15 ms·

Lord Blair: we need laws to stop 'principled' leaking of state secrets

157 points by pwg 13y ago

arethuza 13y ago
So he is wanting a new law to cover people who haven't signed the Official Secrets Act from spreading information that is covered by that act? Given how existing legislation is abused I would hate to see how that could be used. What if I've read something secret that I shouldn't have - would I be commiting Thought Crime?
- cwoac 13y ago
  Actually the provisions of the OSA cover you even if you haven't signed it. Signing it is generally just a reminder thing, hence the fact that if you have to sign it once, you will probably end up signing it several times (when you join, when you leave, when you change roles, etc). The OSA primarily covers how you handle secret information that you legitimately have access to. He was talking about stuff outside the scope of the OSA - i.e. when you acquire material that you shouldn't have to start with.
  - 001sky 13y ago
    Good point, but still, one still needs to just laugh at this guy. The idea tha any idea (data, knowledge) can be mis-used for terrorism is non-falsifiable hypothesis. It makes a mockery of the adverserial justice system. Many pieces of data can be used for such purposes. Its precisely the innocence of the victims and the innocuous and everyday nature of the means, that is the purposes of this new bloody sport. THE TERRORISTS WENT TO FRIGGIN FLIGHT SCHOOL. We taught them how to fly a guided missile into a FRIGGIN SKYSCRAPER. We gave the STUDENT VISAS.
    - einhverfr 13y ago
      Teaching people how to fly can facilitate terrorist acts. Therefore we must arrest all flight instructors.
      - regularfry 13y ago
        s/flight instructors/flight manual authors, readers, flight sim writers, players, planespotters, and anyone who knows what an NACA 0012 is/
        einhverfr 13y ago
        I'd say lock up everyone and let the juries sort them out but I wonder where we'd get juries in that case....
  - seabee 13y ago
    But it's not outside the scope of the OSA, necessarily - Section 5 covers the recipients of secret material leaked by a civil servant. The current leaks are only outside of the scope of OSA because Snowden isn't a civil servant of the UK. It appears Blair wants to prevent the publication of all information considered highly embarrassing - er, I mean, 'damaging to national security' - regardless of where it came.
- madaxe 13y ago
  We already have thought crime. See the several groups of chaps who were all locked up for life for talking about making a bomb last year.
guard-of-terra 13y ago
Next time you hear the word 'terrorists', stop listening.
- sthulbourn 13y ago
  Correction: Every time you see or hear "terrorists" replace it with "citizens". > Lord Blair told BBC Radio 4's Broadcasting House programme: "The state has to have secrets – that's how it operates against citizens.
  - marcuspovey 13y ago
    http://skunk.marcus-povey.co.uk/debogotron/?url=http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/aug/26/lord-blair-laws-principled-leaking http://skunk.marcus-povey.co.uk/debogotron/?url=http://www.t... :)
tinco 13y ago
He argues that the release of this knowledge facilitates terrorism. I'm curious, has there actually been a leaked secret that could facilitate terrorism? Perhaps in the accidental leaks back when the password for all those diplomatic cables leaked? Or is the only way they facilitate terrorism that they make the public mistrust the authorities?
- petercooper 13y ago
  It would be hard to prove with the existing leaks, but there are certainly forms of information that could be considered very valuable to and likely to incite known terrorist groups, no? I'm thinking things like detailed floor plans for embassies, personal info about members of the special forces, confirmations of extralegal executions and details of the people who carried them out, etc. So far it seems no-one who has leaked information has had the clearance to get to the truly painful stuff, but the psychological screening to get to those levels is specifically designed to keep potential Snowdens and Mannings out.
  - tinco 13y ago
    I agree with you that that information must surely exist. And if it was true that in recent times people who stole and leaked that information for the terrorists to profit got away with it lightly, then I would agree that stricter laws were in order. But in this case, he's referring to Miranda's case. Miranda was in _possession_ of the leaked documents, he did not steal them himself. Besides that he is clearly (in service of) a journalist. Are we to prosecute journalists for possessing secret information no one knows of, that they haven't even leaked yet? Aren't the Snowdens and Mannings already punished enough to deter any selfish leaker?
  - rumcajz 13y ago
    Flight schedules should be secret. Also, dates of sporting events should be secret. Actually, keeping current time secret would help a lot. Seriously, the fact that information can be used by terrorists doesn't imply that it should be secret.
  - grey-area 13y ago
spindritf 13y ago
This is not even politics. This is irrelevant politics. The article boils down to a retiree saying something.
- moocowduckquack 13y ago
  Afraid not. He used to be less political than he is now. He used to be in the police, now he is a life peer and gets to actually vote on stuff.
  - hipsters_unite 13y ago
    A policeman joining the police state lobby. Well, I never.
    - Silhouette 13y ago
      He's not a mere lobbyist, though. He sits in the House of Lords, where he wields actual legislative power but has no corresponding accountability to the electorate. If you ever wondered why so many people have been campaigning for an elected second chamber in the UK, now you know.
      - vixen99 13y ago
        And who elects them? Politicians ready to bestow favours. Thus we have a self-appointed club. Hereditary peers had at least one worthwhile characteristic in that they owed their position to no one save a long-dead ancestor.
        hipsters_unite 13y ago
        I think he means a second chamber elected by voters. That's certainly what I mean.
      - hipsters_unite 13y ago
        I meant 'lobby' as in 'club' or 'group', and I agree. I'm all for an elected second chamber rather than the current system.
rlpb 13y ago
"The peer insisted there was material the state had to keep secret, and powers had to be in place to protect it." How does he propose that we keep a check on the state to make sure that it is not abusing its powers? Did he omit to mention this obvious flaw in his proposal, or is it an omission of the journalist reporting on what he said?
- einhverfr 13y ago
  It seems like such statements by Lord Blair, insofar as they make people distrust the government, are "but of conduct which is likely to or capable of facilitating terrorism". Or was it the journalists interviewing him? Or the guardian reposting it? Just arrest the lot and let the juries sort them out!
- pbhjpbhj 13y ago
  >"Did he omit to mention this obvious flaw in his proposal" // Is it a "flaw". Surely it's impossible to have a system where the state retain information as secret that yet has third-party oversight and doesn't require the populous to trust a person in power (the third-party). It seems more to be an outcome or corollary than a[n unexpected] error or "flaw".
  - officemonkey 13y ago
    Here's a work around for the "flaw." Reduce the need for secret information.
    - pbhjpbhj 13y ago
      No. A work around would have to entirely remove the need for secret information.
      - noarchy 13y ago
