back to article Cameron: UK public is fine with domestic spying

Recent disclosures over domestic surveillance and GCHQ spying on citizens aren't much of an issue to the public, according to Prime Minister David Cameron. Speaking to Parliament on the government's National Security Strategy, the Prime Minister said that while the media has made a stink about Edward Snowden's disclosures on …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.
  1. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    If there was any doubt

    he has dispelled it. Well, there is still doubt: is Cameron a stupid piece of shit or an evil piece of shit?

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: If there was any doubt

      I don't know. My money's on stupid, because that's consistent with his obsession about foreign aid, and his persistent attacks on anything that might be termed core conservative values or voters. I suppose that's what you get by electing rich boy Oxbridge twats for you party leader,

      I'd like the see the smug rich fucker burned at the stake.

      1. NomNomNom

        Re: If there was any doubt

        "I'd like the see the smug rich fucker burned at the stake."

        "it is a dangerous world and there are bad people that want to do terrible things to us"

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: If there was any doubt

          ""it is a dangerous world and there are bad people that want to do terrible things to us"!

          "terrible things to me" was what the knob end meant. I suppose I am indeed one of the "bad people", but primarily on account of my intent to vote UKIP.

          1. Mike Smith
            Trollface

            Re: If there was any doubt

            "account of my intent to vote UKIP"

            Good on you! I'm all for women being branded sluts and not seeing any more money being wasted on Bongo Bongo Land.

            Nigel Farage will lead us out of the darkness! Viva il Duce!

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: If there was any doubt@Mike Smith

              "Nigel Farage will lead us out of the darkness! Viva il Duce!"

              What options are there?

              Not voting achieves nothing because there's no de minimis or quorum of voters that has to be achieved to elect MPs. The three main parties have all shown themselves incompetent and dishonest, with a happy enthusiasm for treating government as a trough at which they take turns, and there's precious little to choose between their policies when you stand back. Voting for that rubber faced champagne socialist Millitwat will leave us with the same policies as the current lot, just with some Canute style window dressing on energy bills, and the usual Labour enthusiasm for more laws, more red tape, and higher public spending. Liberals have shown themselves as only fit to be a minority opposition party. And there seems to be universal agreement that Cameron is an unelectable, out of touch arsehole. All three parties routinely make promises that they don't deliver on, all three are big-state enthusiasts who think mass surveillance is the best thing since their last pay rise.

              Farage may be a loon, and I can't see UKIP winning many seats. But by voting UKIP I hope to (collectively) deny the Conservatives victory until they have policies I will be happy with, and a leader who isn't an arse.

              1. Mike Smith
                Megaphone

                Re: If there was any doubt@Mike Smith

                "What options are there?"

                Tactical voting. Careful, considered tactical voting.

                I've said some of this before, so apologies for the repetition:

                A lot of MPs are only in place due to voter apathy. If turnouts were a lot higher, and people who don't like any of the big three were to follow two simple rules, the complacent big parties would receive a very bloody nose indeed. Don't think that spoiling your paper makes a blind bit of difference, by the way - it doesn't. Spoilt papers go straight in the bin.

                Y'see, the argument that it's not worth voting because of the large Tory / Labour / whatever majority doesn't always hold water. If enough of the refuseniks were to do as I'm suggesting, there could be some serious upsets for all the big complacent three.

                If you normally can't be bothered to vote, just forget about all the manifestos, broken promises, patronising bullshit and general piss and wind, and just follow one of these two simple tactical voting rules:

                1: Vote for the most popular candidate other than the big three. Doesn't matter which party.

                2. If it's only the big three, vote for the candidate that came third last time.

                And remember this - it doesn't matter which party.

                The last Home Secretary, Jacqboot Smith (no relation, thankfully) came in for some well-deserved contempt from El Reg. If those simple rules had been followed, she wouldn't have been elected. Here is her 2005 result. Stats are taken from the Electoral Commission's website (www.electoralcommission.org.uk):

                Redditch had a total electoral roll of 63,150. The valid votes were cast as follows:

                Smith, J.J. Ms (Labour): 18,012

                Lumley, K.E. Ms (Conservative): 15,296

                Hicks, N.S. (Liberal Democrat): 5,602

                Ison, J.P. (UKIP) 1,381

                That gave the Jacqboot a majority of 2,716.

                63,150 - (18,012+15,296 + 5,602 + 1,381) = 22,859 people who were registered to vote but didn't.

                Let us assume that 10% of these genuinely couldn't vote, as opposed to couldn't be bothered to. That gives us 20,573, rounding down.

                Applying rule 1 gives us this:

                Smith, J.J. Ms (Labour): 18,012

                Lumley, K.E. Ms (Conservative): 15,296

                Hicks, N.S. (Liberal Democrat): 5,602

                Ison, J.P. (UKIP) 1,381 + 20,573 = 21,954.

                So the UKIP would have won with a majority of 3,942. That's 1,226 more than Jacqboot's majority and without taking swinging voters into account.

                Not even safe seats are immune from this. Here's the 2005 result for Gordon Brown:

                Registered electors for Kirkcaldy & Cowdenbeath: 71,603.

                There were 41,796 valid votes, cast as follows:

                Brown, G. (Labour): 24,278

                Bath, A.T. (Scottish National Party): 6,062

                Cole-Hamilton, A.G. (Liberal Democrat): 5,450

                Randall, S.R. (Conservative): 4,308

                West, S.C. (Scottish Socialist Party): 666

                Adams, P. (UK Independence Party): 516

                Parker, J. (Scottish Senior Citizens Unity Party): 425

                Kwantes, E.S. Ms. (Independent): 47

                Sargent, P. Ms. (Independent): 44

                Gordon Brown won with a majority of 18,216.

                This time, there were 28,807 refuseniks. Taking off an assumed 10% genuine reasons leaves 26,826. All they would have had to do was vote for Ms Sargent - that would have been enough to dispose of Paw Broon.

                And if that had been repeated across the country, the House of Commons would have looked very, very different. In fact, it would look like this if only half the apathetic voters had made the effort in 2005:

                This was the actual result:

                Labour 355

                Conservative 198

                Liberal Democrat 62

                Democratic Unionist Party 9

                Scottish National Party 6

                Sinn Féin 5

                Plaid Cymru 3

                Social Democratic & Labour Party 3

                Ulster Unionist Party 1

                Speaker 1

                Your Party 1

                Independent Kidderminster Hospital and Health Concern 1

                Respect/Unity Coalition 1

                If 50% of refuseniks had pulled their fingers out, this would have been the result:

                Labour 262

                Conservative 192

                Liberal Democrat 58

                SNP 35

                Green 25

                British National Party 18

                Plaid Cymru 11

                UK Independence Party 10

                Democratic Unionist Party 9

                Respect/Unity Coalition 8

                Sinn Féin 5

                Independent 3

                Social Democratic & Labour Party 3

                Veritas 1

                Ulster Unionist Party 1

                Speaker 1

                Your Party 1

                Liberal Party 1

                Independent Kidderminster Hospital and Health Concern 1

                National Front 1

                There would have been one tied vote between the BNP and UKIP.

