I wonder if Cameron will continue with his policy of "open and transparent government"?
Cameron's view of open and transparent government is that all of us should have our entire personal lives open and transparent to the government.
And Theresa May stands full square behind him. It's like Hillary Clinton voting for Iraq. They take the 'strong' position to show that they can be tough despite being a woman, but it just ends up with them being catastrophically wrong.
@kle4 I do so because too many do seem to adopt that position. I accept not all do, but far too much of this debate is run by the extremes. Like I've said I'm not in favour of blanket surveillance but I'm not sure what the government is doing is characterisable as such. I want a decent technical debate, because much of this is beyond my level of knowledge. I just think there is too much heat on either side. I didn't intend to set up a straw man in that way, I'm against over and under intrusion but I'm very much against being killed by maniacs.
You don't need a technical debate to realise that the government reading through all your web searches and emails, and grabbing photos from your webcam, all at the discretion of GCHQ, is the greatest intrusion into the general public's private life we've ever seen. And this government hasn't done anything at all to restrain it. In fact, they've made a consistent effort to demand more powers.
Meanwhile, Germany doesn't do any of this stuff, yet they somehow aren't some hellhole with terrorist attacks on every corner.
Germany hasn't done much recent overseas "intervention" and so have made themselves less of a target. Even their operations in Afghanistan have been low key in relatively quiet areas with night patrolling not allowed. An allied officer called their operation "an aggressive camping exercise".
YouGov/Sun poll tonight - Labour lead down one to three points: CON 34%, LAB 37%, LD 7%, UKIP 13%
Applying the 3% deflator against the gold standard to the lead that was identified the other day this is a tie which is pretty close to the ICM figure.
What I really don't believe is that Labour are at 37. I really don't.
37% is where Labour would be with 100% postal voting and a post office box outside every front door in the land.
BTW - SeanT called it right on the JK Rowling effect.
He's going to be even more unbearable happy now.
I expect a Telegraph blog on it.
Sean has made some great calls over the years, but it's not some crazy political insight that people would react badly to one side calling a popular female author a traitor and a whore.
I imagine the hacker changed the password and they can't get in to take it down.
Or something.
I hope the charity comission comes down like a ton of bricks on them. I imagine they are leaving it up to make it seem as though they don't have access to their account. Still, in the tiny chance that is true, they could have contacted twitter in the last week to gain access to their account again to delete it. Bonkers.
I wonder if Cameron will continue with his policy of "open and transparent government"?
Cameron's view of open and transparent government is that all of us should have our entire personal lives open and transparent to the government.
And Theresa May stands full square behind him. It's like Hillary Clinton voting for Iraq. They take the 'strong' position to show that they can be tough despite being a woman, but it just ends up with them being catastrophically wrong.
@kle4 I do so because too many do seem to adopt that position. I accept not all do, but far too much of this debate is run by the extremes. Like I've said I'm not in favour of blanket surveillance but I'm not sure what the government is doing is characterisable as such. I want a decent technical debate, because much of this is beyond my level of knowledge. I just think there is too much heat on either side. I didn't intend to set up a straw man in that way, I'm against over and under intrusion but I'm very much against being killed by maniacs.
You don't need a technical debate to realise that the government reading through all your web searches and emails, and grabbing photos from your webcam, all at the discretion of GCHQ, is the greatest intrusion into the general public's private life we've ever seen. And this government hasn't done anything at all to restrain it. In fact, they've made a consistent effort to demand more powers.
Meanwhile, Germany doesn't do any of this stuff, yet they somehow aren't some hellhole with terrorist attacks on every corner.
Germany hasn't done much recent overseas "intervention" and so have made themselves less of a target. Even their operations in Afghanistan have been low key in relatively quiet areas with night patrolling not allowed. An allied officer called their operation "an aggressive camping exercise".
Spain got target and they hadn't done much. I don't think that affects thing much.
I've looked at the ICM tables and I saw Greens 9% on AB and 1% on DE, so much for the Greens being left wing but it might explain the further fall of the LD as "rich LD diehards go Green".
BTW - SeanT called it right on the JK Rowling effect.
He's going to be even more unbearable happy now.
I expect a Telegraph blog on it.
Sean has made some great calls over the years, but it's not some crazy political insight that people would react badly to one side calling a popular female author a traitor and a whore.
I imagine the hacker changed the password and they can't get in to take it down.
Or something.
I hope the charity comission comes down like a ton of bricks on them. I imagine they are leaving it up to make it seem as though they don't have access to their account. Still, in the tiny chance that is true, they could have contacted twitter in the last week to gain access to their account again to delete it. Bonkers.