        This. The "need" for secret information frequently means covering up for whatever rotten thing the government is doing somewhere. Decades later, you get to see the declassified documents, and you can see why the criminals of the time wanted it all kept a "secret".
pwg 13y ago
“Power is not a means; it is an end. One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship. The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power.” George Orwell, 1984
otikik 13y ago
"The state has to have secrets – that's how it operates against terrorists" Secrecy allows the state to do a lot of things.
- rvkennedy 13y ago
  Defenders of the State on this issue tend to answer the question they want to be asked - "should the state have secrets". No-one (except maybe Julian Assange) is arguing that the State shouldn't have secrets - the recent leaks occurred not as a blow against secrecy but to expose State wrongdoing. That's why it's whistleblowing, and not just vandalism. Guys like Blair like to pretend that they're fighting for the government's right to keep secrets, which no-one is seriously challenging; they run shy of addressing the specific secrets exposed - be it military misbehaviour against civilians, civil servants deceiving lawmakers and so on.
cageface 13y ago
Having spent quite a bit of time in the last three years living in countries where there is no free press or protection for critics of the government at all, I feel I can pretty confidently say that a completely unanswerable government is far more of a threat to its people than any outside terrorist threat could ever be. Without checks on government power, corruption is absolute. If people that have been carefully vetted for security clearance are willing to risk their freedom and perhaps even their lives to bring to light abuses of government power we should protect them.
- ekianjo 13y ago
  > outside terrorist We all know this is a big word to make headlines and influence people to be in favor of extreme laws. No country has ever been destroyed by Terrorism. Terrorism is, before all, a political tool. That's why States finance terrorist actions (the archives are full of that) to reach political means.
- zanny 13y ago
  It is worse than any terrorist threat. It is worse than any civilian threat in general. States wield the powers of money, authority, law, and they are the only bearer of a legal right to violence. The worst people can do is ruin their own lives - the worst states can do is ruin everyone elses.
- fennecfoxen 13y ago
  When principles are outlawed, only outlaws will have principles.
nicholassmith 13y ago
Great, so the government would have laws that prevent us from ever knowing what they think is an acceptable level of surveillance of our daily lives. That has no potential for misuse. I get that the leaks could potentially give an advantage to terrorists, but if they're so smart they're following the leaks with baited breath and reworking their tactics, the likelihood is they're probably already avoid using channels that they believe are compromised. If they're using channels that are compromised they're probably too ineffective to pull off a large scale terror attack.
- coldtea 13y ago
  Well, as for the bad guys, most of the public perception of them seems to be based on Holywood movies. In real life their sophistication seems to be absolute BS -- crude stuff that only works (sporadically at that) because a) it's simple to the point that nobody can prevent such stuff anyway, b) the agencies let it happen, c) the agencies are incompetent. I don't believe they blocked any large scale stuff we don't know about. If they did, they would be shouting it on the rooftops, to show how effective and necessary they are.
  - nicholassmith 13y ago
    That's the argument isn't it, 'we need this to protect you, but we can't tell because it's super classified'.
devx 13y ago
This is getting very scary. Politicians who say something like this at any time, should be met with extreme outrage and make them lose whatever position they're holding immediately. Otherwise they'll get their way, rise to power, and attract more like him there. What he's saying is unacceptable, but I fear many in the governments think like that right now, which why extreme outrage over this is so important.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- twoodfin 13y ago
  I think hn's definitely doing its part on the "extreme outrage" front. Thank goodness.
- throwaway_yy2Di 13y ago
  This is getting very scary. Politicians who say something like this at any time, should be met with extreme outrage and make them lose whatever position they're holding immediately. Ian Blair is a Life Peer, not a politician. The UK's House of Lords is not a democratic institution even in pretense. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Lords https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Lords
madaxe 13y ago
We're not in 1984. We're not in Brave New World. We're not even in Zamyatin's We. We're in bloody Brazil. 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. We PULL AWAY from the shop to concentrate on the shoppers. Helpmann's voice carries over the rest of the scene. 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.
- ekianjo 13y ago
  I was re-watching Brazil the other day and this was exactly what came to mind. We are not in 1984. Terry Gilliam's vision is terrific, and captures with precision how someone working for the NSA (even though it's not called like that in the movie) thinking he is working for Good actually discovers the impact of his actions on real people's lives. It's frightening how close we are to that place.
- w_t_payne 13y ago
  Ducts. We need more ducts.
  - 13y ago
adaml_623 13y ago
What we actually need are laws that make it an offence for any government to cover up projects and operations that materially impact the lives and rights of their citizens. Whether a single citizen or all of them are affected it should be a punishable offence if higher ups cover up the actions of a government official.
- einhverfr 13y ago
  Yes. Unfortunately given that the government gets to decide which laws to enforce....
- JulianMorrison 13y ago
  What you should be learning from this is that there is no government that rules government - that laws, constitutions, and democracy exist only when and where those in power believe they ought to. I'm not arguing they're all amoral monsters. Often, it's their moral side that's the problem. They want a reasonable thing, such as protection from terrorism, and they sweep all impediments aside to obtain it, because they care, and they can.
001sky 13y ago
He warned there was a "new threat which is not of somebody personally intending to aid terrorism, but of conduct which is likely to or capable of facilitating terrorism". == What. The. Fuck.
- adamnemecek 13y ago
  Didn't you get the memo? When someone says that something is causing terrorism, you must stop thinking about it and just take their word for it.
  - jrockway 13y ago
    Memos can be used by terrorists, so no I did not get a memo, terrorist.
ajb 13y ago
This is probably an attempt to move the 'overtone window' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_Window http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_Window
- rwmj 13y ago
  It's an attempt, but I suspect one which moves it in the opposite direction to what he intends.
amykhar 13y ago
Then maybe governments should stop doing things that require people of principle to have to make the difficult decision to leak state secrets.
ams6110 13y ago
Snowden did not leak the information he did because he felt that states should not have secrets. I think any reasonable person would agree that there is information states legitimately need or want to keep secret. What Snowden did was in response to abusive overreach in secret domestic surveillance, which (to me anyway) is quite different.
