Is Spying Doing Us More Harm Than Good?

[humbersloop]

Tim Berners-Lee seems to think it is,

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/nov/06/tim-berners-lee-encryption-spy-agencies

although the Heads of MI5, MI6 and GCHQ may well take a different view this afternoon

[AB Editor]

Are they going to be broadcast live? Do we know what time they're on?

[jake-the-peg]

More flim flam and avoiding the key question

No chance they'll be asked whether their activities were legal - I don't suppose

No chance they'll be asked to say whether or not they had Warrants from the Home secretary for all their intercepts as required by law

[AB Editor]

Probably JtP.

I don't think anyone was surprised/outraged that countries spy on each other (especially those who are "friends") - even if the media narrative wants us to believe so.

Whether these agencies are "over-reaching" and applying political pressure to our own is more of an issue for me.

[Khandro]

Why was Angela Merkel's phone "Spied" on, and everyone else's was "Hacked" ?
Could it be that spying is supposed to sounds less serious an offence than hacking?

[vulcan42]

To be broadcast at 1400 with a slight time delay

[ToraToraTora]

Yes jake because all those spying on us will be doing it legally won't they! It's a sad state of affairs but I'm afraid that we alone cannot obey the rules if no one else is. It's like a boxer fighting under Queensbury when his opponent has a baseball bat. I'm not saying it's right but it's necessary.

[AB Editor]

Ta Vulcan.

Do you mean NSA/GCHQ "spying" vs. News of The World "Hacking" Khandro?

A hack is a work-around, and something you're not really supposed to do. It's making technology do something it's not intended for, so that's a hack.

NSA/GCHQ have spying as part of their job description - and in the NSA case at least, they didn't have to bend any technology to their whim, many companies freely offered "back-doors" into their systems.

[FredPuli43]

Yes, and? It may do individuals more harm than good, but we are never going to stop government agencies doing it.

[youngmafbog]

It's always a difficult one, there is the spirit of the law and the letter of the law, mixed in with, as TTT mentions, other countries disregard for any law anyway. and lets not forget the law often lags well behind technology that is moving at a rapid pace.

Is it doing us more harm than good? Well, we can never answer that can we since by the very nature of the problem anything probably doing us good we will not hear about - for at least 50 years so no use to most of us on here!

[jake-the-peg]

Sorry TTT - that's simply not good enough

If GCHQ need additional powers to protect us what do you suggest they do?

- Return to Parliament for the necessary powers?

- Or ignore the law and just do what they like?

Would we accept this argument from the Police? - we need to operate outside the law?


If you concede the principal that secret services can operate outside of the law you'll never get them back under control - they'll be a law unto themselves

Anytime they want something they'll just say the magic word 'Terrorism' and all the knock-knees will roll over and say 'give them anything they want - save us from the Bogeyman'

[youngmafbog]

Well to quote you,
//
If GCHQ need additional powers to protect us what do you suggest they do?

- Return to Parliament for the necessary powers?

- Or ignore the law and just do what they like? //

Sorry Jake but that is not good enough either is it.

The second option should not even be an option, the first is impractical, as I am sure you know.

They have to have a way of responding to issues immediately. Too late once the terrorist has blown 2000 people to smithereens. I dont know what the answer is but both of your options are not it.

[youngmafbog]

I am also not sure the Secret Service and the Police can be considered the same, they are apples and pears.

[ToraToraTora]

Perhaps the powers needed are not easily defineable in law. Much to the chagrin of the world they do operate on the edge of legality, were the French acting legally when they mined the Rainbow warrior? What about the Russians when they arrested a pop group for being less than complementary about their president? Or murdered a guy with polonium in UK? For what it's worth I agree with your stance but In practical terms our intellegence operatives operate in largely grey area devid of the Queensbury rules. Sadly we must also to avoid the inevitable. What is your solution? A rather twee insistance that we alone abide by the "rules"?

[ichkeria]

Tim Berners-Lee is a great pioneer but his comments if correctly quoted do not make a lot of sense. The agencies work on behalf of government not in spite of.

[humbersloop]

Berners-Lee is making two quite simple, powerful points here. Firstly, gathering intelligence in the way the security services - of whatever stripe - have done is practically counter productive and leaves us, individually and collectively, vulnerable:

//He said the agencies' decision to break the encryption software was appalling and foolish, as it directly contradicted efforts of the US and UK governments to fight cybercrime and cyberwarfare which they have identified as a national security priority//

Secondly, those checks and balances we already have in place are not working:
//We need powerful agencies to combat criminal activity online – but any powerful agency needs checks and balances and, based on recent revelations, it seems the current system of checks and balances has failed//

As he knows a lot more about the internet than I do, I'm prepared to accept his first point. And I don't get a sense from watching this afternoon's SIC hearing anyone's too keen to have a discussion about his second.

[humbersloop]

//The agencies work on behalf of government not in spite of//

Alternatively, the agencies work on behalf of government, they don't assume a life of their own?