Don't assume public trusts you, MI5. 'Make a case' for surveillance – Former security chief Spooks and security agencies must openly debate the public's concerns over surveillance following the Snowden revelations, former head of MI5 and current thriller writer Stella Rimington has said. "It is not enough nowadays for intelligence services to say we have your best interests at heart," she told delegates at Microsoft' …
Trust is about principles. You cannot trust someone who has no principles or changes them the way a Victorian gentleman changed his hankies.
So when you go through the list she offered as an example the conclusion based on "trust as a function of principles in the trustee" is not the one she intended.
It's not really an either or case like she laid out though. None of what Snowden said (afaik) has been shown to be false, so obviously what he's said is trustworthy. That doesn't mean you don't trust MI5, and it doesn't mean you do trust them either, some people will view (and have happily stated as such) that what Snowden revealed was an acceptable price for security. Hell, you might not trust *anyone* who's been involved in this
Throwing in the Islamic State is just kind of ridiculous, since you're not actually trusting them with anything, and seems just seems to be there to suggest opposing intelligence services claims might put you in that camp. Really though everyone knows that the only thing you can trust groups like IS to do is abuse what rights we have, and the question is whether you think it's reasonable to give up some of those rights to somewhat limit their activities (although whether this would work is questionable, since the FBI admitted that Al Quaeda was posting images publicly with messages hidden through steganography and they had no way to automatically scan for that)
Exactly! No one minds surveillance but on legitimate targets and with damned solid suspicions, not the current...."We're so bloody useless, sod it let's hoover up everything in the hopes we'll find some dirt on the bad guys and possibly catch a few others while we're at it with any luck!".
Bingo! Give the woman a job.
It is all about trust, and always has been.
I made the self same observation when I was at Europol a few weeks back. Law enforcement doesn't need more laws, they need more trust, and trust is never forced, it is earned.
I honestly don't think any right thinking citizen would hesitate to help law enforcement fight crime, but the problem is that they force what shouldn't be theirs to force. Having power may be rather neat, but it might help remembering who gave that power - a lesson that seems to have finally made its way to Obama in the US as well.
I trust Snowden as his revelations were largely confirmed. (As I remember, the last line of defense was: of course we do all that boundless spying and lying, that's what we are paid for.)
I trust Isis, they quite truthfully announce their intentions and follow through with it - - I just don't like what they do.
I don't trust the secret service of the US and GB, after all they engaged in a large misinformation campaign surrounding the Snowden revelations and have been quite consistently lying those last years.
Trust must be earned and I am sorry to say that the MI5 is somewhere at the bottom of the scale in that regard!
sadly, this is probably the only good answer at the moment,
and the simple fact that Stella Rimington tries to make her point by calling for a trust choice just shows she and the whole agency behind her has not evolved a single bit...
I dont know where our society is going, but this whole trust, security and privacy mess is certainly far from being cleaned up.
Because I believe I understand their motives the best as they appy to me. They want to chop off my head, convert me to extremism or something similar that's contrary to my lifestyle and beliefs.
Snowden I give the benefit of the doubt to - because I approve of his actions and on balance I perceive them to be positive.
The intelligence apparatus I trust the least - because they keep saying "trust us" then abusing that trust.
Quite a balanced statement from an Ex-spy though. Although since she is mouth piecing for MS we should expect she represents their views.
ISIS is easy to trust, because they do exactly what they say. They do not lie (to us) about what they are going to do. They basically want to kill all non-Muslims. I trust that. I would prefer they were taken down, however, as I am a non-Muslim who they want to kill.
" because they do exactly what they say"
Actually they don't. The number of infidels killed is trivial, and the vast majority of people IS kill are fellow Muslims, albeit belonging to the "wrong" faction, village, family, employer, sect or what have you. The religious label is merely for the gullible, and this is about thugs grabbing power because they can.
