Surveillance and the state: this way the debate goes on
Citizens of free countries are entitled to protect their privacy against the state. The state has a duty to protect free speech as well as security. Fundamental rights, as we say, collide. Journalists have a duty to inform and facilitate a debate and to help test the consent of people about the nature of any trade-offs between civil liberties and security. A democratic government should seek to protect and nourish that debate, not threaten it or stamp it out.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/23/surveillance-state-debate-goes-on/print
445 comments.
![]()
Sachaflashman Sachaflashmanhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_surveillance#European_Union
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j73fUo-0oLk
![]()
Sachaflashman Sachaflashmanhttp://www.spiegel.de/international/world/eu-weakened-data-protection-laws-ahead-of-prism-spy-program-a-905520.html
![]()
DavidPSummers"To date, there has been a vigorous discussion on these matters in the US and European legislatures and media."
I have been surprised at the number of people here who seem much more interested in railing against the US than talking about what they should demand of their own government. I know it is a popular pastime around here, but it appears to me to extend to the point of giving their government a pass on this issue (in spite of the fact that it is a conservative one).
![]()
JGrossman DavidPSummersI have been surprised at the number of people here who seem much more interested in railing against the US than talking about what they should demand of their own government.
Much easier to bash the never-to-be-suffciently-damned USA than ask the hard questions.
Jake G
![]()
UnevenSurface DavidPSummersI have been one of the US-bashers (well, NSA-bashers and US Government-bashers to be precise), so it is most embarrassing to see that the Guardian has to move its reporting of this vital issue off shore - to the US, to be precise - in order to continue.
But will the people of the US rally to the Constitution's defence? After all, they let the 4th Amendment go with hardly a murmur. It seems that the 2nd Amendment is the only part with organised support.
![]()
![]()
MarcusMoore MajorGeekI wouldn't go quite that far. Politicians are fond of fobbing us off with that 'we welcome the debate' line. I take that as NewSpeak for 'you're welcome to express your doubts about our appalling behaviour, but nothing is actually going to change.'
I'm not a vengeful person, but, in return for their handing out 35-year prison sentences to whistleblowers, I would be more than pleased to see some of the rulers of our so-called democracies facing charges of treason for their betrayal of the people they are supposed to be serving.
![]()
jessthecrip MajorGeekYes agreed - and I don't always think much of G editorials.
But it's absolutely shameful that the Guardian has had to offshore its reporting of the NSA/GCHQ situation. An exceptionally bad day, out of many bad days, for British democracy. Let's hope some good will come out of all this.
![]()
![]()
LohmannRecommend131"The public functionaries are not, as is commonly believed, the guardians of order. Order, which is harmony, doesn't need guardians, precisely because it is order. That which needs guardians is disorder and a disorder which is scandalous, shameful, and humiliating to those of us who weren't born to be slaves, a disorder which reigns over the political and social life of humanity.
"To maintain disorder, that is, to maintain political and social inequality, to maintain the privileges of the ruling class and the submission of the ruled, that is why governments, laws, policemen, soldiers, jailers, judges, hangmen, and the whole mob of high and petty functionaries who suck the energies of the humble people are needed. These functionaries don't exist to protect humanity, but to maintain its submission, to keep it enslaved for the benefit of those who have contrived to retain the land and the factories for themselves up to this moment."
--Ricardo Flores Magon (1911)
![]()
![]()
taxhaven LohmannThey've got their knickers all in a knot over "freedom of the press" and "spying" but they're not so supportive of financial privacy, the protection of private property or the sanctity of privately-agreed-to contracts, are they?
It's the nature of the state - and the submissiveness of the 'citizen':
http://www.acting-man.com/?p=25505
![]()
Unmanned DroneBetter late than never Guardian, and still falling unfortunately short. Snowden now knows what fate awaits him, after witnessing the disgraceful end to Bradley Manning`s kangaroo court, and therefore the time for bobbing and weaving is blatantly pointless. Michael Hastings was on the money in saying this
Not only journalists are needed to defend freedom of speech, everyone that cares about it is needed. I`ve said it before, it`s now common knowledge everything we say is saved and stored for lord knows what into the future, so why hold back now.
![]()
Sachaflashman Unmanned DroneRecommend106Well said. It is a true DISGRACE that not a single European country was prepared to offer Snowden sanctuary ! So much for freedom and "European values".
Why do European countries take in the oppressed and endangered from all over the world...but not a whistleblower who was brave enough to show the "free world" the dangers that we all face ?
Is it merely ironic or just unashamably hypocritical ?
![]()
MajorGeek SachaflashmanThat's mostly because EU officials are on US payroll, either from Langley of JP Morgan. Look it up, it is public knowledge.
![]()
kingcreosoteWhat has become apparent is the state and its neoliberal cronies are above the law only peasants are to be prosecuted for the most minor misdemeanors so as to keep them in their place.
![]()
100qindarka kingcreosoteYou mean peasants like Rebecca Brooks, Greig Box Turnbull, Graham Dudman and Andy Coulson among others?
![]()
GreenKnighht kingcreosoteDomestic surveillance occurs in Communist states too, there is nothing neoliberal about it.
Domestic surveillance and the spying on loyal citizens of loyal allies is not the the liberalism/socialism axis -- it is on the libertarian/totalitarian axis.
![]()
IronCurtainThe first amendment of the American constitution guarantees its press protections of which British editors can only dream
how shit is it to live in CCTV land?