                Now, I don't claim to be an expert in political analysis. And I don't particularly like the idea of seeing fascists in the House of Commons. But the boot up the arse that a result like that would give all three groups of self-satisfied smug gitbags would force them to take a serious look at themselves and how they dealt with the people who they ask to put them in power.

                1. Anonymous Coward
                  Anonymous Coward

                  Re: If there was any doubt@Mike Smith

                  "Now, I don't claim to be an expert in political analysis...."

                  Well you're setting out a stall for some form of analysis. I think your "rule 1" falls at a fairly early hurdle because a very large proportion of people don't vote because the three party system is so broken that they can't see the point. That's not going to change any time soon.

                  And looking at your parliamentary analysis, the outcome of your hoped for "50% of refuseniks to vote" would simply have been a Labour led coalition including the Liberals and a handful of other generally left wing parties. Would that have been any better? I doubt it. It would have been worse because all the damage that Blair and Brown inflicted would have gone ahead, and then you'd have "golden wish" gifts to the minority members. That sort of "golden wish" shit is why Germany is carping on at the rest of Europe over carbon even as it shuts down good quality, safe nuclear power plants, and tries to ignore industry screaming that it can't compete with the ludicrous energy prices.

                  So I come back to why UKIP makes sense. For both parties, they've ignored voters concerns about immigration and about Europe for too long, and they still won't do anything about either. Clearly the drippy conservative leadership are not listening this time, but maybe they will after a further five years on the house of commons cheap seats. The Labour party might want to also consider who they claim to represent, because they are in a similarly poor position, and currently look set to win the next election simply by not being the current government.

                  If in the meanwhile we have a bit of colour added to the otherwise drab, ineffectual house of commons, that has to be a good thing.

                  1. Mike Smith

                    Re: If there was any doubt@Mike Smith

                    "I think your "rule 1" falls at a fairly early hurdle because a very large proportion of people don't vote because the three party system is so broken that they can't see the point. That's not going to change any time soon."

                    Er, that was EXACTLY my point. IF enough people who can't see the point were to follow those rules, they'd see one hell of a difference. And yes, I know it won't change overnight. But it is theoretically possible if enough people got off their backsides once every five years.

                    You may be right about a Labour-led coalition, but who would they link up with? Another Lib-Lab pact would only have given them 310 seats - still not enough for a majority.

                    "It would have been worse because all the damage that Blair and Brown inflicted would have gone ahead, and then you'd have "golden wish" gifts to the minority members,"

                    I don't doubt that. The idea behind this sort of tactical voting is not to bring in some sort of wonderful, caring libertarian government - that ain't gonna happen - but instead to flip the bird in a big way to the complacent incumbents and (hopefully) make them realise that they can't count on us obedient little sheep to vote how they expect us to.

                    On that note, you might like to know that if 90% of the refuseniks had followed those rules in 2005, UKIP would have gained 205 seats, followed by the Greens with 83, and the BNP with 79. The Tories would have won 77 seats, the Lib Dems 32 and Labour would have won all of 10 seats. Yep, ten.

                    "So I come back to why UKIP makes sense. For both parties, they've ignored voters concerns about immigration and about Europe for too long,"

                    Well, we'll have to agree to disagree on that one :-) My view of UKIP is that they combine the worst aspects of President Blair's Politburo with the more invidious policies of the BNP.

                    But that is just MHO, of course.

                    1. John Smith 19 Gold badge
                      Pint

                      Re: If there was any doubt@Mike Smith

                      "Well, we'll have to agree to disagree on that one :-) My view of UKIP is that they combine the worst aspects of President Blair's Politburo with the more invidious policies of the BNP."

                      So very much a "protest vote" strategy.

                      But it sounds like an effective protest vote strategy. I salute you (with a beer).

                      Next question is of course do those generally hacked off non-voters know where to find what the order across the finishing line last time was?

                      1. Mike Smith
                        Pint

                        Re: If there was any doubt@Mike Smith

                        Thank you :-)

                        I think a website or a book may be in the offing. Or both, plus a MyTwitBook plug. In the meantime, here's where to look:

                        http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/__data/assets/excel_doc/0020/105725/GE2010-constituency-results-website.xls

                  2. Anonymous Coward
                    Anonymous Coward

                    Re: If there was any doubt@Mike Smith

                    > So I come back to why UKIP makes sense. For both parties, they've ignored voters concerns about immigration

                    Aha. A bit long winded but you finally came to the point.

                    But I do agree with you: we're not getting anywhere enough immigrants to maintain a viable economy as the population ages out of working life.

                  3. Anonymous Coward
                    Anonymous Coward

                    Re: If there was any doubt@Mike Smith

                    It's far worse than that, the choice is a illusion for most if not all parties; it is just a game of musical toilet seats on a broken system (sewer). This political sewer needs to be replaced with something which is not a turd statute transport; where career politics, party politics, and lobbying are regarded as disgusting treason; where people who pay for the support structures actually have say, so pay a far less via taxes (including inflation and red tape), not the illusion of say via self-interested 'representatives', con artist, fraudster, career politicians. We need proper law, not this fraud called legal. We also need to replace the deeply linked fraud based financial sector, so that never again can politicians have debt based fiat currency to bribe people to stupidly vote in bankrupt socialist ideology, corrupt politicians, and corrupt government, while ripping them off with inflation, fraudulent state debt, and attached debt taxation!

                    The only time I will vote is when I think it will lead to replacement of the current sewer with something better, otherwise it is a pointless waste of my time; I consider, but am wary that the UKIP could be another fake option.

              2. Intractable Potsherd Silver badge

                Re: If there was any doubt @Ledswinger

                "'Nigel Farage will lead us out of the darkness! Viva il Duce!' What options are there?"

                Well, personally, I'm probably going to vote "Yes" in the Scottish independence referendum if only because it will mean there will be no significant Tory influence in the running of the country I'll be living in for the foreseeable future (and longer than that if the Yes vote is successful, so that I don't have to worry about what the Tories are going to take away next, unless Yorkshire decides to go for it next).

            2. Warm Braw Silver badge

              Re: If there was any doubt

              >Nigel Farage will lead us out of the darkness! Viva il Duce!

              Cameron's latest plan to appease the back woods is apparently to pass il Duce on the right hand side...

        2. hplasm
          Facepalm

          Re: If there was any doubt

          "it is a dangerous world and there are bad people that want to do terrible things to us, and we should keep voting them into power." said the out-of-touch Prime Minister today from his constituency on Neptune.

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: If there was any doubt

        Oh because Ed and fucking David or Tony blair or Gordon brown were/are any fucking different.

        1. Destroy All Monsters Silver badge
          Big Brother

          Re: If there was any doubt

          Sociopaths who consider you their personal golden retriever. Who is, moreover, slightly retarded.

          Now go fetch that donut, or shall I sic the dogs in blue on you?

