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.
Oh Really? (Score:5, Interesting)
And this surprises who, exactly?
Come on, are any of us shocked or surprised by any of this, or is it really just yet another confirmation of how the governments really consider us all
guilty of something, and how common law (yes, that English institution) went by the by a long time ago?
I am waiting for the other penny to drop, when people start realising how much of that information gets funneled back in to large US corporations
when they are working on major overseas deals, etc..
Perhaps people will start realising they need to protect their own privacy - by which I mean encryption, not our insightful American friends ideas about
armed militias (hmm, yeah right). The tools have been there for a long time now, most people just dont take it seriously.
At least then they need to let you know they want your information (at least for email, etc...).
Such as when they declared Iceland to be terrorist (Score:5, Interesting)
so they could seize the UK assets stored in failed Icelandic banks (failed after being privatized on the suggestion of UK/US "experts")
Re:Only law abiding (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Yeah, right! (Score:5, Interesting)
"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.
Re:look up the Silent Witness Rule (Score:2, Interesting)
It's a THREAT, he's THREATENING critics (Score:1, Interesting)
GCHQ using American Prism system to spy on British people is illegal. Snoopers charter was rejected. He knows this, its not legal. He's frightened, so he's threatening everyone trying to silence critics.
Coded in those words, are the threat that if you complain, you will be viewed as a terrorist or a criminal. He's doing this ahead of facing the House of Commons, so they are a little scared to face him down. If you've ever been to the UK, you'll know how bad it is there. Creepy surveillance society with CCTV everywhere and everyone pretending to agree with it, lest they get targetted.
You think you live in a democracy, that the people run the country by choosing representatives. Then you wake up one day, and the country is run by a secret government department in collusion with a foreign power. You can try and elect a new representative to overturn it, but anyone worthwhile will already be monitored and controlled. Anyone that might fix things, can never be allowed to dismantle their spying apparatus.
WHY IS IT WRONG TO PROTEST THIS?
The UK has the European rights written into law, the right to privacy is ENSHRINED IN LAW, without those rights we don't have a democracy.
I notice we elected Cameron to dismantle this surveillance state, and he's had to bow to US pressure and so Snoopers charter came along. So what is my vote worth now? Nothing?
Re:The limited revelations so far... (Score:3, Interesting)
If you lose enough security you'll have difficulty enjoying freedom.
No, I won't. I can't imagine how dense you must be to actually be afraid of the terrorist bogeyman. I'll take my chances, thanks.
Taking reasonable steps against terrorists is justified.
"Reasonable" to me means that no one's rights or privacy will be violated, and that the constitution will be followed. Gathering everyone's data isn't following the constitution at all, even if they have to get warrants from secret courts to actually look at the data.
You, on the other hand, seem to live in fear of government and ignore the dangers of the terrorist.
You're just someone who ignores history. People with power will abuse it. This is a fact.
Re:Yeah, right! (Score:5, Interesting)
What there is to fear.
Arrest, often extremely violent, even lethal.
Confiscation of all electronic goods for months (replace at own expense, no choice in today's connected era).
Extended trials and legal fees (measured in months if not years, Bradley Manning a glaring example).
Freezing of Assets
Imprisonment during extended trial, due to inability to fund high bail costs.
Threats of extended prison terms, measured in decades.
Trial by government compliant media, found guilty upon accusation and guilt spread far and wide to ensure all possible juries are tainted against you.
Threats against family members and friends to receive similar treatment.
Family members and friends actually receiving similar treatment.
Coercive tactics continue until you falsely plead guilty to a lesser charge and agree to remain silent.
Anyone recognise this pattern. It hasn't happened just once but time and time again. All this surveillance provides them with ample ammunition to make spurious and circumstantial claims to attack anybody, well at least anybody not extraordinarily wealthy and what happens when it is all over. Well, tough luck chump, tens of thousands of dollars gone, months behind bars, family members and friends fear association with you and unemployment. As for the government, hmm, whoops tee hee, our wrong and they can do it to you all over again.
The whole idea of due process was to keep abuse of power in check, not let strumped up liars like Uncle Tom Obama or The Shrub or Darth Cheney to abandon the whole process to empower the CIA and it's private for profit contractors.
Re:Yeah, right! (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Re:Trust (Score:5, Interesting)
Reminds me of:
Göring: Why, of course, the people don't want war. Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship.
Gilbert: There is one difference. In a democracy, the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare wars.
Göring: Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country.