- madaxe 13y ago
  * > I think any reasonable person would agree that there is information states legitimately need or want to keep secret. * Such as? Why should the state have a higher expectation of privacy than its citizens, if it's representative of them?
  - jasonwocky 13y ago
    Names of undercover agents infiltrating criminal organizations, to start?
    - SideburnsOfDoom 13y ago
      Ah yes, because that's been so ethically done and the current levels of oversight are entirely sufficient. http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2013/jun/18/undercover-policing-faces-tighter-regulation http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2013/jun/18/undercover-policin... http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/10139126/Whos-keeping-tabs-on-the-undercover-cops.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/1013912... http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2013/jun/21/mclibel-leaflet-police-bob-lambert-mcdonalds http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2013/jun/21/mclibel-leaflet-po...
    - madaxe 13y ago
      You mean, names of agent provocateurs infiltrating peaceful protest groups? You see, the thing is, as soon as you say "well, clearly X needs to be secret", you open the avenue for all of the unintended, unforeseen uses of said secrecy. The only solution, as far as the state is concerned, is to have no secrets. Undercover police/intelligence work would be obviated by not defining economic and social systems which engender the kind of behaviour that mandates such in the first place.
Mordor 13y ago
Yeah, I get the logic: 'terrorism' is knowing what the government is doing. Perhaps there's another logic: a government which hides in the shadows terrorizes everyone.
sspiff 13y ago
He claims the release of information facilitates terrorism, without sharing any argumentation: no examples, not even hypothetical scenarios, nothing. He's asking to restrict the sharing of information, supposedly information on how "the government fights terrorism". He glosses over the fact that once law enforcement can persecute people for sharing some information, it is incredibly easy to persecute people for the sharing of _any_ information if it choses to. Power creep is a scary and dangerous thing, and it is very hard (impossible?) to guard against it.
- userulluipeste 13y ago
  You are right. If this is acceptable, there isn't really anything to prevent restriction of any kind of knowledge, like even the pure scientific material, on the ground that it may somehow be used by the boogeyman. Lets imagine the consequences...
- bobbydavid 13y ago
  Well, oversight might lead to a restriction of unchecked governmental power, which would reduce their ability to combat terrorism.
- hobs 13y ago
  "I think there is going to have to be a look at what happens when somebody possesses material which is secret without having authority." I think there is going to have to be a look at what happens when someone with a huge blindspot implies we should make a law about something they clearly don't understand.
- bjelkeman-again 13y ago
  This is from a person who persued the initiation of an illegal war. I was watching as Blair said "If you knew what I know, you would support [our war]" (paraphrasing). It turned out of course that he knew nothing that would justify a war. Why would we expect anything less than draconian measures from Blair on the issue of state secrets? Reference for illegality of the war: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_the_Iraq_War http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_the_Iraq_War
w_t_payne 13y ago
We are facing a troubling future as increasingly squeezed natural resources combine with the ever mounting public debt burden to create a toxic environment, perfectly suited to breed civil unrest, subversion, and anti-authoritarianism, terrorism and open revolt. The stability and security of a well-ordered society demands conformance to certain social norms and limits on behaviour. These limits must be upheld even in the face of rising food insecurity, income inequality, and economic distress. The protection of civil order requires the enforcement of conformance to behavioural norms, which in turn demands that that we crack down on destabilising influences, both in traditional and digital/distributed media. Fortunately, modern digital tools allow the state to monitor and control discourse, behaviour and thought as never before. These tools must be exploited to their full potential, and dissent and nonconforming behaviour - in all it's forms, must be detected, isolated, and crushed immediately. For example, forums such as this one are hotbeds of dissent - anarchic and destructive cess-pits of ideological filth that lead our vulnerable and easily influenced youth astray. The state must identify the minority of subversive participants in these forums who are actively encouraging dissent -- and must silence them, for the good of a well-ordered society.
s_q_b 13y ago
If you want to see the largely-tamed press suddenly become rabidly anti-national security, go ahead guys. The press is still massively powerful in the UK, and even more so in the United States, where the First Amendment still holds relatively strong. More importantly than any legal protection, civil society won't stand for it. I think I've made clear through previous comments that, by HN standards, I'm slightly to the right of the Kaiser on SIGINT to prevent terrorism. Large scale persecution of the press would be enough to get even me to consider switching sides.
mcintyre1994 13y ago
Why don't 'they' get it? What the Guardian has leaked does not benefit terrorists, and I've heard nobody make a case that it does. Until they make that case, the reason this was hidden was not because of terrorists unless we've widened the definition to preliminarily classify the whole worked as such. Sure there's stuff that's reasonable to keep secret (in my opinion), but if this is identified as such that just weakens the case for any of it being secret.
ihsw 13y ago
And the "War on Dissent" rears its ugly head again. Anyone that doesn't gladly salute the state is "terrorist."
kalms 13y ago
How is this not a bigger deal? This man is completely mind boggling. Is the corruption in the UK really this bad?
shortcj 13y ago
There must needs be an independent and viable channel for whistle blowers to report government abuse to and be protected from retaliation. The problem with terrorist is real; but there is also a real problem with bad/corrupt government cronies.
fab13n 13y ago
As often with powerful tools, what we miss is an effective counter-power to restore balance. In this case, I'd investigate: * making it a crime for officials to use anti-terrorism provisions without a serious enough ground (this poses the problem of legally defining "serious enough") * nullifying any legal procedure which uses anti-terrorist laws yet doesn't yield a terrorist indictment (Today, sticking a terrorist charge on an investigation just gives free super powers to judges and cops; with this caveat, making terrorist claims would become an all-or-nothing gamble, which would be used much more carefully)
- Loughla 13y ago
