Bolitics The New Condem Government

[villaajax]

Do you by any chance wear a tinfoil hat?

[Awol]

Do you by any chance wear a tinfoil hat?

No, Panama is more my style.

[drat01]

The EU is exactly "Jonny Foreigner", whether UK citizens are living there or not is utterly irrelevant and such an absurd argument I can't believe you are trying to make it. I'm pretty sure there are quite a few Brits living in Moscow and Beijing. Should we therefore not spy on Russia and China! Come on, it's ridiculous.

 

European nations all spy on each other, whether that's for diplomatic secrets, economic information or IP. Believing that membership of the EU makes everyone in it fraternal brothers is a nice line for politicians to spin to the gullible, but it isn't actually true.

You really are missing the point AWOL, IMO either deliberately or (and I dont suspect this) through ignorance.

 

Spying on other states happens, of course it does. The fact that this case is showing that the UK Gvmt was complicit in spying on what are some of her biggest political, trade and military allies is somewhat interesting do you not agree? Also the EU is across all states who are members and your example re Moscow has little / no relevance to what was said.

 

But I look forward to outrage when civil liberties and such like are spouted in respect to Gvmt watching what is happening debate re-opens

[Awol]

 

The EU is exactly "Jonny Foreigner", whether UK citizens are living there or not is utterly irrelevant and such an absurd argument I can't believe you are trying to make it. I'm pretty sure there are quite a few Brits living in Moscow and Beijing. Should we therefore not spy on Russia and China! Come on, it's ridiculous.

 

European nations all spy on each other, whether that's for diplomatic secrets, economic information or IP. Believing that membership of the EU makes everyone in it fraternal brothers is a nice line for politicians to spin to the gullible, but it isn't actually true.

You really are missing the point AWOL, IMO either deliberately or (and I dont suspect this) through ignorance.

 

Spying on other states happens, of course it does. The fact that this case is showing that the UK Gvmt was complicit in spying on what are some of her biggest political, trade and military allies is somewhat interesting do you not agree?

No Drat, you are missing the point. The fact that we are spying on our allies in Europe is the least remarkable thing I can think of. They are also spying on us, but they haven't got a cheeky little American chap telling the world about it. 

Also the EU is across all states who are members and your example re Moscow has little / no relevance to what was said.

Sorry I've read that sentence a few times and can't make any logical sense out of it. Would you mind writing it a different way please to express what you mean?

[drat01]

AWOL - No one has said that other states are not spying on us, I am struggling to find where anyone has claimed that.

 

Re the EU - it's fairly simple, the HQ - Main shall we say offices are housed in Brussels, right? As such people work out of there for the EU not as part of any Belgian led Gvmt or enterprise organisations. There are a lot of UK based people working there for the UK gvmt along for the EU, nothing at all to do with Belgium or any other "state". You are happy for people like this to apparently be spied upon by the UK gvmt, for me it smacks of "blimey" still.

 

Interesting also that NATO is based in Belgium? I wonder how much "spying" on fellow NATO members occurred as part of this?

 

As said it's all "blimey" - you may think it's normal but if that were the case then why are the UK Gvmt (and seemingly you) up in arms about the disclosure of the info?

 

Let's see what oozes out of all of this, if anything

[Awol]

The information was secret, Drat.

 

There's a big old clue in there if you can spot it.

[drat01]

The information was secret, Drat.

 

There's a big old clue in there if you can spot it.

No need for that one AWOL, not helping really. I am struggling to see though where I said the information wasn't secret nor where I said that Gvmt's were not spying on each other. As said many times I remember very well the "outrage" of you and others re "civil liberties" and add that to what is an interesting story it makes quite an illuminating insight into the way people and Gvmt's act and think.

 

But I respect your views that you see nothing wrong other than they were caught out and disclosed, and agree to disagree

[tonyh29]

The timing on all this is interesting

Clearly it's some left wing media plot to distract away from the Burnham story that's breaking

[peterms]

Spying on anyone and everyone beyond Dover is okay, indeed it is essential. As old Palmerston said, "We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow."  Nothing has changed since. However trying to conflate that issue with domestic civil liberties is complete nonsense. Knowing what foreign governments are saying to each other behind closed doors has nothing at all to do with a government wanting to bang people up for 90 days without charge, for example.

You seem to be operating on a mental model of nation-states whose interests are defined by their geographical boundaries, spying on each other.  That all seems a bit 19th century - perhaps that's why you quote Palmerston.

 

The interests that rule us are international, and have no loyalty to any nation.  I think you clearly recognised that in past discussions about banks and financial elites, but you're not applying it here.

 

When "our" spying apparatus engages in industrial espionage, whose interests is it working in?  Does it spy on multinationals who may operate here and lots of other places?