There are a number of inappropriate tweets on that charity's Twitter feed. Someone has been taking the piss for quite some time. The commission need to nail them as an example to others.
"Meanwhile, Germany doesn't do any of this stuff..."
The German Government doesn't tap phones, intercept mail etc.? Really? Are you sure about that? I think you'll find that they have a couple of agencies who are very active in just those things. Every government on the face of the planet intercepts communications, always have and always will because in every country there are some very bad people who want to do very bad things.
RIPA was introduced to regulate surveillance that was already going on in an unregulated way. My main beef with it is two-fold. Firstly, it extends surveillance powers to people who should have no need for them (e.g. the Ambulance Service, local councils and the Charity Commission). Secondly the level of authorisation needed is too low and has too little external oversight - make it a requirement to swear out a warrant from a magistrate giving the reason for the request, not just get your boss to sign a form.
Listening to the content of peoples phone calls, reading their mail (electronic and physical) always has been pretty well regulated and still seems to be so. Its the other stuff where RIPA needs to be tightened up.
@kle4 I do so because too many do seem to adopt that position. I accept not all do, but far too much of this debate is run by the extremes. Like I've said I'm not in favour of blanket surveillance but I'm not sure what the government is doing is characterisable as such. I want a decent technical debate, because much of this is beyond my level of knowledge. I just think there is too much heat on either side. I didn't intend to set up a straw man in that way, I'm against over and under intrusion but I'm very much against being killed by maniacs.
You don't need a technical debate to realise that the government reading through all your web searches and emails, and grabbing photos from your webcam, all at the discretion of GCHQ, is the greatest intrusion into the general public's private life we've ever seen. And this government hasn't done anything at all to restrain it. In fact, they've made a consistent effort to demand more powers.
Meanwhile, Germany doesn't do any of this stuff, yet they somehow aren't some hellhole with terrorist attacks on every corner.
Germany hasn't done much recent overseas "intervention" and so have made themselves less of a target. Even their operations in Afghanistan have been low key in relatively quiet areas with night patrolling not allowed. An allied officer called their operation "an aggressive camping exercise".
Spain got target and they hadn't done much. I don't think that affects thing much.
Spain also had a history of terrorist violence with ETA too, so has Britain to a lesser extent with the IRA in the past.
@kle4 I do so because too many do seem to adopt that position. I accept not all do, but far too much of this debate is run by the extremes. Like I've said I'm not in favour of blanket surveillance but I'm not sure what the government is doing is characterisable as such. I want a decent technical debate, because much of this is beyond my level of knowledge. I just think there is too much heat on either side. I didn't intend to set up a straw man in that way, I'm against over and under intrusion but I'm very much against being killed by maniacs.
You don't need a technical debate to realise that the government reading through all your web searches and emails, and grabbing photos from your webcam, all at the discretion of GCHQ, is the greatest intrusion into the general public's private life we've ever seen. And this government hasn't done anything at all to restrain it. In fact, they've made a consistent effort to demand more powers.
Meanwhile, Germany doesn't do any of this stuff, yet they somehow aren't some hellhole with terrorist attacks on every corner.
Really?
'The BND acts as an early warning system to alert the German government to threats to German interests from abroad. It depends heavily on wiretapping and electronic surveillance of international communications. '
I still don't see the upside, because Labour will then eat some more Lib Dem votes and how much credit have the Lib Dems got for all their other policy things? This seems like someone drowning in the Amazon grabbing an anaconda to avoid the approaching piranhas.
@kle4 I do so because too many do seem to adopt that position. I accept not all do, but far too much of this debate is run by the extremes. Like I've said I'm not in favour of blanket surveillance but I'm not sure what the government is doing is characterisable as such. I want a decent technical debate, because much of this is beyond my level of knowledge. I just think there is too much heat on either side. I didn't intend to set up a straw man in that way, I'm against over and under intrusion but I'm very much against being killed by maniacs.
You don't need a technical debate to realise that the government reading through all your web searches and emails, and grabbing photos from your webcam, all at the discretion of GCHQ, is the greatest intrusion into the general public's private life we've ever seen. And this government hasn't done anything at all to restrain it. In fact, they've made a consistent effort to demand more powers.
Meanwhile, Germany doesn't do any of this stuff, yet they somehow aren't some hellhole with terrorist attacks on every corner.
Really?
'The BND acts as an early warning system to alert the German government to threats to German interests from abroad. It depends heavily on wiretapping and electronic surveillance of international communications. '
Don't be silly. We're not against the concept of electronic surveillance of terrorist threats. We're against mass intrusions into a country's own citizens without warrants.
