British Spies Are Free To Target Lawyers and Journalists 184
Advocatus Diaboli writes British spies have been granted the authority to secretly eavesdrop on legally privileged attorney-client communications, according to newly released documents. On Thursday, a series of previously classified policies confirmed for the first time that the U.K.'s top surveillance agency Government Communications Headquarters has advised its employees: "You may in principle target the communications of lawyers." The country's other major security and intelligence agencies—MI5 and MI6—have adopted similar policies, the documents show. The guidelines also appear to permit surveillance of journalists and others deemed to work in "sensitive professions."
Whom does this surprise? (Score:5, Insightful)
Anybody at all?
The purpose of a government under crony capitalism is to ease the flow of cash toward those prepared to offer kick-backs.
People who are highly talented in very narrow fields - thus unable to analyse the bigger picture - are employed as civil servants to facilitate this.
Whence GCHQ, NSA, etc.
Re:Whom does this surprise? (Score:5, Insightful)
Anybody at all?
I am not surprised that they are doing it, but I am surprised that they are publicly admitting it. They have been spying on lawyers and journalists for a long time. What is changing, is that now they are publicly stating that they do so. For anyone who justifies this by saying that spies are separate from prosecutors, and this is okay as long as it doesn't influence court cases: There are already cases where spies have fed info to prosecutors that they collected by spying on attorney-client communications. There is no slippery slope here. We are already at the bottom.
Re:Whom does this surprise? (Score:4, Insightful)
...I am surprised that they are publicly admitting it.
Why? They know that nobody cares, in fact the public wants more to *feel safe*. These people can rape your mother on national TV and still win an election. They don't have to hide anything anymore. The election results verify that every time. How to counter that should be the target of discussion. Then a solution to all these other issues will emerge.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I think this is what you are looking for:
The Old Government response: We cannot confirm nor deny that we were involved in such activity.
The New Government response: Yeah. We did it. What the fuck are you gonna do about it, peasant. Piss off, or we'll label you a terrorist too.
Say goodbye to attorney-client privilage (Score:3, Insightful)
Our allies can legally spy on your meeting with your lawyer, and then they can tell the relevant government what they learned. Same as with spying on the general population, we can't do it but our allies can do it and tell us all about it.
At some point maybe we should start being concerned that the government is treating the Constitution as a hostile document to be worked around.
Erosion is little by little. (Score:5, Insightful)
Hardly anyone will notice one right removed at a time.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
They just turned the pot of water we're all in up another degree
There can be no defense of this. (Score:5, Insightful)
There can be no defense of this. This is the government engaging in totalitarianism as standard practice. There cannot possibly be a moral or ethical defense of this practice.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm conflicted. On the one hand my initial response was like yours. Yet on the other I don't see why, if you were trying to stop a serious threat, spies shouldn't be able to monitor these communications in principle, with some clear restrictions:
1/ If the information gathered by spying was specifically barred from being used in court
Re:There can be no defense of this. (Score:5, Insightful)
Yet on the other I don't see why, if you were trying to stop a serious threat, spies shouldn't be able to monitor these communications in principle, with some clear restrictions:
Because we have been proven over and over again, incapable of defining "serious threat".
Therefore, virtually everything can be identified as a "serious threat" and any law that requires that identification is ineffective.
It's as saying on a law "you can only do this if you believe you're right.". It's as unacceptable as a CEO justifying himself with "at the moment I thought it was the correct course of action." The obvious answer on the latter case "well, it was your job not to be wrong" should be applied to government monitoring.
So, the law should replace "if it's believed to be a serious threat" with "if it later proves to be a serious threat.". And if later we prove it wasn't a serious threat, well, tough luck, you are governing a country, you are expected not to make mistakes and to pay for those you make.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:There can be no defense of this. (Score:5, Insightful)
Please show me the abundance of dangerous terrorists/serial killers that are simultaneously practicing lawyers or journalists.
Re: (Score:3)
If a lawyer or journalist needs protection (Score:2)
If a lawyer or journalist needs protection, they need to run for public office. Or do they spy on politicians over there too?
Re: (Score:3)
Several Prime Ministers have been spied upon as potential Soviet agents - so the answer you are looking for is YES
They are spies - they spy on everyone if they did not spy on everyone, how would they know who to spy on? Should you trust them? If you dont know how to think for yourself, then the answer does not matter.
Re: (Score:2)
Apparently so [theguardian.com].
