Privacy and the State

[An_Inspector_Calls]

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

Fewer than you, perhaps . . .

[Richard Barrett]

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!

So the fact that the USA spends 17 times as much on its espionage agency alone than Germany does on its equivalent means only that US citizens are getting spectacularly bad value for their tax dollars, right?

Regarding the democratic accountability of secret services, ex-minister Chris Huhne has this to say: The cabinet was told nothing about GCHQ's Tempora or its US counterpart, the NSA's Prism, nor about their extraordinary capability to hoover up and store personal emails, voice contact, social networking activity and even internet searches. I was also on the national security council, attended by ministers and the heads of the Secret [Intelligence Service, MI6] and Security Service [MI5], GCHQ and the military. If anyone should have been briefed on Prism and Tempora, it should have been the NSC. I do not know whether the prime minister or the foreign secretary (who has oversight of GCHQ) were briefed, but the NSC was not. While Huhne is clearly not the most honest of politicians, I've been unable to find any account which contradicts this.

[Richard Barrett]

Fewer than you, perhaps . . .

I'm not sure what you're trying to say with that, but yes, considerably fewer than me. For example he made no public appearances between 1 August and 10 October. How can that be construed as attention-seeking?

[french frank]

People seem to develop a 'chemistry of dislike' against others. It's their instinctive feeling which they 'justify' by expressing their opinions and disapproval - 'he's an attention seeker', 'he's just preening himself in public', 'people are being naive in thinking he could be doing what he sees as in the public interest'. Kneejerk opinion.

For what it's worth: people are either acquiescent, obedient, respectful of authority, supportive of the status quo - or they are questioning, challenging of anything that they feel needs to be questioned or challenged. Neither side approves of the other.

Even Burgess, Maclean and Philby believed in what they were doing - as communists; but they handed over secrets - secretly - to help an enemy Communist power. In the context of the Cold War, that would be accepted as treasonable.

I can't see any connection - although Mr Boffey in scottycelt's link invoked all of them - with Snowden or Manning. Just because they did not hand over information which was to be kept secret but rather to be published, that automatically makes them 'attention seekers'. All that means is: 'I disagree with what they did so I'm going to show what unworthy people they are.'

One of the things I find most exasperating in other people is the complacencey which mouths: 'That's the way things are: get over it.' No! If you think something is fundamentally wrong you should do something. The problem is that most of us, most of the time, are powerless. Which is why we cheer when somebody can do something, and does.

Privacy is privacy. A state either respects that or it doesn't. The idea that some sledgehammer can be used to catch terrorists by effectively rounding up millions of private ciitizens, at home and abroad, is a step towards a police state, a global police state - which some people no doubt would welcome.

[Richard Barrett]

a 'chemistry of dislike'

I think it's more like an assumption that almost everyone almost always acts from the basest and most self-serving interests.

[aeolium]

Privacy is privacy. A state either respects that or it doesn't. The idea that some sledgehammer can be used to catch terrorists by effectively rounding up millions of private ciitizens, at home and abroad, is a step towards a police state, a global police state - which some people no doubt would welcome.

And the resonance of widespread spying on citizens (not to mention heads of state) is especially powerful in Germany which experienced not only the surveillance of Nazi totalitarianism but also perhaps the most comprehensive and systematic surveillance and telephone monitoring ever conducted on a population by the Stasi in the former GDR. Only an extraordinary cultural insensitivity could blind leaders of supposedly friendly states to the explosive political impact of foreign spying on German citizens.

[scottycelt]

I can't see any connection - although Mr Boffey in scottycelt's link invoked all of them - with Snowden or Manning. Just because they did not hand over information which was to be kept secret but rather to be published, that automatically makes them 'attention seekers'. All that means is: 'I disagree with what they did so I'm going to show what unworthy people they are.'

I would invite you to simply look at the facts. Snowden acquired a job in US Intelligence, broke a promise and betrayed secrets and colleagues by going to carefully selected newspapers with the details. Maybe I should have said I dislike that rather than him, whom, of course, I do not know personally. I assume the latter also applies to you and others here?

One of the things I find most exasperating in other people is the complacencey which mouths: 'That's the way things are: get over it.' No! If you think something is fundamentally wrong you should do something. The problem is that most of us, most of the time, are powerless. Which is why we cheer when somebody can do something, and does.

Again, you simply assume that Mr Snowden did what he did out out of a sense of decency and the public interest. You are being at least as subjective in your view than anybody else here. The evidence of his blatant deceit and later bizarre behaviour fleeing to Russia wholly contradicts your point of view. 'You' might cheer rather than 'we'. Some of us might not be quite so easily fooled.

Privacy is privacy. A state either respects that or it doesn't. The idea that some sledgehammer can be used to catch terrorists by effectively rounding up millions of private ciitizens, at home and abroad, is a step towards a police state, a global police state - which some people no doubt would welcome.

Some people no doubt might but I haven't come across many fascists or communists lately, have you?

