Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

UK Intel Agencies Have Been Spying on Millions of People 'Of No Security Interest' Since 1990s (arstechnica.com)

Posted by msmash on from the act-surprised dept.

The UK's intelligence agencies such as MI5, MI6, and GCHQ have been collecting personal information from citizens who are "unlikely to be of intelligence or security interest" since the 1990s, a thousand pages of documents published on Thursday revealed. The documents were published as a result of a lawsuit filed by Privacy International, a UK-based registered charity that defends and promotes the right to privacy across the world. According to the documents, GCHQ and others have been collecting bulk personal data sets since 1998 under the provisions of section 94 of the Telecommunications Act 1984. J.M. Porup, reports for Ars Technica: These records can be "anything from your private medical records, your correspondence with your doctor or lawyer, even what petitions you have signed, your financial data, and commercial activities," Privacy International legal officer Millie Graham Wood said in a statement. "The information revealed by this disclosure shows the staggering extent to which the intelligence agencies hoover up our data." Nor, it seems, are BPDs only being used to investigate terrorism and serious crime; they can and are used to protect Britain's "economic well-being" -- including preventing pirate copies of Harry Potter books from leaking before their release date. The so-called "Bulk Personal Datasets," or BPDs are so powerful, in fact, that the normally toothless UK parliament watchdog that oversees intelligence gathering, the Intelligence and Security Committee (ISC), recommended in February that "Class Bulk Personal Dataset warrants are removed from the new legislation." These data sets are so large and collect so much information so indiscriminately that they even include information on dead people.

60 of 101 comments (clear)

  1. At least this report was obtained legally by kriston · · Score: 1

    Well, at least this report was obtained legally.

    --

    Kriston

    1. Re:At least this report was obtained legally by FatdogHaiku · · Score: 2

      Well, at least this report was obtained legally.

      Sure, but you should see the reports on the reporters reporting it!

      --
      You have the right to remain sentient. If you give up the right to remain sentient, you will be elected to public office
  2. Oh the irony by buck-yar · · Score: 5, Funny

    Telecommunications Act 1984

    *1984*

    1. Re:Oh the irony by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It's pretty much exactly the dystopia that Orwell imagined. We've moved from the Information Age to the Psychology Age, with 24/7 manipulation.

    2. Re: Oh the irony by cyber-vandal · · Score: 1

      You've clearly not read 1984.

    3. Re: Oh the irony by Type44Q · · Score: 1

      Well, I have and I don't agree that it's "clear" that they haven't.

  3. UNIMPORTANT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The queen just got 90 years old! Isn't she doing well for her age?

    And that little prince George, isn't he adorable?

    1. Re:UNIMPORTANT by Coisiche · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the quick summary of today's Daily Mail.

    2. Re:UNIMPORTANT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The queen just got 90 years old! Isn't she doing well for her age?

      90 ain't old for Lizard people...

      And that little prince George, isn't he adorable?

      Meh, if you're into Parasitology..

    3. Re: UNIMPORTANT by Type44Q · · Score: 1

      Ninety's nothing for a reptilian; she hasn't even been through her third molting.

    4. Re: UNIMPORTANT by Type44Q · · Score: 1

      90 ain't old for Lizard people...

      lolol I hadn't seen this yet when I posted the below reply.

  4. This can't be right by LichtSpektren · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I have been told again and again that the Orwellian surveillance nightmare states of the 21st century only exist to protect us from terrorism. And also that only terrorist-sympathizers would ever oppose them. Surely this can't be right?

    1. Re:This can't be right by quintessencesluglord · · Score: 2

      So, the only logical conclusion is that you are an enemy of the state.

      *sad but true*

    2. Re:This can't be right by NotInHere · · Score: 1

      What makes you so sure that you aren't fiction as well?

    3. Re:This can't be right by Sarten-X · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Please actually read some Orwell.

      The surveillance did not make the "nightmare states". The nightmare states used surveillance as a tool to further oppress their citizens. If surveillance isn't possible, more violence is used to remove dissidents. If violence isn't an option, misinformation will convince everyone that the state's problems are all someone else's fault. If misinformation isn't fully effective, surveillance will be used to find dissidents.

