Privacy and the State

[scottycelt]

We know that, but why is it so and, for that matter, why should it be so?

All that matters in the end is that it is 'so'.

As a Scot you should surely know that facts are chiels that winna ding ...

US expenditure on "nuclear weapons and a huge army, navy and air force" is not what I took Richard Barrett specifically to mean when referring to US "defence" expenditure as being 15 times that of Germany; that level of expenditure may well be at least as disproportionate on its intelligence gathering and surveillance facilities and activities as it is on its weaponry and armed services and, if so, the question that he put to youseems to me to be entirely reasonable and to the point. Does it strike you as especially likely that US would allocate many times as much as does Germany to funding its weaponry and the armed services that use them but only relatively modest sums on its intelligence gathering and surveillance facilities and activities? Such a notion sounds well less than plausible to me.

Sorry, I still don't get your point. Total defence spending is another matter altogether. In any case that could be fairly compared in relative terms only and is a bit meaningless as far as this discussion is concerned.

The point surely is that the richest country in Europe failed to provide adequate security for it's leader's mobile phone. Are you suggesting that the rich, technologically-advanced Germans can't afford and/or haven't the expertise to provide that security?

[scottycelt]

Considering the very high moral standards you demand, vis-à-vis the 'wrongdoings' of comparatively lowly placed individuals such as Manning and Snowden, those moral demands appear to vanish when dealing with powerful states.

I would have thought that, by definition, if a state's security services are developing cutting edge new technologies to combat spies and terrorists, those technologies could hardly be automatically anticipated and guarded against by other nations, before they are used.

Me demanding high moral standards?!! :laugh in disbelief:

A simple glance at any of my posts might suggest an acceptance of reality which is not altogether apparent in some other quarters. My dislike of Snowden is that he has a clear motive for his actions which are political, and this has little to do with 'public interest'. You appear to think of him as some sort of hero whistle-blower. I certainly don't. He betrayed a trust and broke a solemn promise. So if I'm looking for moral guidance I'd probably look elsewhere.

As for spying, let's put it like this. It is a safe bet that the German security services are spying on others, maybe even on the French and ourselves!! But until they have someone like Snowden to break a solemn promise and betray a trust we are never likely to find out, are we?

And do do we really need to unless it's simply to indulge in a bit of, er, moralising over the behaviour of others ?

[Richard Barrett]

You don't need nuclear weapons and a huge army, navy and air force to ensure a country's leader has the latest technology and expertise to combat mobile phone tapping, whether this sort of spying is practised by 'friends' or enemies.

Ok, let's look at it another way. The annual budget of the NSA alone is $10.8 billion this year. The annual budget of the German equivalent, the Bundesnachrichtendienst, is $634 million. The budgets differ by a factor of 17 - even more than the difference between them on total military spending. Don't you think this might have some small effect on their spying capabilities?

[french frank]

Me demanding high moral standards?!! :laugh in disbelief:
[...] He betrayed a trust and broke a solemn promise.

QED

My dislike of Snowden is that he has a clear motive for his actions which are political, and this has little to do with 'public interest'.

But this is only your opinion, not fact, whatever 'evidence' you may quote to support your feeling. And your 'dislike', disapproval or whatever else, overrides any recognition that governments should not break the law of their own land; many people have been' whistleblowers' on the activities of their own governments.

What are his political motives btw - just remind me because I'm sure we've been told at some point.

[Mr Pee]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10404542/David-Cameron-would-be-foolhardy-to-think-spies-arent-trying-to-monitor-his-mobile.html

[scottycelt]

QED.

Ah, so you clearly think the simple keeping of a promise is 'a high moral standard'?

So maybe some of the forum liberal-leftists have been a bit harsh on Nick Clegg, after all ... ?

But this is only your opinion, not fact, whatever 'evidence' you may quote to support your feeling. And your 'dislike', disapproval or whatever else, overrides any recognition that governments should not break the law of their own land; many people have been' whistleblowers' on the activities of their own governments.

What are his political motives btw - just remind me because I'm sure we've been told at some point.

Ah, the final. desperate plea of naive innocence. Give us a break, french frank! :laugh:

Here's another 'opinion' ...

http://www.thedrum.com/opinion/2013/09/03/why-edward-snowden-not-patriot-whistleblower-or-hero-spy

[scottycelt]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/poli...is-mobile.html

Careful, Mr Pee ... only Guardian links are 'fact' ...

Swinford, of course, is absolutely right!

[french frank]

Ah, so you clearly think the simple keeping of a promise is 'a high moral standard'?

But I don't think it's 'simple' - or 'clear' in this case. It's the same 'simple morality' as 'My Country Right Or Wrong'.

Ah, the final. desperate plea of naive innocence. Give us a break, french frank! :laugh:

No idea what that means.

Here's another 'opinion' ...

http://www.thedrum.com/opinion/2013/...er-or-hero-spy

Yes, that's another opinion.