    2. ThomH Silver badge

      Re: If there was any doubt

      Judging by u-turns to date, stupid. Here's just 45 of those that the coalition made in its first 42 months in power, albeit not from the most sympathetic source: http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/nov/28/coalition-u-turn-list-full

    3. Hit Snooze

      Re: If there was any doubt

      And people wonder why evil masterminds in American 007 type films are always British

      1. John Smith 19 Gold badge
        Joke

        Re: If there was any doubt

        "And people wonder why evil masterminds in American 007 type films are always British"

        Ahh if only Bruce Willis knew who Nigel Farage is....

        The possibilities are limited only by your imagination.

    4. LarsG

      Didn't ask me

      Didn't ask anyone I know either.

      So what evidence did he base this theory on?

      Simple, the members of the Conservative Party, average age 67, who don't really know the implications because they don't live their lives online.

      1. John Smith 19 Gold badge
        Unhappy

        So what evidence did he base this theory on?

        Simple.

        He looked up his own ass and found no trouble there.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: So what evidence did he base this theory on?

          @ John Smith 19

          Why would he look up his own donkey?

          I don't know what nationality you are, but as he (DC) is English I think it more likely that he would look up his own arse!!

      2. Primus Secundus Tertius

        Re: Didn't ask me

        The Conservative Policy Forum did ask me and others.

        OK, mostly they asked about policing matters such as CCTV surveillance and stop-and-search. But inevitably, as a free people, we discussed Snowden.

        Yes, average age 67, but poking our political bugles into public forums like this one, our consensus was as Cameron stated.

        As to what Conservatives think of Cameron, is that fit for the esteemed Register to print?

    5. Piro

      Re: If there was any doubt

      A gaping, yeast infected see you next tuesday.

    6. T. F. M. Reader Silver badge

      [I]s Cameron a stupid piece of shit or an evil piece of shit?

      Never attribute to malice...

      1. teebie

        Re: [I]s Cameron a stupid piece of shit or an evil piece of shit?

        "Never attribute to malice..."

        When you are as stupid as Cameron, making decsions that affect millions of people is a form of malice.

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: [I]s Cameron a stupid piece of shit or an evil piece of shit?

        > Never attribute to malice...

        They're not mutually exclusive.

    7. Titus Technophobe
      Stop

      Re: If there was any doubt @Mary

      Not on this story .... compare and contrast the stories on the front of the Guardian/Independent with Sun/Express/Mail. On the one hand 'Ed Snowden announces latest spying outrage' and on the other either 'Some horror story where intelligence services didn't spy enough' or 'Intelligence service success story'.

      Now think which newspapers do more of the public read?

    8. WonkoTheSane

      Re: If there was any doubt

      "he has dispelled it. Well, there is still doubt: is Cameron a stupid piece of shit or an evil piece of shit?"

      Yes.

    9. Justin B

      Re: If there was any doubt

      You do realise this has been going on under both Conservative and Labour governments for the past 30+ years of IT growth.

      Do you really think the PM is the man in charge of everything?

      1. Gnomalarta
        Pint

        Re: If there was any doubt

        Do you really think the PM is the man in charge of anything? Fixed :-)

      2. JohnMurray

        Re: If there was any doubt

        Not everything.

        Most times not anything.

    10. This post has been deleted by its author

    11. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: If there was any doubt

      "is Cameron a stupid piece of shit or an evil piece of shit?"

      I'll give you a hint: he is the kind of guy who chains his bike to a bollard

      http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/2453508/David-Cameron-has-bicycle-stolen-on-shopping-trip.html

  2. Steve Davies 3 Silver badge

    All Politicians are liars

    Just watch them lie every time they open their mouth to speak.

  3. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Just write your MP.

    And tell them what prick DC is on this.

  4. LaeMing

    I get the impression...

    ...Cameron woudn't recognise a 'man in the street' if he stepped in one.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: I get the impression...

      He'd get cleggers to wipe it off

      You have to read private eye to get that one, Dave Snooty and his New Pals

    2. I. Aproveofitspendingonspecificprojects

      A "robust" understanding of evil

      "Cameron woudn't recognise a 'man in the street' if he stepped in one."

      Yes he would.

      1. Anonymous Brave Guy
        Facepalm

        Re: A "robust" understanding of evil

        You're either lying or you're a politician yourself.

        Now, which is it?

  5. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Oh really

    So why are politicians up in arms over the antics of the News of The World spying on them ?

    Don't like it do they when the shoe is on the other foot.

  6. JP19

    "My sense is that"

    He doesn't have any sense...

    I know he would like to think that we think he and his minions are doing a really good job saving us from those awful terrorist.

    The reality is the terrorist threat barely exists, if it were more significant he still wouldn't be able to save us from it and overall he is just pissing away vast amounts of our money, privacy, and liberty to support those lies.

  7. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    the general public is largely in favor of the government

    otherwise, they'd be storming the blokes next to that funny clock tower by the river, and knocking at my door, eh? QED.

    1. Destroy All Monsters Silver badge

      Re: the general public is largely in favor of the government

      If HITLER had invaded and taken over ...

      .... there would have been protests for WAGE INCREASES.

      1. Primus Secundus Tertius

        Re: the general public is largely in favor of the government

        The Secret State Police knew how to deal with your sort.

  8. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    the pub reaction

    I wish we could have the policies governed by the pub reaction! Er, it appears, we DO, as professed by the honourable gentlemen at the front...

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Childcatcher

      Re: the pub reaction

      the pub reaction!

      Is he talking about the time he left his kid behind in a pub and everyone was horrified?

  9. Chad H.

    Well if they have saved lives, and Snowden had really done damage, I'm sure the PM can point to some events that have been foiled

    1. Rich 11 Silver badge

      And to terrorists who have been successfully prosecuted and jailed, rather than put under some half-arsed control order (or if not British-born, have their citizenship revoked merely on suspicion, as Theresa May now wants) because they couldn't gather enough evidence even with all the spying.

  10. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    GCHQ surveillance is illegal says top lawyer ..

    `GCHQ's mass surveillance spying programmes are probably illegal and have been signed off by ministers in breach of human rights and surveillance laws, according to a hard-hitting legal opinion that has been provided to MPs.'

    "An individual involved in passing that information is likely to be an accessory to murder. It is well arguable, on a variety of different bases, that the government is obliged to take reasonable steps to investigate that possibility" link

  11. David 45
    FAIL

    First-rate cattle excrement

    More indications that Cameron is not in the real world.

  12. I. Aproveofitspendingonspecificprojects

    Look you have all taken this the wrong way.

    I can understand this as a lot of you are plebs BUT...

    Most of you are nerds. So you see.

    If you really wanted to do something about all this you'd say so on change dot org or somewhere. But you are not going to. So shut up.

    It all started with privatisation and ALL the utilities became secret services.

    >>>>You never even noticed it!<<<<

    Now you don't know who to speak to when you can't get something sorted out with your gas meter because that isn't controlled by the same company as the the people you pay for gas.

    All the local gas and electricity supply/repair offices went in the 1970's and YOU BOUGHT BLOODY SHARES IN IT. And there was a lot more going on that you or your parents were a party to. And because the only ones to complain were the bloody miners you did fuck all!

