Privacy and the State

[Flosshilde]

Not a few of those elderly gents are now sitting comfortably in the House of Lords, I think, & might indeed kick up a fuss. Well - tough. It needs serious action. But I can't see Boris Barnet doing it.

[teamsaint]

Well good news indeed from the government. in our interests, and in order to possibly save up to £33m out of the NHS budget of almost £110 BN, (that is 0.03 %) he government is going to indulge in a bit more tracking.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/jun/29/jeremy-hunt-immigrants-free-nhs-services

good news, i'm sure we all agree.

[Frances_iom]

seems NSA were systematically bugging EU institutions, buildings + personnel for the last few years (http://www.dw.de/report-nsa-spied-on...ons/a-16915813) - maybe Europe can get its act together tho to be honest if I were in charge I'd exclude the UK from all possible disccusions as we appear to be merely stooges to Washington

[Flosshilde]

Well good news indeed from the government. in our interests, and in order to possibly save up to £33m out of the NHS budget of almost £110 BN, (that is 0.03 %) he government is going to indulge in a bit more tracking.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/jun/29/jeremy-hunt-immigrants-free-nhs-services

good news, i'm sure we all agree.

While protecting predominately Tory-voting expats -
"The changes will also protect UK expatriates by giving them access to free NHS healthcare for life once they have paid national insurance contributions for 10 years. At present, anyone living permanently outside the UK faces paying for NHS care they receive."

(at the same time taking away their winter fuel payment if they live somewhere warm)

[scottycelt]

Don't 'spies' tend to try to stay under cover, scotty rather than trumpetting their finds hither and thither?

Nice try, no cigar this time.

Well, try this, amsey. (I hate cigars anyway)

Snowden fled the US to 'trumpet hither and thither'. It's very significant (at least to me) to where he fled. He (and the others involved) obviously knew what they were doing.

Anybody who joins national security services is sworn to secrecy. It's no big deal, that's just the way it has to be. I'd imagine that most of us can grasp why certain things have to be kept secret. I can't speak for anyone else here but I'm not aware that any of this affects my freedom of movement, what I do (legally) or what I think. If I want people to do that I can go to China where the same Snowden fled. Then it was off to Putin-land where the application of human-rights is a shining light and an example for all to follow These simple facts alone illustrate why this guy doesn't really give a damn about individual freedom, he was merely out to embarrass the US and other Western nations.

In US eyes Snowden is a 'traitor' as Philby, MacLean and Burgess were to the UK many decades ago. There is similar political motivation and betrayal of national Intelligence here. Anybody who seriously believes that this clearly untrustworthy man got involved in his treacherous activities simply for the benefit of you and I, displays a quite extraordinary naivety, imo.

[amateur51]

Well, try this, amsey. (I hate cigars anyway)

Snowden fled the US to 'trumpet hither and thither'. It's very significant (at least to me) to where he fled. He (and the others involved) obviously knew what they were doing.

Anybody who joins national security services is sworn to secrecy. It's no big deal, that's just the way it has to be. I'd imagine that most of us can grasp why certain things have to be kept secret. I can't speak for anyone else here but I'm not aware that any of this affects my freedom of movement, what I do (legally) or what I think. If I want people to do that I can go to China where the same Snowden fled. Then it was off to Putin-land where the application of human-rights is a shining light and an example for all to follow These simple facts alone illustrate why this guy doesn't really give a damn about individual freedom, he was merely out to embarrass the US and other Western nations.

In US eyes Snowden is a 'traitor' as Philby, MacLean and Burgess were to the UK many decades ago. There is similar political motivation and betrayal of national Intelligence here. Anybody who seriously believes that this clearly untrustworthy man got involved in his treacherous activities simply for the benefit of you and I, displays a quite extraordinary naivety, imo.

Well as you would doubtless say, scotty, as you exercise your first wriggle of the day, neither of us, none of us is privy to Mr Snowden's motives beyond wanting to reveal something that should not have been going on.In that he has been extremely successful.

