Edward Snowden Feted As A Hero By The Guardian.

[anotheoldgit]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2450291/The-Guardian-produced-handbook-help-fanatics-strike-will.html

Will we now see a right-wing protest outside the Guardian's office?

[ichkeria]

Seems to me there are two issues here (if we forget about the putative right wing protests outside the Guardian offices) when it comes to the security services

Are they operating within the law?
Are "they" monitoring us? (as in readong our emails etc)

The answer to the first question is almost certainly. At least, e are told so, but given that the nature of the work is secret there will never be absolute satisfaction that that is so - at least not for those of us who don't believe everything we are told, which is a perfectly respectable point of view.


It seems to me pretty obvious that the answer to the secind question has to be "no" because at least to that question we can apply common sense. There simply aren't enough people in the world or hours in the day for all of that. Amnd the idea that our comms are secret or private is somewhat misguided.
I'm personally more worried about Google, Facebook, Yahoo etc as I've said before. They have access to lots of our online communications and they don;t even have the excuse of fighting crime to justify it :-)

[jno]

we give that information to Google voluntarily, though, ichkeria - but we didn't know Google were passing it on to the CIA. Terrorists possibly didn't know either but I imagine they proceeded as if it was true anyway, since they had things to hide.

So we've learnt something, thanks to Snowden.

[ichkeria]

We've learnt something yes, but perhaps we should not be surprised.
The unfortunate truth of the matter is that because of the nature of modern communications it's very difficult to proceed without the sort of approaches Snowden was talking about.

Snowden has, in any case, gone far beyond "telling us something".

Also, I'm not sure the fact we give data to Google etc. "voluntarily" is much of a comfort. In fact, we probably don't give most of it voluntarily, or at least we do so without thinking.

[DTCwordfan]

A friend of mine was Treasurer of Intel (out of Portland, Oregon) through two buy-outs - he made a small fortune.......when they had launched the Pentium, I stayed with him - as to comment, they were already researching the Nonium, the point being who has access to the intervening generations of future processing technology.

That is what this prat, Edward Snowden, has compromised.

Treason.

Death.

[LazyGun]

@DT "as to comment, they were already researching the Nonium, the point being who has access to the intervening generations of future processing technology.

That is what this prat, Edward Snowden, has compromised."

No idea what any of this means. Care to expand?

[ichkeria]

Yes that puzzled me, too :-)

[DTCwordfan]

the use of future technology that we have not seen, per se.......the exposure gives aways clues to how they achieved it and that has been inferred to by both the CIA and MI6 (and MI5).

[DTCwordfan]

I can't say too much more (OSA) but the capabilities for 'watching' were staggering....that was 4 years ago.

[LazyGun]

@DT ahh, ok - thanks for the clarification. We will probably have to agree to disagree on the politics and philosophy of it all then.

Personally I think Snowden did us a service actually,raising the public awareness about the extent of surveillance the spooks are employing, the legality of what they are doing,how complicit governments are in introducing laws stifling information about such activities as well as prompting debate about exactly what level of surveillance citizens feel comfortable with.

All this quite apart from compelling the transfer of personal details from major ISPs without the knowledge of the customers, and just how far the private sector have become embedded in this whole enterprise over in the UK.

[DTCwordfan]

Yes we probably will, LazyGun - it's very opaque to the boundary between what is State and what is personal, an incredibly difficult judgemental call, I would postulate. That is what we may agree on - in terms of national security, I would hope and expect that there is surveillance going on, far beyond what we imagine, given reasonable expectations/suspicions - and that's why I don't use the word 'justified'.

On the other hand, I would not expect the FBI, MI5 or 6, CQS, PPS or anybody watching what you and I send each other on what JJ is wearing tonight - or not............

That is their dilemma, perhaps our dilemma too in what is acceptable and what isn't. The 'services' will always be on the back foot to some extent as 'what can they reasonably disclose' - and that is perhaps where Ed Snowden overstepped the mark. We are, unlikely, to ever know the truth, are we?

[FredPuli43]

Probably naïve to think that our security services take a strict interpretation of the law. We might think their reading flexible at times, if not outright breaking of it. Their duty is to protect the country and they are likely to take the view that that has priority over strict interpretation of any law restricting their powers.

[LazyGun]

@ Fred. You are probably right. My concern is that the notion that occasionally they may need to bend or break the law of the land in pursuit of "National Security" is subverted over time to become their right to do whatever they want whenever they want, more or less with impunity, and that your normal everyday civilian becomes just a unit.

Oversight is necessary. Civilian authority is necessary, and there is a suspicion that the spooks will exaggerate the threat to National Security in order to gain ever more powers for themselves.

[FredPuli43]

And to what end, LG ? For what purpose would spooks wish to gain more power for themselves, whatever their excuse ?

[society]

LazyG, what you've said makes sense to me.

[LazyGun]

I think the gathering of evermore information and power almost becomes an end to itself, seasoned with a soupcon of paranoia and the quest for bigger budgets, greater status etc.

The idea that spooks are noble guardians, implicitly aware of the boundaries and limitations between what is necessary for security and the liberty of the civilians they are employed to protect does not stack up for me. They will always push the boundaries of what they claim is needed, simply because they can.

JIC certainly seemed happy enough to endorse Alistair Campbells sexed up dossier that built the case for the invasion of Iraq, for instance.

[FredPuli43]

As an aside; some of us being watched more than we know. A friend was interviewed because he wanted to sit as part-time judge. The panel asked him "How is the epilepsy ?". Now, he had petit mal epilepsy as a youth, but had not suffered any epileptic episode since then, not at university or any time in practice. How did they know? The relevant authorities kept a file on every practising barrister, lest the individual sought to be QC or judge and for general reference if their was some complaint about him or her. This we vaguely understood, but by what lawful means had this interviewer discovered this man's medical history or any part of it ?

[society]

FredP, now that's scary.

There's not a damn thing we could do to prevent big brother from watching.

[FredPuli43]

Exactly society. One could charitably assume that my friend had said to someone socially that he'd had epilepsy, if the topic came up, but then we have to assume that someone hearing that had gone straight to the authorities, knowing which body to contact, itself not general knowledge, and informed them. Why would they do that? It would be of no interest to any other barrister. I fear the inference is that all of us, at the time, were being watched and our history investigated. (I wondered why I never made Lord Chief Justice !)

[Gromit]

It is all a bit rum really.

They steal our data off us.
Then someone steals it off them.
Then they *** the Guatdian off for telling us.

[FredPuli43]

I once lived in Dolphin Square, a big block in Westminster. Our penthouse-type flat had a big roof terrace. One day I got a call from the porter's office (read,"security"): "Mr Puli, your [5 year-old] daughter is on a tricycle on your terrace. Who is the man with her?" I replied "It's my father-in-law, down from Lancashire" "Oh, that's fine, Sir"

Now, the block was viewing every visitor, and taking stills for the file. Nobody told me this. But they were doing it with everyone of significance to security. But the place had a number of foreign diplomats, military people, MPs and the like there. Like I say , we are being watched.