9 ms·
British Spy Agency Considers Journalists a Threat, Vacuums Up Their Emails
- guelo 12y agoWhat can you expect from a country that still has a functioning monarchy. There's a reason America revolted against England, you can see many of the reasons listed in our Bill of Rights.
- louthy 12y agoSo the NSA isn't doing this also? They're totally above board?
- guelo 12y agoIf they're doing it at least they have to hide it from congress since it would be illegal unlike in the UK.
- deciplex 12y agoHonestly, the GCHQ does seem a lot more brazenly nefarious than the NSA. A lot of the shit that comes out of the mouths of GCHQ spokespersons, shows open contempt and disdain for civil liberties and due process. At the NSA, it's more like they just don't respect those things, or think fighting terrorism/drug cartels/flavor of the month, is more important. If I could choose to dismantle one or the other, I'd go with the NSA, but only because it has more capability. I definitely wouldn't want the sons-of-bitches in charge of the GCHQ, running the NSA.
- DanBC 12y agoThey show contempt for civil liberties but claim to operate within the law. Since GCHQ is specifically mentioned (and pretty much exempted) in most surveilance related laws this seems plausible. There is weakness in the oversight that GCHQ is supposed to have.
- secfirstmd 12y agoA number of the Snowden docs feature GCHQ gloating to the NSA about how they are able to operate under much less restrictions than the NSA.
- eru 12y agoCompare "Strictures upon the Declaration of Independence" by Thomas Hutchinson" (http://oll.libertyfund.org/pages/1776-hutchinson-strictures-upon-the-declaration-of-independence http://oll.libertyfund.org/pages/1776-hutchinson-strictures-...) "Mr Hutchinson believes that the majority of Americans were deluded into war with Britain by a few crazies. A common experience in history. Read it, it's short. Pay attention to Mr Hutchinson pointing out logical inconsistencies between the revolutionaries' calls for freedom and their owning slaves." (https://foseti.wordpress.com/2009/04/10/review-of-strictures-upon-the-declaration-of-independence-by-thomas-hutchinson/ https://foseti.wordpress.com/2009/04/10/review-of-strictures...)
- nbevans 12y agoAfter all the stuff the Guardian published, and which has directly resulted in a massive reduction in Europe-wide security from terrorism, it's easy to see why. The Paris terror attacks probably would have been stopped if Snowden/Guardian never happened or was better controlled in how the specific details were announced. UK's spy agency has more powers than the NSA can dream of; and is largely responsible for protecting not just the UK, but the rest of western Europe and even some of the USA.
- xnull4guest 12y agoCan you be more specific about what massive reductions in Europe-wide security resulted from the publications, and how they presumably would have stopped the Charlie Hebdo attacks?
- nbevans 12y agoWell, just search. But even just last week there was an article from a UK minister explaining that many dozens of Paris-style attacks have already been averted in Europe as a result of GCHQ spying. But that the tide is now growing so strong, and the terrorists much more wise after the Snowden leaks, that it is basically inevitable now that the UK itself will be attacked. The terror plot/arrests in Belgium recently were also guided by UK intelligence, he said. Whenever you see "terror arrests made during dawn raid" on the news in UK, it's easy to dismiss it. But it happens pretty much every month now, and has been like that for a couple years now. Every one of these raids is potentially to stop a major terror attack; but the public is never told of the exact details of what they were plotting because otherwise that would defeat the purpose of averting a terror attack.
- deciplex 12y agoSo, at some point, the people need to be made aware of the efficacy (or lack thereof) of the policies enacted by the politicians they vote into office. How do you propose we make that happen? Because otherwise you're asking everyone to place absolute trust in people who you've already admitted will lie to the public as part of their job.
- mullingitover 12y agoA free press being a bastion of a free society, it's pretty damn troubling that journalists are being targeted. I'd argue that the press is more important to the UK's freedom than GCHQ any day of the week.
