Privacy and the State

[amateur51]

An account of some of the issues raised by MPs, campaigners and media professionals taking part in Monday night's debate, Mass Surveillance, which was conceived by Conservative backbencher, David Davis, and the journalist Henry Porter with the added aim of supporting the Guardian at a time when the paper has come under pressure over its reporting of leaks by whistleblower Edward Snowden.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/nov/05/tory-mp-intelligence-services

It appears as though, at last, some British opinion-formers are beginning to grasp the seriousness of what Edward Snowden has revealed, although they still appear to be far behind similar people in USA, Germany and other parts of the world.

[amateur51]

OK, then, I'll indulge you. One terrorist atrocity prevented is worth every taxpayer's penny. And you can be sure that many HAVE been prevented, through the work of GCHQ, MI5 and MI6. We only hear about the tip of the iceberg.

Oh dear! Butterfingers strike again ...

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/nov/03/police-search-missing-terror-suspect

You couldn't make it up.

[amateur51]

I don't know which words flag up an email and neither do you, but I would think it highly unlikely that a simple mention of the word "Iran" would be sufficient.

As for your convenient disregard of Malcolm Rifkind's words, as the Chair of the Intelligence and Security Commitee, I think it is safe to assume that he knows a darn sight more about all this than any of us. I know it's the easy option to simply dismiss everything that interferes with your view as propaganda or simple lies, but I do find it amusing that so many of the posters on this subject take everything they read in The Guardian as gospel and treat just about eveything else as poppycock.

It looks as though Sir Malcolm's government-pandering perfomance has resulted in Tory MP Rory Stewart's making a modest proposal ...

"Parliament's intelligence and security committee (ISC) should always be chaired by a member of the opposition to ensure its independence and be freely elected by MPs, the Conservative MP Rory Stewart said on Monday night at a debate aimed at fostering public discussion about mass surveillance.

"You are never going to have a government backbencher chairing a committee that is going to criticise the government properly," Stewart said.

His remarks come days before his Tory colleague Sir Malcolm Rifkind chairs an ISC hearing at which the heads of Britain's intelligence services will give evidence as part of an inquiry into oversight of the UK spying agencies, following concern about the scale of mass surveillance."

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/nov/05/tory-mp-intelligence-services

As if the hapless Home Secretary were not in enough trouble after Mr Mohammed's doing a bunk in a burqa, who should seek to make capital out of it but the man currently the Mayor of London who is widely understood to be keen to get back into Westminster as and when the Prime Minister is seen to have become a liability to his Party and the country ...

"Boris Johnson has sharply criticised the regime to control terrorism suspects and claimed that Mohammed Ahmed Mohamed, who has gone missing after disguising himself in a burqa, "obviously had help to escape".

The London mayor blamed "coalition politics" for watering down the previous regime of control orders and claimed the current terrorism prevention and investigation measures or "Tpims" were not working.

He urged the home secretary, Theresa May, to "get tough" with the Liberal Democrats to end the "ludicrous" situation."

Ouch!

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/nov/05/boris-johnson-terror-suspect-burqa-theresa-may

[Mr Pee]

Oh dear! Butterfingers strike again ...

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/nov/03/police-search-missing-terror-suspect

You couldn't make it up.

Perhaps you could enlighten us as to what on earth such a cock-up has to do with the owrk of GCHQ. Surely the problem here is the lax nature of the new control orders, and the use of the Burka- not for the first time- as a disguise.

Of course we don't know the exact nature of what went on here, for example whether the individual concerned was under direct physical surveillance at the time, for example, but regardless of that, I find you crowing over such an incident deeply distasteful. Like I have said, we only hear about it when things go wrong, rarely of successes, recent terror arrests in London notwithstanding.

[Mr Pee]

It looks as though Sir Malcolm's government-pandering perfomance has resulted in Tory MP Rory Stewart's making a modest proposal ...

"Parliament's intelligence and security committee (ISC) should always be chaired by a member of the opposition to ensure its independence and be freely elected by MPs, the Conservative MP Rory Stewart said on Monday night at a debate aimed at fostering public discussion about mass surveillance.

