Who Guards The Guardian?
Multiple bottles of smelling salt being wafted around in the Blogosphere today. Purveyors of Free Speech dropping like Guardsmen on a hot August day. It would appear that the ‘well informed citizens’ of Blogland have just discovered that GCHQ don’t just listen in to phone calls ala 1970, but have moved with the times and now routinely read e-mails as well. Who would have thought it?
Not only that, but they do it in conjunction with our main allies! Incredible! So incredible that it has become front page news. Hypocritical hypocrisy from the newspaper which has campaigned for a couple of years now for State interference in the so-called rights of newspaper to publish information that they hold. Other newspapers, of course; for other newspapers publish tittle-tattle concerning left wing Luvies and their exotic love lives, whereas The Guardian engages in ‘journalism‘ revealing that the on-line world is not the grown-up free zone that some desire and is subject to the same surveillance as your average Ford Focus when it pulls into a petrol station to fill up.
We are monitored throughout the day and night, at petrol stations, in children’s play parks, in our offices, on the tube – putting our rubbish out, for God’s sake! Why the hysteria on discovering that e-mail is monitored? Send a letter by post if you are that concerned!
Or stick your boyfriend on a flight back to the gay’s favourite playground, Copacabana beach, with a USB memory stick in his pocket? It seems that doesn’t work either. The international law free zone of the transit lounge, that left wing writers across the world were commending for its ability to keep Edward Snowden out of the reach of the judiciary, has now turned round and bitten them on the backside – it appears it is also capable of keeping David Miranda, boyfriend of Guardian journalist Glenn Greenwald, out of the reach of the judiciary for an entire nine hours. There’s a thing!
Not only that, but the government threatened the Guardian with the legal force of ‘prior restraint’. You remember ‘prior restraint’ surely? That is what the Guardian were championing not so long ago as the means by which errant newspapers tabloids could be silenced, prevented from publishing stories that the subject objected to – rather than being able to publish and then risk the legal consequences. Injunctions for want of a better word. The Guardian didn’t think that newspapers tabloids ought to be able to say just about anything in the name of free speech, they should be regulated, rather than leaving it to libel laws to punish the perpetrators….
You might think that the paper which has been in the forefront of championing the redemption of Alan Turing, or even a group of journalists based on Copacabana beach, might have realised that having a complete record of communications being passed from one gay bar to another and ending up God knows where might just upset the intelligence services. Given the number of articles they have written recently lauding Alan Turing for his ability to comb through conversations that the Germans thought were private and thus break the code, allowing the British to pin point the whereabouts and deliver death most precisely to those they chose. Given that they don’t think the security services can be trusted with this information – what makes them think that a bunch of Brazilian queens are a better guardian?
I assume that their real objection is that the government is ‘spying on its own citizens’. Indeed they are. That is probably because the enemy no longer arrives in wooden boats wearing tricorn hats to ensure that you know who they are. In fact some of the enemy are now known as ‘British citizens’. A state of affairs that The Guardian has long championed.
Once upon a time, the intelligence services dolled themselves up in tricorn hats and hung around in foreign ports in order to find out who was planning to topple the government and install a foreign ruler – am I dismayed that they have kept up with the times and now read e-mails? Not in the slightest. 20 years ago GCHQ were listening in to the world’s phone calls.
Quite why the unelected Guardian and a bunch of computer experts think that they are better placed to decide what we should know and what should be concealed – until such time as it makes a better ‘story’ – than the muppets with a predilection for padlocking themselves inside their luggage, beats me. Still, Mrs Rushbridger’s hypocritical histrionics are quite entertaining in the meantime.
Remind me, does the Guardian think that the blogosphere should be regulated? And Twitter? And the Tabloids?
In fact the last bastion of ‘say whatever you want’ speech should be The Guardian? There’s totalitarian for you.
August 22, 2013 at 23:40
-
You need to get with the flow.
CRB is so 2010, it’s now “the Disclosure
and Barring Service”.
Hence, CRB checks are now DBS checks.
The
Independent Safeguarding Authority and the Criminal Records Bureau merged to
form the Disclosure and Barring Service.
Staffing levels increased by 15%,
efficiency dropped by 50%.
All assaults by those with no previous history
(which would be over 80% of them) went unimpeded.
“Does anyone else find the police’s extrajudicial interference slightly
worrying”
Well, given that the police bolster the largely illegal operation of
bailiffs, and think nothing of selling PNC information to all manner of
organisations, which include councils, I think the role of the police as
enforcers of the law should be revised: They are now supporters of state
illegality.
- August 22, 2013 at 18:40
-
I have just found the next theme to be used to excuse banning something
that is ‘bad’ for people! It’s “Won’t anyone think of the arseholes?”
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/08/22/uk_mulls_ban_on_tiny_mobes/
-
August 22, 2013 at 21:24
-
I wonder if Apple & Samsung have seen this? They’re currently in an
arms race of sorts to launch the first true wrist watch style mobile phone.
So, will the criminals buy these and remove the straps or will they also be
banned?
And did you pick-up on the way the police have attempted to take these
devices off the market? Not with a straight-cut ban; but rather by going
running to the car manufacturers and advising them on how best to use
design/trademark infringement to threaten the makers and/or retailers. Does
anyone else find the police’s extrajudicial interference slightly
worrying?