Re: (Score:2)
Lawyers are the only ones that know the law, and the journalists a
Re: (Score:2)
The issue has fuck all to do with whether lawyers are terrorists or not. I've already said that although I can see why, in theory, there's reason to allow spying on lawyers that I think we should oppose it anyway, but you like most
Re: (Score:2)
you see a point you disagree with and go into attack mode.
No, to paraphrase your original post:
There is reason to allow this abhorrent practice.
There has to be oversight if it's done though.
There likely cannot be effective oversight so we shouldn't do it.
The first line is the problem. The rest means nothing in that context. If you meant otherwise you failed to clearly articulate it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Who said anything about practicing lawyers? The text of the rules regarding lawyers refer to all lawyers.
The reason why there is no abundance of dangerous terrorists who are simultaneously lawyers, is because there is no expectation of special legal protection for lawyers, outside of one specific thing, attorney-client communications. Thus there is no value for a terrorist or serial killer to declare themselves a lawyer. If the GCHQ rules have said something different, that *in principle, lawyers are automa
Re: (Score:2)
Also:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L... [wikipedia.org]
Re:There can be no defense of this. (Score:5, Insightful)
You say that as it was silly, and it does sound that way if you use terms like "magical invisibility". However, to the actual question of:
Should we protect the privacy of the lawyer-client relation to maintain a good quality judicial system, even though we are quite sure that protection is being abused by criminals and terrorists and whatever other enemies of our country we may find, the answer is a strong and convinced "Yes".
Justice is more important than security. Freedom is more important than security.
I have no interest on how much secure is an unjust and non free society. Without justice nor freedom, it's not even possible to know if there actually is security, because the enemy of the individual is the unjust and non-free society he lives in.
Re: (Score:2)
Justice is more important than security. Freedom is more important than security.
It's as if justice, freedom (and privacy) are prerequisites for security.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:There can be no defense of this. (Score:5, Insightful)
ad 1) Parallel construction
Grandparent is 100% correct. It is totalitarianism. The communication of lawyers and journalists is protected for a reason. You can not protect civil rights by giving them up. Lawyers and journalists ARE checks and balances!
Re: (Score:3)
1) would be pointless, since the point of the spying is supposedly to catch enemies of the state and people etc and to prosecute them in court.
2) would not be like this, since it involve oversight.
3) again, it would not be like this since it would involve oversight.
-------------
but really, this is just a result from the decision that there should be people who can do anything because they're special people because they work for the government - or rather, they become the government due to being special peop
Re: (Score:3)
It is kinda like LEO in general, lots of really great individuals who honestly want to do good and care about stopping bad people from doing bad things, b
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Not at all. I too know people who work in the intelligence services, and I've known them since long before they took on those jobs! They are intelligent (duh...) and thoughtful. They care about private and privileged communications about as much as someone doing an aerial survey for geological research cares about peeping tom laws and people sunbathing naked in their gardens. They consider the (legal or moral) rules they break as so remo
Re: (Score:2)
...I don't see why, if you were trying to stop a serious threat, spies shouldn't be able to monitor these communications in principle, with some clear restrictions:
1/ If the information gathered by spying was specifically barred from being used in court
This would still allow for 'fruits of the poison tree' attacks in court, assumin the Brit system has this concept.
2/ If additional authority had to be granted by the judiciary for the act
3/ If there were clear checks and balances in place to deal with abuse.
I have absolutely NO trust in a governent and judiciary that would allow such eavesdropping in the first place, to use "additional authority" wisely and fairly, nor to put in plae and maintain "checks and balances" with any integrity. Once exceptions like this are allowed, it's a steep slippery slope towards totalitarianism.
Totally off topic for a moment, is it just me, or is Dice finally starti
Re: (Score:3)
1/ If the information gathered by spying was specifically barred from being used in court
This would help if court were the only place it could hurt you. It isn't, so it won't.
2/ If additional authority had to be granted by the judiciary for the act
This would help if the judiciary weren't part of the problem. They are, so it won't.
3/ If there were clear checks and balances in place to deal with abuse.
This would help if it ever helped, but as long as a system can be abused, it will be, so it won't.
Not acceptable (Score:5, Insightful)
Yet on the other I don't see why, if you were trying to stop a serious threat
What serious threat are you stopping by spying on the communications of journalists and lawyers? We protect the professional actions of those groups for VERY good reasons. Reasons which far outweigh any information that might be gleaned from violating their confidential relationship. If a client cannot trust their communications to be confidential between themselves and their lawyer then there is no possible way for them to have a fair trial.