"You are never going to have a government backbencher chairing a committee that is going to criticise the government properly," Stewart said.

His remarks come days before his Tory colleague Sir Malcolm Rifkind chairs an ISC hearing at which the heads of Britain's intelligence services will give evidence as part of an inquiry into oversight of the UK spying agencies, following concern about the scale of mass surveillance."

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/nov/05/tory-mp-intelligence-services

As if the hapless Home Secretary were not in enough trouble after Mr Mohammed's doing a bunk in a burqa, who should seek to make capital out of it but the man currently the Mayor of London who is widely understood to be keen to get back into Westminster as and when the Prime Minister is seen to have become a liability to his Party and the country ...

"Boris Johnson has sharply criticised the regime to control terrorism suspects and claimed that Mohammed Ahmed Mohamed, who has gone missing after disguising himself in a burqa, "obviously had help to escape".

The London mayor blamed "coalition politics" for watering down the previous regime of control orders and claimed the current terrorism prevention and investigation measures or "Tpims" were not working.

He urged the home secretary, Theresa May, to "get tough" with the Liberal Democrats to end the "ludicrous" situation."

Ouch!

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/...qa-theresa-may

Endlessly quoting the Guardian proves nothing, except that that paper has an agenda which it wishes to pursue. Still, if it keeps you happy I suppose it serves some purpose. Although I am glad that Boris backs up my last post here, pointing out that the control orders are the problem, and yes, you don't have to be George Smiley to work out that he probably had some help. So what?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/10425217/Our-spooks-still-depend-on-a-cloak-of-secrecy.html

[teamsaint]

Oh dear! Butterfingers strike again ...

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/nov/03/police-search-missing-terror-suspect

You couldn't make it up.

oh I bet they do !!

[Mr Pee]

And PLEASE don't tell me that anybody is the least bit surprised by this:-

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-24824633

Spies spying. Who'd have thought it? <erm>

[ahinton]

And PLEASE don't tell me that anybody is the least bit surprised by this:-

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-24824633

Spies spying. Who'd have thought it? <erm>

In seeking to support what passes for your argument, you seem to have frequent recourse to the question of whether and to what extent how many people might be "surprised" at some of what's going on. I do not claim to be "surprised" at this kind of thing and I imagine that many people today are "surprised" by less and less of it; indeed, a growing and festering distrust serves only to dampen any such surprise. Whether or not people are "surprised", however, is in itself hardly a credible measure of what is justifiable or acceptable, though, is it? One might as well say that, because something happens, it should happen, regardless of what it is or what its effects might be.

[Mr Pee]

In seeking to support what passes for your argument, you seem to have frequent recourse to the question of whether and to what extent how many people might be "surprised" at some of what's going on. I do not claim to be "surprised" at this kind of thing and I imagine that many people today are "surprised" by less and less of it; indeed, a growing and festering distrust serves only to dampen any such surprise. Whether or not people are "surprised", however, is in itself hardly a credible measure of what is justifiable or acceptable, though, is it? One might as well say that, because something happens, it should happen, regardless of what it is or what its effects might be.

Well, I happen to think that we SHOULD spy on our neighbours, if it helps to protect the political and economic interests of the UK; you can be damn sure that they are doing the same to us. And I also think we SHOULD listen to phone calls, and monitor email and internet traffic if it will help to prevent a terrorist atrocity.

[Serial_Apologist]

Well, I happen to think that we SHOULD spy on our neighbours, if it helps to protect the political and economic interests of the UK; you can be damn sure that they are doing the same to us. And I also think we SHOULD listen to phone calls, and monitor email and internet traffic if it will help to prevent a terrorist atrocity.

Yes, they do say charity begins at home

[ahinton]

Well, I happen to think that we SHOULD spy on our neighbours, if it helps to protect the political and economic interests of the UK; you can be damn sure that they are doing the same to us. And I also think we SHOULD listen to phone calls, and monitor email and internet traffic if it will help to prevent a terrorist atrocity.