- August 22, 2013 at 22:25
-
Don’t tell me that you’re in favour of supporting the criminals,
terrorists and paedophiles who could all use these things for their
nefarious activities? You need shopped to the ISA, Vetting and Barring
Board and the police. No one like you shouldn’t appear on the PNC or have
a clean CRB. We can’t be too careful, can we?
- August 22, 2013 at 18:36
- August 22, 2013 at 16:41
-
So what.
A corner of the carpet has been pulled-back to reveal the
underlay is threadbare.
For decades the NSA has operated listening stations
across the world, such as the former RAF base at Chicksands in Beds (now the
Defence Intelligence and Security Centre).
Anyone who thinks any of this is
new, is seriously mentally deficient!
Governments never fear anyone as much
as they fear their own people.
The Russians are not going to march down
whitehall….but several hundred thousand UK residents armed with baseball bats
and other similar implements easily could.
Better to watch, and listen to,
those close to you.
As far as I’m concerned, terrorists are a lesser threat
to me than my own government.
Forthcoming legislation bans organisations
from various activites immediately prior to an election, and limts the money
they can spend. I doubt the CBI will be punished, but the TUC probably
will!
More legislation allows the police to ban legitimate protest..
As
I said, the risk to me and mine comes from within, not outside, the country.
mainly the government (if they can be bothered to string a sentence
together)
- August 22, 2013 at 10:40
-
Define “terrorist”
Make sure it’s one that will be universally accepted and incapable of being
hijacked by all varieties and persuasions of our moral benefactors.
If you can’t, you can never be sure that at some point you won’t be
characterised as being one
- August 22, 2013 at 10:41
-
That was meant as a reply to Mr Engineer
-
August 22, 2013 at 13:08
-
According to the Concise Oxford Dictionary (seventh edition, reprinted
1984), a terrorist is “one who favours or uses terror-inspiring methods of
governing or of coercing government or community”.
If you reckon they’re wrong, take the matter up with them, not me.
-
August 22, 2013 at 13:22
-
So might the likes of the ‘Abuse Industry’s’ frightening old men by
dragging up their once contemporaneously innocent past and pushing these
into the public domain as exemplars of perversion gone wild, to further
its current agenda, not just a form of terrorism? And what else from
anyone’s life might not be misused like that, by any form of activist
group against any ‘community’, or part thereof?
Just how safe do you really think you are, or will be? You don’t know
yet, do you? None of us does, but as we sit and watch it happening
around us, and such pressure groups get away with whatever devious
tactics they can drum up today, the next band of witchfinders is
watching, and getting their stores of stakes, brushwood and matches
ready
- August 22, 2013 at 13:27
-
@ a terrorist is “one who favours or uses terror-inspiring methods of
governing or of coercing government or community @
Sound like the News of the World was a terrorist organisation
then………….
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/07/07/article-2012343-0043D90500000258-413_306x397.jpg
-
August 22, 2013 at 14:43
-
Labour’s polite version of it was to create useless legislation
which would nonetheless ‘send a signal’
In other words, we can’t hope to get all you bastards (whichever
group wasn’t signed up to their terms of enlightenment), there are too
many of you for that, but we’ll make sure that we frighten you as much
as we possibly can
- August 22, 2013 at 11:47
-
How about:
Terrorism: interpretation.
(1)In this Act “terrorism” means the use or threat of action
where—
(a)the action falls within subsection (2),
(b)the use or threat
is designed to influence the government [F1or an international governmental
organisation]F1 or to intimidate the public or a section of the public,
and
(c)the use or threat is made for the purpose of advancing a
political, religious [F2, racial]F2 or ideological cause.
(2)Action falls
within this subsection if it—
(a)involves serious violence against a
person,
(b)involves serious damage to property,
(c)endangers a
person’s life, other than that of the person committing the
action,
(d)creates a serious risk to the health or safety of the public
or a section of the public, or
(e)is designed seriously to interfere with
or seriously to disrupt an electronic system.
(3)The use or threat of
action falling within subsection (2) which involves the use of firearms or
explosives is terrorism whether or not subsection (1)(b) is
satisfied.
(4)In this section—
(a)“action” includes action outside the
United Kingdom,
(b)a reference to any person or to property is a
reference to any person, or to property, wherever situated,
(c)a
reference to the public includes a reference to the public of a country
other than the United Kingdom, and
(d)“the government” means the
government of the United Kingdom, of a Part of the United Kingdom or of a
country other than the United Kingdom.
(5)In this Act a reference to
action taken for the purposes of terrorism includes a reference to action
taken for the benefit of a proscribed organisation.
- August 22, 2013 at 12:38
-
And who determines who is, and who isn’t, to be protected by 1(b) and
2(d)
Suppose no-one is bothered about your part of the public? The person
you perceive as a ‘terrorist’ may well be someone else’s hero.
Take, for example, a stand off between Christian and Gay activists.
Which group would be most likely to be labelled as terrorists
To be clear, I’m not looking at the strictly dry legal use of the term.
It’s how the term can be used to influence public opinion, and how we
might see that done in the future by those who would seek to undermine
others in pursuit of their own agendas. The general public doesn’t do
niceties. If it did, ‘troll’ might still mean what it did before the MSM’s
misuse of the term
- August 22, 2013 at 12:57
-
Do you mean troll in its Sandy and Julian polari sense or the two
meanings I was aware of: a fishing technique from a moving boat or a
mythical being often living under bridges in Norse folk tales?
