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.
Yeah, right! (Score:5, Insightful)
That statement might have more credibility if it were not for the well documented use of RIPA powers for things unconnected to terrorism and serious crime.
Of course (Score:1, Insightful)
Because no government has ever labeld an alternative point of view a crime.
Re:Yeah, right! (Score:5, Insightful)
Just because I have nothing to hide... (Score:5, Insightful)
The "Nothing to Hide" argument is a fallacy that falls apart upon examination:
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110524/00084614407/privacy-is-not-secrecy-debunking-if-youve-got-nothing-to-hide-argument.shtml [techdirt.com]
https://chronicle.com/article/Why-Privacy-Matters-Even-if/127461/ [chronicle.com]
Re:Yeah, right! (Score:5, Insightful)
Wait till the EDL, BNP UKIP coalition gets in and there new STASI like security apparatus gets hold of the graph on connections and starts rounding people up.
We should trust what you say, why? (Score:5, Insightful)
Interesting comment from Mr. Hague, a minister of the country that gave us the infamous Star Chamber [wikipedia.org].
From wiki:
The Star Chamber (Latin: Camera stellata) was an English court of law that sat at the royal Palace of Westminster until 1641. ...The court was set up to ensure the fair enforcement of laws against prominent people, those so powerful that ordinary courts could never convict them of their crimes. Court sessions were held in secret, with no indictments, and no witnesses. Evidence was presented in writing. Over time it evolved into a political weapon, a symbol of the misuse and abuse of power by the English monarchy and courts.
I'm sure the victims of the Star Chamber at that time were equally comforted by the thought that if they were innocent, they had nothing to fear from the men in power. Of course.
My point being that any proceedings undertaken in secret, and therefore without oversight from the public will inevitably lead to abuses of power.
I am also troubled by the fact that the present US administration appears to go to great lengths to hide their workings from the US public whom they claim to serve. Just look at the Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership [wikipedia.org] as an example. When even free trade agreements are being negotiated in secret, something is not right.
Me lacking fear does not make this right (Score:5, Insightful)
It seem too me that the capacities of surveillance tech has evolved much faster than public understanding and emotion on the issue. As a non-US citizen, I am disgusted by the idea of my emails or metadata derived from them are massively stored away if they pass through the US, or even my own country. I understand and respect that some level of this must exist in modern society, but we need to have checks and balances that can be vetted by he public.
And can it not be wrong, even though I have nothing to fear? Have I nothing to fear from this system even if I am not a criminal?
Ethically, it is limiting to my freedom that there exists a stash of information somewhere that might be abused when taken out of context. Does that not limit my freedom to express radical opinion in private discussions, or even do so satirically? Can I no long play with unpopular ideas using electronic communications? Can I no longer listen to the voice of my opponent without fear of at some point being labeled one of them?
Legally, how can it be that an email is less of my property than a letter I store in a deposit box in my bank, or send in the mail? Is it not mine or the recipients only? If the state had an army of people standing by to make copies of every letter sent, the situation would be perfectly analogous. Is that not ransacking me, or confiscating my property only to provide me a copy?
Safety wise, if a record of my life is aggregated in a single source that I have no knowledge of, how can I know that it is truly safe? How can I ensure politicians spend enough on it's safety? I keep my IDs safe to prevent identity theft. What happens the day my life is stolen, but the theft is classified?
And last but not least, what happens to the balance of power between a state and its people here? The state is the servant of the people, and it should always respect that. When the people become submissive to the state, nothing good happens. We've spend much blood in the past to put it where it belongs, but it always threatens to slip back. We need people like Edward Snowden to blow the whistle when that happens. The very fact that he is now in hiding shows how the power-balance has it's centre of gravity atm.
Re:Yeah, right! (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, and you see here's the thing. Even if it's an ostensibly democratic government setting up this stuff to combat terrorism, if the next government turns out to be hard right racist fascists like the BNP, you've just put all that power into their hands. Unless you can guarantee 100% that a party like the national socialists will never get into power, these tools should not be constructed for whatever purpose.
