Love the photo
And yes, I do want Dredd II.
Leaked internal documents from Blighty's mass-surveillance agency, GCHQ, shows that it frets not over parliamentary or political oversight ... but instead describes judicial oversight as "THE MAIN ISSUE FOR US". The note, and yes, it was made in all caps, is included in slides posted from the Snowden store released by The …
"Hammond, who receives copies of the agency's compliance documents to ensure they are following the relevant legislation. These are documents the spooks provide themselves. Hammond is also responsible for signing warrants under RIPA."
I bet it works as well as VW's compliance with emission rules.
The reason why is obvious - they're interacting with real spooks. How 007 is that? What could be cooler? And the real spooks said all sorts of stuff about how the meaning of the warrant is terribly complex, technical, not at all scary and absolutely essential to national security.
Oh, and accidentally destroying civil liberties is less of an electoral liability than accidentally allowing an unsuccessful terrorist plot to get further than it might otherwise do, so the safe thing to do (from an electoral liability point of view) is to sign everything put in front of you.
Simple really.
"So ministers may be signing warrants without understanding why?"
Most of the time I would imagine - most of them are completely ignorant of any issues except what is stopping them sticking their filthy, greedy snouts into the trough as far as they would like. (And I am talking about politicians of any persuasion or seniority BTW)
It stands to reason that spooks would want them signing warrants, not a learned and impartial judge whose life has spent serving the cause of justice.
I'm sure there are some decent MPs. They may not end up leading their parties, mind you. But I'm sure they're there. The issue with not fully understanding what you've signed is, well, how could you? When there's only one source of information on something (your intelligence agencies) they can present things in all sorts of ways. Anyone here has probably seen enough comments on a divisive issue that would convince almost anyone if there wasn't an opposing viewpoint or someone to provide context. I've seen posts both pro- and anti- global warming either of which would equally convince someone who had just wandered in without any background and in many cases the content of those posts is factually true in both cases. How much easier is it to fuddle some minister who you're telling lives may depend on them signing some bit of paper and that you know all sorts of things they don't that make it valid.
Of course there is a need for someone (apparently judges) to come along and say "well... did you know that when they said this they meant that?"
Which of course is why this document describes judges as a threat. Same way someone who is trying to convince you that AGW is true / false regards anyone not allied with them as a threat. GCHQ strive to be the only source of information to MPs and when you're the only source of information, getting signatures is usually pretty easy.
That they are far less likely (all things being equal) to be lent on by other arms of the state.
Our ancestors were wise when they decided to set the country up this way - it seems dangerous to assume they were wrong given all the things we have learnt in the last decade.
This post has been deleted by its author
>Our ancestors were wise when they decided to set the country up this way - it seems dangerous to assume they were wrong given all the things we have learnt in the last decade.
Yeah who knew due process was a good idea huh? Sure would have made closing Gitmo easier.
It's clear to me that reform of GCHQ won't come in the lifetime of this parliament (not while the Tories are in government; but Labour might be unelectable for a few good years so it might be longer). If anything the spooks are likely to get even greater powers if the new surveillance bill becomes law next month. It's up to individuals to take what measures they can to make it harder for themselves to be tracked (though strong encryption is likely to be outlawed as well). But it's David-vs-Goliath. Plus most people aren't really that interested in being spied on. They are of the "nothing to fear if nothing to hide" brigade.
You're hoping Labour might reform surveillance? Good luck with that; Phorm, Communications Data Bill, Jacqui Smith, Lord West, Gordon Brown, DRIPA, UKCCIS etc.
Not forgetting that most of the programmes revealed by Snowden manifested themselves under a Labour government.
Sadly, the only reform you are likely to get from Labour is yet more surveillance, not less.
Labour might be unelectable for a few good years so it might be longer
Regardless of their electoral appeal, or even manifesto promises, what makes you think for one tiny moment that the Labour party will address this? They've always been even more enthusiastic for the big state, snooper's charters, surveillance, identity cards and all the other things that GCHQ maintain they need.
And if you go back a few short years, it was the last Labour government that initiated the very concept of "interception modernisation".
Regardless of their electoral appeal, or even manifesto promises, what makes you think for one tiny moment that the Labour party will address this? They've always been even more enthusiastic for the big state, snooper's charters, surveillance, identity cards and all the other things that GCHQ maintain they need.
Britain has only just got back a Labour party after 20 years of Tory rule.
strong encryption is likely to be outlawed as well
It isn't, despite Camoron's bleatings. It's quite clear he has no idea what he's talking about.
Even if it were possible to remove strong encryption from the populace[1], that's an instant election-loser; people *like* to be able to buy shit over the Intertubes...