    So now shut the fuck up all of you.

    1. NomNomNom
      Mushroom

      Re: Look you have all taken this the wrong way.

      "Now you don't know who to speak to when you can't get something sorted out with your gas meter because that isn't controlled by the same company as the the people you pay for gas."

      OH WHY DIDN'T WE LISTEN TO YOU??????!!

    2. Toothpick

      Re: Look you have all taken this the wrong way.

      Who pissed on your fireworks ?

    3. veti Silver badge

      Re: Look you have all taken this the wrong way.

      Bollocks.

      When I was a kid, my father told me: "Always assume that if an official government spook wants to spy on you, they can and there's nothing you can do about it. They can bug your home, shadow you all day and tap your phone, and you'll never be any the wiser. If you ever want to do anything that would be of interest to those sorts of people, keep that in mind."

      That was in the mid-70s. Long before privatisation.

      When I grew up and started work as a technology journalist in the late 80s, I realised how true that was and always had been. It had nothing to do with "privatisation" or whatever other boogeyman you want to throw in there. It's just the way the UK is organised.

      So yeah, I actually agree with Dave on this one. I don't think it's a big deal, because I've been resigned to being spied upon like that since before I was in my teens. I do have my own ways of communicating when I want to be private - but believe me, they don't rely on anonymous net or phone access.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Look you have all taken this the wrong way.

        So beforehand, when huge chunks of the infrastructure was controlled by the government, there was no spying? Because.... err... no, wait.

        OH! I get it now! The PRIVATE companies sell your data for a profit to the government, meaning that the Government does no spying of it's own.... no, not that one either.

        The Private companies are compelled by force and the threat of significant sanctions to provide information to the Government that augments their entirely publicly-funded, public-sector spying operation? Yeah, that's more like it.

        So (1) Privatisation made it harder to spy, because foreign-owned companies are harder to lean on than departments of your own government.

        and (2) Buying shares in the energy companies would have made you a decent profit; BT was sold at 130p/share and topped out at >£10/share (though it has collapsed again recently). Buy £1,000 of BT and take out about £8k. For no work at all, just for leaving your money in the company.

        (2.5) Having 'regular, honest' types buying shares is a Very Good Thing as it means that there's more 'regular, honest' representation at board meetings etc. to narc on wrongdoings or suchlike.

      2. T. F. M. Reader Silver badge

        Re: Look you have all taken this the wrong way.

        "Always assume that if an official government spook wants to spy on you, they can and there's nothing you can do about it. They can bug your home, shadow you all day and tap your phone, and you'll never be any the wiser. If you ever want to do anything that would be of interest to those sorts of people, keep that in mind."

        There is a difference between "they can if they want to" and "they do even if there is absolutely no need to". I don't do anything that can possibly be of interest to the security services (no, posting to The Register under a pseudonym does not count), so why are they spying on me? Surveillance state is not what I, for one, think the UK (or the US, for that matter) should be, even if it can be.

      3. Titus Technophobe
        Thumb Up

        Re: Look you have all taken this the wrong way. @Veti

        My opinion is very much based on exactly the same understanding of the way things are in the UK as yours. Even the dates :).

        The question then is this a either good or bad thing? My opinion is that Cameron is right on balance the UK public accept domestic spying ....

      4. Mike Smith
        Thumb Up

        Re: Look you have all taken this the wrong way.

        'Zackly.

        Do a wee bit of background reading - a good place to start is Peter Wright's Spycatcher. Then think about what these guys were doing, how much clout they had with the upper echelons of the Civil Service, the government of the day and ability to request certain services of BT's predecessor.

        Now jump forward from the Cold War to the present day. Do you really, really think that the intelligence agencies have all started being good little boys and girls, operating with complete transparency and obeying the law without question?

        If you think that, you're naive to say the least.

        Veti's bang on. Of course it happens and has done for a very long time. The only difference is that it's now a little easier to see what they're up to. And the paranoia over the power of the tinterwebs does indeed have the establishments of most countries running scared. Their reactions are entirely predictable, given the way they've reacted to crises in the past. America pulls out a gun, Britain turns to the statute book and the French take to the streets, etc :-)

        But think about this also - the intelligence agencies do indeed flout the law on occasion, or at least steer very close to the wind. They work on the basis of the 11th commandment - 'thou shalt not get caught.'

        Given that, are they really going to risk having their activities scrutinised in court unless there's an overwhelming reason to do so? Al-Quaeda or its affiliates, yes. Major plot to overthrow the government, certainly. A few Asian kids playing with fireworks and fancying themselves as mujahadeen? Probably not, apart from a phone call to the local plod. Someone pork-swording their neighbour? Nah.

        1. Bluenose

          Re: Look you have all taken this the wrong way.

          Sorry, have to reject your comment on the pork swording. As with everything in the spying world the issue will always be who is doing the pork swording and who is their neighbour. Diana shagging James Hewitt likely to be a big thing for the security services. You shagging Mrs Cameron next door would probably be of interest if you both live in Oxfordshire or Downing Street.

          Knowledge of pork swording is I am afraid to say a nice bit of leverage for the spies of any country especially if one of the parties later moves in to a role that would be of interest.

          That said unless your posting pictures or videos it is unlikely that the spies will ever find out since pattern matching algorithms and intelligence analysis of phone calls and internet mails are meaningless without context. You need to know who at least one of the individuals involved is otherwise how the hell can you tell that the 72 calls last week to that number in Birmingham are possibly terror related and not some daughter phoning up her mum to complain about hubby's latest transgression (which may or may not have involved pork swording the neighbour)..

      5. Voland's right hand Silver badge

        Re: Look you have all taken this the wrong way.

        My dad (and granuncle who worked for the "company" in his country) used to say the same.

        However, there is a minor and insignificant difference between then and now. Then, they wanted to spy on YOU. YES YOU. YOU were selected as a target for whatever reason.

        What is going on today is spying on everyone. Indiscriminately. At a level which puts Stazi, Securitate or Шесто управление to shame.

        1. John Smith 19 Gold badge
          Gimp

          @Voland's right hand

          "However, there is a minor and insignificant difference between then and now. Then, they wanted to spy on YOU. YES YOU. YOU were selected as a target for whatever reason.

          What is going on today is spying on everyone. Indiscriminately. At a level which puts Stazi, Securitate or Шесто управление to shame."

          That's the difference between then and now.

          The spies had to make decisions on who to spy on.

          Not any more. Now they can watch everyone all the time (GCHQ's new motto perhaps).

          This has f**k all to do with "threat" WTF that is.

          It's affordable and the data fetishists in charge with their obsessive compulsion to collect information without limit (and whatever Malcolm Rifkind thinks he knows about them) and oversight will continue.

      6. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Look you have all taken this the wrong way.

        > When I was a kid, my father told me: "Always assume that if an official government spook wants to spy on you, they can

        Methinks you misunderstood your father, my dear chap. Clearly we was bothered enough by it to warn his son from an early age about the ways of those in power.