Has anyone tallied the amount of freedoms we have lost, then looked at them again without a "knee jerk" reaction to a problem that didn't really exist?
e.g. While gun laws are useful, is it right only criminals and police are allowed to play with them? Fill in your own gripe, and have a rant. I need a bog roll to list mine.
"Meanwhile, Germany doesn't do any of this stuff..."
The German Government doesn't tap phones, intercept mail etc.? Really? Are you sure about that? I think you'll find that they have a couple of agencies who are very active in just those things. Every government on the face of the planet intercepts communications, always have and always will because in every country there are some very bad people who want to do very bad things.
People again and again don't seem to get this. Phone tapping and electronic surveillance for identified threats is a completely legitimate thing to do. The problem is when the security services can get access to everything we do online without a warrant even if the person is completely unrelated to any investigation. That is the stuff I'm complaing about and that's the stuff that doesn't happen in Germany.
RIPA was introduced to regulate surveillance that was already going on in an unregulated way. My main beef with it is two-fold. Firstly, it extends surveillance powers to people who should have no need for them (e.g. the Ambulance Service, local councils and the Charity Commission). Secondly the level of authorisation needed is too low and has too little external oversight - make it a requirement to swear out a warrant from a magistrate giving the reason for the request, not just get your boss to sign a form.
Listening to the content of peoples phone calls, reading their mail (electronic and physical) always has been pretty well regulated and still seems to be so. Its the other stuff where RIPA needs to be tightened up.
Except it's come out today that GCHQ is free to read British people's electronic communications if it's gone through an American site like Facebook, Google etc as that makes it foreign and the law no longer applies. GCHQ is a state within a state that does what the hell they want, and Cameron and the rest of the elected government does nothing to limit them.
I have to say that I'm always flabbergasted at people's lack of reaction to the emergence of the fact that the USA funded (partially or otherwise) GCHQ being built. A FOREIGN country OWNS part of our intelligence services. It's not the actuality of it that surprises me; I've got used the fact that we are more or less owned by them -it's the silence surrounding it, like someone has just passed wind at dinner.
"Meanwhile, Germany doesn't do any of this stuff..."
The German Government doesn't tap phones, intercept mail etc.? Really? Are you sure about that? I think you'll find that they have a couple of agencies who are very active in just those things. Every government on the face of the planet intercepts communications, always have and always will because in every country there are some very bad people who want to do very bad things.
People again and again don't seem to get this. Phone tapping and electronic surveillance for identified threats is a completely legitimate thing to do. The problem is when the security services can get access to everything we do online without a warrant even if the person is completely unrelated to any investigation. That is the stuff I'm complaing about and that's the stuff that doesn't happen in Germany.
RIPA was introduced to regulate surveillance that was already going on in an unregulated way. My main beef with it is two-fold. Firstly, it extends surveillance powers to people who should have no need for them (e.g. the Ambulance Service, local councils and the Charity Commission). Secondly the level of authorisation needed is too low and has too little external oversight - make it a requirement to swear out a warrant from a magistrate giving the reason for the request, not just get your boss to sign a form.
Listening to the content of peoples phone calls, reading their mail (electronic and physical) always has been pretty well regulated and still seems to be so. Its the other stuff where RIPA needs to be tightened up.
Except it's come out today that GCHQ is free to read British people's electronic communications if it's gone through an American site like Facebook, Google etc as that makes it foreign and the law no longer applies. GCHQ is a state within a state that does what the hell they want, and Cameron and the rest of the elected government does nothing to limit them.
Darren at my local council, and Doreen at the NHS with unfettered access to all manner of personal information, are a far greater threat to my privacy than data miners at GCHQ.
"Meanwhile, Germany doesn't do any of this stuff..."
The German Government doesn't tap phones, intercept mail etc.? Really? Are you sure about that? I think you'll find that they have a couple of agencies who are very active in just those things. Every government on the face of the planet intercepts communications, always have and always will because in every country there are some very bad people who want to do very bad things.
People again and again don't seem to get this. Phone tapping and electronic surveillance for identified threats is a completely legitimate thing to do. The problem is when the security services can get access to everything we do online without a warrant even if the person is completely unrelated to any investigation. That is the stuff I'm complaing about and that's the stuff that doesn't happen in Germany.
RIPA was introduced to regulate surveillance that was already going on in an unregulated way. My main beef with it is two-fold. Firstly, it extends surveillance powers to people who should have no need for them (e.g. the Ambulance Service, local councils and the Charity Commission). Secondly the level of authorisation needed is too low and has too little external oversight - make it a requirement to swear out a warrant from a magistrate giving the reason for the request, not just get your boss to sign a form.