Vic.
[1] It isn't.
What if I think a 7/7 every couple of years is an incredibly cheap price to pay to have the government keep their noses out of my internet browsing history and allowing secure encryption for banking and transactions?
Where's that option? Who's making that case? Shit, we could reduce road deaths to virtually zero by having a 10mph speed limit, but we accept the inevitable deaths of a higher speed limit for convenience and commerce, why can't we do that for surveillance?
I was just wondering how high and mightily principled you will be once your legs and genitalia are blown off whilst innocently making your way to work one day?
Also, how many attacks would be acceptable to you? Once a year, once a month, week - day? Do you think we will get to choose?
This issue is far more complicated than internet rent-a-gobs are willing to admit.
It's not a choice.
The basic premise of being able to stop all bad actors prior to some event occurring is flawed.
Given this inescapable fact, we accept the risk and live a possibly shorter but definitely freer life.
The alternate is to live in servitude, and there is no safety in that condition.
You might disagree about the word "servitude", and I ask you to consider how under effective blanket surveillance, we'd ever strike down an unjust law again?
The OP did state his preferred level of risk quite clearly: once every couple of years.
Everyone's principles go out of the window when they're on the shitty end of the stick and all issues are more complicated than 'rent a gobs' (Internet or otherwise) give credit for but that doesn't make their point invalid.
Terrorism is an excuse for increasingly oppressive and covert state security mechanisms, which in turn can engender greater alienation among communities who might be suggestible to terrorism. It's quite conceivable that, had we not spent a lot of our history playing politics and subterfuge in other people's countries we wouldn't be such a target today. Our spooks have played their part in this and continue to do so with five eyes and assistance with extraordinary rendition (and god knows what else that we have no idea about but that is done in our name).
Life is dangerous and always fatal. I suspect that terrorism is probably quite low down the random horrific fatality ratio in the UK despite your painting of it in lurid language.
@ Fraggle850
I think you missed the very point I was making, that we don't get to choose the frequency of attack. We either do nothing; in which case the terrorists select the frequency or we channel resources at the problem to reduce it to an acceptable level, whatever that level is a big debate.
Has it occurred to you that the worst case scenario is what's happening in Syria right now? Can you live with that? Where would you flee?
>>"Has it occurred to you that the worst case scenario is what's happening in Syria right now? Can you live with that? Where would you flee?"
Has is it occurred to YOU that Bashar Assad's Syria was a place with an out of control state apparatus where intelligence agencies / secret police didn't have to obey due process and the populace had no means of controlling them other than violent revolution? What makes you think that Syria is at the opposite end of a surveillance state, rather than its conclusion?
@ h4rm0ny
Good Lord, looks like continual abject failure has not dampened some people's ardour for idealistic regime change. The ghost of Tony Blair lives on!
I'm afraid you'll find that ISIS is not a "rebellion" but in fact mostly foreign fighters, financed by foreign states intent in dominating the entire region. These boys are making Assad's regime look like pussies.
The people who have been planning attacks here are also being radicalised, armed and trained by entities within these foreign states. This information is in the public domain I believe. [I want to make it clear though, I do not support Assad - just the least bad outcome for everyone]
@TwoWolves
We don't know how effective these systems are at preventing attacks because they hide everything under the blanket of state security. How much freedom are you prepared to give up for security? Freedom of speech? Freedom of assembly? Freedom to protest? If you are involved in a battle with the state, and people legitimately are on occasion, then this stuff will be used against you if you are enough of a pain in the arse.
I'm not sure what the current situation in Syria has to do with this, other than (as mentioned by another poster here) to illustrate the possible outcome for excessively oppressive states. Perhaps you mean that if poor old Bashar had had access to such a system he'd have been able to round up and finish off the dissenting voices before they got to the point of a popular uprising? Syria is a fine example of our meddling in other people's affairs. We supported this oppressive regime to further our own ends.
And yes, I can live with that as I've no plans to go to Syria and therefore will not need to flee. (My trolling aside, I didn't support Blair's messianic middle eastern adventure so consider my conscience clear)
@Fraggle850: "We don't know how effective these systems are at preventing attacks "
We kinda do - you think if they stopped something big they wouldn't be jumping up and down shouting about it and how we're all better off with them looking out for (and on) us?
Look at their examples of 'success'; it's almost always police/FBI stirring up some loner to try to commit an atrocity using (fake) materials given to him by the police/FBI.
@scrubber
Good point, well made.