Re:We should trust what you say, why? (Score:5, Insightful)
Anthony Weiner Disagrees (Score:5, Insightful)
This is a conspiracy theory that a good friend of mine passed along. I have no reason to believe it is true, but I think it can still illustrate the problem with that attitude.
First off, to recap, Anthony Weiner [wikipedia.org] was a member of congress from New York City. He accidentally tweeted a "calvin klein underwear ad" of himself on his official twitter feed. Within minutes he deleted the tweet, but the damage was done. He ended up resigning and the seat he held, which had been held by democrats for something like 80 years, went to a republican.
It turned out Weiner had two twitter accounts, a personal one and the official one. He had been regularly using the private account to send suggestive photos to women across the country. Not illegal, but douchey. Although for all we the public know, his (brilliant and hot) wife was fine with it, maybe they had a look-but-don't-touch agreement. Whatever it was, it was their business alone.
Now, just imagine that somebody at the NSA who was "friendly" to the republicans decided to do a little checking into Weiner and discovered what he was doing on his "private" account. Then they logged into his official twitter account using some back-door or even just something sloppy like a cookie they sniffed off the wire from his own most recent login. Once logged in, they "accidentally" posted the picture and then deleted it a few minutes later.
Viola, career ruined and republicans get a chance to pick up a seat they would never have had a chance at if nobody had been snooping on Weiner.
Like I said at the start, I have zero reason to believe that is actually what happened. He probably just forgot what account he was logged into - all the blood had left his brain for other parts of his body. But, what matters here is just how plausible this theory is. The only thing standing in the way of this sort of corruption is the personal integrity of basically everyone with access to these programs at the NSA. Imagine just how easily this kind of ubiquitous surveillance apparatus can be turned to political corruption. We have way too much of that already, no need to make it any easier.
Show me your e-mail of the last 10 years Mr Hague (Score:5, Insightful)
After all, you, as a law abiding citizen, have nothing to fear, right ?
Re:Yeah, right! (Score:4, Insightful)
but all those war crimes and law breaking are a "critical tool"...
Re:Yeah, right! (Score:5, Insightful)
Only terrorists, criminals and spies should fear secret activities of the British and US intelligence agencies.
That statement might have more credibility if it were not for the well documented use of RIPA powers for things unconnected to terrorism and serious crime.
It is all in the definition, my friend.
Only terrorists/criminals/spies should fear secret activities of the intelligence agencies, because once you are target by such an agency, you are a terrorist (and possibly a spy or a criminal too).
Just like drone attacks have no collateral damage because anyone they actually kill is effectively redefined to have been a terrorist all along.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Oh Really? (Score:5, Insightful)
And this surprises who, exactly?
Been expecting it ever since they voted in conservatives. Right wing governments always increase surveillance under the guise of "Law and Order" and decrease liberties with the by-line "Good citizens have nothing to fear". All of this is done "for the children". If the state declares the child to be the most precious resource of the state, the people will accept any deprivation of liberty. It's not like an ultra-nationalist German politician didn't write a book on this in the 30's (or a leftist British author wrote a satirical version in the 40's).
old crap (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, that quote is really, really old and gets used by politicians a lot.
Lately, here in Germany, we've started throwing it back at them whenever they are hiding something from us. Like who gives them how much money or which companies they work for after their term, or who paid their campaign, or indeed their last holiday.
The "if you have nothing to hide..." should be told to them a lot more often, because they've been abusing it for a long, long time.
Also, since we know that sexual favours are as successful in swaying people as financial incentives, I would like a full record of who my politicians have been sleeping with during their terms. As there are more lies in this area than in any other, we should have 24/7 surveilance and automated reporting. What? You don't have anything to hide, do you?
Re:Oh Really? (Score:5, Insightful)
My god you partisan idiots don't give up when silly season is over. It's like a special form of retardation to drag your partisan politics into every realm of life even out of season, without reason or cause - to make every news event your rallying cry. I wish you all would suffocate on your own bile.