      Surveillance is just a tool. Worry less about it, and worry more about the intent of those employing it.

      --
      You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
    4. Re:This can't be right by inode_buddha · · Score: 1

      I wonder what these systems were protecting us from before terrorism? Also, a certain teutonic master of propaganda would be proud of that argument re sympathizers and opposition

      --
      C|N>K
    5. Re:This can't be right by pr0nbot · · Score: 3, Funny

      Typical Eurasian propaganda. No wonder we're at war with you, and always have been.

    6. Re:This can't be right by Fragnet · · Score: 1

      That's what's it's for, yes. The problem is it's going to be very tempting indeed to use it for other things, gradually expanding its scope. There aren't really any checks and balances to prevent that are there, as it's all secret by definition and the voters aren't party to it.

    7. Re: This can't be right by Type44Q · · Score: 1

      Are the cows the rancher's enemies?

    8. Re: This can't be right by Type44Q · · Score: 1

      Surveillance is just a tool.

      You've certainly demonstrated that it takes one to know one.

    9. Re:This can't be right by Sarten-X · · Score: 1

      You mean like the cell phone on my nightstand every night?

      Or the always-on audio monitoring so popular with voice agents today?

      --
      You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
    10. Re:This can't be right by spire3661 · · Score: 1

      Its like people who worry that 'the robots will enslave us all when AI is invented'. They fail to realize long before AI comes about, they will be enslaved by men controlling the 'dumb' robots.

      --
      Good-bye
  5. Captain Picard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I'll just defer to Captain Picard on this one...

    A Matter of National Security

  6. wiped by Mr_Nitro · · Score: 1

    'secret services' and the likes should be completely eradicated from modern society. The sole idea that there 's something 'hidden' working behind the scene means that who's in power is not behaving transparently in the first place... just the idea of 'secret' anything makes me throw up...we are born equal and we shall remain so...

    1. Re:wiped by Maritz · · Score: 2

      Until another 'TRIBE' comes along and relieves you of your freedom. The whole point of these types of services is to protect nations.

      The secret services become the TRIBE that relieves you of your freedom, mate. And the best part is you just handed it over to them.

      --
      I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
    2. Re: wiped by Type44Q · · Score: 1

      Does it become easier to spew such sickening bullshit when you can hide behind your AC status?

    3. Re: wiped by son1dow · · Score: 1

      The fact that they have the power over you is a huge injustice in and of itself, as argued by Schneier and many others: https://www.schneier.com/blog/... I reject that they're not out to get you even now, though. They're out to get you as much as they can, there's proof of it even in the history of current surveillance systems. That governments are out to get you is repeated over history again and again - the incentives are always there. The only question is, can you set up a system where it's very difficult to get you? That's the advantage of modern democracies with constitutions, when compared to other forms of rule.

  7. Lies lies and more lies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    This is a lie.

    They've been spying on everyone they can for centuries. This isn't new. This isn't conspiracy. This hasn't started in the 1990s. Lies.

    1. Re:Lies lies and more lies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      This is a lie.

      They've been spying on everyone they can for centuries. This isn't new. This isn't conspiracy. This hasn't started in the 1990s. Lies.

      Aye, it's cute how they seem to think it all started with the Internet and computers..

      'They' (the 'They' in this article) spied on my father through the 60's-90's as he was a communist.
      'They' spied on me as I was the son of a communist (and had a raft of Irish relatives with Republican leanings).

  8. Makes sense by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1
    Well, they're preventatively collecting information on everyone because they don't know in the future who will and won't become a terrorist. So, hoover up everyone's data just in case. Then, when you catch a terrorist you can work backwards and see who their associations were, and who are likely their accomplices. The only scenario in which this makes any kind of sense is a future in which the government becomes more and more oppressive and begins spontaneously generating armed resistance. But certainly, a government that gets larger and larger every year would never do something like that. Government exists to serve the people, government IS the people. It's crazy to think that it would grow so large that it begins serving its own interests instead.

