Lord Blair Calls for Laws To Stop 'Principled' Leaking of State Secrets 395
An anonymous reader writes with an excerpt from the Guardian: "Tougher laws are needed to prevent members of the public from revealing official secrets, former Metropolitan police commissioner Lord Blair has said. ... The peer insisted there was material the state had to keep secret, and powers had to be in place to protect it. The intervention comes after police seized what they said were thousands of classified documents from David Miranda – the partner of Guardian journalist Glenn Greenwald, who has been reporting leaks from the former US intelligence officer Edward Snowden. ... He warned there was a 'new threat which is not of somebody personally intending to aid terrorism, but of conduct which is likely to or capable of facilitating terrorism.' He cited the examples of information leaks related to Manning and WikiLeaks."
Government vs terrorists (Score:5, Insightful)
Laws to protect the rich and powerful (Score:5, Insightful)
To hide their dirty work, to keep secret the things that would outrage the public if they knew. This has got nothing to do with enabling or even potentially enabling terrorism. Only protecting the established status quo which some perceive to be at risk of the serfs are properly informed.
BUGGER (Score:5, Insightful)
"Maybe the real state secret is that spies aren't very good at their jobs and don't know very much about the world." [bbc.co.uk]
Definitions (Score:5, Insightful)
So they're hoping to redefine this in a way to ensure that future Mannings / Snowdens face harsher consequences for exposing criminal behavior. They couldn't get Manning seated in the electric chair, so let's make the definition of leaking == aiding the enemy even when there is no intent.
So the new political calculus: Intentionally kill innocent civilians, get a promotion, expose those illegal killings, get hunted down like a rabid dog. Yep, it all adds up!
Oh good lord (Score:5, Insightful)
Is there anything that cannot be justified by appeals over terrorism?
This is just getting ridiculous. I am not used to politicans from the UK making no sense, even Thatcher was usually coherent.
But this... is just plain absurd.
Protection of Corruption Laws (Score:5, Insightful)
Basically corrupt conservative 'er' exploiters governments, are looking to implement laws to hide corruption at all levels of government. Of course never to forget sheer incompetence. So basically it's all about creating a raft of laws to bury corruption and incompetence in government under national security.
You know what's really funny about this, this is exactly what corporations try to do with NDA's. Of course who is doing the corrupting of governments, why it's the multi-national corporations, where else do you think the incompetent corrupt fuckers in government got the idea from. Expose the corruption in government and you'll expose the corporations behind it. Hmm, not so funny after all.
Official Secrets Act? (Score:4, Insightful)
How is the Official Secrets Act [wikipedia.org] not adequate to cover this?
Re: Government vs terrorists (Score:5, Insightful)
This. Exactly.
Terrorists are a sometimes-maybe-sorta threat. Government is much more terrifying because it is always there protecting itself rather than its citizens.
How do we fight this nonsense?
It goes way beyond the role of groups like the EFF... What groups can I support to prevent nonsense like this?
Not state secrets (Score:5, Insightful)
A state secret is something that needs to be secret in order to protect the lives of the citizens of that state (yeah, I know that's not how the law/precedent words it, but that's the fundamental idea of it). These are not state secrets. These are coverups of illegal activity that are labeled as "state secrets" in order to perpetuate the cover-up and not get power-abusers in trouble.
Principles? Illegal! (Score:5, Insightful)
Good people do not have a need for rules. They have integrity -- they know what they stand for, and they know their right from their wrong. If a law gets in the way of that, it's a bad law.
I wonder why he needs so many rules...
Punish the source (Score:5, Insightful)
If the government wants to pass ineffectual laws that have no hope at stopping what they are aimed at, then how about passing a law that punishes those that are supposed to be protecting our "secret" data? Why could a low level analyst working for a contractor in Hawaii have so much unfettered access to classified data that he could download thousands of documents and walk the data out of the facility with no one being aware.
There are plenty of ways that this could have been prevented with better access controls and auditing -- even the server admins shouldn't be able to bypass the audit system, and the audit system should have raised alarms when it saw so many docs being downloaded.
It adds cost and complexity to the system (like it means that an agent can't follow up leads on his own, but has to submit a request for access to records, while documenting why the data is needed), but it not only helps keep the secret data away from whistle blowers and curious agents that want to look up their ex-gf's, but also against foreign spies that have infiltrated the agency.
