Privacy and the State

[jean]

Endlessly quoting the Telegraph proves nothing

[Mr Pee]

Endlessly quoting the Telegraph proves nothing

Well at least it provides a little balance against the tsunami of Guardian links that floods these boards with wearisome regularity.

[ahinton]

The Security Services ARE duly monitored by the Parliamentary Oversight Committee

In theory, yes; in practice, however, it smacks far too much of investigating one's own. When did you last witness reported evidence of a POC investigation of the activities of the security services and when did you last see the results of such an investigation made public?

indeed their work is probably more closely and openly scrutinised nowadays than at any time in their history

"Closely and openly"? That sounds like a contradiction in terms! I know what you mean, though. But see above.

But that is not enough for you, is it?

No, indeed it isn't.

That's the problem- whatever level of oversight and accountability is put in place, there will always be accusations of cover-up or duplicity.

Putting such a mopnitoring prodecure in place is one thing; implementing it sufficiently is quite another.

Just look at the derision hurled at Malcolm Rifkind, the Chair of that very oversight committee, when I quoted him earlier in this thread. I don't think certain people will be satisfied unless MI5 and 6 just publish a daily update of their activities. Perhaps they should set up a Twitter account and post minute-by-minute updates on their current operations.

There's no need to go that far; other organisations subjet toscrutiny are subject to far greater monitoring and surveillance than are the security services without any perceied need to resort to Twitter accounts and the rest.

How can one ensure that their operations are justifiable "at all times" without the benefit of hindsight, anyway? It's all too simple to look back on a wrong lead or mistaken surveillance operation once all the facts are known, and say such and such an action wasn't justified, but the facts can't be known unless an operation is mounted. It's a vicious circle, isn't it? By the very nature of the world they operate in, operations have to be mounted on the best information available at the time.

I do not disagree in principle with much of what you write here, neither do I pretend that the security services and those charged with monitoring their activites can expect to be psychic. That said, the concern now is that some of them have undertaken activities that are woefully disproportionate and demonstrably irrelevant to the business of trying to undermine terrorist actions and their promotion by targeting people with no possible conection with terrorism and no reason to suspect terrorist sympathies on their part.

Oftentimes, they get it right. Sometimes, inevitably, they will get it wrong

How do you know that? Can you prove it?

and then you can sit there in safe, comfortable Hereford

Who said that I'm safe or comfortable here and on what grounds?

a world away from the difficult and dangerous decisions that have had to be made on your behalf, and pontificate on their inadequacies.

For the umpteenth time, I am not referring to actual genuine security operations; I am talking about instances in which the security services way exceed their briefs and snoop on those who have nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism or its promotion. If in fact you believe that those services cannot do their jobs properly at all times without snooping on everyone and monitoring all the activities of the entire population, you are presumably then advocating not merely the abandonment of all legal rights to personal privacy but also the possible criminalisation of withholding or obstruction access to all data, in which case the Human Rights Act, the Data Protection Act and the Freedom of Information Act might as well be scrapped forthwith. If that's the kind of thing that you would indeed support, then either one or other of us had better move to another country or one of us had better hope that no democratically elected government would ever sanction such a policy.

As for foreign intelligence services, well I am quite sure that they spy on the UK all the time. That doesn't bother me. You talk about "mutual mistrust" being fostered by these activities, that can lead to wars, I think that if you look back at history, rather than fantasy, you will see that there has always been mutual mistrust between nations, regardless of any espionage activities, and in fact such espionage has often gathered information which has been instrumental in preventing armed conflict.

Of course there has often been mistrust between nations, but is that mere fact an excuse to ensure its aggravation regardless of the possible consequences? The outcome of espionage may well have helped to prevent or reduce armed conflict in certain cases, but the risk that it might do the opposite is nevertheless real and ever-present. Most importantly, though, since when did snooping on you and I - or the ability to do so within the law - ever amount to "espionage" as understood by the security services and defence forces? Still, I'm relieved to hear that you have no objection to having your activities and communications monitored by security services or other organisations in those nations that I mentioned earlier; nothing to hide, nothing to fear from Al-Shabab, Al-Qa'eda, Shining Path, Golden Dawn and the Russian security services, one may suppose. It seems that if anyone here is - or thinks that he is - "safe and confortable" anywhere, it's you in Winterfell, Mr Pee, as you busily play games with your thrones...

