Privacy and the State

[Mr Pee]

Sir David Omand, former head of GCHQ, opines (of the Snowden leaks) : "The assumption the experts are working on is that all that information or almost all of it will now be in the hands of Moscow and Beijing."

... like, doh!

Does he - really? - imagine that Moscow and Peking didn't already have all the info? Can he really be that innocent???

It sounds as though you are quite certain that this material was leaked to foreign powers before Snowden commited his appalling act of treachery.

Do please tell us, if possible without compromising your sources, exactly how you were made aware of this.

[teamsaint]

It sounds as though you are quite certain that this material was leaked to foreign powers before Snowden commited his appalling act of treachery.

Do please tell us, if possible without compromising your sources, exactly how you were made aware of this.

would it not be very naive of our "security services" to assume that the russians and chinese hadn't obtained the info.

[Mr Pee]

would it not be very naive of our "security services" to assume that the russians and chinese hadn't obtained the info.

Why?

[ahinton]

Why?

Quite simply because if the information is there it stands a fair chance of getting into the hands of those who want it.

That said, howeer, there's far too little intelligent discussion about the sheer practicalities of "state secrecy" in today's information-overloaded climate; this is an issue for all who care about such issues, irrespective of their respective positions vis-à-vis the duties and powers of nations' security and surveillance services. If, for example, someone can hack into a bank's system and obtain details of a credit card account before the card is even produced and sent out to the cardholder (as once happened to me), it's surely pretty obvious that, if information exists, someone somewhere is likely to be capable of accessing and retrieving it with or without legal authorisation to do so.

[french frank]

would it not be very naive of our "security services" to assume that the russians and chinese hadn't obtained the info.

Who else do you think was behind these terrorist attacks?

[An_Inspector_Calls]

I don't know what you're implying here. Surely not that the Chinese or Russians are behind all terrorist attacks?

[Richard Barrett]

At the risk of this discussion going around in more circles: supposedly the fact that we now live in a society characterised by total surveillance is a necessary evil in view of a constant threat from terrorism. Now it's clear that some governments appear to be far more exercised by this than others, the US and UK in particular. Why would this be? Presumably because they feel themselves to be more likely targets than say Sweden or Switzerland. And why would that be? Could it be because the US and UK are going around creating numbers of radicalised people as a result of their aggressive foreign policies? And if that's the case wouldn't it be better for the safety of their citizens if they didn't do that?

[Mr Pee]

Oh dear.

I take it from that response that you are, as usual, assuming that you have greater knowledge of the impact of the leaks than the professionals and specialists who are actually involved in this field. I really think you should volunteer your services to MI5 or GCHQ, since you are obviously much more of an expert at all this than they are.

I haven't yet listened, but I would certainly say that whilst the Cambridge Spy Ring's treachery undoubtedly cost the lives of British agents abroad, Snowden's has, in addition to that, also put at risk the lives of military personnel and indeed ordinary civilians going about their daily business.

[Mr Pee]

And if that's the case wouldn't it be better for the safety of their citizens if they didn't do that?

So your solution is simply to capitulate in the face of terrorism.

Where does that end?

[teamsaint]

Why?

Do they not work on the assumption that the "other side " knows stuff, even if they are not sure that they do?

[An_Inspector_Calls]

I take it from that response that you are, as usual, assuming that you have greater knowledge of the impact of the leaks than the professionals and specialists who are actually involved in this field. I really think you should volunteer your services to MI5 or GCHQ, since you are obviously much more of an expert at all this than they are.

Sorry, but that job's taken: The Guardian is the new MI5 and GCHQ. Understandable move, of course, as they're near bankrupt publishing newspapers.

[ahinton]

Sorry, but that job's taken: The Guardian is the new MI5 and GCHQ. Understandable move, of course, as they're near bankrupt publishing newspapers.

If that's supposed to be an intelligent, perceptive and constructive contribution to this thread then it's clearly run out of any steam that it may once have had. This is not about The Guardian; it's about something vastly bigger than all the UK newspapers put together. Do please try to stick to the subject; in case you need reminding, it's Privacy and the State. Thank you.

[Mr Pee]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/10372603/Jack-Straw-Guardian-has-shown-extraordinary-naivety-and-arrogance-in-leaks.html

[ahinton]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...-in-leaks.html

Interesting to read this and thanks again for posting that link - but, from my own personal experience of something admittedly not connected with the subject matter here (so I won't expand upon it here in order to avoid any risk of taking the thread off-topic), the notion of the Prime Minister being reported as having claimed to be "content with" any kind of status quo here speaks for itself - and the fact that this report openly illustrates a series of conflicts of interest and interpretations on the parts of a number of senior British politicians arguably does likewise.

[Richard Barrett]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...-in-leaks.html

Who on earth cares what Jack Straw has to say about anything?