Slashdot Mirror
UK MPs Hold Emergency Debate After Court Makes It Legal For GCHQ To Spy On Them (westerndailypress.co.uk)
An anonymous reader writes: After decades of a gentleman's agreement to exempt them from surveillance, UK MPs have discovered that GCHQ now deems them as legitimate targets of surveillance. Consequently, members of the UK Parliament have called for an emergency debate on domestic surveillance. Shadow Commons leader Chris Bryant said: "To all intents and purposes, it means that the Wilson doctrine is dead. It is the cornerstone of the bill of rights and it is one of the most ancient freedoms of this country. In another era, before the existence of telephones and emails it meant that MPs and peers, even in war, had a right for their written correspondence not to be intercepted or be interfered with."
How can they be the ruling class if they're lumped in with the proles? There aught a be a law!
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
It seems like surveillance is a big deal after all. When they are the ones being spied on at least!
First, they spied on the peons
Then, they spy on the MPs
Dear Queen Elizabeth, they will spy on you, next !
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
How can they be the ruling class if they're lumped in with the proles? There aught a be a law!
This isn't about the ruling class. This is about everyone else. If GCHQ gets to spy on people who make decisions about how extensive their operations are, then they get to blackmail those people. This is the problem with government surveillance--not what most people do with it, but what happens if someone in a position of power within the surveillance system takes advantage of it to manipulate government decisions rather than to defend the nation or its people under the auspices of and within the constraints of the law.
welcome to the rest of the country. You made this bed. Time to lay in it.
With scandal after scandal, the same parties stay in power. It's the same everywhere.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
My understanding was that they still weren't allowed to spy on them directly, only indirectly. So if they were spying on someone or doing mass surveillance and happened to pick up something going to/from an MP then it was ok,
Might have picked up on it wrong tho
See also this from back in July:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/07/24/the_wilson_doctrine_is_dead_your_mps_must_be_spied_on_says_qc/
I think they miss the bigger picture here:
GCHQ spied on every Brit, and gave that data to the NSA. They told themselves it was for 'terrorism' purposes, but people will tell themselves all kind of shit to live with their choices.
GCHQ knew that NSA was tapping all of the major US service providers via PRISM. It knew that British businesses, British politicians, British campaigners, journalists, lawyers judges and their families were all being spied on. It chose to keep that secret from the UK, even keeping MPs in the dark, while keeping NSA and US President fully aware of UK surveillance activities.
GCHQ knew the smartphones were tapped and tracked, and that included every significant UK citizen, and they chose their sides, and their side was the NSA. Not the USA, because none of this mass surveillance was ever approved or discussed with voters, the NSA.
They are Stasi, they don't quite call themselves it, or fully believe it, but they are the big threat to the UK sovereignty. They created an surveillance regime that means that every up coming MP, politicians political campaigner has a US and GCHQ surveillance file on them.
Then there's this leak today:
https://theintercept.com/drone-papers/the-life-and-death-of-objective-peckham/
Britain REMOVED the citizenship of a British person, which then enabled his killing by drone strike when he left the country. They could have arrested him, they could have charged him, but that's messy, with evidence and discussion and checks and balances. So instead, they withdrew citizenship, killed him using his cellphone to drone target him, boom. Perhaps he was who they say he way, some major recruiter for Somalian rebels or whatever. Now history is written as though he was, and no court will ever get to see the evidence and see if they were lying.
How is it different from Putin assassinations? Its deadlier than polonium, kills a bunch of people, whom are immediately labelled as enemy combatants.
The MPs think they're special, but there is a big file on them and their families with the NSA, and GCHQ helped compile that file. If it becomes necessary that will be shared with the UK government, or perhaps you'll do something the US doesn't like and your kids embarrassing secrets will be leaked to the press.
But for the moment, they still have their citizenship, and won't be drone targeted. But they shouldn't kid themselves that GCHQ or the British government or military is protecting them, the only thing that protects them is the bad press that would result.
Of course they should be able to spy on some of them. What if there is evidence that they are working for a foreign power? Or giving business to their own companies? The question is not whether they should be able to spy on MPs, but what justifies it and with what oversite. Maybe a cross-party committee.
