3 ms·

Correct, they shouldn't be protected because that is espionage. The "journalist" works for Russia, they are a foreign agent, they are just calling themselves so

Correct, they shouldn't be protected because that is espionage. The "journalist" works for Russia, they are a foreign agent, they are just calling themselves something else. Also, your comment is exactly why people are confused. People read stuff like that on Twitter and think...oh, now MI5 is going to come round to my house, and torture me...why won't the journalists protect us? There are already legal protections against the actions of security services because the UK has a functioning legal system. That is the main protection in our society. Journalists, most of whom spend all day on Twitter sharing salacious bullshit with other journalists, are not the protection (that was my point, in your narrative journalists are the protection but, ironically, they are the main source of misinformation about this bill because their interests are threatened).

willcipriano 5y ago
The US constitution makes indefinite detention without trial illegal, same for torture and warrentless wiretapping. There is no stronger protection possible in our legal system, or any legal system that I am aware of. It is the duty of every public official, solider and police officer to uphold the constitution, they all take oaths to that effect. However all three have happened rather routinely over the past two decades and that's just the stuff we know about. The UK would be wise to learn from our mistake.
selfhoster11 5y ago
> Correct, they shouldn't be protected because that is espionage. The "journalist" works for Russia, they are a foreign agent, they are just calling themselves something else. Does that mean that you support prosecuting Snowden, despite the fact that disclosing mass surveillance is a clearly moral thing to do when the society doesn't know about it? IMO, unless it's wartime, I couldn't care less about the motivations. I care that information has been disclosed at all.

willcipriano 5y ago

The US constitution makes indefinite detention without trial illegal, same for torture and warrentless wiretapping. There is no stronger protection possible in our legal system, or any legal system that I am aware of. It is the duty of every public official, solider and police officer to uphold the constitution, they all take oaths to that effect. However all three have happened rather routinely over the past two decades and that's just the stuff we know about. The UK would be wise to learn from our mistake.

selfhoster11 5y ago

> Correct, they shouldn't be protected because that is espionage. The "journalist" works for Russia, they are a foreign agent, they are just calling themselves something else. Does that mean that you support prosecuting Snowden, despite the fact that disclosing mass surveillance is a clearly moral thing to do when the society doesn't know about it? IMO, unless it's wartime, I couldn't care less about the motivations. I care that information has been disclosed at all.