The NSA [wikipedia.org] was founded in 1949 by Harry Truman. It has thrived across so many different administrations and congresses of every stripe that it must be assumed to be immune to partisan politics.
And this isn't the only shadow agency in the US government. At my last count there were seventeen.
This is not a partisan thing.
Re: Gandhi's way maybe? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Oh Really? (Score:4, Insightful)
FTFY
And the USSR was right wing? You are easily fooled by propaganda. The leaning of the government is not relevent information.
Re:Just because I have nothing to hide... (Score:5, Insightful)
Everyone has things they want to hide. Bank account statements hidden in envelopes for delivery, love letters hidden in drawers to avoid embarrassment.
Even if you have done nothing wrong there is always a way to hang you. The modern version of "If one would give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest man, I would find something in them to have him hanged" is "give me access to the search history of the most honest man..." Everything you ever searched for can and will be taken out of context and used against you.
Re:Yeah, right! (Score:5, Insightful)
"hard right racist fascists like the BNP" = right wing
"a party like the national socialists" = left wing
so you're arguing that neither left nor right oriented parties should ever get access to these tools when in power. May I add the center?
In another country, not so long ago, (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The limited revelations so far... (Score:5, Insightful)
You cripple the security services at your peril. Unlike the IRA, al Qaida doesn't tend to phone in warnings before a blast.
Because they were so incredibly effective at preventing 9/11 in the US, and so effective at stopping the London, UK subway bombings, and so effective at preventing the train bombing in Madrid, Spain, right? I'm feeling less imperiled already.
Perhaps if instead of complaining about information disclosures, they disclosed the plots they had been able to foil, and had rather public trials, we'd trust them more, but at this point, they act more like a police agency. Police agencies catch bad guys after the fact, after you are already dead from being blown up or shot or stabbed or raped. You know, after the crime.
I'd prefer not to live in a police state: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_state [wikipedia.org] since their track record at preventing criminal activity from occurring in the first place is generally piss-poor.
Re:Yeah, right! (Score:4, Insightful)
Only dumbass Americans see national socialists as left wing (and modern day fascists wishing to wash off the Nazi stench but I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt here)
Re:The limited revelations so far... (Score:4, Insightful)
If you lose enough security you'll have difficulty enjoying freedom. Taking reasonable steps against terrorists is justified. Of course safeguards and parliamentary oversight need to be a basic part of the security arrangements. I have the courage to face both terrorist and government. You, on the other hand, seem to live in fear of government and ignore the dangers of the terrorist. That won't be a happy combination if widely emulated.
Re:Yeah, right! (Score:5, Insightful)
How else will we be able to find everybody infringing MPAA and RIAA copyright-protected material?
Re:Yeah, right! (Score:4, Insightful)
I agree that the centre should not have the tools under discussion. You suggestion that far left and far far right are further away from each other than from a central democratic position is flawed.
The archetypal manifestation of the far left is communism. In comunism the party elite take full control of the the system, supposidley to distrubute wealth evenly among the population (although I do not beleive this has ever happend). The party also used there power to control the populace to maintain the status quo and there positions.
The archetypal manifestation of the far right is fascism. In fascism the goverment takes all the economic and political power and gives it to an elite few. The elite few are meant to provide a functioning society for the populace in exchange for them being held above all others (this has on occasion happend, however the elite more often than not (by a wide margin) abbuse there power, to the detriment of the populace).
Effectivley it can be shown that the far left and the the far right are closer than the moderate left to the far left or the moderate right to the far right. This has bee described as Horseshoe theory/horshoe of politics.
You also suggest that the "national socialist party" = "left wing", this really is not true anymore since WWII, national socialism is connected to the the German Nazi party, and only parties wishing to attach the Nazi image would use this terminology to describe themselves. The Nazi party was a [agressive] nationalist party, wich ultimatley used fascist techniques to backup there stance.
Re:Yeah, right! (Score:5, Insightful)
"hard right racist fascists like the BNP" = right wing
"a party like the national socialists" = left wing
so you're arguing that neither left nor right oriented parties should ever get access to these tools when in power. May I add the center?
