3 2 mins 9 yrs

Well, not British spies …

The old dictum is that the you should never believe anything until it has been officially denied. In that case we can now assume that the security wing of the state is spying on us.

Following the revelation that GCHQ (the UK’s NSA) commissioned 197 reports from the PRISM programme last year, Hague says that they do not “indiscriminately trawl” our emails, and that he has a “high level of confidence” that British intelligence agencies act within the law. Which begs the question: what does the law say then?

Hague didn’t address the obvious fact that the National Stasi Agency is spying on us. If not, how did it come up with 197 intelligence reports? He also deplores the leaks which have happened. Well I deplore foreigners spying on the British people and keeping our emails on their servers. I also should have a reasonable expection that a British Foreign Secretary will tell the feds to back off, but we’re well past the age of government ministers defending our liberties.

Why is the NSA allowed to spy on us and keep our info? Maybe that gets around laws which restrict the spooks at GCHQ: “Hey mate, you do the spying and let us have the info when we call for it.” That’s what it sounds like to me.

Click to rate this post!
[Total: 0 Average: 0]


  1. This whole news story is very interesting, but I do think that people need to realise that the whole “commercial digital domain” (your PC, your smartphone, etc) is wide open to interception by the authorities. It’s no good moaning and being all outraged by the invasion of privacy; if you want privacy, then don’t leave your front door wide open! If government CAN intercept digital transmissions, then of course government WILL do so. Duh, head on desk, it’s obvious, and in that sense it’s no news at all.
    Of course, anyone who is seriously planning to commit acts of terrorism knows this already, and only the most idiotic amateurs would be using their mobiles/PCs to communicate. They wouldn’t even be using encryption such as PGP over the net, as even the fact that a message is encrypted would send a red flag to the watchers.

    I believe there is a mobile phone company that is currently hosting some sort of competition, they’re going to transmit an encrypted message over the air this month, and they’re offering a prize to anyone who can intercept and decode it. Yet in order to even enter this competition, you have to supply them with all your credentials. I just laughed when I saw the ‘application’ webpage.

    If the general public really wakes up and genuinely wants privacy, then there’s a huge opportunity for someone to make serious money out of all this – if that’s what people decide that they want.

  2. Troll, if I read the inferrence correctly in your comment, then that is not something that the USA ought to be proud of “doing best”. I thought that the US Constitution was built around ideas such as the liberty of the individual, and restrictions on what the government could do to the individual. Please don’t start being proud of the wrong aspects of government, Troll. You might feel alright about invasions of your privacy right now, but what happens when persons such as yourself are deemed the enemy of the State?

Comments are closed.