You say that he joined the (USA's) national security service. Did he? Or was he in fact a contractor, in which case the service would owe no loyalty to him and vice versa.

[aeolium]

In US eyes Snowden is a 'traitor' as Philby, MacLean and Burgess were to the UK many decades ago. There is similar political motivation and betrayal of national Intelligence here. Anybody who seriously believes that this clearly untrustworthy man got involved in his treacherous activities simply for the benefit of you and I, displays a quite extraordinary naivety, imo.

Whether or not Snowden is considered by the Americans as a traitor of the same kind as Philby, MacLean and Burgess, I don't think the comparison is accurate. There is surely a distinction between the straightforward betrayal of state secrets to a hostile power and whistleblowing about illegal activity by the security services. There can never be an unconditional loyalty to the state which overrides the law, even more so with international law which may have been breached in this case. If you consider a different hypothetical example: if a security agent of the Bosnian Serbs, despite being sworn to secrecy, had disclosed to the UN peacekeepers compelling evidence of the imminence of a massacre at Srebrenica where would his loyalties lie? To his political masters on account of the oath of secrecy he had sworn, or to the UN, given that a serious breach of international law was being planned? No merely national oath is inviolable, when it can be superseded by an obligation to observe international law: in fact, on the contrary, unconditional obedience to an authority which is engaged in activity which breaks international law can give rise to liability under that law.

[Richard Barrett]

first wriggle of the day

Elvis has nothing on this guy. Regarding the comparison with Burgess, Philby and Maclean: what they did was to sell information to what was considered potentially to be an enemy power. Unless one considers that the international public is an enemy power relative to the US and UK governments, there is no comparison. Of course there is a case for saying that the international public is the enemy of those governments; in which case I'm proud to be on the side of the people of the world rather than on the side of the liars, spies and warmongers.

[Flosshilde]

Unless one considers that the international public is an enemy power relative to the US

I think that that's how the USA govt thinks - they might have alliances, but nobody is to be trusted, & most powers/states are actual or potential enemies.

[scottycelt]

Elvis has nothing on this guy. Regarding the comparison with Burgess, Philby and Maclean: what they did was to sell information to what was considered potentially to be an enemy power. Unless one considers that the international public is an enemy power relative to the US and UK governments, there is no comparison. Of course there is a case for saying that the international public is the enemy of those governments; in which case I'm proud to be on the side of the people of the world rather than on the side of the liars, spies and warmongers.

What has 'wriggling' or Elvis got to do with any of this? I've nothing to 'wriggle' over as I'm not involved with either US Intelligence or Mr Snowden, merely expressing an opinion. 'Wriggling' is "amsey-code" for being stuck for a sensible answer, that's all.

At least you have given an answer of sorts though others can judge whether it is a sensible one or not. The comparisons with Philby & Co are obvious political motivation, leaking secrets and then fleeing abroad. Of course no two situations are ever the same but the clear and deliberate breach of trust regarding national secrecy most certainly is (the same).

What is this mysterious entity called the 'international public'? You seem to think that the 'the people of the world' all share the same political views as Richard Barrett. Those who don't share these views are simply 'on the side of the liars. spies and warmongers'.

Such 20th Century language must sound familiar to those of a certain age, and many of them may well have assumed that it had died in the Gorbachev era and then was finally laid to rest following the collapse of the Berlin Wall.

Apparently not.

[Serial_Apologist]

Such 20th Century language must sound familiar to those of a certain age, and many of them may well have assumed that it had died in the Gorbachev era and then was finally laid to rest following the collapse of the Berlin Wall.

Apparently not.