        Which sort of contradicts the point that Mr. Whatshisface (the PM bloke) was trying to make.

    4. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Look you have all taken this the wrong way.

      I used to complain to my MP on a regular basis. I used to add my weight at Change.org. And funnily enough the only time I made a difference was when I set my Dad's MP - Maria Miller - on his housing association for not sorting out his nuisance neighbour. She was in opposition at the time; where as my MP is Lib Dem.

      I even went to Westminster to give Miller a Christmas card containing a thank you note.

      Now, as for who should 'shut the fuck up'...

    5. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Look you have all taken this the wrong way.

      I was a young child then, and many here probably weren't even born then, so WTF could we do about this, if we were even aware of this; I wasn't!

      So STFU crusty, it was the adults then which FU most of this, including voting for that Common Market abomination, now called the EU, which is why most of the UK rules are made by foreigners now. and why there are too many damned immigrants here now!

  13. Frank Zuiderduin

    A politician who knows what the public thinks

    I haven't laughed so much in years.

  14. Jim Wilkinson

    I agree

    "Recent disclosures over domestic surveillance and GCHQ spying on citizens aren't much of an issue to the public"

    The trouble is that those who wish to create mayhem for whatever reason are not so easily identifiable and keep a low profile. So how do you find out if there is terrorist activity afoot? I'd rather GCHQ did their job than end up with a major terrorist incident. I guess most folks recognise that domestic surveillance is both a curse and a blessing. The question is whether surveillance is used for the right reasons. It's not an excuse for keeping tabs on everyone. It's also essential we maintain an independent press to bring wayward politicos to heel. My 2c.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Trollface

      Re: I agree

      Wow! Thank you for your 2c there Mr. Cameron. Errrr, Mr. "Jim Wilkinson". Glad you could come on this board and share your thoughts with the "little people".

    2. Destroy All Monsters Silver badge

      Re: I agree

      This speech brought to you by John Cleese

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: I agree

      > So how do you find out if there is terrorist activity afoot?

      By your reasoning, Guy Fawkes would have never been caught.

  15. Brent Longborough
    FAIL

    Missed the point, didn't yer, Dave?

    The point is not whether the man in the street is worried about it, Dave, it's whether you and your mates, and Clegg and his mates, and Milliband and his mates*, all realise that politicians are (a) meant to serve the people who elected them rather than control them; and (b), uphold the law rather than break it.

    *A black plague descend upon you all.

  16. DiViDeD Silver badge

    Oh yes, That 'pub' reaction

    "Yes, only last night I was at the pub - well, the Commons Bar, with a few of my (what was it again? Oh yes. Thankyou) 'mates', Simon and Tarquin from MI6, a couple of Johnnies from the Foreign Office and my secretary, and I mentioned surveillance.

    Well, they all agreed with me that it was a jolly good thing, except my former secretary, so there you go. The Vox Populi has spoken and agrees with me.

    On everything."

    I think our Dave would look fabulous on a railing outside Westminster. Hell, in the old days, every one of the buggers would have been offered a once in a lifetime opportunity to never again have to buy a hat.

  17. Ashton Black

    More people are killed...

    Reported Road Casualties in Great Britain, 2012

    Killed 1,754

    Seriously Injured 23,039

    .... and yet we don't spend literally billions trying to prevent it. Why?

    1. veti Silver badge

      Re: More people are killed...

      Actually, we do.

    2. John Smith 19 Gold badge
      Unhappy

      Re: More people are killed...

      Terrorist casualties in the UK over a 10 year period.

      About what are killed in DIY accidents or farm mishaps in 1 year.

      Do you get the sense the government reaction is a tad disproportionate

      1. DannyAston

        Re: More people are killed...

        @ John Smith 19

        DIY and Farm accidents are pretty constant, the other is unpredictable, if we did not invest in counter terrorism one year it could be the same as DIY and Farm accidents the next it could be cancer....

  18. Sanctimonious Prick

    I'm On A Rant!

    What I don’t get, is why concern about spooks and their ability to use the slurped information for reasons other than preventing terrorist attacks (see Edward Snowden) isn’t on the front page of every newspaper (err, read, website), every day?! (I’m not saying Eddy did a really bad (wrong) thing, but he did use the information he came into contact with for reasons other than preventing a terrorist attack.)

    Truly, there was an article on here about a muslim radical’s pr0n surfing habits, that were to be exposed if he didn’t do what the NSA wanted him to do. I mean seriously, What The Fuck?!!

    What is to stop any of the NSA/GCHQ staffers (800,000 work for the NSA) from using any of the information they come into contact with to bribe someone?

    NSA: Adrian, I need you to tell me all you know about your neighbour, Alice, which we know you know very well.

    Adrian: No.

    NSA: Well, you see, Adrian, we know you’ve been having sexual intercourse with Alice. You’d hate for your girlfriend, Dianne, to get wind of this, eh?

    Adrian: OK.

    Then escalate to head of Conglomerate X.

    No. I’m not happy with all this spying. I feel violated. I don’t do anything online that I wouldn’t do in public (though I never get drunk online, compluters don’t work when I’m drunk).

    1. NomNomNom

      Re: I'm On A Rant!

      is it so hard to just stop fucking your neighbor?

      1. Sanctimonious Prick

        Re: I'm On A Rant!

        Now that she's of interest to the NSA, no way!

    2. Mephistro

      Re: I'm On A Rant! (@ Sanctimonious)

      What you wrote is true, but there is still a loophole. One day the people will finally notice that these blackmail threats are worth nothing, for the quite obvious reason that any 'proof' the spooks provide from electronic sources is worth less that their weight in pig shit, as said electronic evidence can be easily forfeited by said spooks. They -the spooks- have the means, the motivation and the gall to do it. There will be a growing number of cases where this evidence is contested, a trickle at first that will finally become an avalanche.

      Obviously the crooks will use the usual strategy of making charges related to terrorism/kiddy porn/drug peddling, so the people accused will receive little sympathy or support from the general public, but this strategy is already showing the first cracks. And then people receiving these threats from the intelligence agencies will start calling the press and blogging about the matter and calling the cops. See what happens after a few dozens of these events.

      The downside, of course, is that electronic evidence will lose any value as proof. Which will in turn help real paedos, narcs and terrorists. :-(

    3. Titus Technophobe

      Re: I'm On A Rant!

      What is to stop any of the NSA/GCHQ staffers (800,000 work for the NSA) from using any of the information they come into contact with to bribe someone?

      The fact that it would be totally illegal and if caught they would face a very substantial custodial sentence......

      Mind if you do feel the need to 'do the neighbour' my advice would be make sure it is either an MFF or MMF... and your significant is involved anyway.

      1. hplasm
        Paris Hilton

        Re: I'm On A Rant!

        " if caught they would face a very substantial custodial sentence......"

        And Hell would host the Winter Olympics.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: I'm On A Rant!

          Have you seen Sochi?

      2. teebie

        Re: I'm On A Rant!

        "The fact that it would be totally illegal and if caught they would face a very substantial custodial sentence......"

