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 .
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 sa
Re: (Score:2)
"My sight is failing," she said finally. "Even when I was young I could not have read what was written there. But it appears to me that that wall looks different. Are the Seven Commandments the same as they used to be, Benjamin?"
For once Benjamin consented to break his rule, and he read out to her what was written on the wall. There was nothing there now except a single Commandment. It ran:
ALL ANIMALS ARE EQUAL
BUT SOME ANIMALS ARE MORE EQUAL THAN OTHERS
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?"
Re: (Score:1)
"All ur bases are 'ours', and you can't touch this." Nothing but fucking penis envy, and it has fuckall to do with our national security and everything to do with corporate espionage whilst the people are stuck with the check for building all this bullshit...
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Uh... because James Bond is fiction?
The UK, trying to beat China, NK at their own game (Score:3, Interesting)
What the UK is doing really frightens me, for the people that live there, and for the rest of the world.
That's not the future I want.
Re:The UK, trying to beat China, NK at their own g (Score:5, Funny)
But you understand don't you that they have to take away your rights and privacy in order to keep you safe. I'm sure you feel safe now, don't you?
Re: (Score:2)
One advantage of an unwritten Constitution; the Courts might give you back your rights at some later point.
Re:The UK, trying to beat China, NK at their own g (Score:5, Informative)
Protip: If someone has to give them to you, they aren't rights; they're privileges.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, I think that's the point: the 4th amendment has become a privilege. Not just phone calls and emails, not having your pockets searched is a, well, white privilege.
Re: (Score:2)
Protip: the UK doesn't have a 4th Amendment.
They have an "unwritten constitution." They believe this makes rights more resilient, because even if somebody tries to take them away, and uses a legal process, the courts might just give them back at any time without needing specific justification.
Americans generally discount that idea, but lots of legal experts do disagree on the results, both theoretical and actual.
Re: (Score:2)
You don't show any understanding of rights with that statement.
Did you think rights just floated down from the sky, mana from heaven?
All rights are given. That doesn't mean that, as you claim, there is no such thing as the word "rights" and every time anybody says "rights" they really meant "privileges." It does mean that words have context, and that the meanings don't always align with extremist principles.
Re: (Score:2)
Did you think rights just floated down from the sky, mana from heaven?
No, they're inherent to the fact that we're living, sentient beings with dignity and value.
All rights are given.
No, rights cannot be "given" because something given can be taken away. Privileges are given and privileges can be taken away. Rights are inherent (see above) and can only be infringed inasmuch as we allow them to be.
That doesn't mean that, as you claim, there is no such thing as the word "rights" and every time anybody says "rights" they really meant "privileges."
Strawman; no such claim has been made. Precisely the opposite. On the other hand, sometimes people say "rights" when they mean "privileges" and vice versa.
It does mean that words have context, and that the meanings don't always align with extremist principles.
There's nothing extremist about living, sentient,
Re: (Score:3)
What the UK is doing really frightens me, for the people that live there, and for the rest of the world.
That's not the future I want.
Then kill the fascist bastards and form a new government. That's what's going to happen very soon in the US if things don't change.
Strat
Re: (Score:2)
Won't happen in the US ever. Won't happen in the UK either. What might happen is an English version of Tiananmen square. Both governments will see it happening before it happens and it will be put down quickly. Thinking otherwise is little more than an invitation to be put down sooner than later.
Re: (Score:3)
Won't happen in the US ever. Won't happen in the UK either. What might happen is an English version of Tiananmen square. Both governments will see it happening before it happens and it will be put down quickly. Thinking otherwise is little more than an invitation to be put down sooner than later.
Yes, abandon all hope.If we lick their boots convincingly, maybe we'll be the last into the gulag.
Strat
Re: (Score:2)
Really?? Are you that stupid that you think the only way to change government is via violent revolution? I suppose you also think that whatever warlord replaces it will be the kind and gentle type that will gie you everything you ever wanted too.
I think people like you are dangerous to any thriving society and downright deadly to any less than thriving society. You will attract other idiots and eventually get them killed while justifying the jackboot tactics the government would use in response. Some twit i
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
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.
Re: (Score:1)
I'd like to see how well you'd do under similar circumstances.
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.
No it isn't (Score:1)
Immunity from criminal law is immunity from criminal law. GCHQ do a FULL TAKE on the internet, those links carry mostly British, and EU data, including MPs, their families, journalists, the lot. NSA staff are given free access to that full take.
GCHQ did the hack of the Belgian phone system, i.e. spying on the EU. Which is also part of the British democracy.
And yes it IS FUCKING TREASON but its un-prosecutable because they have immunity.
"You were doing well until the paranoid conspiracy theory about the US
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: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: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: (Score:3)
What army should we use to go up against their armies?
That very same military.