  From what I've seen in the US political and judicial system (I may be too cynical), I believe that the following would happen: Point 1: The definition of what is "serious" would be so watered down and full of political rhetoric that anyone, at any time could be found to be a 'serious threat'. Point 2: This would simply increase the amount of 'terrorism' convictions, and may actually lead to a quicker trials and harsher sentences --- surely the police and prosecution wouldn't bring a charge to MY court unless it was serious! Look at the new law that makes it so! The issue is that the people using the powerful tools are also the same people allowed to write the checks and balances. . . .
ttt_ 13y ago
The State is the one that must have no expectations of privacy and in fact be held to rigorous transparency an independent audit, not the other way around. Like in software, security that relies on closed source is in fact more vulnerable.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
toddnessa 13y ago
We know we have a problem when transparency is largely demonized. Allegations of "terrorism" seems to be bringing much benefit to government. I saw a movie recently from the 1980's called "They Live!" I noticed that in the movie the word terrorism, allegations of terrorism or terrorists toward those who opposed them, was the weapon of control of the disguised, camelion totalitarian regime in power. Only those with special glasses could see them. It would seem as if this would be the playbook in protecting criminal government activity done under the auspices of law. Al Capone would have drooled for such type of power. Top Secret should not be an excuse to undermine the law, the rights of individuals, and the Constitution of the United States. Those who witness such crimes have the duty to come forward to the public. By keeping quiet and turning a blind eye to crime, one partners with it. Crime grows in the dark while the light of day exposes it. Freedom requires transparency. A war on whistle-blowers is really a type of barometer as to the amount of freedom that we really have.
mbesto 13y ago
The root cause of all of this is really simple - our definition of terrorism, and the fact that we are at war with it. The solution is unfavorably not simple. First thing's first, we need to redefine what constitutes terrorism, otherwise this situation will only get worse.
netcan 13y ago
He is right about one thing: times are changing and our institutions need to change too. There are things considered to be "tenants of democracy." Press freedoms (independence, access, source anonymity) political rights (secret ballots, right to organize, rights to protest). People actively claiming those rights is seen as a sign of health for democracy. If a government is harassing journalists, finding out people's vote or preventing political protests we immediately see this as an attack on democracy. These are protected by public opinion (formed over generations), courts and basic/fundamental/constitutional laws, usually old ones. They are not protected by governments. If the definition of "leak" or whistleblower is left to governments (pretty much any current government in the world), they will define them as some variant of "traitor" or "terrorist." In order for a distinction to be made between someone who makes information available to The People and someone who make information available to The Enemy, courts need to be involved. They need to have basic laws to lean on. BTW, I think that distinction is incredibly clear. All the cases under discussion made information available to the US public (and in some cases the subjects of other governments). They were primarily of interest to the US public. I believe independent courts would be able to make that distinction easily.
polyvisual 13y ago
Coming from Ian Blair, this is fairly unsurprising. It's amazing he's even being put in print, given his prior behaviour.
deveac 13y ago
>"I think there is going to have to be a look at what happens when somebody possesses material which is secret without having authority." Terrifying. This describes journalists and news organizations unless his proposed ratchet-tightening carves out clear and bold exceptions, which are, by definition, not clear, bold, or easy to define in this age of new media.
scrabble 13y ago
Is it just me, or are the words "terrorist" and "terrorism" starting to lose their meanings?
- unimpressive 13y ago
  Did they ever have any? "Terrorism is the systematic use of terror, often violent, especially as a means of coercion. In the international community, however, terrorism has no legally binding, criminal law definition.[1][2] Common definitions of terrorism refer only to those violent acts which are intended to create fear (terror); are perpetrated for a religious, political, or ideological goal; and deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants (civilians). Some definitions now include acts of unlawful violence and war. The use of similar tactics by criminal organizations for protection rackets or to enforce a code of silence is usually not labeled terrorism, though these same actions may be labeled terrorism when done by a politically motivated group. The writer Heinrich Böll and scholars Raj Desai and Harry Eckstein have suggested that attempts to protect against terrorism may lead to a kind of social oppression.[3][4] The word "terrorism" is politically and emotionally charged,[5] and this greatly compounds the difficulty of providing a precise definition. Studies have found over 100 definitions of “terrorism”.[6][7] The concept of terrorism may be controversial as it is often used by state authorities (and individuals with access to state support) to delegitimize political or other opponents,[8] and potentially legitimize the state's own use of armed force against opponents (such use of force may be described as "terror" by opponents of the state).[8][9]" - wikipedia, at the time of writing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism
DominikR 13y ago
Most people don't challenge the states right to keep secrets, what Snowden, Assange and others challenge is the right to commit crimes and keep them secret.
Fuxy 13y ago
What the hell makes this guy a lord? Secrets are secret because they are controversial or out right illegal (from what Snowden has showed us at least). So what he's basically telling us is the government should be allowed to be above the law because they need to catch terrorist while at the same time broadening the definition by including journalists reporting of the truth. The only people these journalists re terrorizing are the people in power who are hiding their abuses of power by classifying them top secret.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
bdcravens 13y ago
Aren't there laws already in place? If I have access to confidential information, and I disseminate, there's criminal and civil consequences. Laws that revolve around preemptive action to prevent something that's already illegal (war on terror, gun control) offer marginal benefit at the cost of making life difficult for those who wouldn't have violated the laws already in place.
guizzy 13y ago
I've got a great way to do that, no law necessary! Stop having state secrets that 'principled' people will want to leak!
trekky1700 13y ago
Does anyone have an original thought on this, or is everyone going to keep saying "this is bad because I read it in a book about bad things"? I personally, coming from admittedly a position of ignorance where I don't know what secrets may or may not exist and what their implications may or may not be, have trouble picking a side. As we don't know the secrets, any opinion we take on them, other than a general one, is purely emotional.
alan_cx 13y ago
Well, if government stopped abusing our trust, we wouldn't need leaks. What this ex policeman is saying is that we have no right to know if government and his lot in the police are abusing the power we grant them. What a surprise.

