4 ms·
Normally this would be a positive feature, since it (in theory) serves to protect politicians from being coerced or blackmailed. However, I can't help but think
by rl3 10y ago
Normally this would be a positive feature, since it (in theory) serves to protect politicians from being coerced or blackmailed. However, I can't help but think it's the same gutless people that voted this in simply protecting their own interests above all else.
On the other hand, the protections may serve useful some day should they suddenly locate their spines—or perhaps a wave of vertebrate politicians somehow takes office. Either way, the protections would make it easier for the newly-granted surveillance powers to be revoked. Wishful thinking, of course.
At least the UK doesn't waste time on charades like we do here in the US—serving up deprecated or redundant surveillance programs on the altar of political sacrifice while other, more compartmented programs (usually broader and more invasive in scope) seamlessly take their place. Then again, perhaps there's just not enough public opposition to justify the effort in the first place.
- deutronium 10y agoI'm not sure how it's a positive feature at all, why should they be treated differently from the rest of us.
- dom0 10y agoI'm not sure why anyone would expect the agencies to actually adhere to these laws (they didn't before anyway). Having a nice bucket of kompromat on every relevant politician is rather enticing.
- DanBC 10y agoThey claimed to. The fact that oversight failed for years doesn't mean the agencies ignored the law - there are reasonable interpretations to most law. It's good some of it has been test by the courts. It's frustrating it took so long. It's worrying that new law is drafted that appears to ignore previous court rulings. There are exemptions in English an European law about crime prevention but it's surprising that "slurp all the data" meets the prpotional test.
- rl3 10y agoThe ultimate justification for spying on politicians is under the guise of counterintelligence. Have to make sure they're not under the influence of foreign powers, or leaking classified information. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_Harman#2009_wiretap.2FAIPAC_allegations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_Harman#2009_wiretap.2FAIP... Of course, sometimes it's just easier to poorly fabricate supposedly-intercepted communications, do the political damage, and then refuse to divulge any evidence citing either classification grounds or the absence of an investigation.
- Already__Taken 10y agoBut now you've just got exactly that for every potential upcoming politician up to the point they take office.
- rl3 10y agoMorally I don't disagree that it's indefensible. From a pragmatic point of view, it may have some utility. It's easier to fight surveillance when you're not being actively blackmailed by said surveillance. The counterargument there is that it's also easier not to care about surveillance reform when you know you're insulated from the surveillance in the first place. Likely a false sense of security, though.
- ENGNR 10y agoIt's unclear from the article though, does this protect politicians who haven't actually won a seat? If it only protects those in power it's actually the reverse, since democracy is supposed to be a 'battle of ideas' to prevent physical battles, giving the winning side the upper hand would weaken the system
- zigzigzag 10y agoThere's no protection - the people who have to sign off on it are both from the ruling party. If it had been "The Prime Minister AND the leader of each party in Parliament" then you could talk about some level of protection. But as is, it's just a way to tip the playing field to the ruling government of the day.
- realusername 10y agoI'm not really convinced on the first part, any citizen can be coerced or blackmailed providing they are acting against some interests, not only politicians and this kind of exception does not prevent that. What about journalists or random activists?
- cabalamat 10y ago> it (in theory) serves to protect politicians from being coerced or blackmailed Fine, then let's protect ordinary people from being coerced or blackmailed, too.
- cmdrfred 10y agoBut how do you write it in such a way that billionaires are protected and yet we can still spy on dangerous radical protestors and labor movement organizers? Oh you mean poor ordinary people? You sweet summer child.
- yAnonymous 10y agoJust like high salaries prevent politicians from being bribed, right?
- philipov 10y agoI don't understand. If you're a good citizen, you should have nothing to hide.