5 ms·

Whilst I applaud the ruling, I doubt it will make much of difference. The British government simply uses extensions to the "temporary" Terrorism Act 2000 and it

by junto 12y ago

Whilst I applaud the ruling, I doubt it will make much of difference. The British government simply uses extensions to the "temporary" Terrorism Act 2000 and its modifications in 2001, 2005, 2006 and 2008 and/or RIPA. I'm getting a bit tired of politicians standing up in the House of Common's, stating we need a "temporary" act to reduce liberty and privacy under the guise of terrorism, only to extend the rulings indefinitely. It's bullshit. Also, with regards to RIPA, the section related to "Use of communication data" requires only "senior member of that authority", whilst wire taps and reading post requires authorisation from "Warrant from Home Secretary or Cabinet Secretary for Justice". The first one should also move under this authority and blanket surveillance should be banned. Conspiracy theorist me says we should expect another "act of terrorism" on the UK mainland. This government needs to bolster its control, as they did in Australia, France and Canada. After every attack, the direct effect is that politicians start looking for ways to spin that into invasions of privacy and liberty. Every god damn time. P.S. Interestingly, Germany is one of the few large European nations with troops in "Muslim lands", that has to date not had a major terrorist incident. They have a large Muslim population, which although largely very moderate and westernised, do have a minority of people who are preaching extremism. Also, many of the terrorist cells (including 9/11) have originated, or passed through Germany.

matthewmacleod 12y ago
Conspiracy theorist me says we should expect another "act of terrorism" on the UK mainland. This government needs to bolster its control, as they did in Australia, France and Canada. After every attack, the direct effect is that politicians start looking for ways to spin that into invasions of privacy and liberty. Every god damn time. I appreciate that you prefixed this, but are you really implying that the recent attacks in France were planned by the government? Or that the 7/7 bombings in London were? That really dilutes the value of the other points you make – which I do agree with.
- KwanEsq 12y ago
  Whilst I am not endorsing the view, I would like to point out that Operation Northwoods–style false‐flag attacks are not a necessary reading of the grandparent's post. It would also be satisfied by the government/security services being aware of a planned attack by actual criminals, and simply letting it happen rather than preventing it as would otherwise be done.
  - junto 12y ago
    Correct. I can't imagine that a government would be so morally corrupt as to incite, finance and source weapons for Islamic extremists that they then unleash on their own citizens, and then make sure they they all get shot during the rescue to make sure they never talk. I can imagine that the security agencies make mistakes. I can also imagine that they don't always effectively manage and identify the correct intelligence. Whilst blanket surveillance provides you to monitor all the things, it just makes the haystack bigger. Good intelligence and reliable sources on the other hand (which require smart man-power), is costly and laborious. It helps you know in which bale in the haystack you should be taking a closer look at.
- simi_ 12y ago
  Conspiracy theories are bullshit 99% of the time, but you must be an idiot to think it's difficult to stage such a thing. Naivety is not a very cute trait in adults (but probably not as dangerous as chemtrail-type stupidity).
- spiritplumber 12y ago
  A more diluted version of this conspiracy theory is that there is a roughly constant supply of crazies who want to blow stuff up, that most of them are easy to catch, and that on occasion security agencies let one succeed so that they can get favorable-to-them legislation to happen.
  - peteretep 12y ago
    An even more diluted version is that the security services aren't super human, and occasionally make mistakes. Some conspiracy, eh?
    - fit2rule 12y ago
      No, they are super-human, and all of this is part of an intentional plot to subvert us in a way that won't cause us to rise up and behead the super-humans currently running the show...
- aw3c2 12y ago
  Maybe not planned, but the idea that they were "tolerated" because they promoted the agenda for a reasonably low cost seems not too far fetched. grabs tinfoil
- socksy 12y ago