1/ If the information gathered by spying was specifically barred from being used in court
You don't need to involve a court to ruin someone's life. See Guantanamo Bay. Plenty of evidence there that would be inadmissible but the government is keeping people locked up indefinitely without charge or any opportunity to seek redress.
2/ If additional authority had to be granted by the judiciary for the act
Which results in a rubber stamp kangaroo court like the FISA court.
3/ If there were clear checks and balances in place to deal with abuse.
Checks and balances require a separate party with equal power. No such entity exists if actions like these are perfectly legal.
Re: (Score:2)
I had a feeling that the majority of responses to this would come from people who wouldn't bother understanding my post first.
We can only respond to what you write. What you wrote I disagree with. Your thesis was that spies should be able to monitor privileged communications and gave some proposed restrictions. I disagree with your thesis.
You think conversations between lawyers and clients aren't picking hoovered up by some of the drag net data capture already being done?
I do not think that lawyer client privilege is routinely violated here in the US. I know it does happen from time to time and I'm sure the NSA has picked up some phone calls and other communications but for the most part the available evidence shows that most of the time it is respected. I'm
Re: (Score:3)
I'm conflicted. On the one hand my initial response was like yours. Yet on the other I don't see why, if you were trying to stop a serious threat, spies shouldn't be able to monitor these communications in principle, with some clear restrictions:
Firstly we have the perennial problem that the security services are allowed to spy on anyone with very little oversight. If they want to spy on someone they should be required to get a court order, and that court order should be made public so that everyone can see what they are doing. If the court order cannot be immediately made public for legitimate security reasons then it should be made public as soon as possible (i.e. certainly within a year, preferably sooner). Furthermore, information gathering
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Because the government derives it powers from the people and there are well defined limits on its power? People are not the chattel of government to do with as they please when they please though I fear that the UK and Australia have already reached that point.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, there is: it's called security.
Start by not using fax, unencrypted email, or ordinary phone-calls.
Of course, GCHQ can probably still just demand information, but at least you know about it in that case.
Re: (Score:2)
Start by not using fax, unencrypted email, or ordinary phone-calls.
Of course, GCHQ can probably still just demand information, but at least you know about it in that case.
Burner phones? Hard to tap a moving target, and there wouldn't be any way to get the content of the phone call, unless the telecos are preserving all phone audio. Best case, they'd have metadata.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: There can be no defense AGAINST this. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
so we wait for our corporate overlords to cover us from government shenanigans... if only we could do something about the government, like vote or something. (mostly targeting the poor voter turnout in US)
Re: (Score:2)
Personally, I think the poor voter turn out in the US happened because gridlock worked for the Republicans. The Republican voters counted stopping the Democrats as accomplishing something, but the Democrat voters felt that they derived no benefit from having voted for the Democrats the last time, so they stayed home.
However, I can't even get people who generally agree with me on most voting related stuff to bother using Enigmail, so even with good voter turnout, I think it'll be quite a long time before vot
Why so shocked? (Score:3, Insightful)
Seriously? After all the wide spread surveillance operations blown open this year, how is this surprising?
Here is my predicted response:
Public outcry
Politician wagles finger at agency,
agency waggles finger at signed blessing from politician,
politician shrugs at public
public, licks KFC grease off lips
nothing happens
Welcome to your new system of government.
Re: (Score:2)
Welcome to your new system of government.
New?
Oh, you mean after feudalism?
Re: (Score:2)
feudalism = socialism
Well no, feudalism is a) not necessarily really a thing but more an attempt to describe systems ex post facto and b) a form of oligarchy or monarchy, in which power is concentrated at the top and/or resides with a single individual. The power structures of the day tended to be hereditary.
Re: (Score:2)
feudalism = socialism
Well no, feudalism is a) not necessarily really a thing but more an attempt to describe systems ex post facto and b) a form of oligarchy or monarchy, in which power is concentrated at the top and/or resides with a single individual. The power structures of the day tended to be hereditary.
"Socialism" on slashdot is just a general term of abuse, not a meaningful political description.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
People in the UK don't eat KFC, do they?
KFC in the UK (Score:2)
Kilmarnock Football.Club
Art Of War - Chapter 13 - The use of spies (Score:2)
The part concerned by these news in bold. Everything else left uncut because Sun Tzu.