I think he's implying that extreme parties of either persuasion would use the laws to enforce their ideology. Any group that believes that they are right to the exclusion of all other viewpoints is a danger and should be feared in power.
If you want to rephrase/salvage what this Fox News watching right wing drone was trying to express, it would be more accurate to say that totalitarian tendencies exists on both sides of the political spectrum. What he actually was implying, i.e. that the Nazis were left wing movement is a load of steaming horse manure. You only have to take a look at which elements of the political spectrum the Nazis preferred to murder: Communists, anarchists, social democrats, liberals, Christians that opposed his persecution of minorities and actually practiced christian core values like compassion, non-violence (and if you get right down to it some of the core teachings of Jesus Christ were pretty left wing: "Again I say to you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God." [Matthew 19:24], "But many that are first shall be last; and the last shall be first." [Matthew 19:30], it was later generations who turned Christ into a M16 carrying faith warrior). There were precious few right wing social conservatives and hard line nationalists that the Nazis lined up against a wall or sent to the gas chamber. The usual default justification for the Nazis being 'left wing' is that their movement had the word 'socialist' in its name. If that is true then by the same logic the Democratic People's Republic of North-Korea must be a fully functioning democracy with free elections and all the civil liberties that implies.
Re:never trust an acronym (Score:2, Insightful)
Like the GOP?
Re:Yeah, right! (Score:5, Insightful)
You'd come over as marginally less deluded if you didn't jump on a post which clearly didn't have a bias toward either end of the political spectrum for being biased and do so by using clichéd national stereotypes which don't even apply; but hell if you intended to inform or influence anyone rather than rant you'd of spotted that it wasn't working and tried a little civility long ago.
Re:Yeah, right! (Score:4, Insightful)
The creation and implementation of such systems is a lurch towards totalitarianism. It is equally bad news should a state cease to be moderate, and any such system will be turned against people in the society. The problem with the ideal 'you have nothing to fear so long as you are law abiding' is that the people implementing the system, also happen to make the laws. So fundamentally they can arbitrarily decide to make you a law breaker.
Let me put this another way. If you investigate a person, - at some point, you'll collate enough dirt on them to do them harm. Its that simple, and its that evil.
I'm English. Its in my legal DNA that my people are supposed to operate in life as innocent until proven guilty. We can read through history the occasons where habeas corpus gets suspended, and its chilling effects.
Re:Yeah, right! (Score:4, Insightful)
"a party like the national socialists" = left wing
It's an expansive definition of left wing that includes Hitler.
Re:Yeah, right! (Score:5, Insightful)
Denmark has the same issue. We have a law allowing extradition to foreign countries of danish nationals in case of terrorism, which was enacted post 9/11 (November 2011 if I remember correctly). It has been used exactly once - not to extradite a terrorist but to extradite a woman who used to have a US-national boyfriend who smuggled drugs. She was charged with knowing about his activities and not reporting it - a very minor crime, and yet the danish courts, all the way to the supreme court - allowed the extradition. Fortunately for her, the crime she was charged with fell for the statute of limitation almost before the extradition proceedings began (i.e. a huge waste of time and money) so she could return as a free woman.
But it's a huge problem that a law specifically meant for terrorists were used in a relatively minor criminal case in a crime barely punishable by more than a fine here. So much for the terrorist angle.
Re:Yeah, right! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Yeah, right! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Yeah, right! (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Yeah, right! (Score:5, Insightful)
They've simply redefined the words to mean anyone they want to harass or detain for any reason whatsoever. Anyone can be a terrorist now. We had a guy nut up at work. He'd been hurt on the job and due to a botched operation he was unable to work. He got jerked around for a while and had no pay and was in the process of being fired. Despairing and angry he made some foolish decisions and went to see the top manager at work. Fortunately for the bossman he wasn't in his office. The guy had a gun, I don't know if he was there to threaten or kill the guy but he was wrong anyway. The police were called and the man was trapped. His wife tried to get in to talk him out and so did his brother but the police told them "we don't negotiate with terrorists." Sadly the guy shot himself in his despair. Another terrorist dead. See how easy it is to slide into this kind of thing. Because they defined him as a terrorist in their minds he became nonhuman to them. Everyone hates terrorists. If you can define someone as a terrorist you can do any damn thing you want to them.