And I call for laws against secrets (Score:5, Insightful)
There should be a very small set of fine grained categories under which government data can be kept secret. Secrecy for government programs, and the content of said programs needs to be white listed, and the list of categories needs to be public.
If we are going to have a secret court, I want to at least know there is such a court, or know that some system with the authority to create it exists so I can object if appropriate. Every secret should classified under one (or more) of the categories in the white list, and each category should have some eventual schedule for disclosure and process for oversight.
There needs to be a public system for adding and removing categories (via laws from congress I guess).
This is a democracy: if the people don't know what the government is doing, how can it possibly work in the people's favor?
Leaks happen for a reason (Score:5, Insightful)
Generally, leaks by the public happen not because such individuals wish to do harm, but because they feel it is in the public's interest to know such information. Therefore, in order to stop such leaks from occurring, it is the government's responsibility to conduct themselves in a manner so as to permit accountability and oversight by those who presumably elected them.
In short, if you don't want leaks of "sensitive" information, then don't do business in a way that creates such secrets to begin with. We aren't talking about corporate espionage, or nuclear missile launch codes. We are talking about actions at the behest of some government entity that purports to serve the public, but that same public has not even the slightest degree of oversight with respect to determining whether such actions are in fact legitimate.
To talk about needing more laws and more restrictions to hide government secrets in the name of "security" is the height of sophistry and hubris. It is Machiavellian and Orwellian reasoning, and it is the very thing that achieves what the actual terrorists intend. No sovereign nation will be brought to its knees by the direct loss of life and safety through sporadic murders, bombings, and violent mayhem. Nations fall for two reasons: conquest by another nation's military, or because the governments that rule over its citizens become so egregiously corrupt that a revolution occurs from within. The essential aim of terrorism is to achieve such a collapse through the latter means, because terrorists are aware that they lack the resources to do the former. It makes no difference whether the draconian behavior of a government is well-intentioned. The loss of basic democratic freedoms, in any form, is a win for terrorists.
Re: Government vs terrorists (Score:5, Insightful)
The EFF is a good start, and maybe the ACLU. All Snowden and Manning did was tell the truth. We should be *very* careful about outlawing the truth in America.
nonsense ! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: Government vs terrorists (Score:5, Insightful)
Government is much more terrifying because it is always there protecting itself rather than its citizens.
There is no need to be terrified of a government where there is democracy and a public that is well informed of its activities.
Re:Government vs terrorists (Score:5, Insightful)
This is true in the US at least.
A US citizen is more likely to be murdered by the government than by terrorists and it's been that way for decades.
In fact, more US soldiers have died from suicide than from enemy fire over the entire course of the war.
When questioned, the number one reason enemy combatants give for attacking us, is that we killed a family member of theirs.
The US built Iran's nuclear reactor, not Russia. The US built North Korea's nuclear reactor, not China. The CIA trained Osama to fight the USSR. The Pentagon supplied Saddam to fight Iran while the CIA supplied Iran to fight Iraq. It turns out even the USSR was propped up by endless loans and food supplies from the US - from the 70s - long before Reagan's Evil Empire speech, he knew they were a paper mache devil.
Does a global global anti-government organization even exist or is it all a fabrication ala Stakeknife and Operation Northwoods?
Re:Government vs terrorists (Score:5, Insightful)
Missing option: The general public, because one thing is if the government can chip away my privacy through defective democracy but what would be even worse is a government with the people at its back saying "if you got nothing to hide, you got nothing to fear". I'm really starting to think privacy peaked 1991-2001 as the Cold War has ended and nobody saw terrorists around every corner and in every bush, since then it's been going downhill at an alarming pace.
Re: Government vs terrorists (Score:5, Insightful)
If we were well informed of its activities this wouldn't be an issue in the first place.
The U.S. government is EXTREMELY corrupt. (Score:5, Insightful)
The dual purpose of common people (Score:5, Insightful)
2) Brave men and women who fight in wars and give their lives for their country.
1 and 2 are the same people, viewed at different angles for different purposes. I find it sad that people who are expected to give their lives for their country if need be are not deemed worthy of knowing more about the inner workings of their country. Instead they are spied upon and, under a magnifying glass, treated as insignificant. We should all have the right to understand the inner workings of our country and take part in shaping its security and its future.
Re:Just let me get this straight (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Oh good lord (Score:5, Insightful)
Is there anything that cannot be justified by appeals over terrorism?