[amateur51]

The Security Services ARE duly monitored by the Parliamentary Oversight Committee, indeed their work is probably more closely and openly scrutinised nowadays than at any time in their history. But that is not enough for you, is it? That's the problem- whatever level of oversight and accountability is put in place, there will always be accusations of cover-up or duplicity. Just look at the derision hurled at Malcolm Rifkind, the Chair of that very oversight committee, when I quoted him earlier in this thread. I don't think certain people will be satisfied unless MI5 and 6 just publish a daily update of their activities. Perhaps they should set up a Twitter account and post minute-by-minute updates on their current operations.

How can one ensure that their operations are justifiable "at all times" without the benefit of hindsight, anyway? It's all too simple to look back on a wrong lead or mistaken surveillance operation once all the facts are known, and say such and such an action wasn't justified, but the facts can't be known unless an operation is mounted. It's a vicious circle, isn't it? By the very nature of the world they operate in, operations have to be mounted on the best information available at the time. Oftentimes, they get it right. Sometimes, inevitably, they will get it wrong; and then you can sit there in safe, comfortable Hereford, a world away from the difficult and dangerous decisions that have had to be made on your behalf, and pontificate on their inadequacies.

As for foreign intelligence services, well I am quite sure that they spy on the UK all the time. That doesn't bother me. You talk about "mutual mistrust" being fostered by these activities, that can lead to wars, I think that if you look back at history, rather than fantasy, you will see that there has always been mutual mistrust between nations, regardless of any espionage activities, and in fact such espionage has often gathered information which has been instrumental in preventing armed conflict.

Meanwhile:- http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...urt-heard.html

You didn't read the article I linked to from Rory Stewart MP, did you? He gave perfectly clear reasoning why current oversight is flawed.

The Telegraph link is to a court report. I've not linked to this court case because the decision is not due until tomorrow.

[amateur51]

Well at least it provides a little balance against the tsunami of Guardian links that floods these boards with wearisome regularity.

PeeMeister doesn't do irony, jean.

[Mr Pee]

You didn't read the article I linked to from Rory Stewart MP, did you? He gave perfectly clear reasoning why current oversight is flawed.

That's funny; I got the impression from many of your posts that MPs are not to be trusted or believed, being, as they are, figures of the establishment. But it seems the only ones not to be trusted or believed are those with whom you disagree, such as the massively experienced and well respected Malcolm Rifkind, rather than a nobody of a back-bencher who has been in Parliament for about three years and happened to write a column in The Guardian.

The Telegraph link is to a court report. I've not linked to this court case because the decision is not due until tomorrow.

And I am sure you will provide us with the Guardian line as soon as you get the chance.

[amateur51]

That's funny; I got the impression from many of your posts that MPs are not to be trusted or believed, being, as they are, figures of the establishment. But it seems the only ones not to be trusted or believed are those with whom you disagree, such as the massively experienced and well respected Malcolm Rifkind, rather than a nobody of a back-bencher who has been in Parliament for about three years and happened to write a column in The Guardian.



And I am sure you will provide us with the Guardian line as soon as you get the chance.

Splendid post by the PeeMeister demonstrating once and for all how out of touch he is with current events. He's not even bothered to find out who Rory Stewart really is, for instance.

Back to the pits with you.

[ahinton]

Well, the non Beaux Arts trio - that's to say the heads of MI5, MI6 and GCHQ - are due for a Parliamentsary grilling this afternoon; I daresay that the grill will be switched off the while, but at least some pretence is being made by government at illustrating their realistation that something needs to be seen to be done, even if it thinks nevertheless that nothing actually needs to be done. We'll have to wait and see, I guess...

