UK Politicians To Hold 'Emergency Debate' After Spy Tribunal Says GCHQ Is Permitted To Put Them Under Surveillance
from the blanket-surveillance-still-just-for-'little-people' dept
Now we can see what moves legislators to take swift action against domestic surveillance. It all depends on who’s being targeted.
A long-held “gentleman’s agreement” that GCHQ would not spy on members of Parliament (with an exigent circumstances exception, naturally) was found to be not legally-binding by the UK’s surveillance oversight tribunal.
Today, a panel, headed by Mr Justice Burton, made declarations that the Wilson Doctrine applies only to targeted, and not incidental, interception of Parliamentary communications, but that it has no legal effect, save that in practice the Security and Intelligence Agencies must comply with their own guidance.
The Wilson doctrine, implemented by prime minister Harold Wilson in November 1966, lay down the policy of no tapping of the phones of MPs or members of the House of Lords, unless there is a major national emergency, and that any changes to the policy will be reported by the prime minister to Parliament.
Once the Parliament members discovered they too could be subjected to GCHQ’s “blanket surveillance,” they moved quickly.
MPs are to hold an emergency debate on the Wilson doctrine, amid fears the convention designed to prevent politicians’ communications being spied upon is “dead”.
[…]
Shadow Commons leader Chris Bryant led a successful application in the Commons for an emergency debate in response to Wednesday’s judgment.
The debate has been allocated up to three hours on Monday, October 19.
When it’s just the general public and foreign citizens of dozens of nations, politicians generally agree there’s a “debate” to be had over dragnet surveillance. The debate then takes place with minimal input from those affected and tends to include large amounts of terrorist fear-mongering and quibbling over how much exactly national security agencies should be allowed to get away with. (As much as possible, usually. Especially when the fear-mongering side has the floor.)
When it’s those up top discovering they, too, might be subject to the same surveillance they’ve inflicted on the rest of the nation (and foreigners who have been granted no rights whatsoever), they step all over themselves in their haste to “debate” the side of the issue that states they should continue to be excepted from the laws that apply to everyone else.
One MP even portrayed the special Parliament members-only surveillance exceptions to be essential for the continued representation of the public that was never included in the government’s “gentleman’s agreement” with its spy agency.
Mr Bryant said the judgment had resulted in an “ambiguity” which needed to be cleared up urgently, adding it had also cast doubt on the protections supposedly afforded by the convention.
Earlier, the Labour frontbencher told the Commons: “The right of members of this House to be able to represent their constituents without fear or favour is intrinsic to our democracy.”
Right now, though, most of these legislators are only representing themselves. If their constituents can be subjected to both targeted and incidental collections, so should they. If they want the ability to advocate on behalf of the public without fear of someone reading their emails over their shoulder, the first thing they should do is expand this protection to constituents who are not currently under investigation or suspected of terrorist activity. Because as of right now, the only message this “emergency debate” sends is that the public’s representatives wish to continue cloaking themselves in privilege and hypocrisy.
Filed Under: debate, gchq, parliament, privacy, surveillance, uk, wilson doctrine
Comments on “UK Politicians To Hold 'Emergency Debate' After Spy Tribunal Says GCHQ Is Permitted To Put Them Under Surveillance”
Ah blatant hypocrisy...
When it’s the general public being spied upon, the politicians show complete indifference, if not active support towards those doing the spying.
When it’s the politicians being spied upon, suddenly spying is a terrible thing, and needs to be stopped immediately.
When someone objects to being treated the same as those they supposedly represent, it’s a pretty clear indicator that the only interests they’re interested in ‘representing’ is their own.
Re: Ah blatant hypocrisy...
Don’t cut off your nose to spite your face.
Whether or not you have any respect for the politicians holding office in a parliamentary democracy, you should recognize serious threats to the institutions of a parliamentary democracy.
On this issue, when you shout ‘Hypocrisy!’ — you’re giving ammo to those who would spy on your representatives in government.
You’re being childish here.
Would you claim for yourself a privilege from arrest, for instance? The institutional privileges of a parliamentary assembly are held with good reason.
Re: Re: Ah blatant hypocrisy...
You call a two party system a functioning democracy? It’s literally one party short of a dictatorship. Who are the brits supposed to vote for to stop the mass surveillance then? Makes no difference if tories or labour wins the election – some things just don’t change.
