The disgraceful judges of Britain’s High Court – who have gone along with torture, extraordinary rendition, every single argument for mass surveillance and hiding information from the public, and even secret courts – have ruled that it was lawful for the Home Office to detain David Miranda, a journalist as information he was carrying might in some undefined way, and if communicated to them, aid “terrorists”.
Despite the entire industry, both private and governmental, devoted to whipping up fear, it is plain to pretty well everyone by now that terrorism is about the most unlikely way for you to die. A car accident is many hundreds of times more likely. Even drowning in your own bath is more likely. Where is the massive industry of suppression against baths?
I had dinner inside the Ecuadorian Embassy on Sunday with Julian Assange, who I am happy to say is as fit and well as possible in circumstances of confinement. Amongst those present was Jesselyn Radack, attorney for, among others, Edward Snowden. Last week on entering the UK she was pulled over by immigration and interrogated about her clients. The supposed “immigration officer” already knew who are Jesselyn Radack’s clients. He insisted aggressively on referring repeatedly to Chelsea Manning as a criminal, to which Jesselyn quietly replied that he was a political prisoner. But even were we to accept the “immigration officer’s” assertion, the fact that an attorney defends those facing criminal charges is neither new nor until now considered reprehensible and illegitimate.
As various states slide towards totalitarianism, a defining factor is that their populations really don’t notice. Well, I have noticed. Have you?
February 19, 2014
http://johngaltfla.com/wordpress/2014/02/19/dhs-to-purchase-704390250-rounds-of-ammunition-over-next-4-years-or-2500-rounds-per-officer/
(from ESLO)
““Consequently I think it’s quite sensible for moderators conceal their identies, especially if they wish to continue participating in the debate.”
Moderators should not participate in debates – bound to lead to a conflict of interest on their part.”
________________
Exactly.
The Guardian has been cited – do its moderators participate in debates?
“This thread is about the abuse of human rights and freedoms in the UK, while this clearly does not suit some comment-makers it is an important issue that really needs to be addressed before it is too late.”
________________
That’s right, Mr Goss, and the four posts of mine which were deleted were all on-topic (and measured) responses to equally on-topic posts from Mr Scorgie (x2), Nevermind and Mary.
It may of course be that posters who seek to challenge the pensée unique on here are not welcome. Whether that’s consistent or not with the “open policy” I thought guided this blog, I think whoever is doing the moderation should have the honesty to say so.
Privacy International has noticed….
https://www.privacyinternational.org/sites/privacyinternational.org/files/file-downloads/privacy_international_isc_evidence.pdf
‘…not only are the public unable to access and scrutinise the agreements that regulate the actions of the Five Eyes, but even the intelligence services themselves do not have a complete picture of the extent of intelligence sharing activities…’
Right on topic….
Schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act of 2000 is a law intended to fight terrorism, and was not drafted to target people like David Miranda. In this instance however the government used it to seize the devices of journalists to intimidate and obstruct the reporting of mass and unlawful surveillance practices of the British government. To equate journalism with espionage, as the government has, is truly shameful.
What this case has shown is that the Government will work to bend the confines of the law to suit their purposes, but alarmingly they will bend logic to do so as well. They have included remarkable claims about the nature of the Snowden disclosures, developed theories of a Russian conspiracy, and made unverifiable claims that the disclosures threaten national security. We are disappointed that the court did not check these wild allegations, and instead questioned the ability of journalists to understand the ramifications of their stories.
We are concerned about the surveillance powers of Government at borders. As a democratic society, we must tightly constrain the power to detain and collect information on individuals and to interfere with their devices. Parliament needs to introduce safeguards over Schedule 7 powers, especially when it comes to the seizing of devices. It is an arbitrary use of power when anyone passing through the border, Briton or not, can be subjected to a search and their devices seized as the government develops theories to justify it in the name of national security. Already tens of thousands of people are stopped under Schedule 7 every year.