First they came for the Terrorists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Terrorist.
Then they came for the Foreigners, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Foreigner.
Then they came for the Civilians, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Civilian.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
If you've got nothing to hide; you've got nothing to worry about!
If you've got nothing to hide, you've got nothing to fear!
Right?
... die by the sword! 'nuff said!
Time for bed, said Zebedee - boing
These are our tax dollars being wasted to spy on us instead of building roads, hospitals and essential services. This is coming to other 5 eyes lands, so do we still believe that we are free or is it just a dressed up police state where we nervously ignore what is going on in the hope of one day being rich and above all of the concerns of the populous we all occupy.
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
There is an emergency blackmail list being compiled now to undermine any possible defensive legislation being presented to the house.
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
i suspect that this may be resolved - one way or another - not in a parliamentary debate, but over some tea or scotch at some club or lodge.
of course, the parliamentary debate is still necessary to keep us mass-media-fed peons sufficiently pacified.
It was illegal for so long ago. Let's correct myself... It was illegal for the UK agencies, but they found a loophole. But in the spirit of the law it was illegal. Now they (first the public, then the MPs) are complaining that it's illegal what they did "legally" for so many years. Did the MPs not realize they were part of the public
What they did they did to the MPs was legal. OR they can decide it wasn't legal and the population shouldn't be under surveilance.
The Bill of Rights 1689 (since amended both in written and unwritten law) is definitely British law.
I can't decide if I'm for or against the GHCQ in this one.
On the one hand they are assholes for spying. On the other hand these MPs don't give a shit about spying as long as it isn't them.
Sorry MPs, you turned the country into a police state. It is only right that you are subjected to the same pleasures as the rest of the populace.
Lets hope the other 4 eyes do the same thing to their politicians.
That really illustrates how it works. So you did this:
"For example, there's Jeremy Corbyn, who hates his own country's culture and history and is sympathetic to communist ideals and showing a steadfast refusal to condemn Putin, whilst condemning his own country and it's allies for doing the exact same thing who is now leader of the main parliamentary opposition. "
The basic red scare stuff. The belief that your thinking is the right one, and Corbyns/Farage etc, are the wrong ones. Cite some tenuous claim to justify that.
"An independent security service can be as important in keeping democracy safe"
Safe from Farage? From Corbyn? What if we want to vote for them? You see how dangerous such thinking is.
Its really no different that Stasi keeping Eastern Germany safe under Eric Honnicker styles leaders. Working with their KGB partners to watch their country for radicals and extremists!
It's a few years old now but a fascinating documentary from the perspective of fear driven by governments is "The Power of Nightmares" which I believe can be watched online free now. 3 parts, well worth watching.
I want a list of atrocities done in your name - Recoil
It's more about the fact that generic sweeps might catch communications to/from MPs.
The Wilson doctrine is (probably) in effect for specific eavesdropping, but when running automated scans on (say) emails it would be far too hard to maintain a list of people to exclude, therefore your MP is worried that you might read an email asking how they can get their duck-house past the expenses watchdog!
Seriously? The concern is that the most ancient freedoms only applied to MPs??
So it was fine to spy on everyone as long as that did not include MPs?
How did anyone even say that with a straight face?
Bruce A. Knack
Silicon Surfers
What a surprise.
It's surprising how often people with power think the rules don't apply to them. This happened in USA with the Video privacy protection act (1988), which was written after a reporter started showing a judge what "no right to privacy" meant. It's where the word 'borked' comes from, meaning suffering under the same rules one enforced on other people. The judge, after moving from anti-trust to constitutional law, interpreted the US constitution very strictly. He argued that citizens had no privacy: He meant citizens had no freedoms outside those expressly dictated by the constitution. According to the judge, the government can deny access to contraception, abortion, gay marriage, due process or equal opportunity.
Remember, the magna carta was never meant for the commoners either...
Turn about is fair play. If you used your power and influence to spy on citizens do not be surprised when you are spied on.
I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
You are assuming that GCHQ / NSA don't spy on David Cameron - but more likely they have homed in with Cameron as well, and when they pass on the info to David Cameron - Cameron will know when and how to wash their backs
Currently GCHQ are holding 3 assassinations over Camerons head as well as all the OTHER pug fucking / animal sex issues he was (cough) inserted into...
