Privacy and the State

[ahinton]

So, as a result of Snowden's revelations, all those "Islamic terrorists" have suddenly realised that GCHQ is attempting to monitor their every communication. Don't you think they might previously have had a vague suspicion that this might be the case?

Something that strangely doesn't get a mention in Parker's fundraising pitch, I mean dire warning, is WHY these people might want to attack the British people "at will". Once more I'm reminded of Prof Chomsky's suggestion that the best way Western governments can stop terrorism is to stop doing it.

And... let me get this right: we're supposed to trust the word of the head of an organisation whose life-blood is secrecy, covert operations and spreading misinformation?

Quite; why such arrogant expectations of implicit and total trust even exist at all is well beyond my understanding.

[Mr Pee]

So, as a result of Snowden's revelations, all those "Islamic terrorists" have suddenly realised that GCHQ is attempting to monitor their every communication. Don't you think they might previously have had a vague suspicion that this might be the case?

Something that strangely doesn't get a mention in Parker's fundraising pitch, I mean dire warning, is WHY these people might want to attack the British people "at will". Once more I'm reminded of Prof Chomsky's suggestion that the best way Western governments can stop terrorism is to stop doing it.

And... let me get this right: we're supposed to trust the word of the head of an organisation whose life-blood is secrecy, covert operations and spreading misinformation?

It never ceases to astonish, the smug complacency of certain commentators here. A stark warning from the head of the very organisation dedicated to countering the terror threat is glibly dismissed as a fundraising stunt, and yet again the old chestnut that it is all our fault anyway and we deserve everything we get is wheeled out. I could post the link again to countries that have been targeted by Islamist fanatics over the years, but what would be the point? You choose to conveniently ignore anything that doesn't fit your view anyway; or rather you discredit it as propaganda or spin.

Was the recent slaughter in Kenya somehow just retribution for Western policy? Or the Bali nightclub bomb? I am sickened by people who attempy to justify such atrocities from the cosy comfort of their living rooms.

The actions of the Guardian- was ever a newspaper less appropriately named?- in facilitiating the actions of terrorists by publishing these leaks is infinitely more serious, and far more worthy of censure, than the odd rogue article in The Daily Mail.

[ahinton]

It never ceases to astonish, the smug complacency of certain commentators here.

I'm with you there. I read some of what you and one or two others write and there seems always to be room for yet more astonishment at your/their complacency.

A stark warning from the head of the very organisation dedicated to countering the terror threat is glibly dismissed as a fundraising stunt, and yet again the old chestnut that it is all our fault anyway and we deserve everything we get is wheeled out. I could post the link again to countries that have been targeted by Islamist fanatics over the years, but what would be the point? You choose to conveniently ignore anything that doesn't fit your view anyway; or rather you discredit it as propaganda or spin.

But on what specific grounds would you trust the claims and warnings of this person above othes whose views differ from his? On what bases would you seek to justify that? What you write here is clearly and deplorably syumptomaic of Sorabji's observation that Fascism is everyone else's Fascism besides one's own, to the extent that all "terrorists" are "other people/nations" and that such countries as US and UK are and have always been free from any risk of the taint of imperialism, sabre-rattling, terrorism et al; if that's not arrogantly myopic complacency of the worst order, I cannot imagine what is!

Was the recent slaughter in Kenya somehow just retribution for Western policy? Or the Bali nightclub bomb? I am sickened by people who attempy to justify such atrocities from the cosy comfort of their living rooms.

For the forty-eleventh time, no one here is seeking to "justify" such actions, but do you disbelieve everyone, including some of the perpetrators themselves, when they assert that these actions are indeed at least in part incited by a desire for such retribution?

The actions of the Guardian- was ever a newspaper less appropriately named?- in facilitiating the actions of terrorists by publishing these leaks is infinitely more serious, and far more worthy of censure, than the odd rogue article in The Daily Mail.