        Your argument seems to be that people won't do something if it is against the law. If that were the case we wouldn't need security services.

  19. John 98

    Dave obviously wasn't in my local. Power corrupts, and anyone handed the power these people are being given will be corrupted. Once they are corrupted, we'll all be wondering if we weren't better off with Al Quaeda ...

    1. NomNomNom

      or Al Quiche

    2. dan1980

      "Power corrupts . . . "

      True, but in this instance, I think that such power as comes with political clout attracts those who are corrupt.

  20. This post has been deleted by its author

  21. Dodgy Geezer Silver badge

    In later news...

    Cameron says that the British Public are strongly supporting his proposals for all taxes to be increased 400% and MPs to be given unlimited access to Treasury expense accounts.

    He also claims that the man in the street feels that elections are a waste of money, and would be happy with MPs having life-time tenure...

  22. John 156

    Why do we always finish up with a f**kwit as PM? Dave, of course, suggested in parliament that the Somerset floods were caused by Global Warming; the actual reason was the decision of the Environment Agency to stop dredging rivers and pumping flood water in order to return the Somerset Levels to the aquatic wasteland it was before being drained several centuries ago without asking the permission of the farmers or householders whose lives would be devastated. l

    1. MrDamage
      Unhappy

      Look on the bright side

      Tony Abbott decided to leave your shores and come to Australia to run for PM. He's doing is damnedest to make sure any pom visiting our shore doesnt miss out on random PM ass-hattery.

      1. dan1980

        Re: Look on the bright side

        @MrDamage

        Your post seems to imply that the Hon. Tony Abbott spends periods of time as the PM engaged in something other than ass-hattery.

      2. Winkypop Silver badge
        Flame

        Re: Look on the bright side

        Prime Minister David Cameron is Einstein when compared to Aussie Primate Tony Abbott !!

        1. dan1980

          Re: Look on the bright side

          @Winkypop

          The problem with Abbott is not that he is stupid, it's that he's a sanctimonious git. (Rather like Cameron I suppose . . .)

          1. DiViDeD Silver badge

            Re: Look on the bright side

            "The problem with Abbott is not that he is stupid, it's that he's a sanctimonious git. "

            Yes, but to be fair, he IS a STUPID sanctimonious git.

  23. taxman

    7th May 2015

    Please tell me what happens when I wake up on the 8th May

    1. Vinyl-Junkie
      Megaphone

      Re: 7th May 2015

      "There's nothing in the street

      Looks any different to me

      And the slogans are replaced, by-the-bye

      And the parting on the left

      Is now the parting on the right

      And the beards have grown no longer overnight"

      I think that about covers it.

      Meet the new boss....

  24. Anonymous Coward
    Facepalm

    let's just give them benefit of the doubt

    Dave reckons the public support it, that's good enough for me.

    Like when Tony said 'trust me' Saddam has WMDs.

    Sadly I think the politicians know that they can do what they like as elections are decided on economics rather than civil liberties or foreign policy.

    1. Destroy All Monsters Silver badge
      Holmes

      Re: let's just give them benefit of the doubt

      But they are NOT decided on economics.

      Because what you currently get isn't economics, it's just kicking the can down the road.

      The game matrix says that "promise now, let them pay later" has high payoff.

  25. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    sadly he is right

    The public in the west is mostly too stupid and pastoral to have the vaguest understanding of what any of it means, as long as it isn't blacks, chinks, Europeans, rag heads, mozzies or immigrant peadophiles spying on them - they're fine with it. Now let them eat their Mc Donalds and drink their shit coffee in peace.

    Fuck this country.

  26. Anonymous Coward
    Facepalm

    What is it about gaining power in Westminster?

    I don't necessarilly disagree with Cameron's conclusion that the British public are not alarmed by the surveillance. Sadly there doesnt seem to be as much public protest about these activities in Britain as there is in the U.S.

    But what is it about being in power in Britain that makes people into invasive assholes? Labor had their own ideas about national id cards and surveillance cameras with speakers so "The Watchers" could chew you out real-time about littering (plus they started all these GCHQ programs). And now we have Cameron's crew going on about web filtering, domestic surveillance and pedophilia. Is there something in the water served at cabinet meetings? Does the British PM get Sauron's ring of power as some kind of badge of office? I'm half-expecting that Cameron will get caught blathering on in a dark corner about "My Precious", or have his fawning approval of the upcoming invasion by the evil alien overlords of slave planet Zlorknax 5 outed by a Rupert Murdoch phone hack.

    Not that Obama is much better, but at least he seems concerned about public perception over the Snowden leaks.

    1. Titus Technophobe

      Re: What is it about gaining power in Westminster?

      I do wonder if public opinion goes with the popular newspapers. But I have already speculated on that one in an earlier post.

      A new theory .... could it be films. In ours the spy's are usually good guys, and in the US not so much?

    2. John Smith 19 Gold badge
      Unhappy

      Re: What is it about gaining power in Westminster?

      "But what is it about being in power in Britain that makes people into invasive assholes?"

      Because the high level spookocrats control the information flow to the elected politicians and are generally technically clueless.

      IOW They believe the whole "We are besieged on all sides all the time. We must spy on everyone all the time" BS.

      And then of course there is the fact that politics attracts an above average number of "authoritarian" types who reckon this is just what is needed.

  27. Lars Silver badge
    Happy

    Some logic after all

    The public is OK with it as long as they are told nothing.

  28. Ketlan
    Thumb Down

    Cameron is a c**t

    'Recent disclosures over domestic surveillance and GCHQ spying on citizens aren't much of an issue to the public, according to Prime Minister David Cameron.'

    This is from a guy who doesn't have any idea who the public actually is and doesn't give a shit for their opinions anyway.

  29. Private Citizen.AU
    Big Brother

    Caught in the cookie jar denials

    It is obvious that the 5-Eyes have got themselves a good deal. They can rely on the partners to do the snooping that they are forbidden by law to perform. Cant collect themselves but they act on data gathered by a partner. Like having someone dropping an anonymous envelope at the front desk.

    Now they have been found with their hands in the cookie jar, they are pretending that everything is all OK.

    Snowden has achieved a

    - almighty awareness of the pervasiveness of spying

    - the fallacy of private information.

    - Fallacy that checks and balances will protect the information they gather

    I doubt anyone in the 5-Eyes will ever see him as anything but a snitch and traitor. With the right spin he will become public enemy or popular hero. It depends on whether the politicians or the people write the folk tale.

    1. WatAWorld

      Re: Caught in the cookie jar denials

      As Lars said, if Cameron really did think the public was okay with this he wouldn't have kept it secret from the public.

      The succession of lies coming from Cameron and Obama, each lie revealed in the next day's news. Total disgrace to our puppet politicians.

  30. Number6

    I read the headline and my immediate reaction was BOLLOCKS!

  31. CmdrX3

    Oh f*** this

    Can't we just do an Airplane and let the country get in a line to punch the smug twat in the head.

  32. flearider

    just proves how out of touch these people are with real life and the real public ..

