Privacy and the State

[Mr Pee]

And here comes Lord Blencathra of somewhere or other, a Tory peer and (as David Maclean) former Home Office minister:

""We dislike leaks. Yes, we disapprove in many ways of what the Guardian has done, but at the same time we are deeply, deeply uneasy about what has been going on. I do not want people like Mr Snowden endangering national security. But I do not want our national security apparatus operating in what seems to me to be outside the law or on the very edge of the law. Or if it is just within the law, certainly without parliament knowing. Many of us are happy to have certain information collected by the state but, by God, we've a right to know the parameters under which they are operating.(...) Doing a deal with American security services to share information they have lifted about Brits I think is something the British public, through parliament, should either stop or consent to." And "The Cambridge spies were revealing information that could have brought down the whole British government, the western world, nuclear secrets, the whole shooting match. To try and paint Snowden into the same box as Philby, Burgess, Maclean, Blunt is just outrageous."

Snowden has endangered every one of us. Which puts him in in the same box as the Cambridge Spy Ring. the difference is that Philby and co. knew the secrets they were betraying, whereas Snowden leaked thousands of pages of information without having a clue exactly what was in them, and therefore had no idea of the possible consequences of his actions.

In that regard, he is worse.

[Richard Barrett]

Snowden has endangered every one of us.

your paranoia (...) has reached new levels of absurdity

By the way, can one be paranoid and complacent at the same time?

[Mr Pee]

By the way, can one be paranoid and complacent at the same time?

Amateur has proved that it is possible.

[ahinton]

Amateur has proved that it is possible.

He has proved nothing of the kind, not least because it isn't possible and Ricahrd Barrett's question was accordingly rhetorical - but never mind that for now: have you actually read the quote that RB has provided from Lord Blencathra? If a newspaper is to be under scrutiny, it is indeed The Guardian, of coruse but, as I've said several times, this is not about The Guardian but about something far larger than any single newspaper anywhere; Lord Blencathra is clealy far from uncritical of the activities of The Guardian in this matter (and he's entitled to his view) but what he goes on to note is what's really important. What is your view of that?

In the meantime, what is your view of the viability of maintaining state or other secrets in a surveillance society whose victims and other aggrieved parties can mount surveillance operations against the government agencies involved in snooping? If the information's there, it can be accessed by those who know what they're doing or can find out what to do.

And finally, for now, could you please enlighten us all as to precisely what Mr Snowden has done that directly affects you adversely?

[Mr Pee]

He has proved nothing of the kind, not least because it isn't possible and Ricahrd Barrett's question was accordingly rhetorical - but never mind that for now: have you actually read the quote that RB has provided from Lord Blencathra? If a newspaper is to be under scrutiny, it is indeed The Guardian, of coruse but, as I've said several times, this is not about The Guardian but about something far larger than any single newspaper anywhere; Lord Blencathra is clealy far from uncritical of the activities of The Guardian in this matter (and he's entitled to his view) but what he goes on to note is what's really important. What is your view of that?

In the meantime, what is your view of the viability of maintaining state or other secrets in a surveillance society whose victims and other aggrieved parties can mount surveillance operations against the government agencies involved in snooping? If the information's there, it can be accessed by those who know what they're doing or can find out what to do.

And finally, for now, could you please enlighte us all as to precisely what Mr Snowden has done that directly affects you adversely?

I am about to head off to work, so I need to be quick. I don't understand what you're getting at with your second question and as for the first, if you mean his view of Snowden in relation to the Camnridge Spies, I have already made it clear that I think his treachery has been just as bad, if not worse, since he had no idea what was contained in the thousands of pages of information that he leaked.

As for your final question:- as a result of Snowden and The Guardian, the work of the security services in their efforts to combat terrorism have been compromised. We are all less safe as a result. That is an adverse effect. For me and for everybody else.

[An_Inspector_Calls]

a51 (#822)
Lord MacDanold should perhaps remember that Parker's main thrust was not to avoid any supervision of MI5 and the intelligence services (which I would imagine is, and would continue to be, largely conducted in camera) but rather to counter idiots like those running The Guardian from claiming, and continuing to claim, that revealing sensitive material was is some bizarre way beneficial.

Still, MacDonald got himself some self-serving publicity.

Oh, and well-done MI5 for such excellent work.

[amateur51]

Amateur has proved that it is possible.

Do us all a favour and focus a little less closely (and potentially libellously, I'd add) on my mental state and a good deal more on the issues at hand.

I'm grateful to Richard Barrett for drawing our attention to the contribution from Lord Gencathra, in direct contradiction to one of Mr Pee's wilder assertions.

[amateur51]

a51 (#822)
Lord MacDanold should perhaps remember that Parker's main thrust was not to avoid any supervision of MI5 and the intelligence services (which I would imagine is, and would continue to be, largely conducted in camera) but rather to counter idiots like those running The Guardian from claiming, and continuing to claim, that revealing sensitive material was is some bizarre way beneficial.

