> Home Secretary Theresa May told MPs there were a "number of misconceptions" about the ruling.
Mostly her own, I expect.
Parliamentarians have hit out against a ruling by the Investigatory Powers Tribunal (IPT) that GCHQ is allowed to collect the communications of MPs, a move which seemingly ends the so-called Wilson Doctrine. Or does it? During parliamentary debate this week, Labour MP Chris Bryant said: "Until last Wednesday, it was thought …
Snail mail is equally susceptible to interception, with added disadvantage of the delay between sending and reading. Even tamper evident seals are easily replaced with the right resources behind you.
Encrypting snail mail is possible but could be popped at either end if the security services really wanted to.
Mark well Theresa May's weasel words: "Members of this House are not above the law or beyond the scope of investigatory powers." You have to give her full marks for wilful obfuscation! No-one was arguing that MPs should be above the law. If they contravene the law they can be investigated (and have been fined/jailed in some cases). And, since the Recall of MPs Act 2015, constituency voters can remove MPs found to have broken the rules (well, certain rules anyway).
Sadly, with a handful of honourable exceptions, the MPs have only just woken up to the pervasive evil that is blanket surveillance. If they do not like the idea of all their own communications (e.g. with constituents, lawyers, other MPs, Ministers, parliamentary committees, lobbyists, etc.) being swept into the haystack, they might finally understand why Joe Public is so averse to it. Their late arousal might still achieve some good ... but I'm not holding my breath on that.
If you don't like it as a politician then tough sh@t, don't be a politician. You are no better than anyone else and are certainly not above the law. Even if you are a monarch or just a minion.
All the laws should be applied as equitably to one person as to all persons.
Writing yourself an exclusion is illegal as far as I am concerned and as such should be ignored.
Does not matter where you are, or who you are, we should all have equal rights and responsibilities under the law.
Writing yourself an exclusion is illegal as far as I am concerned and as such should be ignored. .... Anonymous Coward
Quite so, AC. And availing oneself of such a provision conveniently indelibly marks one as a person of particular and peculiar interest to leading secret security authorities and virtual protection services.
Is it imagined anywhere that the likes of MI5/MI6/GCHQ supply competence and provide effective and efficient cover for leading secret security authorities and virtual protection services in Blighty? Or is the whole practical truth and nothing but a virtual reality somewhat different and disturbing and perturbing?
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2022