In the end, this is all about holding the state to account for its incredible powers of surveillance. Journalists writing stories that identify unchecked surveillance are instead subjected to unjust scrutiny; the use of wide discretionary powers of device seizure at borders are left intact; and government officials making unverifiable claims regarding national security have their arguments supported by the court. This case is another example of how the UK’s legal framework needs much urgent repair.
https://www.privacyinternational.org/press-releases/privacy-international-statement-on-ruling-of-david-miranda-detention
Charles Falconer (1), even, may have noticed-
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/21/terrorism-act-david-miranda-detention
(1) Blair’s mate, once on a day
Scyptonite daily has also noticed. This just a reminder of the rights lost since 1984, that wretched year when the police raged against Hippies in the beanfield and helped to drive Thatchers ghastly war with the miners forward.
http://www.scriptonitedaily.com/2013/03/19/police-state-uk-the-rights-you-didnt-know-youd-lost/
Habba – be grateful. Guardian moderators delete everything. There are no other blogs out there which allow drop-by comments without registration. The CM blog has an international reputation for serious, political, free comment. Pluralism rules OK, not endless repetition of the same points.
Guano
“There are no other blogs out there which allow drop-by comments without registration.”
____________________
Which was, I was led to believe, one of the reasons why this blog was superior to others.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
“Pluralism rules OK, not endless repetition of the same points.”
___________________
Coming from you, that is rather rich.
Which of the regulars do you have in mind?
Ba’al Zevul (etc) 21 Feb, 2014 – 3:31 pm
A very useful .pdf but one likely to be ignored. It raises important questions about how the security-services of the five eyes are protected but there is little legislation behind the exchanges and it is not known just who exactly from individual countries can see what. The world’s in a mess and it is clear from the wrongful imprisonments and tortures in various institutions round the world is due to inaccurate information being circulated that was gathered by 5 eyes intelligence. It seems like one hand does not know what the other is doing. “If thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out.”
“If you don’t like aspects of life in Britain, why don’t you bugger off abroad?”
That could come from any saloon bar loudmouth or UKIP supporter.
COMPARE AND CONTRAST, as the expression goes, with the following from Clark:
“Moderation has only just restarted; if its nature eventually reveals itself as unacceptable for you, there are plenty of other places on the ‘net you can comment at.”
the blog and its moderation is not the thread, so please, feel free to delete this reminder and those wanting to make it a topic.
Anyway, now something substantive on the subject of this thread “The security state crushes ever tighter”.
Nevermind, at 09h58, writes:
“CCtv can also be seen on private housing, advertising that they are either a victim of crime, scared to become one, have something valuable to protect and/or hide. CCTV is not a deterent but it raises questions as to why its there on a suburban semi, when the rest of the housing has none?”
Given the subject of this thread – the “security state” – are we to infer from the above that Nevermind considers the use of CCTV on or in private dwellings to be yet another manifestation of the security state and, in consequence, a further step in creeping totalitarianism?
~~~~~~~~~~~~
As to the questions Nevermind raises (“..it raises questions..” , I think he has supplied the answers himself in the first part of the very same sentence. To which I would add that if the semi he refers is the only house on the street with CCTV then that would seem to be not a manifestation of the security state but, rather, a prudent homeowner.
Finally, since we’re on, about CCTV and cameras : Nevermind will be aware of the increasingly popularity of devices known as “dash cams” (these are carried on board motor vehicles). What is Mevermind’s position on those devices?
This will get you moving in the morning..NSA slow jam….
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mkojjUahxAk
“…and we have all had comments deleted.”
__________________
What’s with the “all”, Mr Goss? I can’t quite recall any comments of yours having been deleted on this thread (or the previous one).
For the record some of my comments were deleted on page 1. I am happy with the moderation. It has been long overdue.
For heaven’s sake stop whingeing and note what Guano said. Be thankful and as Michael Winner used to say in that ad ‘Calm down dear(s)….’.
I have been outside. It’s been a wonderful day, the crocus have opened to the sun, some bumblebees are in flight and there was some warmth at last to do some gardening without getting soaked or chilled.
No, Habbakuk, I regard CCTV systems on private housing a sign of the times, the fact that fear mongering and the use of, creation of terrorism to spread fear, has the required effect on people, fear sells, in this case cctv systems.
A CCTV on a house is an indicator that this person is scared to loose something, scared witless by relelntless media focus on crime and benefit scroungers, no do wells with time on their hands to scout out CCTV systems.
I’m not aware of any increasingly popular use of dash cams, but I’m sure that they will be stolen as much as other valuable items people leave in their cars. CCTV is a costly traditional pet issue of party politicians an epedemic of known proportion and a tool that is being used to manipulate laws as well as life’s.