Still, MacDonald got himself some self-serving publicity.

Oh, and well-done MI5 for such excellent work.

Excellent work?

Well as the new man at MI5, Parker has certainly garnered himself some publicity, but I thought that was not his primary function in that organisation. How times change. And as I have said it seemed to me that the thrust of his speech was maintaining the status quo, and dissing The Guardian while preparing the ground for his first chat re budgets with the Treasury.

[Mr Pee]

Excellent work?

Well as the new man at MI5, Parker has certainly garnered himself some publicity, but I thought that was not his primary function in that organisation. How times change. And as I have said it seemed to me that the thrust of his speech was maintaining the status quo, and dissing The Guardian while preparing the ground for his first chat re budgets with the Treasury.

Ah yes, it's all a publicity stunt. They're not terrorist suspects at all. The whole thing has been cooked up to make the Guardian look foolish- as if it needs any help.

And the budget of the intelligence services is hardly under threat in the current climate. By the way, the bosses of MI5 and MI6 have been going public for years now. Nothing new there.

[amateur51]

Ah yes, it's all a publicity stunt. They're not terrorist suspects at all. The whole thing has been cooked up to make the Guardian look foolish- as if it needs any help.

And the budget of the intelligence services is hardly under threat in the current climate. By the way, the bosses of MI5 and MI6 have been going public for years now. Nothing new there.

Like most aware responsible citizens (and Mr Pee) I know already about the public profile of MI5 bosses but perhaps he can remind me of the last time they attacked a newspaper's coverage.

Parker's speech was before the arrests yesterday.

Re budgets, Mr Pee may not have noticed but "We're All In This Together". The MoD's budget, for example is but a shadow of its former self, which is why there are literally thousands of trained killers abroad in villages, towns & cities all over the country, many without jobs and secure homes, some of whom must be going through desperate times. I'm worried about them too. So I'm sure that Mr Parker feels that he needs to talk up in public his need for funding.

Unless of course Mr Pee has read reassuring comments from Treasury in the pages of Motor Sport

[ahinton]

I am about to head off to work, so I need to be quick. I don't understand what you're getting at with your second question

Quite simply, I refer to the kind of retaliatory measures that may be taken by aggrieved victims of surveillance in snooping on the snoopers; GCHQ and the like are as subject to potential and actual surveillance as is anyone else, which is why I asked you what price state secrecy these days when anyone who knows how to hack into security services' systems and is motivated to do so can do so, thereby undermining the value and indeed viability of "state secrecy".

as for the first, if you mean his view of Snowden in relation to the Camnridge Spies, I have already made it clear that I think his treachery has been just as bad, if not worse, since he had no idea what was contained in the thousands of pages of information that he leaked.

So you disagree with Lord Glencathra's assessment of the comparative damage done by Mr Snowden on the one hand and the Cambridge spies on the other; well, doubtless you're a greater authority on the subject than he is, so I'm sure that he'll be delighted to learn from your superior knowledge and experience of the subject.

As for your final question:- as a result of Snowden and The Guardian, the work of the security services in their efforts to combat terrorism have been compromised. We are all less safe as a result. That is an adverse effect. For me and for everybody else.

Ah, so no specifics then, as I'd asked? Am I surprised? Not at all. You've not even bothered to specify in what particular ways Mr Snowden's actions have affected "everyone else", let alone you personally - but then you did say that you're in a hurry and have to get to work, so I accept that you may not have had sufficient time to consider and respond to this, which is fair enough (although I note from a later post from you in this thread that, almost half an hour after posting the above, you've yet to depart for work)...

[Serial_Apologist]

you did say that you're in a hurry and have to get to work, so I accept that you may not have had sufficient time to consider and respond to this, which is fair enough (although I note fraom a later post from you in this thread that, almost half an hour after posting the above, you've yet to depart for work)...

Maybe this is his work!

[ahinton]

Maybe this is his work!

Ah, who knows? I must confess that I'd not considered that possibility! Clarinet playing could perhaps be a cover for all manner of activity, one may suppose...

[Serial_Apologist]

Ah, who knows? I must confess that I'd not considered that possibility! Clarinet playing could perhaps be a cover for all manner of activity, one may suppose...

Wouldn't have thought so...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lGuhu7WmQuQ

[Mr Pee]

Do us all a favour and focus a little less closely (and potentially libellously, I'd add) on my mental state and a good deal more on the issues at hand.

I'm grateful to Richard Barrett for drawing our attention to the contribution from Lord Gencathra, in direct contradiction to one of Mr Pee's wilder assertions.

Just got back from the day job to read the usual from the usuals.

Point of order, M'Lud. How can I libel you when nobody knows who you are? Unless of course you were christened Amateur51....<erm>

http://www.mediaite.com/online/snowden-surrenders-moral-authority-with-dangerous-leaks-about-american-u-k-spying-techniques/