-
August 22, 2013 at 13:05
-
Does it help if I say that the correct contextual response is not
to bite?
-
August 22, 2013 at 16:53
-
Ho Hum,
Nice that someone is taking the fishes’ point of view to ensure a
balanced discussion on the blog
- August 22, 2013 at 08:32
-
Ignoring the offensive homophobia – “gay’s favourite playground…Brazilian
queens”? Really?
The problem with the use of schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act 2000 is that
not co-operating is in itself an offence.
So you can be entirely innocent,
picked up on that charge, and you have to “co-operate”.
As co-operation is
not defined, you pretty much have no choice but to answer any question about
anything.
I’d hand over my passwords rather than go to prison.
Because if you
don’t, you are guilty of an offence, and the court would be correct in finding
you guilty.
And then, while in prison, you can be interviewed again under
the same schedule, thereby introducing the opportunity for further
offences.
- August 22, 2013 at 09:21
-
“offensive homophobia” : Cultural Marxism?
- August 22, 2013 at 09:49
-
There’s a fairly easy way to avoid being arrested under Schedule 7; don’t
get involved with terrorism. Most of us find that we can get through life
without the desperate urge to blow up our fellow humans without warning or
mercy, however much we might disagree with them sometimes. If you are picked
up by mistake, being entirely innocent, that fact will no doubt be fairly
swiftly established. If you just happen to be carrying a lap-top with files
stolen from the Security Services, then your innocence is in some doubt.
P.S. If the Security Services want to read my emails, they’re welcome.
They’ll probably fall asleep with boredom doing it though.
-
August 22, 2013 at 15:09
-
Carrying files stolen from the Security Services makes you a potential
thief not a terrorist.
Thiefs do not fall within the scope of the
Terrorism Act 2000.
There is zero evidence that any Guardian Journalist or his partner had
any desperate urge to blow anyone up.
Contrary to the belief of many
people the Guardian is not in itself a proscribed terrorist
organisation.
-
August 22, 2013 at 16:35
-
We don’t know what the stolen files contained. For all we know, they
may well have had ‘information of use to terrorists’. I don’t think
anyone is suggesting that Guardian journalists or their partners want to
engage in terrorism, but if they wander around with information obtained
illegally from the Security Services, they can’t be altogether surprised
if said Services act to retrieve their data.
-
August 23, 2013 at 17:26
-
You can’t retrieve digital data.
You can only confirm that someone has it.
-
August 23, 2013 at 19:05
-
But what exactly constitutes “information of use to terrorists” ? A
train time table might come in quite useful if you where planning on
blowing up a train, a map of the London Underground might be useful if
you wanted to recreate 7/7 etc etc etc. this kind of nonsense is the
thin end of the wedge.
Of course, this farcical situation wouldn’t have occurred in the
first instance if government hadn’t been incompetent enough to allow
someone to steal the data. Chances are most of this stuff is rotting
away in UK landfill sites, or lying by the side of the public highway
having fallen off the back of a lorry.
Its clear that noone from government is taking this situation
particularly seriously, if the information actually posed a security
threat, one would hope they’d do a little more than sending the odd
stiff letter, or waste time sending out civil servants to make empty
threats of “legal action”. I acknowledge that these people are mainly
incompetent, but history has shown that when they need to act, they
can, and they do.
It’s all just theatre isn’t it.
- August 22, 2013 at 10:38
-
@ I’d hand over my passwords rather than go to prison. Because if you
don’t, you are guilty of an offence, and the court would be correct in
finding you guilty. And then, while in prison, you can be interviewed again
under the same schedule, thereby introducing the opportunity for further
offences. @
Assuming I was innocent, that sounds pretty much like something worth
going to prison for, oddly enough.
I’m way out of date with Human Rights.
Still stuck in the rut of Civil Rights I guess.
-
August 22, 2013 at 15:15
-
“Assuming I was innocent, that sounds pretty much like something worth
going to prison for, oddly enough.”
That’s Alice in Wonderland logic of the highest order.
You’re not an
actual lawyer are you?
Going to prison has an effect if you’re Nelson Mandela.
It doesn’t
have the same effect if you’re given a three month sentence in
Bellmarsh
and the subsequent permanent criminal record wouldn’t be much
fun.
You couldn’t get into the USA, for example.
So, every cloud….
- August 21, 2013 at 23:36
-
Anna. No one here, I trust, is a s stupid as believe that the security
services don’t monitor what they want, when they want, and has the nous to get
round the law of the land if it really needs to.
But who’s to say that in 3 or 4 years time, the present clusterfuck that
makes up the Savile Police, the ‘abuse industry’ that has been spawned and go
with it, or the Mortally Offended but ever so then Legally Empowered Svenja of
‘Nein zu allem, Was’, won’t make you think that something like what follows
below is the sensible option for your blog and its contributors?
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/08/20/groklaw_to_shut_down/
- August 21, 2013 at 21:13
-
I tend to agree with Edna Fletcher, this all seems to be a ploy to boost
readership.
