British Foreign Secretary on Surveillance Worries: '"Law Abiding Citizens Have N 404
Bruce66423 writes "The government minister in charge of GCHQ, the UK's equivalent of the NSA, has used those immortal words, 'Only terrorists, criminals and spies should fear secret activities of the British and US intelligence agencies.' From the article: '...In an interview on the BBC’s Andrew Marr Show on Sunday, Mr Hague refused to say whether the British government knew of the existence of Prism before it emerged last week. “I can’t confirm or deny in public what Britain knows about and what Britain doesn’t, for obvious reasons,” he said. However, he implied that the revelations had not taken him by surprise.'" While many are concerned about the reach of PRISM overseas, the Finnish Foreign Minister says he plans to continue using Outlook for email.
Trust (Score:4, Informative)
"Only terrorists, criminals and spies should fear secret activities of the British and US intelligence agencies." William Hague, the utter of this sentence, left one very important phrase, this being, "if you trust the government." If I were a Brit I wouldn't trust the government. Brits have been guaranteed fewer civil rights than Americans. But as an American I wouldn't trust the American federal or any state or local government to do the "right thing". Politicians make their careers on doing the wrong thing. It is my hope that the revelations of this unwarranted snooping will raise such a stink that some big heads will roll. And I don't believe for a minute that the government only massages this information for patterns when there is a threat. That is government-issued, anti-FUD bullshit at its best. They are always looking for patterns. That's what the NSA and friends do.
The limited revelations so far... (Score:5, Informative)
The limited revelations so far have focused on the technical scheme and said little about the regulatory scheme, how it was used operationally. Leaving out that sort of data is like noting that almost everybody has in their house or on their person a device which has a microphone and transmits all it hears to remote listeners, that is a telephone, but leaving out the fact that it is off until you pick it up or turn it on. The existence of this technology and program says very little about if it is legal and if it has been used appropriately.
Turning off telephone service is inconvenient. Turning off the intelligence services ability to gather timely intelligence can perilous.
Bali death toll set at 202 [bbc.co.uk]
London 7/7 terrorist attacks [www.bl.uk]
Madrid train attacks [bbc.co.uk]
9-11 attacks [telegraph.co.uk]
What has MI-5 had to say?
U.K. tracking 30 terror plots, 1,600 suspects [nbcnews.com] - updated 11/10/2006
British authorities are tracking almost 30 high-priority terrorist plots involving 200 networks and 1,600 suspects, the head of Britain’s domestic spy agency said, adding that many of those under surveillance are homegrown terrorists plotting suicide attacks and other mass-casualty bombings.
What did the next head of MI-5 say a year later?
New MI5 chief says terror suspects in Britain have doubled in the last year [csmonitor.com] - November 6, 2007
The new chief of Britain's intelligence service MI5 painted a troubling picture of growing terrorist threat in Britain, saying the number of suspects in the country has more than doubled in the past year – and that many of the new recruits are teenagers....
and more:
At Least 4,000 Suspected of Terrorism-Related Activity in Britain, MI5 Director Says [washingtonpost.com] - November 6, 2007
LONDON, Nov. 5 -- British security officials suspect that at least 4,000 people are involved in terrorism-related activities in Britain and that al-Qaeda's "deliberate campaign" against Britain poses the "most immediate and acute peacetime threat" to the nation in a century, the head of Britain's domestic spy agency said Monday.
And in 2012?
MI5 warns al-Qaida regaining UK toehold after Arab spring [guardian.co.uk]
You cripple the security services at your peril. Unlike the IRA, al Qaida doesn't tend to phone in warnings before a blast.
Cheers [youtube.com]
Re:We should trust what you say, why? (Score:5, Informative)
Ah Yes (Score:2, Informative)
So, I suppose, the question is, "What are we going to do about it?"
Is the costs of such surveillance justified? (Score:5, Informative)
Has our society become so timid and fearful that we are willing to sacrifice long cherished rights to freedom, liberty and privacy to the state in return for a dubious promise of security?
I say dubious, because for all the vaunted survelliance ongoing right now, it failed to stop the Woolwich stabbing attack [dailymail.co.uk]. It failed to stop the Boston marathon bombings [wikipedia.org].
In all the gruesome examples you cited, note that the acts of terrorism took place despite all the surveillance already taking place then. The effort has failed. How much more freedom and privacy will you demand the public sacrifice in order to achieve greater efficacy?
I think we are on a very slippery slope, where the temptation is all too great for the ruling parties to take the path of least resistance and extend the coverage gradually to all undesirables and enemies of the state - from terrorists to child pornographers to murderers to robbers to copyright infringers and finally to common members of the public. If you think this is impossible, look to China where it is happening even as we speak. The Chinese government even justified its censorship and surveillance of the internet on the basis of public security in a White Paper [english.gov.cn], including the following gem :-
China advocates the rational use of technology to curb dissemination of illegal information online. Based on the characteristics of the Internet and considering the actual requirements of effective administering of the Internet, it advocates the exertion of technical means, in line with relevant laws and regulations and with reference to common international practices, to prevent and curb the harmful effects of illegal information on state security, public interests and minors.
What lies at the end of the slippery slope? Alan Moore might have the answer. [wikipedia.org] I suggest you look at his book, it is an intriguing read.
Re:Such as when they declared Iceland to be terror (Score:5, Informative)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landsbanki_Freezing_Order_2008 [wikipedia.org]
Re:Such as when they declared Iceland to be terror (Score:5, Informative)
Oh good grief. They didn't declare Iceland to be "terrorist".
They used a law called the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act (note how two of those three things aren't "terrorist") to freeze the assets of an Icelandic bank branch in the UK. They did so under provisions of the law that involve preventing actions harmful to the UK economy.
One can certainly question whether this was warranted or not, but it had nothing to do with terrorism. Nice try though.
Only terrorists, criminals and spies? (Score:4, Informative)
`New research
* Five authorities have used their powers to spy on people suspected of breaking the smoking ban
* Suffolk County Council used RIPA powers to make a "test purchase" -- of a puppy
* Bromley Council spied on a charity shop to see people "fly tipping" donations at their door
* Investigation of unlawful plying for hire by private hire drivers
* Trading Standards exercise investigating allegations of underage alcohol sales
* Offences under Feed Hygiene Regulations
* Noise nuisance
* Alleged disabled blue badge fraud
* Ascertain if person is walking their dog cleaning up after it but then depositing poop bag in trees, grass or on road
* Carrying out graffiti
Re:Yeah, right! (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Yeah, right! (Score:5, Informative)
Similarly I find it hypocritical that right wingers read Any Rand and glorify her teachings of greed and selfishness ...
I take it that you've never actually read any of her stuff.
I have. Please elaborate on where he is wrong.
Rand "taught" that "From each according to their means, to each according to their need" was greed; that an obligation to be charitable is the opposite of charity.
Rand "taught" that everyone had the right to be paid for the fruits of their labour, not coerced to give it up just because someone else wanted it. The former is justice. The latter is greedy. She did not glorify greed. She "taught" that selfishness is a virtuous right of all, because we all deserve that right because of what we are.
Rand "taught" that the smallest minority is the individual, and if you can't defend individuals' rights you can't defend anyone.
Rand was never a defender of Wall St. and cozy deals with government going easy on the rich. She despised corporatocracy.
"An idea is not responsible for those who hold it", and I'll be the first to agree a lot of very slimey characters have used her ideas to justify their actions.