![]()
Nihilistoffhismeds92Citizens of free countries are entitled to protect their privacy against the state. The state has a duty to protect free speech as well as security. Fundamental rights, as we say, collide.
I agree.
However, it is alarming how many would give up their rights in a futile quest for security from the ever-present specter of terroristic buggy men.
Heymat, looking over his shoulder for the next knock on his door.
![]()
kingcreosoteThis publications favorite pin up boy sees nothing wrong with our liberties being destroyed in the name of liberalism even the g must see at least the irony if not the complete contradiction in its support for the neoliberals.
![]()
Canamerica kingcreosoteLet's hope that G extrapolates what they learn from this to that and gets a clue.
![]()
Sickbag kingcreosoteI notice this publication has closed comments on Cleggs little piece of hypocrisy on their pages today, looks like 190 people weighed in to tell him what they thought in the space of 30 minutes, then they shut it down, The Guardian as as full of shit as Nick Clegg
![]()
lindalusardiSo ironic that David Cameron complains about the photos on the beach
Privacy? It's funny how karma works
![]()
showmasterThere may have been "vigorous discussion" but until the current Indy lead story, I cannot recall the IPCC threatening legal action against the Met over Schedule 7 being reported before.
Why has it taken the Miranda fiasco, suspiciously like a sting set up by Greenwald, to expose this disgrace? Why has it taken two separate threats of legal action against the Met by IPCC for the public to be alerted by the press?
If the Met has been regularly stopping tens of thousands of people in transit under Schedule 7 and has set KPI's for the number of stops we have travelled a long way down the road to our own Stasi state already.
![]()
EbbTide64They should need a separate court order, based upon an individual suspicion of illegality, for each person. Then they can get access to that person's private data, or at least the bits that the court order allows them to see.
And laws should be debated in public, so that my elected representative gets a chance to ask questions and raise concerns. I'd rather put up with a slightly higher risk of a terror attack, in return for the state getting it's nose out of my private business. If they can't make the law in public, then don't make it at all - governments shouldn't have secrets from the electorate.
The cure has become worse than the illness, and that requires quite drastic action, in my view. If the government have nothing to hide, they have nothing to fear from absolutely transparent government, do they?
![]()
HowardBeale EbbTide64'I'd rather put up with a slightly higher risk of a terror attack, in return for the state getting it's nose out of my private business.'
Absolutely. Too much of this 'debate' is skewed toward the infantile yearning for absolute protection. The threat is hyped way beyond reality so that these creeps can mis-sell us 'protection' when their aim is absolute control.
![]()
100qindarka EbbTide64They should need a separate court order, based upon an individual suspicion of illegality, for each person. Then they can get access to that person's private data, or at least the bits that the court order allows them to see.
And while they're applying for a court order the next Mr Miranda would likely be detained for considerably longer than 9 hours.
![]()
GrichRecommend126This is a chilling quote taken from the book "They Thought They Were Free" by Milton Mayer, about life in Nazi Germany:
"What no one seemed to notice," said a colleague of mine, a philologist, "was the ever widening gap, after 1933, between the government and the people. Just think how very wide this gap was to begin with, here in Germany. And it became always wider. You know, it doesn’t make people close to their government to be told that this is a people’s government, a true democracy, or to be enrolled in civilian defense, or even to vote. All this has little, really nothing, to do with knowing one is governing.
"What happened here was the gradual habituation of the people, little by little, to being governed by surprise; to receiving decisions deliberated in secret; to believing that the situation was so complicated that the government had to act on information which the people could not understand, or so dangerous that, even if the people could not understand it, it could not be released because of national security. And their sense of identification with Hitler, their trust in him, made it easier to widen this gap and reassured those who would otherwise have worried about it.
"This separation of government from people, this widening of the gap, took place so gradually and so insensibly, each step disguised (perhaps not even intentionally) as a temporary emergency measure or associated with true patriotic allegiance or with real social purposes. And all the crises and reforms (real reforms, too) so occupied the people that they did not see the slow motion underneath, of the whole process of government growing remoter and remoter.
"To live in this process is absolutely not to be able to notice it—please try to believe me—unless one has a much greater degree of political awareness, acuity, than most of us had ever had occasion to develop. Each step was so small, so inconsequential, so well explained or, on occasion, ‘regretted,’ that, unless one were detached from the whole process from the beginning, unless one understood what the whole thing was in principle, what all these ‘little measures’ that no ‘patriotic German’ could resent must some day lead to, one no more saw it developing from day to day than a farmer in his field sees the corn growing. One day it is over his head.
"You see," my colleague went on, "one doesn’t see exactly where or how to move. Believe me, this is true. Each act, each occasion, is worse than the last, but only a little worse. You wait for the next and the next. You wait for one great shocking occasion, thinking that others, when such a shock comes, will join with you in resisting somehow. You don’t want to act, or even talk, alone; you don’t want to ‘go out of your way to make trouble.’ Why not?—Well, you are not in the habit of doing it. And it is not just fear, fear of standing alone, that restrains you; it is also genuine uncertainty.
