Snowden et al

Grey

Senior Jockey
Joined
Jul 4, 2004
Messages
9,484
Location
Dublin
Like the author of the article copied below, I am surprised at the comparative lack of reaction in Britain about the activities of the NSA and GCHQ. It has become an election issue in Germany but not many people in the UK appear to be upset.

I think this has more to do with trust in the state rather than in the secret service. l would say the British have less fear of surveillance because they have not had any experience of authoritarian government.



http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/the-cozy-relationship-between-britain-and-its-intelligence-apparatus-a-917689.html#ref=nl-international


Black Helicopters: Britain's Blind Faith in Intelligence Agencies

A Commentary by Christoph Scheuermann


Most in Britain seem unconcerned about the mass surveillance carried out by its intelligence agency GCHQ. Even the intimidation tactics being used on the Guardian this week have caused little soul-searching. The reason is simple: Britons blindly and uncritically trust their secret service.

The Snowden affair was actually going pretty well for British Prime Minister David Cameron. After the initial uproar, many of his fellow citizens quickly lost interest in the surveillance scandal and in the fact that the British intelligence agency Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ) had launched what was presumably the most ambitious project ever to monitor global data communications. The opposition helped out by making itself largely invisible. And the Liberal Democrats, in a coalition government with the Conservatives, likewise did nothing despite the party's tradition of being champions of privacy protections.



The United Kingdom is not an authoritarian surveillance state like China. But it is a country in which surveillance has become part of everyday life. The cold eyes of the security apparatus keep watch over everything that moves -- in underground stations and hospitals, at intersections and on buses. The British Security Industry Authority (BSIA) recently estimated that there could be up to 5.9 million surveillance cameras in the country -- or one camera for every 11 Britons. Most were not installed by the government, but by companies and private citizens. One wonders who even has the time to look at these images.


While there is the occasional burst of resistance on the island, most just accept surveillance as the price of freedom. And, in contrast to Germany, many journalists are wont to defend their government, particularly when it comes to the global interest of the United Kingdom and its supposed national security. Dan Hodges, a blogger with ties to the Labour Party, echoed the sentiments of many in the Westminster political world following the detention of David Miranda, the partner of Guardian journalist Glenn Greenwald, who has been instrumental in exposing the breadth of GCHQ and NSA surveillance activities. Hodges wrote: "What do we honestly expect the UK authorities to do? Give him a sly wink and say 'Off you go son, you have a nice trip'?"



Journalists Deferring to National Interests

It's astonishing to see how many Britons blindly and uncritically trust the work of their intelligence service. Some still see the GCHQ as a club of amiable gentlemen in shabby tweed jackets who cracked the Nazis' Enigma coding machine in World War II. The majority of people instinctively rally round their government on key issues of defense policy, sovereignty and home rule -- even though the threat to the "national security" of the UK emanating from Edward Snowden is nothing more than an allegation at the moment. Those in power in Westminster have become used to journalists deferring to national interests when it comes to intelligence issues.

The spies expect pre-emptive subservience and discretion from the country's press, and they often get what they want. There is no other explanation for the matter-of-factness with which government officials and GCHQ employees contacted Guardian editor-in-chief Alan Rusbridger to demand the surrender or destruction of hard drives. What is surprising is the self-assurance that led the powerful to believe that none of this would ever come to light. According to the newspaper, after the hard drives had been destroyed in the Guardian's basement, an intelligence agent joked: "We can call off the black helicopters."

Those words reflect the government's need for chummy proximity. Journalists must avoid such attempts at ingratiation from the powerful, even if it means that they are occasionally denied information and exclusive stories from intelligence sources. The hours Miranda spent being interrogated at Heathrow Airport and the destruction of the hard drives in the Guardian basement show that the British security authorities are serious about the information war that has just begun.
Cozy Relationship

It is a war that also revolves around deterrence and intimidation. The agent's comment about the black helicopters may have been meant as a joke, but it doesn't seem all that unrealistic in the country. Why else would the government, as Rusbridger describes in detail, exert pressure on the paper long after the Snowden leaks became public?

And why else would it destroy hard drives, even though it stands to reason that the data on the drives had already been copied to other storage devices? The incident, at any rate, offers the British a prime opportunity to re-think their cozy relationship with their intelligence service.

Translated from the German by Christopher Sultan
 
. Most are quite happy with cctv because it cuts and solves crime. The idea that they are surveying everyones every move in case they disagree with the government is just daft paranoia

im not happy myself with too much of the remaining "surveillance" but frankly what has it been used for?

The agent's comment about the black helicopters may have been meant as a joke,

Err i think so yes.. being german though....

This country has a far better record of free expression than the vast majority of states. The law protects quite clearly (although some authoritarians seem to want the press muzzled)

As for all these "leaks" and so on virtually nothing except boringly mundane has come out of the so called revelations.

I would say that last line is right grey and also little fear of one developing. Political extremists and religous bullies do not get a grip here.
 
Last edited:
The daily volume of data that needs to be collected in the tracking of every e-mail sent, URL used, or phone-call made, would boggle your mind.

The machine effort needed to filter/sift these for key words-of-interest is less so, but still significant in terms of the computational-power needed to order them in a manner that can be interpreted.

The daily human effort required to analyse the output - in any worthwhile way, at least - is untold thousands of man-hours.

Regardless of whether it's by phone, e-mail or the Internet, I push millions of Bytes into the ethereal, digital soup every day. Sometimes, I use words which likely result in my comms being dumped in a caverous 'Maybe' file deep within the bowels of GCHQ. Regardless, I can confirm that I have never had so much as a sideways glance from Dibble, let alone a tap at the door, in the last 15 or so years of online activity.

