4 ms·

I don't think the technology, and who sold it to whom, is the real story here. We all know that the NSA and GCHQ have similar capabilities. I imagine China, Rus

by d4nt 11y ago

I don't think the technology, and who sold it to whom, is the real story here. We all know that the NSA and GCHQ have similar capabilities. I imagine China, Russia and several other states do too. The point is, this power will corrupt. Consider this quote: > people deemed dangerous to state security like government officials and opposition politicians are being surveilled What happens if Labour look likely to win the election and someone decides Jeremy Corbyn is "dangerous to state security" because he opposes renewing Trident. What institutions exist to ensure that he can't be surveilled?

marrs 11y ago
This has likely happened before during the cold war when there were concerns that communists had infiltrated the Labour party. Harold Wilson famously believed he was being spied on throughout his term as prime minister
- branchless 11y ago
  And in fact it turned out that they should have been looking at Cambridge and who the Queen kept company with. Whoops.
pjc50 11y ago
What institutions exist to ensure that he can't be surveilled? Realistically, none. It's probably contrary to ECHR - mass surveillance definitely is - but that makes little difference. We're almost back to the days of A Very British Coup. There have already been generals threatening this: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3241904/We-won-t-stand-Army-brass-warn-MUTINY-Jeremy-Corbyn-Prime-Minister.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3241904/We-won-t-sta...
cryoshon 11y ago
You're assuming/implying he isn't already being surveilled. For all n, n is being surveilled. The only question at this point is whether that information is used for blackmail today, or at some point in the future. If so and so is "dangerous to state security" today, then it's today. If he's inconvenient later, then it's later.
mcintyre1994 11y ago
There was a ruling this week saying MPs can be surveilled by gchq, it'd be interesting to know where the immunity really is - the PM and his cabinet? Opposition leaders? The opposition leader? http://arstechnica.co.uk/tech-policy/2015/10/gchq-allowed-to-spy-on-mps-and-peers-secret-court-rules/ http://arstechnica.co.uk/tech-policy/2015/10/gchq-allowed-to... Oh, and David Cameron has already called the Labour party run by Corbyn a danger to national security. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/david-cameron-claims-jeremy-corbyn-is-a-threat-to-national-security-10498651.html http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/david-cameron-...
- pjc50 11y ago
  I don't think there is any immunity. Probably the only restriction is the classified material rules: there has to be some way to hold a "TOP SECRET" meeting without it going into the general surveillance bucket.
- branchless 11y ago
  And the day you want to cut GCHQ funding? Well just a moment minister let me play you this before you make a final decision...
branchless 11y ago
The establishment have already floated the idea that Corbyn is a "friend of terrorists" which they will keep in their back-pocket. Corbyn will be a financial terrorist as he wants to bring down the rentier cartel of the goverbankment.
madaxe_again 11y ago
> 'someone decides Jeremy Corbyn is "dangerous to state security"' Tweedle-Cameron and Tweedle-May already have announced that - they're paving the way for the possibility that his popularity continues to grow, so they can first off attempt discrediting him (the volume of smear already is incredible), and if that fails, he'll be arrested for a) treason b) sedition c) paedophilia d) a parking offence in 1977 e) none of the above f) all of the above. I think the particular dystopia we are headed for is most akin to Gilliam's Brazil, in which Kafkaesque bureaucracy, the application of technocratic principles, and a veneer of "reasonability" stifles and neuters all possible opposition. This is the kind of discourse we hear from our politicians today, and it sends chills down my spine: INTERVIEWER Deputy minister, what do you believe is behind this recent increase in terrorist bombings? HELPMANN Bad sportsmanship. A ruthless minority of people seems to have forgotten certain good old fashioned virtues. They just can't stand seeing the other fellow win. If these people would just play the game, instead of standing on the touch line heckling INTERVIEWER In fact, killing people HELPMANN In fact, killing people they'd get a lot more out of life. INTERVIEWER Mr. Helpmann, what would you say to those critics who maintain that the Ministry Of Information has become too large and unwieldy... ? HELPMANN David... in a free society information is the name of the game. You can't win the game if you're a man short. INTERVIEWER And the cost of it all, Deputy Minister? Seven percent of the gross national produce... HELPMANN I understand this concern on behalf of the tax-payers. People want value for money and a cost-effective service. HELPMANN That is why we always insist on the principle of Information Retrieval Charges. These terrorists are not pulling their weight, and it's absolutely right and fair that those found guilty should pay for their periods of detention and the Information Retrieval Procedures used in their interrogation.