"But the one great shocking occasion, when tens or hundreds or thousands will join with you, never comes. That’s the difficulty. If the last and worst act of the whole regime had come immediately after the first and smallest, thousands, yes, millions would have been sufficiently shocked—if, let us say, the gassing of the Jews in ’43 had come immediately after the ‘German Firm’ stickers on the windows of non-Jewish shops in ’33. But of course this isn’t the way it happens. In between come all the hundreds of little steps, some of them imperceptible, each of them preparing you not to be shocked by the next. Step C is not so much worse than Step B, and, if you did not make a stand at Step B, why should you at Step C? And so on to Step D.
"And one day, too late, your principles, if you were ever sensible of them, all rush in upon you. The burden of self-deception has grown too heavy, and some minor incident, in my case my little boy, hardly more than a baby, saying ‘Jewish swine,’ collapses it all at once, and you see that everything, everything, has changed and changed completely under your nose. The world you live in—your nation, your people—is not the world you were born in at all. The forms are all there, all untouched, all reassuring, the houses, the shops, the jobs, the mealtimes, the visits, the concerts, the cinema, the holidays. But the spirit, which you never noticed because you made the lifelong mistake of identifying it with the forms, is changed. Now you live in a world of hate and fear, and the people who hate and fear do not even know it themselves; when everyone is transformed, no one is transformed. Now you live in a system which rules without responsibility even to God. The system itself could not have intended this in the beginning, but in order to sustain itself it was compelled to go all the way."
![]()
![]()
Sachaflashman GrichChilling !
I am sorry to have to say it but it really does remind me a lot of how the EU forced the Lisbon Treaty through after the EU Constitution had been voted down by the French and Dutch. No, I am NOT comparing Brussels to the Third Reich !“Public opinion will be led to adopt, without knowing it, the proposals that we dare not present to them directly … All the earlier proposals will be in the new text, but will be hidden and disguised in some way.”
(Former French President V.Giscard D’Estaing on the Lisbon Treaty, Le Monde, 14 June 2007).
_______
![]()
RupertBHSo Google is getting paid millions to spy on us. "Do as much evil as possible and get paid as much as possible for it". That seems to be their principal principle.
The sooner we can have an alternative to Google and tell the thieving immoral fascism faciliatators to go screw themselves the better. Bring on a boycott of Google. If the consumer is "king", then the consumer should tell google where to go.
![]()
BruceMullingerWhy in a democracy should the state keep anything secret from its citizens? Currently, the biggest threat to a free and open society is political correctness which is a muzzle on the truth and gives those who wish to weaken us the latitude to do so. Ditto anti-discrimination laws for there is often a practical need to discriminate and it is an inherent human trait and a basic human right naturally balanced by basic human decency. Social engineering, to the detriment of most, is the growth industry of those who presume to know best.
![]()
zionysusi won't trust them whatever decisions or laws come out of these revelations.
"if you've done nothing wrong then you have nothing to fear", to paraphrase our govt. head of war mongering, who has more blood on his hands than i care to think about, which makes you wonder, so what is "wrong", if the slaughter of innocents in the pursuit of hegemony is fine. wrong must therefore mean opposing it in some fashion. scary, as they hoover up anything that takes their fancy.
the great irony is, 99.99...% of what they get is everyday rubbish (and your passwords, bank details, histories... if you don't use encryption), while any serious activists will take to linux, tor networs, https everywhere... and won't do any serious emailing thru Google etc.
![]()
GreenKnighht zionysusIt is rubbish until they want to know it.
Want to know who has a particular make of gun? If they bought it or discussed it on the web it will be there in their growing databases.
That they can do now. What about 20 years from now?
Want to know which 38 year-old political candidates smoked up marijuana when they were 18, they'll know that.
Want to stuff on that pesky (say) linguistics professor, they'll be able to look up and find out something like, perhaps 20 years ago he had a Russian girl friend.
Or posted an forum comment supporting Tony Blair or Henry Kissinger, or some other person later recognized as a villain against humanity.
Then you get the personal profiteering.
There is money to be made doing inside trading. Look at the KGB's alumni and their massive wealth and power.
![]()
andiaziExcellent editorial.
I am still amazed that any part of the "mainstream" media is actually contributing to the possibility of a better world. The Guardian continues to not only fight for all of us but apparently fighting with skill too.
What a moment in human history! Manning, Snowden, Greenwald, Poitras and the Guardian. These are names that will be remembered for as long as the human race survives its own "success".
![]()
taxhaven andiaziDon't praise this rag too highly or quickly:
This is the same statist Guardian that defends the redistributive social welfare state. The same Guardian that lobbies for imposed minimum wages and "living wages", thus neutering property rights. The very same one that opposes financial privacy at every turn, that presumes to order owners of capital to spend their funds rather than save them and that thinks wanting to keep one's own money out of the clutches of government is somehowwrong...
The Guardian will willingly and eagerly accede to the violent confiscation of an individual's money & labour IF it serves 'needy' causes and 'needy' clients of the state...all in the Holy name of "Fairness and Equality"...
They really have no commitment to individual civil liberties. It's all in service to government.
![]()
Donald McNabA good editorial, in terms of summarising the situation to date. But what about the adage " Publish and be damned"? Release the whole of Snowden's cache. If you're too intimidated to do it, lose it on a bus and let Anonymous or someone find it.
![]()
GreenKnighht Donald McNabIf it all came out at once it would be too much for people to examine.
When people came along to analyze it later and report on the consequences the supporters of domestic espionage and spying on friendly nations would say, "Oh, that's old hat, we've known that for years."