  It's not so much that such an attack would be created by the government (which if that's what GP is saying, then I utterly agree with you). It's more what's done after the attack — painting it as a terrorist attack in the first place, then arguing that it like all terrorist attacks could have been prevented if intelligence were more powerful, etc. I found it very interesting recently that the BBC has decided to stop using the word "terrorism" to report these attacks[1], and I hope that this will lead to a more nuanced argument over different events. [1] http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/the-bbc-has-just-done-more-to-eradicate-terrorism-than-all-our-wars-since-911-10003927.html http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/the-bbc-has-just...
  - Flimm 12y ago
    This only applies to BBC Arabic.
    - socksy 12y ago
      Ah, shame.
  - chriswarbo 12y ago
    > I found it very interesting recently that the BBC has decided to stop using the word "terrorism" to report these attacks[1], and I hope that this will lead to a more nuanced argument over different events. I agree that the "terrorist" label has become far too common. It's become so ridiculous that the BBC apparently considers "not terrorism" to be newsworthy, eg. from the first page of '"not terrorism" site:bbc.co.uk': http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-30826554 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-30826554 - Arson != terrorism http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18725577 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18725577 - Electronic cigarettes != terrorism http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-30423481 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-30423481 - Death threats != terrorism The most interesting article in those results is the following: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/322301.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/322301.stm - Nail bomb in London market != terrorism That last one's from 1999, and provides a stark contrast. It's from a time when our home-grown terrorism mainly came from an organised guerilla army, who's achievements included blowing up government conferences. This kind of opportunistic maiming must have seemed inept in comparison. It's interesting that the British terrorist attacks so far this millenium (7/7, Woolwich, etc.) are more akin to that "non-terrorist" nail bombing than to, for example, 9/11 or the Brighton Hotel bombing.
- thatsjustcrazy 12y ago
  Guess you've never heard of Operation Gladio. Yes, these things have happened and will continue to happen. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Gladio https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Gladio
  - PlzSnow 12y ago
    I'm trying to understand your logic. You are saying that because one conspiracy was perhaps true, then this conspiracy is true? That is the logic that my toddler uses.
    - thatsjustcrazy 12y ago
      Try reading. Maybe you'll understand. Although that seems unlikely.
- PlzSnow 12y ago
  "are you really implying that the recent attacks in France were planned by the government? Or that the 7/7 bombings in London were?" Welcome to Hacker New, where a sizeable proportion of the readership actually believe this stuff. Also, the NSA read and store everything you do on the Internet. However, the discussions on technology issues are of a very high standard, which is why many of us are here.
  - username 12y ago
    > Also, the NSA read and store everything you do on the Internet. For the vast majority of internet users, this is true. Clarification: Maybe not actually read as most people understand the term, but collect, store, and analyze.
  - mercer 12y ago
    Much as I'm skeptical of many conspiracy 'types', I think dismissing them in such a facile manner is just stupid, especially if it's true that 'a sizeable proportion of the readership believe it'. If the latter is true, at least it's worth respecting that fact, rather than dismissing it as 'obviously ridiculous'.
    - PlzSnow 12y ago
      "it's worth respecting that fact, rather than dismissing it as 'obviously ridiculous'" That's not how the world works. If someone says "I think the government did 9/11", then it doesn't matter how many people agree with him. His opinion is still idiotic. Similarly I do not have to respect anti-vaxers or Scientologists, just because there are many of them.
      - mercer 12y ago
        So you're saying no matter who says it in whatever demographic, you've made up your mind about this issue and that's that? If so, I pity your closed-mindedness, and I think we can't have a productive conversation. (to be clear, I'm highly skeptical of overt conspiracies in general. But if a significant portion of my peers (HN readers) believe a thing, at the very least I try to seriously consider their point of view. Because I'm not infallible. Apparently you are?)
peteretep 12y ago
There is every difference in the world between an agency being able to do what it wants, and politicians needing to stand up and make it so, and explain themselves to their constituents. I'm sorry you don't see that