I suspect things are a little different in jolly old blighty but probably not that much. We do get occasional headlines about some preemptive, intelligence-led police operation. I don't think we're ever told the nature of the intel. As you say if it could be attributed to GCHQ's monitoring systems they'd probably make that known in order to justify its existence but then they are a secretive bunch so maybe not.
I wonder what chance a FOI request regarding the number of specific instances of all that data doing something useful would have?
We are the most surveilled state in the 'free' world.
Come to my patch of the Earth and any terrorist is going to get a rude shock when the populace shoots back and most likely a lot more accurately. That doesn't even take into account the ex-military proportion of the populace which is much higher than average. Great place for military to retire judging from results. When you look at terrorist events, and I count gang violence in there too, they happen far more often to populations that aren't likely at all to be armed. Miami-Dade county was the best recent example of that. Criminals would follow people who looked like tourists from the International Airport and rob them rather than take a chance with the higher than normal population that were armed. Taking a 1 in 20 chance enough times and you end up dead. Analytically, that's the proportion at which criminals change their target selection.
I'm more than willing to give up preventing every attack if the government would get out of the business of mass data collection, especially considering that we've known every terrorist before the event yet the services seemingly have their attention somewhere else (like up their ass apparently). In any case, what they are doing here is completely unconstitutional. Isn't it interesting that every time the issue of constitutionality might be brought before the US Supreme Court that it gets sidetracked for one reason or another? Invalidating standing seems to be the order of the day, for now. Or that it's contractors rather than people in uniform that process most if not all of the information? I was told, while in uniform, that even repeating anything overheard from a fellow American would not be blatantly unconstitutional. My first damn day on the job, as a matter of fact. Unless it was treason, but that's covered in the Constitution already.
Yeah, I'll take that risk. I hope the terrorists feel like taking a risk here. Anyone that targets civilians is on my better dead list and that includes my government if you need to know that too.
>>"I'm more than willing to give up preventing every attack if the government would get out of the business of mass data collection, especially considering that we've known every terrorist before the event yet the services seemingly have their attention somewhere else (like up their ass apparently)."
In a nutshell, the Intelligence Agencies' goal is to protect the state, not the people. For the time being, preventing terrorist attacks is part of that because terrorist attacks make people unsettled and demanding change, but it's not their only goal and it doesn't have to coincide. If the people become the threat to the government, then the people are the enemy. And to an extent, the people are always a threat to the government.
I tried the genitalia innocently blown off whilst walking to work principle, alas my excuse didn't work with the old plod or the missus </sarcasm>
I'm curious why use genitalia as an example? Do you consider your p*nis to be your end all of your existence? Could you not function in the world without it? The leg part indicates p*nis btw.
I think one attack every so many years is silly, you know those attacks that even though we had mass surveillance at the time happened anyway. Boston Marathon, lee rigby, hebdo. slow hand clap for GCHQ and the NSA...
Pesky independent judicial types interfering with the business of spying on the public. Better set all of that computing power on the primary task of getting some dirt on the judges...
We really ought to be up in arms over such revelations but I don't suppose the Great British Public really cares.
I have checked all major[0] print media websites and only the Daily Mirror[1] and Daily Mail[2] have reported on these latest revelations. Nothing so far in the Telegraph, Times, FT, Guardian, Independent, Daily Express, Daily Star, Evening Standard,… Couldn't actually find a search function on The Sun's website, and Dear God, my eyes. And by the by, had never heard of the Daily Record before. Anybody care to comment on what all this means?
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_newspapers_in_the_United_Kingdom_by_circulation
[1] http://www.mirror.co.uk/search/simple.do?destinationSectionId=219&publicationName=mirror&sortString=publishdate&sortOrder=desc§ionId=69&articleTypes=+news+opinion+advice&pageNumber=1&pageLength=5&searchString=gchq
[2] http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/search.html?sel=site&searchPhrase=gchq
Ever heard of Chipping Norten? It's a lovely place where politicians and the media frolic in the fields dancing and telling stories of days past they didn't print because it could be seen in a negative way.
It's like two friends that went ot the same posh school and have lots of money.
One has the power to change laws that will stop the other from being naughty in what they do.
The other has details on all the naughty things the other has done.
So they strike up a nice balance and when the first friend is very naughty they get a judge to say they were very bad and don't do it again and get another judge to let them all off from any criminal charges as laws are for the peons not the rich and powerful in return the second friends thanks them by being all supportive and brainwash the peasants with silly articles so they stay in power.
"If you accept that freedom is sometimes worth dying for (the premise behind pretty much every war ever fought),"
If by freedom you mean the freedom for one side to loot and plunder another side, and the freedom for the other side to defend against being looted and plundered, then yeah, pretty much every war is about dying for freedom.