157 points by pwg 13y ago

So he is wanting a new law to cover people who haven't signed the Official Secrets Act from spreading information that is covered by that act? Given how existing legislation is abused I would hate to see how that could be used. What if I've read something secret that I shouldn't have - would I be commiting Thought Crime?

cwoac 13y ago
Actually the provisions of the OSA cover you even if you haven't signed it. Signing it is generally just a reminder thing, hence the fact that if you have to sign it once, you will probably end up signing it several times (when you join, when you leave, when you change roles, etc). The OSA primarily covers how you handle secret information that you legitimately have access to. He was talking about stuff outside the scope of the OSA - i.e. when you acquire material that you shouldn't have to start with.
- 001sky 13y ago
  Good point, but still, one still needs to just laugh at this guy. The idea tha any idea (data, knowledge) can be mis-used for terrorism is non-falsifiable hypothesis. It makes a mockery of the adverserial justice system. Many pieces of data can be used for such purposes. Its precisely the innocence of the victims and the innocuous and everyday nature of the means, that is the purposes of this new bloody sport. THE TERRORISTS WENT TO FRIGGIN FLIGHT SCHOOL. We taught them how to fly a guided missile into a FRIGGIN SKYSCRAPER. We gave the STUDENT VISAS.
  - einhverfr 13y ago
    Teaching people how to fly can facilitate terrorist acts. Therefore we must arrest all flight instructors.
    - regularfry 13y ago
      s/flight instructors/flight manual authors, readers, flight sim writers, players, planespotters, and anyone who knows what an NACA 0012 is/
      - einhverfr 13y ago
        I'd say lock up everyone and let the juries sort them out but I wonder where we'd get juries in that case....
- seabee 13y ago
  But it's not outside the scope of the OSA, necessarily - Section 5 covers the recipients of secret material leaked by a civil servant. The current leaks are only outside of the scope of OSA because Snowden isn't a civil servant of the UK. It appears Blair wants to prevent the publication of all information considered highly embarrassing - er, I mean, 'damaging to national security' - regardless of where it came.
madaxe 13y ago
We already have thought crime. See the several groups of chaps who were all locked up for life for talking about making a bomb last year.

guard-of-terra 13y ago

Next time you hear the word 'terrorists', stop listening.

sthulbourn 13y ago
Correction: Every time you see or hear "terrorists" replace it with "citizens". > Lord Blair told BBC Radio 4's Broadcasting House programme: "The state has to have secrets – that's how it operates against citizens.
- marcuspovey 13y ago
  http://skunk.marcus-povey.co.uk/debogotron/?url=http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/aug/26/lord-blair-laws-principled-leaking http://skunk.marcus-povey.co.uk/debogotron/?url=http://www.t... :)

tinco 13y ago

He argues that the release of this knowledge facilitates terrorism. I'm curious, has there actually been a leaked secret that could facilitate terrorism? Perhaps in the accidental leaks back when the password for all those diplomatic cables leaked? Or is the only way they facilitate terrorism that they make the public mistrust the authorities?

petercooper 13y ago
It would be hard to prove with the existing leaks, but there are certainly forms of information that could be considered very valuable to and likely to incite known terrorist groups, no? I'm thinking things like detailed floor plans for embassies, personal info about members of the special forces, confirmations of extralegal executions and details of the people who carried them out, etc. So far it seems no-one who has leaked information has had the clearance to get to the truly painful stuff, but the psychological screening to get to those levels is specifically designed to keep potential Snowdens and Mannings out.
- tinco 13y ago
  I agree with you that that information must surely exist. And if it was true that in recent times people who stole and leaked that information for the terrorists to profit got away with it lightly, then I would agree that stricter laws were in order. But in this case, he's referring to Miranda's case. Miranda was in _possession_ of the leaked documents, he did not steal them himself. Besides that he is clearly (in service of) a journalist. Are we to prosecute journalists for possessing secret information no one knows of, that they haven't even leaked yet? Aren't the Snowdens and Mannings already punished enough to deter any selfish leaker?
- rumcajz 13y ago
  Flight schedules should be secret. Also, dates of sporting events should be secret. Actually, keeping current time secret would help a lot. Seriously, the fact that information can be used by terrorists doesn't imply that it should be secret.
- grey-area 13y ago

spindritf 13y ago

This is not even politics. This is irrelevant politics. The article boils down to a retiree saying something.

moocowduckquack 13y ago
Afraid not. He used to be less political than he is now. He used to be in the police, now he is a life peer and gets to actually vote on stuff.
- hipsters_unite 13y ago
  A policeman joining the police state lobby. Well, I never.
  - Silhouette 13y ago
    He's not a mere lobbyist, though. He sits in the House of Lords, where he wields actual legislative power but has no corresponding accountability to the electorate. If you ever wondered why so many people have been campaigning for an elected second chamber in the UK, now you know.
    - vixen99 13y ago
      And who elects them? Politicians ready to bestow favours. Thus we have a self-appointed club. Hereditary peers had at least one worthwhile characteristic in that they owed their position to no one save a long-dead ancestor.
      - hipsters_unite 13y ago
        I think he means a second chamber elected by voters. That's certainly what I mean.
    - hipsters_unite 13y ago
      I meant 'lobby' as in 'club' or 'group', and I agree. I'm all for an elected second chamber rather than the current system.

rlpb 13y ago

"The peer insisted there was material the state had to keep secret, and powers had to be in place to protect it." How does he propose that we keep a check on the state to make sure that it is not abusing its powers? Did he omit to mention this obvious flaw in his proposal, or is it an omission of the journalist reporting on what he said?

