David Cameron makes threat to media over NSA and GCHQ leaks

[kindai]

That same line is used against people by the likes of GCHQ when they moan about mass surveillance. I just turn it around and use it against them.

Well you know, i'm all up for that. GCHQ can start posting up all their techniques and surveilance they do, so the terrorist cells can find out and then use other methods of planning their attacks.

When the next bus bomb blows one of your friends or family members apart because these agencies effectiveness become crippled in the name of "public interest" i'll remind you of your arguement.

Do I support disclose, sure, maybe 20 years down the line when telling people what they did and how they did it won't effect how they do their job today.

 

[kindai]

Put your money where your mouth is and post all those personal details here for everyone to see or STFU, you're the one proclaiming for the 'Nothing to Hide' Brigade not me. You either have something to hide or you don't.

I'll give you a clue, you're going to look a complete muppet if you don't post those details, and you're going to look a complete muppet if you do.

Actually, your post just makes you look like a complete and utter moron to anyone who has half a braincell. So take your own advice and STFU because your just making yourself look foolish.

I have nothing to hide, and ill put my money where my mouth is that if you would like to come round my house, I will show you my bank statements, ill show you my accounts and how much is in them. I'll warn you, it makes for pretty boring reading... I guess the government would find it equally as boring. Just let me know a time and date, and ill make sure im around (im near worcester if you need to plan your journey).

Now theres a difference between that, and posting my details up for someone to empty my accounts out, debt up in my name, and delete all my emails by posting that information on a public forum. That would be the act of an idiot like yourself good sir.

 

[Destination]

Couldn't agree more.



First they came for the communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.

Then they came for the socialists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a socialist.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for me,
and there was no one left to speak for me.

Really?
Commies socialists and trade unions?
No, there are plenty of people left to speak for lots of people with those three groups gone.
If you'd have picked three different groups you might have had a point, but those three I can do without for the most part.

Rather like the trade union that last week lost everyone theirs jobs at the petrochemical works, and then had to backtrack at massive speed to try to get everyone their job back, at reduced offers and amounts. Well done union, almost as effective as my own shambles of a union.

Anyway as for the Guardian, if they are telling us the US hacked it allies and listened to the leaders personal calls, then I think that very much worth reporting, but it will and does hamper security, as frankly neither Merkel or The French chap will be just as lovey dovey in future. I don't think its the reporting of it that's the problem, I think its the fact they did the act, or got caught doing the act in the first place.

 

[TJM]

Well you know, i'm all up for that. GCHQ can start posting up all their techniques and surveilance they do, so the terrorist cells can find out and then use other methods of planning their attacks.

If the government could identify a terrorist plot that had been thwarted by mass interception, corporate espionage and spying on Angela Merkel, they would have done so already. Instead, we're getting the usual crap about how the people who are using these tools think they're invaluable and who are we to question the experts? It's staggering that anyone would show deference to the intelligence services, who are amazingly incompetent.

 

[kindai]

If the government could identify a terrorist plot that had been thwarted by mass interception, corporate espionage and spying on Angela Merkel, they would have done so already. Instead, we're getting the usual crap about how the people who are using these tools think they're invaluable and who are we to question the experts? It's staggering that anyone would show deference to the intelligence services, who are amazingly incompetent.

Who's to say these techniques haven't already done so?

 

[stockhausen]

errrm actually yes [the NHS are planning to sell identifiable confidential patient details to BUPA (and others)] . . .

You appear to be right. Are there no depths to which this incompetent Tory scumbag Jeremy Hunt will not sink?

More information and a suggested letter to your GP is available at http://medconfidential.org/

 

[anything I don't mind]

Well you know, i'm all up for that. GCHQ can start posting up all their techniques and surveilance they do, so the terrorist cells can find out and then use other methods of planning their attacks.

When the next bus bomb blows one of your friends or family members apart because these agencies effectiveness become crippled in the name of "public interest" i'll remind you of your arguement.

Do I support disclose, sure, maybe 20 years down the line when telling people what they did and how they did it won't effect how they do their job today.