    "No one believes more firmly than Comrade Napoleon that all animals are equal. He would be only too happy to let you make your decisions for yourselves. But sometimes you might make the wrong decisions, comrades, and then where should we be?"
    -- George Orwell, "Animal Farm"

    --
    Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    1. Re: Makes sense by Type44Q · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Well, they're preventatively collecting information on everyone because they don't know in the future who will and won't become a terrorist.

      Or for another reason entirely.

  9. Who Cares by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Really. Who care anymore? The ideals of western democracy have been dying for a long time, and most people are too overworked, in-debt, anti-informed, and propagandised to bother caring anymore.

    What pretense our ascendancies have for respecting the rule or law, the betterment of society, or the shared social contract are evaporating along with the value of our jobs, currencies, values and way of life (such as remains). Backwards, totalitarian, extremist, reactionary philosophies are springing up left and right, young people inflamed, groups openly rejecting and condemning western society outright, it economic, intellectual, philosophical, and even democratic basis. And who can blame them for being so energized, when our own ruling classes increasingly in their deeds and even words, hold all foundations of our civilization in contempt. At least bigotry, jihad, and greed offer something to believe in. Our leaders offer us lies, decay, and lives with no purpose.

    So of course the UK and US intel agencies are transitioning to secret police organisations. More and more people are getting fed up of the raw deal the elites have handed them, and the empty propaganda is beginning to stop working. When the Ideologial State Apparatus fails, the Repressive State Apparatus must step in. The ruling class knows this, and has moved accordingly.

    I'm too tired to care anymore. I say, let the people be shown the consequences of apathy, and of believing in vipers and their lies.

    1. Re: Who Cares by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      We saw in the Arab spring what the tired and apathetic were willing to do when their internet got turned off. I believe there is a peaceful way forward. We are all human beings just trying to survive.

    2. Re:Who Cares by myowntrueself · · Score: 2

      Democracy in the West is a complete farce especially in the USA and anywhere else with a two-party system. It ultimately becomes a one-party system with the voting public fooled into believing they have a choice between two opposing parties. In actual fact the 'two parties' are run by the same powers behind the scenes.

      The vote is a currency. People spend their vote. The same techniques that can be used to influence spending behavior when buying consumer goods, ie advertising, are also used to influence vote-spending. Thus democracy is already subverted as soon as there's any kind of 'advertising' for political parties; the powers that control the advertising and media coverage have ultimate power over the voting process and the formation of government.

      --
      In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
    3. Re: Who Cares by Type44Q · · Score: 1

      I believe there is a peaceful way forward.

      My feelings also tell me that this *should* be the case. (Hint: it isn't.)

    4. Re:Who Cares by Agripa · · Score: 1

      As I was saying, she stumbled upon a solution whereby nearly ninety-nine percent of the test subjects accepted the program provided they were given a choice - even if they were only aware of it at a near-unconscious level. While this solution worked, it was fundamentally flawed, creating the otherwise contradictory systemic anomaly, that, if left unchecked, might threaten the system itself. Ergo, those who refused the program, while a minority, would constitute an escalating probability of disaster. - The Architect

  10. i see dead people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    These data sets are so large and collect so much information so indiscriminately that they even include information on dead people

    That's probably a good thing because a lot fraud and other criminal actions including passport forgery happens because the bad guys steal dead people's identities. In fact, that would be useful information so I doubt the information has been indiscriminately collected.

  11. Evaluation and critique please by Coisiche · · Score: 1

    Dear GCHQ employee who reads my slashdot posts,

    I mean a UK citizen posting to a US based site must be slightly out of the ordinary behaviour worthy of further investigation, right? Anyway I was just after a general evaluation of how you think my posts are. I got a +5 funny once you know.

    Thanks,

    Yours faithf... you already know my real name and where I live anyway, don't you?

    1. Re:Evaluation and critique please by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Dear "Coisiche",

      Actually you got a +5 Funny twice. Once was on an AC post you made that you never checked back on.

      Best,

      GCHQ employee who reads your Slashdot posts

      PS: I'm not allowed to post your real name here due to the Data Protection Act.