The Use Of Spies
1. Raising a host of a hundred thousand men and marching them great distances entails heavy loss on the people and a drain on the resources of the State.
The daily expenditure will amount to a thousand ounces of silver. There will be commotion at home and abroad, and men will drop down exhausted on the highways.
As many as seven hundred thousand families will be impeded in their labor.
2. Hostile armies may face each other for years, striving for the victory which is decided in a single day.
This being so, to remain in ignorance of the enemy's condition simply because one grudges the outlay of a hundred ounces of silver in honors and emoluments, is the height of inhumanity.
3. One who acts thus is no leader of men, no present help to his sovereign, no master of victory.
4. Thus, what enables the wise sovereign and the good general to strike and conquer, and achieve things beyond the reach of ordinary men, is foreknowledge.
5. Now this foreknowledge cannot be elicited from spirits; it cannot be obtained inductively from experience, nor by any deductive calculation.
6. Knowledge of the enemy's dispositions can only be obtained from other men.
7. Hence the use of spies, of whom there are five classes: (1) Local spies; (2) inward spies; (3) converted spies; (4) doomed spies; (5) surviving spies.
8. When these five kinds of spy are all at work, none can discover the secret system. This is called "divine manipulation of the threads." It is the sovereign's most precious faculty.
9. Having local spies means employing the services of the inhabitants of a district.
10. Having inward spies, making use of officials of the enemy.
11. Having converted spies, getting hold of the enemy's spies and using them for our own purposes.
12. Having doomed spies, doing certain things openly for purposes of deception, and allowing our spies to know of them and report them to the enemy.
13. Surviving spies, finally, are those who bring back news from the enemy's camp.
14. Hence it is that which none in the whole army are more intimate relations to be maintained than with spies.
None should be more liberally rewarded. In no other business should greater secrecy be preserved.
15. Spies cannot be usefully employed without a certain intuitive sagacity.
16. They cannot be properly managed without benevolence and straightforwardness.
17. Without subtle ingenuity of mind, one cannot make certain of the truth of their reports.
18. Be subtle! be subtle! and use your spies for every kind of business.
19. If a secret piece of news is divulged by a spy before the time is ripe, he must be put to death together with the man to whom the secret was told.
20. Whether the object be to crush an army, to storm a city, or to assassinate an individual, it is always necessary to begin by finding out the names of the attendants, the aides-de-camp, and door-keepers and sentries of the general in command. Our spies must be commissioned to ascertain these.
21. The enemy's spies who have come to spy on us must be sought out, tempted with bribes, led away and comfortably housed. Thus they will become converted spies and available for our service.
22. It is through the information brought by the converted spy that we are able to acquire and employ local and inward spies.
23. It is owing to his information, again, that we can cause the doomed spy to carry false tidings to the enemy.
24. Lastly, it is by his information that the surviving spy can be used on appointed occasions.
25. The end and aim of spying in all its five varieties is knowledge of the enemy; and this knowledge can only be derived, in the first instance, from the converted spy.
Hence it is essential that the converted spy be treated with the utmost liberality.
26. Of old, the rise of the Yin dynasty was due to I Chih who had served under the Hsia. Likewise, the rise of the Chou dynasty was due to Lu Ya who had served under the Yin.
27. Hence it is only the enlightened ruler and the wise general who will use the highest intelligence of the army for purposes of spying and thereby they achieve great results. Spies are a most important element in water, because on them depends an army's ability to move.
Re:Art Of War - Chapter 13 - The use of spies (Score:5, Funny)
If fighting is sure to result in victory, then you must fight!
Sun Tzu said that, and I'd say he knows a little bit more about fighting than you do, pal, because he invented it, and then he perfected it so that no living man could best him in the ring of honor.
Then, he used his fight money to buy two of every animal on earth, and then he herded them onto a boat.
And then he beat the crap out of every single one.
And from that day forward any time a bunch of animals are together in one place it's called a 'zoo'!
Re: (Score:2)
If fighting is sure to result in victory, then you must fight!
Sun Tzu said that, and I'd say he knows a little bit more about fighting than you do, pal, because he invented it, and then he perfected it so that no living man could best him in the ring of honor.
Then, he used his fight money to buy two of every animal on earth, and then he herded them onto a boat.
And then he beat the crap out of every single one.
And from that day forward any time a bunch of animals are together in one place it's called a 'zoo'!
OMG what are you on and do you have enough to share?