einhverfr 13y ago
It seems like such statements by Lord Blair, insofar as they make people distrust the government, are "but of conduct which is likely to or capable of facilitating terrorism". Or was it the journalists interviewing him? Or the guardian reposting it? Just arrest the lot and let the juries sort them out!
pbhjpbhj 13y ago
>"Did he omit to mention this obvious flaw in his proposal" // Is it a "flaw". Surely it's impossible to have a system where the state retain information as secret that yet has third-party oversight and doesn't require the populous to trust a person in power (the third-party). It seems more to be an outcome or corollary than a[n unexpected] error or "flaw".
- officemonkey 13y ago
  Here's a work around for the "flaw." Reduce the need for secret information.
  - pbhjpbhj 13y ago
    No. A work around would have to entirely remove the need for secret information.
    - noarchy 13y ago
      This. The "need" for secret information frequently means covering up for whatever rotten thing the government is doing somewhere. Decades later, you get to see the declassified documents, and you can see why the criminals of the time wanted it all kept a "secret".

pwg 13y ago

“Power is not a means; it is an end. One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship. The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power.” George Orwell, 1984

otikik 13y ago

"The state has to have secrets – that's how it operates against terrorists" Secrecy allows the state to do a lot of things.

rvkennedy 13y ago
Defenders of the State on this issue tend to answer the question they want to be asked - "should the state have secrets". No-one (except maybe Julian Assange) is arguing that the State shouldn't have secrets - the recent leaks occurred not as a blow against secrecy but to expose State wrongdoing. That's why it's whistleblowing, and not just vandalism. Guys like Blair like to pretend that they're fighting for the government's right to keep secrets, which no-one is seriously challenging; they run shy of addressing the specific secrets exposed - be it military misbehaviour against civilians, civil servants deceiving lawmakers and so on.

cageface 13y ago

Having spent quite a bit of time in the last three years living in countries where there is no free press or protection for critics of the government at all, I feel I can pretty confidently say that a completely unanswerable government is far more of a threat to its people than any outside terrorist threat could ever be. Without checks on government power, corruption is absolute. If people that have been carefully vetted for security clearance are willing to risk their freedom and perhaps even their lives to bring to light abuses of government power we should protect them.

ekianjo 13y ago
> outside terrorist We all know this is a big word to make headlines and influence people to be in favor of extreme laws. No country has ever been destroyed by Terrorism. Terrorism is, before all, a political tool. That's why States finance terrorist actions (the archives are full of that) to reach political means.
zanny 13y ago
It is worse than any terrorist threat. It is worse than any civilian threat in general. States wield the powers of money, authority, law, and they are the only bearer of a legal right to violence. The worst people can do is ruin their own lives - the worst states can do is ruin everyone elses.
fennecfoxen 13y ago
When principles are outlawed, only outlaws will have principles.

nicholassmith 13y ago

Great, so the government would have laws that prevent us from ever knowing what they think is an acceptable level of surveillance of our daily lives. That has no potential for misuse. I get that the leaks could potentially give an advantage to terrorists, but if they're so smart they're following the leaks with baited breath and reworking their tactics, the likelihood is they're probably already avoid using channels that they believe are compromised. If they're using channels that are compromised they're probably too ineffective to pull off a large scale terror attack.

coldtea 13y ago
Well, as for the bad guys, most of the public perception of them seems to be based on Holywood movies. In real life their sophistication seems to be absolute BS -- crude stuff that only works (sporadically at that) because a) it's simple to the point that nobody can prevent such stuff anyway, b) the agencies let it happen, c) the agencies are incompetent. I don't believe they blocked any large scale stuff we don't know about. If they did, they would be shouting it on the rooftops, to show how effective and necessary they are.
- nicholassmith 13y ago
  That's the argument isn't it, 'we need this to protect you, but we can't tell because it's super classified'.

devx 13y ago

This is getting very scary. Politicians who say something like this at any time, should be met with extreme outrage and make them lose whatever position they're holding immediately. Otherwise they'll get their way, rise to power, and attract more like him there. What he's saying is unacceptable, but I fear many in the governments think like that right now, which why extreme outrage over this is so important.

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
twoodfin 13y ago
I think hn's definitely doing its part on the "extreme outrage" front. Thank goodness.
throwaway_yy2Di 13y ago
This is getting very scary. Politicians who say something like this at any time, should be met with extreme outrage and make them lose whatever position they're holding immediately. Ian Blair is a Life Peer, not a politician. The UK's House of Lords is not a democratic institution even in pretense. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Lords https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Lords

madaxe 13y ago

We're not in 1984. We're not in Brave New World. We're not even in Zamyatin's We. We're in bloody Brazil. 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. We PULL AWAY from the shop to concentrate on the shoppers. Helpmann's voice carries over the rest of the scene. 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.

ekianjo 13y ago
I was re-watching Brazil the other day and this was exactly what came to mind. We are not in 1984. Terry Gilliam's vision is terrific, and captures with precision how someone working for the NSA (even though it's not called like that in the movie) thinking he is working for Good actually discovers the impact of his actions on real people's lives. It's frightening how close we are to that place.
w_t_payne 13y ago
Ducts. We need more ducts.
- 13y ago

adaml_623 13y ago

What we actually need are laws that make it an offence for any government to cover up projects and operations that materially impact the lives and rights of their citizens. Whether a single citizen or all of them are affected it should be a punishable offence if higher ups cover up the actions of a government official.

einhverfr 13y ago
Yes. Unfortunately given that the government gets to decide which laws to enforce....
JulianMorrison 13y ago
What you should be learning from this is that there is no government that rules government - that laws, constitutions, and democracy exist only when and where those in power believe they ought to. I'm not arguing they're all amoral monsters. Often, it's their moral side that's the problem. They want a reasonable thing, such as protection from terrorism, and they sweep all impediments aside to obtain it, because they care, and they can.