There is one for you as well
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/10172298/One-surveillance-camera-for-every-11-people-in-Britain-says-CCTV-survey.html
Also on-topic.
The statement from Privacy International which Ba’al Zebub reproduces at 15h43 is heavy with polemic and ex cathedra assumptions but light on reasoned argument.
The last sentence of the first para is a good example:
” To equate journalism with espionage, as the government has, is truly shameful.”
I do not accept that this is what the govt did or does.
As a further point : are journalists – or the friends of journalists – to be exempt from the constraints of law? If, let us say, I was the journalist friend of a known counterfeiter and was believed to be carrying some samples of the counterfeiter’s output in my briefcase should I be able to refuse the authorities access to my briefcase? And if the authorities obliged me to open it, would I then be justified in claiming that the authorities were equating journalism with counterfeiting?
The article refers several times to the “seizure” of a device and of “interference” with it. . If the device was finally restored to Mr Miranda then the article is just playing with words – or it should have said “temporarily seized”. As to “interference” : this gives the impression that the files were removed from the device, as opposed to being examined, and, possibly, copied and then restore to Mr Miranda. Was this the case?
Finally (I say finally in the interests of brevity) the article is firm on holding authorities to account for their actions. Many people might assume that the ability to challenge those actions in the High Court – followed by the possibility of two further appeals in higher UK courts – fulfills that very necessary requirement.
Tap It: The NSA Slow Jam (featuring @goremy)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mkojjUahxAk
That was very good Dave Lawton. Thanks. Surprising it has had so few viewings.
PS I thought it was supposed to be prunes or senna pods! Sorry to be so crude.
@Mary 5:23
Mary yes I was suprised at the number of viewings ,I was only made aware of it a few hours ago. This has a nice barb,as we are having comments about CCTV.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DIbx8dO4ZcU&list=UU1Cbp8Fjy7iMfjp0jzGY3rQ&feature=c4-overview
Nevermind
“No, Habbakuk, I regard CCTV systems on private housing a sign of the times, the fact that fear mongering and the use of, creation of terrorism to spread fear, has the required effect on people, fear sells, in this case cctv systems.”
_________________
I’ll give you credit for a cunning answer: unable to say “yes, the use by individuals of CCTV in or outside their own houses is an indicator of an increasingly repressive state”, you deftly switch to talking about ” a sign of the times”. Yes, burglaries and personal assaults are a sign of the times, but they are also fact, not mere fear-mongering. BTW, what has terrorism got to do with burglaries?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
“A CCTV on a house is an indicator that this person is scared to loose something, scared witless by relelntless media focus on crime and benefit scroungers, no do wells with time on their hands to scout out CCTV systems.”
___________________
Is it wrong, or perverse, to wish not to lose your possessions in a burglary? And are you suggesting that people’s fear of being burgled is completely irrational and arises out of media scare-mongering rather than out of fact?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
“I’m not aware of any increasingly popular use of dash cams, but I’m sure that they will be stolen as much as other valuable items people leave in their cars.”
_____________________
You haven’t answered my question, but thank you for recognising that things get stolen out of cars (a form of burglary, I believe you’d agree). Secondly, rest assured that they are getting more popular, primarily as a way providing factual visual proof of exactly what happened in a motor accident. Thirdly, most sensible people would not leave them in open view in their cars in the same way as they would not leave a briefcase on the back seat.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
“CCTV is…. a tool that is being used to manipulate laws as well as life’s.”
__________________________
That’s an interesting thought. Could you flesh it out a little?
Habbabkuk, 5:20 pm, regarding interference with computing equipment; you can’t trust any computing device that has been out of your possession – this includes ‘phones. Software or even hardware could have been added to it (a keylogger to monitor and transmit keystrokes for instance – this is a favourite according to Snowden’s documents), or existing software or settings could have been modified to enable remote control, remote deletion, corruption or modification of files, complete surveillance including remote activation of camera and microphone and recording and transmission thereof, basically anything the device is capable of. Software modification can be performed in under one minute.
So even if the equipment is returned, it really ought to be replaced. The cost in time easily exceeds the cost in money.
