4 ms·
GCHQ are both better and worse than the NSA. I would argue that it seems they are if anything even less restrained than the NSA in over broad surveillance. Howe
by josephlord 13y ago
GCHQ are both better and worse than the NSA. I would argue that it seems they are if anything even less restrained than the NSA in over broad surveillance. However it is less clear whether GCHQ have actually broken the rules (and certainly not the constitution) which the NSA may have done.
My view is that everyone (in the world) should be pissed off at both the NSA and GCHQ and that Americans should be additionally angry that the NSA seems to have broken the limits placed on them in terms of domestic surveilance.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- mcintyre1994 13y agoFor those unaware it may be worth pointing out that the UK constitution has a principle of parliamentary sovereignty [1] - basically parliament can pass/amend/remove any law and no current law can bind future parliaments (they can always amend/remove it). Fundamentally if they say it's legal it is, so rules can be changed at any time such that GCHQ isn't technically breaking any rules. [1] http://www.parliament.uk/about/how/sovereignty/ http://www.parliament.uk/about/how/sovereignty/