4 ms·

What 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

What 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 ago
  Sorry, 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 ago
    The market is lucrative for those in the Rose Tinted Glasses business.
- csmuk 13y ago
  Which law? Out law or their law because they aren't the same apparently....
fit2rule 13y ago
The purpose of this is to ramp up the media against all the pro-Snowden reports. This is a circus.
mtgx 13y ago
At least some of the members of Parliament are asking them some decent questions here, unlike in US where the NSA hearings are complete circlejerks for praising the NSA. I don't think they were near as aggressive as they should've been though, and I didn't really get the impression that the Parliament intends to severely limits their powers or anything like that. I see the spy chiefs still using the "haystack" argument, which is BS. "Haystack" surveillance is only necessary if you want a Minority Report type of society, and keep expanding it in the future to cover a whole range of crimes (don't worry, they'll have plenty of arguments for why that would be a good thing). US is already in the early stages of doing that, by giving the NSA info to pretty much all local agencies to help them in all sorts of local cases, and then lying to the judges about how they got the info. And when they get caught with the pants down, they'll just say how "necessary" this is to catch all sorts of criminals, and of course politicians like Dianne Feinstein will try to legalize it and give them retro-immunity, like she's already doing now with the FISA Improvements Act. P.S. Why is HN crashing so often lately?
d4nt 13y ago
I agree, but... Things like this matter in the long run. Remember how, before the war in Iraq, over 1 million people marched in London against the war? We still went to war, but Tony Blair never recovered from it, and when the issue of Syria came up recently, MPs opposed intervention - that is the legacy of the opposition to the war in Iraq. In Britian at least, policy trends seem to be set over periods of 10-15 years. (The battle with the miners is another example). Things rarely get sort out in one big showdown. When it comes to government surveillance and privacy, the important thing is that we keep the story going, that we keep the pressure on, that we keep explaining to people why this is an issue and keep building the argument. And making intelligence chiefs squirm is all part of that.
- InTheSwiss 13y ago
  I agree with your point buy disagree regarding Iraq and Syria. Syria was about getting involved in an internal conflict whereas Iraq was about WMDs (albeit lies). Quite different IMHO.
  - gadders 13y ago
    Plus, as we left it so late to intervene the Syrian opposition is mostly islamist nutcases now.
  - d4nt 13y ago
    Yes, Iraq and Syria were very different situations. If anything Syria is the one we should have got involved in. I just raised it to highlight how a non-intervention policy is now firmly establish following years of pressure.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

devonbarrett 13y ago
Sorry, 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 ago
  The market is lucrative for those in the Rose Tinted Glasses business.
csmuk 13y ago
Which law? Out law or their law because they aren't the same apparently....

fit2rule 13y ago

The purpose of this is to ramp up the media against all the pro-Snowden reports. This is a circus.

mtgx 13y ago

At least some of the members of Parliament are asking them some decent questions here, unlike in US where the NSA hearings are complete circlejerks for praising the NSA. I don't think they were near as aggressive as they should've been though, and I didn't really get the impression that the Parliament intends to severely limits their powers or anything like that. I see the spy chiefs still using the "haystack" argument, which is BS. "Haystack" surveillance is only necessary if you want a Minority Report type of society, and keep expanding it in the future to cover a whole range of crimes (don't worry, they'll have plenty of arguments for why that would be a good thing). US is already in the early stages of doing that, by giving the NSA info to pretty much all local agencies to help them in all sorts of local cases, and then lying to the judges about how they got the info. And when they get caught with the pants down, they'll just say how "necessary" this is to catch all sorts of criminals, and of course politicians like Dianne Feinstein will try to legalize it and give them retro-immunity, like she's already doing now with the FISA Improvements Act. P.S. Why is HN crashing so often lately?

d4nt 13y ago

I agree, but... Things like this matter in the long run. Remember how, before the war in Iraq, over 1 million people marched in London against the war? We still went to war, but Tony Blair never recovered from it, and when the issue of Syria came up recently, MPs opposed intervention - that is the legacy of the opposition to the war in Iraq. In Britian at least, policy trends seem to be set over periods of 10-15 years. (The battle with the miners is another example). Things rarely get sort out in one big showdown. When it comes to government surveillance and privacy, the important thing is that we keep the story going, that we keep the pressure on, that we keep explaining to people why this is an issue and keep building the argument. And making intelligence chiefs squirm is all part of that.

InTheSwiss 13y ago
I agree with your point buy disagree regarding Iraq and Syria. Syria was about getting involved in an internal conflict whereas Iraq was about WMDs (albeit lies). Quite different IMHO.
- gadders 13y ago
  Plus, as we left it so late to intervene the Syrian opposition is mostly islamist nutcases now.
- d4nt 13y ago
  Yes, Iraq and Syria were very different situations. If anything Syria is the one we should have got involved in. I just raised it to highlight how a non-intervention policy is now firmly establish following years of pressure.