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

UK-US surveillance regime was unlawful ‘for seven years’

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 65 posts

Re: UK-US surveillance regime was unlawful ‘for seven years’

#41

Post by PlzSnow »

thatsjustcrazy wrote: post #36
matthewmacleod wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Conspiracy theorist me says we should expect another "act of terrorism" on the UK mainland. This government needs to bolster its control, as they did in Australia, France and Canada. After every attack, the direct effect is that politicians start looking for ways to spin that into invasions of privacy and liberty. Every god damn time. I appreciate that you prefixed this, but are you really implying that the recent at…

Guess you've never heard of Operation Gladio. Yes, these things have happened and will continue to happen. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Gladio

I'm trying to understand your logic. You are saying that because one conspiracy was perhaps true, then this conspiracy is true? That is the logic that my toddler uses.

Re: UK-US surveillance regime was unlawful ‘for seven years’

#42

Post by PlzSnow »

matthewmacleod wrote: post #5
junto wrote: post #3

Whilst I applaud the ruling, I doubt it will make much of difference. The British government simply uses extensions to the "temporary" Terrorism Act 2000 and its modifications in 2001, 2005, 2006 and 2008 and/or RIPA. I'm getting a bit tired of politicians standing up in the House of Common's, stating we need a "temporary" act to reduce liberty and privacy under the guise of terrorism, only to extend the rulings inde…

Conspiracy theorist me says we should expect another "act of terrorism" on the UK mainland. This government needs to bolster its control, as they did in Australia, France and Canada. After every attack, the direct effect is that politicians start looking for ways to spin that into invasions of privacy and liberty. Every god damn time. I appreciate that you prefixed this, but are you really implying that the recent at…

"are you really implying that the recent attacks in France were planned by the government? Or that the 7/7 bombings in London were?"

Welcome to Hacker New, where a sizeable proportion of the readership actually believe this stuff. Also, the NSA read and store everything you do on the Internet.

However, the discussions on technology issues are of a very high standard, which is why many of us are here.

Re: UK-US surveillance regime was unlawful ‘for seven years’

#43

Post by thatsjustcrazy »

PlzSnow wrote: post #41
thatsjustcrazy wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Guess you've never heard of Operation Gladio. Yes, these things have happened and will continue to happen. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Gladio

I'm trying to understand your logic. You are saying that because one conspiracy was perhaps true, then this conspiracy is true? That is the logic that my toddler uses.

Try reading. Maybe you'll understand. Although that seems unlikely.

Re: UK-US surveillance regime was unlawful ‘for seven years’

#44

Post by ed_blackburn »

One presumes that the court doesn't deems there's been a serious criminal action here. More the status quo isn't legal. I'd like to know if this means the current actions will stop. When? If the government will fight it. Or legislate around it? There needs to be an official response from someone will real authority. It's been judged as illegal...so what next?

Re: UK-US surveillance regime was unlawful ‘for seven years’

#45

Post by ch215 »

The way this same story has been spun by the BBC worries me.

You'd think the news line has to be, as the Guardian and others are reporting, GCHQ mass Internet surveillance was 'unlawful'.

The Beeb did go with 'unlawful' in their original headline but the story has since been watered down with sheer wordiness.

'Unlawlful' now appears in the tenth paragraph, below an analysis panel, and is only then included in a quotation from a campaign group.

Nowhere in the article does the BBC succinctly say a tribunal held that GCHQ breached human rights law. It simply says the agency is now complaint (without saying that it was not for seven years).

To me at least, it seems the BBC is becoming less of a public-service broadcaster and more of a state one.

-- GCHQ censured over sharing of internet surveillance data with US http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-31164451

Re: UK-US surveillance regime was unlawful ‘for seven years’

#46

Post by morsch »

DanBC wrote: post #34
xyzzy123 wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're being downvoted unfairly IMHO. I'm against the status quo, but the people in these organisations tend to believe they're doing the right thing. They're not scofflaws, but they are isolated and insulated. There are a lot of legal exemptions for agencies, but they are well aware they're not above the law. The public scrutiny will create genuine headaches for them, and I can guarantee you right now that there are…

> but the people in these organisations tend to believe they're doing the right thing. They're not scofflaws, but they are isolated and insulated. I agree. They think they're following UK law. Here's an article from Grauniad which supports that: http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2013/jun/21/legal-loopholes-gc... > The briefings, which are entitled UK Operational Legalities, stress that GCHQ "is an organisation with a hig…

The mob also has well staffed legal teams to help their staff navigate through the complexities of the law.