The guardian (what a great name in this instance) purports to have had
access to great state secrets or was it mere diplomatic tittle-tattle? Their
top journalist keeps flogging a dead horse, but can get little traction for
the story alludes to much more juicy stuff not yet reported, (does it sound
like wikileaks yet?). What to do? Send the journalists boyfriend to meet him
in Brazil via London (great idea) where the brilliant minds know that
repressive law may be used to detain said courier, the great newspaper public
are already fully engaged with the great drug-mule moxies story perhaps the
guardian can get in on that game. Astoundingly, the nasty plod who are usually
only good for meting out justice to the law abiding but unwary do their job,
the courier (not a journalist) is detained and subjected to the full horror of
Heathrow airport, he is kept there nine hours, just like most passengers
transitting this horror show of an “airport”, eventually the courier is asked
to surrender his computer, phone and heavens to Betsy his passwords. Nothing
about this should shock any sentient being, it is what governments do to their
serfs everyday, knowing most will comply to ensure they can board their plane
on time.
Were I to guess at the source of the Greenwald/Rusbridger angst, I would
assume Mr. Miranda was subject to a request for his files along the following
lines-please bend over and open your legs sir, we would like to recover that
thumb drive. All good for some increased readership, especially amongst the
uman rights and minorities crowd.
footnote: I would hope Mr Miranda was not relying on the well-worn password
1234 for his celphone, he would not want the News of the World hacking it
would he? Oh, I forgot the News of the World no longer exists because the
guarianisti thought it rather bad form that ninth rate artists and
entertainers should be subjected to there inane ramblings being reported for
using said password on their phone email accounts.
- August 21, 2013 at 21:05
-
It is quite interesting that the photo they published originally said it
showed the smashed hard drives but that was later changed when people pointed
out that it didn’t. In fact what it shows is some random scrap parts that have
been messed with for no apparent reason. The Register is rather scathing about
the whole thing http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/08/21/guardian_smashed_computers_questioned/
with many of the comments agreeing that it appears to be a con.
-
August 21, 2013 at 22:19
-
I was a bit non-plussed myself when I saw this image on Twitter sent by
the Graunida yesterday. Given the heavy-handedness of the destruction under
supervision it seemed unlikely – if not farcical. Imagine making a
spontaneous destruction when the cops invade your home and castle because of
some ‘allegation’ (PCs first choice search and seize items whatever) . My
mallet is on hand – what say you Sir? Pwow…I tend to think there’s much more
to come out about this news-management saga then we are yet to find out. How
come we didn’t know of this til yesterday? How come Miranda the Mule only
happened a few days ago – how come the big story coincides with just before
the sentencing of the hapless Bradley Manning? Maybe coincidence of course,
but only re the last point. Graunida kept back its story on the destruction
– why?
- August 21, 2013 at 20:10
-
Has anyone who’s read Greenwald’s remarks to the effect of “Fuck you UK,
you’ll be sorry” think WTF? You’re supposed to be a journalist…?
He’s behaving like he’s declared war on the UK’s ability to keep it’s
secrets. It’s not so far to say it’s a form of information terrorism.
So can’t we lock up the Guardian staff for collaborating with the
enemy?
I know it’s far fetched… but part of me is terrified by that interpretation
and part of me wants to see the Guardian well and truly waterboarded…
At these times – I guess I have to go with Voltaire… shame those spineless
bastards at the Guardian don’t have the same moral backbone…
- August 21, 2013 at 17:54
-
“We are monitored throughout the day and night, at petrol stations, in
children’s play parks, in our offices, on the tube – putting our rubbish out,
for God’s sake! Why the hysteria on discovering that e-mail is monitored? Send
a letter by post if you are that concerned!”
In 1655 John Thurloe, as Post Master-General, was able to have vast amounts
of correspondence intercepted. Back in the days when it cost 3d to send a
letter it cost a half-penny less to send a postcard or an un-sealed
letter. I always wondered if that was a concession to encourage the population
to make their letters easier to read ‘in transit’.
- August 21, 2013 at 21:20
-
It was quite recent when post cards or unsealed letters could be sent
cheaper. I always sent my Christmas cards unsealed, before the fashion of
the ’round robin’ became fashionable there wasn’t much to spy on, and the
cards usually said ‘nice landlady, wish you were here’.
-
August 21, 2013 at 17:50
-
An expert this morning on CBS was trying to explain what the NSA have
actually been doing, and the point he made was that though in fact they have
access to a lot of data, they also have a 100 page rule book that must be
followed, and not nearly enough people to examine the data on an ongoing
basis, therefore it just gets stored. Unless they are working a case, for want
of a better word, they don’t look at any of this data at all, This makes sense
to me. Who has time to go through all this anyway, and why? I find Internal
Revenue a lot more intimidating myself! They can really eff you up.
-
August 21, 2013 at 19:31
-
“….. and not nearly enough people to examine the data on an ongoing
basis….”
Poor Ms Raccoon probably has insufficient time to deal with all her
emails.
NSA can’t see (read) the wood for the trees. And their challenge would be
exacerbated if everyone included a few choice words in every email. Jihad.
Suicide Bombing. PETN. Anthrax. etc.
Whilst I have always accepted GCHQ will monitor/stash every Brits
electronic history; I object that Spineless Dave tolerates NSA harvesting of
British citizens’ data.
But reconcile that with the amusement of NSA knowing all his historic
secret surfing habits. Maybe that’s why he didn’t object?
-
August 21, 2013 at 20:40
-
“… they also have a 100 page rule book that must be followed, and not
nearly enough people to examine the data on an ongoing basis.”
