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.
... die by the sword! 'nuff said!
Time for bed, said Zebedee - boing
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.
They are not wasted. The money is spend to protect the people from terrorism and bad things. Of course now we have to define "people", because it quite obviously does not include all the citizens. It includes only lthe people who actually pay for this through their taxes, so they get to decide... no, wait. That's us, the citizens being spied upon. So it's the citizens who make most of the money and don't pay any taxes. If we were to accept this, it would make perfect sense to withhold proper education, a decent health and social welfare system. The taxpayers otherwise might have the knowledge and time to actually question and do something about this system.
The problem is, that far too many citizens are too occupied worrying about losing the few privilleges left will be taken away from them by mexicans, refugees, muslims or whatever fits the current agenda, depending on where they live. It has become so easy to manipulate the masses into believing any exaggerated or even non-existant threat, the few people actually deciding anything must be crying with joy.
I feel so sig.
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.
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
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
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.
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.
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.
If they can maintain an international watch list that's got more names on it than members in the government, mp or janitor ... Them I'm fairly certain they could do exception list
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
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.
"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 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?