7 ms·
MI5, MI6, and GCHQ chiefs public hearing live on the BBC
- timdiggerm 13y agoNote: Only viewable if you live in the UK
- mtgx 13y agoIs there some browser extension to be able to watch it?
- balabaster 13y agounblock-us.com will help you out ;)
- stickydink 13y agoMedia Hint is an excellent extension, that should allow this (if not through that link, directly through the BBC's iPlayer) https://mediahint.com/ https://mediahint.com/
- grey-area 13y agoCheck the feed further up. PS your latest comment is [dead]...
- warcode 13y ago* if the website thinks you live in the UK
- joshstrange 13y agoThe link acallaghan posted is working from outside the UK -> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-24848186 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-24848186
- jozan 13y agoThe link is available to play in the UK only.
- alexkus 13y agoExcellent, some very sensible/esteemed members on the ISC.
- acallaghan 13y agoThis is a better live stream, with running text commentary: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-24848186 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-24848186
- alexkus 13y agoThis may also work for those "outside the UK". (It works for me whilst the original link doesn't as the BBC thinks my IP is in .ch despite me being less than a mile from the Houses of Parliament.)
- th0br0 13y agoI'm in Germany currently and it works fine for me, thanks a lot for sharing!
- acallaghan 13y agoSweet, no problem
- joshstrange 13y agoI can confirm this link is working for those in the US.
- devonbarrett 13y ago'so we have to do detective work' - Iain Lobban uuum... what did he think his job was?
- fit2rule 13y agoI couldn't be more repulsed by these people. They simply justify their crimes against humanity with the call "protection! security!".
- CatsoCatsoCatso 13y ago"Alex from Ipswich emails: I really don't understand this furore over industrial surveillance. If you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear, simple." I don't want to live on this planet any more.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- Zikes 13y agoThere's no such thing as a trustworthy government, and the "if you don't like it then maybe you should just leave" attitude doesn't help anyone. It's backwards, the citizenry doesn't have to tolerate their government, the government must serve its citizenry.
- fit2rule 13y agoIf you think that having a wide open window into the industrialized world, such that GCHQ and NSA have, and don't use that for capitalist, industrialist purposes, then you are a fool. Its not about having anything to hide. Its about whether or not others can use your work against you. This happens far more often than real terrorism, and it ruins lives, industry, and culture when it happens.
- Zikes 13y agoExactly, and on top of that most people actually do have something to hide, whether they realize it or not.[1] Even setting aside crimes, there's plenty of things that happen in peoples' day-to-day lives that the government has absolutely no business even being aware of. It's not hard to imagine that they could collect vast troves of information on a person and then that information can get misused in any number of ways by rogue employees or by the government itself. [1] http://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent/dp/1594032556 http://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent/dp/...
- mtgx 13y agoI like how they talk about how much "balance" they try to maintain, so they don't become another "North Korea" or something like that, or how they talk about "oppressive regimes", yet they still stumble on explaining why they accused David Miranda of terrorism. http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20131106/10352625149/uk-govt-david-miranda-might-be-terrorist-because-journalism-can-be-terrorism-also-we-had-no-idea-he-was-journalist.shtml http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20131106/10352625149/uk-gov... They also use the excuse that Snowden leaks could "help paedophiles (it always seems lead to this one, doesn't it?): http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20131107/00222225158/uk-govt-losing-plot-now-claiming-snowden-leaks-could-help-pedophiles.shtml http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20131107/00222225158/uk-gov... Let's not forget that whatever they say about the terrorists learning from these leaks, the leaks wouldn't have happened if they didn't spy on everyone. They could've just spied on the people they actually suspected of terrorism.
- SebastianM 13y agoGerman "Spiegel" has also a live stream: http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/live-aus-dem-unterhaus-britische-geheimdienstchefs-im-kreuzverhoer-a-932350.html http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/live-aus-dem-unterhaus...
- bolder88 13y agoedit: Deleted due to the overwhelming amount of Guardian readers/conspiracy nuts in the comments section, who aren't able to listen to reasoned debate.
- devonbarrett 13y agoSorry I might be watching a different video; what reasoned points are you talking about?
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- thex86 13y agoThe NSA said they prevented 54 attacks but it was widely reported supported by evidence that that was not the case. Not to mention that they repeatedly lied to Congress. If you trust these organizations so much, good for you. But this bogeyman of "terrorism, drug dealers" is not acceptable by most people who understand this. The probability of me getting killed just randomly on the street is far far higher than me getting killed in a terrorist attack in the US. Statistics are important. Why should the government go overboard to prevent this? Have you realized that gun violence in the US for example causes more deaths than all terrorism attacks combined? And yet even a slight mention of this has gun lovers cry about how their second amendment is being violated. Let's not forget that there is a fourth amendment also: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." There is a reason that democracies around the world don't allow police to just randomly walk into your house and arrest you. A good reason. Just because terrorism has to be prevented, doesn't mean that our basic rights have to be violated. By that logic, let's go even further and install CCTV cameras and microphones in everyone's homes. All crimes can be prevented. And perhaps the next step can be to have thought control devices even.