There are, but don't worry, the things that aren't covered by terrorism are covered under 'think of the children!'
Re:The U.S. government is EXTREMELY corrupt. (Score:4, Insightful)
I am not on the side of the US government, but I will politely disagree with this statement. Yes, there is corruption (currently I'm thinking more about police here). However, I am over 50 years old and I have yet to run into a situation dealing with the government (at any level) where I actually had to pay bribes to get them to do their jobs.
Yes, eternal vigilance is good, but stating things in a hyperbolic manner out of frustration weakens your reputation for the next go around. But stay vigilant! I like that. :-)
Re: Government vs terrorists (Score:5, Insightful)
There is no need to be terrified of a government where there is democracy and a public that is well informed of its activities.
Unless, of coure, the majority of the public doesn't like the minority to which you belong. In many countries, for example, you still can become a criminal for ingesting a substance that the majority doesn't approve of.
Re:The U.S. government is EXTREMELY corrupt. (Score:5, Insightful)
That they do not do petty corruption is one thing, but what is lobbying exactly if not a nice term for legalized corruption. The ability of individuals or corporations to pressure the government into changing laws by the sheer strength of the mighty dollar has nothing to do with democracy, justice or any other moral guidelines a government should have.
Re: Government vs terrorists (Score:5, Insightful)
For reference, he's the cunt who tried to prevent an investigation into the shooting of an innocent Brazillian electrician in cold blood by his poorly-trained (but apparently the best you've got) underlings who thought he was a middle-eastern terrorist bomber.
Everything this man says about secrets is tainted. He's Captain Coverup.
Re:How (Score:4, Insightful)
As Matt Damon said, there should be a referendum to ask people if they want to trade civil liberties for security. I really think that a vast majority will choose the former.
Re:I actually agree with him (Score:4, Insightful)
Well Yes and No. No - I don't agree that the subject matter that has been actually leaked was right for governments to have done in the first place. eg: The deliberate killing of innocent civilians in Iraq. That is wrong.
Yes - I do agree that leaking information is harmful to government and beneficial to enemies,
but... what if the "enemies" didn't really exist? What if the people of the countries were just like you and me and didn't want to fight us? What if the most secret secret is that the "enemies" are fabrications of the governments, and without any secrets allowed at all they couldn't trick us into fighting each other?
Take Syria for example. The folks on the front line on each side just want peace, and Assad's forces are monitored and fed only state media and kept from communicating with the enemy... Why? If the enemy were evil, wouldn't they still be shouting evil things? Oh, it's to prevent traitors? But if they were traitors they wouldn't be fighting on the front line...
What sort of "wrong things" do you propose the government stop doing? Perhaps their real enemy is you?
BOO! now SHHH! we can't tell you why they're the enemy, that's a secret. [pbs.org]
Re: Government vs terrorists (Score:4, Insightful)
The EFF is a good start, and maybe the ACLU. All Snowden and Manning did was tell the truth. We should be *very* careful about outlawing the truth in America.
Little late for that.....
Re: Government vs terrorists (Score:5, Insightful)
While I agree with your point that some obvious things should never be revealed publicly (eg. missile codes), a democratic government at peace should by principle minimise its secrecy so as to maximise its accountability to its populace. The fact that we seem to be in a perpetual state of war (even without a credible military threat) speaks volumes about the real politik.
Re: Government vs terrorists (Score:5, Insightful)
If governments want to retain the right to declare things secrets, they should be more choosy about what they classify as secrets. When it turns out that the things they called secrets were corruption, that tends to make the citizenry not trust anything else they've declared secret either.
Re: Government vs terrorists (Score:3, Insightful)
You have a great luxury in that the police and security services have been effective to date in keeping terrorism under control with a fairly regular series of arrests and convictions. That can change, just ask the Iraqis. They thought they had terrorism under control and now it may be spiraling out of control. At its height, there were probably tens of bombs going off daily around the country. Things are bad enough now they would like the US to come back.
Iraq seeks help from US amid growing violence [stripes.com]
Re:Government vs terrorists (Score:5, Insightful)
You are arrogantly assuming they give two shits about your opinion on the matter or are even asking. They are not.
Notice that the reaction around the world to being caught out on spying has been to...