Re: (Score:2)
If fighting is sure to result in victory, then you must fight!
Sun Tzu said that, and I'd say he knows a little bit more about fighting than you do, pal, because he invented it, and then he perfected it so that no living man could best him in the ring of honor.
Then, he used his fight money to buy two of every animal on earth, and then he herded them onto a boat.
And then he beat the crap out of every single one.
And from that day forward any time a bunch of animals are together in one place it's called a 'zoo'!
OMG what are you on and do you have enough to share?
It's from Team Fortress 2's "Meet the Soldier [youtube.com]" trailer.
Finding Big Foot (Score:2)
The final straw (Score:2)
Makes it completely clear who the enemey is... (Score:4, Insightful)
... for those that still had some doubts. GCHQ is a totalitarian institution, and an enemy of freedom and common decency. This is no surprise, any government agency will always grab all power it can get and use it. Governments need to be kept under control by the citizens, or they always devolve into totalitarianism. That is one of the reasons secret laws _must_ be avoided at all cost. Sadly, the UK population is deeply asleep at the wheel. They will pay an excessively high price for their failure.
They also need to spy on parliment. (Score:2)
I am certain that most of those guys are ISIS sleeper agents! They need to spy on all of them heavily!
Re: (Score:2)
Remember, remember, the 5th of November.
Oh wait, that was two days ago. Move along.
Violation of confidentiality and the consequences (Score:5, Informative)
If you violate lawyer client privilege you remove someone's ability to get a fair trial.
If you violate doctor patient privilege you endanger public health as well as potentially the health of that person.
If you violate journalist source relationships you enable corruption by the state.
We protect these relationships because any minor benefit to the state achieved by violating the sanctity and trust in these relationships has follow on consequences that endanger the well being of a democratic society. Public health, fair trials, government accountability. All these things are kept in check in large part because we protect certain relationships between professionals and the groups they work with.
Trust matters (Score:2)
All of those are features, not bugs for the government.
Untrue. If you remove the protections of those relationships then the government will eventually pay the price. The government that is strongest is the one that is trusted by the people. A government removes that trust at its own peril.
The only remedy is going to the court. Not the court of public opinion, but a court of law.
Disagree. Vox populi, vox Dei. If the citizens are sufficiently outraged then they will remove the leaders from office. A courtroom might help but a ballot box can fix the problem far more effectively than a jury box.
Surely they should only target lawyers (Score:2)
I'm surprised (Score:2)
I'm actually surprised, because I thought the only rule for intelligence agencies was :
"Do what the fuck you want, but don't get caught."
It's pretty obvious they target everybody, especially people holding potentially sensitive information (e.g. lawyers and journalists).
I don't understand the need for such a policy, and I understand even less the need to disclose it.
Full passage (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
In other words, despite the summary saying "British spies have been granted the authority to secretly eavesdrop on legally privileged attorney-client communications", the actually released documents say almost exactly the opposite.
British spies explictly do not have, by default, the authority to target the communications of lawyers, and even if they were granted authority, legally privileged attorney-client communications are explicitly barred from their access, being excised from transcripts by audio analy
Re:It's what you do with it that counts (Score:5, Interesting)
Spies should listen in to whatever they need to listen in to.
Spies should respect laws and constitutions, at the very least those of their own country. If they don't, everyone - including those who ordered the illegal spying - should be punished severely. We already know this is not happening.
Freedom is far more important than a spy's ability to do whatever they "need" to do.
That's what they're there for. Nations spy on other nations. It's not pretty, but it's reality.
Murderers murder people. It's not pretty, but it's reality.
What an amazing defense.
Re:It's what you do with it that counts (Score:5, Insightful)
The worrying aspect is that they're collecting the data at all. If they have the data, it will be misused; that is a historical guarantee. Privacy is violated through the mere collection of data. Mass surveillance should not be permitted. Targeted, legal surveillance at best. This is not what is happening.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Then it isn't very good at its stated purpose.
Re: It's what you do with it that counts (Score:2)
Spies should respect laws and constitutions, at the very least those of their own country.
No argument from me there, but how do we balance this against other nations or groups that don't play by the same rules? (However limited or flawed the home laws might currently be).
Re: It's what you do with it that counts (Score:4, Insightful)
You don't; you try to be the better man/country. Have some standards (Maybe not spy on completely random people?) and principles rather than just adopting a "They do it so I can too!" attitude.
