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

UK intelligence forced to reveal secret policy for mass surveillance

privacyinternational.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 148 posts

Re: UK intelligence forced to reveal secret policy for mass surveillance

#81

Post by jiggy2011 »

madaxe_again wrote: post #20
Nursie wrote: post #7

The political silence on this issue is indeed deafening. As was the press silence (other than the Guardian). The press in this country are far more interested in reality tv, political infighting, fanning flames about 'immigrants' and what the royals are up to. And I suspect it's because most of the public don't care either. There are people who would like privacy, who think that GCHQ should be accountable and then th…

Don't forget about "the muslim problem" and the "international islamic conspiracy". I'm sorry to Godwin the thread, but it's pertinent. The push on "british values" (nationalism) and "preventing non-violent extremism" (such doublespeak) and "combatting islam" is fucking terrifying to anyone even vaguely familiar with the events that preceded the holocaust and the second world war. The surveillance state we find ourse…

Are you equating promotion of "british values" such as democracy,freedom,rule of law with nazism? Or am I misreading your argument?

Re: UK intelligence forced to reveal secret policy for mass surveillance

#83

Post by netcan »

Nursie wrote: post #7

The political silence on this issue is indeed deafening. As was the press silence (other than the Guardian). The press in this country are far more interested in reality tv, political infighting, fanning flames about 'immigrants' and what the royals are up to. And I suspect it's because most of the public don't care either. There are people who would like privacy, who think that GCHQ should be accountable and then th…

There are issues that people care about in theory, in books & political science courses and such and there are issues that people care about in practice.

In their political sphere, people care about their wealth (economy), their identity (nationalism, religion) & drama (political scandals). These are pretty constant. They are the bread and butter of politics and have ben since ancient time. When wealth decreases, identity is challenged or political drama whips the mob into a frenzy political instability ensues. So long as those are kept in check, political stability is hard to challenge.

If you look at most big stability events (eg the recent riots and protests in Greece), they relate to these. Wealth & political drama. The US banking crisis related to wealth (recession), drama (evolving doors) and identity (corporate welfarism).

Abstract ideas like freedom (of X), democracy, equality, privacy, justice, do not have political weight in their own right. To make them count politically they need to become one of the things that matter, bundled into the national mythology, people's identity.

The US for all their faults, have a genuinely principled foundational mythology/ideology. They can graft principles like privacy onto those making "privacy" into an identity issue. Government spying is offensive to Americans in the same way (though sadly not to the same degree) as a perceived islamization of the UK to the British. Most major political "principle" issues are really identity issues. That's why nationalism and religion are impossible to exorcise from politics.

Americans seem better positioned to put up a fight against this spying stuff than the rest of us because they already have government-skepticism built into their national identity. Europeans can build onto our 'enlightened" edentate though this is less wieldy. But ultimately I have a hard time believing that any of us will avoid being completely surveilled by several governments. There is too much momentum in that direction.

Re: UK intelligence forced to reveal secret policy for mass surveillance

#84

Post by sfjailbird »

pjc50 wrote: post #63
madaxe_again wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't forget about "the muslim problem" and the "international islamic conspiracy". I'm sorry to Godwin the thread, but it's pertinent. The push on "british values" (nationalism) and "preventing non-violent extremism" (such doublespeak) and "combatting islam" is fucking terrifying to anyone even vaguely familiar with the events that preceded the holocaust and the second world war. The surveillance state we find ourse…

There is certainly a slippery slope, but I think we need to recognise that there exist at least some organisations acting under the "Islamic" banner that are extraordinarily dangerous. 'ISIS' and 'Boko Haram' are the two most recent that come to mind. They already have a track record of mass execution of their enemies.

Those groups are horrible and dangerous but they exist only in their regional contexts and so are hardly relevant in the U.K. There are Muslims in the West that sympathize with them, but they are (a) in the minority, and (b) fools who couldn't organize themselves out of a wet paper bag. Get three of them together and the third forms a splinter group. Which is why the over-focus on them is sensationalist nonsense; you could find 'shocking' views similar to theirs by trawling local pubs.