Re:old crap (Score:2, Interesting)
Ask those who have "nothing to hide":
Questions for people with nothing to hide:
1. Have you ever had an abortion?
2. Have you ever cheated on your husband / wife?
3. Are you currently looking for a new job?
4. Have you ever being diagnosed with a mental illness?
5. Are you currently on anti-depressants?
6. Were you ever sexually abused as a child?
7. Have you ever fancied someone of the same sex?
8. Have you ever had sex with someone of the same sex?
9. Have you ever criticised your current employer or boss to anyone else?
10. Do you love all of your children equally?
11. Have you ever fantasized about...
12. Are you planning to get pregnant in the next two years?
13. Have you ever lied on a cv/resume?
14. Are you mean to your wife / husband on a regular or semi-regular basis?
15. Do you have trouble acquiring or maintaining an erection?
16. Are you one of those women who’ve never had an orgasm?
17. What prescription drugs are you currently taking?
18. Have you ever cut yourself?
19. Have you ever attempted suicide?
20. Have you contemplated suicide in the past 2 weeks?
21. Would you be happy with your answers to these questions being made public? Or being read by your employer, local 23 year old policeman, or nosey neighbour?
(Source [ycombinator.com].)
Re:Yeah, right! (Score:4, Interesting)
"National Socialist in German traditionally abbreviates to Nazi"
You sure? It sounds logical but a few months ago I read in an etymological book that "Nazi" is the traditional fictional character of the stupid, ignorant, rural type of person that every country has. "Ivan the fool" in Russia for instance. Now the Germans already have "Hans/Kurt the fool" - many folk stories feature the character. Nazi was a subset an referred to such a person specifically (if memory serves) from Bavaria.
In fact if you called the Nazis "Nazis", you would have been in trouble - this was a name intended to point out the low quality of their electorate and the basic, vulgar, ultra-patriotic party rhetoric.
In the present day politics I find the most similarities with the Nazis on the right side. Appealing to basic instincts, ultra-patriots, gay-hating, women-degenerating, liberal-haters, minority-haters, xenophobes....
Re:Outlook? (Score:4, Interesting)
Ever hear about how back in the day the FBI spent over a million dollars of supercomputer time to decrypt an encrypted e-mail only to find it was someone's secret cookie recipe. That's why they hate encryption. They have to spend time and money instead of just scanning stuff.
Re:Is the costs of such surveillance justified? (Score:4, Interesting)
The very fact that the recent attacks were conducted the way that they were suggests that anti-terror intelligence has been largely effective in stopping the "big", "complex" operations such as 9/11 and the 7/7 attacks. Now, it seems that terror cells are reduced to one or two man operations, with little to no planning or central direction.
Make no mistake. If I was on an airplane hijacked by terrorists due to lack of programs like this, I'd soil myself, whine, and cry like a little baby. I'm not that brave. But at least I'd be a free little baby, even if it meant I'd die a free little baby.
A "big" terrorist operation has never been more than a handful of active participants and the organization backing them isn't that large either.
The United States Government, on the other hand, is a behemoth whose control and influence extends from the corridors of commerce right down to yurts on the edge of the Gobi Desert. Bin Ladin was a wealthy man, but his bank account was pocket change compared to the US Treasury.
Terrorists can make your life living hell, briefly. The US Government can make everyone's life living hell indefinitely. They have the resources to grind most individuals into a fine paste no matter who you are, where you live, or even how many millions you have. Russia has already shown what having a few billion dollars means for oligarchs who displease the regime.
The only thing that keeps the behemoth from being a juggernaut is that when the country was founded, a set of rigorous principles backed by a codified set of laws on a framework of checks and balances was constructed and implemented. And was done so precisely because they had seen that being governed by "men of good judgement" wasn't working for them.
Much is made of the famous tripod of the Executive, Judical and Legislative branches of the government and how they are integral to Checks and Balances, but there is a fourth leg as well: the Citizenry. Just because they aren't named as an actual organization doesn't mean that they're discounted. We are supposed to have "the right to remain secure in our own homes", for example. Which you aren't, when someone obtains cellphone location information extracted through the very walls of that home.
If you want to distil the current hoopla down to its essentials, here they are:
1. We, the Government, need massive amounts of information to do our job, but you must not question specifically why we do or how we are going to use it. "The King, by the Grace of God, knows best".
2. This information collected is "harmless". But not so harmless that just anyone is allowed to see it.
3. We have no way of knowing how vulnerable these secret methods of analysis are to the Garbage-in/Gospel-out system of reporting. If it turns out that money-laundering front businesses have a statistical blip of being located within a 30-meter radius of ice cream stores, for example. People often forget that sometimes the more you know, the less accurate your knowledge can become. One of the great ironies of one of the more publicly-available government resources on terrorism was that it was only keyed to the "Fox News" spelling of "Usama" bin Ladin's, name. The actual arabic letter in question can be read as "o", "u", or even "w", but most popular sources transliterate it as "Osama".
4. Our system of Checks and Balances is at work. Except that in this particular case, all of the checks and balances are operating in secret, so we can only assume they work. Trust Your Government.
The USA has been since its founding predicated on the idea that a well-informed populace is an essential component of democracy. Benjamin Franklin was a printer. More than once in the succeeding years we've seen examples of why secrecy is the antithesis of democracy. Roaches flee the light. Now the Information Age is in full bloom and what do we see? Not more information for the people, but less.
The question is, what are we going to do about this trend?