Re: It's what you do with it that counts (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
It's a nice thought but I don't think that works in the imperfect world we live in.
The notion of not being immoral scumbags doesn't work in this imperfect world? Having principles and morality isn't something reserved for perfect worlds.
There has to be some way of letting the security services in their various forms do what they need to do.
Okay. If there's reason to suspect that someone is doing something, they can get a warrant (if it's a citizen) by an actual judge, or get some other form of acceptance that involves more than just spying on people for no reason.
Mass surveillance should never be tolerated.
You want people to avoid abusing power because they think that's right, not just because it's against a law or rule of some kind.
Good luck with that. In the mean time, I'll endeavor to not be completely ignorant of
Re: (Score:2)
Mass surveillance should never be tolerated
I agree and that's not what I said and not what TFS or TFA is about - they're about targeted surveillance of lawyers. Which is always wrong, with a few possible but very rare exceptions. Targeting lawyers of people who criticise the government is clearly wrong and a blatant abuse of power.
I'll endeavor to not be completely ignorant of history
I don't think I'm completely ignorant of history (although I wouldn't would I), but I might disagree with you about how we solve the problem. And as I said above, there is clearly a problem that needs fixing.
Re: (Score:2)
FTFY
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Murderers murder people. It's not pretty, but it's reality.
What an amazing defense.
Soldiers kill people. It's not pretty, but it's reality.
There is a difference between a soldier and a criminal. There is also a difference betweeen a spy and a criminal.
Both soldiers and spies are ultimately accountable to the law. Just as a soldier can't just shoot anyone he feels like for the sake of it, so a spy has to be able to justify his actions.
Re: (Score:2)
Soldiers kill people. It's not pretty, but it's reality.
There is a difference between a soldier and a criminal. There is also a difference betweeen a spy and a criminal.
Don't you think it's better to give an actual explanation that amounts to more than just "Group X does Y. It's not pretty, but it's reality."
The point is to do whatever it is in a moral, legal (if we're talking about restricting government powers) fashion. Handwaving the problem away by saying that spies spy only lets them get away with their misdeeds.
so a spy has to be able to justify his actions.
If only.
Re:It's what you do with it that counts (Score:5, Insightful)
So when London or insert your European capital or major city here, has 30 or 40 Boston style bombings in month will you still be saying this?
I'll say the same as I said on 9/11: There's no such thing as perfect safety, and the very idea is terrifying. I rejected the TSA, the Patriot Act, and all the nonsense that followed, because I actually have principles and understand the concept of probability to a far greater extent than so many fools who, if they were truly rational, wouldn't get into a car. Freedom is more important for safety. If you feel otherwise, North Korea may be right up your alley.
But hey, let's using this stupid logic in an alternate scenario. If you were a murderer who was caught murdering someone, would you still be saying there should be laws against murdering? I'm going to assume the answer would be "No." Why? Because I can. And because I assumed that, your arguments for why there should be laws against murder are somehow invalid. And if that's not the sort of point you intended to convey, then why bring up that stupid nonsense about how I supposedly might believe differently if X happened? It serves no useful purpose.
Re: (Score:2)
And do you think the government should have unlimited power in the name of safety? Is it so problematic to recognize that freedom and restrictions on government are what's important in truly free countries?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In those days, we did not wet our knickers and give up our privacy (much), and carried on regardless with a stiff upper lip.
I don't know what went wrong, but this is just as small part of it. personally, I blame cheap hard disks.
Re: (Score:2)
The government were explicitly required to comment on this very aspect of the matter. Although they said they did not routinely keep data that would allow them to put a number on the number of trials that might potentially have been "tainted" by the transfer of data to prosecutors, they did confirm that they knew of "at least one" but refused to identify it.
In other words, the government are aware of a mistrial and are conspiring to pervert the course of justice and are prepared to admit as much.
Re: (Score:2)
Everyone spies on everyone else, but clearly countries like the US are pushing beyond the boundaries of acceptable behavior when some of the deepest most invasion spying is against supposed friends or their own people. Not to mention spies are not supposed to be above the law!
Re: (Score:2)
Data collection by intelligence agencies Isn't pushing the boundaries, it is what they must do. It is the sharing of that information to Law enforcement agencies which may be pushing boundaries, but much depends on the country, who is doing the Data Collection & who is targeted:
US agencies collecting data on French Citizens: Unacceptable! Beyond the pale claimed the French Politicians & Press.