And the man is right by the way; it IS hypocrisy, plain and simple. You don’t hear politicians condemning mass surveillance until it turns out that they too might be targeted.
Are you seriously arguing that we should all shut up and accept mass surveillance of innocent people because otherwise someone might spy on the government? How exactly is shutting up and swallowing going to fix the underlying problem?
This isn’t being “childish”. It’s being royally fucking pissed off with what the government is doing, not having a fucking vote in the matter, and then having your own so called elected officials cry foul because they aren’t being exempt from the fucking laws they themselves wrote?
Go home. You are drunk.
Re: Re: Re: Ah blatant hypocrisy...
And the man is right by the way; it IS hypocrisy, plain and simple. You don’t hear politicians condemning mass surveillance until it turns out that they too might be targeted.
Actually that is not true. Quite a few British politicians have been actively trying to stop the general surveillance – the issue of MP’s surveillance as given them a lever to raise the issue with more of their fellows.
Also the issue of MP ‘s surveillance is also important for ordinary people too – because for most MP’s it is their communications with their constituents that are the issue.
Having said that I do agree with the general thrust of what you have been saying – I just think that it is ultimately counter poductive to tar them all with the same brush. MP’s like Tom Watson, Nick Clegg and David Davis have all done good and significant things in this space. However I agree that the British party system makes it difficult to know who to vote for.
Re: Re: Re:2 Ah blatant hypocrisy...
Whatever you think of him, don’t forget that Corbyn has also been a critic of these programs.
Re: Re: Re: Ah blatant hypocrisy...
It’s not a two party system in the UK and most colonies. More like 3 and sometimes even 4 party system. I know, awestruck we are in Canada.
Anyway, I think the UK has 3 major parties, although the most leftist one making coalition with the Tories makes no sense and wouldn’t happen here, like, ever. Liberals refused to vote on important things the NDP (official opposition right now and probably will still be after the 19th) was blocking the tories, and while they could have allied with the NDP and done the right thing from 2006 to 2011, they did not, and then the Liberals were down to their lowest number of seats ever. Now they’re kinda assured to raise their number of seats enough on the 19th that they could even have a minority government…they and the NDP should make a coalition and have a majority together, but I doubt it, coalitions although possible here, never actually happened, Liberals just can’t tolerate they have another centre-left or more leftist party than them or some kind of infantile grudge like that.
Re: Re: Re:2 Ah blatant hypocrisy...
forgot to say…but all of that is still more healthy than 2 parties who are often cross-funded.
Re: Re: Re:2 Ah blatant hypocrisy...
“although the most leftist one making coalition with the Tories”
A slight correction, the lib dems, who formed the previous coalition, are a centrist party (as the current Tories and previous ‘new’ labour are/were).
Re: Re: Ah blatant hypocrisy...
Whether or not you have any respect for the politicians holding office in a parliamentary democracy, you should recognize serious threats to the institutions of a parliamentary democracy.
As opposed to the serious threat that indiscriminate mass spying has on public discourse and democracy? The chilling effects it has on people knowing that even their ‘private’ communications can be scooped up and looked through at whim, if not used against them?
Respect is earned, not given or demanded, and given how eager they were to have the public spied upon, only to throw a fit when it turns out they might have their personal communications treated the same, I don’t see much to respect.
On this issue, when you shout ‘Hypocrisy!’ — you’re giving ammo to those who would spy on your representatives in government.
Not at all, I’m simply saying that if they object to being spied upon, maybe they shouldn’t have been so eager to increase the amount and ease of spying in general.
They are merely reaping what they sowed. They were tripping over themselves to increase the spying capabilities of the government over the public, and now it’s been turned on them and suddenly the indiscriminate spying has ‘gone too far’. I have no sympathy for them at all in this situation, as they’re merely learning what it’s like to be on the other end of the spy-glass that they created and allowed to operate freely.
Would you claim for yourself a privilege from arrest, for instance?
If the only purpose of the arrest was to impede my ability to do that which I was elected for, and was not based upon any real crime? Sure, but then again I believe than everyone should have that ‘privilege’. A privilege of immunity from arrest even if I did commit a crime on the other hand is not something I would ask for, and it’s not something they should have, as it puts the one with the privilege above the laws, and gives them no incentive to care about the laws as a result.
Re: Re: Re: Ah blatant hypocrisy...
