3 ms·
No, I'm suggesting that we already knew the NSA and GCHQ were doing mass data collection. The article headline - and its very existence - suggests that politic
by peteretep 10y ago
No, I'm suggesting that we already knew the NSA and GCHQ were doing mass data collection.
The article headline - and its very existence - suggests that politicians were being targetted, or there was some suggestion that GCHQ agents are reading politicians email in particular. That the published had to clarify (at the end, ad views already banked) that they didn't mean the emails are being read tells you that the article is woefully unclear.
Neither is true: all the article actually says is that digital communication in the UK is being collected for possible future analysis, and because parliamentarians are in the UK, their data is included.
Next up: ALL POLITICANS ARE TIME-TRAVELLERS[1]
1: They can go forward in time at the same speed as everything in their immediate vicinity
- cm2187 10y agoYou can argue that it is a way to spin it, but if the aim is to make politicians react, I don't think it's bad to tell them: all emails, including yours, are monitored.
- DanBC 10y agoPoliticians frequently say that they're only looking at metadata and they only want to monitor metadata. If you want to persuade them that it's a bad idea to gather metadata you need to focus on that. Creating bullshit scare headlines that aren't true allow them to dismiss it as fearmongering.
- DanBC 10y ago> The article headline - and its very existence - suggests that politicians were being targetted, or there was some suggestion that GCHQ agents are reading politicians email in particular. And that's important because there have been occasions in the past when certain MPs were being surveilled by the security services. If it was happening today there'd probably be some ructions. (because somehow MPs think their email is more important than my email.)