Privacy and the State

[ahinton]

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.

But isn't that very Torygraph - sorry, I mean The Dialy Tephegral - getting into bed with The Grauniad these days? In yesterday's edition, we had "passed" for "past", "Taverner" for "Tavener" in a reported interview (rather obviously with the latter)...

Never mind, it did also give as a headline including "Miliband aide"...

[amateur51]

Calls growing by the day, eh PeeMeister?

So that's Dr Fox (and presumably Adam Werrity), Lord Carlile, Julian Smith MP and ... you!

This is the same Daily Telegraph that paid £100,000 for the stolen disk (or was it a data stick?) with all the MPs' expenses data on it?

[french frank]

Hell hath no fury.

[amateur51]

Hell hath no fury.

Good sleuthing!

[amateur51]

Alan Rusbridger, editor of The Guardian is being quizzed by the Home Affairs Select Committee in Westminster at present. The 'live' commentary is here.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/dec/03/guardian-editor-alan-rusbridger-home-affairs-committee-nsa-live-coverage

[amateur51]

Here's a link to a recording of the live session of the Counter-Terrorism Committee which quizzed Alan Rusbridger, Editor of the Guardian

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b03kw4gv/Select_Committees_Counterterrorism_Committee/

[amateur51]

The US National Security Agency is considering offering an amnesty to fugitive US intelligence analyst Edward Snowden if he agrees to stop leaking secret documents, an NSA official says.The man in charge of assessing the leaks' damage, Richard Ledgett, said he could be open to an amnesty deal. But NSA Director Gen Keith Alexander has dismissed the idea. Mr Alerxander is due to retire next year.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-25399345

This is a very different perspective to that offered by the Three Wise Security Chiefs in UK when they appeared before the House of Commons Security Committee with their tales of terrble damage being done to UK's seucity position and tio its personel by Snowden's leaks.

Fascinating.

[amateur51]

Even more fascinating developments ...

"A federal judge in Washington ruled on Monday that the bulk collection of Americans’ telephone records by the National Security Agency is likely to violate the US constitution, in the most significant legal setback for the agency since the publication of the first surveillance disclosures by the whistleblower Edward Snowden.

Judge Richard Leon declared that the mass collection of metadata probably violates the fourth amendment, which prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures, and was "almost Orwellian" in its scope. In a judgment replete with literary swipes against the NSA, he said James Madison, the architect of the US constitution, would be "aghast" at the scope of the agency’s collection of Americans' communications data.

The ruling, by the US district court for the District of Columbia, is a blow to the Obama administration, and sets up a legal battle that will drag on for months, almost certainly destined to end up in the supreme court. It was welcomed by campaigners pressing to rein in the NSA, and by Snowden, who issued a rare public statement saying it had vindicated his disclosures. It is also likely to influence other legal challenges to the NSA, currently working their way through federal courts"

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/dec/16/nsa-phone-surveillance-likely-unconstitutional-judge

Not surprisingly, Edward Snowden has seized on this judgement as being a vindication of his whistleblowing actions.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/dec/16/edward-snowden-ruling-nsa-surveillance

And the giant datacollectors , such as Google, Apple, Yahoo and Twitter go on the attack re NSA's actions losing them their customers' trust ...

"The top leaders from world’s biggest technology companies called on the US to "move aggressively" to reform the National Security Agency’s controversial surveillance operations after discussions with President Obama on Tuesday, resisting attempts by the White House to portray the encounter as covering a range of broader priorities."

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/dec/17/tech-companies-call-aggressive-nsa-reforms-white-house

After Alan Rusbridger's impressive performance before MPs last week, one might have thought that British securioty services would have had a re-think along the American lines but not a bit of it, apparently. Last evening at a debate on spying Sir David Ormand, former head of GCHQ say 'nay' to direct parliamentary accountability for the spooks and instead offered up more 'public appearances'

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/dec/17/spy-chiefs-accountability-to-parliament-gchq

So ... why are the USA & UK goverments and spooks taking almost diametrically opposed approaches to the implications of the Snowden's leaks, apparently? They can't both be right. Is it something to do with a written constitution and public accountability? Why are American politicians being so much more effective in representing public outrage than their British counterparts (pace Julian Huppert MP)

[amateur51]

Edward Snowden's Alternative Christmas Message:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/video/2013/dec/25/edward-snowden-christmas-message-video

[RichardWagner]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/10539906/NSA-collection-of-US-phone-records-lawful-judge-rules.html

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/25529677

[ahinton]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...dge-rules.html

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/25529677

Interesting; two distinguished senior American judges present diamerically opposing views on the lawfulness of such operations on the part of NSA, thereby necessitating a lengthy Supreme Court slanging match to decide which should stand; one cannot help but wonder what the ultimate cost of all of this from beginning to end will be to the American taxpayer who at the same time finds NSA and its operations (not to mention its premises and equipment which probably didn't come all that cheaply). I also wonder what appeals facilities will pertain, whichever way it goes and how much longer again the battle to establish the judicial legitimacy or otherwise of NSA's metadata collection procedures will have to continue to be fought until all further appeal doors get to be closed.

[amateur51]

Interesting; two distinguished senior American judges present diamerically opposing views on the lawfulness of such operations on the part of NSA, thereby necessitating a lengthy Supreme Court slanging match to decide which should stand; one cannot help but wonder what the ultimate cost of all of this from beginning to end will be to the American taxpayer who at the same time finds NSA and its operations (not to mention its premises and equipment which probably didn't come all that cheaply). I also wonder what appeals facilities will pertain, whichever way it goes and how much longer again the battle to establish the judicial legitimacy or otherwise of NSA's metadata collection procedures will have to continue to be fought until all further appeal doors get to be closed.

Good points all, ahinton

I wonder what UKIP's position on all this is.

[ahinton]

Good points all, ahinton

Thank you.

I wonder what UKIP's position on all this is.

Do you really? Why, though? What would it matter other than to UKIP itself and to its actual and potential supporters? - and, even then, any such response on UKIP's part could only be of peripheral and indirect impact, as what goes on in US is outside the control of the British government, opposition and fringe political parties such as UKIP.

[amateur51]

Thank you.


Do you really? Why, though? What would it matter other than to UKIP itself and to its actual and potential supporters? - and, even then, any such response on UKIP's part could only be of peripheral and indirect impact, as what goes on in US is outside the control of the British government, opposition and fringe political parties such as UKIP.

It seems to me that Ukip and its supporters and sundry political pundits and psephologists take UKIP far more seriously than their performance as a party with policies warrants. A question like this which raises joined -up thinking about NATO, EU, the Special Relationship, national and international security, counter-terrorism etc is precisely the sort of thing that needs to be put to Farage on 'live' television/radio.

[ahinton]

It seems to me that Ukip and its supporters and sundry political pundits and psephologists take UKIP far more seriously than their performance as a party with policies warrants. A question like this which raises joined -up thinking about NATO, EU, the Special Relationship, national and international security, counter-terrorism etc is precisely the sort of thing that needs to be put to Farage on 'live' television/radio.

I take your point but, since UKIP's electoral performance to date warrants scant attention for the time being, it seems to me to be rather a waste of time to devote energy to concerns about what it might think about NSA issues or indeed any other over which it would have little or no control even in the highly unlikely event of it seizing office and certainly not as a party with no MPs!