    2. Re: Evaluation and critique please by Type44Q · · Score: 1

      Dear GCHQ Employee: What, not classy enough to even congratulate the poor sod??

  12. And at the same time by Chrisq · · Score: 1

    Hundreds of thousands of Muslims remain untracked.

    1. Re: And at the same time by Type44Q · · Score: 1

      They currently serve as a tool to be manipulated (as, of course, do we). You don't track each individual shot pellet from a shotgun, do you?

  13. Sounds fine to me... by Sarten-X · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Just to play Devil's advocate a bit here, but isn't this exactly the way the system is supposed to work?

    Having information on someone is what puts them in the "no security interest" category, rather than the "unknown" category. In reviewing that information, crimes like copyright infringement may be discovered, and that puts the person in a different category entirely.

    Now, if understand the typical Slashdotter's perspective, the government shouldn't be allowed to gather information on people of "no security interest", but they can't know who that is without gathering information. Naturally, then, we will lobby to prohibit all gathering of information, and when successful, we will mock the government's eventual failure to find people who are of "security interest" with their then-nonexistent capabilities.

    --
    You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
    1. Re:Sounds fine to me... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You obviously trust the government to keep the data to themselves. Which is only sensible.

      The data could never possibly be abused or sold to, say, rich bastards such as insurance companies or banks who will, for no reason at all, charge you twice the insurance rate that your neighbour pays them. Or they'll refuse you a loan because you'll never pay it back after having been diagnosed with a benign tumor.

    2. Re:Sounds fine to me... by TonyJohn · · Score: 1

      the government shouldn't be allowed to gather information on people of "no security interest", but they can't know who that is without gathering information.

      People can become a security interest in other ways than simply grepping bulk data. It may be justified to track convicted criminals, suspected criminals, those with links to criminals or suspects because the likelihood of them being involved is higher than a random member of the public. Likewise if in the course of an investigation you confirm that someone you have collected data on really isn't linked, then you can delete the data.

      Of course you are correct to note that if you know everything about everyone you can just (in theory at least) filter out anyone and everyone who has done anything wrong and prosecute them.

      The flip side is that such a data set can be misused, either if it is leaked, or by corrupt elements within the state itself.

      Thus we have a trade-off - as you collect more data you create opportunities for prosecuting more crime but also for abuse. What most people seem to accept is that surveillance be used when either the confidence of the suspicion is high, or the severity is high - i.e. for active investigation of known crimes, for investigation of suspects where there is some known reason for suspicion, and (potentially) for trying to detect and pre-empt terrorism and similar.

      The world is full of cost/benefit trade offs and arguments about them which assume either the cost or the benefit is infinite - people struggle to actually balance them because they are difficult to quantify.

      --
      Owl tried to think of something wise to say, but couldn't.
    3. Re:Sounds fine to me... by Sarten-X · · Score: 1

      ...and is that wrong?

      If an insurance company raises your rates, there should be a documented reason, and if that reason is that your history shows a higher risk, then I see no reason why it's unjustified. After all, the point of insurance is to pool risk and costs, so the actual cost of a claim is amortized to affordable levels, regardless of when the claim actually occurs.

      If you're being denied a loan due to a benign tumor, it is again a function of risk. Does that tumor carry a known risk of other conditions that would prevent you from repaying the loan? If so, then again it is justified that the bank would not want to increase their own risk. If not, then it's the bank's loss, as they're losing the potential income from your loan fees and interest, due to an unjustified risk. Find another bank, and see if they want to make more profit.

      Personally, I don't trust the government to keep such data secure. Mostly I split the blame between legislators who don't understand technology, and technology companies who care more about selling their latest expensive data package than about doing a job right. That's a different matter, though, and I won't get into it today without request.

      --
      You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
    4. Re:Sounds fine to me... by Sarten-X · · Score: 1

      People can become a security interest in other ways than simply grepping bulk data. It may be justified to track convicted criminals, suspected criminals, those with links to criminals or suspects because the likelihood of them being involved is higher than a random member of the public.