001sky 13y ago

He warned there was a "new threat which is not of somebody personally intending to aid terrorism, but of conduct which is likely to or capable of facilitating terrorism". == What. The. Fuck.

adamnemecek 13y ago
Didn't you get the memo? When someone says that something is causing terrorism, you must stop thinking about it and just take their word for it.
- jrockway 13y ago
  Memos can be used by terrorists, so no I did not get a memo, terrorist.

ajb 13y ago

This is probably an attempt to move the 'overtone window' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_Window http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_Window

rwmj 13y ago
It's an attempt, but I suspect one which moves it in the opposite direction to what he intends.

amykhar 13y ago

Then maybe governments should stop doing things that require people of principle to have to make the difficult decision to leak state secrets.

ams6110 13y ago

Snowden did not leak the information he did because he felt that states should not have secrets. I think any reasonable person would agree that there is information states legitimately need or want to keep secret. What Snowden did was in response to abusive overreach in secret domestic surveillance, which (to me anyway) is quite different.

madaxe 13y ago
* > I think any reasonable person would agree that there is information states legitimately need or want to keep secret. * Such as? Why should the state have a higher expectation of privacy than its citizens, if it's representative of them?
- jasonwocky 13y ago
  Names of undercover agents infiltrating criminal organizations, to start?
  - SideburnsOfDoom 13y ago
    Ah yes, because that's been so ethically done and the current levels of oversight are entirely sufficient. http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2013/jun/18/undercover-policing-faces-tighter-regulation http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2013/jun/18/undercover-policin... http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/10139126/Whos-keeping-tabs-on-the-undercover-cops.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/1013912... http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2013/jun/21/mclibel-leaflet-police-bob-lambert-mcdonalds http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2013/jun/21/mclibel-leaflet-po...
  - madaxe 13y ago
    You mean, names of agent provocateurs infiltrating peaceful protest groups? You see, the thing is, as soon as you say "well, clearly X needs to be secret", you open the avenue for all of the unintended, unforeseen uses of said secrecy. The only solution, as far as the state is concerned, is to have no secrets. Undercover police/intelligence work would be obviated by not defining economic and social systems which engender the kind of behaviour that mandates such in the first place.

Mordor 13y ago

Yeah, I get the logic: 'terrorism' is knowing what the government is doing. Perhaps there's another logic: a government which hides in the shadows terrorizes everyone.

sspiff 13y ago

He claims the release of information facilitates terrorism, without sharing any argumentation: no examples, not even hypothetical scenarios, nothing. He's asking to restrict the sharing of information, supposedly information on how "the government fights terrorism". He glosses over the fact that once law enforcement can persecute people for sharing some information, it is incredibly easy to persecute people for the sharing of _any_ information if it choses to. Power creep is a scary and dangerous thing, and it is very hard (impossible?) to guard against it.

userulluipeste 13y ago
You are right. If this is acceptable, there isn't really anything to prevent restriction of any kind of knowledge, like even the pure scientific material, on the ground that it may somehow be used by the boogeyman. Lets imagine the consequences...
bobbydavid 13y ago
Well, oversight might lead to a restriction of unchecked governmental power, which would reduce their ability to combat terrorism.
hobs 13y ago
"I think there is going to have to be a look at what happens when somebody possesses material which is secret without having authority." I think there is going to have to be a look at what happens when someone with a huge blindspot implies we should make a law about something they clearly don't understand.
bjelkeman-again 13y ago
This is from a person who persued the initiation of an illegal war. I was watching as Blair said "If you knew what I know, you would support [our war]" (paraphrasing). It turned out of course that he knew nothing that would justify a war. Why would we expect anything less than draconian measures from Blair on the issue of state secrets? Reference for illegality of the war: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_the_Iraq_War http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_the_Iraq_War

w_t_payne 13y ago

We are facing a troubling future as increasingly squeezed natural resources combine with the ever mounting public debt burden to create a toxic environment, perfectly suited to breed civil unrest, subversion, and anti-authoritarianism, terrorism and open revolt. The stability and security of a well-ordered society demands conformance to certain social norms and limits on behaviour. These limits must be upheld even in the face of rising food insecurity, income inequality, and economic distress. The protection of civil order requires the enforcement of conformance to behavioural norms, which in turn demands that that we crack down on destabilising influences, both in traditional and digital/distributed media. Fortunately, modern digital tools allow the state to monitor and control discourse, behaviour and thought as never before. These tools must be exploited to their full potential, and dissent and nonconforming behaviour - in all it's forms, must be detected, isolated, and crushed immediately. For example, forums such as this one are hotbeds of dissent - anarchic and destructive cess-pits of ideological filth that lead our vulnerable and easily influenced youth astray. The state must identify the minority of subversive participants in these forums who are actively encouraging dissent -- and must silence them, for the good of a well-ordered society.

s_q_b 13y ago

If you want to see the largely-tamed press suddenly become rabidly anti-national security, go ahead guys. The press is still massively powerful in the UK, and even more so in the United States, where the First Amendment still holds relatively strong. More importantly than any legal protection, civil society won't stand for it. I think I've made clear through previous comments that, by HN standards, I'm slightly to the right of the Kaiser on SIGINT to prevent terrorism. Large scale persecution of the press would be enough to get even me to consider switching sides.

mcintyre1994 13y ago

Why don't 'they' get it? What the Guardian has leaked does not benefit terrorists, and I've heard nobody make a case that it does. Until they make that case, the reason this was hidden was not because of terrorists unless we've widened the definition to preliminarily classify the whole worked as such. Sure there's stuff that's reasonable to keep secret (in my opinion), but if this is identified as such that just weakens the case for any of it being secret.

ihsw 13y ago

And the "War on Dissent" rears its ugly head again. Anyone that doesn't gladly salute the state is "terrorist."

kalms 13y ago

How is this not a bigger deal? This man is completely mind boggling. Is the corruption in the UK really this bad?

shortcj 13y ago

There must needs be an independent and viable channel for whistle blowers to report government abuse to and be protected from retaliation. The problem with terrorist is real; but there is also a real problem with bad/corrupt government cronies.

fab13n 13y ago

As often with powerful tools, what we miss is an effective counter-power to restore balance. In this case, I'd investigate: * making it a crime for officials to use anti-terrorism provisions without a serious enough ground (this poses the problem of legally defining "serious enough") * nullifying any legal procedure which uses anti-terrorist laws yet doesn't yield a terrorist indictment (Today, sticking a terrorist charge on an investigation just gives free super powers to judges and cops; with this caveat, making terrorist claims would become an all-or-nothing gamble, which would be used much more carefully)

