Privacy and the State

[An_Inspector_Calls]

Firstly, no technical details have been made public as far as I'm aware. Secondly, about half a million people had access to the same material as Snowden, so it's by no means inconceivable that someone else among them would have taken what they knew to a foreign government or a terrorist organisation. And you do your arguments no credit by your mode of address.

Well how do you explain then that Professor Glees, head of the Centre for Security and Intelligence Studies at Buckingham University is saying (Times today) that the Guardian must be investigated by the police over their recent revelations? And he's not the first to hint at this, Rifkind was murmuring on that tack some weeks back.

I'm aware of at least one technical revelation of a breach of security which was that since the terrorist groups had been augmented by Europeans the intelligence services benefited by searching for communications from those countries in those European languages; once they terrorists knew this, the closed down their lapse, making surveillance more difficult.

As for the way I addressed you, well what's good for the goose . . .

[Richard Barrett]

Quite easily, unless the Guardian or some other irresponsible rag leaks the technical details of the Security Service's operations.

Which they haven't.

[Richard Barrett]

what's good for the goose . . .

What on earth are you on about?

[Richard Barrett]

It is very likely that the use of such measures has prevented an atrocity such as 7/7 from occuring again.

This is what I call paranoia.

[An_Inspector_Calls]

What on earth are you on about?

Your previous abusive Spoonerism - or had that conveniently slipped your mind?

[amateur51]

Thanks for the link. Very interesting reading. However, unlike the typically paranoid Guardian journalist, none of it worries or concerns me in the slightest. On the contrary, I am encouraged that those who seek to do us harm have to contend with such a level of scrutiny. It is very likely that the use of such measures has prevented an atrocity such as 7/7 from occuring again.

Depends on your meaning of 'such as' I suppose but I thought you'd become pretty het up by the Kenyan shopping mall incident recently. Why weren't the West's sooper-dooper surveillance systems able to prevent that?

[amateur51]

Well how do you explain then that Professor Glees, head of the Centre for Security and Intelligence Studies at Buckingham University is saying (Times today) that the Guardian must be investigated by the police over their recent revelations? And he's not the first to hint at this, Rifkind was murmuring on that tack some weeks back.

First off, I'd check who his management committee/trustees are; and secondly I'd check who his funders are.

The owner of The Times would, of course, be thrilled to dump on The Guardian.

Simples.

[Richard Barrett]

The loony right among us might do well to think about whether government spending on supposedly anti-terrorist measures is "value for money" when it might be better spent on addressing the issue of road safety; as Lanchester (not a "Guardian journalist" by trade, of course, but a novelist who has also written for the Telegraph) points out, 53 people have died as a result of terrorism in the UK since September 2001, compared with almost 27 000 on the roads. Why is the latter not the subject of a generously-funded governmental institution with wide-ranging powers?

[An_Inspector_Calls]

The loony right among us might do well to think about whether government spending on supposedly anti-terrorist measures is "value for money" when it might be better spent on addressing the issue of road safety; as Lanchester (not a "Guardian journalist" by trade, of course, but a novelist who has also written for the Telegraph) points out, 53 people have died as a result of terrorism in the UK since September 2001, compared with almost 27 000 on the roads. Why is the latter not the subject of a generously-funded governmental institution with wide-ranging powers?

We're both apparently fans of Lanchester, but his comparison with road deaths is piffle (as is his argument in your previous Lanchester quote that because bin Laden wasn't using electronic communications then by extention neither were any other terrorists). Society accepts the road-death risk in the most part voluntarily. The public don't accept the terrorism risk probably because it's out of their control and because the nature of the risk is completely different: the probability is low, but the hazard is potentially huge.

[Mr Pee]

Depends on your meaning of 'such as' I suppose but I thought you'd become pretty het up by the Kenyan shopping mall incident recently. Why weren't the West's sooper-dooper surveillance systems able to prevent that?

Remember what the IRA said after the Brighton bomb? " We only have to be lucky once. You have to be lucky always".

It is sadly inevitable that some terror plots will succeed, despite the best efforts of MI5, GCHQ, and MI6. If anything, that proves that they need all the powers at their disposal to counter the threat. We do not know how many Nairobis have been prevented by the use of the very measures that the Guardian is attempting to derail with its irresponsible reporting.

Personally, when it comes to the risk of being blown apart on a tube train or slaughtered whilst out shopping, I prefer to rely on the professionalism and dedication of our security services, and not on luck.

[Richard Barrett]

The public don't accept the terrorism risk

The public were never asked what they think about this issue, and it wasn't even possible to have a relatively informed discussion about it until Snowden came along.

[Mr Pee]

The public were never asked what they think about this issue, and it wasn't even possible to have a relatively informed discussion about it until Snowden came along.

The public were never asked.

What might the question have been?

How about:- "Do you agree that the security service should use all the powers at their disposal to counter the terror threat, or would you rather they didn't, to please the readers of the Guardian newspaper?"

Answers on a postcard please......

[Richard Barrett]

How about:- "Do you agree that the security service should use all the powers at their disposal to counter the terror threat, or would you rather they didn't, to please the readers of the Guardian newspaper?"

I was thinking more in terms of "Do you think that in a supposedly democratic society the secret services should be empowered, without any kind of checks and balances, to spy indiscriminately on the citizens of its own and other countries?" None of us wants to get blown up on the Tube, but how many terrorist attacks do you think were prevented by GCHQ spying on foreign politicians during the G20 summit?

[Mr Pee]

I was thinking more in terms of "Do you think that in a supposedly democratic society the secret services should be empowered, without any kind of checks and balances, to spy indiscriminately on the citizens of its own and other countries?" None of us wants to get blown up on the Tube, but how many terrorist attacks do you think were prevented by GCHQ spying on foreign politicians during the G20 summit?

Well, you bandy about the word "indiscrimately", as if that is fact, when the very link that you provided earlier shows that it is anything but, despite the Guardian spinning the facts to suggest otherwise.

As for the G20, well, the answer to your question is- probably none, which renders your point somewhat redundant. I am pretty sure, though, that everybody spies on each other at such meetings. Why is that a surprise? Everybody wants to know what everybody else is up to.

[An_Inspector_Calls]

The public were never asked what they think about this issue, and it wasn't even possible to have a relatively informed discussion about it until Snowden came along.

The last part of your post is correct, but so what? This is a military issue, Do we want the public to debate battlefield tactics? Are we knowledgeable of surveillance matters to decide the right action? I think not. And neither is self-appointed Guardian.