Re:Yeah, right! (Score:4, Insightful)
Wish I hadn't spent my mod points on trolls now...
I guess you pay attention to the guideline about concentrating on modding up rather than down :)
Re:Yeah, right! (Score:5, Insightful)
You imply his ideology was socialist in nature (or at least part of it was), and then contradict that statement in your second sentence stating he essentially used the socialist party to gain enough power to the point where they were no longer needed.
I don't think you understand the definition of ideology.
Simply claiming to be something, doesn't make it so. The reference above to the Democratic People's Republic of North-Korea is a good example, as are right wing extremists claiming to be born again Christians, yet follow none of the basic tenants of that religion. Socialism for Hitler was nothing more than a vehicle, not an ideology. The majority of scholars agree that his leanings were definitely right wing, although he often attacked both parties when they strayed from his personal ideology.
Any civilization today has aspects of socialism. it is nearly impossible to have a structured society without some form of body politic which actively promotes social services that the public recognizes are necessary for basic services. The very nature of civilization requires aspects of socialism to thrive.
It is simply the degree to which they think the government should control things that defines 'socialism'.
Re:Yeah, right! (Score:5, Insightful)
You could add to this the 'unofficial' abuses that are possible, such as undermining political opponents, blackmail etc., made possible by this kind of pervasive technology.
The temptation is there, and too much for many to resist, despite all the controls that are supposed to be in place.
Just an anecdotal example; a friend of mine was dating a police officer, after a while, one evening after a few drinks she let slip that she'd checked out all his official records before deciding to take things further. OK, understandable, but still an abuse of power.
Humans are human; give them these tools and they will abuse them.
Re:Yeah, right! (Score:5, Insightful)
The debate about Nazi and where they sit gets skewed. Hilter found much that he shared and created the Nazi party from the German Workers party. He aligned himself with the socialists, until he was famously able to turn to them and stated in Parliament 'And now I don't need you any more'.
Politics is circular, not so much left or right. If middle ground sits at the tp of the circle, offering a level of moderate landscaping, other hardline doctrines slide down the circle, and meet at the bottom, which is where you'll actually find Nazi'ism and communisim and other foul totalitarian and political ideals on near common ground.
I laugh at leftists who persist in trying to find a big enough gap away from Nazi'ism. Socialism IS linked to nazi'ism both in history and idealogy. Hilter nationalised industry. He made enrolled people into the state, and he grew the fucking shit from the German workers party. He carried out a class war - many aspects of his bullshit came directly from socialism.It is true that parts of his evil craven idealogy were not socialist in nature, but parts of it were.
I agree that at both ends of the spectrum, you'll find a strange similar evil to achieve control in a totalitarian aspect share a commonality. Its why you'll find at rally's the right wing hardliners carry stanley knives and the hard left scum carry claw hammers. Neither side believes in open democracy.
In the 30's in Germany - it fell to gangs of brown shirts, or communists, and as the violence and loss of control escalated, the rule of law and democracy was lost. Democracy is not to be decided by small bands of thuggery precahing their twisted idealism as a new religion.