Listening to the content of peoples phone calls, reading their mail (electronic and physical) always has been pretty well regulated and still seems to be so. Its the other stuff where RIPA needs to be tightened up.
Except it's come out today that GCHQ is free to read British people's electronic communications if it's gone through an American site like Facebook, Google etc as that makes it foreign and the law no longer applies. GCHQ is a state within a state that does what the hell they want, and Cameron and the rest of the elected government does nothing to limit them.
From a practical POV I always assume that anything I do online is public unless it's encrypted. It's amazing how many idiots google e.g. "how to murder your parents" before e.g. murdering their parents. For email it's not that big a deal to put in place encryption software which even the NSA probably can't break (or won't admit they can break). Of course using such software might in itself look fishy to GCHQ.
Eh?? Those two newspapers are not SNP agents, and the spin if any put on Mr brown's remarks is trivial with the incessant out-of-contextism of the unionist media and their chums in Better Together:
Having said that, Mr Massie's article rightly identifies areas of unsatisfactory performance, but (as usual with the unionists) he uses them as arguments for union whereas, in a whacking great non sequitur, he doesn't show that things would be better if run from London. Which is worrying given the ONS report
"Meanwhile, Germany doesn't do any of this stuff..."
The German Government doesn't tap phones, intercept mail etc.? Really? Are you sure about that? I think you'll find that they have a couple of agencies who are very active in just those things. Every government on the face of the planet intercepts communications, always have and always will because in every country there are some very bad people who want to do very bad things.
People again and again don't seem to get this. Phone tapping and electronic surveillance for identified threats is a completely legitimate thing to do. The problem is when the security services can get access to everything we do online without a warrant even if the person is completely unrelated to any investigation. That is the stuff I'm complaing about and that's the stuff that doesn't happen in Germany.
RIPA was introduced to regulate surveillance that was already going on in an unregulated way. My main beef with it is two-fold. Firstly, it extends surveillance powers to people who should have no need for them (e.g. the Ambulance Service, local councils and the Charity Commission). Secondly the level of authorisation needed is too low and has too little external oversight - make it a requirement to swear out a warrant from a magistrate giving the reason for the request, not just get your boss to sign a form.
Listening to the content of peoples phone calls, reading their mail (electronic and physical) always has been pretty well regulated and still seems to be so. Its the other stuff where RIPA needs to be tightened up.
Except it's come out today that GCHQ is free to read British people's electronic communications if it's gone through an American site like Facebook, Google etc as that makes it foreign and the law no longer applies. GCHQ is a state within a state that does what the hell they want, and Cameron and the rest of the elected government does nothing to limit them.
From a practical POV I always assume that anything I do online is public unless it's encrypted. It's amazing how many idiots google e.g. "how to murder your parents" before e.g. murdering their parents. For email it's not that big a deal to put in place encryption software which even the NSA probably can't break (or won't admit they can break). Of course using such software might in itself look fishy to GCHQ.
Anyone who simply assumes that email is private is a fool. Data hops and skips about on any number of networks and servers as it passes across the net; that's how it was designed to ensure survivability and continuity during major warfare.
Awful for Labour. Even worse for the Tories. Unspeakably bad for the Liberals. *
* On this point, I will again ask the likes of Stodge, Corporeal and Sir Mark Sr what on earth it will take to actually a) kick out the Cleggster or b) pull the plug on the Coalition in the hope of a electoral dividend.
10% with the pollster that is by far the most favourable to the Yellows is surely cut-and-run material? They have nothing left to lose.
I think you're living in cloud cuckoo land if you think the LibDems would suddenly surge if they (a) ditched Clegg, and (b) broke the coalition agreement.
But hey...
Change offers you at least a roll of the dice. What is truly "cuckoo" is to keep doing the same thing and expecting a different result.
does that mean that next time there is a Labour government unemployment will not be higher when they leave office and the economy not trashed?
GE2015 could be 1992 all over again with EdMs ratings dropping like a lead balloon and the economy on the mend. No opposition who has been behind on both the economy AND leadership ratings has ever gone on to form a government, however, with the odds stacked against the conservatives with the FPTP system maybe labour could buck the trend, but I doubt it, labour should be much further ahead at this stage of the game
You couldn't make it up. Is this what passes for foreign policy these days.
|It's what has always passed for foreign policy. We didn't ally ourselves with Stalin in 1941 because we liked the cut of his jib.