I had a very good looking Jamaican girlfriend in Florida who drove a
bright red BMW convertible. She was frequently pulled over by (male) cops
late at night (she was a nurse who worked many 12 and 16 hour shifts) for no
apparent reason other than they wanted to chat or check the address on her
driver’s license. What she could not understand was how they invariable
already knew her name, even if they had never been previously
introduced.
- August 21, 2013 at 20:53
-
The point being that government officials who have access to
confidential information WILL abuse it for their own benefit or to the
detriment of people they dislike, though they will always have a cover
story that appears to conform with the rules of engagement. It is just
human nature. To argue otherwise is silly.
- August 21, 2013 at 21:15
-
I can think of an alternative motive to racism and police-state
tactics.
Lust, for instance.
- August 21, 2013 at 17:05
-
I’ve just had a quick look at the Terrorism Act 2000 http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/11/contents. I read
Schedule 7 in conjunction with section 40 and section 1. Section 1(2)(e) “is
designed seriously to interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic
system” appears to fit the Snowden case.
-
August 21, 2013 at 15:58
-
In fact if you read this story carefully, you will see that the politicians
say that the decision to hijack Mr. Miranda was made by the police, although
obviously the politicians did not try to overrule them. The real danger here
seems to be allowing so much decision-making power to be held directly by the
police. My thinking is that in the US, the police would at least have had to
get some kind of warrant from a judge, or consult with a prosecutor (i.e. a
lawyer) to determine whether Mr. Miranda’s could be reasonably be defined as a
terrorist or terrorist suspect under the meaning of the Act.
The fact that Miranda was released at the end of the nine hours presumably
indicates that he was found not to be a terrorist, otherwise surely he would
have been arrested.
- August 21, 2013 at 16:04
-
@ The fact that Miranda was released at the end of the nine hours
presumably indicates that he was found not to be a terrorist @
More likely means that just now they cannot prove it, but maybe next
time…..
He
was released because he gave them all his passwords for all his webmails,
enabling them to begin the trawl. Sprats and mackerel as we used to say.
- August 21, 2013 at 16:14
-
Or “walking back the cat” as we used to whisper with the taps full
on.
-
August 21, 2013 at 21:57
-
Recon he was the ‘Patsy’. Mmmm Patsy Miranda has something of an
attractive ring to it.
- August 21, 2013 at 15:57
-
I seem to recall that ‘Miranda’ was the name by which Tony Blair was known
in his earlier years when more ‘in touch with his feminine side’.
And Blair was the real surname of George Orwell. Spooky, innit ?
- August 21, 2013 at 16:04
-
Miranda indeed – so called because because it was permanently mooning at
Uranus.
-
August 22, 2013 at 10:00
-
Tiny minority alt-views Grauniad – WTF paranoid Raccoon ?
Pick on anti-Democracy BIG BULLY, the unelected, tax avoiding NON-Brit
Monsta Rupe’s SUNazi ! “We’ll Tell Ya Wot To Fuckin’ Fink!!”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernesto_Miranda
http://johnpilger.com/articles/the-courage-of-bradley-manning-will-inspire-others-to-seize-their-moment-of-truth
http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/nick-davies-interview-rise-major-force-british-journalism
- August 21, 2013 at 16:05
-
Miranda was very famous on the telly back when civil rights were all the
rage.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miranda_warning
- August 21, 2013 at 16:11
-
And Miranda was in The Tempest by William Shakespeare who was in a film
with Judi Dench who played M in some James Bond films. That’s a link that
even Connie Sachs wouldn’t have got.
I’m reading some old wartime copies of the Manchester Guardian. They have
a brilliant series of articles on the Bletchley Cypher School eavesdropping
on Nazi radio traffic. Apparently, it’s cheating and we’re sinking Uboats
unfairly. Thank goodness the Guardian is only read in the BBC and school
staff rooms otherwise Doenitz might twig and start sending messages in
hagey-pagey instead.
- August
21, 2013 at 15:49
-
- August 21, 2013 at 15:59
-
Proper comedy!
- August 21, 2013 at 15:32
-
Call me cynical, but having read all the George Smiley books, I would not
fly from Germany to Brazil via London if I was carrying information
embarrassing to GCHQ. I’d go via Paris instead. I wonder if this was all
staged to get a bit more out of a flagging story. And as for being held for
nearly nine hours, Miranda refused a solicitor (my client has nothing to say),
preferring to wait the eight hours before his lawyer arrived.
Next week, was Jimmy Savile an MI6 agent?
- August 21, 2013 at 15:55
-
@ Next week, was Jimmy Savile an MI6 agent? @
He was in Moscow in
about 1963…….
- August 21, 2013 at 15:06
-
You have to laugh, don’t you?
The Murdoch press, the Mirror, and for all I know umpteen other media
outlets are caught accessing the voicemails of some celebs trying to find out
who was bonking who else, and the Guardian and BBC go mental at how eveil they
are. We have a Public Enquiry, journalists arrested at dawn by the biggest
police operation since 7/7, endless huffing and puffing from said Grauniad and
BBC about it.
Then a Grauniad journalist gets hold of some confidential files pinched
from the Security Services, and said Security Services act to get their
property back. The Grauniad and the BBC promptly go mental about press
freedom.
