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

UK mass digital surveillance regime ruled unlawful

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 191 posts

Re: UK mass digital surveillance regime ruled unlawful

#21

Post by iand »

simias wrote: post #15
mrtksn wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not suggesting that. The idea is that if a country can't do mass surveillance on it's own people due to political reasons, still can just let an ally do it and get that information from that ally as a part of information sharing agreement.

I can believe that it happens in some cases but I doubt it would make a lot of sense to do it for the mass surveillance of the population, if only because it would also make it extremely easy to do large scale industrial espionage. I'm pretty sure Germany wouldn't want the USA to have access to all of its trade and industrial secrets for instance. At least I would require a better source than "if I remember correctly…

What about https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/nov/01/gchq-europe-...

On your second point, industrial espionage is, I suspect, a large factor in determining which countries should be spied on. Does anyone really think that Boeing doesn't get competitor info from US agencies?

Re: UK mass digital surveillance regime ruled unlawful

#22

Post by mrtksn »

wholinator2 wrote: post #19
mrtksn wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I remember correctly, Europe relies on US to spy on it's people so technically they are not spying on their own people. Personally, I find it unrealistic to expect that such huge opportunity(almost by the second log of citizens activities and opinions as well as precise control of who sees and hears what) will arise and the people in power will not exploit it. China is taking a more direct route but in general it…

It's called the Five Eyes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Eyes?wprov=sfla1

I think that one is a different arrangement

Re: UK mass digital surveillance regime ruled unlawful

#23

Post by letsgetphysITal »

olavk wrote: post #7
mrtksn wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I remember correctly, Europe relies on US to spy on it's people so technically they are not spying on their own people. Personally, I find it unrealistic to expect that such huge opportunity(almost by the second log of citizens activities and opinions as well as precise control of who sees and hears what) will arise and the people in power will not exploit it. China is taking a more direct route but in general it…

> Europe relies on US to spy on it's people so technically they are not spying on their own people. Where on earth did you get this idea? Are you suggesting European countries does not have police or intelligence agencies performing surveillance?

The Five-Eyes nations wholesale spy on each other and share the data they collect. They can't spy on their own populations, so they collect the data of foreign nations and then swap it for data on their own citizens. It's been widely known since... Hell, Echelon was "revealed" in the 90s?

Re: UK mass digital surveillance regime ruled unlawful

#24

Post by etiam »

skrause wrote: post #3
dm319 wrote: post #2

Can anyone point to countries which are not going down this same route? In my head Europe is doing better with protecting privacy, but maybe that's just an impression. Canada? Not Australia. Japan?

Here is a good overview: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship_and_survei...

In principle that's a nice start.

I call male bovine excrement on the assessment of Sweden though. Full take collection, installed by and heavily integrated with FVEY, is the gist of it. Describing it as "Little or none" seems like a cynical joke.

Re: UK mass digital surveillance regime ruled unlawful

#26

Post by simias »

mrtksn wrote: post #18
simias wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can believe that it happens in some cases but I doubt it would make a lot of sense to do it for the mass surveillance of the population, if only because it would also make it extremely easy to do large scale industrial espionage. I'm pretty sure Germany wouldn't want the USA to have access to all of its trade and industrial secrets for instance. At least I would require a better source than "if I remember correctly…

It doesn't have to be binary. Sure they wouldn't want to let USA complete access, so they can spend their time keeping the US espionage on the desired domain and everyone happy and politicians elected.

Do you have anything particular in mind or are you just guessing? This is all very vague and smells faintly of tinfoil-hattery.

Not that I don't believe that the USA are heavily involved in Europe and cooperate pretty tightly with European intelligence services but the original question was about mass surveillance of the citizens. For example how do you explain the GDRP if the point is to let the USA snoop on European citizens?

Re: UK mass digital surveillance regime ruled unlawful

#27

Post by vidarh »

beaconstudios wrote: post #14
crdoconnor wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. He aligns with the deeply unpopular Blairite wing of the party and has spent an awful lot of time and effort trying to undermine Corbyn. This is good though. He should stick to doing stuff like this.

you say that like undermining Corbyn is an objectively bad thing. He's an extremely divisive element of the current Labour party and the primary reason why I (and I consider myself a liberal first and foremost) cannot support the current Labour leadership. Labour's always been a mix of liberals and socialists but in my opinion Corbyn is too far to the latter to ever unify the party behind his ideas.

There are more Labour members supporting Corbyn than there were Labour members total before Corbyn became leader.

Labour will never be unified as long as there is first past the post in the UK, and currently at least the left of the party dominates the membership. Any challenger to Corbyn at this point would depend on the support of the left of the party even more than during the last challenge.

Re: UK mass digital surveillance regime ruled unlawful

#28

Post by wjoe »

mabbo wrote: post #6

I know of very few British MPs, being a Canadian who watches occasionally British panel shows, but I do hear about Tom Watson fairly frequently and almost always for things I am in favor of. Now here he is championing the fight against mass surveillance as well. British folks: is this guy eventually going to replace Corbyn? He seems likeable enough to. And he has a sense of humor- the first time I heard of him was wh…

Watson is one of very few British politicians who seems to care about privacy, surveillance, and internet issues. He was also a big part of the "phone hacking" case against the Murdoch press. It's a shame we don't have more politicans like him. And it's not even a partisan issue - it doesn't surprise me that the Conservatives want to bring in more surveillance and internet laws, but even their biggest opponents on the left rarely oppose it.

>is this guy eventually going to replace Corbyn?

Not likely. He seems more of a background figure who does best focusing on the issues he cares about, and not so much of a leadership type. He's also more in the 'centre ground' of British politics, and has been quite critical of Corbyn over the past few years. It's likely that the next Labour leader would be someone with similar views to Corbyn.

Re: UK mass digital surveillance regime ruled unlawful

#30

Post by icebraining »

letsgetphysITal wrote: post #23
olavk wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Europe relies on US to spy on it's people so technically they are not spying on their own people. Where on earth did you get this idea? Are you suggesting European countries does not have police or intelligence agencies performing surveillance?

The Five-Eyes nations wholesale spy on each other and share the data they collect. They can't spy on their own populations, so they collect the data of foreign nations and then swap it for data on their own citizens. It's been widely known since... Hell, Echelon was "revealed" in the 90s?

In the late 80s, when Duncan Campbell wrote an exposition for the New Statesman: http://www.duncancampbell.org/menu/journalism/newstatesman/n...
Post reply on HN