I again refer you to Hitler's kill list, how many right wingers and social conservatives did he line up against a wall? A few, but the vast majority of his victims were the 'liberals'/socialists' (which in Fox News parlance is synonymous with 'left wing' which in turn seems to be only two steps up from being a child molester) and people he deemed to be racially inferior. Hitler as a general rule seems to have gotten along very well with the moneyed classes even though he and his party were not ideologically devoted to private ownership and thus the Nazis did not engage in large scale nationalisation of industry in Germany. Dornier, Messerschmitt and Mercedes to name a few major German industrial corporations were not nationalised, Junkers on the other hand was 'nationalised' because its founder Prof. Hugo Junkers was a liberal who tolerated leftist practices like 'workers councils' among his employees. It is an interesting irony that the word 'Junkers' is pretty much synonymous with 'Stuka' which in turn is synonymous with 'terror' and yet it is the name of one of the few industrialists in Germany who saw Hitler for what he was and had enough spine to tell the little git to go f**k him self. To be fair to German conservatives quite a few of them loathed Hitler every bit as much as the left wing, the point is that most of them either supported him or went with the flow in when he gained power. Nationalisation seems to have been reserved for war vital industrial corporations whose leaders/owners were regime critical and who had the guts to stand by their convictions.
Re:Is the costs of such surveillance justified? (Score:4, Insightful)
Woolwich stabbing attack.
FFS, The Woolwich murder was *not* terrorism - it was murder, plain and simple. Terrorism is inciting fear in the masses in order to elicit a political change - did a single murder cause the masses to become exceptionally fearful? I don't think so. Why does this murder do anything more to cause fear than any of the other numerous racially/politically motivated murders which are unfortunately reasonably common? It doesn't. I'm certainly not quaking in fear for my life - I'm far more likey to be gravely injured while being robbed than attacked for political reasons.
So we'll go back to the definition of terrorism - inciting fear to elicit political change. After every incident, the British Government keeps telling us that if we don't let them pass new legislation that infringes on our civil liberties then we won't be safe from "terrorists". After the Woolwich killing the Communications Data Bill was revived despite previously being demolished on its previous appearance. The justification was that if the security services couldn't spy on everyone then we would all be in grave danger of being killed by terrorists. In the case of the Woolwich murder it seems that this isn't in any way justified - the people who carried it out were already known to the security services; they didn't need any new legislation to spy on them, a court order would've done the trick just as well.
After the April Jones murder, the Online Safety Bill was revived by the government - because apparently all our kids are in danger of being murdered by kiddy fiddlers and that censoring the internet will somehow set all the nutters on the straight and narrow. And yet there seems to be no evidence to support this - it is supposition that porn leads to criminal behaviour, it could be equally possible that there would be more of this criminal behaviour if people *couldn't* relieve themselves through porn. I don't know the answer, but it seems a pretty bad idea to blindly enact laws without much evidence either way - most of the anti-kiddy-porn laws seem to be "I find what you're into distasteful, so you should be locked up" rather than actually designed to stop people getting hurt. To compound these problems, the politicians seem to be conflating protecting the kids from porn with preventing the adults getting at kiddy-porn, which are two separate issues; the Online Safety Bill is supposidly about protecting the kids from being exposed to porn, but its being pushed in response to an adult abusing a child - a completely separate problem.
So I ask, who are the terrorists? Who is inciting fear for a political end? I would say its the government - they are going out of their way to tell people to be scared after every incident in order to push new legislation that people would otherwise find unacceptable; surely _that_ is exactly what terrorism is?
When I was growing up, there were a fair number of IRA bombings and they were always played down to avoid stirring up fear. These days the people in power seem to have realised that they don't need to pull the trigger to benefit from the effects of being a terrorist, they only need to stir up fear surrounding existing incidents instead. The terrorists seem to be winning.
Re:Yeah, right! (Score:4, Insightful)
the Nazi party did introduce national healthcare
Did they? The nazi party came around in 1920. Meanwhile Germany had the world's oldest national social health insurance system [wikipedia.org] dating from around 1890.
Re:Such as when they declared Iceland to be terror (Score:5, Insightful)
The Act was mostly about terrorism, so when it was voted on in Parliament if you opposed it you were supporting terrorism. They tacked that bit on and were careful to word it such that it didn't only apply to terrorism. The House of Lords actually picked up on that but were unable to fix it.
It is a classic example of using terrorism to pass all kinds of bullshit into law by making it extremely difficult to oppose. We looked like complete dicks for using it against Iceland when it was clear to most people that that was never its intended purpose, or at least not the stated purpose of the Act when pitched to Parliament and the voting public.