But Ms Rimmington is being a bit silly saying "trust the establishment, because you can't trust IS" since this ignores the fact that IS exists largely because of the actions of the security establishment and the lack of foresight, transparency and over-sight.
IS has been manufactured because the US and UK opened up a war (knowingly on false pretences) that took down all functioning government in Iraq. The puppet regime installed afterwards lacked legitimacy and created Sunni antipathy, and anti-government support. Meanwhile, the West handed over weapons to a poorly trained and inept Iraqi military, and then moved quickly on to interfere in a civil war in Syria. In doing so they supplied weapons to violent actors, even trained them at CIA camps in Jordan, whilst spouting complete nonsense about supporting "moderate rebels". Just as Al Qaeda was essentially a direct product of US destabilisation efforts in Afghanistan (to annoy the Russians), so IS is the direct product of US destablisation efforts in Iraq and Syria, in the first case against the then-ruling thug, and in the second case largely to annoy the Russians again. Having spent years spinning the idea that "Iran is in league with the devil" myth, our intelligence and security mandarins find themselves needing Iranian help to contain IS.
Technically they say they only kill "infidels", which could be interpreted as people who are part of the wrong branch of Islam. You're right that they're using it for political leverage, but the political structure they seem to be aiming for is a *very* extreme form of an Islamic theocracy
Plus, ISIS aren't whinging because they can no long see what songs I've just purchased.
That fact that MI-x are whining about that, makes me trust them far less than if they were complaining that I insisted on wearing a crash-helmet while going through immigration.
I'd probably have to put my lot in with that snowden fellow; after all, the other two are known terrorist organisations.
From the ever reliable wikipedia:
"In the international community, terrorism has no legally binding, criminal law definition.[1][2] Common definitions of terrorism refer only to those violent acts that are intended to create fear (terror); are perpetrated for a religious, political, or ideological goal; and deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants (e.g., neutral military personnel or civilians)."
I do have a degree of trust in our security establishment, but it comes with a measure of fear since they have substantial power to make my life worse and generally there seems to be little I can do to appeal against their actions; it will be swept under some Kafkaesque carpet. While ISIS on the other hand are unmitigated bastards their direct ability to affect me is smaller and crucially outside the law: should they attack then this will probably result in some kind of consequences for them.
Now I know that the security establishment will say it's precisely because of them that ISIS lack that ability to affect me, and there's surely some truth in that. But I'd trust that statement (and more from them) if they stopped giving the impression that they regard truth and oversight not even as necessary evils but quite dispensable whenever it could reduce their freedom to operate.
Snowden ? given a job of trust, most likely signed agreements and official secrets forms etc. Then proceeded to steal documents and release them to the world.....
Nope don't trust him but do agree with what he did.
ISIS, terrorists yes but more likely to be truthful most if not all the time as extreem religeous conviction usually includes don't lie. However I still don't trust them to be truthful all the time.
GCHQ etc, nah don't trust them at all as its their remit to lie all the time, ie deny everything and divert attention etc etc. " GCHQ sir ? never heard of it "....
So most dangerous, at the moment its between GCHQ, NSA etc undermining trust in the government and feeding the nutters who are survivalist in the USA etc and ISIS who; lets be honest; have enough to do in Iraq to bother me in the UK. Plenty of others to worry about though.
I have no problem with them spying on people etc but ONLY if there is a REAL reason and not to gather data en mass or check up on their partner/spouce etc...
Trust the security services? You mean the ones that granted themselves the power to listen into people's communications with their lawyers, then refused to admit to it citing "national security issues", until they were finally forced to come clean (with no mention now of the national security issues that meant they wouldn't say anything).
Um, no actually, I don't think I do trust them.
Snowden? Well, I'm sure he broke a few laws, but they were US ones so who cares?
ISIS - wouldn't trust them to screw in a light bulb correctly. (a bit too newfangled for them)
>Snowden? Well, I'm sure he broke a few laws, but they were US ones so who cares?
The question is not "who do you trust", but "who do you trust to do the right thing?"