- dons 13y agoThere's a 2 minute delay on the feed in case they want to [redacted]
- crishoj 13y agoA capability they just appear to have exercised. As one of the agency heads went into details on their Syria strategy, the audio suddenly fell out for ~20 seconds. Strictly speaking, I can't rule out network issues as the cause, but video was still 100% smooth.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- InTheSwiss 13y agoWhat is the point of this? Does anybody honestly think they will be honest? They will admit to a few little "bad" things but justify it all for the Greater Good™. They will talk about "internal policy review" and "more transparency with the public/government". They will apologise for "over stepping". They, obviously, won't admit to anything that really matters. They will be given a stern telling off then everybody will go home and nothing will have changed. Sigh.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- devonbarrett 13y agoSorry, but again, what video are you watching? They have provided zero public evidence that they are following the law. Just their word. edit: in reply to your edit, I would choose my tin foil hat any day over your glasses of ignorance.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- luckyno13 13y agoThe market is lucrative for those in the Rose Tinted Glasses business.
- csmuk 13y agoWhich law? Out law or their law because they aren't the same apparently....
- fit2rule 13y ago
- philliphaydon 13y agoMost of the questions they aren't even answering... this is pointless and stupid.
- CallbackJockey 13y agoThe needle in the haystack analogy, in that they are only looking at data through complex queries to find the needles, and not looking at data collected from the public directly, only works if they get no false positives. Are they expecting us to believe they have a perfect system? If so, why collect all the data in the first place and run their queries in real time? The board questioning doesn't have the technical background to ask any challenging questions.
- grey-area 13y agoAlthough this is a bit of a whitewash, it's good to see these issues discussed, and spies questioned to some extent, and forced to justify their activities in public for the first time. Asked about complicity in torture. Sir John of MI6: "I don't accept the allegations that have been made against us" There have been several court cases about M16 involvement in torture, including that of Abdel Hakim Belhaj, which exposes our cynical backing for terrorists when it suits our agenda after sending them to be tortured just a few years before. GCHQ denies listening into telephone calls or reading emails of the majority. "That would not be proportionate, that would not be legal, and we would not do it." Like Obama, they're denying something they haven't been accused of. Tempora is storing and sharing with the NSA as much data as they can manage, even though it's not legal or proportionate. This non-denial is very misleading if you don't know that background. They don't need to read emails or listen to phone calls for this to be incredibly dangerous - it's enough that everything is recorded and stored for potential future or current use by any partners with access. 34 terrorist plots have been thwarted in the UK since the 7/7 London bombings. One or two were major plots aimed at mass casualties. What's most interesting is the focus on terrorism as a way to deflect criticism - they've learned that talking about terror switches off the brain quite effectively and stops people doing a risk benefit analysis. This is incredibly useful, as along with having broad laws passed which restrict rights as part of the war on terror, they can tar anyone with that brush, and immediately turn the public against them. According to Kovats QC for the gov. in the Miranda case, we have a new definition of terrorism: "simply having this data is terrorism". Terrorism is not a great threat to either the US or the UK - a tiny number of people have been killed by it, and yet it is painted as an existential threat which must be fought at all costs. Many of their activities have nothing to do with terrorism, but we've heard nothing about the Belgacom hack (Operation Socialist), tapping cables crossing the Atlantic, subverting encryption protocols, tapping internal traffic at providers like Google for the NSA, tapping G20 attendees, Mastering the Internet™ with Tempora, or tapping Merkel's phone. Very little of that is useful for combatting terrorism (most terrorism is not organised on the internet but face to face, terrorists like Bin Laden are not stupid), but it's very useful for economic and political espionage. That none of that has been mentioned, let alone questioned, betrays just how little proper supervision this committee provides.
- 13y ago
- gadders 13y agoFor people that are interested, there was a good [podcast] interview with the head of the Investigatory Powers Tribunal - "a judicial body, independent of the government, which considers complaints brought against the intelligence services, the police, military and local authorities." http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b03gbs6n http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b03gbs6n
- CallbackJockey 13y agoOh dear. The fact that certain communication methods are not secure or are hard to secure has been know to people in IT for some time. The Snowden revelations would've only helped those with no idea about IT. Are these people now going to be immediately tech-savy enough not to choose another insecure communication method? Or will they just give up? Blaming the Snowden leaks for informing all the criminals about how not to get caught is like blaming Google for enforcing HTTPS.
- rtpg 13y agoEverytime I see anything about MI5 all I can think about is that article from Adam Curtis ( http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/adamcurtis/posts/BUGGER http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/adamcurtis/posts/BUGGER ). It's at the time reassuring (the agency is filled with people too incompetent to do any of the major conspiracies we think they're up to), but also bothering (their worldview is dangerous and is basically fearmongering). Listening to this, I feel like the difference between storage and actually looking at data is an important one. The view of the quasi-totality here seem to think it's the same, but I think the distinction is important. Especially when being looked at through search programs (and not human eyes), we run into the whole "Chinese room" problem: the program doesn't understand what it's looking at, so is it really "breaching" privacy? And what is the difference between your e-mails being in a locked box at an ISP or a locked box with the NSA if the key is in the hand of a judge anyways? Then again I'm more of the sort to think that if a judge agrees, then access to the info should be swift. Some people disagree with that.
- BgSpnnrs 13y agoWithout wanting to be too facetious "Don't worry, we may be violating your privacy, but we're rubbish at it." isn't a particularly compelling defence. The problem with the locked box analogy is that my ISP isn't going to potentially scrutinise my data and decide that because I read stuff from all sorts of sources - including the blogs of subversives, activists, hackers, and political outliers (along with the thousands of other things I read online) that I should be considered a threat to a society I am part of, and could be considered a 'baddie', espescially given the UK's stupidly broad definitions of terrorism. Perhaps that is a slippery slope argument, but it's a valid one IMO especially given that the reason for excusing it is one that not many of us put much credit in (the omnipresent threat of terror and violence from fanatical foes). I'd sooner we just didn't go around making enemies.