The law was meant to be used against OTHER people! People who may be terrorists. Or letting their dogs poop on the pavement. NOT *US*! Yes, we DID word it so it could include anyone at all, but judges shouldn't be using the letter of the law we drafted against us if we didn't mean that!
Because a corporation gets you arrested for, for example, shoplifting, by telling government to do it. So corporations CAN get you arrested. Just like government can.
If the police and courts are banned so the corporation can't do that, either
a) they will lose everything to looters
or
b) they will hire private corporations and arrest you (or just kill you, remember, there's no law now because you killed off all government justice systems)
So therefore the corporations can STILL have you arrested.
So PLEASE, explain how your claim works, because I really can't see it working AT ALL as a differentiator.
And for no damn reason other than you don't agree with his politics. So you pretend he hates his country, because YOU are part of the country and you hate him, so either you're a fucking evil cunt, or Corbyn hates your country, "justifying" your hating him.
Nothing, though, justifies making shit up about him.
It makes perfect sense within their very limited and garbled world view. GCHQ fight terrorists, which could be "anyone". But MPs are not terrorists. Therefore, it makes sense to protect MPs (no false negative risk) whilst spying on everyone else.
Where this perception parts with reality is that of course, once GCHQ has the tools, of course they're going to spy on MPs if they convince themselves than an MP is sufficiently dangerous e.g. threatens their budget. Corbyn offers much potential for this type of hilarity ensuing. And their mandate is anything that's in "the British interest", not at all limited to terrorism investigations. Blackmailing MPs can absolutely be squared with defending The British Interest, it doesn't take much in the way of mental gymnastics there at all.
The fundamental issue to all of this is that most MPs are technically illiterate and can't/don't want to understand what it is that modern intelligence agencies really do. A lot of them seem to think that there's a difference between bulk collection and analysis, for example, apparently not realising that much analysis is automatable these days.
Seriously? The concern is that the most ancient freedoms only applied to MPs
The privileges given to MPs are for our benefit, not theirs. They are important for the same reason that freedom of the press is important: not because journalists are special flowers but because they are in a position to hold the executive to account.
I wrote to my MP and asked her, If you've nothing to hide you've nothing to fear? right?
What are the odds that the person you replied to is fat?
William Hague told us that the innocent have nothing to fear and that they're only collecting meta data etc. Successors to him have repeated that they work within a robust legal framework, must be necessary and proportionate, yadda yadda yadda.
Surely, with all these protections and assurances they can't be worried can they?
The thing that annoys me more than any of this story alone is that none of the Home Secretaries that spouted this utter bullshit will face any sort of recrimination. Tossers the lot of 'em*.
* Any MP that wants to convince me that they're not a tosser is welcome to explain themselves. I even invited my MP to demonstrate he wasn't a tosser, and all he could manage was a letter back to say he "worked very hard", thus re-inforcing my view of him.
and of course Think of the children.. A lot of pedophile MPs were covered up in the past. I wonder why this seems so important to them?
"But it's different when it's us!"
Maybe it's about time these lawmakers who say it's perfectly OK to spy on us finally became valid targets themselves? Because as long as these self-important clowns think they're immune from this, and spying is for the little people, they'll continue to make decisions knowing they're not included in them.
When the lawmakers start realizing the extend of this surveillance and the like, maybe they'll start making intelligent policies.
That they're suddenly crying foul says they've mostly been able to be outside of it, which means they're not looking at the issue the same as the rest of us. Make this shit real to them, and then see the kind of decisions they make.
So to lawmakers and people who have previously been exempt from spying who suddenly are shocked they're included: boo fucking hoo.
Don't come to the rest of us for any damned sympathy.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
the government can deny access to contraception, abortion, gay marriage, due process or equal opportunity.
Of course they can. What is there to stop them? The law? The law is just some words on paper; it only has power if people follow it.
Snowden where are you now? Don't you care about your mother and her country? If you have any thing to show us about the technical aspects of this situation speak now and speak loudly.
So, they created the problem for everybody else, and now it comes on them and they don't like it?