Others might accept that we cannot turn the clock back and a state will use the most effective methods possible to discover what other states are up to. In fact this was all but acknowledged by both Mrs Merkel and M. Hollande when they both called for 'an agreement' with the US as to what should be considered 'acceptable' between states in the form of intelligence gathering!

If that is not a tacit admission that they were simply outflanked by the US in areas of espionage I do not know what is. As for 'privacy' in the modern world, you can forget it. The prying eyes and ears are everywhere.

Just ignore them, get on with your own life, and you can begin to forget they are even there ... some things we simply cannot now change however much we may deplore them.

[An_Inspector_Calls]

People seem to develop a 'chemistry of dislike' against others. It's their instinctive feeling which they 'justify' by expressing their opinions and disapproval - 'he's an attention seeker', 'he's just preening himself in public', 'people are being naive in thinking he could be doing what he sees as in the public interest'. Kneejerk opinion.

That's all rather pejorative and merely your opinion counter to mine. It seems to me that much of the thread, including your contributions, has been merely 'opinion', it's just that you seem to approve of opinions similar to your own.

[french frank]

That's all rather pejorative and merely your opinion counter to mine. It seems to me that much of the thread, including your contributions, has been merely 'opinion', it's just that you seem to approve of opinions similar to your own.

Not at all - I don't agree with Richard's description because what I mean applies equally to me. I frequently feel a 'chemistry of dislike' for people who hold views with which I fundamentally disagree - the dislike that I have for their principles can become transferred to the people themselves. It's not that I believe the worst of them; it's just that, beyond merely disagreeing, I believe their views to be wrong because often, in my view, unpleasant and in some degree inhumane. I accept that they may well feel something similar about me and my views.

We shall always disagree on a whole range of seemingly unconnected issues for that reason. Scottycelt (see above) believes his interpretation is correct, inviting me to look at the 'facts' and then putting his gloss on them. I disagree, in spite of the fact that he has helpfully restated what he has already said, many, many times, in virtually the same terms.

I acknowledge, further, my typo in writing 'complacencey' for 'complacency'.

[An_Inspector_Calls]

. . . I believe their views to be wrong because often, in my view, unpleasant and in some degree inhumane.

A view which I consider arrogant, sanctimonious and just plain twaddle.

[Richard Barrett]

Pardon me for quoting from Pravda, I mean the Guardian, but, well, where's an emoticon when you need one for yet another comically incompetent politician:

A Conservative MP who claimed the Guardian had endangered national security with its reporting of top secret intelligence files has a picture on his official website of him posing with staff from the high-security US base in North Yorkshire, Menwith Hill.

Julian Smith, MP for Skipton and Ripon, raised concerns about the Guardian's coverage of the US National Security Agency files, leaked by whistleblower Edward Snowden, in a House of Commons debate on Tuesday. He wrongly claimed it had distributed information about British intelligence agents and called for the Guardian to be prosecuted.

"To communicate, not just publish, any identifying information about GCHQ personnel is a terrorist offence," he told MPs.

However, on his website, he has publicly identified staff from the high-security US base, publishing a picture of himself posing with more than 30 people outside the House of Commons. The caption reads: "Julian has welcomed a group of around 40 people from RAF Menwith Hill to Westminster." The picture is also on Smith's Facebook page where it states: "Enjoyed meeting members of the British-American group from RAF Menwith Hill".

The Guardian has republished the picture, pixelating the faces of everyone except the MP to ensure there is no threat to national security.

[Richard Barrett]

get on with your own life, and you can begin to forget they are even there ...

ignorance is strength

[scottycelt]

ignorance is strength

Back to dictionaries ... :whistle:

To Ignore = Disregard Intentionally
Ignorance = Lack of Knowledge

Quite different. But then you knew that all along!

[french frank]

A view which I consider arrogant, sanctimonious and just plain twaddle.

Considering that you have no idea to which 'views' I refer by the vague word 'often' you are a little hasty in your considered opinion. In my view.

[scottycelt]

We shall always disagree on a whole range of seemingly unconnected issues for that reason. Scottycelt (see above) believes his interpretation is correct, inviting me to look at the 'facts' and then putting his gloss on them. I disagree, in spite of the fact that he has helpfully restated what he has already said, many, many times, in virtually the same terms.

And you haven't? If you respond in a wholly predictable manner to my posts it is most unlikely my own responses are going to be much different!

I invited you to look at the facts. Sorry for repeating myself over and over again but just in case you somehow missed them, here these are again.

Snowden joined American Intelligence. He broke a promise not to divulge internal secrets. He did just that and therefore betrayed the organisation he joined and his colleagues. He went to a politically-sympathetic press 'in the public interest' and then fled to Putin's Russia seeking political asylum.

Whatever gloss you claim I'm putting on these facts are you saying the facts themselves are false? Or is it that you simply cannot bring yourself to bear to acknowledge these facts and would prefer to blame me for inventing them instead?

It has to be either one of the two!