Loughla 13y ago
From what I've seen in the US political and judicial system (I may be too cynical), I believe that the following would happen: Point 1: The definition of what is "serious" would be so watered down and full of political rhetoric that anyone, at any time could be found to be a 'serious threat'. Point 2: This would simply increase the amount of 'terrorism' convictions, and may actually lead to a quicker trials and harsher sentences --- surely the police and prosecution wouldn't bring a charge to MY court unless it was serious! Look at the new law that makes it so! The issue is that the people using the powerful tools are also the same people allowed to write the checks and balances. . . .

ttt_ 13y ago

The State is the one that must have no expectations of privacy and in fact be held to rigorous transparency an independent audit, not the other way around. Like in software, security that relies on closed source is in fact more vulnerable.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

toddnessa 13y ago

We know we have a problem when transparency is largely demonized. Allegations of "terrorism" seems to be bringing much benefit to government. I saw a movie recently from the 1980's called "They Live!" I noticed that in the movie the word terrorism, allegations of terrorism or terrorists toward those who opposed them, was the weapon of control of the disguised, camelion totalitarian regime in power. Only those with special glasses could see them. It would seem as if this would be the playbook in protecting criminal government activity done under the auspices of law. Al Capone would have drooled for such type of power. Top Secret should not be an excuse to undermine the law, the rights of individuals, and the Constitution of the United States. Those who witness such crimes have the duty to come forward to the public. By keeping quiet and turning a blind eye to crime, one partners with it. Crime grows in the dark while the light of day exposes it. Freedom requires transparency. A war on whistle-blowers is really a type of barometer as to the amount of freedom that we really have.

mbesto 13y ago

The root cause of all of this is really simple - our definition of terrorism, and the fact that we are at war with it. The solution is unfavorably not simple. First thing's first, we need to redefine what constitutes terrorism, otherwise this situation will only get worse.

netcan 13y ago

He is right about one thing: times are changing and our institutions need to change too. There are things considered to be "tenants of democracy." Press freedoms (independence, access, source anonymity) political rights (secret ballots, right to organize, rights to protest). People actively claiming those rights is seen as a sign of health for democracy. If a government is harassing journalists, finding out people's vote or preventing political protests we immediately see this as an attack on democracy. These are protected by public opinion (formed over generations), courts and basic/fundamental/constitutional laws, usually old ones. They are not protected by governments. If the definition of "leak" or whistleblower is left to governments (pretty much any current government in the world), they will define them as some variant of "traitor" or "terrorist." In order for a distinction to be made between someone who makes information available to The People and someone who make information available to The Enemy, courts need to be involved. They need to have basic laws to lean on. BTW, I think that distinction is incredibly clear. All the cases under discussion made information available to the US public (and in some cases the subjects of other governments). They were primarily of interest to the US public. I believe independent courts would be able to make that distinction easily.

polyvisual 13y ago

Coming from Ian Blair, this is fairly unsurprising. It's amazing he's even being put in print, given his prior behaviour.

deveac 13y ago

>"I think there is going to have to be a look at what happens when somebody possesses material which is secret without having authority." Terrifying. This describes journalists and news organizations unless his proposed ratchet-tightening carves out clear and bold exceptions, which are, by definition, not clear, bold, or easy to define in this age of new media.

scrabble 13y ago

Is it just me, or are the words "terrorist" and "terrorism" starting to lose their meanings?

unimpressive 13y ago
Did they ever have any? "Terrorism is the systematic use of terror, often violent, especially as a means of coercion. In the international community, however, terrorism has no legally binding, criminal law definition.[1][2] Common definitions of terrorism refer only to those violent acts which are intended to create fear (terror); are perpetrated for a religious, political, or ideological goal; and deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants (civilians). Some definitions now include acts of unlawful violence and war. The use of similar tactics by criminal organizations for protection rackets or to enforce a code of silence is usually not labeled terrorism, though these same actions may be labeled terrorism when done by a politically motivated group. The writer Heinrich Böll and scholars Raj Desai and Harry Eckstein have suggested that attempts to protect against terrorism may lead to a kind of social oppression.[3][4] The word "terrorism" is politically and emotionally charged,[5] and this greatly compounds the difficulty of providing a precise definition. Studies have found over 100 definitions of “terrorism”.[6][7] The concept of terrorism may be controversial as it is often used by state authorities (and individuals with access to state support) to delegitimize political or other opponents,[8] and potentially legitimize the state's own use of armed force against opponents (such use of force may be described as "terror" by opponents of the state).[8][9]" - wikipedia, at the time of writing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism

DominikR 13y ago

Most people don't challenge the states right to keep secrets, what Snowden, Assange and others challenge is the right to commit crimes and keep them secret.

Fuxy 13y ago

What the hell makes this guy a lord? Secrets are secret because they are controversial or out right illegal (from what Snowden has showed us at least). So what he's basically telling us is the government should be allowed to be above the law because they need to catch terrorist while at the same time broadening the definition by including journalists reporting of the truth. The only people these journalists re terrorizing are the people in power who are hiding their abuses of power by classifying them top secret.

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]

bdcravens 13y ago

Aren't there laws already in place? If I have access to confidential information, and I disseminate, there's criminal and civil consequences. Laws that revolve around preemptive action to prevent something that's already illegal (war on terror, gun control) offer marginal benefit at the cost of making life difficult for those who wouldn't have violated the laws already in place.

guizzy 13y ago

I've got a great way to do that, no law necessary! Stop having state secrets that 'principled' people will want to leak!

trekky1700 13y ago

Does anyone have an original thought on this, or is everyone going to keep saying "this is bad because I read it in a book about bad things"? I personally, coming from admittedly a position of ignorance where I don't know what secrets may or may not exist and what their implications may or may not be, have trouble picking a side. As we don't know the secrets, any opinion we take on them, other than a general one, is purely emotional.

alan_cx 13y ago

Well, if government stopped abusing our trust, we wouldn't need leaks. What this ex policeman is saying is that we have no right to know if government and his lot in the police are abusing the power we grant them. What a surprise.