Is surveillance the thin-end of the wedge - 1984 deferred thirty-years?.......or is it a load of old hoo-ha?

I contend it is the latter, because the law of diminishing-returns applies when it comes to surveillance. The more they gather, the less they know.
 
Last edited:
As for all these "leaks" and so on virtually nothing except boringly mundane has come out of the so called revelations.

So you wouldn't be in favour of locking up Snowden?
 
So you wouldn't be in favour of locking up Snowden?

I havent fully followed the story but leaking is leaking and just because the material hasnt been interesting that doesnt alter the crime. One day something could be leaked that puts someones life in danger (some of the wikileaks were near the mark i gather)

agree with grass. Thats about it really and you should see the sites he visits and the stuff he writes

walworth probably sums it up for most of us
 
What are the chances of getting 'blown up'?

Are airport controls really justified? If a terrorist wanted to blow up passangers, why not walk on board the 5.25 to Manchester, it couldn't be easier

It is strange the things that are gotten away with when people are paralysed by a mysterious fear of something that has such a minuscule percentage of actually happening
 
.

This country has a far better record of free expression than the vast majority of states.
However, it is a freedom that is being gradually eroded bit by bit in almost imperceptible little stages. And that still extant freedom of expression is increasingly likely to be monitored by the organs of the state. Individuals of a progressive left-leaning persuasion can be confident that they are being spied upon; anti-capitalist movements, organisations, community activist committees , trade unions, protest-groups are being infiltrated with state-ist agent-provocateurs. Not paranoia -- but recently exposed and proved to be so.
The Der Spiegal article is correct. We should be on guard against allowing the "services" too much leeway. These state security services do not do their work in our interest (not in the interest of working people anyway). Their class and background imbues them with the same reactionary mind-set as the elite who employ them and who run the country. The security services have a natural and impulsive revulsion of progressive ideas, and exist primarily as protectors of a capitalist establishment. Now they want to read your emails too, ............. and probably are.
 
Explain to me why if there is the desire to blow people up a terrorist would not just walk over the road onto a train?

And why are controls needed for flying but not taking a train?
 
....when people are paralysed by a mysterious fear of something that has such a minuscule percentage of actually happening

Wouldn't this equally apply to people worried about surveillance though, insofar as the direct impact on their lives is concerned? :cool:
 
No

the "working people " have an aversion to "prgressive ideas" that have failed failed and failed

GCHQ doesnt (or shouldnt) give a monkeys about the far left. Because no one else does either...unless they've been sectioned

but the far left have never been keen on surveillance have they?

i think most of us know full well that if that far left ever (no chance) had power the stasi would quickly follow.
 
Goverments don't have ethics, Hamm.....it's established fact......so there's little point huffing and puffing that line, is there? They're indulging in exactly the kind of behaviour we expect of a Government, aren't they?



"You are free....to do as we tell you." Bill Hicks
 
Last edited:
What are the chances of getting 'blown up'?

Are airport controls really justified? If a terrorist wanted to blow up passangers, why not walk on board the 5.25 to Manchester, it couldn't be easier

It is strange the things that are gotten away with when people are paralysed by a mysterious fear of something that has such a minuscule percentage of actually happening

Patronising in the extreme. People have a "miniscule"chance of going through a windscreen in a car crash but they wear seatbelts. they have a miniscule chance of being poisoned by a food manufacturer but they demand cleaniless and safety laws.

what is wrong with that?
 
Goverments don't have ethics, Hamm.....it's established fact......so there's little point huffing and puffing that line, is there? They're indulging in exactly the kind of behaviour we expect of a Government, aren't they?



"You are free....to do as we tell you." Bill Hicks

Sure, but I'm hardly huffing, merely saying I think it is wrong! Otherwise, what is the point of even discussing this?
 
Answer my question and stop acting like a tabloid journalist

Whats that supposed to mean ?

Its pretty obvious that they cannot secure every damn journey but pretty obvious that for decades planes have been targeted like no other form of transport

you dont even know that?
 
Patronising in the extreme. People have a "miniscule"chance of going through a windscreen in a car crash but they wear seatbelts. they have a miniscule chance of being poisoned by a food manufacturer but they demand cleaniless and safety laws.

what is wrong with that?

Clive, why don't you go away and compare the likelihood of a car accident with that of being involved in a terrorist attack and come back then.

Seriously...
 
Is surveillance the thin-end of the wedge - 1984 deferred thirty-years?.......or is it a load of old hoo-ha?

I contend it is the latter, because the law of diminishing-returns applies when it comes to surveillance. The more they gather, the less they know.

Apparently about one in ten of the population in the DDR was a Stasi informant, which involved monthly meetings with a handler and the compiling of intelligence reports. That was in a pre-electronic age, so Honecker and his pals truly did start to drown in a sea of information.

Whether what's going on at present is hoo-ha is hard to say. It seems that GCHQ are very impressed by the new analysis software they were given by the Americans. In any case people are entitled to know about it, I would have thought, and not all of it is for security purposes. The bugging of the EU embassies in Washington and New York and hacking into Commission computers in Brussels would have been for commercial and trade reasons.
 
That is the most stupid of answers. so because you can get killed in a car we shouldnt take any action to preventy the next 9/11

This is unbelievable

its like saying no point in preventing heart attacks because you could get cancer
 
Again, you don't seem to understand - a person is infinitely more likely to be involved in a car accident than a terrorist attack, hence a seatbelt is a worthwhile safeguard.
 
Back
Top