Privacy and the State

[Richard Barrett]

we have heard of people's lives being put at risk

Is that the best you can do?

[aeolium]

Is there really any point in posting these endless links from The Guardian? Of course they are all going to support that paper's reckless decision to publish this material.

What else would one expect?

Well, my purpose in posting the link to the reactions of editors of international papers to the Guardian's Snowden material (and the Daily Mail's comment on that) was to show the widespread support across a number of countries and some well-known foreign newspapers to the Guardian's action. Even taking the cynical view that the Guardian would only publish supportive reactions - I happen to think they would also have included negative reaction as well - it's quite an impressive roster of support, in some cases from newspapers that would not generally be in agreement with the Guardian's politics.

Against that, there is the Daily Mail, some ex- and current politicians and the head of MI5. "What else would one expect?"

[ahinton]

All links from the Guardian, even the "international oprinion" one, except for David Aaronovitch who shares that paper's political views- he may even write for it. I wouldn't know, because I don't read the paper, although with the amount of Grauniad links that Amateur posts up here there's probably no need.....

Is there really any point in posting these endless links from The Guardian? Of course they are all going to support that paper's reckless decision to publish this material.

What else would one expect?

What else would one reasonably expect except a decent proportion of material sourced from The Guardian in response to arguments that The Guardian has itself somehow transgressed in this matter? Would you expect it to keep quiet when so accused? However, the fact that so many other sources of support for The Guardian (and, let it not be forgotten, other newspapers as well) happen to be reported in The Guardian does not make them any the less factual or pertinent, does it? (unless you believe that they're not genuine and are being made up by The Guardian to bolster its agenda).

[ahinton]

I dare the FA is a wonderful organ. But since your side have rejected various opinions, including two Home Secretaries, and various others, with no attempt whatsoever to discuss or dissect their writings, why on earth should we start to consider opinions posted from your side?

Those Home Secretaries' opinions are their opinions, just as those of others who disagree with them are theirs; what's so unacceptable or lacking in credibility about reading the opinions of both sides and forming opinions of one's own? I'll tell you want's wrong with it - it's when the resulting opinions happen not to coincide with yours and those who think as you do - that's all.

When Malala and the Taleban seem now to join forces in condemnation of the use of drones, that should count for something. OK, their respective objecting stances here are based on drones being used militarily to cause damage and to maim and kill as distinct from merely snooping on citizens, but is that so different to members of the public objecting to their use to spy on them and their fellow citizens, or indeed to any other use of spying techniques?

[Mr Pee]

When Malala and the Taleban seem now to join forces in condemnation of the use of drones, that should count for something. OK, their respective objecting stances here are based on drones being used militarily to cause damage and to maim and kill as distinct from merely snooping on citizens, but is that so different to members of the public objecting to their use to spy on them and their fellow citizens, or indeed to any other use of spying techniques?

Yes, it's completely different.

[ahinton]

Yes, it's completely different.

To you, perhaps - but then, to others, the use of such devices to for the purposes intended by those who control them is the common factor that you appear to omit to notice in your perception that they're "completely different"; using these or any other devices to kill and/or main people and damage property is obviously more devastating in its outcome, but this is a matter of degree and not one of black and white.

[Mr Pee]

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/edward-snowdens-secrets-may-be-dangerous-i-would-not-have-published-them-8877404.html

[Mr Pee]

To you, perhaps - but then, to others, the use of such devices to for the purposes intended by those who control them is the common factor that you appear to omit to notice in your perception that they're "completely different"; using these or any other devices to kill and/or main people and damage property is obviously more devastating in its outcome, but this is a matter of degree and not one of black and white.

No, it's a matter of black and white. This is a thread about Privacy and the State. If you wish to start one about the use of drones as weapons, go ahead.

[Richard Barrett]

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/...m-8877404.html

God what an a**elicker! Note however that his objections to pubishing the Snowden material are twofold: (a) we should believe MI5 spokespeople when they say doing so is dangerous, and (b) there's no story anyway. It seems to me somewhat strange to hold both these opinions in one's head simultaneously.

[ahinton]

No, it's a matter of black and white. This is a thread about Privacy and the State. If you wish to start one about the use of drones as weapons, go ahead.

I am well aware, thank you, of the subject of this thread and have indeed felt obliged to remind some people as to what it is in the past when they've departed from the topic. I do not wish to initiate a thread about drones as military weapons and would not in any case wait for or otherwise need an invitiation from you as the sole impetus for doing so. What I wrote, however, is on-topic because the common factor in the uses of drones for surveillance and to kill, main or destroy is that, in each case, the drones are weapons that target people, just as are any other devices used for snooping on unsuspecting (or suspecting) citizens. If you have evidence to prove that neither Malala nor the Taleban have any objectionsto the use of drones for surveillance purposes, please provide it.

In the meantime, perhaps you might also consider confirming whether you believe that governments that authorise snooping on its citizens and confer upon its security services the powers to do this as they think fit owe it to the citizens who elected them to create and maintain proper checks and balances to ensure that such activity not only doesn't get out of control but is also monitored to ensure at all times that those powers are never abused? Do you also believe that democratically elected governments should be entitled to grant themselves access at all times to as much information as possible about its citizens just in case they choose at any time to snoop on them for any reason or none, justifiable or otherwise?

[ahinton]

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/...m-8877404.html

I'm rather surprised that you've posted the link to this when almost all commentary beneath it quite understgandably trashes the article and the journalist who wrote it - but I suppose that you did so because the article was one with which you found yourself broadly in sympathy whereas the respondents to it are just some mob, or something, so their opinions are worh next to nothing.

The article ends with the hack amnouncing
"I don’t want my civil liberties infringed, and as a taxpayer I’d like to know as much as possible about what the Government and its agents are doing with my money. But I also want the security services to do their jobs properly, to make the world safer."
He doesn't "want" much, does he?! In any case, "wanting" the security services to do their jobs properly doesn't mean that they're being given the right brief on each and every occasions to do them "properly" in the first place any more than they can necessarily be trusted to do that job "properly" irrespective of the brief.

He continues by admitting
"I know they will make mistakes; I know that occasionally they will stray".
It's not "mistakes" that most of us are concerned about, as he should realise if he has any real grasp of the matter.

He then observes
"I hope I’m not complacent."
Some hopes of that!

Lastly,
"Others, doubtless, will disagree."
Well, whoopty-doo!

[Mr Pee]

God what an a**elicker!

How constructive.

[ahinton]

How constructive.

And the remainder of his post - which I remind you reads "Note however that his objections to pubishing the Snowden material are twofold: (a) we should believe MI5 spokespeople when they say doing so is dangerous, and (b) there's no story anyway. It seems to me somewhat strange to hold both these opinions in one's head simultaneously" isn't constructive?...

[Richard Barrett]

How constructive.

Well, I was rendered almost speechlessly astonished to find such lickspittle stuff in the Independent.

[ahinton]

Well, I was rendered almost speechlessly astonished to find such lickspittle stuff in the Independent.

It almost entirely undermines the very name of that newspaper, does it not?