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

121–130 of 148 posts

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

#121

Post by malandrew »

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…

    "During my time we disrupted a number of exceptionally 
    serious terrorist operations."
Why is this kind of work not law enforcement work instead of intelligence agency work?

It seems like the current policy is to reclassify many types of illegal activities as being in the same category as aggression by nation states even when only a handful of individuals domestically are involved, and that this reclassification is done for the purpose of sidestepping civil liberties protections.

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

#122

Post by samstave »

digitalengineer wrote: post #110
harshreality wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is there one (or a few) book(s)/article(s) that shaped your view on this (most of all the wealth, identity, drama triad)? I'd be interested in reading them.

"The Century of the Self" (BBC documentary by Adam Curtis) is a good start. It discusses the Self(image), nationalism, (mass)psychology and much, much more. http://vimeo.com/87419450

Then make sure you watch "Human Resources" to see how manipulated and unknowingly controlled most of Human society is.

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

#123

Post by edanm »

eevilspock wrote: post #52
edanm wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it really a fallacy? Part of democracy is accepting that you don't necessarily agree with everyone about everything, and you have to compromise.

Say you were born in 1850, but had the understanding about race and slavery that you do now. Slavery makes you angry (I'm assuming here) and you make an impassioned post about the evils of slavery. In reply you get, "We have a democracy, and obviously only a minority consider this to be an issue of concern." Is it "sad that it makes you 'angry' that some people simply disagree with you"? Is it ok to dismiss your ange…

I think if I were born in 1850, the right thing to do would be to try and convince other people of why I'm right about race and slavery.

Yes, part of democracy is accepting that some people will disagree with you. The right way to go is to either compromise or to convince them you're right. Incidentally, that's what actually happens most of the time.

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

#124

Post by edanm »

ionised wrote: post #44
edanm wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it really a fallacy? Part of democracy is accepting that you don't necessarily agree with everyone about everything, and you have to compromise.

When you have secret laws that protect secret proceedings or as we actually have now, agencies that operate in a legal black hole and are completely unaccountable then yes, the idea that this is somehow a democracy is comical.

As grkvlt has said, this isn't a black or white issue. We're not either a) a democracy or b) not a democracy, we're obviously more democratic in some areas and less so in others.

I agree that having secret proceedings, etc., is a big problem. But there are cases where they're necessary, or at least many people think so. Like it or not, changing the way things work now means gaining some things (e.g. more freedom, more transparency) but potentially giving some things up (some measure of security).

Some people might be willing to give up different measures of freedom for different measures of security - others will have different numbers. That's why, in a democracy, we either convince people or compromise with them.

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

#125

Post by disputin »

spingsprong wrote: post #25
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…

I suspect something much more mundane. Politicians love to shout about their successes. Only, this government hasn't really got any to shout about, so they're falling back to the old standby that all governments do in situations like this. Wave the flag and be proud to be British.

I don't see that - Cameron recently pointed out that he's a christian, and said that Britain is a christian country. He's bringing religion forward.

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

#126

Post by pling »

fit2rule wrote: post #76
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…

The biggest problem in the UK is: groupthink. The national identity is oriented around just how conformant and pliable an individual is, in relation to their peers, and thinking what everyone else thinks is, fundamentally, at the core of what it means to be an Englishman. Don't rock the boat, don't go outside the boundaries of 'acceptable society', and so on. Well, I'm sorry to say, but you English deserve your oppre…

British person here. Very astute observation.

However I'm the opposite. I kick off regularly at people for being that pliable and conformant. What do I get in return? I am shunned for possibly being contrarian, despite the logic being flawless and have put up with a lot of shit over the years despite being right 100% of the time. This country is slowly descending into hell.

Britain needs to look at war-torn Europe up to the late 1990's. It was a fucking mess. I mean a real mess. People sleep with an eye open still and everyone understands what nationalism and prejudice brings: death and suffering.

Britain sleeps with its eyes shut, its fingers in its ears and it's identity in everyone else's business.

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

#127

Post by ionised »

grkvlt wrote: post #100
ionised wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When you have secret laws that protect secret proceedings or as we actually have now, agencies that operate in a legal black hole and are completely unaccountable then yes, the idea that this is somehow a democracy is comical.

No. Just because one part of an organisation does not have a particular property, it does not negate that property for all other parts. The USA and UK are, quite obviously, democracies. There are free and fair secret elections for government in which anyone can vote, and anyone can stand for election as a candidate. That makes them democracies, the behaviour of their secret intelligence services is irrelevant. I worr…

> There are free and fair secret elections.

Sorry, but I'm going to have to call bullshit on this one.

Lobbying and uncapped campaign donations are tantamount to legalised bribery. The system is utterly corrupt.

Free they may be, but calling them fair is a gross misrepresentation in my opinion.

> I worry about the thought processes that must occur for people to think this; or similar things, like conflating an instance of some law enforcement department abusing its power with a totalitarian police state.

We're not saying it's a police state. We're saying it is becoming one because of the very tools that these agencies possess and abuse without accountability.

As an example, you've basically had a man (a criminal) James Clapper lie directly to congress knowingly and unabashedly. He's somehow still walking around, free and lol'ing at the general public he so joyously likes to mislead and scaremonger.

> I worry about the thought processes that must occur for people to think this; or similar things.

I honestly think the same of people who think that there is no problem here, nothing to worry about or even that it's a good thing. I honestly can't wrap my head around the immense wilfull ignorance some people seem to be displaying.

It makes me sad, angry and disgusted all at once.

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

#128

Post by aluhut »

peterlawest wrote: post #32
aluhut wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What are these benefits?

I believe it helps ensure security. I don't believe they'd bother doing it if it didn't. I think you're a bit arrogant for assuming they give a fuck what you write to your girlfriend on iMessages. I know you probably disagree with that, but this is my point - not everyone agrees that surveillance is bad. And I'm not alone - I think most people don't really care about surveillance. And this isn't a conspiracy - it's j…

So you don't know what those benefits exactly are or how should I interpret this?

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

#129

Post by ionised »

quasque wrote: post #111
ionised wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I believe it helps ensure security. Your beliefs are wrong, as we have been shown that this mass surveillance has failed to prevent even one terrorist attack since its inception. Couple that with the immense amount of (wasted) tax payer money it costs to run and you've got a disgusting abuse of power and resources in exchange for the mere illusion of security to those who fail to actually do the research required t…

> Your beliefs are wrong, as we have been shown that this mass surveillance has failed to prevent even one terrorist attack since its inception. We don't actually know this. Mass surveillance may have led to 'extrajudicial' methods of thwarting terrorist attacks, i.e. death squads or drone killings. Or when cases of terrorist plots have been taken to trial, its use could have been masked by parallel construction of e…

You could be right.

I'm just not sure how much 'we can't reveal that due to national security concerns' is going to fly as an excuse anymore.

Far too many shady things can be covered up under that umbrella.

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

#130

Post by digitalengineer »

samstave wrote: post #122
digitalengineer wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"The Century of the Self" (BBC documentary by Adam Curtis) is a good start. It discusses the Self(image), nationalism, (mass)psychology and much, much more. http://vimeo.com/87419450

Then make sure you watch "Human Resources" to see how manipulated and unknowingly controlled most of Human society is.

Found it. "The driving force in society is not love, but fear". It's on Youtube, but it's from this site: http://metanoia-films.org/films/
Post reply on HN