"If Hitler invaded hell I would make at least a favourable reference to the devil in the House of Commons."
Does a favourable reference include crawling up the devil's arse?
't was an experience of great interest to me to meet Premier Stalin ... It is very fortunate for Russia in her agony to have this great rugged war chief at her head. He is a man of massive outstanding personality, suited to the sombre and stormy times in which his life has been cast; a man of inexhaustible courage and will-power and a man direct and even blunt in speech, which, having been brought up in the House of Commons, I do not mind at all, especially when I have something to say of my own. Above all, he is a man with that saving sense of humour which is of high importance to all men and all nations, but particularly to great men and great nations. Stalin also left upon me the impression of a deep, cool wisdom and a complete absence of illusions of any kind. I believe I made him feel that we were good and faithful comrades in this war – but that, after all, is a matter which deeds not words will prove.'
The "economy" was and still is trashed, The difference is, it is now the Tories justifying New Labours policies, claiming they are only "temporary aberrations" till the market self corrects. Cameron came to power claiming a new way, and is presiding over the same old system. "Win the election at all costs".
Regarding Charles Farr's witness statement about surveillance which the Guardian and Socrates are so intemperates about, I very strongly recommend reading the actual document, not the Guardian/Socrates spin on it. It is absolutely fascinating:
The most interesting thing about it is the degree of supervision. I must admit I hadn't realised quite how extensive the protections are.
Of course, nothing will convince the usual suspects, who are firmly convinced that all recent British Prime Ministers, Foreign Secretaries, Home Secretaries, senior policemen, the intelligence services, the two Interception of Information Commissioners (both senior judges), the Intelligence and Security Committee (Sir Malcolm Rifkind, Hazel Blears, Lord Butler, Sir Ming Campbell, Mark Field, Fiona Mactaggart, George Howarth, Julian Lewis, Lord Lothian) are a load of shysters and crooks, who care not a jot for civil liberties and are lying to us.
Oh, and you also need to add into the conspiracy against our civil liberties the US government, Congress, the Australian, Canadian and New Zealand governments, as well a host of other countries, including Germany and all the other EU countries, all of which have similar surveillance regimes and exchange data with us.
Now here's a thought: maybe all these people are actually on our side, taking a balanced view in trying to protect us as well as possible with the minimum of intrusion? I know this will seem an outrageous suggestion to the usual suspects, but it does actually fit the facts rather well, does it not?
@Richard_Nabavi You are saying we need a secret police to spy on us for our own benefit? That's a novel idea, I am surprised it has never been tried before.
You couldn't make it up. Is this what passes for foreign policy these days.
|It's what has always passed for foreign policy. We didn't ally ourselves with Stalin in 1941 because we liked the cut of his jib.
"If Hitler invaded hell I would make at least a favourable reference to the devil in the House of Commons."
Does a favourable reference include crawling up the devil's arse?
't was an experience of great interest to me to meet Premier Stalin ... It is very fortunate for Russia in her agony to have this great rugged war chief at her head. He is a man of massive outstanding personality, suited to the sombre and stormy times in which his life has been cast; a man of inexhaustible courage and will-power and a man direct and even blunt in speech, which, having been brought up in the House of Commons, I do not mind at all, especially when I have something to say of my own. Above all, he is a man with that saving sense of humour which is of high importance to all men and all nations, but particularly to great men and great nations. Stalin also left upon me the impression of a deep, cool wisdom and a complete absence of illusions of any kind. I believe I made him feel that we were good and faithful comrades in this war – but that, after all, is a matter which deeds not words will prove.'
Speech in the House of Commons, September 8, 1942
McDivvie
I am not convinced this is evidence of Churchillian arse crawling.
Whilst Churchill needs little assistance in artful construction of meaning, the whole passage strikes me as being a pastiche of the Russian toasting convention. Namely to praise one's enemies, or even friends of circumstance, in terms which flatter but do not deceive.
Margaret Thatcher didn't mind being hated. Tony Blair does – very much indeed
Margaret Thatcher was suddenly and shocking defenestrated and never overcame her bitterness; but even as her mental powers failed she could take comfort in her achievements. Tony Blair's faculties are not clouded by old age but he is confused and perhaps a little frightened by the contempt of millions of people who once voted for him. It is a far, far worse fate than Mrs Thatcher's.
Blair is terrified of and haunted by the verdict of history. Thatcher is one of the greats, Blair is a venal pariah and disgrace.
Blair did more to damange British politics than anyone else. It's not just the wasted opportunity he had in 1997 and his failure to deal with Brown but that with regard to pretty much every area of policy but especially on an issue of importance - going to war - his behaviour and that of his acolytes was such that trust in the office of Prime Minister and our politics generally has been severely damaged. And without such trust how can our system of politics work?