And here that I thought that he had the “sarcasm mode” switched on…
Re: Re: Ah blatant hypocrisy...
Would you claim for yourself a privilege from arrest, for instance?
Would you try to come up with a less obviously flawed analogy?
Re: Re: Ah blatant hypocrisy...
“Whether or not you have any respect for the politicians holding office in a parliamentary democracy, you should recognize serious threats to the institutions of a parliamentary democracy.”
If they’re not doing anything wrong then what do they have to be threatened with? What do they have to hide?
“On this issue, when you shout ‘Hypocrisy!’ — you’re giving ammo to those who would spy on your representatives in government.”
No more than you are giving ammo to those who would spy on the citizens. If anything representatives should be held to more public scrutiny than the rest of us. They should be held to a higher standard of transparency. You want to hold them to a lower standard. You want them not to be subject to the same laws as the rest of us, to be able to get away with things the rest of us can’t because they’re not being watched the same as the rest of us. You want them to be anarchists, they can do whatever they want and get away with it unscrutinized without following the laws and scrutiny and observation that the rest of us must follow.
and what’s wrong with ‘giving ammo’ to spy on them when it’s OK for them to spy on us?
Re: Re: Ah blatant hypocrisy...
“you should recognize serious threats to the institutions of a parliamentary democracy.”
One of the very basis of democracy is transparency. Also, why should we automatically assume that a politician is somehow more immune to working with terrorists than citizens (I even remember reading a study suggesting that politicians are more likely to have a criminal background than the rest of us. People with criminal backgrounds are possibly more likely to run for politics or own their own business/be independents since it’ll be harder for them to get jobs working for others). A politician is in a much better position to work with terrorists than the rest of us and to cause more damage. Terrorists and criminals and those willing to corrupt our system with back door dealings would be much more willing to work with politicians because of their position of power. Politicians can also do a whole lot more damage. The increased temptation for politicians to work with shady people and organizations in exchange for something in return is reason they should be more heavily spied on and scrutinized and not less. Being in politics, like any other profession, is subject to corruption and even more so than other professions and the effects are more far reaching and widespread. Which is why it’s more important they get more heavily scrutinized than the rest of us.
Re: Re: Re: Ah blatant hypocrisy...
So I guess the question is what makes it less likely that a politician will work with terrorist or criminal organizations than any of the rest of us? If anything it’s more likely given their position of power and perhaps the incentive terrorist and criminal organizations have to put their own in positions of power. Why shouldn’t they face the same scrutiny as anyone else to ensure there isn’t something going on behind closed doors that may cause public harm? Wouldn’t more transparency behind what they’re doing be the best way to ensure there isn’t anything suspicious going on behind closed doors?
Re: Re: Re:2 Ah blatant hypocrisy...
But who has the power to define the definitions
Re: Re: Ah blatant hypocrisy...
Piss off……what your describing is not a a privelage for the few
When the system has shown itself to be so fucking corrupt, then fuck the system, and you’re low opinion of me due to this response
Re: Re: Re: Ah blatant hypocrisy...
Im sorry, that was a harsher response then you deserve, but i did not like your implication of special privelages to “special” positions………if thats what the system needs, then we dont need that system, is how i see it
Re: Ah blatant hypocrisy...
I’d quibble with that. This is Britain. They’ve had an oppressive caste system in place for as long as Britain’s existed, long before anyone on this side of the world knew about India’s. The Magna Carta wasn’t written with the intention of securing the rights of Joe Sixpack. It was to spread the king’s wealth around to the rest of his gang of fellow nobles.
This’s just like that Magna Carta moment where the “upper classes” are demanding their gawd given privileges back, only this time from a supposedly democratically elected parliament. Joe Sixpack can continue to get stuffed, bloody stinking rabble.
Re: Re: Ah blatant hypocrisy...
Yeah, I considered adding in a little extra pointing out that at most they’re likely to try and get their special exception re-instated, as they don’t care one bit about the public being spied upon even at this point, but left it out to focus on the ‘outrage for being treated the same’ aspect.
Re: Re: Ah blatant hypocrisy...
Never underestimate those plucky Brits, this particuar happening had The Iron Lady herself messing her undies…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poll_Tax_Riots
Re: Re: Re: Ah blatant hypocrisy...
I think the daughters of the british lords would make fine prostitutes for their future muslim overlords.
And their sons would give good eunuchs, of course.