My conclusion? In BBC/Grauniad Land, left-wing press freedom is sacrosanct,
but right-wing press freedom is evil and must be curtailed. It’s OK for
journalists employed by Murdoch press titles to be arrested, bailed for
eighteen months, and then released without charge because they might have
listened to a celeb’s voicemails, but if one Grauniad journalist’s boyfriend
(who may or may not have been in possession of Security Services information
of use to terrorists) is held for less than half a day, it’s the end of the
world as we know it.
Think I’ll support the spooks, this time.
-
August 21, 2013 at 15:22
-
I must say this dog-eat-dog fest is most unseemly – not talking about the
stories themselves where the title has landed itself in it – but the vitriol
between the DTel and the Guardian journos is a like a playground brawl
>and what about how you dragged out the MP expenses DTel? Na na nee na
na..
Reminds me of the long forgotten Donkey wars – but that was the
penny dreadfuls!
- August 21, 2013 at 14:54
-
I was listening to Miranda on the wireless this morning and the biggest
non-plus I had was when he said the bullying policemen told him that if he
didn”t give them all his passwords to his various webmail accounts, they would
put in a cell and keep him there; so being a brave man of principle, he told
them what they all were. So anyone who has ever exchanged an email with
Miranda…. Beware of the knock on the door….. or perhaps the Spam……..
- August 21, 2013 at 14:56
-
AS it happens MWT was passing through the airport at around the same
time. Wouldn’t be the first time plod had stopped the wrong man. Now there’s
a hard drive to conjure with….
- August 21, 2013 at 15:00
-
Maybe American Immigration will pick him up. He’ll be in pokey for
1,000 years…………..
- August
21, 2013 at 14:39
-
A few months short of sixty years ago I recall sitting in a signals truck
with a couple of other chaps and we were having fun winding up the Soviets.
There was quite a lot of this sort of thing about one way or another. It
seemed a good idea at the time. It was a bit of a nuisance as it interfered
with the rugger fixtures.
-
August 21, 2013 at 14:25
-
“Once upon a time, the intelligence services dolled themselves up in
tricorn hats and hung around in foreign ports in order to find out who was
planning to topple the government and install a foreign ruler.”
And that’s the problem isn’t it? They haven’t just moved with the times,
they’ve changed the game entirely.
Now, our security services are peeping through our windows and passing the
results to those same foreign Governments and God knows who else. We have a UK
Prime Minister demanding the return or destruction of ‘stolen material’; which
properly belongs to another nation, the same nation that admitted they
wouldn’t conceivably have been able to make the same demands on their own
shores. We have a Home Secretary shamefully justifying the use of
anti-terrorism powers to stop and confiscate private property from another
national.
How the security services might know whom has what in their possession, and
where, doesn’t take a genius to figure out. But it raises important questions
about why this powerful ability of the State is being used in this manner.
None of the current actors are terrorists, nor are they tricorn wearing
foreigners set upon conquest or even Goldfinger type super villains eyeing the
vaults at the Bank of England. These people are, until exposed as something
more sinister, merely ex-state employees, whistle-blowers, journalists and the
significant-others of journalists. While admittedly involved in a hi-stakes
game, these people are otherwise quite ordinary.
And therein lies the danger of allowing the State free, unfettered, use of
these tools to look inwards. I’m quite ordinary, you are quite ordinary and
I’ll wager most if not all the folks looking in here are quite ordinary too.
But there are people in Langley, in Cheltenham and other places that believe
ordinary is the new black, and worthy of keeping a very close eye on.
- August 21, 2013 at 15:45
-
Very well put. I’m probably less bothered about the guys and girls at
Langley and Cheltenham, as they aren’t going to be too fashed about chasing
anything other than the real baddies, and aren’t going to be chasing minnows
if that will compromise their capacity as the baddies develop counter
measures
What will be a real problem will be the expansion of the availability of
the technologically based toolkits involved into the hands of the looney
toons who will be only too happy to pry into people’s private lives in
furtherance of the enforcement of their own moral agendas, whether that be
right left or gender based politics, faith based conviction or whatever
other cause some group believed they have some god given or humanist right
to shove down everyone else’s throat
Politicians will struggle to resist that, given the moral blackmail and
accompanying media and pressure group shrieking. ‘Think of the children’ is
just the beginning in the era of the Wars of Moral Panic.
If you doubt the rationale behind this sort of vision, just think of
giving these toys to the well known ex DC plods and Clear Perries who would
seem to be more than willing to impose their perceptions and judgements on
the rest of mankind and the sort of dystopian future that would engender
- August 22, 2013 at 11:01
-
“…they aren’t going to be too fashed about chasing anything other than
the real baddies…”
Regular police have blackmailed suspects into turning informer etc.
since forever. I wish I could share your confidence that their spookish
counterparts will be different. I could never even aspire to share your
confidence that either group would never misuse data for personal benefit.
But the main problem may be the definition of “real baddies” or more
precisely the state’s role in defining them. Bradley Manning is a real
baddy, apparently. The criminals on whom he blew the whistle, being loyal
servants of the American state, are not. You probably know, and may even
be yourself, someone who irritates a state functionary from time to time.
You had better hope he’s not in the category with access to this mass of
surveillance information, because with a little bit of data-mining, he
might be able to come up with something that could cost you a key personal
relationship, embarrass you with friends or family or be used to blackmail
you into silence/compliance/complicity.