Re: UK intelligence forced to reveal secret policy for mass surveillance

#85

Post by Nursie »

ZenPro wrote: post #78

Disclaimer : I worked as an intelligence analyst. 1. I am not in favour of widespread, unaccountable surveillance of UK citizens. 2. During my time we disrupted a number of exceptionally serious terrorist operations.[1] [2] are public knowledge and there are a few others that are not open source at this time. 3. Neither I, nor any of my colleagues, were instructed to keep any files on individuals to be used as politi…

>> In short; it's not all about you, your vote is worth exactly one other vote.

And how the hell am I supposed to know what I'm voting for?

This is the problem. There has been no discussion. There is no mandate from the public at large, it's all secret programs, secret laws and secret trials.

It's sick, and it's not democratic.

Re: UK intelligence forced to reveal secret policy for mass surveillance

#86

Post by pdkl95 »

duairc wrote: post #26
peterlawest wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I consider myself an educated, well-informed person, and I have no problem whatsoever with government surveillance. Like anything, it can be abused, but I don't think that outweighs the benefits. I think it's sad that it makes you 'angry' that some people simply disagree with you. We have a democracy, and obviously only a minority consider this to be an issue of concern. If you have a problem with it, stand for elect…

> We have a democracy, and obviously only a minority consider this to be an issue of concern. > > If you have a problem with it, stand for election. There must be a name for this kind of fallacy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-world_hypothesis

Re: UK intelligence forced to reveal secret policy for mass surveillance

#87

Post by borplk »

ZenPro wrote: post #78

Disclaimer : I worked as an intelligence analyst. 1. I am not in favour of widespread, unaccountable surveillance of UK citizens. 2. During my time we disrupted a number of exceptionally serious terrorist operations.[1] [2] are public knowledge and there are a few others that are not open source at this time. 3. Neither I, nor any of my colleagues, were instructed to keep any files on individuals to be used as politi…

Are we supposed to just take it from you that since in your time you or your colleagues were not instructed to keep info on individuals to be used later it is ok to let them do it?

anyone not involved in the Intelligence Community is just simply fumbling around in the dark trying to say what does and what does not happen because the government is keeping the curious people in the dark and that is exactly what and why we are fighting against.

Re: UK intelligence forced to reveal secret policy for mass surveillance

#88

Post by r0h1n »

Nursie wrote: post #7

The political silence on this issue is indeed deafening. As was the press silence (other than the Guardian). The press in this country are far more interested in reality tv, political infighting, fanning flames about 'immigrants' and what the royals are up to. And I suspect it's because most of the public don't care either. There are people who would like privacy, who think that GCHQ should be accountable and then th…

You nailed it. Why would politicians stick their necks out when their constituents - the British public - don't seem to care?

a. Why Surveillance Doesn’t Faze Britain [0]

b. Why the British like their spies [1]

[0] http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/09/opinion/why-do-brits-accep...

[1] http://blogs.ft.com/the-world/2013/11/why-the-british-like-t...

Re: UK intelligence forced to reveal secret policy for mass surveillance

#89

Post by skj »

jiggy2011 wrote: post #81
madaxe_again wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't forget about "the muslim problem" and the "international islamic conspiracy". I'm sorry to Godwin the thread, but it's pertinent. The push on "british values" (nationalism) and "preventing non-violent extremism" (such doublespeak) and "combatting islam" is fucking terrifying to anyone even vaguely familiar with the events that preceded the holocaust and the second world war. The surveillance state we find ourse…

Are you equating promotion of "british values" such as democracy,freedom,rule of law with nazism? Or am I misreading your argument?

I believe the GP was equating "British values" as a dogwhistle for racists, in the same way claiming you're a "real American" is in the US.

Re: UK intelligence forced to reveal secret policy for mass surveillance

#90

Post by chopin »

ZenPro wrote: post #78

Disclaimer : I worked as an intelligence analyst. 1. I am not in favour of widespread, unaccountable surveillance of UK citizens. 2. During my time we disrupted a number of exceptionally serious terrorist operations.[1] [2] are public knowledge and there are a few others that are not open source at this time. 3. Neither I, nor any of my colleagues, were instructed to keep any files on individuals to be used as politi…

One (amongst others) huge problem with this is: I need to take your word granted for it. I have no means whatsoever to check whether any of this is true. The Snowden revelations showed very clear that all regulatory control mechanisms in the USA failed. I'm pretty sure this is the case in UK and Germany (my home country) as well. In history we learned that where there is no oversight there will be misuse for sure. Sorry, but ubiquitous surveillance is far too intrusive to rely only on a word given.
Post reply on HN