Because who wants prostitutes with rotten teeth and rowdy swearing and drinking eunuchs? Better use the ones that drink imported tea and talk with a posh accent.
Britain will continue with its little people, the writing is on the wall already and people are not revolting at all, as you can clearly see from the interwebs.
I think we can make a ton of money if we stock guns to sell in the black market to swearing drunkard brits in the coming decade.
Re: Ah blatant hypocrisy...
“When it’s the politicians being spied upon, suddenly spying is a terrible thing, and needs to be stopped immediately.”
If that is new to you then you should read more news.
It has been a few years since the whole NSA thing blew up. Here in Germany all the politicians said “It’s not that bad! They can’t possibly do that.” etc. etc.
Then one day a newspaper published that Merkel was among those people and a frakstorm broke out.
So to me that means that the public are just cattle and unless a supreme being known as politician is concerned nothing will be done.
Proven by this article/case.
Re: Re: Ah blatant hypocrisy...
Oh, I forgot to mention. A year or so ago there was the case that politicians figured out that their email communication was saved for a period of time (month max).
It took 1-2 weeks and that was gone. Now, well… yesterday they said it’s ok to save the cattle’s communication for 10 weeks.
Read:
You are not allowed to save my email for 4 weeks but it is necessary to save the plebs email and sms content for 10 weeks. Only one of our guys had pictures of nude children on his work station and there were at least 10 cases on the pleb PCs. Granted the teacher and policemen who had those weren’t convicted but hey those are good guys…
Re: Re: Ah blatant hypocrisy...
Oh it’s not news to me, it was hypocritical when Merkel did it, and it’s hypocritical in this case too. In both cases those in charge are all for mass spying… right until they are being spied on, and then suddenly they throw a fit about how it’s unacceptable for their privacy to be violated.
Re: Ah blatant hypocrisy...
This sounds exactly like police officers!
Okay, I’ll say it. Pot meet kettle.
*kicks back and savors it*
I swear I’ve mentioned that those in power would flip their shit when they figured out that THEY could be spied on like the little people.
Of course given the history of the nation covering up wide spread abuse, I bet there is plenty in the files to make them derail the debate & pretend its fixed while leaving it in place.
With all of this spying happening one has to look at the ugly specter that those in power will do everything they can to keep that power. They will hide their sins, and those who know of the sins can/do use those to get things they want. The first few “favors” are small, and they up the ante as they keep track of all of the sins that keep coming.
Re: Re:
not long then in that scenario before those in power start killing or just imprisoning people they don’t like without a trial.
Re: Re: Re:
Thats where its headed, although im sure they’ll mumble some non-understandable, quick as you like, justification……..assuming theres witness’s that is
How the hell did they think blanket surveillance/data collection works? So full of their own self importance to put too much thought into legislation.
Re: Re:
it is “dragnet” surveillance
not golden- unicorn- pure hearth- clean soul- surveillance
You know reform is needed when the government is afraid of itself.
decades ago this would have led to a revolt among the “little people” when they had proof their elected leaders did not give a dam about them and were only interested in stealing from everyone else to enrich themselves.
As to be expected
Why should UK politicians be any less hypocritical than Angela “spying on friends is a no-no” Merkel? Simple minds think alike.
They should have thought about it before they ceded power to the executive/military. Are the only realizing now that they are actually just there for show? Fucking idiots.
MPs be like “Whaaaat, the GCHQ can spy on like…everything?! Well that’s news to me!”
If they have nothing to hide......
then they have nothing to fear, right?
On a more realistic note, since GCHQ is known to make the data available to the NSA, surely this constitutes treason?
Spying on MPs (which would include government ministers) and handing the information over to another government — I think that such conduct would count as treason.
Re: If they have nothing to hide......
who is going to prosecute or even charge them
Re: Re: If they have nothing to hide......
I’ll start a Kickstarter or IndieGoGo for it. Private Prosecutions are perfectly allowable in the UK.
Re: Re: Re: If they have nothing to hide......
There’s little point. Laws will be made or changed, and made retrospetive.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3084535/UK-Government-quietly-rewrites-law-GCHQ-British-spy-agencies-avoid-prosecution-hacking-computers.html
Yes, I know I’ve just linked to the click-baitey Daily Mail (a UK tabloid) but it has a nice picture of GCHQ headquarters in Cheltenham, for any Techdirt readers who haven’t yet seen it. If you’re British and oppose blanket surveillance, and haven’t yet complained to your MP, I would urge you to do so. MPs do sometimes listen, they don’t work in a vacuum, and this is a great opportunity to say to them, “well, now you know what it feels like, to live under a microscope…”.