New on Counterpunch. Weekend Edition February 21-23, 2014
Targeting the Muckrakers
The Surveillance of WikiLeaks
by BINOY KAMPMARK
It was the worst kept secret in the novella of espionage delights, but the discussion in Glenn Greewald’s the Intercept was anticipated. The article suggested its imminent newsworthiness: “Top-secret documents from the National Security Agency and its British counterpart reveal for the first time how the governments of the United States and the United Kingdom targeted WikiLeaks and other activist groups with tactics ranging from covert intelligence to prosecution” (Feb 18).
If only we could say it was the first time. Julian Assange and WikiLeaks have become the bread and butter of a good many staff in the National Security Agency and their British equivalent, GCQH. The outfit is also providing rich fare for a range of agencies keen to mark out WikiLeaks in some capacity as an illegal organisation. The effort has so far failed because the implications – at least for now – are simply too terrifying, especially for those with even a shade of interest in publishing and reporting. Criminalise WikiLeaks, and you criminalise us all.
/..
http://www.counterpunch.org/2014/02/21/the-surveillance-of-wikileaks/
Clark
Thanks for that and I’m sure you’re right. But these are only possibilities, aren’t they; the existence of these possibilities does not prove that the device which was temporarily seized was actually interfered with as claimed by the article reproduced.
(and I should have thought that the authorities wouldn’t bother because they must assume that Messrs Greenwald and Miranda are fully aware of those possibilities..)
Clark
Sorry, I forgot to ask : is anyone claiming that the files were removed from the device before Mr Miranda got it back, or was he allowed to leave with both device and files?
Not secure even at home. No surprise.
21 February 2014
Security failings in home routers exposed
Security flaws are being actively exploited but malicious attacks are currently rare
Related Stories
EE rushes to fix broadband box risk
Backdoor found in D-Link routers
Fridge sends spam emails ???
Serious security failings in home routers are getting more attention from both attackers and researchers.
In recent weeks, attacks have been mounted on Linksys and Asus routers via loopholes that thieves could exploit.
In Poland, reports suggest one gang has successfully adjusted router settings in a bid to steal cash.
A separate study found many of the routers sold online have bugs that attackers could easily exploit.
This week the Internet Storm Center (ISC) warned about a continuing attempt to exploit a vulnerability in 23 separate models of Linksys routers.
/..
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-26287517
“Yes, burglaries and personal assaults are a sign of the times, but they are also fact, not mere fear-mongering. BTW, what has terrorism got to do with burglaries?”
I leave the comparrisson to you, I’m sure that will find some weaselworded argument that the high level of crime and punishment rep[orting, the slow course to criminalise those who have little, with sanctions, with withdrawl of benefits, whilst bemoaning that the discourse to withdraw from human rights legislation which was to a gtreat extend drafted by British lawyers in the first place, is misplaced.
There is a tendency to stamp on journalism in this country, the moment one tries to find out and interview anyone about the legalities of Menwith Hill and Fylingdale operations.
Just in case you had not realised, Habbakuk. Crime is down by ten percent.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-25858421
and another one from aft
http://www.worksopguardian.co.uk/news/local/lincolnshire-crime-down-by-10-per-cent-1-6404542
The crime figures are being manipulated Nevermind. Hogan Howe admits it.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/10558567/Scotland-Yard-chief-admits-claims-of-crime-figure-manipulation-contain-some-truth.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2540003/Its-official-Crime-numbers-NOT-trusted-statistics-watchdog-strips-police-data-seal-approval.html
‘There are lies, damned lies and statistics’ as the saying goes.
“I’m sure that will find some weaselworded argument that the high level of crime and punishment rep[orting, the slow course to criminalise those who have little, with sanctions, with withdrawl of benefits, whilst bemoaning that the discourse to…”
___________________________
Is that meant to be a reasoned reply to my points? You know perfectly well that I was talking about people such as burglars when discussing home CCTV and not “criminalising those who have little”. For Heaven’s sake, if that’s the best you can come up with as I reply you’d do better to follow the advice of some of your friends and just ignore me.
Intriguing, this obsessive focus on CCTV, considering the original post was about the US and its satellite states’ increasingly overt contempt for the entire edifice of human rights and jus cogens.
What, did Bibi rev up the armored bulldozer and plow under some more little girls?
Did Brennan splat another blushing bride?
Did GCHQ plant more homegrown kiddy porn on SPD computers?