True, some people say "we've known about that for decades" even about new programs and new phases of programs only a couple of years old, but generally that comes from sheeple not wanting to discuss the issue, not the spy masters and their elected political supporters.
![]()
TimJag Donald McNabThat was Prime Minister Wellington that said that - he was a blowhard and a bit of an arse.
![]()
ewelthorpeI don’t think we can expect much in the way of challenge or debate from
Members of Parliament, the keepers of our democracy. Most are so silent they are likely:
i) compromised in some way by the capture of their own communications
ii) have vested interests in the security service/status quo
iii) careerists towing party line/lack of it
iv) coasting to retirement/deselection/losing seat
v) fancy cultivating a consultancy in security issues
Some even May think
vi) the security services should know everything about everyone anyway
What a mess, what shall we do?![]()
GreenKnighht ewelthorpeMy fear is that we're already at the point where (i) applies to most prominent people.
![]()
taxhavenThanks to Edward Snowden, the world now has a debate about the dramatic change in the contract between state and citizen
I never signed any contract with any state and, without that agreement, all government becomes an imposition on inherently free individuals.
It's the height of hubris for the same people who extol the supposed virtues of thieving social welfare states to the skies to be harrumphing in indignation about mere spying by the hand that feeds them.
![]()
discuzDianne Feinstein -)- cheerleader
Haha. Can I have some mind-bleach now, please?
Great editorial!
![]()
nn8275
There should be no trade-off. Freedom is a fundamental right. Security is a nice to have. It's not fundamental in the same sense as freedom because without freedom there will never be no real security.Fundamental rights, as we say, collide. Journalists have a duty to inform and facilitate a debate and to help test the consent of people about the nature of any trade-offs between civil liberties and security.
![]()
DestinyDisrupted nn8275There should be no trade-off. Freedom is a fundamental right. Security is a nice to have. It's not fundamental in the same sense as freedom because without freedom there will never be no real security.
Whilst the sentiment is noble, you appear to misunderstand what the state, social instutitions, society, law is for. It exists for security of society and the individuals in society. That's why it emerged. Study back all through history, paying particular attention to the concept of the nation state that emerged as a consequence of the 30 years War in Germany. "Freedom", a nebulous and hard to define concept is a very late bolt on. Not saying I wish to swap freedom for utter safety or anything like wise. But I think you have your horse before your cart there.
And, by the way, one could quite as cogently argue "without security there will never be any real freedom". So I'm afraid your paragraph is wiffle.
And there's a double negative. But will not bother correcting that.
![]()
DestinyDisrupted DestinyDisruptedThe question is not "freedom" versus "security" but "how much freedom, how much security?". My freedom to rape and kill is not more worthy than your security to not be raped, and not be killed. Contrariwise, your security from shock and embarrassment doesn't trump my ability to say what I like. Your freedom to hold beliefs doesn't trump my ability to challenge those beliefs. And so forth.
The point is where we find the balance, as a society, and how we ensure that that balance is policed and the police are policed.
I'll hazard a guess that most people are - actually - a deal closer to the NSA view of the world than you or I, by the way. But one doesn't win them over with adamantine principles which brook no challenge, one wins them over by winning the debate. Simply shouting "FREEDOM" doesn't do it, unless you are an anachronistic rendering of William Wallace in woad.
![]()
DestinyDisrupted DestinyDisruptedAnd furthermore, one final point, you are having this discussion because of the security the state brings. Oh, I don't mean the vapid "we could be invaded/we are fighting terrorists" nonsense, I mean on the deeper level - you live in a society of laws enacted by the state. What stops Rupert Murdoch marching his armed militia down to Guardian Towers and burning it to the ground is the existence of the state and the laws that empower the state, that the state is bound to uphold, and that give us the security to enjoy our freedom.
You disagree with the current laws around "security" and "terror"? Fine. I tend to, likewise. Then work to change them. You believe arms of the state have overstepped their boundaries? Fine. Then work to rein them in and institute legislation and oversight to keep them within their boundaries.
But drop the nonsensical idea that "security" is a luxury. Without a secure society, freedom is the luxury of the powerful. With a secure society, freedom becomes the privilege of all.
![]()
translated
Thank you, Guardian, for saying this. Despite the trauma of the internet revolution there's a very old idea of the purpose of the press at work here. Tremendously reassuring.It is not the role of politicians or civil servants to determine the limits of public discussion.
So reassuring, in fact, that you can link to five cat videos or one article about Justin Bieber from the front page in the next month and I promise not to complain.
![]()
Sickbag translatedYet the Guardian are quite happy to determine the limits of discussion when comments on Nick Cleggs pathetic article are challenging towards him, by shutting them down, a tad hypocritical dont you think?
![]()
steverandomnoThere is almost no reporting or discussion about the recent surveillance revelations on the north american TV networks. It is quite notable by it's absence. They are generally preoccupied with trivial events.
![]()
GreenKnighht steverandomnoAnd that includes here in Canada -- nada, nothing, no debate.
There is reporting on the personalities -- entertainment "journalism" -- sports "journalism" -- but on the issues of surveillance, reporting is extremely thin and generally skips most of the NSA revelations or downplays them.
We get TV talking heads whose careers come from narcissism complaining about reclusive Snowden being a narcissist, but he only seems so because these talking heads are afraid to talk about the real issues because it might upset the powers that be, so the TV talking heads choose to talk about Snowden instead. Entertainment journalists, no better than marketers for TV and movies.