Lock everyone in the GCHQ in the tower of London. Even the janitors.
I think you might be referring to the British Constitution Incorporating The Rights Of The Subject, 1688 (William & Mary). The BILL of Rights is just that - a BILL. It is not written into Law. The Constitution IS, that's how we are a Constitutional Monarchy. The Queen and all her antecedents back to 1689 and all her heirs forever enjoy the PRIVILEGE (NOT the RIGHT) to occupy the British throne at the convenience of the Barony, who in turn answer on her behalf to her Subjects - every person who breathes British air - and under a strict set of conditions. One of which she abrogated in 1999 when she allowed Tony Blair to abolish Hereditary Peers in the House of Lords and replace them with individuals he cherrypicked to pass every single Bill he put before them.
Interestingly, the Bill he managed to sidesneak immediately prior to that was the abolition of the death penalty for felony treason. The abolition of the Hereditary Peers was precisely such an act as should have gotten him beheaded.
that's precisely who it was meant to protect from despotic rule. I suggest you reread the Cliffnotes.
Nothing to hide, nothing to fear!
But, if they have nothing to hide, then they don't have anything to worry about. ;-)
The MPS don't like being spied on, eh?
and reveals the true hypocracy of those making the rules.
We must have access to all communications ! No encryption ! We must keep you all safe from $badguys !
Wait a minute. . . you can't spy on me too ! These rules are for the peasants, not the nobles. . . .
WATCH how fast these people work to ensure their own privacy remains intact whilst they continue to allow surveillance on pretty much everyone else.
C'mon guys, you know the saying !
" What's good for the goose. . . is good for the gander. "
The judge, after moving from anti-trust to constitutional law, interpreted the US constitution very strictly. He argued that citizens had no privacy: He meant citizens had no freedoms outside those expressly dictated by the constitution.
Interpreting the constitution strictly would have the opposite result: you would find that the people have many freedoms that are not specifically enumerated, and that the government has no power beyond what is strictly defined. The constitution itself is rather clear on this topic (see amendments nine and ten, which have been cheerfully ignored by the courts for generations. Those in power, on both the left and right, appear to be quite happy with this state of affairs).
What part of "shall not be infringed" is so hard to understand?
Interpreting the constitution strictly would change many things about this country. Just read the second, it is quite clear that ALL restrictions on gun ownership are illegal.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
The right of the people...shall not be infringed.
It is clearly stated. But I think you already agree with that anyways due to your signature.
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
Just spy on everyone. Including the spies.
Nobody should be exempt. It can only be abused.
MPs have already horribly abused their secret society positions and stolen billions from the UK Taxpayer in the last decade alone.
Spy on the wanks. It is the nicest thing they deserve. I can think of many worse things to do with most of them.
I just hope one of them "leaks" it to the press so everyone can see the bullshit they do behind closed doors.
The Conservatives especially need to be spied on. Those rich-kiddy twats have only abused their position of power during the coalition government and the present government.
No, they have not fixed the UK economy, they have actually dented it slightly, they have skewed numbers so horribly it hurts.
The only people that have suffered are the poorer people. Now they are shitting on the welfare system that millions depend on, in fact, can barely depend on, since they get sanctioned all the god damn time for trivial things, and depending on how your handler feels that day.
They already destroyed the NHS in England and Wales, the NHS being one of the best healthcare systems in the world.
They wanted it to be similar to the US, pick and choose bits of it, it only ended up being more expensive, more delays, including several hospitals declaring full-on emergencies. Then one of the dicks had the cheek to call doctors lazy after he got a nice little pay-rise and time off. PRIIIICK.
Old Cameron there is probably shitting it because he is afraid the spooks will find he has a much deeper love of pigs than we realize. Literal pig-fucker that he is.
Him and his cronies were notorious for being part of a poor-shaming heavy-drinking group in the earlier days.
Wipe Eton off the map. It is disgusting.
Ruling Elite: Everyone needs to be spied on because terrorists!
GCHQ: Wouldn't that include you?
Ruling Elite: Holy shit fuck! Emergency! Emergency!
What the hell are you talking about you fucking moronic imbecile. Cameron is PM of the UK, not Russia.