by d4nt 11y ago

marrs 11y ago

This has likely happened before during the cold war when there were concerns that communists had infiltrated the Labour party. Harold Wilson famously believed he was being spied on throughout his term as prime minister

branchless 11y ago
And in fact it turned out that they should have been looking at Cambridge and who the Queen kept company with. Whoops.

pjc50 11y ago

What institutions exist to ensure that he can't be surveilled? Realistically, none. It's probably contrary to ECHR - mass surveillance definitely is - but that makes little difference. We're almost back to the days of A Very British Coup. There have already been generals threatening this: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3241904/We-won-t-stand-Army-brass-warn-MUTINY-Jeremy-Corbyn-Prime-Minister.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3241904/We-won-t-sta...

cryoshon 11y ago

You're assuming/implying he isn't already being surveilled. For all n, n is being surveilled. The only question at this point is whether that information is used for blackmail today, or at some point in the future. If so and so is "dangerous to state security" today, then it's today. If he's inconvenient later, then it's later.

mcintyre1994 11y ago

There was a ruling this week saying MPs can be surveilled by gchq, it'd be interesting to know where the immunity really is - the PM and his cabinet? Opposition leaders? The opposition leader? http://arstechnica.co.uk/tech-policy/2015/10/gchq-allowed-to-spy-on-mps-and-peers-secret-court-rules/ http://arstechnica.co.uk/tech-policy/2015/10/gchq-allowed-to... Oh, and David Cameron has already called the Labour party run by Corbyn a danger to national security. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/david-cameron-claims-jeremy-corbyn-is-a-threat-to-national-security-10498651.html http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/david-cameron-...

pjc50 11y ago
I don't think there is any immunity. Probably the only restriction is the classified material rules: there has to be some way to hold a "TOP SECRET" meeting without it going into the general surveillance bucket.
branchless 11y ago
And the day you want to cut GCHQ funding? Well just a moment minister let me play you this before you make a final decision...

branchless 11y ago

The establishment have already floated the idea that Corbyn is a "friend of terrorists" which they will keep in their back-pocket. Corbyn will be a financial terrorist as he wants to bring down the rentier cartel of the goverbankment.

madaxe_again 11y ago

> 'someone decides Jeremy Corbyn is "dangerous to state security"' Tweedle-Cameron and Tweedle-May already have announced that - they're paving the way for the possibility that his popularity continues to grow, so they can first off attempt discrediting him (the volume of smear already is incredible), and if that fails, he'll be arrested for a) treason b) sedition c) paedophilia d) a parking offence in 1977 e) none of the above f) all of the above. I think the particular dystopia we are headed for is most akin to Gilliam's Brazil, in which Kafkaesque bureaucracy, the application of technocratic principles, and a veneer of "reasonability" stifles and neuters all possible opposition. This is the kind of discourse we hear from our politicians today, and it sends chills down my spine: INTERVIEWER Deputy minister, what do you believe is behind this recent increase in terrorist bombings? HELPMANN Bad sportsmanship. A ruthless minority of people seems to have forgotten certain good old fashioned virtues. They just can't stand seeing the other fellow win. If these people would just play the game, instead of standing on the touch line heckling INTERVIEWER In fact, killing people HELPMANN In fact, killing people they'd get a lot more out of life. INTERVIEWER Mr. Helpmann, what would you say to those critics who maintain that the Ministry Of Information has become too large and unwieldy... ? HELPMANN David... in a free society information is the name of the game. You can't win the game if you're a man short. INTERVIEWER And the cost of it all, Deputy Minister? Seven percent of the gross national produce... HELPMANN I understand this concern on behalf of the tax-payers. People want value for money and a cost-effective service. HELPMANN That is why we always insist on the principle of Information Retrieval Charges. These terrorists are not pulling their weight, and it's absolutely right and fair that those found guilty should pay for their periods of detention and the Information Retrieval Procedures used in their interrogation.