I’m fine with it so long as heads start rolling. The GCHQ getting abolished would be a nice bonus.
Re: Re:
By the looks of GCHQ’s building, if it was abolished, I bet it could suddenly leave the ground and fly away back to their home planet…or land in a new country that is the one willing to give the most money for their power.
Well, if they’re not doing anything wrong, then they have nothing to fear. It’s the patriotic thing to do. 🙂
wonder what they have to hide
Don’t ya wonder what they have to hide?
Re: wonder what they have to hide
With Europe it’s TTIP, which hasn’t much chances of getting many countries with it. I’m amazed so many ASEAN nations went with it in the first place. And I’m pissed off and hopefully on the 19th Mulcair becomes PM and gets Canada out that bullshit (TPP), like he promises he would.
Re:
Alright Scott, i’ll contact you behind my VPS + a serie of garbage proxies through a garbage email and we’ll see.
You know what else is vital in democracy?
The common man being able to live his life without fear of his/her own government.
One thing should be more than law: The more power a person or organisation has, the more they should be watched. That goes for cops, GCHQ, NSA, politicians and so forth.
I am not talking about releasing everything to the public of course, but having someone who represent the public as a strong watchdog witht the power to do something.
Every order, every computer and every person should be checked because information is such a powerful weapon that is ripe for misuse to skew the democratic process. If you work at such a place, you should be prepared to be watched twice as much as everyone else is.
This is the only way to prevent misuse of such a strong weapon. Something I am sure has happened already in abundance.
This, of course, begs the question: who will watch the watchdogs? But more than ever, the power needs to go back to the public in one way or another.
Re: Re:
Doing that will just add another power group to the democracy problem. It is almost impossible to represent the public as they have very divergent views on every topic. Lobbyists on the other hand have a very consistent view on a topic, and so will just capture this new group by making sense to them.
Also, in the US the constitution and courts were intended to limit the power of Government, and look at how fast those protections are now being removed. All those who seek power will work to gain absolute power, regardless on any restrictions that are meant to be placed on their power.
All good disciples get crucified, they took the mark, and now are afraid of getting burned. Welcome to the real world.
Politicians in general have always had a ‘get out of jail free card’ now they want a ‘I cannot be put under surveillance’ card too
If anything the opposite should be true. Politicians and government regulators and employees in any decision making position should be a lot more willing to sacrifice their privacy for the sake of public transparency. It’s their job. It’s what they signed up for if they are going to represent us. The public has a right to governmental transparency. They have a right to demand it since the decisions being made affect them in exchange for putting decision makers in a position to make decisions. They have a right to scrutinize the lives of decision makers to ensure there are no conflicts of interest since we allow them to make decisions that affect us all. If decision makers don’t like it then they should find another line of work.
but the opposite is true. Governments have it backwards. They want privacy for them but not for everyone else. All so that they can continue on with their conflict of interests intended to serve their own personal agenda at public expense. All so that they can find ways to pursue against and punish any dissenters and protesters that disagree with what they are doing. So that they can label them anarchists and terrorists, restrict their opportunities (ie: in government positions, their ability to travel through no flight lists and other restrictions), find ways to deny them the ability to protest, find bogus reasons to prosecute them, find reasons to seize their assets through asset forfeiture (and perhaps eminent domain?), spy on them to counter their efforts to fight a corrupt government, etc…
No big surprise here.
My my my. So it seems as if politicians on both sides of the pond are accustomed to making laws and then exempting themselves from said laws. I am soooo surprised! (sarcasm intended)
yes, of course, while it’s the general population being subjected to their rights to freedom and privacy being taken away, it doesn’t matter! when it’s those who are basically voting those rights to be taken away, finding they are included as well, it’s a whole new ball game. the strange thing is, those people have far more chance, far more clout, far more opportunity and much more in their pockets to be able to do the dirty on the country anyway, but are extremely upset when they find out they are treated the same as the plebs they supposedly represent. as far as they are concerned, no one other than the ordinary person is interested in doing something extreme. shame how it’s the same bunch complaining that want as much of what they do stifled and withheld from being spread, unlike ordinary people who dont care what’s spread because they dont damn well do anything noteworthy in the first place!