    I'm sure the boy's club are fine and that's all he cares about ..

    ukip seems to be the right way to go .. give the others a right slap on the cheek wake em up a bit ..

    1. Vic

      > ukip seems to be the right way to go

      UKIP is very much the wrong way to go.

      It just might be better than all the others...

      Vic.

  33. Sanctimonious Prick

    Who is David Cameron, And Why is He Saying Those Terrible Things About Me?

  34. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    You appreciate it

    You appreciate it. You appreciate it. You appreciate it. You appreciate it. You appreciate it. You appreciate it. You appreciate it. You appreciate it. You appreciate it. You appreciate it. You appreciate it. You appreciate it. You appreciate it. You appreciate it. You appreciate it. You appreciate it. You appreciate it. You appreciate it. You appreciate it. You appreciate it. You appreciate it. You appreciate it. You appreciate it. You appreciate it. You appreciate it. You appreciate it. You appreciate it. You appreciate it. You appreciate it. You appreciate it. You appreciate it. You appreciate it. You appreciate it. You appreciate it. You appreciate it. You appreciate it. You appreciate it. You appreciate it. You appreciate it. You appreciate it. You appreciate it. You appreciate it. You appreciate it. You appreciate it. You appreciate it. You appreciate it. You appreciate it.

  35. Anonymous Coward
    Thumb Down

    Worrying Justification

    Whatever one thinks of the need for such surveillance, it is extremely worrying that the man ultimately responsible for it is justifying it based on an assessment of what the man in the pub thinks. Not a very intelligent approach, that.

    I daresay if we elected our politicians based on what people in the pub think, he and his party would be in the wilderness for decades.

    As far as the British public being fearful of terrorists and OK with spying are concerned, I believe he is thoroughly wrong on both counts. He should get out of the pubs and talk to people when they're sober.

  36. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    The media publish what sells

    Usually what they think you should be concerned about. Sometimes what you really should be concerned about. If a PM claims he's more in touch with the pub[lic] mood that the media is, he's either lying or deluded.

    I don't think Snowden has made the world less safe, apart from for politicians who've been caught out - again.

  37. Roj Blake

    Welcome to the GDR

    Erich Honecker used to say that the East German public was fine with the activities of the Stasi as well.

  38. John Smith 19 Gold badge
    Happy

    I may be wrong here but...

    I'm sensing some hostility.

    I'm normally very psychic about this sort of thing.

  39. WOOOOO

    The comments from Cameron seem to just prove that the majority of people are either too apathetic or not intelligent enough to have an opinion on it. So it would seem we need an enlightened hero to make a stand. At least some of the media are giving it a try even if it feels a bit self serving.

  40. gautam

    Our Idiot PM is .....

    ......a TOFF to the core.

    Which pub did he visit to get people's opinions ? And more importnatly, what did he drink ?

    Wonder what Clegg has to say on this !

    Wankers.

  41. jubtastic1
    Big Brother

    I've given this some thought

    I have come to the conclusion that Total Surveilence only really becomes a problem for democracies when it's abused by those in power, and that being the case, the greatest threat to our society would be from corrupt politicians, therefore it stands to reason that the most scrutinised UK citizens should be those that are in government or that aspire to it.

    Due to the potential danger these individuals represent, their every activity and thought should be analysed and recorded for the public record, they should be held to far higher standards of integrity and honesty than the general public and any evidence of corruption or abuse should be punished severely.

    Or we could scrap the whole thing, I'm easy either way.

    1. WatAWorld

      Re: I've given this some thought

      I look at it differently. Politicians aren't the only danger.

      It is the spies themselves grabbing power that is the biggest danger.

      - Look at J. Edgar Hoover in the USA. What he did over decades makes what Nixon did in a few years look trivial.

      - Look at Russia today and the old USSR.

      - Recall the Warsaw Pact.

      - If you know 20th century South American history, look there.

      Politicians can be a problem, but they are not the main problem. The main problem is the security and military apparatus taking control and destroying democracy through intimidation, coercion and later, after they have power, more extreme methods.

  42. batfastad

    Politicians

    Yeah forget empowering people properly. Let's just do whatever we want and assume the hoi polloi are OK with it. I mean they're just like us we're all in this together man on the street private supper club what what?

    "Politicians are not born, they are excreted."

    - Marcus Tullius Cicero *

    * note there's no actual evidence of Cicero saying this but it sounds about right to me so it must be true.

  43. RyszrdG

    Well that's all right then.

    Question: What do you get when you keep people in the dark and feed them shit?

    Answer: Mushrooms!

    Just what the government wants.

  44. Alan Edwards

    The public

    I think he's probably right, the average bod in the pub probably doesn't care about domestic spying. They think it doesn't apply to them, and can't get their heads around what the capabilities are.

    It will take someone being locked up following a wrong number call from Abdul The Terrorist and searching for Menwith Hill on Google 2 years ago to focus their minds.

    Until something happens that actually applies to them or their peer group, they are happy to be told by The Sun that it's stopping them dying horribly and move on to the next drunk celebrity.

  45. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    This is all fun and games, unless we reach a point, where there really needs to be a revolt.

    UKIP gets in & starts building gas chambers,

    Blair comes back, starts conscription, and declares war on Iran

    School dinners are found to contain soylent green.

    Democracy may one day be worth fighting for, and thats going to be hard when they are watching all of us.

  46. Don Jefe

    Negotiations

    So, I've spent more than a few decades in professional roles where technical or business expertise isn't nearly as important as the ability to get a feel for how people see the world around them. At the end of the day, all business is about getting people to do what you want, right (give you their money generally).

    Sometimes it's a straightforward affair and if you don't insult the football team they obviously support or make some crack about how you've never seen cows stand on two legs and wear people clothes like the ones in the pictures on their desk where people usually put family photos, your in. Money, thing and you're away.

    Sometimes it's a bitch though, maybe they're smarter than you thought, or they've manuvered the situation where you don't like it. Happens to the best of us. In those situations the only option is to get them emotional. First one to get emotional loses every time. Every. Single. Time. Without fail.

    If it has come to that, and you absolutely must piss off everyone in the room, the fastest and most effective way to do that is to compare yourself to them when it's incredibly obvious you have absolutely no fucking idea what it is actually like to be them.

    You can insult their families, claim to be the real father of his second child, insult their religion, their leaders, whatever you want, and professionals won't flinch. Make some grossly inaccurate and patronizing comparison between you and them and they'll try to claw your eyes out. They'll give you their money, just out of spite (the main idea) but they'll hate you with the deepest, darkest part of their souls for all time. If you really want to get to them just grind in a little knowledge of their perceived social status. They might actually stab you.

    Now, for someone to pull that stunt with the public, who don't have to be manipulated, they just have to follow orders. That's some wipe your genetic material and any vestiges of it completely from the face of the Earth shit right there. You never kick people in the balls if there's no direct gain for you in doing so. Everybody knows that.

    Now, I don't know this Cameron fellow personally, but I can guaranfuckingtee none of the people in 'his' pub have tattoos on their face or lost a few fingers in a factory accident or lost a few toes to a lawn mower. His pub might even have carpet on the floors instead of bodily fluid friendly bare wood or concrete. I'm also absolutely certain that the drinking vessels in his pub aren't restricted to plastic cups and cans only.

