Privacy and the State

[Mr Pee]

Quite simply, I refer to the kind of retaliatory measures that may be taken by aggrieved victims of surveillance in snooping on the snoopers; GCHQ and the like are as subject to potential and actual surveillance as is anyone else, which is why I asked you what price state secrecy these days when anyone who knows how to hack into security services' systems and is motivated to do so can do so, thereby undermining the value and indeed viability of "state secrecy".

Snoopers have always snooped on other snoopers. It's called spying. But that's a degree different to the activities of one misguided individual and one reckless newspaper.

So you disagree with Lord Glencathra's assessment of the comparative damage done by Mr Snowden on the one hand and the Cambridge spies on the other; well, doubtless you're a greater authority on the subject than he is, so I'm sure that he'll be delighted to learn from your superior knowledge and experience of the subject..

Yes, I do disagree. When I posted a link to the thoughts of a former home secretary who might therefore be in a position of some authority on such matters, his opinions were dismissed in the most infantile manner, simply because he dared to suggest that Snowden and the Guardian were in the wrong. So I am sure he would be equally delighted to learn from the superior knowledge and experience of those who were so dismissive of him here.

Ah, so no specifics then, as I'd asked? Am I surprised? Not at all. You've not even bothered to specify in what particular ways Mr Snowden's actions have affected "everyone else", let alone you personally - but then you did say that you're in a hurry and have to get to work, so I accept that you may not have had sufficient time to consider and respond to this, which is fair enough (although I note from a later post from you in this thread that, almost half an hour after posting the above, you've yet to depart for work)...

What precise specifics do you want? The very nature of intelligence and counter-intelligence is surely that much of it is unspecific. However, I don't really know how much clearer I can be. The actions of Snowden and the Guardian have been a gift to those who might wish to do us harm. We are all less safe as a result.

I'll be sure to let you know if I get blown up. Will that be specific enough for you?

[ahinton]

Snoopers have always snooped on other snoopers. It's called spying. But that's a degree different to the activities of one misguided individual and one reckless newspaper.

Indeed they have, as you rightly agree, but whatever you think about the activites of this one person (and he's hardly alone in what he's done) or this one newspaper, what I asked you was what price state security when it can be breached by anyone capable of hacking in state security systems and, once again, you evidently feel disincilined to answer that.

Yes, I do disagree. When I posted a link to the thoughts of a former home secretary who might therefore be in a position of some authority on such matters, his opinions were dismissed in the most infantile manner, simply because he dared to suggest that Snowden and the Guardian were in the wrong. So I am sure he would be equally delighted to learn from the superior knowledge and experience of those who were so dismissive of him here.

I counselled only your opinion, not that of anyone else here. The noble lord clearly disagrees with Snowden's activities and The Guardian's involvement in reporting them - both of which you appear broadly to accept - but he is quite clearly even more exercised over the inadequate levels of accountability of the state and its security system, which seems nevertheless not to bother you as it does him.

What precise specifics do you want? The very nature of intelligence and counter-intelligence is surely that much of it is unspecific. However, I don't really know how much clearer I can be. The actions of Snowden and the Guardian have been a gift to those who might wish to do us harm. We are all less safe as a result.

So you keep saying. The specifics for which I asked were quite simply the particular ways in which Mr Snowden's activities have directly affected your life henceforward and how that life has been directly and inevitably compromised by those activities alone - but all that you do in response is provide yet more undefined sweeping generalisations.

I'll be sure to let you know if I get blown up. Will that be specific enough for you?

If you can do it, yes, it will. As the chances are that you won't - and I most sincerely hope that you won't - I don't expect to hear from you about this.

I fear that too many of your lucubrations here are - er - overblown at the tenth...

[Mr Pee]

The noble lord clearly disagrees with Snowden's activities and The Guardian's involvement in reporting them - both of which you appear broadly to accept

erm....No, I don't.....

[ahinton]

erm....No, I don't.....

Well then do please make up your your mind about what you do and don't agree with where the said lord's remarks are concerned and clarify this to members here who would otherwise not be expected to have the faintest idea as to what you think about this.

[Mr Pee]

Well then do please make up your your mind about what you do and don't agree with where the said lord's remarks are concerned and clarify this to members here who would otherwise not be expected to have the faintest idea as to what you think about this.

Read your post again.

The noble lord clearly disagrees with Snowden's activities and The Guardian's involvement in reporting them - both of which you appear broadly to accpet

You seem to be sudggesting that I broadly "accpet" Snowden's activities and The Guardian's involvement in reporting them. Which I have made perfectly clear that I do not.

You are well known for using a lot of words in your posts, Al. It does help if they are in the right order.

Off to work now. The train to Vauxhall Cross leaves in a few minutes.....<whistle>

[amateur51]

Just got back from the day job to read the usual from the usuals.

Point of order, M'Lud. How can I libel you when nobody knows who you are? Unless of course you were christened Amateur51....<erm>

http://www.mediaite.com/online/snowd...ng-techniques/

Why do you think I wrote 'potentially' oh great one?