French agencies collecting data on French Citizens: French Politicians state "we have a law that authorized
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Data collection by intelligence agencies Isn't pushing the boundaries
The only way to determine that is by analyzing the response to a few questions: Who is having their data collected? Why?
If the answers are anything like "everyone" or "because we need to see if they're terrorists/enemies" then there is a problem, and it doesn't matter how many people do it; that's a ridiculous excuse.
Re: (Score:2)
Apologist (Score:2)
Why do people like you continue to propagate this fantasy that British spies should be spying on _every_ British citizen illegally, then give it a thumbs up because the law gets stealth changed so that it's no longer illegal? I'll be fair, people in the US have done the same thing, as have people in Germany.
People that are against this activity don't cry foul because spies are spying on Iran, or DPRK, or Turkey, etc... they are outraged because the spies have turned inward and worry more about people havin
Re: (Score:2)
British spies should be spying on _every_ British citizen illegally
That's not what I said and not what I believe. It's not what TFA is about either.
Trying to conflate the jobs of law enforcement and "spying"
I am dead set against that. The only example I gave was spying on a foreign leader which, as I said, I consider distasteful but (sometimes) necessary. You can, and quite possibly do, disagree with that and that's fine.
apologists don't want debate and dialogue
Whilst I don't believe I'm an apologist, debate and dialogue is what we're having here, and you'll see a previous comment of mine above where I said it's a good thing that we're outraged. And yes, I'm outraged if
Re: (Score:2)
British spies should be spying on _every_ British citizen illegally
That's not what I said and not what I believe. It's not what TFA is about either.
Your statement was comparing what should be illegal surveillance of British citizens with a foreign diplomat, and giving the okay because of that comparison. Your statement was not very specific, so perhaps you intended something else but did not make necessary clarification.
I am dead set against that. The only example I gave was spying on a foreign leader which, as I said, I consider distasteful but (sometimes) necessary. You can, and quite possibly do, disagree with that and that's fine.
Thanks for the clarification. What you present above is exactly what I said most people are not against. This is not what the article is about however, it is about UK spies spying on privileged UK citizen data.
Whilst I don't believe I'm an apologist, debate and dialogue is what we're having here, and you'll see a previous comment of mine above where I said it's a good thing that we're outraged. And yes, I'm outraged if the government and/or intelligence agencies have been abusing their power.
The debate here is not
Re:If you are going to spy... (Score:4, Interesting)
Absolutely! Especially when you're waging a war against your own people, ie. the sovereign.
A problem of terminology (Score:2)
I thought by definition spies did illegal things. Or is that just the James Bond definition? The whole bit about "if you are caught or captured the secretary will disavow all knowledge of your existence" and they have a suicide pill, or they can try to escape as long as they don't divulge any information or whatever.
Unfortunately the "rules" to warfare seem to get ignored more and more as the decades pass. And we wonder why people hide their guns in hospitals when we bomb anywhere else with impunity. But by
Re: (Score:3)
It is difficult not to see these revelations as the last gasp of privacy for the once proud British people.
When the law is compromised to it's very roots as it now appears, then the only law that matters is that of breaking down and rebuilding...
You forgot to mention that we can't even do a proper revolution now because the government took all our guns away.
Oh, and literally Nineteen Eighty Four!
Guns aren't needed for a revolution (Score:2)
You forgot to mention that we can't even do a proper revolution now because the government took all our guns away.
Guns aren't required for a revolution to occur. India kicked out the British largely without guns. The Civil Rights movement in the 1960s-70s was accomplished without guns. The USSR fell apart without civil war. If enough of the citizenry decides to force a change then change will happen no matter what weapons the government happens to have. Certainly you can have a revolution with guns but the notion that your little peashooter is what is keeping the most powerful military on the planet in check is pr
Re: (Score:2)
Guns aren't required for a revolution to occur.
See also 198 Methods of Nonviolent Action [aeinstein.org] (from the book From Dictatorship to Democracy, available here [aeinstein.org]).
Certainly you can have a revolution with guns but the notion that your little peashooter is what is keeping the most powerful military on the planet in check is pretty much laughable.
Don't underestimate the value of possessing threat capability, even if you're not going to use it. Would Gandhi, King, and Mandela have been equally successful in a society without the simmering potential for all-out race war?
Re: (Score:2)
I like Method #22 "Protest disrobings" 40,000 stark naked Brits overrunning their headquarters would be entirely appropriate given the circumstances.