-
August 22, 2013 at 12:45
-
I agree about not every individual being trustworthy
I as merely trying to say, in passing, something to the effect that
on the ladder of professionalism, I’d probably rate the security forces
as being a few rungs higher. If they weren’t, and were leaking more
inconsequential stuff on a significant basis to all and sundry, i think
we’d see much more resultant ‘buzz’ than there seems to be
- August 21, 2013 at 15:53
-
“passing the results to those same foreign Governments”
I assume you mean our allies the US? (Yeah, I haven’t got much faith in
them either, but they ARE our allies all the same).
“‘stolen material’; which properly belongs to another
nation”
Surely part of the outrage was over it being a joint
operation – ipso, jointly owned material?
“Home Secretary shamefully justifying the use of anti-terrorism
powers to stop and confiscate private property from another
national”
Stolen private property – not quite the same thing – and
a better use of anti-terrorism powers than evicting elderly hecklers from
Labour party conferences…..
- August 21, 2013 at 20:21
-
The truth Anna, it isn’t just those we traditionally think of as our
allies. And even when it is, why should they be given our personal data
wholesale? Are you comfortable that sat on some database somewhere in the
US are your flight bookings, credit card info, banking transactions, email
address, phone numbers and address? That the EU holds/shares similar
information about you? Or that some of your data is stored/processed in
some decidedly dodgy climes to evade nations laws designed to prevent them
doing precisely that.
Now we learn of programs like Tempora and Prism which aim to
essentially capture everything else about you. And isn’t it funny how the
authorities claimed Snowden’s assertions to be mistaken; that they didn’t
have access to the systems of the large IT companies, that it wasn’t
possible to simply pull up someone’s information or that the NSA didn’t
spy on their own citizens? Until that is, the large IT companies kinda let
it be known the NSA did have access. Until it was revealled it was
possible to pull up entire datasets on almost anyone, instantly. Until the
NSA were forced to admit last week that there had been several thousand
‘accidental’ cases of monitoring of their own citizens.
What I find remarkable is that these massive monitoring systems aren’t
watching the citizens of China, Russia, the Middle East, Pakistan or even
Argentina, they are watching us in Europe and the US. Are we really so
dangerous?
I’m not squeamish about what the spooks do, I’m a realist and fully
recognise the potential threats. I’m also comfortable enough to post
freely under my own name, decidedly not a member of the foil hat brigade.
But, from an IT point of view, the gigantic surveillance systems currently
in use and being planned are worrying. Worse, that whenever anyone lifts
the curtain, the State resorts to their box of tricks marked terrorism to
snap it closed again.
Stolen property? I would argue, most strongly, that this is our
property anyway. We should know what is being monitored and by whom… in
the interests of our greater security I can accept that the details
shouldn’t be widely disseminated. But until the authorities gain our
consent, until there is some transparency about what they’re doing, I’m
going to continue to applaud the Mannings, the Snowdens and the Guardian
Newspapers of this world even if it would normally be my instincts to do
the opposite.
Other than that Anna, I don’t disagree with the thrust of your piece,
but however badly these people have behaved I’m not letting the other side
off the hook either.
-
August 21, 2013 at 22:03
-
Agreed with you to the point that you said you would applaud the
Guardian.
We have most to fear from the Guardian, its Guardianistas, and those
of whom they approve
Can you see the Guardian saying that they don’t think that the RSPCA
should be given information on an uncontrolled basis from the PNC?
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/07/30/rspca_runs_wild_with_police_national_computer/
And who else do you think they would approve of being given such
information in pursuit of their agendas? The NSPCC? Barnardos? The
multitude of ‘right on’ Wimmins Groups? Stonewall? The list goes on and
on
That way is hell on earth ….
- August 22, 2013 at
00:48
-
Okay, the Guardian perhaps not so much. Actually I think they could
have made a much better job of this story if they had any principles.
Firstly they should have refused to destroy their own computer,
forcing the Government to seize it and then defying any gag by blowing
the story wide open… the Government could hardly ‘disappear’ the
editor of a major British newspaper.
I have to say, I think the American newspapers have covered the
Snowden story in greater detail than the British papers.
And yes HH, I saw that piece in The Reg the other day… this is the
sort of thing that worries me. Like the ANPR camera network, remember
that? Who is using them now? The taxman, to verify people’s mileage
claims. Terrorism my butt, we’ve been right royally scammed.
- August 21, 2013 at 14:18
-
Ms raccoon,
I appreciate the direction you took with this piece (and I agree with it),
but isn’t the bigger issue that the Prime Monster felt it was justifiable to
dispatch his thugs with power tools?
What next, man? What next?
Internment camps?
CR.
- August 21, 2013 at 14:54
-
I assume you are talking about the Guardian offices? I’m uncomfortable
with their statement that they would rather ‘smash up their hard drives’
than return stolen property.
If they prefer their hard drives smashed –
so be it, makes for a better story for them I guess. Note that they felt no
need to inform the public of this event at the time – they waited until it
made a better story – sorry, could be ‘placed in context’.
- August 21, 2013 at 15:20
-
Yes.
I just find that incredible.
And yes, the hypocrisy of The Guardian is jaw-dropping.
CR.
- August 21, 2013 at 16:17
-
” they waited until it made a better story – sorry, could be ‘placed in
context’.”-The LandLady
Which is my point about Mirandagate (I get bragging rights for calling
it that first!). Every first year journalism student, blogger and (to
quote another commentator) “reader of George Smiley books” knows how to
transport ‘secret’ e-documents across boarders or could make a good guess
at it. Choosing your own boyfriend as a courier tells everyone that this
was, at worst, entirely stage managed or at best open provocation of TPTB
inorder to solicit a response.
