Privacy and the State

[Richard Barrett]

It's true that most people who actually make a 'choice' of religion end up with something like their parents' - but most people these days, in Western Europe at any rate, 'choose' no religion at all.

Which of course they may also have "inherited" from their parents. I remember having had quite a lot of religion thrown at me from my first days at primary school onwards - daily assembly with hymns and prayers etc., quite apart from RE - without any "doubt" being brought into it of course, let alone any examination of religions other than Christianity, let alone the choice not to follow any religion. Of course that has changed quite a lot in the meantime. (I remember my grandmother once saying disgustedly of someone that he was an "atheist": actually what she meant, but couldn't bring herself to say, was that he was gay!)

How did we get on to this?

Moving on: the Guardian has dug up another unlikely supporter among the Tories, who makes an interesting point. Dominic Raab, Tory MP and former Foreign Office lawyer, asked why nobody from the Guardian had been charged or arrested after Theresa May suggested that lives have been put at risk by the disclosure.

"Either UK law enforcement is surprisingly slow, given these assertions that have been made, or national security is being used as a fig leaf to muzzle disclosures," he told MPs. (...) "Any serious terrorist group assumes their phones, emails and internet use will be monitored. That is no secret. Learning that western spies drain the swamp of their own citizens' data in the process does not help terrorists in any tangible way.

"If national security were materially breached why hasn't anyone at the Guardian been charged or even arrested since the search of their offices back in July?"

Good question.

[scottycelt]

It's true that most people who actually make a 'choice' of religion end up with something like their parents' - but most people these days, in Western Europe at any rate, 'choose' no religion at all.

I always remember a girl I taught in a school where most of the pupils were either Jewish or (nominally) Christian, whose parents were one of each. She used to complain bitterly that neither of them tried to influence her in any way as to whether she should adopt either system of belief or none, when what she really wanted was something to fight against.

That has been my own experience as well.

I'd have thought that it was much more natural for children to rebel against their parents' beliefs than go through life meekly continuing to accept those beliefs long after they're dead! I was one who most definitely did rebel.

Of course some who rebel also return to the fold, but even that wholly contradicts the extreme atheists' claim of 'religious indoctrination' somehow affecting an individual's ability to finally come to an independent decision. There is clearly well-considered personal judgement in such cases.

Most atheists I know don't ever complain about religion ... they simply don't believe!

Fair enough.

[amateur51]

That has been my own experience as well.

I'd have thought that it was much more natural for children to rebel against their parents' beliefs than go through life meekly continuing to accept those beliefs long after they're dead! I was one who most definitely did rebel.

Of course some who rebel also return to the fold, but even that wholly contradicts the extreme atheists' claim of 'religious indoctrination' somehow affecting an individual's ability to finally come to an independent decision. There is clearly well-considered personal judgement in such cases.

Most atheists I know don't ever complain about religion ... they simply don't believe!

Fair enough.

I just don't understand how the promotion of religion qualifies as a charitable purpose. What's tax deductible about belief in a value system?

[amateur51]

Moving on: the Guardian has dug up another unlikely supporter among the Tories, who makes an interesting point. Dominic Raab, Tory MP and former Foreign Office lawyer, asked why nobody from the Guardian had been charged or arrested after Theresa May suggested that lives have been put at risk by the disclosure.

"Either UK law enforcement is surprisingly slow, given these assertions that have been made, or national security is being used as a fig leaf to muzzle disclosures," he told MPs. (...) "Any serious terrorist group assumes their phones, emails and internet use will be monitored. That is no secret. Learning that western spies drain the swamp of their own citizens' data in the process does not help terrorists in any tangible way.

"If national security were materially breached why hasn't anyone at the Guardian been charged or even arrested since the search of their offices back in July?"

Good question.

Raab also said:

"In his speech the MI5 director general lambasted the Guardian for handing terrorists a gift – a very potent word he used. Ministers have more recently claimed that the disclosures have put lives at risk.

