3 ms·

What's different in the UK case is that a senior politician has to put their name to specific actions and requests. So when a whistleblower, court case or gener

by cmdkeen 13y ago

What's different in the UK case is that a senior politician has to put their name to specific actions and requests. So when a whistleblower, court case or general finding out happens there is a head ready to go on the block. When whistleblowers have come forward with specific things (bugging the UN is a memorable one) the public response has tended to be significantly more accepting than the whistleblower expected. Bugging foreigners is generally seen as plucky secret agents at it again over here. This report didn't just say it was legal - it explained the (rough) process for obtaining the data. Warrants for requests, with requests based on specific selectors relating to ongoing investigations sounds like exactly what the citizenry does want.

mtgx 13y ago
What selectors? They are given right for blanket surveillance: > "Under a little known clause in the Ripa statute, GCHQ is permitted to collect vast amounts of data under a single warrant or a special certificate issued by the foreign secretary." Do you find that "normal" or something you can support? A single warrant to collect everything? Why even bother with warrants then? What both US and UK are doing is the bare minimum of legal paperwork to allow them to have a surveillance state, and when they get caught, they can say stuff like this in the media, and hope the public buys it. It's not even close to trying to respect the spirit of the law or of the constitution, or human rights. > But Shami Chakrabarti, director of Liberty, said: "The painfully careful words of the ICS's report clear absolutely nothing up. There's nothing to allay fears that industrial amounts of personal data are being shared under the Intelligence Services Act and concerns that all UK citizens are subject to blanket surveillance under GCHQ's Tempora programme aren't even mentioned. This spin-cycle is marked 'whitewash'." http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jul/17/prism-nsa-gchq-review-framework-surveillance http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jul/17/prism-nsa-gchq-r... I would avoid stories on this from BBC. From what I've noticed they tend be on their side, and won't report everything or make it sound as if what they're doing is okay.
- toyg 13y ago
  >It's not even close to trying to respect the spirit of the law or of the constitution, or human rights. To be fair, our (unwritten but otherwise formalised) constitution basically says Parliament can do whatever the hell it wants (except when limited by EU, but that's debatable and anyway we're digressing), so as long as the current crop of MPs are fine with a surveillance state, then it's all constitutionally acceptable. >I would avoid stories on this from BBC. From what I've noticed they tend be on their side I agree that the BBC is far from impartial. It's always been pro-government, to a variable degree depending on who is in charge at the moment. Ever since Greg Dyke was booted by Blair for not supporting the Iraq invasion enough, and even more so after the various rounds of cuts from the Con-Dem coalition, BBC reporters have mostly stuck to the line that one doesn't bite the hand that feeds one.
  - toble 13y ago
    Yep. I think you have to be especially cautious about absorbing BBC info during a Conservative government. They have to be subservient because they're a big target and it doesn't help that they keep tripping over their own feet.
    - yapcguy 13y ago
      Why only during a Conservative government, and not a Labour government?
      - toyg 13y ago
        Tories are particularly aggressive towards the BBC and regularly threaten full privatisation / dismantling of what they see as a market-distorting entity. This started when Maggie Thatcher and Rupert Murdoch were BFF, and continued pretty much until Cameron's campaign to "tone down" the nastiness. Labour are much more friendly and involved with BBC employees, historically speaking; under New Labour the BBC newsdesk was largely left free to roam (and criticise)... until Iraq and Kelly happened. Even then, once Blair left, they started firing on Brown pretty much relentlessly, something they wouldn't dare with the current boss.

by cmdkeen 13y ago

mtgx 13y ago

What selectors? They are given right for blanket surveillance: > "Under a little known clause in the Ripa statute, GCHQ is permitted to collect vast amounts of data under a single warrant or a special certificate issued by the foreign secretary." Do you find that "normal" or something you can support? A single warrant to collect everything? Why even bother with warrants then? What both US and UK are doing is the bare minimum of legal paperwork to allow them to have a surveillance state, and when they get caught, they can say stuff like this in the media, and hope the public buys it. It's not even close to trying to respect the spirit of the law or of the constitution, or human rights. > But Shami Chakrabarti, director of Liberty, said: "The painfully careful words of the ICS's report clear absolutely nothing up. There's nothing to allay fears that industrial amounts of personal data are being shared under the Intelligence Services Act and concerns that all UK citizens are subject to blanket surveillance under GCHQ's Tempora programme aren't even mentioned. This spin-cycle is marked 'whitewash'." http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jul/17/prism-nsa-gchq-review-framework-surveillance http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jul/17/prism-nsa-gchq-r... I would avoid stories on this from BBC. From what I've noticed they tend be on their side, and won't report everything or make it sound as if what they're doing is okay.

toyg 13y ago
>It's not even close to trying to respect the spirit of the law or of the constitution, or human rights. To be fair, our (unwritten but otherwise formalised) constitution basically says Parliament can do whatever the hell it wants (except when limited by EU, but that's debatable and anyway we're digressing), so as long as the current crop of MPs are fine with a surveillance state, then it's all constitutionally acceptable. >I would avoid stories on this from BBC. From what I've noticed they tend be on their side I agree that the BBC is far from impartial. It's always been pro-government, to a variable degree depending on who is in charge at the moment. Ever since Greg Dyke was booted by Blair for not supporting the Iraq invasion enough, and even more so after the various rounds of cuts from the Con-Dem coalition, BBC reporters have mostly stuck to the line that one doesn't bite the hand that feeds one.
- toble 13y ago
  Yep. I think you have to be especially cautious about absorbing BBC info during a Conservative government. They have to be subservient because they're a big target and it doesn't help that they keep tripping over their own feet.
  - yapcguy 13y ago
    Why only during a Conservative government, and not a Labour government?
    - toyg 13y ago
      Tories are particularly aggressive towards the BBC and regularly threaten full privatisation / dismantling of what they see as a market-distorting entity. This started when Maggie Thatcher and Rupert Murdoch were BFF, and continued pretty much until Cameron's campaign to "tone down" the nastiness. Labour are much more friendly and involved with BBC employees, historically speaking; under New Labour the BBC newsdesk was largely left free to roam (and criticise)... until Iraq and Kelly happened. Even then, once Blair left, they started firing on Brown pretty much relentlessly, something they wouldn't dare with the current boss.