GCHQ Officials Given Immunity From Hacking Charges 118
An anonymous reader writes with news that members of British intelligence agency GCHQ have been granted immunity from prosecution for any laws they might have violated while hacking into citizens' computers or cellphones. The immunity was granted by changes to the Computer Misuse Act that weren't noticed until now, and not discussed or debated when implemented. While different legislation has long been thought to grant permission for illegal activities abroad, civil rights groups were unaware that domestic hacking activities were covered now as well. The legislative changes were passed on March 3rd, 2015, long after domestic spying became a hot-button issue, and almost a year after Privacy International and several ISPs filed complaints challenging it.
They can do ANYTHING anyway...... (Score:5, Insightful)
......this just formalizes it for the plebs .
They made a good argument, though. (Score:5, Insightful)
"James Bond has a license to kill, does he not?"
"That's right."
"Shoot someone, get off scot-free?"
"Yes, why?"
"So then, why do computer crimes carry a worse sentence than murder?"
good thing that's common. (Score:5, Insightful)
Good thing Aaron Swartz got similar immunity from any laws broken.
Oh, wait, my bad. That's not what happened. Instead they tried to destroy his life. For fuck-all social harm, and arguable social good, compared to the NSA and GCHQ who have caused incalculable harm to our society.
It forms the basis for "within the law" claim (Score:3, Insightful)
This immunity from criminal prosecution also forms a large part of their claim that spying on Brits for a foreign power IS LEGAL.
They are NOT permitted to do bulk surveillance of British internet traffic,they are not supposed to spy on politicians, journalists, lawyers, campaigners,....but they DO bulk surveillance of internet traffic on all of those people, and hand access to that data to NSA staff. They claim its legal because they have immunity from prosecution.
The Snoopers charter was not passed into law, it was rejected despite lies told by Jacqui Smith MP. It was rejected repeatedly, rejected in the House of Lords when it was slipped into an amendment. Theresa May, (a Jacqui Smith clone from the other party) tried and failed to get it made law. She's said she'll try it again now they got elected. But as it stands, it was REJECTED and domestic surveillance is not legal.
We have a weird situation where a spy agency is spying on MPs in Britain, making that data available to the US, who in turn leverage British politics to get their way. The politicians who are compliant to US wishes (Theresa May et al), in turn are now trying to legalize the very surveillance that helps them get in power.
This is happening all across the 5 eyes countries.
If you scratch your head and wonder why East German STASI spied on East Germans for Russia, look no further than GCHQ's actions.
MPs who oppose the passing of Snoopers charter can have their data, their families data, their friends data, all pulled by the US spooks and it can be used against them courtesy of GCHQ, and you cannot prosecute GCHQ for any of it, because of the immunity amendments.
Why Do We Carry On Pretending? (Score:5, Insightful)
We all know Western Civilization has fallen to Fascism, so why not just come out and announce it? Why bother with these pieces of meaningless paper such as "Laws" and "Constitutions"? It's clear the rule of Law only applies to the Subjects, not the Wealthy or the Government. How about Marshall law? How about jackboots and arm bands and "show me your papers" and "up against the wall"? We're pretty much there anyway, but we all seem so intent on playing this bullshit game and pretending we still live in a free society.
When will someone just fucking go ahead and blink already????
Re:Why Do We Carry On Pretending? (Score:4, Insightful)
It really does seem to be the case. Every day on we see example after example of entirely different rules for (dare I say) about 1% of the population-- from Clapper just plain not being prosecuted for lying to congress to the CIA spying on torture investigators in congress without consequences to Patreas getting a slap on the wrist for leaking to his mistress to a heavy-handed campaign against whistleblowers but at the same time... zero Wall Street prosecutions and zero prosecutions for war crimes and other crimes for the propaganda campaign that took us into Iraq and the billions of waste that occurred there etc etc while on the other hand they (I say they and not we) are prosecuting kids who change computer desktops without "authorization", making education overly expensive w/predatory lending rates, tuition and bankruptcy laws, over-prosecuting and criminalizing people like Aaron Swartz... trade agreements being fast tracked and done in secret... mass surveillance, civil forfeitures... the list goes on and on and on.
Something has gone very very wrong in the last 20-30 years. Oh, and we have global warming to look forward to as well. Woo.
Re:Why Do We Carry On Pretending? (Score:5, Insightful)
No need to show papers when you're being tracked 24/7. As long as you behave you'll be able to retain a modicum of freedom and if you don't look you'll never notice the bars.
Re:Why Do We Carry On Pretending? (Score:4, Insightful)
Perhaps it's all just preparation for global warming. Gotta have the mechanisms in place to control the population when things get desperate.
Re: It's a crock of BULLSHIT (Score:3, Insightful)
Trust is not the point. Power is. Something the plebs can't comprehend. Only a fool would believe that given the power to infiltrate an unsuspecting enemy without them noticing, would their enemies stay their hand.
Advice for the ignorant: if you can avoid putting data into a device, do so. If you can avoid using a device, do so. If you can't avoid it minimalize your use of it as much as possible. Don't let a device monitor or control you to the best of your ability. Because at the end of the day the only safe bet is this: if the device can be abused it will be, and those who abuse it (like the story proves) will be perfectly protected from any and all repercussions caused by said abuse.
If any of you still need proof as to why laws are useless against those who write them, I have only one thing to say to you: Grow up, and quit living in your fantasy world.
An enemy of your way of life is not bound nor shackled by the same morals and ethics as you. That enemy will use that fact to their advantage to defeat you. If you stay your hand because of your morals and ethics, then all you will accomplish is the removal of a person who believes in them. You don't get to pick your choices in life, sometimes you have to pick from choices you don't want to pick from. Although someone may question your morals and ethics because of your actions, at least then they can still be passed on. If your enemy defeats you, then your morals and ethics loose a believer and are one step closer to oblivion.
If the need immunity, then they are criminals... (Score:4, Insightful)
Quite obviously so. Otherwise, if what they were doing was legal, they would not need immunity. This also means Britain does not have "rule of law" anymore, because with that everybody is subject to the law. One more step into the abyss.
Re:The UK, trying to beat China, NK at their own g (Score:4, Insightful)
Really?? Are you that stupid that you think the only way to change government is via violent revolution?
Not at all. The four boxes (soap, ballot, jury, ammo) are to be used in that order. So far we've tried soap, ballot, and jury.
Next, I would try peaceful non-compliance, but I'm not naive enough to believe that the government would not respond violently.
I think people like you are dangerous to any thriving society and downright deadly to any less than thriving society.
We do not live in a "thriving society", we live in a fascist oligarchy that is descending into collapse. You are delusional if you believe otherwise.
You will attract other idiots and eventually get them killed while justifying the jackboot tactics the government would use in response.
So, with heavily-armed domestic paramilitary units assaulting the homes of citizens for things like student loan debts and misdemeanors, just how much farther does the government need to go before you would justify self defense? After you've been rounded up and sent to a camp is a bit late.
Some twit in office will look at your writings and you will convince them that spying on citizens is just and reasonable.
News flash, Bunky. They have believed that for decades.
Let's just hope they think you are little more than a retarded monkey that doesn't need to get on the list.
Nice ad hominem. Down to the last resort of those who cannot defend their position, eh? Let's hope they don't believe that everyone will roll over and lick their boots as you seem adamant to do, as that guarantees they will proceed at full speed.
You will justify this by your own words.
Yeah just sit down, shut up, and comply, right? Attitudes like that are historically what have enabled tyranny to fester.
Let me translate it into a language you'll comprehend;
"Baa-aaa-aaahhhh!"
Strat