      So how does an investigator know if I have a link to a known criminal?

      Every day, I go to a particular cafe and order fish and chips, served in the traditional paper wrapping. Is that suspicious? A mobster, currently in prison, is visited weekly by his apparently-law-abiding longtime friend. Is that suspicious? The childhood friend owns a cafe that sells fish and chips to loyal customers. Is that suspicious?

      What's suspicious is when the officer assigned to surveil the cafe sees that my paper has a name written on it, and that named person ends up dead the next day.

      Taking that anology to a modern world, I might now visit a particular news site daily. The friend may post stories or comments to the site, carefully arranging his sentences to pass the target message. An officer watching the site would have so many comments and stories to read that his chances of spotting the hidden message are virtually nonexistent. He'd also have no way to tell which messages I'm looking at, because even if I look only at the friend's comment listing, the officer can't see that.

      Likewise if in the course of an investigation you confirm that someone you have collected data on really isn't linked, then you can delete the data.

      That's always a risk, because the data might not indicate a connection now, but next week, or next month, or next year it might. A decade after the fact, when a mobster confesses that he ordered hits on several targets, my credit card history might show that I ordered fish and chips every day, confirming the mobster's story.

      such a data set can be misused, either if it is leaked, or by corrupt elements within the state itself.

      That's actually what I'd rather see argued. I'd prefer to see "keeping data" be to the government what "processing credit cards" is (or was until recently) to small businesses. It should be a hairy mess of regulation and oversight, such that it becomes an option of last resort.

      What most people seem to accept is that surveillance be used when either the confidence of the suspicion is high, or the severity is high - i.e. for active investigation of known crimes, for investigation of suspects where there is some known reason for suspicion, and (potentially) for trying to detect and pre-empt terrorism and similar.

      What people don't seem to accept is the difficulty in reaching that point. As I understand, terrorist groups are actively trying to recruit previously-unknown individuals to their cause, specifically because they're not high-suspicion.

      The world is full of cost/benefit trade offs and arguments about them which assume either the cost or the benefit is infinite - people struggle to actually balance them because they are difficult to quantify.

      Even worse, the cost is dynamic and dependent on quantities that are intentionally difficult to observe.

      As more of a society follows the rules, it becomes more costly to find the remaining individuals who are not following the rules. In short, with every crime that is prevented, preventing the next one becomes more difficult, because new methods of detection and enforcement must be applied, while the old methods must continue to be used. Of course, it is impossible to know how many crimes are actually being prevented by a given method, and it's very unlikely that a criminal will come forth and say "I didn't do the crime because of this method".

      On the other hand, with every crime that succeeds, the cost to commit further crime is reduced, because it is known that tho

      --
      You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
    5. Re: Sounds fine to me... by Type44Q · · Score: 1

      I see that you've got a rather meager selection of points to mod yourself up with. I can't at all imagine why that would be the case...

    6. Re:Sounds fine to me... by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      The problem is that this is how the Stasi did things. Create dossiers on everyone, suspect it otherwise, in case they needed them later. Combine that with the fact that everyone has things to hide and something about them you could hang them over, and it's an extremely effective tool of oppression and violation.

      GCHQ and the British government counter this by saying that there are safeguards. Turns out those safeguards are a drop down menu to select the reason for accessing data and a text box to type your justification into. They admit there has been abuse (that they know about) but no one was fired or prosecuted.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    7. Re:Sounds fine to me... by sjames · · Score: 1

      The part you're missing is the stewards of that data. You assume someone unswervingly on the said of good. A Dudley Dorite. Alas, he's fictional.

      What happens when Snidely gets in to office and wants to know who these "Citizens for a Better Tomorrow" are. The nefarious group that opposes his cuts to education and healthcare? Well, let's see, they meet at the corner of A and B every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday. Amazing, your records show that you have consistently bought chips at the place across the street from the meetings wight after they end for the day.

      Hrmm, looks like Sarten-X needs his taxes audited. He's probably a copyright infringer, better confiscate his computer and look it over very carefully. Lets review the street video, this nefarious Sarten-X is probably a serial jay walker too.