![]()
![]()
raulbApart from the Guardian, the UK press, even the 'fiercely' liberal blogs have been curiously silent.
Apparently a DNote was issued, the question is is that all it takes to shut down the press in the UK, the champion of freedom and liberty apparently everywhere but at home?
On what basis do we take the BBC or the Home office seriously the next time it goes whining about freedom, dissidents, whistle blowers or any freedom issues around the world?
Nick Clegg, the leader of a party that now seems comically named Liberal Democrats was waffling on liberty just today. Its like Dawkins telling an atheists conference that god exists.
*Stasi boots - check
*Newspaper office - check
*Incendiary material to destroy - check
*Extreme Paranoia - check
*Identify crisis - check
*Global disgust - ????![]()
ballymichael raulbYes, there's a DA-Note in effect since June. And the Guardian has been in breach of that DA-Note
(for reasons of legitimate public interest, obviously).
There's no automatic sanction for breaching a DA-Notice. It's a voluntary system.
![]()
poohbcarrot"It is, we believe, inconceivable that the US government would try to obtain, or the US court grant, an injunction against publication by the NYT."
It was, I believed, inconceivable that the US/UK would be found to be spying on everyone.
It was, I believed, inconceivable for the plane of the Bolivian head of state to be subjected to state-sponsored air-piracy.
It was, I believed, inconceivable for David Miranda and the Guardian to be blatantly intimidated.I'm sorry, but nothing in this whole farce is inconceivable anymore!
![]()
JaitcHJust to think that people of the 'calibre' of May or Hague determine what the spooks and GCHQ can do.
Both are unfit for office. Not that Cameron is much better, either.
![]()
GreenKnighht JaitcHOr, to be fair, their Labour Party predecessors.
It does not matter which party is in power, such spying is as unacceptable under the Conservatives as it was under Labour.
![]()
100qindarka JaitcHJust to think that people of the 'calibre' of May or Hague determine what the spooks and GCHQ can do.
But surely the detention of Mr Miranda demonstrates the complete opposite, that GCHQ / Immigration Officers set the agenda and detain tens of thousands and then in a tiny number of cases, like that of Mr Miranda, seek the approval of the Home and Foreign Secretaries.
Further I suspect that the vast majority of people detained and interviewed at ports of entry had no idea that this was happening under the provision of Schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act, rather than part of the normal run of questioning that goes on when both UK nationals and non-nationals present themselves at immigration control.
![]()
Brightonian JaitcHMr Snowden gave this newspaper a volume of documents from his role as one of 850,000 intelligence employees cleared to read and analyse top-secret material.
With that many people involved, I would imagine it's pretty easy to let May and Hague think they determine what's going on but to make their own decisions.
And how many other "Snowdens" are there who were quietly distributing this information to the "enemy" and not the press? If they didn't know about Snowden it's unlikely they'd spot others. It seems they've got a bit too big to have any hope of future security.
![]()
TheKingofArmleyOn the 50th anniversary of Martin Luther King's famous March I wonder whether those achievements based solidly in 'community organisation' could be replicated in today's surveillance society.
If the answer is anything but Yes then we have already arrived in a kind of Orwellian future. However, on the bright side, we will make great, supplicant workers for China.
Damn, there goes my future prospects.
![]()
Sailesh Rao"Lamentably, it is an historical fact that privileged groups seldom give up their privileges voluntarily. Individuals may see the moral light and voluntarily give up their unjust posture; but, as Reinhold Niebuhr has reminded us, groups tend to be more immoral than individuals." - Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr.
The NSA and GCHQ will give up their Global Peeping Tom privileges, kicking and screaming...
![]()
BunchaTuesdaysSuperb editorial.
The majority of ordinary people in the world given a voice would want nothing to do with the ruling class and their corparatist agenda.
We don't vote for war, we don't vote for "full take" surveillance, we don't vote for our civil liberties and human rights to be taken away from us, we don't vote for secret laws and courts, we don't vote for inequality, we don't vote for environmental devastation, we don't vote for any of the dysfunction foisted upon us.
I cannot begin to fathom why those who seek to govern us are never satisfied with the wealth power and influence they have, it is never enough, and some seem hell bent on having it all, by any means necessary, with no guilt shame or remorse.
Orwell's 1984 seems to have been adopted as a blueprint by those in power, it's absolutely chilling how close we are to the reality he was warning us about.
Thanks to Edward Snowden, Glenn Greenwald and the Guardian (and all the unsung heros) we have had a deafening wake up call, and let's hope we the majority can take this opportunity to hold our "leaders" to account for their abuse of our trust privacy and freedom.
![]()
Grich BunchaTuesdaysIt's quite simple. it's because the people at the top, in charge of the world are psychopaths (sociopaths): People with no conscience or empathy. According to some estimates as many as 1 in 25 of the population are psychopaths. When you understand this, the world suddenly makes far more sense:
Try reading this: http://www.mcafee.cc/Bin/sb.html
If you want to know more I would recommend a book "Puzzling People: The Labyrinth of the Psychopath" by Thomas Sheridan.
![]()
![]()
GreenKnighhtThe connotations of "intelligence agency" are misleading and prevent debate by some people through phrasing that contains a presumption of unproven facts -- that spying is an intelligent thing to do.
We should formally switch to "spy agencies".
"Electronic intelligence" should be "electronic spying".
"Signals intelligence" should be "signals spying".
Spying is spying.