Keeping the law and being right are not the same. Breaking the law and being wrong are not the same.
(It was as if a thousand american brains cried out, and then exploded.)
Credit to her for at least addressing the elephant in the room - trust. Almost every statement from the security services has ignored the obvious fact that public trust, already on the decline pre-Snowden on the assumption of what they were doing, has now fallen off a cliff. They can try Hannigans approach, which seems to be variant on rather shoutily trying to terrify us into acquiescence, or they (or their theoretical political masters) can try engaging honestly on what level of intrusion the public will actually tolerate in exchange for a certain measure of security - and its a certainty they're way, way over the line now.
One way, trust is going to continue to head the little that's left of downhill; the other will only work if it doesn't amount to lying selectively through their teeth as usual in a fog of PR and spin. I can take a good guess at which one they'll opt for.
No matter how well-intentioned the various governments are, I don't think that they should have complete access to my data. Because any trust I have in them currently may be misplaced in the future decades.
And there is no reason to frame this problem as a "Us-vs-Them" question. The secret services might believe that they are efficiently fighting ISIS, and that ISIS is worth fighting against. I doubt both points. I have not seen anything to convince me that terrorism is efficiently fought against by anybody, except by people who are actually trying to find peaceful solutions in various hot places in the world. And considering how unimportant ISIS is, I don't think we should be spending a lot of time fighting them.
"It is a question of do you trust us, or do you trust Snowden or do you trust the Islamic State?"
In that list I'd "trust" Snowden more than the others ... because faced with the realization that he'd signed up to do one job and found himself doing another job that seemed to break several laws, he did the right thing.
Would you trust any organization when their basic business is lying? Or a group of people who would behead anyone who disagrees with them? Given the alternatives then Snowden's the obvious winner here although I'd +1 her for at least talking about the issue.
Frankly .. i'd rather trust Snowden than their lot.
If the secret service and lawmakers had been forward and trustworthy on the issue and say " ok here's where we are .. " we wouldn't be here now. But their activities needed and need to remain secret. Just as much as we hate to say it ,it's a fact a lot needs to remain undercover, BUT
Going in my bank account , my files , my emails without a court order is breaking that trust , There are things that need to be kept away from them because it's not their business period. Either they get judges to allow them access after showing him proof beyond a shadow of a doubt that there is a case to get the data or they should have no access at all. They are our servants , not the reverse and that is something a many politicians have forgotten.
No to surveillance without proper court orders.
Ofc we don't trust any of the "security" services. We know what you are up to, and we don't need to spy on you to find out. You are busily and merrily enriching yourselves while spouting nonsense about the BAD PEOPLE.
Yeah like we believe you for one second. But you are paying off the right people and keeping a suitable level of fear and outrage up via your media mouthpieces. So you are getting away with it. Gz.
GCHQ, MI5, MI6 etc etc: Wall. Revolution. 1st.
I remember all too well Tony Blair saying how Saddam could blast us in 40 minutes and lots of other stuff from the dodgy dossier. I remember him asking us to trust him. What Therea May and the chief spooks are saying today smells as it came from a similar source.
If they want to convince me then show me the real evidence, come out with real numbers - not ones massages to support their case. I accept that I cannot see everything as it may destroy current investigations, but they could show it later. Show how they got to feel the bad guy's collars, how much by wire tapping, how much by old fashioned investigation. Do not sex it up.
And please don't blather mindlessly about terrorists, drug lords & paedophiles while vaguely waving your hands - it just does not wash. Whenever anyone tries to use emotions to make me forget logic: I switch off and put them in the 'not to be trusted' box.
What seems to have been forgotten by TPTB is that in a democracy policing must be by consent, at least of the majority. It should also be in accord with the law including the presumption of innocence.
To put it bluntly, if random stop and search mostly affects black inner city youths the more one differs from that demographic the less one is likely to object. As the majority are sufficiently different there is so little objection as to amount to consent.