That is his great failing and it applies regardless of whether or not you think his views on Iraq were right or wrong. Indeed, if he really believed that the UK should go to war in Iraq in 20013 he had an overriding duty to argue that case honestly and be fully transparent now about his discussions with the US.
Labour 1997 - 2010 was all spin and lies, which far outweighed their achievements. For all their distancing themselves from Blair, I don't think Milliband's Labour has fundamentally changed.
BTW - SeanT called it right on the JK Rowling effect.
He's going to be even more unbearable happy now.
I expect a Telegraph blog on it.
Sean has made some great calls over the years, but it's not some crazy political insight that people would react badly to one side calling a popular female author a traitor and a whore.
I imagine the hacker changed the password and they can't get in to take it down.
Or something.
I hope the charity comission comes down like a ton of bricks on them. I imagine they are leaving it up to make it seem as though they don't have access to their account. Still, in the tiny chance that is true, they could have contacted twitter in the last week to gain access to their account again to delete it. Bonkers.
There are a number of inappropriate tweets on that charity's Twitter feed. Someone has been taking the piss for quite some time. The commission need to nail them as an example to others.
'"As a charity we do not take any political stance and our opinion is people are free to donate to whoever they choose"
In which case they might want to do something about the various anti coalition tweets and derogatory comments concerning certainTories on their Twitter feed. Oh, I forgot, it's all down to a mysterious hacker.
Regarding Charles Farr's witness statement about surveillance which the Guardian and Socrates are so intemperates about, I very strongly recommend reading the actual document, not the Guardian/Socrates spin on it. It is absolutely fascinating... The most interesting thing about it is the degree of supervision. I must admit I hadn't realised quite how extensive the protections are.
Of course, nothing will convince the usual suspects, who are firmly convinced that all recent British Prime Ministers, Foreign Secretaries, Home Secretaries, senior policemen, the intelligence services, the two Interception of Information Commissioners (both senior judges), the Intelligence and Security Committee (Sir Malcolm Rifkind, Hazel Blears, Lord Butler, Sir Ming Campbell, Mark Field, Fiona Mactaggart, George Howarth, Julian Lewis, Lord Lothian) are a load of shysters and crooks, who care not a jot for civil liberties and are lying to us.
Oh, and you also need to add into the conspiracy against our civil liberties the US government, Congress, the Australian, Canadian and New Zealand governments, as well a host of other countries, including Germany and all the other EU countries, all of which have similar surveillance regimes and exchange data with us.
Now here's a thought: maybe all these people are actually on our side, taking a balanced view in trying to protect us as well as possible with the minimum of intrusion? I know this will seem an outrageous suggestion to the usual suspects, but it does actually fit the facts rather well, does it not?
I have read the Farr statement. Never once does he justify the position that an interception warrant should be granted by a member of the executive rather than by a judge. The executive, of course, wants as much power as possible. That is no surprise. Nevertheless, RIPA is an outrageous assault on the liberty of the subject.
@kle4 I do so because too many do seem to adopt that position. I accept not all do, but far too much of this debate is run by the extremes. Like I've said I'm not in favour of blanket surveillance but I'm not sure what the government is doing is characterisable as such. I want a decent technical debate, because much of this is beyond my level of knowledge. I just think there is too much heat on either side. I didn't intend to set up a straw man in that way, I'm against over and under intrusion but I'm very much against being killed by maniacs.
The problem is how do you stop government abusing these powers. RIPA was only supposed to be for terrorists and serious crime etc. That isn't how it has worked out in practice, function creep will always happen. IIRC statistically, an individual is at greater risk of dying at the hands of the police than from terrorist activity. Happy to be corrected if I have got that bit wrong
In practice I think we have to assume that when people have the technical ability to do something, they're going to do it. I'd be a bit less optimistic than Socrates about Germany: Once you're routinely sharing intelligence with other countries that provides all kinds of opportunities for regulatory arbitrage. What the NSA is constitutionally prohibited from doing just gets outsourced to GCHQ.
The places to put the checks and balances are where the surveillance requires legal coertion. For example, encryption keys need to be protected: Nobody should be forced to reveal them by law under any circumstances. This will prevent some legitimate law enforcement activity, but the experience of the court system built up over centuries is that you need some principles like that, like the right to silence, to prevent abuse.
I got a bit carried away at the local elections from the early Sunderland results having much higher Ukip scores than i was expecting for up there and so i thought Lab were in for a much bigger hammering in core areas than they actually got.