Spying has nothing to do with intelligence anyways, and never did. Spying gathers information, information that can be true or false, valuable or misleading.
![]()
GreenKnighht GreenKnighhtWhen we let the other side begin the debate by choosing terminology that gives positive connotations to their argument we might as well give up.
Think the PATRIOT Act. Why in heck did people opposed to it endlessly repeat the acronym that condemned them to loose the argument?
The "faceless intelligence masters" are more accurately "faceless spy masters".
Sometimes "covert information gathering" or "covert information gathering and processing" may be a better word.
"it is not going to be a comfortable debate for any government − nor for those in intelligence" is more accurately, "it is not going to be a comfortable debate for any government -- nor for those in covert information gathering".
The phrase "domestic espionage" is another accurate term that needs to be used when appropriate.
Spying on voters, spying on citizens, spying on long term loyal allies.
In this phrase I see that the I and C are not capitalized so maybe the committee name is being paraphrased. Could "Senator Dianne Feinstein, who heads the Senate intelligence committee" be more accurately be termed "Senator Dianne Feinstein, who heads the Senate spying committee."
![]()
![]()
RangiferSurely notthing much hitherto has been revealed by the Snowden files that any cuatious professional terrorist would have taken into account in any event.
It is impoossible to believe that each and every one of every internet user's complete transactions on the internet are being read by a human being at GCHQ or the NSA. They simply don't have the staff. Maybe all of it is being stored on servers and access given judicially to emails and other activities that are alerted through key words in algorithm searches. But even if one human life is saved as a result of that, then anyone who is so protective of their online activity that they discountenance nevertherless any form of state surveillance (no matter how unrelated to particular and detailed content), must value their trivial and quotidian particiipation in online conversation over the preservation of human life.
Mr. Miranda, as far as the evidence hitherto demonstrates, was subjected to false improsonment and his property - or some of it - was the subject of conversion. But these isolated events in themselves do not justify the assertion that our State is excessively obsessed with the preservation of human life as oppposed to the permission of universal freedoms.
Contrary to the 'conspriacy theorists', I do not believe for one moment that either the US or the UK intelligence services have any brief to gather indiscrimate information on innocent individuals. Certainly, we must all be vigilant against the extension of laws relating to surveillance to the extent that they are abused. Therefore we all have every right to be concerned about the Miiranda case as a possible abuse of power.
But at least one indication of how well judicial isafeguards in this country are still operating is that he has at least had restitution of some of his property within only some few days of his original detention.
![]()
GreenKnighht RangiferThey don't need to have a human read it.
Here is an example, I'm using guns because I'm guessing that is an issue you can relate to. But it could be cat or dog ownership or religious beliefs, muscle cars, anything.
When they want to confiscate your guns they'll just run a report on who has bought guns and talked about guns, gun clubs, going hunting, etc.
Then they send out the police to confiscate them.
No human needs to read your emails ever, that is what computers are for. They read the database and they produce the report that says whose doors to kick down.
![]()
fresher RangiferActually, even the NSA accept that there are many 'willful abuses' of the system that they have built. And you can bet there are very many more than the ones they publicly acknowledge.
You can bet, people being people, that among the thousands of people with access to this system, there are individuals using it to find insider stock tips, maybe. Or to spy on an unfaithful partner. Or to find out what a neighbour is up to.
But the question which has been raised is why do they feel the need to monitor everyone, regardless of suspicion. And it is that which leaves the door open to abuse, now and in the future. History suggests that government is not always benign. Imagine what a malign government could use this system for, and you start to see the problem.
![]()
UncleTiminBrazil Rangifer"I do not believe for one moment that either the US or the UK intelligence services have any brief to gather indiscriminate information on innocent individuals."
So if they have no brief, why are they doing it?
Or do you also not believe for one moment that they are doing exactly that?
Have you been in some kind of intellectual coma for the last two months?
![]()
CraigSummersTo the editor
".....Thanks to Mr Snowden they have now got a debate − one that is rippling around the world....."
Lying to a potential employer specifically so you can steal top secret documents is hardly the character of heroes. In addition, he clearly stole more documents than the ones necessary to bring the debate to the public. He threatened to release the documents which Greenwald said could cause "....“more damage to the US government in a minute alone than anyone else has ever had in the history of the United States,”..." if he was harmed. Greenwald already used this information to threaten the British government after his co-conspirator and partner was detained by the British for nine hours.
Regardless, the debate is about preventing terrorist attacks against the west. Of course, in the USA, the NSA has other functions besides reducing terrorist threats including ".....the protection of U.S. government communications and information systems.[13]..." and other applications.
It's also clear that despite what Snowden may believe, he has harmed the western intelligence apparatus and the terrorists will benefit from these disclosures. The Guardian admits that journalist and sources now directly contact with each other avoiding email - for obvious reasons. Terrorists will most certainly avoid electronic communication for the same reasons. In addition, how much data is necessary to bring to the public? Greenwald has 20,000 more documents to sift through. The issue is now being publicly debated. Why disclose more further damaging national security? Does revenge or politics become the motive?
Finally, this is the part of the debate that the Guardian, Greenwald and Snowden will avoid (just like in this editorial). How many lives will be lost because of the information divulged by Snowden?
![]()
GreenKnighht CraigSummers"Lying to a potential employer specifically so you can steal top secret documents is hardly the character of heroes."
I dunno, isn't that what CIA agents do?
