5 ms·

Disclaimer : I worked as an intelligence analyst. 1. I am not in favour of widespread, unaccountable surveillance of UK citizens. 2. During my time we disru

by ZenPro 12y ago

Disclaimer : I worked as an intelligence analyst. 1. I am not in favour of widespread, unaccountable surveillance of UK citizens. 2. During my time we disrupted a number of exceptionally serious terrorist operations.[1] [2] are public knowledge and there are a few others that are not open source at this time. 3. Neither I, nor any of my colleagues, were instructed to keep any files on individuals to be used as political leverage or "for dirt" at a later stage. That is really all I can add. I am not in favour of how far the needle has swung but but anyone not involved in the Intelligence Community is just simply fumbling around in the dark trying to say what does and what does not happen. The threat from Qutbism Islamic Fundamentalism (Wahhabi/Salafist inspired terrorism) is real and intelligence organisations work constantly to prevent attacks. If the threat warrants the level of perceived intrusion...I don't know. That is difficult to judge. Each citizens attitude to risk is different. The HN crowd are technologically-savvy, critical thinkers but our law enforcement and intelligence agencies also have a mandate to protect the elderly, the young and the incapacitated. Do you think my grandmother gives a fuck about your outrage at having your email read? All she cares about is that we don't return to the time of consistent bombing on the streets that plagued the troubles. In short; it's not all about you, your vote is worth exactly one other vote. [1]http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/terrorism-in-the-uk/9994940/Jihadists-planned-to-attack-Luton-TA-base-using-remote-controlled-car-packed-with-explosives.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/terrorism-in-the-uk/9... [2]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_plot_to_behead_a_British_Muslim_soldier http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_plot_to_behead_a_British_M...

Nursie 12y ago
>> In short; it's not all about you, your vote is worth exactly one other vote. And how the hell am I supposed to know what I'm voting for? This is the problem. There has been no discussion. There is no mandate from the public at large, it's all secret programs, secret laws and secret trials. It's sick, and it's not democratic.
- grkvlt 12y ago
  > secret laws Can you explain how a secret law could ever exist?
  - Nursie 12y ago
    Yes. A law could be a secret law if it was not created in a public way but was still acted upon by the authorities as if it were any other law. It's an easy concept. If you don't think we have secret laws then that's a debate we can have, but please don't pretend not to understand the idea. We have secret courts. We have people unable to know the charges or evidence against them. We have press gags on reporting what some court cases are about (let alone the evidence or the defendents' identities), we have press gags on even reporting that some cases exist! We have security services operating beyond any democratic legal mandate based on political 'guidance'. These effectively make up a secret and hidden system of law. You obviously need to read more Kafka.
borplk 12y ago
Are we supposed to just take it from you that since in your time you or your colleagues were not instructed to keep info on individuals to be used later it is ok to let them do it? anyone not involved in the Intelligence Community is just simply fumbling around in the dark trying to say what does and what does not happen because the government is keeping the curious people in the dark and that is exactly what and why we are fighting against.
chopin 12y ago
One (amongst others) huge problem with this is: I need to take your word granted for it. I have no means whatsoever to check whether any of this is true. The Snowden revelations showed very clear that all regulatory control mechanisms in the USA failed. I'm pretty sure this is the case in UK and Germany (my home country) as well. In history we learned that where there is no oversight there will be misuse for sure. Sorry, but ubiquitous surveillance is far too intrusive to rely only on a word given.
TheOtherHobbes 12y ago
>The threat from Qutbism Islamic Fundamentalism (Wahhabi/Salafist inspired terrorism) is real and intelligence organisations work constantly to prevent attacks. Is it more real than the threat from a government forcing disabled people into suicide? Or retooling 'reform' on the economy with zero-hours contracts, depressed wages, and asset inflation? If anyone was looking to protect the elderly, the young, and the incapacitated, do you really think they'd hire GCHQ, Group 4, Capita, and the rest? Oh - and we know the spooks keep personal files. This has been going on for decades. Anyone to the left of Enoch Powell was fair game - including at least one former Prime Minister. http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2006/mar/15/comment.labour1 http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2006/mar/15/comment... Are you telling us this has all stopped, because Internet, and because (we're told) you never saw it personally, so it doesn't happen?
grey-area 12y ago
I am not in favour of widespread, unaccountable surveillance of UK citizens. Don't you think Tempora constitutes widespread, unaccountable surveillance? Also why the UK citizens qualifier? During my time we disrupted a number of exceptionally serious terrorist operations.[1] [2] are public knowledge and there are a few others that are not open source at this time. Most people would applaud you for that work and support some level of targeted spying, overseen by the judiciary, that doesn't mean spies should have carte-blanche to spy with impunity on everyone. Judicial scrutiny would make life more difficult when surveilling terrorists, but we have a limited justice system because it is fair and moral, not because it is maximally efficient. Neither I, nor any of my colleagues, were instructed to keep any files on individuals to be used as political leverage or "for dirt" at a later stage. If information is kept on everyone, you wouldn't need to be. The information is stored, ready to be used at any point in the future, and your boss doesn't need you to access it. The concept of keeping files seems a bit quaint in an age when massive datacentres are built to store our data, and every communication, no matter how mundane, is being logged for future use. I would also note that British intelligence and police have on multiple occasions spied on individuals for use as political and economic leverage, and given Tempora, they wouldn't even need to spy on individuals specifically, so your assertion here rings a little hollow. It's not all about us or some perceived intrusion, it's about power and the very real threat to a democratic and free and open society that universal surveillance and unaccountable spy agencies pose. Also interesting that you bring up the IRA and the attacks of the 90s - that violence wasn't settled by surveillance and repression, but by compromise and self-rule.
malandrew 12y ago
"During my time we disrupted a number of exceptionally serious terrorist operations." Why is this kind of work not law enforcement work instead of intelligence agency work? It seems like the current policy is to reclassify many types of illegal activities as being in the same category as aggression by nation states even when only a handful of individuals domestically are involved, and that this reclassification is done for the purpose of sidestepping civil liberties protections.

