Whistleblower uncovers London police hacking of journalists and protestors

Post by tremon » Wed, Apr 19, 2017, 9:24 AM UTC

ak4g wrote: post #50

SubiculumCode wrote: post #19

Outrageous. I worry we in the USA are going this direction too.

My siblings in this thread need to learn about the reforms that were done post-Watergate. The rule of law governs everyone, especially law enforcement, in the USA. If you don't believe that, why do you think lawmakers bother with getting laws passed to allow surveillance in the first place? You can't have it both ways. Either LEO follow the letter of the law and we're not in some 1984 scenario (because there are , in…

Post by alex_duf » Wed, Apr 19, 2017, 9:26 AM UTC

andy_ppp wrote: post #11

dbcooper wrote: post #3

That article is based on an article and an opinion piece that were published in the Guardian last month: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/mar/22/whistl... https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/mar/21/ipcc-investi...

You make it sound as if the article was written by a journalist, not a person who had been leaked to and is a part of the story. Anyway, that whistle blower and the leaker could both get 14 years under proposed anti-whistleblower laws: The Guardian failed to point out in its report that new legislation proposed by the Law Commission would make the author of the anonymous letter, Jones herself, and the journalists at…

Post by [deleted] » Wed, Apr 19, 2017, 9:26 AM UTC

cryptarch wrote: post #46

necessity wrote: post #15

Doesn't seem like a reputable source.

Still an interesting suggestion to look into, init? You might not believe it is fact, but I for one think it's reasonable to give The Guardian the benefit of the doubt here and have a long hard look at these programs, if only because it has a non-zero chance of being true and only costs time to look into.

Post by richmarr » Wed, Apr 19, 2017, 9:30 AM UTC

TheOtherHobbes wrote: post #75

richmarr wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Especially now that the (deeps state) ruling class consists ... Sorry I don't think you should state conspiracy theories as fact without someone calling you on it. There are reasons for police to spy on activists (even illegally) without needing to assert the existence of a "deep state" EDIT: to clarify, above where I say "reasons" I mean just that, not "reasons that I necessarily agree with"

And those reasons would be... what? These are people with political views the government disapproves of. They are not bomb-throwing anarchists or people with a history of violence. They are not organising or threatening acts of public violence. This is entirely a free speech issue.

Post by alexandercrohde » Wed, Apr 19, 2017, 9:35 AM UTC

ak4g wrote: post #56

acd wrote: post #49

Its an issue when you self censor opinions which deviate from the mass. It also an issue of freedom of press. The government know who you talk to through metadata collection even if you use encryption.

I find myself self-censoring on topics like this, not because of what I (don't) fear is being done by authorities, but because I can't help but to note that we're not, in fact, living in some Orwellian dystopia, and that seemingly the surveillance that is being done is promulgating a safe and stable society, but not toeing the sky-is-falling line doesn't do much for those numbers by my username. Meanwhile, there are…