Isn't that what NSA officials do when they report to congress?
Isn't that what the presidents, senators and congressmen do when they speak in front of their employers, the voters?
The things is, those people are loyal to the bureaucracy, and traitors to the USA, its people, its flag and its Constitution.
Snowden was a traitor to the bureaucracy, and a patriot to the USA, its people, its flag and its Constitution.
We must all ask ourselves the question, "Who are we patriotic to? The USA and freedom - OR - the bureaucracy that is destroying our freedom?"
![]()
GreenKnighht GreenKnighht"Who are we patriotic to? The USA and freedom - OR - the lying traitorous bureaucracy that is destroying our freedom?"
![]()
2try2giveForget free speech!!! Think of harm the NSA can bring. Everyone on this world should know for sure with the revelations, that they have to care with their speech, no matter the communication tool they use. So the NSA hampers freedom. Also the use of this “Tool” to monitor the behavior of the world hasn't brought capital revelations during the decades of its use. This absolute “surveillance” hasn't proved its usefulness for crime also, it didn't stop the mass killer Breivik, but it's an absolute political tool, they can spy, for instance, according to their will, on every act of the members of the Congress, and swiftly secretly act and reply. The NSA administrators are the real masters of the universe. Who check their deeds???
![]()
tomcoombsIs the NY Times up to the task? I live in BC in Canada and the Guardian is my home page. I usually only check the NY Times to see what they have failed to report. i hope they don't let you down. Nothing in there (ny times) right now about them covering for you...
![]()
GreenKnighht tomcoombsThe NY Times was very good. I stopped visiting it daily when the paywall went up again.
The NY Times has some very good news articles and very good op-ed articles.
It will *sometimes* rebel against Washington. It isn't as gung ho as some other US publications when it comes to convincing the public to fund wars of choice and to send their sons off to be damaged by them. It generally supports these things I'd say, but is not as gung ho and will often present other ideas.
The paywall is my concern.
What good is an article we can't read? Who has the money to buy a subscription to an out-of-country newspaper just to follow one issue of importance?
![]()
ballymichael tomcoombsIt's a fair question. Snowden himself reportedly avoided the NYTimes deliberately
I can say from conversations I had with [Snowden] after that, I think he had a suspicion of mainstream media. And particularly what happened with the New York Times and the warrantless wiretapping story, which as we know was shelved for a year.
And yes, they did shelve that story for a year. But once they discovered that the Department of Justice was refusing to sign off on the legality of the program too, they ran with it, despite administration pressure.
December 6, 2005: Bush Tries to Convince New York Times to Kill Wiretapping Story
George W. Bush summons New York Times publisher Arthur Sulzberger and Times editor Bill Keller to the Oval Office to try to dissuade them from running a landmark story revealing the NSA’s illegal wiretapping program (see December 15, 2005) that he authorized in 2002 (see Early 2002). In the meeeting, Bush warns Sulzberger and Keller that “there’ll be blood on your hands” if another terrorist attack were to occur, obviously implying that to reveal the nature of the program would invite terrorist strikes. Bush is unsuccessful in his attempt to quash the story.
![]()
Canamerica tomcoombsThere is, actually.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/23/technology/the-pentagon-as-start-up-incubator.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&smid=tw-nytimes&_r=1&
and from, hold on...1983
http://www.nytimes.com/1983/03/27/magazine/the-silent-power-of-the-nsa.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&pagewanted=all
![]()
GreenKnighhtDid the NY Times agree to publish any article based on Snowden's documents outside of its paywall?
![]()
twiglette"A democratic government should seek to protect and nourish that debate, not threaten it or stamp it out", says, quite rightly, the Guardian.
Our government pursues the latter course with relentless enthusiasm: Ergo - we don't live in a democratic state! Which is why the Americans fought a war of independence to be free of British tyranny. We have to live under its heavy heel.
![]()
peterfieldmanState surveillance has always existed. The electronic age, opening of borders and ease of travel has made it more complex and necessary in a precarious and ever more dangerous world where potential terrorists and organised crime syndicates operate globally.
At the same time as the economy has gone global with unregulated financial markets, banking and tax havens shifting untold billions each day, Governments have transferred power to the financial sector and big business. The privileged elite is only concerned about protecting its wealth and power. And this requires more control over world events to keep the people from revolting.![]()
BruceMullinger peterfieldmanGlobalisation is a cancer eating away democracy, dignity, diversity, sovereignty, culture, ethics, economic independence, national assets and resources, national contentment and self respect. It is the origin of corporate dictatorship and hopefully in time, in a more enlightened and responsible era greed, growth and globalisation will be the dirtiest words of all.
A wise and wholesome leader (of which there are few) would endeavour to establish his country as a self sufficient haven and withdraw it from the global rat race to the bottom.
![]()
markulyseasGreat Editorial. Thank you Alan.
The internet has taken a life of its own and governments everywhere have realised a bit late that they cannot control this medium least of all the news media that use it as a platform.
It is disappointing to read about the shenanigans of the British Govt. One would have thought that 'Great Britain' and all that it stands for would not become a victim of its own delusions. But it has and worse still it is acting like a Third World dictator. And the frightening thing about this is that there is no 'one person' that can be termed dictator but the entire 'system'!
![]()
Optout2014Please identify the British official who took it upon himself/herself to tell the Guardian to halt further reporting on the issue.