However, surveillance by mass trawl with no effective oversight puts everyone's privacy at risk. In those circumstances it would be wrong to assume consent and no legal cover by way of PATRIOT or DRIP can substitute for that.
And if I hear "if you have nothing to hide..." being trotted out I take it as a sure sign that the presumption of innocence is being abandoned. Apart from anything else, it would be fair to ask anyone coming out with that one what their bank account, PIN login credentials etc are - after all, if they've nothing to fear why should they hide them?
The only person I would ever trust to really act 100% in my best interests is... Me. It's a sad state of affairs I know, but self-preservation is basic human nature.
So now we've established that, why would I ever believe that a security agency could or would act in my best interests over their own?
I would much prefer my private data is slurped by corporates or foreign powers than by organisations/agencies that have direct legal jurisdiction over me and ultimately the ability to lock me up.
... had that question answered before they embarked upon "The Noble Experiment." Ultimate trust will be in the hands of the citizenry. Period. Full Stop. End of argument. Yes, it's still a question on the other side of The Pond but if you can't be bothered to read history on this side, that's your fault. And you'll have to read it on your own, on this side, as the educational establishment has this thing about being questioned around their practices, especially those antithetical to the Constitution, Bill of Rights, things like that. You know. Challenges to their authority. Where have I seen that before.
Which is why I have no problem whatsoever with what Edward Snowden did. He was exercising his remit as a citizen, no matter what those idiots in charge might think. And not a thing Constitutional to stop him either as that would be Prior Restraint. Another quaint notion.
Back on the initial point, all government is suspect. It is to be questioned, challenged and struck down as the people with the ultimate power may desire. The citizens. Which is why, given how many citizens aren't bothered at all around these issues, speaks volumes about the citizens, not the government. The universal response I get these days about government surveillance is "weren't they already." Actually, in a way, no.
Oh well. Not my problem in the not so distant future, being mowed at government expense. Until the citizens decide otherwise.
"It is a question of do you trust us, or do you trust Snowden or do you trust the Islamic State?"
Since I dont know Snowden I can only have an opinion of his actions which were to expose continuous lying by the security services and highlight their breaking/bending/abusing of the law and their complete disregard for the people who are (supposed to be) in oversight of their actions.
IS is pretty trustworthy to do as they say and in their consistent actions even though they are evil.
And so that leaves the surveillance groups who have so far consistently lied, then repeated the lie, then had to tell the truth because it was extremely exposed making them look like idiots. Rinse and repeat. All 3 tell us they are doing the right thing but through their actions we see, IS is not, Snowden appears to be looking out for the people and the surveillance agencies have shown they do not trust us nor care about our opinion until they need to but little else.
It is tough to trust anyone based on them just asking us to trust them. It is harder when they have a recent history of lying and abusing their positions. Of those 3 only Snowden has acted in a way that might earn my trust that I know about. The other 2 regard people as guilty first, innocent only if they can prove it.
Who do we trust, our own government or ISIS? What a bogus, bullshit question. Here's the bottom line, ISIS lacks the capacity to force changes in our society, they can make messes and kill a few people. Our Government on the other hand can directly affect the shape of our society and change the relation of citizen to state. The burden of trust to be built by the state is much larger on the government than it is on ISIS.
... that with all we've learned over the past decades, making a case for surveillance is near impossible without lying.
Look at the UK, it's gotten by far the highest density of surveillance cameras of any industrial nation. Does that reduce crime in any significant way?
If you want security you need to think about it rationally. You'd need to find the measures which work and then implement those. Surveillance has proven to not be effective at this.
If you go down the rational security road you'll probably end up dismantling most of your secret services and put the money you save in education, health and social services. They probably do _way_ more for security than any secret service will ever do.
Besides, it's not the job of secret services to provide security of fight crime. The purpose of secret services is, obviously, secret and usually involves things like checking on the political situation in other countries and perhaps meddling with it in various ways.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
