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.
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?
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.
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."
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.
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.
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.