![]()
dieSchwabin Optout2014I think that`s not the point - the point is whether that person acted on behalf of Mr Cameron (his government) or not (when he/she made that request)
![]()
![]()
GreenKnighhtNSA surveillance apparently used to catch copyright infringers (who have nothing to do with terrorism or violence or anything like that).
![]()
Canamerica GreenKnighhtNow that they're working the kinks out these capabilities and getting them all operational, they are busy reverse-engineering creative applications for it all, the over-arching intent being to get us completely under their control so that the most we can do to resist their dominance is whimper a little, so long as whimpering is still legal.
![]()
CanamericaDear Mr. Rusbridger and valiant UK and US team,
Thanks and keep up the great work...you are providing a public service the likes of which I'd like to believe journalists once aspired to.
From Vancouver, Canada
![]()
dieSchwabin“Journalism is printing what someone else does not want printed: everything else is public relations.” ― George Orwell.
![]()
KTBFFHWhat it really boils down to is, "Who watches the Watchers?"
As citizens we have every right to expect the state to be vigilant on our behalf with regard to potential threats. The state seeks to meet this expectation by setting up an intelligence apparatus staffed by the professionally paranoid and willing risk takers. So far so good and t'was ever thus - the means of gathering and processing intelligence have changed down the centuries but the goals remain the same.
Trouble is that the snoopers will always feel there is a little more information to be gathered that is just out of reach. And with the internet and modern technology, they have the means to keep on reaching a bit further, delving a bit deeper. However, in their holy zeal, the mission has become an end in itself and to question the mission or the means becomes an act of treachery.
Our elected representatives like to burble on about checks and balances but the plain truth is that in practical terms there are none - the circular logic of the security services in every country - "If you've nothing to hide, you've nothing to fear." - has been allowed to trump any principled arguments in favour of restraints on their activities.
The debate about the relationship between state and citizen may have been ramped up by the Snowden revelations but I have the unhappy notion that nothing will really change. It seems to me that the majority of citizens are resolutely apathetic about the principles of civil lberty and are convinced of their own invisibility - injustices perpetrated by the state will always happen to "someone else", "there's no smoke without fire" and even the biggest scandals are quickly forgotten amidst the minutiae of daily life.
![]()
medic5At last! The Guardian on the defensive! However you read the above leader it is - hopefully- becoming clear to someone on the editorial staff that,maybe,perhaps,this Snowden guy is not the great news story that this newspaper has promoted.
For the record; he is an unstable,eccocentric,treacherous,self- promotional nerd. Anything he says,"leaks" or does having been rendered unworthy of attention by the fact that he has located himself outside of the jurisdiction of the very country he is so desperately trying to undermine.What price integrity in this guys world?
What he craves is not the freedoms and openness he harps on about but publicity pure and simple.And as long as this newspaper in particular keeps giving it to him he will go on,and on.
In the name of God Guardian give this story a rest!
N.B : if the FBI had questioned Greenwald's partner would they have had to "Miranderise" him?! Just a thought....![]()
fresher medic5It doesn't matter what you think of Snowden or his motives. It's what he's exposed that matters. You may not care about that "freedom and openness". That's fine. You can go and read one of the many other papers available that share your lack of concern. I believe the Murdoch press has studiously avoided printing anything connected with these stories, so you'll be safe there.
Many of us think we are very lucky to live in a free country and very upset to see how that is being undermined. We will continue to support and encourage the Guardian in its reporting.
![]()
Montreal4854 medic5W ell said, this story, or whatever you call it, is a non event, and the Guardian should let it go. I was an ardent Guardian reader , but no more, in the last few years I think it has lost its way. It should be in the thick of the problems that matter.ie the social and political breakdown of this country. Now there is only the Independent as a counterweight to the right wing rags.
![]()
printerinkPolly tells me the state is wonderful and we should have more of it.
Is she wrong?
![]()
HowardBeale printerinkThere is a whole world of difference between a state working with consent to help people, especially when things go wrong, and a state placing itself above law and public control, even above public knowledge. I think Polly is suggesting we should have more of the former and less of the latter.
![]()
jazzdrum printerinkIt must be severely restricting in life to see issues only in terms of black and white.
![]()
creelA critical debate.
One side issue that appears to be overlooked. This is the issue associated with the 'required anonymity' many employers currently expect - particularly of their more prominent/senior employees with names that are readily-associated with the employer; although in a worryingly high number of cases this expectation is asserted as an expectation that covers all employees, on practically all topics.
Government agencies & commercial sector employers alike assert this expectation. Notwithstanding the evident marginalization that is thereby imposed on a substantial slice of any population and the inevitable distortions that this brings to those innumerable debates that are so critical ..if the democratic process is to function as it should.
Particularly in times when debate is silenced by soundbite and 'all ear is to the squeaky wheel'.
24 August 2013 12:10am
"The evident ambition is to put entire populations under some form of surveillance." This is exactly what Orwell warned of and we should not accept this in a democracy.
It would seem that everyone wants to get on the bandwagon now, it's open season on us (mostly) innocent civilians. Even the self-proclaimed "defenders of European values" (the EU) are in on the act in a big way with their "citizen's surveillance" programme "Project indect".
Why doesn't the Guardian do a piece on this Orwellian nightmare that WE are financing through the EU budget ? Of course the EU member states are more than happy to go along with it...because they would have trouble getting such a draconian programme through their own parliaments !