Apparently there's been a big grooming gang investigation (operation sanctuary) running up there for a while which hasn't reported nationally as this national epidemic of sexual violence that's been getting worse for 14 years because either a) it isn't a national issue or b) it doesn't fit the political class' preferred narrative.
This may be way the Ukip score was higher than expected.
Anyway point being the ongoing epidemic of sexual violence round the country that doesn't officially exist is likely to be a) a significant wild card in Lab vs Ukip seats at the election and b) only reported locally if at all, so it is likely to influence the odds in specific Lab vs Ukip seats.
Regarding Charles Farr's witness statement about surveillance which the Guardian and Socrates are so intemperates about, I very strongly recommend reading the actual document, not the Guardian/Socrates spin on it. It is absolutely fascinating:
The most interesting thing about it is the degree of supervision. I must admit I hadn't realised quite how extensive the protections are.
Of course, nothing will convince the usual suspects, who are firmly convinced that all recent British Prime Ministers, Foreign Secretaries, Home Secretaries, senior policemen, the intelligence services, the two Interception of Information Commissioners (both senior judges), the Intelligence and Security Committee (Sir Malcolm Rifkind, Hazel Blears, Lord Butler, Sir Ming Campbell, Mark Field, Fiona Mactaggart, George Howarth, Julian Lewis, Lord Lothian) are a load of shysters and crooks, who care not a jot for civil liberties and are lying to us.
Oh, and you also need to add into the conspiracy against our civil liberties the US government, Congress, the Australian, Canadian and New Zealand governments, as well a host of other countries, including Germany and all the other EU countries, all of which have similar surveillance regimes and exchange data with us.
Now here's a thought: maybe all these people are actually on our side, taking a balanced view in trying to protect us as well as possible with the minimum of intrusion? I know this will seem an outrageous suggestion to the usual suspects, but it does actually fit the facts rather well, does it not?
Richard, your argument is dependent on the 'Government by decent chap theory' I must confess to being slightly surprised to see you citing Hazel Blears as an example of the protections that the citizen has. Hazel is someone who can be relied on to do and say exactly what she is told to by her civil servants and political masters.
Comments
And Theresa May stands full square behind him. It's like Hillary Clinton voting for Iraq. They take the 'strong' position to show that they can be tough despite being a woman, but it just ends up with them being catastrophically wrong.
"Oh good grief how sneeringly sexist can you be"
A lot more than @Socratese if you read the backposts ;-)
The German Government doesn't tap phones, intercept mail etc.? Really? Are you sure about that? I think you'll find that they have a couple of agencies who are very active in just those things. Every government on the face of the planet intercepts communications, always have and always will because in every country there are some very bad people who want to do very bad things.
RIPA was introduced to regulate surveillance that was already going on in an unregulated way. My main beef with it is two-fold. Firstly, it extends surveillance powers to people who should have no need for them (e.g. the Ambulance Service, local councils and the Charity Commission). Secondly the level of authorisation needed is too low and has too little external oversight - make it a requirement to swear out a warrant from a magistrate giving the reason for the request, not just get your boss to sign a form.
Listening to the content of peoples phone calls, reading their mail (electronic and physical) always has been pretty well regulated and still seems to be so. Its the other stuff where RIPA needs to be tightened up.
'The BND acts as an early warning system to alert the German government to threats to German interests from abroad. It depends heavily on wiretapping and electronic surveillance of international communications. '
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundesnachrichtendienst
e.g. While gun laws are useful, is it right only criminals and police are allowed to play with them?
Fill in your own gripe, and have a rant. I need a bog roll to list mine.
South Korea 5.1
Draw 3.75
http://www.betfair.com/exchange/football/market?id=1.112173645&exp=e
Clegg's ratings are awful, but they're better than Ed's.
All pretty amusing stuff, really.
Betting on him as next Conservative leader Richard?
Lab 37%
Con 34%
UKIP 13%
LD 7%
How right you are. But with the new shiny system of data collection, all will be well
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/jun/17/nhs-patient-data-audit-significant-lapses-confidentiality-hscic
http://www.scotsman.com/news/education/gordon-brown-scots-want-uk-wide-school-system-1-3445973
http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/referendum-news/brown-scores-own-goal-on-education.24507224
Having said that, Mr Massie's article rightly identifies areas of unsatisfactory performance, but (as usual with the unionists) he uses them as arguments for union whereas, in a whacking great non sequitur, he doesn't show that things would be better if run from London. Which is worrying given the ONS report
http://www.scotsman.com/news/education/scotland-is-best-educated-country-in-europe-1-3435273
(and just in case anyone asks, I don't think the current standards are good enough!).
