright deadly to any less than thriving society.
We do not live in a "thriving society", we live in a fascist oligarchy that is descending into collapse. You are delusional if you believe otherwise.
You will attract other idiots and eventually get them killed while justifying the jackboot tactics the government would use in response.
So, with heavily-armed domestic paramilitary units assaulting the homes of citizens for things like student loan debts and misdemeanors, just how much farther does the government need to go before you would justify self defense? After you've been rounded up and sent to a camp is a bit late.
Some twit in office will look at your writings and you will convince them that spying on citizens is just and reasonable.
News flash, Bunky. They have believed that for decades.
Let's just hope they think you are little more than a retarded monkey that doesn't need to get on the list.
Nice ad hominem. Down to the last resort of those who cannot defend their position, eh? Let's hope they don't believe that everyone will roll over and lick their boots as you seem adamant to do, as that guarantees they will proceed at full speed.
You will justify this by your own words.
Yeah just sit down, shut up, and comply, right? Attitudes like that are historically what have enabled tyranny to fester.
Let me translate it into a language you'll comprehend;
"Baa-aaa-aaahhhh!"
Strat
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
Your knowledge of the English/Scottish/British constitution is about 400 years out of date.
Yeah, I think that's the point: the 4th amendment has become a privilege. Not just phone calls and emails, not having your pockets searched is a, well, white privilege.
You don't show any understanding of rights with that statement.
Did you think rights just floated down from the sky, mana from heaven?
All rights are given. That doesn't mean that, as you claim, there is no such thing as the word "rights" and every time anybody says "rights" they really meant "privileges." It does mean that words have context, and that the meanings don't always align with extremist principles.
Protip: the UK doesn't have a 4th Amendment.
They have an "unwritten constitution." They believe this makes rights more resilient, because even if somebody tries to take them away, and uses a legal process, the courts might just give them back at any time without needing specific justification.
Americans generally discount that idea, but lots of legal experts do disagree on the results, both theoretical and actual.
Did you think rights just floated down from the sky, mana from heaven?
No, they're inherent to the fact that we're living, sentient beings with dignity and value.
All rights are given.
No, rights cannot be "given" because something given can be taken away. Privileges are given and privileges can be taken away. Rights are inherent (see above) and can only be infringed inasmuch as we allow them to be.
That doesn't mean that, as you claim, there is no such thing as the word "rights" and every time anybody says "rights" they really meant "privileges."
Strawman; no such claim has been made. Precisely the opposite. On the other hand, sometimes people say "rights" when they mean "privileges" and vice versa.
It does mean that words have context, and that the meanings don't always align with extremist principles.
There's nothing extremist about living, sentient, valuable individuals having rights. Whether you believe they're inherent to the existence of that individual or endowed upon them by their creator is irrelevant. In either case, the individual is naturally provided with their rights as a fundamental component of their existence. Once this is understood and accepted, it becomes obvious why no law or act of violence can rob you of your rights; rather, merely infringe upon their free exercise. As limited creatures, we lack the requisite ability to alter the fundamental nature of mankind.
Put another way: you can prevent me from exercising my right to self-determination or my right to self-defense, but you cannot eliminate those rights. You can - at worst - kill me.
-- "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."