      And you will never even know why the harassment is happening. You'll never be able to prove that it is harassment. But you will be much too busy to go to Citizens for a Better Tomorrow meetings.

    8. Re:Sounds fine to me... by Sarten-X · · Score: 1

      There's a leap of faith you're making there.

      What's the authority for Snidely to have me audited? What's his justification to have my computer confiscated? With video evidence of jaywalking... Well, jaywalking's a crime, and it should be pursued like any other crime, at the discretion of the appropriate prosecutor.

      The key to minimizing abuse is that the system should be built such that actually causing an abuse requires a large number of conspirators and enough documentation to raise a big red flag to oversight offices.

      --
      You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
    9. Re:Sounds fine to me... by sjames · · Score: 1

      No, I just have to look at what happens in real life. Did you know it is illegal to use the social security card/number as identification for any purpose? It is. But even the DMV ignores that and demands SS card.

      What's the authority for Snidely to have me audited?

      He has dirt on the people who decide who will be "randomly" audited. On the other hand, if he puts in a good word, they will find they have a significantly better chance of a promotion next year.

      Watch the news and you'll see that not expecting the abuses to happen YET AGAIN is the real leap of faith.

    10. Re:Sounds fine to me... by mike.mondy · · Score: 1

      Just to play Devil's advocate a bit here, but isn't this exactly the way the system is supposed to work?

      No. Period, full stop. Very few think the "system" should gather as much data as possible on as many people as possible. I don't know the U.K. laws, but in the U.S., the authorities aren't allowed to search out whatever they want about you without probable cause and/or warrants.

      Having information on someone is what puts them in the "no security interest" category, rather than the "unknown" category. In reviewing that information, crimes like copyright infringement may be discovered, and that puts the person in a different category entirely

      So, we should hoover up all the information we can about everyone, so we can be sure we know who would be "of interest"? Cardinal Richelieu would be delighted.

      Now, if understand the typical Slashdotter's perspective, the government shouldn't be allowed to gather information on people of "no security interest", but they can't know who that is without gathering information. Naturally, then, we will lobby to prohibit all gathering of information, and when successful, we will mock the government's eventual failure to find people who are of "security interest" with their then-nonexistent capabilities.

      Why, yes, most of us on Slashdot use a silly fake paradox to conclude that no investigative effort should ever gather any information. Idiot.

      The real question is are you a troll or do you just come from a black and white world?

  14. Blackmail files by swb · · Score: 1

    This is all the kind of information you need to have a blackmail dossier on someone.

    That backbencher asking too many questions? A quiet talk about some of the more sensitive information in his file ought to be enough to shut him up, along with a reminder how awkward explaining that stuff to his wife or constituents would be.

    It's not really about blackmail, it's about cooperation, though. Just cooperate with us and we will protect your sensitive information.

  15. aren't you glad? by ooloorie · · Score: 1

    European privacy regulations are strong! They protect you from evil US corporations that will show you ads for Angry Birds and lingerie! In Europe, only the government and corporations in cahoots with the government can listen to you, and they have your best interests at heart, as history shows!

    (Incidentally, the same shit has been going on in France and Germany.)

  16. What does this mean: by fredrated · · Score: 1

    "Class Bulk Personal Dataset warrants are removed from the new legislation."????

  17. Re:Even Dead People! by PPH · · Score: 1

    You never know when someone might mobilize an army of the dead. Never seen the Evil Dead series? Even our Pentagon made a plan for a zombie apocalypse.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  18. No Duh by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

    And it precedes the 1990s. Or it least it did when we routinely did this in the 1980s.

    However, the scope drastically increased since then. And the retention of data.

    --
    -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
  19. Re: Mass surveillance? by Type44Q · · Score: 1

    Is there anything sadder than a neutered, whipped dog?

  20. 'who cares' is a way to absolve responsibility. by son1dow · · Score: 1

    Can't dismiss money in this question. https://scholar.princeton.edu/... And who knows, maybe Americans can limit the way money influences politics? We should try that, instead of going around, whining with "who cares".