[Mr Pee]

Well,the heads of MI5, MI6 and GCHQ - are due for a Parliamentsary grilling this afternoon.

How odd that nobody has commented on their appearance. Perhaps Amateur is waiting until it gets the Guardian treatment. I wasn't able to watch live, much as I wished to, because some of us have to work for a living: but I have just read this report, and watched the accompanying video:-

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/terrorism-in-the-uk/10434196/Terrorists-are-rubbing-their-hands-with-glee-after-Edward-Snowden-leaks.html

I dare say you will all declare that it's scaremongering/PR/ Flim-Flam and hogwash. I think not.

[amateur51]

How odd that nobody has commented on their appearance. Perhaps Amateur is waiting until it gets the Guardian treatment. I wasn't able to watch live, much as I wished to, because some of us have to work for a living: but I have just read this report, and watched the accompanying video:-

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/terrorism-in-the-uk/10434196/Terrorists-are-rubbing-their-hands-with-glee-after-Edward-Snowden-leaks.html

I dare say you will all declare that it's scaremongering/PR/ Flim-Flam and hogwash. I think not.

I was unable to watch because for the last two days I've been nursing a very heavy chest/head cold and Radio 4 has been keeping me just about sane.

I listened to the exchange between Jonathan Freedland (Guardian journo) and Eddie Mair and the phrase 'damp squib' formed in my mind. Shortly after, someone else said it.

[french frank]

Can't help thinking that the people who are hand in glove with the security service 'spies' are pretty cheesed off about Snowden's revelations. They would be, wouldn't they?

Two points: it still hasn't been explained how monitoring the mobile phones of European heads of state is combating terrorism. (It was suggested that spying was in our 'political and economic interests').

If the police arrest a suspected terrorist, would it be all right to torture him to gain information about terrorist activity, regardless of the fact that it is illegal to do so?

[amateur51]

The BBC reports that Guardian editor Alan Rusbridger is to be questioned by MPs at the the Home Affairs Select Committee next month over the newspaper's publication of leaks by ex-US security contractor Edward Snowden.

MI6 chief Sir John Sawers warned the Intelligence and Security Committee earlier this week that "our adversaries were rubbing their hands with glee, al-Qaeda is lapping it up" in the wake of the Snowden revelations, adding: "The leaks from Snowden have been very damaging, they've put our operations at risk".

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24876725

[Mr Pee]

The BBC reports that Guardian editor Alan Rusbridger is to be questioned by MPs at the the Home Affairs Select Committee next month over the newspaper's publication of leaks by ex-US security contractor Edward Snowden.

Not before time.

MI6 chief Sir John Sawers warned the Intelligence and Security Committee earlier this week that "our adversaries were rubbing their hands with glee, al-Qaeda is lapping it up" in the wake of the Snowden revelations, adding: "The leaks from Snowden have been very damaging, they've put our operations at risk".

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24876725

As reported in the Telegraph link I posted in 1404. <erm>

[Mr Pee]

As the true extent of the Guardian's reckless behaviour becomes more apparent, calls for the newspaper and its editor to be prosecuted are growing by the day:-

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/terrorism-in-the-uk/10438200/Edward-Snowden-spy-leaks-Liam-Fox-in-push-for-Guardian-newspaper-to-be-prosecuted.html

[Serial_Apologist]

As the true extent of the Guardian's reckless behaviour becomes more apparent, calls for the newspaper and its editor to be prosecuted are growing by the day:-

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...rosecuted.html

Fine, coming as it is from Liam Fox, member of a government that is clearly threatening the safety of British citizens by closing hospitals and local police stations, and indiscriminately cutting sectors of welfare vital to people on low incomes.

And, as the Torygraph writer rightly says, those calling for prosecuting the Guardian don't say whether the "revelations" expose names of British agents or make them vulnerable. It thus amounts to a turning the privilege of secrecy to party political advantage.