To you and a handful of others, perhaps, but that alone hardly makes such a view right. What is really "far more serious" - and indeed dangerous - is the smugness of those who determine to trust almost every word uttered and every action carried out under the auspices of those who have been appointed to their positions of seniority in the security services by those ever-trustworthy organisations known as governments.

[Richard Barrett]

A stark warning from the head of the very organisation dedicated to countering the terror threat

From a spy, you mean. Who is basically just trying to convince readers how important spying is. Swallowing all that without question is what I call smug and complacent.

[An_Inspector_Calls]

Swallowing all that without question is what I call smug and complacent.

Rather like this then

So, as a result of Snowden's revelations, all those "Islamic terrorists" have suddenly realised that GCHQ is attempting to monitor their every communication. Don't you think they might previously have had a vague suspicion that this might be the case?

[ahinton]

Rather like this then

Er - sorry, but whilst I realise that you're not addressing this to me personally, I remain puzzled as to what you appear to suppose is "smug and complacent" about Richard Barrett's remarks:
"So, as a result of Snowden's revelations, all those "Islamic terrorists" have suddenly realised that GCHQ is attempting to monitor their every communication. Don't you think they might previously have had a vague suspicion that this might be the case?"

[Richard Barrett]

Rather like this then

You are not making any sense.

[An_Inspector_Calls]

those "Islamic terrorists" have suddenly realised that GCHQ is attempting to monitor their every communication. Don't you think they might previously have had a vague suspicion that this might be the case?

Echoing Hinton's praise of your insights and effort elsewhere, may I take this opportunity to thank you, Mr Barrett, for sharing your vast experience and depth of knowledge in the areas of terrorism tactics and intelligence gathering techniques with us in this thread.

[ahinton]

Hinton's

ahinton to you.

Mr Barrett

Decent manners for once; thank you for that.

vast experience and depth of knowledge in the areas of terrorism tactics and intelligence gathering techniques with us in this thread.

In this I think that your lame attempt at sarcasm falls flat by missing the point. Terrorism, as I have pointed out before, is so often branded as everyone else's terrorism except one's own that it's come to be regarded by the majority of people in US, UK and elsewhere as defining acts of violence that are only ever carried out by other hostile states. This dangerously complacent assumption not only muddies the waters of understanding but also ignores home-grown terrorism - i.e. that which is effectively "imported" from elsewhere and developed in a country against that country; it also displays the kind of obdurately inflexible "my state is right, yours is wrong" arrogance that's been known to incite wars before now.

Another issue that your post ignores is that of trust in "the authorities"; why would anyone place their trust, 100% and at all times, in the security services of Britain when there's scant evidence that they work at all times only in the interests of British citizens?

Yet another issue is this obsession with state secrecy which is now little more than a left-over from the past when it was at least possible to maintain it. As long as someone can hack into the relevant areas - the armed forces, police, GCHQ et al just as they do into banks and other financial institutions (hence the apparent need for Waking Shark Mk. II), the vast majority of "state secrecy" isn't worth the paper that it's not supposed to be written on. Just as technological developments have enabled anything and everything to be out there for everyone with an internet connection on YouTube, Facebook, Twitter and heaven knows how many thousands of other resources, so the efficacy of "state secrecy" has depleted and continues to dissipate - and it doesn't take Snowdens, Mannings et al to ensure that...

[Richard Barrett]

sharing your vast experience and depth of knowledge in the areas of terrorism tactics and intelligence gathering techniques with us in this thread.

You're very welcome; thank you for sharing your shining wit with us, as Revd Spooner might put it.

But really: I think we can assume that any terrorist worth the name is going to assume that GCHQ et al are going to try to monitor their electronic communications, and that with the resources available to them they'll probably succeed in doing so. On the other hand, until the revelations under discussion, most ordinary citizens would have assumed that their electronic communications are not being monitored because after all we're not living in some kind of Orwellian surveilance culture, are we? But now we find that actually we are, supposedly as a price worth paying for our security from attack by terrorists, supposedly in a democratic society although none of us was ever give the opportunity to vote for or against such measures, because it was hoped that we'd never find out and no doubt feared that we might not make the "right" decision.

WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

[Mr Pee]

Another issue that your post ignores is that of trust in "the authorities"; why would anyone place their trust, 100% and at all times, in the security services of Britain when there's scant evidence that they work at all times only in the interests of British citizens?

Did anybody say they do? They obviously co-operate and share intelligence with other friendly nations, in the interests of protecting them and us.

Anyway, I would be interested to hear on what grounds you are suggesting that the intelligence and security services work at times against the interests of British citizens? We will probably never know how many terrorist attacks they have thwarted whilst you and others have been pompously pontificating on their failings and casting their motives into question.

[Mr Pee]

You're very welcome; thank you for sharing your shining wit with us, as Revd Spooner might put it.

But really: I think we can assume that any terrorist worth the name is going to assume that GCHQ et al are going to try to monitor their electronic communications, and that with the resources available to them they'll probably succeed in doing so. On the other hand, until the revelations under discussion, most ordinary citizens would have assumed that their electronic communications are not being monitored because after all we're not living in some kind of Orwellian surveilance culture, are we? But now we find that actually we are, supposedly as a price worth paying for our security from attack by terrorists, supposedly in a democratic society although none of us was ever give the opportunity to vote for or against such measures, because it was hoped that we'd never find out and no doubt feared that we might not make the "right" decision.

There's no "supposedly" about it. If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear.

[amateur51]

There's no "supposedly" about it. If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear.

Your tragedy is that you sincerely believe this don't you.

Here's a whole thread demonstrating just how wrong you are in making this statement.

http://www.for3.org/forums/showthread.php?9132-quot-If-you-ve-done-nothing-wrong-quot-amp-section-7

[ahinton]

Did anybody say they do? They obviously co-operate and share intelligence with other friendly nations, in the interests of protecting them and us.

When did you - presumably as someone entitled to vote in British General Elections - vote for this "sharing" of "intelligence" with anyone without your being asked first? What is the point of the Information Commissioner's Office and the Data Protection and Freedom of Information Acts if security service organisations can and do access and share such personal and corporate data as they may choose with whomsoever they please without first seeking the permission of its owners? Who decides what is a "friendly nation", when and on what specific grounds? - and "friendly" to whom in any case? What guarantees are there that data "shared" with "friendly nations" is only ever in the interests of protecting those nations and ours? I am not for one moment suggesting that none of this kind of work sets out to achieve such ends or indeed actually achieves them; what I do say, however, is that giving a security organisation carte blanche to do what it likes with suchever data as it chooses at all times without fear or favour under the guise of maintaning "national security" runs the risk that some data gets to be misppropriated. In other words, an organisation that is subject to a great deal less scrutiny on behalf of its paymasters than most is inevitably going to raise suspicions as to the nature and extent of its "secret" activities.

Anyway, I would be interested to hear on what grounds you are suggesting that the intelligence and security services work at times against the interests of British citizens? We will probably never know how many terrorist attacks they have thwarted whilst you and others have been pompously pontificating on their failings and casting their motives into question.

Again, I have not suggesed that they have done no good at all but while, you're busy trading alleged pompous pontification in an attempt to justify whatever position you hold, what I'm "interested to hear" from you is (a) why you're so trusting of such organisations and their conduct when far too mcuh of the latter manages to escape the eagle eyes of compliance monitoring officers and the like in the interests of ensuring as far as possible that they never overstep their proper brief and (b) why you still think that there's a need for "state secrecy" when it's ever increasingly possible to breach it by hacking, some of which might well arise in any case as a direct consequence of inadequately monitored insider corruption.

[ahinton]

There's no "supposedly" about it. If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear.

Ah, that well-worn old chestnut again! But I do have things to hide! Don't you? Don't all of us? Is your apparently unquestioning belief in the virtues, necessities and inviolability of state secrecy such that you believe that the stte is entitled to maintain such secrecy while its citizens are expected demonstrably to have "nothing to hide", which is tantamount to their being entitled to no secrecy themselves? Whatever sort of Orwellian tate of affairs would that be?!