by junto 12y ago

matthewmacleod 12y ago

Conspiracy theorist me says we should expect another "act of terrorism" on the UK mainland. This government needs to bolster its control, as they did in Australia, France and Canada. After every attack, the direct effect is that politicians start looking for ways to spin that into invasions of privacy and liberty. Every god damn time. I appreciate that you prefixed this, but are you really implying that the recent attacks in France were planned by the government? Or that the 7/7 bombings in London were? That really dilutes the value of the other points you make – which I do agree with.

KwanEsq 12y ago
Whilst I am not endorsing the view, I would like to point out that Operation Northwoods–style false‐flag attacks are not a necessary reading of the grandparent's post. It would also be satisfied by the government/security services being aware of a planned attack by actual criminals, and simply letting it happen rather than preventing it as would otherwise be done.
- junto 12y ago
  Correct. I can't imagine that a government would be so morally corrupt as to incite, finance and source weapons for Islamic extremists that they then unleash on their own citizens, and then make sure they they all get shot during the rescue to make sure they never talk. I can imagine that the security agencies make mistakes. I can also imagine that they don't always effectively manage and identify the correct intelligence. Whilst blanket surveillance provides you to monitor all the things, it just makes the haystack bigger. Good intelligence and reliable sources on the other hand (which require smart man-power), is costly and laborious. It helps you know in which bale in the haystack you should be taking a closer look at.
simi_ 12y ago
Conspiracy theories are bullshit 99% of the time, but you must be an idiot to think it's difficult to stage such a thing. Naivety is not a very cute trait in adults (but probably not as dangerous as chemtrail-type stupidity).
spiritplumber 12y ago
A more diluted version of this conspiracy theory is that there is a roughly constant supply of crazies who want to blow stuff up, that most of them are easy to catch, and that on occasion security agencies let one succeed so that they can get favorable-to-them legislation to happen.
- peteretep 12y ago
  An even more diluted version is that the security services aren't super human, and occasionally make mistakes. Some conspiracy, eh?
  - fit2rule 12y ago
    No, they are super-human, and all of this is part of an intentional plot to subvert us in a way that won't cause us to rise up and behead the super-humans currently running the show...
aw3c2 12y ago
Maybe not planned, but the idea that they were "tolerated" because they promoted the agenda for a reasonably low cost seems not too far fetched. grabs tinfoil
socksy 12y ago
It's not so much that such an attack would be created by the government (which if that's what GP is saying, then I utterly agree with you). It's more what's done after the attack — painting it as a terrorist attack in the first place, then arguing that it like all terrorist attacks could have been prevented if intelligence were more powerful, etc. I found it very interesting recently that the BBC has decided to stop using the word "terrorism" to report these attacks[1], and I hope that this will lead to a more nuanced argument over different events. [1] http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/the-bbc-has-just-done-more-to-eradicate-terrorism-than-all-our-wars-since-911-10003927.html http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/the-bbc-has-just...
- Flimm 12y ago
  This only applies to BBC Arabic.
  - socksy 12y ago
    Ah, shame.
- chriswarbo 12y ago
  > I found it very interesting recently that the BBC has decided to stop using the word "terrorism" to report these attacks[1], and I hope that this will lead to a more nuanced argument over different events. I agree that the "terrorist" label has become far too common. It's become so ridiculous that the BBC apparently considers "not terrorism" to be newsworthy, eg. from the first page of '"not terrorism" site:bbc.co.uk': http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-30826554 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-30826554 - Arson != terrorism http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18725577 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18725577 - Electronic cigarettes != terrorism http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-30423481 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-30423481 - Death threats != terrorism The most interesting article in those results is the following: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/322301.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/322301.stm - Nail bomb in London market != terrorism That last one's from 1999, and provides a stark contrast. It's from a time when our home-grown terrorism mainly came from an organised guerilla army, who's achievements included blowing up government conferences. This kind of opportunistic maiming must have seemed inept in comparison. It's interesting that the British terrorist attacks so far this millenium (7/7, Woolwich, etc.) are more akin to that "non-terrorist" nail bombing than to, for example, 9/11 or the Brighton Hotel bombing.
thatsjustcrazy 12y ago
Guess you've never heard of Operation Gladio. Yes, these things have happened and will continue to happen. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Gladio https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Gladio
- PlzSnow 12y ago
  I'm trying to understand your logic. You are saying that because one conspiracy was perhaps true, then this conspiracy is true? That is the logic that my toddler uses.
  - thatsjustcrazy 12y ago
    Try reading. Maybe you'll understand. Although that seems unlikely.
PlzSnow 12y ago
"are you really implying that the recent attacks in France were planned by the government? Or that the 7/7 bombings in London were?" Welcome to Hacker New, where a sizeable proportion of the readership actually believe this stuff. Also, the NSA read and store everything you do on the Internet. However, the discussions on technology issues are of a very high standard, which is why many of us are here.
- username 12y ago
  > Also, the NSA read and store everything you do on the Internet. For the vast majority of internet users, this is true. Clarification: Maybe not actually read as most people understand the term, but collect, store, and analyze.
- mercer 12y ago
  Much as I'm skeptical of many conspiracy 'types', I think dismissing them in such a facile manner is just stupid, especially if it's true that 'a sizeable proportion of the readership believe it'. If the latter is true, at least it's worth respecting that fact, rather than dismissing it as 'obviously ridiculous'.
  - PlzSnow 12y ago
    "it's worth respecting that fact, rather than dismissing it as 'obviously ridiculous'" That's not how the world works. If someone says "I think the government did 9/11", then it doesn't matter how many people agree with him. His opinion is still idiotic. Similarly I do not have to respect anti-vaxers or Scientologists, just because there are many of them.
    - mercer 12y ago
      So you're saying no matter who says it in whatever demographic, you've made up your mind about this issue and that's that? If so, I pity your closed-mindedness, and I think we can't have a productive conversation. (to be clear, I'm highly skeptical of overt conspiracies in general. But if a significant portion of my peers (HN readers) believe a thing, at the very least I try to seriously consider their point of view. Because I'm not infallible. Apparently you are?)

peteretep 12y ago

There is every difference in the world between an agency being able to do what it wants, and politicians needing to stand up and make it so, and explain themselves to their constituents. I'm sorry you don't see that