-
August 21, 2013 at 16:52
-
>transport ‘secret’ e-documents across boarders
Boarders? Like these ones referenced here: https://www.annaraccoon.com/politics/bizarre-things-you-are-paying-for-number-279/
- August 21, 2013 at 18:22
-
*SNORK*…makes one wonder if the choice of Transporter was made
after consideration of the guy’s sexual preference having widened more
than just his horizons….
-
August 21, 2013 at 16:53
-
It is a shame they queered their pitch over hackgate/Leveson, as the
push to end privacy has been unrelenting.
- August 21, 2013 at 18:20
-
‘I appreciate the direction you took with this piece (and I agree with
it), but isn’t the bigger issue that the Prime Monster felt it was
justifiable to dispatch his thugs with power tools?’
Well this is interesting, because Alan Rubbisher’s account of what
happened has altered discreetly over the past couple of days.
Rubbisher is telling us that over the course of the past two months he
was coming under increasing pressure from ‘a senior official’ (now known to
be Sir Jeremy Heywood) to hand over the Snowden stuff (which contained GCHQ
material illegally acquired) or else. His response was that the material had
been disseminated globally, and the journo covering it (Greenwald) was based
in Brazil, so the UK government had no means of blocking publication, and
there was no way of compelling the ‘Guardian’ to hand over Snowden’s
documents.
But now he’s saying that the Graun’s lawyers advised him that HMG could
bar publication by the paper through an injunction, and that he consented to
the supervised destruction of two computers at King’s Place by Rubbisher’s
deputy and an IT expert, supervised by two members of GCHQ. This was
supposedly a happy compromise between Rubbisher’s unwillingness to hand the
Snowden material over to the British authorities (which he couldn’t have
done even if he’d consented) and HMG’s concerns to see the safe disposal of
potentially sensitive material which could be exposed if someone nasty
hacked into the Graun’s computers (even though this was a meaningless
exercise in itself).
This is just a farce.
-
August 21, 2013 at 13:51
-
Maybee the Guardian’s readership has fallen so such a low degree it needed
to create some news and Miranda was the unforunate caught in the line of fire.
After all the powers at the Guardian, in the context of the UK governments
dicatat smashed up the hard drive. What is ‘out there’ on other copies may not
be of that much interest to The Guardian now.
The Guardian in recent times rarely seriouly questions state insitutions,
it would never rock the system on whose wellbeing it depends. Once, long ago,
it actually was an interesting paper where was less biased reporting. But we
are talking several decades ago. The sign of the times.
-
August 21, 2013 at 13:34
-
The traitor, the homosexual journalist, the brazilian partner, the transit
lounge….would make a great film but would it be as good as Casablanca? Two
standards journalism isn’t innnit! Just don’t give this phalanx of cringing
lisping hypocrisy too much publicity!
- August 21, 2013 at 13:16
-
And we subject Murdoch to a Parliamentary Select Committee for doing what
the NSA do.
-
August 21, 2013 at 13:08
-
Surprise, surprise – Spies spy and the Guardian is hypocritical!
-
August 21, 2013 at 12:37
-
As much as the notion of any sort of ‘sippenhaft’ makes my blood run cold,
and it is the mark of a civilised society that we don’t visit the sins of the
homosexual journalist upon his foreign catamite , I can’t help wanting to
throw something at Radio 4 whenever they bring a report about this incident.
Does nobody in the MSM realise that this was all a ‘set up’, a journalistic
stunt? How to inject life into a story (Snowden) that has past its ‘flog by’
date.
Only if Miranda had worn a “Julian Assange Is Sexy” tshirt could it have
been more bloody obvious. No doubt he twatted (past tense of ‘to tweet’,
right?) about the whole wheeze before hand too…
- August 21, 2013 at 12:16
-
I’d rather that the security services trawled through my personal
information than the newspapers. It’s only in the interests of one of those
two to keep to themselves what they do know
-
August 21, 2013 at 13:18
-
It is fine until you disappear and resurface in Cuba when you are
mistaken for another Ho Hum who is spying for Hanoi.
- August 21, 2013 at 14:08
-
Div y’ nae ken min? Wee Eck’s chiels ‘ncrypt a’thin’ fit w’ spik aboot.
Nane iv thae spookies’ll ca’ us oot
- August
21, 2013 at 11:52
-
“…the unelected Guardian…”
Considering how little people pay attention to our elected politicians,
unless the media highlight them, it might be argued that a better Democracy
could be had if we elected newspaper editors every 5 years, as well as
MPs.
- August 21, 2013 at 11:56
-
What a brilliant idea! Transparency amongst newspaper editors. A register
of interests and off-shore accounts.
Perhaps the tables should be turned.
MPs selected by work experience amongst your Primrose Hill neighbours – and
journalists to stand for election. I really like that.
- August 21, 2013 at 13:32
-
Thing about ‘transparency’ I always thought, was that you could see
through it.
- August 21, 2013 at 19:51
-
I’ll vote for that EDL bloke Tommy Wossisname for editor of the
Guradia, that will show the smug gits.
BTW Anna, if you see comments from Arthur Foxake it’s me, I fancied a
bit of a change when opening my latest new account.
{ 86 comments }