    'Pub talk' in the pubs not Cameron types frequent will rarely consist of discussions about the philosophical and socioeconomic implications of government surveillance unless those are code words for the tits on that girl over there. 'If that girl didn't have legs she'd leave a trail like a garden slug everywhere she went' is also unlikely to be heard in Cameron pubs.

    If the decisions by such a person did impact me and even if I felt him to be the best politician in the history of Britain I would still mail him a bag of sheep shit and a nicely worded, and beautifully signed, Fuck You for being a moose dick letter on the finest cardboard coaster my pub had to offer. There's no need for people to go around being sweaty ass cracks and making the vinyl bar stool harder to sit on. What an ass this guy is.

  47. Dick Emery

    I'm alright Jack

    The problem has ALWAYS been an attitude of 'I'm alright Jack' with the voting public. Until an issue directly affects them then they will continue to vote for the status quo (not the old rock group variety). As soon as it affects them in the pocket they stand up and take notice. Also. Nobody cares about privacy when their entire life story is on social media sites. Until it comes and bites them on the arse when they're looking for a new job of course.

    It's the great British apathy. We're too busy doing too many other things to worry about politics. I personally believe that voting should be compulsory. At least we would get a 'real' idea of what the public think that way.

    1. Miek
      Linux

      Re: I'm alright Jack

      "It's the great British apathy. We're too busy doing too many other things to worry about politics. I personally believe that voting should be compulsory. At least we would get a 'real' idea of what the public think that way." -- At this point in the show, I would probably be more inclined to wipe my arse with the ballot paper than vote with it if mandatory voting were ushered in.

  48. Christian Berger

    Same strategy as in Germany

    Just claim that nobody cares and many people will believe it's not a big deal. This is also tried in Germany.

    In reality many people care. More and more "everyday" people wonder how they can use encryption. That's why crypto-parties are s popular.

    1. Miek
      Linux

      Re: Same strategy as in Germany

      Crypto-parties. I simply cannot get the image of the Windows 7 Lauch parties in those adverts to bring myself to go to one.

  49. NohSpam

    I'm a minority

    1/ I'm happy with immigration. Particularly because they appear to be net contributors. I gather there's evidence, revealed to me on Radio 4, that contradicts the Daily Mail & UKIP's unpleasant bleating.

    2/ I'm very definitely opposed to mass survellance and that includes the ANPR network - the small white tubes strategically placed on all through routes, face(or gait or bum or knee) recognition, mobile tracking, Google, Facebook, my next door neigbourhood curtain twitcher and god.

    I'll get my coat (and ID card)

  50. Josh Holman

    As an American...

    I also have a problem. I'm not sure which side runs this Village.

    Be seeing you!

  51. Someone Else Silver badge
    Facepalm

    What a self-serving drivel-spew!

    Which can easily be summed up as:

    "This is what I want you all to believe, so I will tell you what I want you to believe, so you will believe it! Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain...nothing to see here, move along, back to football..."

    I didn't know Rush Limburger Limbaugh was one of Cameron's speech writers.

  52. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Puppet

    But who exactly has their hand up his arse?

    1. BrownishMonstr Bronze badge

      Re: Puppet

      Dave, the channel. DoomsDave, it's already started.

    2. WatAWorld

      Re: Puppet

      Exactly my fear. It *may* be that our politicians are already under spy agency control.

      Listening to US Senator Dianne Feinstein (Democrat from California and Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on 'Intelligence') on the news, I can't believe she supports the words coming out of her mouth on this issue.

  53. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    I guess you won't have seen this...

    http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=f93_1390833151

  54. All names Taken

    the damage Snoden caused?

    Que?

    Shoot the messenger why don't you Dave?

    So the murderer isn't the person who pulled the trigger on the firearm but the one who reported who pulled the trigger on the firearm.

    Yeah, right dood

  55. trydk
    Stop

    Dear Mr Cameron

    The problem with surveillance is not that it is there but that there is no natural border at which to say "No more".

    By your standard, virtually any surveillance that reduces the potential risk from our foes and increases the apparent security of our friends (and ourselves) is acceptable — currently within a fairly bendable framework of privacy protection that either gets ignored or, if sufficiently many people start complaining of having their constitutional rights trampled upon, changed.

    So, where is the limit? Should the movements of every vehicle in the UK be registered? More surveillance cameras? Face tracking technology? Laws against any measures that counter surveillance technology? (So long niqāb.) Checkpoints at strategic places where everyone crossing have their papers checked? (USSR, anyone?) ...?

    Why not, once and for all, just suggest that we all get an RFID device implanted shortly after birth. A device that can be read at least from a couple of hundred yards and it could be connected to the cerebral cortex so it could not be removed without killing the wearer. (I never though I would thank L Ron Hubbard for anything, but part of that idea is lifted from his novel, Battlefield Earth.) Make it a felony on par with murder to tamper with the device or hamper any tracking abilities of the government. Scatter readers at every possible point where more than a few people would pass and voilà, security is increased by orders of magnitude! ... Apparently.

    My point, Mr Cameron, is that more needs more and without natural limits/borders it will end up in a scenario like the one above, which is why we need to end this madness now!

  56. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Call me Dave

    Not at all what we call him round here.

  57. WatAWorld

    Tories and Labour will give us a UK resembling Putin's Russia

    Any politician worth 2 pence would stand against spying on his own people.

    In the early stages it won't be the general public being intimidated and coerced by our own spy agencies, it will be politicians.

    Sure GCHQ and the NSA can help you keep down backbenchers and opposition parties, but take the long view, look at your legacy Mr. Cameron.

    Do you want to join Tony Blair as the other PM who destroyed British democracy?

    And that is what all this is about.

    Democracies are not destroyed by terrorist attacks (with one debatable middle eastern exception).

    Democracies are destroyed by their own spy agencies, with or without external spy agency help.

    If you don't think Warsaw Pact history is sufficiently close to the UK situation, look at 20th century South American history. Lots of democracies as good as the UK's (if younger) toppled. They're like the black death.

    Time and time again it is spy agencies who topple democracies.

    Yes we need spy agencies, but not invasive spying on our own political, business, academic and scientific leaders.

    I'm a UK expat.

    What Blair did, what Cameron is doing, out-of-control domestic spying will transform my homeland into a UK resembling Putin's Russia were government and business is dominated by spies and ex-spies.

    We need GCHQ. We do not need a UK equivalent of a super Stasi or super KGB monitoring every cellphone and every landline and able to subvert our leaders and our democratic methods.

  58. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Public Opinion says YES

    100% of people when asked "Would you rather be spied on or blown up" said they were happy being spied on.

    1. Miek
      Linux

      Re: Public Opinion says YES

      Oh, I chose to be blown up whilst being spied on.

  59. Miek
    Facepalm

    Latest News: Cameron even more out of touch with reality than Tony [B]Lair.

This topic is closed for new posts.

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2021