I doubt there is much that GCHQ has in the form of programs that the "enemy" does not know about, they may not know the specifics but they know what is out there and what the capabilities of GCHQ are.

They had everything a secret and terrorist attacks still happen. So.... We can't say that if the existence of illegal mass surveillance programs were made public it would allow for terrorist attacks to occur. That is non sense. Any person knows what is trackable and what is not. If terrorists are soo stupid that they are tracked, them knowing about the programs that are tracking them is not going to prevent them from being stupid.

I don't think the apparent threat of terrorist attacks justifies mass surveillance. Some people do, but I do not. This, like my encryption argument is where the argument actually is. Not about if releasing the information will harm the GCHQ but whether as a society we want to allow the authorities to engage in illegal activity in secret due to the fear associated with terrorist attacks.

If they can't stop the terrorist attacks without breaking the law, then they need to try harder. If we give up our freedom in the name of security we don't have anything left worth defending.

 

[kindai]

I

I don't think the apparent threat of terrorist attacks justifies mass surveillance. Some people do, but I do not.

Let me ask you, based on the current information known, do you actually understand how this surveillance actually works and how it effects you?

Because no offence, reading your posts it realy doesn't sound like you do, and your just bandwaggoning...

 

[anything I don't mind]

Let me ask you, based on the current information known, do you actually understand how this surveillance actually works and how it effects you?

Because no offence, reading your posts it realy doesn't sound like you do, and your just bandwaggoning...

Do i understand? yes, I think i have a good understanding of how mass surveillance programs operate. Not great, but more than most people. Only because I have looked in to that.

What about my posts makes you think that I don't understand how surveillance actually works and how it affects me?

 

[bitslice]

Why didn't the intelligence agencies stop this then? Surely they must have known about it

I believe he was known to them.

Terrorists aren't going to email each other and say what there plans are, they aren't going to phone each other

Actually some do, that's partly why they keep getting caught.

Muslim terrorists are astonishingly stupid these days, they have only just got around to making IED's with barely any metal, a concept that has been around since WWII.

 

[stockhausen]

... Muslim terrorists are astonishingly stupid these days, they have only just got around to making IED's with barely any metal, a concept that has been around since WWII.

That must be very reassuring for British troops serving in Afghanistan

It is claimed that the practice of monitoring the 'phone conversations of every Tom, Dick, Harry & Angela has prevented an enormous number of terrorist attacks. Since we rarely hear of the evil and stupid Muslims responsible for these planned attacks appearing in court, I can only assume that they are usually given a free helicopter ride to the mid Atlantic from which they never return? It is quite remarkable that our beaches aren't knee deep with the washed-up bodies of bearded gentlemen.

I suspect that most of this NSA & GCHQ surveillance activity serves economic rather than anti-terrorism interests.

 

[stockhausen]

Firstly, they haven't been listening to all your calls and reading all your emails, they just have the capacity to and will do if they think you're being a naughty boy. Don;t flatter yourself by thinking they're interested in you.

Secondly, if you didn't think they could do this before the revalation then you're either stupid or naive.

The main issue here isn't that it is being done, or even how it's done, but that the press released details of which services could be monitored, thereby giving any would be terrorists a steer towards more 'secure' communication methods and away from lines of intelligence gathering by the security services.

I think it's telling that we've not had another successful terror attack on our soil since July 2005 when there must have been many attempts and plans. I expect that as a consequence of certain organisations misplaced sense of liberalism that will change within the next 18 months.

You appear to believe that anyone (e.g. Angela Merkel, Francois Hollande and Barack Obama) who didn't realise that private phone calls were being listened to and private emails were being read was either stupid or naive. Since this is so blindingly obvious I can't really see that The Guardian have made any difference at all.

On reflection, it seems that you believe that the Guardian has released some previously super secret details; I read The Guardian most days and I can't say that I know what you are referring to; would you care to be a bit more specific?