Interesting piece by one of the very few neutral commentators in what's left of the Scottish media
http://www.heraldscotland.com/comment/columnists/the-week-scotland-fell-victim-to-cybernuttery.24492251
Thought not.
't was an experience of great interest to me to meet Premier Stalin ... It is very fortunate for Russia in her agony to have this great rugged war chief at her head. He is a man of massive outstanding personality, suited to the sombre and stormy times in which his life has been cast; a man of inexhaustible courage and will-power and a man direct and even blunt in speech, which, having been brought up in the House of Commons, I do not mind at all, especially when I have something to say of my own. Above all, he is a man with that saving sense of humour which is of high importance to all men and all nations, but particularly to great men and great nations. Stalin also left upon me the impression of a deep, cool wisdom and a complete absence of illusions of any kind. I believe I made him feel that we were good and faithful comrades in this war – but that, after all, is a matter which deeds not words will prove.'
Speech in the House of Commons, September 8, 1942
The "economy" was and still is trashed, The difference is, it is now the Tories justifying New Labours policies, claiming they are only "temporary aberrations" till the market self corrects.
Cameron came to power claiming a new way, and is presiding over the same old system.
"Win the election at all costs".
https://www.privacyinternational.org/sites/privacyinternational.org/files/downloads/press-releases/witness_st_of_charles_blandford_farr.pdf
The most interesting thing about it is the degree of supervision. I must admit I hadn't realised quite how extensive the protections are.
Of course, nothing will convince the usual suspects, who are firmly convinced that all recent British Prime Ministers, Foreign Secretaries, Home Secretaries, senior policemen, the intelligence services, the two Interception of Information Commissioners (both senior judges), the Intelligence and Security Committee (Sir Malcolm Rifkind, Hazel Blears, Lord Butler, Sir Ming Campbell, Mark Field, Fiona Mactaggart, George Howarth, Julian Lewis, Lord Lothian) are a load of shysters and crooks, who care not a jot for civil liberties and are lying to us.
Oh, and you also need to add into the conspiracy against our civil liberties the US government, Congress, the Australian, Canadian and New Zealand governments, as well a host of other countries, including Germany and all the other EU countries, all of which have similar surveillance regimes and exchange data with us.
Now here's a thought: maybe all these people are actually on our side, taking a balanced view in trying to protect us as well as possible with the minimum of intrusion? I know this will seem an outrageous suggestion to the usual suspects, but it does actually fit the facts rather well, does it not?
You are saying we need a secret police to spy on us for our own benefit?
That's a novel idea, I am surprised it has never been tried before.
I am not convinced this is evidence of Churchillian arse crawling.
Whilst Churchill needs little assistance in artful construction of meaning, the whole passage strikes me as being a pastiche of the Russian toasting convention. Namely to praise one's enemies, or even friends of circumstance, in terms which flatter but do not deceive.
Lab 377
Con 216
LD 142
UKIP 90
Green 28
PC 26
Total 904
Slick slogan, but I would far prefer less bullcrap from the protagonists than a a clever line.
In which case they might want to do something about the various anti coalition tweets and derogatory comments concerning certainTories on their Twitter feed. Oh, I forgot, it's all down to a mysterious hacker.
The places to put the checks and balances are where the surveillance requires legal coertion. For example, encryption keys need to be protected: Nobody should be forced to reveal them by law under any circumstances. This will prevent some legitimate law enforcement activity, but the experience of the court system built up over centuries is that you need some principles like that, like the right to silence, to prevent abuse.
open borders + police state
or
closed borders + free country
Apparently there's been a big grooming gang investigation (operation sanctuary) running up there for a while which hasn't reported nationally as this national epidemic of sexual violence that's been getting worse for 14 years because either a) it isn't a national issue or b) it doesn't fit the political class' preferred narrative.
http://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/news/local-news/total-89-arrests-connection-operation-7168373
This may be way the Ukip score was higher than expected.
Anyway point being the ongoing epidemic of sexual violence round the country that doesn't officially exist is likely to be a) a significant wild card in Lab vs Ukip seats at the election and b) only reported locally if at all, so it is likely to influence the odds in specific Lab vs Ukip seats.
My guess: close but not quite. I think West Baghdad is likely to join in soon with the front line ending up running through the Green zone somewhere.
I must confess to being slightly surprised to see you citing Hazel Blears as an example of the protections that the citizen has.
Hazel is someone who can be relied on to do and say exactly what she is told to by her civil servants and political masters.