It's easy to keep the appearance of following the law when you're a secret organisation on a mission, with little public oversight. And unlike organised crime, intelligence services don't have to rely on blackmail to get a direct line to the executive and legislation.

Admit to the stuff that's legal, make the stuff that's borderline a political issue, make excuses for the stuff that was illegal then retroactively legalise it, all the while relying on the bottom end of the iceberg being secret for long enough that you've got time to destroy the evidence or nobody cares anymore.

I'm sure that's how it works, it's not even malicious, it's just tribalism. It's why we institute transparency and accountability in most other places. Give your local library enough funding and remove all the oversight and in 10 years it'll have a bunch of skeletons in the closet and a "well staffed legal team to help them navigate their way through the complexities of the law."

Re: UK-US surveillance regime was unlawful ‘for seven years’

#47

Post by chriswarbo »

socksy wrote: post #20
matthewmacleod wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Conspiracy theorist me says we should expect another "act of terrorism" on the UK mainland. This government needs to bolster its control, as they did in Australia, France and Canada. After every attack, the direct effect is that politicians start looking for ways to spin that into invasions of privacy and liberty. Every god damn time. I appreciate that you prefixed this, but are you really implying that the recent at…

It's not so much that such an attack would be created by the government (which if that's what GP is saying, then I utterly agree with you). It's more what's done after the attack — painting it as a terrorist attack in the first place, then arguing that it like all terrorist attacks could have been prevented if intelligence were more powerful, etc. I found it very interesting recently that the BBC has decided to stop…

> I found it very interesting recently that the BBC has decided to stop using the word "terrorism" to report these attacks[1], and I hope that this will lead to a more nuanced argument over different events.

I agree that the "terrorist" label has become far too common. It's become so ridiculous that the BBC apparently considers "not terrorism" to be newsworthy, eg. from the first page of '"not terrorism" site:bbc.co.uk':

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-30826554 - Arson != terrorism

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18725577 - Electronic cigarettes != terrorism

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-30423481 - Death threats != terrorism

The most interesting article in those results is the following:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/322301.stm - Nail bomb in London market != terrorism

That last one's from 1999, and provides a stark contrast. It's from a time when our home-grown terrorism mainly came from an organised guerilla army, who's achievements included blowing up government conferences. This kind of opportunistic maiming must have seemed inept in comparison.

It's interesting that the British terrorist attacks so far this millenium (7/7, Woolwich, etc.) are more akin to that "non-terrorist" nail bombing than to, for example, 9/11 or the Brighton Hotel bombing.

Re: UK-US surveillance regime was unlawful ‘for seven years’

#48

Post by appleflaxen »

ch215 wrote: post #45

The way this same story has been spun by the BBC worries me. You'd think the news line has to be, as the Guardian and others are reporting, GCHQ mass Internet surveillance was 'unlawful'. The Beeb did go with 'unlawful' in their original headline but the story has since been watered down with sheer wordiness. 'Unlawlful' now appears in the tenth paragraph, below an analysis panel, and is only then included in a quota…

That's a great point.

About the only thing you can do is call them on it in social media; tell them you are paying attention:

  @BBC why won't you use the word "illegal" or "unlawful" in the headline? 
  This is far bigger than censure.

Re: UK-US surveillance regime was unlawful ‘for seven years’

#49

Post by [deleted] »

ch215 wrote: post #45

The way this same story has been spun by the BBC worries me. You'd think the news line has to be, as the Guardian and others are reporting, GCHQ mass Internet surveillance was 'unlawful'. The Beeb did go with 'unlawful' in their original headline but the story has since been watered down with sheer wordiness. 'Unlawlful' now appears in the tenth paragraph, below an analysis panel, and is only then included in a quota…

[deleted]

Re: UK-US surveillance regime was unlawful ‘for seven years’

#50

Post by username »

PlzSnow wrote: post #42
matthewmacleod wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Conspiracy theorist me says we should expect another "act of terrorism" on the UK mainland. This government needs to bolster its control, as they did in Australia, France and Canada. After every attack, the direct effect is that politicians start looking for ways to spin that into invasions of privacy and liberty. Every god damn time. I appreciate that you prefixed this, but are you really implying that the recent at…

"are you really implying that the recent attacks in France were planned by the government? Or that the 7/7 bombings in London were?" Welcome to Hacker New, where a sizeable proportion of the readership actually believe this stuff . Also, the NSA read and store everything you do on the Internet. However, the discussions on technology issues are of a very high standard, which is why many of us are here.

> Also, the NSA read and store everything you do on the Internet.

For the vast majority of internet users, this is true.

Clarification: Maybe not actually read as most people understand the term, but collect, store, and analyze.

Post reply on HN