- AdeptusAquinas 12y agoTo me, this all smacks of weakness. If they were not breaking the law (at least in spirit), they wouldn't fear journalists. If they were capable of preventing or at least showing the danger of the acts they claim to fight, they wouldn't fear journalists. But because the danger is perhaps not as immediate or as severe as the political narrative might suggest, or because their intrusions into our privacy are not as necessary as they claim, their only true threat are people who can expose such.
- cbd1984 12y agoSo if the government weren't doing anything wrong, it wouldn't have anything to hide? ;) You know, that logic might actually work in this case.
- nitrogen 12y agoYes, the nothing-to-hide-nothing-to-fear logic is reversed. Governments should be transparent to their people, not the other way around.
- ProAm 12y agoThey don't do it out of weakness, they do it for power and control.
- iwwr 12y agoThey do it because they can and no consequences if they do.
- threeseed 12y agoAre you serious ? They don't consider journalists a threat but rather a source. Many of the modern terrorist organisations I am sure are sending videos, hostage details etc to newspapers in order to promote themselves and their cause. Makes sense that agencies would target them. I definitely believe that there should be laws against though. Surely in the process of looking for terrorists the agencies must be finding some interesting blackmail information.
- xnull4guest 12y agoThere's been global rise in violence and legal pursuit of journalists. But as many of the issues outside the US get attention I've compiled material related to the US: * The Obama Administration issued a secret surveillance operation against the Associated Press to break their sources [1] * Journalists like Ibrahim Jassam [2], Laura Poitras [3], Glenn Greenwald [4], James Risen [5], many others are being prosecuted and persecuted * States are heavily partnered with news media (e.g. Ken Dilanian [6], Judith Miller and Michael Gordon [7]) * Domestic news is manipulated by the state to achieve geopolitical goals (Zarqawi Psyop [8], Fallujah Psyop [9]) - this has recently been anonymously removed from Wikipedia: now [10] before [11] * The state uses legal pressure to delay and suppress stories (e.g. Risen's NSA story 2004-05 [12]) * On key political issues controversial journalists are pulled (e.g. Ayman Mohyeldin [13]) * Journalism exclusion zones are used to corral media for purposes other than their safety - even at home where exclusion zones were used to stop coverage in Ferguson [14] * Sources to journalists have had their lives and their families subjugated to death threats [15] * The state reserves the right to imitate news media outlets [16] * There is both historical [17] and current [18] use of international cables to manipulate the press * The White House has been caught using fake journalists during press releases [19] * The state has been caught buying coverage from journalists (e.g. Armstrong Williams [20], Gallagher and McManus [21]) * The US government has injected (hundreds of) unattributed fake news stories into local news channels by the US through the Office of Broadcasting Services on political issues [22] * There is current legislation that would legally compel journalists to disclose their sources [23] * The Army was caught in a scandal where they were sending fake letters from an imaginary soldier to media organizations [24] * Hero stories are drummed up, attested to, and propelled by state officials when guests of the media (e.g. Jessica Lynch [25]) * Anti-propaganda law have been relaxed this year [26] * Media outlets have been given evidence from coerced testimony on the grounds it is actionable, even when it is known to have been fabricated [27] [28] * Propaganda intended for foreigners makes it to American audiences [29] and this has been used on purpose to circumvent anti-propaganda law [30] * The government has a history of manipulating media and through the Cold War had over 800 American news networks and personel [31] (names you may know such as Austin Goodrich [32] and Frank Kearns [33]) * The United States hires [34] contractors [35] and has software [36] to manipulate social media [37] * Agencies publish documents compelled of them by law at inconvenient times to discourage large press coverage [38] * It is also true that the the now president and CEO of the Public Broadcasting Service Patricia Harrison testified before Congress that President Bush considered Office of Broadcasting Services (1/4 billion dollar) state sponsored propaganda powerful strategic tools for swaying public opinion [39]