- shut the CIA declassification department
- Make the illegal spying legal (e.g. NZ)
- Make it clear whistle blowing is not ok and hunt whistle blowers and call them criminals
- torture existing whistle blowers
- Lie about the extent of spying in THEIR country while condemning it in others (e.g. europe)
Face it. The noose has tightened. The sheep are in the fields blissfully unaware for the most part.
Its the new world phenom! Its trending baby! Yeah!
Re: Government vs terrorists (Score:4, Insightful)
The Iraqis had the same luxury under Saddam. Are you saying that you want a ruthless dictator in charge? Or are you saying that the luxury is that the infrastructure hasn't been wrecked by a foreign invasion?
Re:Government vs terrorists (Score:5, Insightful)
Unless you're stuck in dogma, it is possible to be terrified of one branch of the government and be happy with another. For instance:
Department of Health: good
Department of Homeland security: bad
Department of Motor Vehicles: meh
Are three assessments that can coexist in one sane person without their brain exploding. Slapping a label like "Fascist" or "Socialist" on the whole mess is a good alternative for thinking for yourself but in the end not very constructive.
Re: Government vs terrorists (Score:5, Insightful)
I wish I had mod-points right now.
Re: Government vs terrorists (Score:5, Insightful)
You have a great luxury in that the police and security services have been effective to date in keeping terrorism under control with a fairly regular series of arrests and convictions. That can change, just ask the Iraqis. They thought they had terrorism under control and now it may be spiraling out of control. At its height, there were probably tens of bombs going off daily around the country. Things are bad enough now they would like the US to come back.
Iraq seeks help from US amid growing violence [stripes.com]
Have we? Who can say? Without information being open for public scrutiny we have only the police and security services word on this to know if they have in fact kept terrorism under control. With all of the powers in place they seemed to miss a fairly obvious suspect that was involved in the Boston Marathon bombing. Was this an aberration or about par for the course? We just don't know.
By all means keep currently operational information secret but allow review of past operations, both successes and failures. It would increase public support and security. The idea that things have to be kept secret so as not to reveal operational information to terrorists is security through obscurity, such a thing only protects against the ignorant. I suggest that terrorist organisations, rather than individuals, already know how they were caught before and will update their procedures accordingly.
Re: Government vs terrorists (Score:5, Insightful)
The uk has experimented with having police involved in CT before (head of MI5) it was a disaster and thats what the official history says.
Re: Government vs terrorists (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually no. That may be the official narrative, but for the most part the drug restrictions create problems far worse than they solve. There are a few drugs which seem to promote violent behavior - alcohol springs directly to mind, and some of the stuff that caught on as legal alternatives to cocaine and opium. Beyond that though most problems are directly associated with the cost of acquisition, in which case driving the product onto the black market is quite possibly the worst thing you can do for society. Most addicts could do odd jobs or beg to buy their fix if it was legal, just look at the hard-core alcoholics. But if their fix costs 10x or more as much on the black market that's no longer an option and they are forced to turn to theft to feed their addiction. Since even possession is illegal they don't even have the option of getting help escaping their addiction without risking ending up in prison alongside real criminals. (Finishing school I've heard it called).
Meanwhile that lucrative black market is funding violent gangs all fighting for a bigger piece of the pie - since their market is illegal anyway there's limited incentive to "fight" via price or quality when gunfire is considerably cheaper. Not in lives of course, but lives are cheap - there's always more kids willing to fill the lower ranks in an attempt to escape the ghetto. And that violence comes at an extremely high cost for society - militant gangs require a militant police force to confront them, and that's expensive both financially and in terms of civil liberties. Just look at Mexico - the gangs have grown to the point that the police are completely outclassed, and government corruption by gang interests is endemic.
I see how an illegal drug trade helps violent gangs, oppressive governments, private prisons, and corrupt officials. The one thing I don't see is how it helps society.
Re: Government vs terrorists (Score:3, Insightful)
"have been effective to date"....yes, numerous cases where the FBI and DHS have found a mentally retarded person, courted them for a time filling their minds with violent thoughts and doctrine, and then arranged for them to take delivery of a paperweight, and then swooping in with SWAT team to "capture the dangerous terrorist", with congratulations and back patting and mutual congratulatory cock sucking all around.
Here's a clue for you, that is a "false flag attack", the Nazis had great luck with that, and the current crop of corporate fascist pigs running this country into the ground are also doing a marvelous job with it.