[ahinton]

You seem to be sudggesting that I broadly "accpet" Snowden's activities and The Guardian's involvement in reporting them. Which I have made perfectly clear that I do not.

No. What I'm telling you - not "sudggesting" to you - is that, broadly speaking, you accept - i.e. agree with, the noble lord's reservations about both Mr Snowden's actions and The Guardian's reporting of them but that you seem not to concur with the other views expressed by him in the passage quoted by Richard Barrett.

You are well known

Oh, I don't think so, Mr Pee...

[Richard Barrett]

Hillary Clinton said about the NSA/GCHQ revelations on a visit to London a few days ago:

"This is a very important question. On the intelligence issue, we are democracies thank goodness, both the US and the UK. We need to have a sensible adult conversation about what is necessary to be done, and how to do it, in a way that is as transparent as it can be, with as much oversight and citizens' understanding as there can be." (my emphasis)

This is a person who stands a strong chance of becoming the next president of the USA. Now of course I would be the last person to take politicians' promises at face value, but there's a clear difference here between Ms Clinton's rhetoric and that of Cameron whose attention today seems limited to initiating a witch-hunt against the Guardian. Why is it that "oversight and citizens' understanding" is (at least ostensibly) important to American politicians but not to British ones?

[ahinton]

Hillary Clinton said about the NSA/GCHQ revelations on a visit to London a few days ago:

"This is a very important question. On the intelligence issue, we are democracies thank goodness, both the US and the UK. We need to have a sensible adult conversation about what is necessary to be done, and how to do it, in a way that is as transparent as it can be, with as much oversight and citizens' understanding as there can be." (my emphasis)

This is a person who stands a strong chance of becoming the next president of the USA. Now of course I would be the last person to take politicians' promises at face value, but there's a clear difference here between Ms Clinton's rhetoric and that of Cameron whose attention today seems limited to initiating a witch-hunt against the Guardian. Why is it that "oversight and citizens' understanding" is (at least ostensibly) important to American politicians but not to British ones?

I don't know - and I'd not have felt especially inclined to assume that Amercian politicans in general might find that to be of interest as vital as Hillary Clinton claims it to be to her, but I'd like to think that I'd be wrong about that and, if so, your question is a very valid one, especially given America's parlous history in its promotion and handling of the "war on terrrr".

A witch-hunt against The Guardian is about as absurd a knee-jerk reaction as any; as I've said before, this isn't about The Guardian or even newspapers in general but something of far more fundamental and far-reaching significance.

[Mr Pee]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/10383089/David-Cameron-Guardian-Snowden-leaks-damaged-national-security.html

[amateur51]

Hillary Clinton said about the NSA/GCHQ revelations on a visit to London a few days ago:

"This is a very important question. On the intelligence issue, we are democracies thank goodness, both the US and the UK. We need to have a sensible adult conversation about what is necessary to be done, and how to do it, in a way that is as transparent as it can be, with as much oversight and citizens' understanding as there can be." (my emphasis)

This is a person who stands a strong chance of becoming the next president of the USA. Now of course I would be the last person to take politicians' promises at face value, but there's a clear difference here between Ms Clinton's rhetoric and that of Cameron whose attention today seems limited to initiating a witch-hunt against the Guardian. Why is it that "oversight and citizens' understanding" is (at least ostensibly) important to American politicians but not to British ones?

Is this the same David Cameron who commissioned Lord Justice Leveson to undertake an investigation intyo the Culture and Practice of the Press & Media, and who promised to accept and act on all his recommendations 'provided they're not bonkers'.

Nearly a year since the Enquiry delivered, Cameron still hasn't delivered on his promise. He's in hock to the Press & Sky and just won't do anything adult that'll upset them.

[amateur51]

By my reckoning we are coming up to 48 hours since those 'Islamist terrorist suspects' were arrested in London by the Met on Monday.

If I'm right then they have to be released soon if they're not charged, or the police can go to a judge for an extension with some bloody good reasons (I hope).

Has anyone heard anything substantive on this?

[Mr Pee]

By my reckoning we are coming up to 48 hours since those 'Islamist terrorist suspects' were arrested in London by the Met on Monday.

If I'm right then they have to be released soon if they're not charged, or the police can go to a judge for an extension with some bloody good reasons (I hope).

Has anyone heard anything substantive on this?

I know you're hoping that they will be released without charge, because then, as far as you're concerned, it will back up your ludicrous theory that the whole operation was cooked up as a publicity stunt- which is borne out by your use of ' ' around the phrase Islamist terrorist Suspects.

They ARE suspects. That is why they were arrested.

It's really not a difficult concept.

[mercia]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24549918

[amateur51]

I know you're hoping that they will be released without charge, because then, as far as you're concerned, it will back up your ludicrous theory that the whole operation was cooked up as a publicity stunt.

Let's just wait and see, shall we?

While you're hoping the opposite aren't you, to validate your ludicrous theory that "If You've Done Nothing Wrong, You've Nothing To Worry About".