“Politicians and government regulators and employees in any decision making position should be a lot more willing to sacrifice their privacy for the sake of public transparency.”
The specific concern expressed by some MPs is that their conversations with their constituents (members of the public who elected them) should be private, confidential and not subject to surveillance, since their constituents have not consented to every conversation or interaction being recorded. Every member of the public who contacts their MP about their own specific circumstances deserves privacy.
So much for “representative” democracy.
But hey, the british elite got millions of coloreds inside their country to keep the little people occupied. So, they don’t have to worry that the little people will sharpen their blunt-tipped-safe-for-children knives and revolt.
Someone said that decades ago the brits would have revolted under such circumstances. Yet, decades ago they wouldn’t have to worry about survival as much as today.
In the end, the british elite itself will cease to exist. An elite cannot exist without its corresponding little people to suck off. The children of the current british lords will discover that reality in the worst possible manner. lol
Payback is a bitch!
I can hardly wait till the politicians realize that giving the snoop and scoop agencies carte blanche rights to spy on everyone, will include themselves no matter how much legislation they produce to make themselves immune to surveillance.
It will be extremely comical to watch the millionaires in office try to stop the spies from tapping their phones and reading their mail by making new laws, only to learn months later that the spies ignored the laws because they operate outside the law.
If the spies got the tools, they are gonna use ’em, no matter what the law might say, cuz that’s what they do.
When that first really big leak happens, and a hack team steals the surveilled cache of innermost secrets of a busload of millionaire politicians from the snoop and scoop archives and starts spreading the data on the web for all and sundry to peruse at leisure, then we will truly hear some intense screaming from the 1%, of “foul play”, “illegal”, “treason”, “breech of trust”, and more, echoing all the terms the public has been using to describe the snoop and scoop scam since Snowden woke the world up.
The situation will be no better, and likely will be far worse by then, but at least the general public will finally get to point their finger at the 1% and laugh their collective asses off for a change.
—
all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than the others…
some animals can be secretly spyed, kidnapped, disappeared, tortured, killed, bombed (during their wedding), taxed…
but some pigs not.
Some Animals
“All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.”
― George Orwell, Animal Farm
So true… one law for the “ruling class” and one law for everyone else. Look at Hillary Clinton and her use of a person email server containing classified data. If you or I did that, we’d be IN JAIL right now… probably for treason.
No one with even the least bit of tech saviness can honestly say that at any time those emails were “secure” on a private server with no real hardening.
know your job
skynet/NWO needs to know everything about everybody to secure its existence.
how could we know you are not stupid/a traitor?
all our scenarios/games/simulations show the system is not stupid-proof/ traitor-proof unless we can find out everything about everybody,
submit or get defenestrated / nail-gunned / suicided
Orwells Animal Farm Reaffirmed...... Again
Because as of right now, the only message this “emergency debate” sends is that the public’s representatives wish to continue cloaking themselves in privilege and hypocrisy.
The more times change the more things stay the same.
Straight from Mr. Orwell’s “Animal Farm”:
All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others
The above quote rings especially true when debating the equality of Persons In Government Service (or it’s wonderful acronym: PIGS) with those of us comprising the hoi polloi or the great unwashed.
The PIGS (UK/US/etal), as is easily observed, are only concerned and moved to act when their own personal bacon is in the fire.
Oink.
We only spy wankers!
Spying
If you seriously consider what has taken place in the UK as regards our political powers in the last fifteen years (at least)Then if anybody needs to be spied upon, it is the politicians. They are the ones who have broken laws to start illegal wars resulting in millions of deaths all over the world. If they want to spy on us, then we have the right to know what they are doing as what they do, has more effect on my life and that of my family, than anything I can do has on the country.
Re: Spying
ideally yes to what you said, but then i remember WHO is doing the spying……..an off branch of the same corrupt system
And even then, i dont agree with electronic spying, common sense lawfull detective work on the other hand
Governments a sham
Operation: Blackmail Material
Re: Re:
Sorry, thats to obvious, incase of whistleblowers you know
Maybe something more subtle, like
Operation: Usefull Material
Lol…..the MP’s think their information is not already being stored
Spymasters…….just another inheritance from the past the upper class cling too
Information is power, and power corrupts, and fake freedom prevails
Re: Re:
Absolute power corrupts