by ZenPro 12y ago

Nursie 12y ago

>> In short; it's not all about you, your vote is worth exactly one other vote. And how the hell am I supposed to know what I'm voting for? This is the problem. There has been no discussion. There is no mandate from the public at large, it's all secret programs, secret laws and secret trials. It's sick, and it's not democratic.

grkvlt 12y ago
> secret laws Can you explain how a secret law could ever exist?
- Nursie 12y ago
  Yes. A law could be a secret law if it was not created in a public way but was still acted upon by the authorities as if it were any other law. It's an easy concept. If you don't think we have secret laws then that's a debate we can have, but please don't pretend not to understand the idea. We have secret courts. We have people unable to know the charges or evidence against them. We have press gags on reporting what some court cases are about (let alone the evidence or the defendents' identities), we have press gags on even reporting that some cases exist! We have security services operating beyond any democratic legal mandate based on political 'guidance'. These effectively make up a secret and hidden system of law. You obviously need to read more Kafka.

borplk 12y ago

Are we supposed to just take it from you that since in your time you or your colleagues were not instructed to keep info on individuals to be used later it is ok to let them do it? anyone not involved in the Intelligence Community is just simply fumbling around in the dark trying to say what does and what does not happen because the government is keeping the curious people in the dark and that is exactly what and why we are fighting against.

chopin 12y ago

One (amongst others) huge problem with this is: I need to take your word granted for it. I have no means whatsoever to check whether any of this is true. The Snowden revelations showed very clear that all regulatory control mechanisms in the USA failed. I'm pretty sure this is the case in UK and Germany (my home country) as well. In history we learned that where there is no oversight there will be misuse for sure. Sorry, but ubiquitous surveillance is far too intrusive to rely only on a word given.

TheOtherHobbes 12y ago

>The threat from Qutbism Islamic Fundamentalism (Wahhabi/Salafist inspired terrorism) is real and intelligence organisations work constantly to prevent attacks. Is it more real than the threat from a government forcing disabled people into suicide? Or retooling 'reform' on the economy with zero-hours contracts, depressed wages, and asset inflation? If anyone was looking to protect the elderly, the young, and the incapacitated, do you really think they'd hire GCHQ, Group 4, Capita, and the rest? Oh - and we know the spooks keep personal files. This has been going on for decades. Anyone to the left of Enoch Powell was fair game - including at least one former Prime Minister. http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2006/mar/15/comment.labour1 http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2006/mar/15/comment... Are you telling us this has all stopped, because Internet, and because (we're told) you never saw it personally, so it doesn't happen?

grey-area 12y ago

I am not in favour of widespread, unaccountable surveillance of UK citizens. Don't you think Tempora constitutes widespread, unaccountable surveillance? Also why the UK citizens qualifier? During my time we disrupted a number of exceptionally serious terrorist operations.[1] [2] are public knowledge and there are a few others that are not open source at this time. Most people would applaud you for that work and support some level of targeted spying, overseen by the judiciary, that doesn't mean spies should have carte-blanche to spy with impunity on everyone. Judicial scrutiny would make life more difficult when surveilling terrorists, but we have a limited justice system because it is fair and moral, not because it is maximally efficient. Neither I, nor any of my colleagues, were instructed to keep any files on individuals to be used as political leverage or "for dirt" at a later stage. If information is kept on everyone, you wouldn't need to be. The information is stored, ready to be used at any point in the future, and your boss doesn't need you to access it. The concept of keeping files seems a bit quaint in an age when massive datacentres are built to store our data, and every communication, no matter how mundane, is being logged for future use. I would also note that British intelligence and police have on multiple occasions spied on individuals for use as political and economic leverage, and given Tempora, they wouldn't even need to spy on individuals specifically, so your assertion here rings a little hollow. It's not all about us or some perceived intrusion, it's about power and the very real threat to a democratic and free and open society that universal surveillance and unaccountable spy agencies pose. Also interesting that you bring up the IRA and the attacks of the 90s - that violence wasn't settled by surveillance and repression, but by compromise and self-rule.

malandrew 12y ago

"During my time we disrupted a number of exceptionally serious terrorist operations." Why is this kind of work not law enforcement work instead of intelligence agency work? It seems like the current policy is to reclassify many types of illegal activities as being in the same category as aggression by nation states even when only a handful of individuals domestically are involved, and that this reclassification is done for the purpose of sidestepping civil liberties protections.