The main issue is that the security services of the USA and UK are acutely embarrassed that their unwarranted intrusion has been highlighted. Edward Snowden and The Guardian have done a great public service in demonstrating the extent to which security services in supposedly democratic nations operate in an illegal and most undemocratic way, as do those in Russia, China, Syria and North Korea.

 

[zenf]

I have nothing to hide, and ill put my money where my mouth is that if you would like to come round my house, I will show you my bank statements, ill show you my accounts and how much is in them. I'll warn you, it makes for pretty boring reading... I guess the government would find it equally as boring. Just let me know a time and date, and ill make sure im around (im near worcester if you need to plan your journey).

How many freedoms are you willing to sacrifice in the name of security? I'd imagine most terrorists won't be detailing their plots in emails and facebook posts so it might be best to just set up CCTV and audio recording equipment in everyone's houses to ensure the highest level of security. Fine with you, I presume? What about GPS tracking chips implanted in your new-born children?

Do you have a line at all?

 

[Mickie]

I have it in my head they track and listen to me through my phone which is always with me..

 

[mmj_uk]

I can't say I want to be around for stages 8 or 9.

Well you could say stage 8 is already in motion what with the workfare schemes being implemented which bypass minimum wage, unemployment is going to get steadily worse as the population explodes and economy continues to stall... lots more people will put on the scheme with the government continuing to hide the real unemployment figures, another 100yrs and we'll all be doing workfare.

edit: it looks like the courts are (still) on our side, even if the government isn't...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-24742499

They just need a few more years to implement kangaroo courts.

 

[WillyNelson]

Secondly, why would it make worldwide headline news if the only people who weren't already aware were stupid?

It just seems like the thing people say when they want try to appear clever. Do you have anything to show that you thought the government was illegally spying on people before the leaks?

Because there was a question of morality raised by some papers and sensationalism sells.

I wasn't saying anything about what they were doing, just what they could do.

If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to worry about.

I'd temper that statement by saying that if you have nothing to hide from the security services, you have nothing to worry about.

You appear to believe that anyone (e.g. Angela Merkel, Francois Hollande and Barack Obama) who didn't realise that private phone calls were being listened to and private emails were being read was either stupid or naive. Since this is so blindingly obvious I can't really see that The Guardian have made any difference at all.

Again, my point wasn't about who or what was being accessed, but that we should all have known that our communications could be accessed if that was the desire.

The main issue is that the security services of the USA and UK are acutely embarrassed that their unwarranted intrusion has been highlighted.

Indeed, but some people have taken this to mean that the security services shouldn't have the power/ability to spy on people in the first place, which I believe to be untrue.

I am quite happy that the potential exists for my civil liberties to be infringed in order for some people to have their civil liberties infringed so as to uphoad the law.

That is my opinion. You can agrue in favour of an alternative but you can't tell me I'm wrong.

 

[zenf]

Again, my point wasn't about who or what was being accessed, but that we should all have known that our communications could be accessed if that was the desire.

I think we were all aware the authorities could request the information of particular people from these private companies if there was sufficient reason to do so, and that these companies would comply with the requests if they were just. I don't think many people had a problem with that either.

What people have a problem with is the government secretly assuming this power and bypassing this process completely to not only allow themselves access to all the information of any potential wrong doers, but also of any people who are completely innocent. How do we know what other powers the government will secretly grant itself?

Is there any evidence that any terrorist acts have been prevented by this scatter-gun approach to intelligence gathering?

 

[yhack]

More like David Camera, right guys? Guys?

 

[WillyNelson]

What people have a problem with is the government secretly assuming this power and bypassing this process completely to not only allow themselves access to all the information of any potential wrong doers, but also of any people who are completely innocent. How do we know what other powers the government will secretly grant itself?

To be honest, this doesn't bother me. I don't believe this or any other contemporary British government would enact powers for nefarious reasons for the simple reason that I fail to see what their motivation would be.

 

[No1newts]

The amusing/sad thing about the whole thing is that those shutting down our rights are those who scream the loudest when third world/developing nations don't have them.

Hypocrites as they are afraid of the criticism and scrutiny that true freedom brings.