In one sense you can say that any whistle-blowing is a 'political' act, especially where governments are involved.

"Whistleblowers stand up and are counted; Snowden crawled out and ran away," writes Mr Boffey.

Most whistleblowers can be fairly sure they're not going to be sent to prison for 30 years. Why his motivation should be 'clearly treasonable' because he chose to go to countries which he thought would give him asylum, I can't imagine: his choice was to stay and be sent to prison or to hightail out to somewhere he thought would be safe. He was revealing that governments spy indiscriminately upon their own citizens. They spy.

It reminds of - was it Jim Callaghan's?: 'I brief, you leak.' One law for government politicians, another law for the rest.

[Richard Barrett]

In one sense you can say that any whistle-blowing is a 'political' act, especially where governments are involved.

In pretty much every sense, is how I'd put it. Why is that such a problem?

[french frank]

In pretty much every sense, is how I'd put it. Why is that such a problem?

I dunno. Ask the lady with the glasses. You'd think it was more noble than doing it for money.

[An_Inspector_Calls]

But Manning and Snowden were in one incontrovertible sense reactive - reacting to what their government was doing - regardless of what unworthy motives individuals with particular viewpoints wish to encumber them with.

That is your opinion. Manning seems to me to be merely seeking attention. Perhaps he saw the press devoted to Climategate and thought he could do the same (and it's interesting to contrast the left's indignation following the 'theft' of the CRU e-mails and the 'theft' of US intelligence secrets). Certainly there was no attempt on his part to thoughtfully sift his material for items which were more appropriate to his claimed 'cause'.

Much the same can be said of Snowden, who does seem to enjoy preening himself in the limelight.

And possibly the Guardian, with it's rapidly declining readership, and awed by the attention devoted to Wikileaks, decided to have a slice of that action as well.

[scottycelt]

In pretty much every sense, is how I'd put it. Why is that such a problem?

The real problem is not the act of being 'political'. Nothing wrong with that. The problem I (and no doubt countless others) have with the likes of Snowden is the self-appointing of themselves, and advertising their actions as being 'in the public interest', no matter the consequences and damage that is done in the wake of these 'revelations'.

One can believe ... as some here appear to do ... that Snowden is a decent, innocent sort of guy who just happened to find himself in a job in US Intelligence, was appalled by some of the things he encountered, and then ran to the newspapers to reveal all 'in the public interest'. He is a hero whistle-blower who deserves the praise of all other grateful innocents who never imagined such things could possibly be happening in our world.

Alternatively one might be convinced ... as I and others here clearly are ... that Snowden knew exactly what he was doing and in essence he was indeed himself a 'spy' who betrayed promises and colleagues for his own (if still somewhat obscure) political motives. The fact that the same Snowden fled to Russia for asylum does tend to lend no little weight to that conviction. It is reasonable to assume he did not act entirely alone. His record itself indicates he is not a person to be trusted. So why should we trust him now?

The person with the funny hat and moustache has quite obviously plumped for the first theory ... you pays yer money, etc, etc.

[Richard Barrett]

Snowden, who does seem to enjoy preening himself in the limelight.

That would presumably be why his public appearances are so few and far between.

[Richard Barrett]

The problem I (and no doubt countless others) have with the likes of Snowden is the self-appointing of themselves, and advertising their actions as being 'in the public interest', no matter the consequences and damage that is done in the wake of these 'revelations'.

The problem I (and no doubt countless others) have with the likes of the NSA and GCHQ spooks is the self-appointing of themselves, and advertising their actions as being "in the public interest", no matter the consequences and damage that is done by their actions.

Returning to my point about spying budgets and capabilities, I read this today on the BBC news site: ... the US stands apart in the scope of its espionage capabilities. "Every country has weapons for spying, but most have the equivalent of a Howitzer," says James Bamford, who has written extensively on the National Security Agency. "In terms of eavesdropping, the US has a nuclear weapon."

[scottycelt]

The problem I (and no doubt countless others) have with the likes of the NSA and GCHQ spooks is the self-appointing of themselves, and advertising their actions as being "in the public interest", no matter the consequences and damage that is done by their actions.

Such organisations have been set up and maintained by democratically-elected governments (at least in the West)

Unlike Mr Snowden these are not 'self-appointed'.

Returning to my point about spying budgets and capabilities, I read this today on the BBC news site: ... the US stands apart in the scope of its espionage capabilities. "Every country has weapons for spying, but most have the equivalent of a Howitzer," says James Bamford, who has written extensively on the National Security Agency. "In terms of eavesdropping, the US has a nuclear weapon."

I think we have already covered that point and the reason why the most powerful nation on earth is likely to have the most powerful defence systems, whilst not necessarily possessing superior technology to the Germans in the dark art of phone-tapping!

If we were talking about some backward Marxist banana-republic I could easily accept your point. But the modern, thriving, socially-sophisticated Germany is hardly that.