You obviously weren't around for "Neither Washington nor Moscow, but international socialism" then, scotty. <Sigh>

[scottycelt]

Whether or not Snowden is considered by the Americans as a traitor of the same kind as Philby, MacLean and Burgess, I don't think the comparison is accurate. There is surely a distinction between the straightforward betrayal of state secrets to a hostile power and whistleblowing about illegal activity by the security services. There can never be an unconditional loyalty to the state which overrides the law, even more so with international law which may have been breached in this case. If you consider a different hypothetical example: if a security agent of the Bosnian Serbs, despite being sworn to secrecy, had disclosed to the UN peacekeepers compelling evidence of the imminence of a massacre at Srebrenica where would his loyalties lie? To his political masters on account of the oath of secrecy he had sworn, or to the UN, given that a serious breach of international law was being planned? No merely national oath is inviolable, when it can be superseded by an obligation to observe international law: in fact, on the contrary, unconditional obedience to an authority which is engaged in activity which breaks international law can give rise to liability under that law.

I agree that the comparison is not wholly accurate (it was never meant to be) but the principle of divulging information after being sworn to secrecy is common to both. It seems absurd that anyone would agree to work on behalf of any national security service and not expect to discover some extraordinary activity going on behind the scenes. If national security is at stake there may well have to be certain exemptions as far as the civil law is concerned. I don't know if this is the case but I certainly would not be astonished if it were. Your point about international law is a valid one but until every nation agrees to stop spying it is never likely to be wholly observed?

To me there is a world of a difference between, say, a NHS 'whistleblower' and the likes of Snowden. The former (unless there is some sort of personal grudge at play) is genuinely acting in the public interest by exposing bad (and possibly corrupt) management. The latter is all to do with politics and causing unnecessary friction and embarrassment between nations. Fortunately, as every country will have security services which indulge in activities they prefer to keep secret, it is unlikely to go much further, but it certainly doesn't help the cause of good international relations.

Was Snowden really 'acting in the public interest' or is he just a political troublemaker?

[french frank]

not expect to discover some extraordinary activity going on behind the scenes.

The word is 'illegal' not 'extraordinary'.

If national security is at stake there may well have to be certain exemptions as far as the civil law is concerned. I don't know if this is the case but I certainly would not be astonished if it were.

Rather weak as a defence of your opinion: there 'may have been' certain exemptions and you wouldn't be astonished if it were the case. Slight 'evidence' on which to form an unshakeable opinion?

but it certainly doesn't help the cause of good international relations

And no blame attaches to the US for undermining 'good international relations'?

Was Snowden really 'acting in the public interest' or is he just a political troublemaker?

You tell us.

[scottycelt]

The word is 'illegal' not 'extraordinary'.

How would you describe police, fire and ambulance services driving on the wrong side of the road in an emergency?

Would you be in favour of prosecuting the 'lawbreakers' irrespective of the circumstances?

Rather weak as a defence of your opinion: there 'may have been' certain exemptions and you wouldn't be astonished if it were the case. Slight 'evidence' on which to form an unshakeable opinion?.

My opinion is not necessarily 'unshakeable' and is certainly hardly more or less than your own apparently 'unshakeable' trust in Mr Snowden!

And no blame attaches to the US for undermining 'good international relations'?

No more so than any other country. Have you any 'evidence' that 'spying' is not practised in some way by the security services of every other country in the world? Remember, we are talking about the real world not the imaginary one we might prefer to think exists in its place.

You tell us.

Tell you exactly what? I think the likelihood is that Mr Snowden is a political troublemaker based on the available evidence. Do you wholly discount this theory and if so can you please provide some counter-evidence as to why you are so (apparently) 'unshakeably' convinced that Mr Snowden is not simply a political troublemaker? I assume that you must have this other evidence.

Fair enough?

[Serial_Apologist]

How would you describe police, fire and ambulance services driving on the wrong side of the road in an emergency?

Saving lives.

Would you be in favour of prosecuting the 'lawbreakers' irrespective of the circumstances?

Not if they were saving lives.

I think the likelihood is that Mr Snowden is a political troublemaker based on the available evidence. Do you wholly discount this theory and if so can you please provide some counter-evidence as to why you are so (apparently) 'unshakeably' convinced that Mr Snowden is not simply a political troublemaker? I assume that you must have this other evidence.

Fair enough?

That's the kind of rhetorical, when-did-you-stop-beating-your-wife question that broaches no answer.