Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Whistleblower uncovers London police hacking of journalists and protestors

wsws.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 275 posts

Re: Whistleblower uncovers London police hacking of journalists and protestors

#101

Post by DanBC »

anqh4 wrote: post #82
andy_ppp wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

>that whistle blower and the leaker could both get 14 years under proposed anti-whistleblower laws Why do we have to consider what essentially is treason to a nation to be ok? You have to go to the electorate and tell them "you see, this guy just leaked these documents which put our nation's security at risk. Shall we just set him free?". I'm sure that'll go well... you have Snowden/Assange to see how it went.

England has some weird bits of law.

http://www.lawcom.gov.uk/project/protection-of-official-data...

If you leak data that damages the capability of the armed forces to carry out their tasks the maximum sentence is 2 years.

Compare that to:

http://www.lawcom.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/cp230_pr...

> By way of contrast, sections 57 – 59 of the Investigatory Powers Act 2016, when commenced, will make it an offence punishable by up to five years’ imprisonment for a Crown servant to disclose without authorisation anything to do with the existence or implementation of particular warrants granted pursuant to the Investigatory Powers Act, including the content of intercepted material and related communications data.

So, while it might be right that official secrets is made more restrictive, but with an increased max sentence, that is a bit worrying because other law tends to anchor to OSA sentences, and we don't want longer sentences all over other data privacy laws.

Re: Whistleblower uncovers London police hacking of journalists and protestors

#102

Post by DanBC »

IanCal wrote: post #95
anqh4 wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>that whistle blower and the leaker could both get 14 years under proposed anti-whistleblower laws Why do we have to consider what essentially is treason to a nation to be ok? You have to go to the electorate and tell them "you see, this guy just leaked these documents which put our nation's security at risk. Shall we just set him free?". I'm sure that'll go well... you have Snowden/Assange to see how it went.

Why should we not support those who expose wrongdoing ? That's the core of the issue you're ignoring here, whistleblowing is not just releasing whatever things you want. If we as a nation want those activities, then we should make them legal and clearly defined. If not, then stopping those activities from taking place hardly sounds like "treason".

> then we should make them legal and clearly defined

We did, in 1998, in the Public Interest Disclosure Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_Interest_Disclosure_Act...

And we made things a bit better for NHS Whistleblowers with the Freedom to Speak Up Review and and NHS Improvement (was Monitor) Freedom to Speak Up policy which is compulsory for NHS Trusts

https://improvement.nhs.uk/resources/freedom-to-speak-up-whi...

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/sir-robert-franci...

Re: Whistleblower uncovers London police hacking of journalists and protestors

#103

Post by andy_ppp »

DanBC wrote: post #99
andy_ppp wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> and the leaker could both get 14 years under proposed anti-whistleblower laws: No, that's not a proposal of the Law Commission report (which isn't a proposed new law). Here's the document. It's over 300 pages long. The consultation is still open. http://www.lawcom.gov.uk/project/protection-of-official-data... The report gathers information about all the whistleblowing protection law in the UK; all the secrecy prote…

Thanks for this! It'll take me a while to read but I'll have a look later. Great that the original article and my comment has been corrected by someone with more information.

Re: Whistleblower uncovers London police hacking of journalists and protestors

#104

Post by sambe »

lithos wrote: post #100
rebuilder wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it treason to expose abuses of power and illegal practices?

Yes it is. Anyone who works in a classified/borderline field signs multiple documents that skirt around this, limit rights, and especially allow some form of nonjudicial prosecution. As for that being right or wrong on either side, that is a long and frustrating argument.

Not really. There can be whistleblower protections that supercede other laws and contracts. There can be illegal contracts, which are not valid regardless of whether you sign them. Do you believe every issue is governed by a single law that is set in stone for eternity?

Re: Whistleblower uncovers London police hacking of journalists and protestors

#105

Post by cies »

DanBC wrote: post #92
TheOtherHobbes wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Environmental groups had plans to shut down nuclear reactors by blocking water cooling pipes in the sea. Animal rights protestors have firebombed[1] several UK department stores (for selling fur), and abattoirs and milk distribution depots; dug up a corpse from a grave and held the body hostage; rescued animals from labs and caused damage to the labs; Far right groups have rallies that attract considerable violence;…

I do not consider potential property damage to be a form of terrorism (or otherwise a danger to the public). Potential property damage is not something that I consider a reason for surveillance. We can wait till the damage happens and the go look for the perpetrators.

There's real "people harming" evil all over our societies. Evil towards rather innocent people that destroys lives and kills, often benefiting the perpetrators (financially, or by pushing their agenda). These, to me, are the only crimes that need tough surveillance.

Re: Whistleblower uncovers London police hacking of journalists and protestors

#106

Post by DanBC »

andy_ppp wrote: post #103
DanBC wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> and the leaker could both get 14 years under proposed anti-whistleblower laws: No, that's not a proposal of the Law Commission report (which isn't a proposed new law). Here's the document. It's over 300 pages long. The consultation is still open. http://www.lawcom.gov.uk/project/protection-of-official-data... The report gathers information about all the whistleblowing protection law in the UK; all the secrecy prote…

Thanks for this! It'll take me a while to read but I'll have a look later. Great that the original article and my comment has been corrected by someone with more information.

I agree that it's worrying that UK gov wants more surveillance powers and doesn't seem to respect privacy. And police illegally spying on people is really worrying.

Re: Whistleblower uncovers London police hacking of journalists and protestors

#107

Post by halloij »

notliketherest wrote: post #2

London? Why does anyone have an anticipation of privacy in the UK? This is the city with police cameras on every block, surveillance vans, and a prime minister who literally called the privacy of encryption evil.

It's scary to hear such ridiculous propaganda. This is just as bad as Trump labeling areas in the UK "no go zones". It's just garbage.

Re: Whistleblower uncovers London police hacking of journalists and protestors

#108

Post by walshemj »

qqg3 wrote: post #37
notliketherest wrote: post #2

London? Why does anyone have an anticipation of privacy in the UK? This is the city with police cameras on every block, surveillance vans, and a prime minister who literally called the privacy of encryption evil.

London doesn't have "blocks". Surveillance vans are a myth. Police cameras? Sure there is plenty of CCTV but most of its is privately owned and operated.

ANPR Automatic Number Plate Recognition vans are a common sight and a lot of police cars have he same tech.

Re: Whistleblower uncovers London police hacking of journalists and protestors

#109

Post by halloij »

orf wrote: post #53
notliketherest wrote: post #2

London? Why does anyone have an anticipation of privacy in the UK? This is the city with police cameras on every block, surveillance vans, and a prime minister who literally called the privacy of encryption evil.

Lots of cameras, sure, but so what? Can you elaborate why this is bad, in relation to how they are deployed and operated in London? I was involved with a long trial that relied heavily on CCTV evidence and I'm interested to read how you think they are operated or owned.

Americans would rather the freedom to get shot at in private...

Re: Whistleblower uncovers London police hacking of journalists and protestors

#110

Post by walshemj »

DanBC wrote: post #90
fredley wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What about Intelligence services? This is a local police force!

Police have their own intelligence services in the form of "special branch". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Branch

There has always been a tension between the Met and the security service with the Met trying to get more powers in that area - even the Official Mi5 history comments on it.
Post reply on HN