"I want to take that seriously because Mr Parker claimed that making public 'the reach and limits of GCHQ breaches national security'. Let us be very clear about what was being talked of here – not disclosing interception techniques, not the technical aspect, not the revelation of source or operatives – clearly a major cause of concern if that were to happen. Simply revealing our intelligence reach. I find this assertion difficult to take at face value. It may be true but it is not on the mere assertion."

[amateur51]

And now Google and Yahoo are waking up to the implications of NSA's snooping via their services ... and they're not happy.

http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/oct/30/google-reports-nsa-secretly-intercepts-data-links

[scottycelt]

Ah, amsey swiftly (and most unusually) wishes to get back on topic! :ok:

[Mr Pee]

An alternative and balanced view as opposed to the Guardian's lefty paranoia:-

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10414790/MI6-and-the-CIA-are-spying-on-foreign-leaders-Thank-God.html

And did anyone catch the debate today? In particular Sir Malcolm Rifkind's contribution, in which he gave a little detail that has been obscured by the ridiculous exaggerations from the usual quarters. For example, the surveillance programs used at GCHQ use algorithms to sift emails for certain words. All but 0.01% are discarded, and the contents of the rest can only be inspected with the authority of the Home Secretary. So this idea that the spooks are reading all our emails and monitoring our every move on the web is pure bunkum.

As the saying goes, if you've nothing to hide, you've nothing to fear.

[Richard Barrett]

the Guardian's lefty paranoia

... which unaccountably seems to have infected the aforementioned Dominic Raab as well as Boris Johnson and various members of the US Senate!

[amateur51]

An alternative and balanced view as opposed to the Guardian's lefty paranoia:-

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10414790/MI6-and-the-CIA-are-spying-on-foreign-leaders-Thank-God.html

Tell me PeeMeister, did you notice who penned those pearls you're so keen on?

[amateur51]

Ah, amsey swiftly (and most unusually) wishes to get back on topic! :ok:

You call since 16:52 as 'swiftly'?

[scottycelt]

An alternative and balanced view as opposed to the Guardian's lefty paranoia:-

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10414790/MI6-and-the-CIA-are-spying-on-foreign-leaders-Thank-God.html

And did anyone catch the debate today? In particular Sir Malcolm Rifkind's contribution, in which he gave a little detail that has been obscured by the ridiculous exaggerations from the usual quarters. For example, the surveillance programs used at GCHQ use algorithms to sift emails for certain words. All but 0.01% are discarded, and the contents of the rest can only be inspected with the authority of the Home Secretary. So this idea that the spooks are reading all our emails and monitoring our every move on the web is pure bunkum.

As the saying goes, if you've nothing to hide, you've nothing to fear.

And, unlike forum members, Sir Malcolm should certainly know what he is talking about on the subject!

After the usual national posturing for naive public consumption this affair will soon die a natural death. The Americans spy, The British spy, the Russians spy, the Germans spy, the French spy and they all know between each other that every country spies!

The dreadful truth for Guardian readers is that all countries need spies in an effort to keep their citizens as safe as is practically possible. The American experience of Pearl Harbor is itself justification for its own level of espionage.

That's the reality, however sad.

[Frances_iom]

quote of the year in the latest Guardian - Facebook co-founder Mark Zuckerberg said the government had done a "bad job" of balancing people's privacy. "Frankly, I think the government blew it," he said.

[Richard Barrett]

The American experience of Pearl Harbor is itself justification for its own level of espionage.

You mean because they knew it was going to happen?

[Richard Barrett]

The dreadful truth for Guardian readers is that all countries need spies in an effort to keep their citizens as safe as is practically possible.

Can you explain to us poor Guardian readers how spying on Angela Merkel keeps me safe?

[MrGongGong]

As the saying goes, if you've nothing to hide, you've nothing to fear.

I'm not a vindictive person (normally)
but it would be interesting if YOU became the victim of mistaken identity by the security services
or were shot "by mistake" by our fine police force
i'm sure you would be saying something rather different

The saying is a lie no matter how many times you repeat it