We all know that this is what you think, Mr Pee. As I have pointed out, I do not object in principle to all spying under any and every circumstance but, just as with any other taxpayer-funded organisation, the security services that do this kind of work must themselves be monitored - "spied on", if you like" - and be held duly accountable for their actions in order to minimise the risk that such actions are inappropriate and/or disproportionate and/or irrelevant to the specific business of attempting to reduce the risk of terrorism - in other words, those services should NOT record data on or listen to phone calls and/or monitor email and internet traffic unless such actions DO prevent, or can be justified as being carried out in the cause of trying to prevent, terrorist atrocities. It is clear that NSA, GCHQ and other such services exceed their brief in this and that is my concern, not whether they should exist or function at all.

Spying on our neighbours and others will only encourge thoe neighbours and othes to spy on us more diligently; even if you have no problem with being spied on by GCHQ, do you really welcome - or at least condone - being spied on by NSA, or its French and German equivalents, or the security services of Iran, DR Congo, N Korea, Somalia, Venezuela, Russia et al? Furthermore, has not the fact of fostering the sense of the kind of international mutual international distrust that's a vital prerequisite for the starting of world wars - as occurs as a consequence of such snooping activities - occurred to you in this context and, if so, what is your view on it?

[MrGongGong]

Maybe Mr Pee would like to make public his Cache memory ?

(if you can cope with endless F1 photos ?) after all "Nothing to hide, Nothing to fear"

[ahinton]

Maybe Mr Pee would like to make public his Cache memory ?

(if you can cope with endless F1 photos ?) after all "Nothing to hide, Nothing to fear"

I doubt this - but never mind that for the moment; let him answer by providing his views on (a) whether the security services of Britain or indeed any other country ought to be duly monitored by the governments that employ them on behalf - and in the supposed best interests - of the taxpaying citizens that fund them to ensure that their activities are appropriate, constructive, proportionate, relevant and in every other sense justifiable at all times and (b) the possibility of being spied upon by the security services of other nations.

As to this wearisomely overused mantra "nothing to hide, nothing to fear", I cannot help but wonder what Shostakovich might have thought of it....

[MrGongGong]

, I cannot help but wonder what Shostakovich might have thought of it....

Don't you know
Music has "nothing" to do with politics
aint that the truth ?

[Mr Pee]

I doubt this - but never mind that for the moment; let him answer by providing his views on (a) whether the security services of Britain or indeed any other country ought to be duly monitored by the governments that employ them on behalf - and in the supposed best interests - of the taxpaying citizens that fund them to ensure that their activities are appropriate, constructive, proportionate, relevant and in every other sense justifiable at all times and (b) the possibility of being spied upon by the security services of other nations.

The Security Services ARE duly monitored by the Parliamentary Oversight Committee, indeed their work is probably more closely and openly scrutinised nowadays than at any time in their history. But that is not enough for you, is it? That's the problem- whatever level of oversight and accountability is put in place, there will always be accusations of cover-up or duplicity. Just look at the derision hurled at Malcolm Rifkind, the Chair of that very oversight committee, when I quoted him earlier in this thread. I don't think certain people will be satisfied unless MI5 and 6 just publish a daily update of their activities. Perhaps they should set up a Twitter account and post minute-by-minute updates on their current operations.

How can one ensure that their operations are justifiable "at all times" without the benefit of hindsight, anyway? It's all too simple to look back on a wrong lead or mistaken surveillance operation once all the facts are known, and say such and such an action wasn't justified, but the facts can't be known unless an operation is mounted. It's a vicious circle, isn't it? By the very nature of the world they operate in, operations have to be mounted on the best information available at the time. Oftentimes, they get it right. Sometimes, inevitably, they will get it wrong; and then you can sit there in safe, comfortable Hereford, a world away from the difficult and dangerous decisions that have had to be made on your behalf, and pontificate on their inadequacies.

As for foreign intelligence services, well I am quite sure that they spy on the UK all the time. That doesn't bother me. You talk about "mutual mistrust" being fostered by these activities, that can lead to wars, I think that if you look back at history, rather than fantasy, you will see that there has always been mutual mistrust between nations, regardless of any espionage activities, and in fact such espionage has often gathered information which has been instrumental in preventing armed conflict.

Meanwhile:- http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...urt-heard.html