They are not all unquestioning robots. Many will desert and go over to the civilian's side, and take their training and all the equipment/resources/weapons they can manage with them, while destroying what they cannot take/use.
Strat
Re: (Score:2)
This is basically the great fear of all fascist systems. So let's be glad that the army we have ain't one where only people who really, really believe in the shit can join... oh wait.
Re: (Score:2)
So let's be glad that the army we have ain't one where only people who really, really believe in the shit can join... oh wait.
Yes their indoctrination machine is infallible, that's why gangs in the US send gang members to join the US military for training, and why so many militia members are ex-military.
Wow, they don't need to send a jackbooted thug for you, do they? You're already in a gulag of your own making.
Strat
Re: (Score:2)
We all know Western Civilization has fallen to Fascism, so why not just come out and announce it?
The UK, the US, Italy, Hungary and Russia does not make up the Western Civilization. Though the list was a big longer than I though when I started writting this comment.
Re: (Score:2)
Hey, give it time, Rome ain't been built in one single day either. What you have there is three major players of world economy and two who already learned that the only way they can stay propped up is to fall in line. Just wait how things develop when more governments notice that they can either become Italy or Greece.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, of course. You must be thinking of some other country where there weren't allegations of a plot against the legitimately elected Prime Minister [wikipedia.org] in the 60s and 70s.
Re: (Score:3)
Because compulsive lying is one of the classic symptoms of sociopathy. Every oppressive regime lies. They don't believe their own lies, and they know nobody else does either. They do so anyway, because getting people to repeat lies makes them their own jailers. The system can't jail or kill everyone, and in fact can't do anything on its own; it must convince someone else - a police, a soldier, whatevever - to d
Re: (Score:2)
And of course the third is that Western Civilization is not currently fascist. We wouldn't be talking about this openly on a public forum if it was. Increased surveillance by various intelligence agencies is worrisome and could potentially lead us to an unpleasant place once again, but we're nowhere near it yet. Not every political decision you don't like is a sign of fascism any more than every shoulder ache is a sign of a heart attack.
Exactly. It's not like they will . . . hang on, their's someone at the door. brb.
Comment removed (Score:5, Funny)
Good (Score:4, Interesting)
Maybe all of this government sponsored asshattery will encourage more people to get off their asses and invest more effort into fixing all of our broken shit.
If governments want to piss away their capabilities hacking their own people because they can then let them do it and fuck themselves over.
THEY LIVE (Score:2)
WE SLEEP
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is our whole system is set up to make is powerless. The call it "creating strong governments" but actually it's just tyranny of the minority.
Protests are shut down or pushed out of the way, and the participants put on a watch list for harassment. They don't bother reporting such things on the news, so most people aren't even aware of them happening. New political parties have little chance of getting and power, maybe a single MP at best.
Crypto-anarchy and eventually violent overthrow seem like t
How can those jerks (Score:2)
be put alone in a corner where they feel very very unwell?
Something like a podest, where they have to stand on, maybe chained and everyone is free to spit at them.
At one point, enough will be enough.
Moneypenny... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. And the law has become a tool of oppression, not of justice.
Anarchy (Score:5, Interesting)
"As long as there are rulers, we can't have rules"
Because they're always going to make exceptions for themselves and their cronies, and use the rules to stick it to everyone else, while loudly decrying that they speak *for* us.....
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: (Score:2)
Unlike GCHQ, the Queen is subject to the law.
Re: (Score:2)
Your knowledge of the English/Scottish/British constitution is about 400 years out of date.
Re: (Score:2)
They are getting immunity. That protects them against being prosecuted for _crimes_ they have committed. What prison guards do is not a crime as long as they follow their job description. For the police to execute a legally obtained search warrant is not a crime. Doing surgery with proper authorization from the patient or under emergency condition and with the proper authorization to do surgery of the type done is not a crime. None of these things require immunity, just exceptions in the law. Immunity means
"Legal" immunity maybe... (Score:3)
One would think that Britain has had enough past experience of what happens when their rulers remove accountability from specific segments of their subjects. When the Courts won't listen, the next step is often quite bloody.
Really? (Score:1)
civil rights groups were unaware that domestic hacking activities were covered now as well
Laws can be changed - again (Score:2)
After all, our German Nazi-regime was ruling (and killing) (mostly) perfectly within its own laws.
Later on, after we lost the war, some people actually got the rope for their crimes (admittedly, only those who didn't run fast enough, weren't killed already, couldn't blame someone else or didn't have anything to bargain with (like a prospect of owning nuke-bearing ICBMs or a list of Soviet spies)).
So, if a future government, supported by enough people, wanted to o
Re: (Score:3)
You seem to have made the easy but very big mistake of believing Braveheart to be historical. There are some bits of history mixed into the plot to support the illusion, but there are also massive errors of fact, and that is one of them. (Don't get me started on the chronology...)