 

When the security services target trade unionists, members of Occupy, Greenpeace, CND, student protesters, people who protest about McDonalds' logging, is there really any shred of credibility in the idea that this is done for the security of the people of this nation, rather than the financial interests of a global elite?

 

We really need to get past this idea that these spies do what they do to protect "us".  The story we are given is that it's all about preventing terror attacks, defending the country from aggressive foreign action and so on.  That's quite a long way away from a full and honest picture.

[LondonLax]

Spying on anyone and everyone beyond Dover is okay, indeed it is essential. As old Palmerston said, "We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow." Nothing has changed since. However trying to conflate that issue with domestic civil liberties is complete nonsense. Knowing what foreign governments are saying to each other behind closed doors has nothing at all to do with a government wanting to bang people up for 90 days without charge, for example.

You seem to be operating on a mental model of nation-states whose interests are defined by their geographical boundaries, spying on each other. That all seems a bit 19th century - perhaps that's why you quote Palmerston.

The interests that rule us are international, and have no loyalty to any nation. I think you clearly recognised that in past discussions about banks and financial elites, but you're not applying it here.

When "our" spying apparatus engages in industrial espionage, whose interests is it working in? Does it spy on multinationals who may operate here and lots of other places?

When the security services target trade unionists, members of Occupy, Greenpeace, CND, student protesters, people who protest about McDonalds' logging, is there really any shred of credibility in the idea that this is done for the security of the people of this nation, rather than the financial interests of a global elite?

We really need to get past this idea that these spies do what they do to protect "us". The story we are given is that it's all about preventing terror attacks, defending the country from aggressive foreign action and so on. That's quite a long way away from a full and honest picture.

Agreed.

Your notion of nations spying on each other is a bit outdated AWOL. Old national boarders are irrelevant and governments will spy on people where ever they live whether it's 10km away, 100km or a thousand.

[Richard]

The timing on all this is interesting

Clearly it's some left wing media plot to distract away from the Burnham story that's breaking

Literally spat my coffee out laughing at that.  Now MY PC will have quoting issues

[tonyh29]

Richard, on 04 Oct 2013 - 10:14 AM, said:

 

tonyh29, on 04 Oct 2013 - 09:45 AM, said:

The timing on all this is interesting

Clearly it's some left wing media plot to distract away from the Burnham story that's breaking

Literally spat my coffee out laughing at that.  Now MY PC will have quoting issues

 

Lucky Central Office are on hand to help out hey

[Awol]

 

 

Spying on anyone and everyone beyond Dover is okay, indeed it is essential. As old Palmerston said, "We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow." Nothing has changed since. However trying to conflate that issue with domestic civil liberties is complete nonsense. Knowing what foreign governments are saying to each other behind closed doors has nothing at all to do with a government wanting to bang people up for 90 days without charge, for example.

You seem to be operating on a mental model of nation-states whose interests are defined by their geographical boundaries, spying on each other. That all seems a bit 19th century - perhaps that's why you quote Palmerston.

The interests that rule us are international, and have no loyalty to any nation. I think you clearly recognised that in past discussions about banks and financial elites, but you're not applying it here.

When "our" spying apparatus engages in industrial espionage, whose interests is it working in? Does it spy on multinationals who may operate here and lots of other places?

When the security services target trade unionists, members of Occupy, Greenpeace, CND, student protesters, people who protest about McDonalds' logging, is there really any shred of credibility in the idea that this is done for the security of the people of this nation, rather than the financial interests of a global elite?

We really need to get past this idea that these spies do what they do to protect "us". The story we are given is that it's all about preventing terror attacks, defending the country from aggressive foreign action and so on. That's quite a long way away from a full and honest picture.

Agreed.

Your notion of nations spying on each other is a bit outdated AWOL. Old national boarders are irrelevant and governments will spy on people where ever they live whether it's 10km away, 100km or a thousand.

 

I'm really not interested in getting into a discussion about the illuminati and the shadowy elites running the world, the article was about GCHQ being rumbled for spying on activities in Europe, then Drat implied this was somehow shocking. I was trying to point out that it is the least shocking thing ever and that we in turn are spied on by our friends, neighbours and allies, not just those governments we would consider hostile.   That this goes on is not some outdated notion, it is fact. The gathering of information is now far easier and done more through technology than suave, man from the milk tray types, but that has no relevance to the original implication that we should somehow be shocked that it happens, all day, every day, all over the world - and that naughty old GCHQ is up to it as well.

[drat01]

AWOL please as per Blandy's request from yesterday, don't make things up. The initial post was something that I showed on here following a story on today's BBC website. I said that I was surprised at who they were targeting and as others are rightly pointing out this goes beyond the notion you are painting of the UK spying on other nations.

[Awol]

Drat I'm not making anything up so there is no need to cry wolf and try to invoke a moderators warning yesterday that clearly doesn't apply to this conversation.

 

The word you used was "blimey", meaning to express shock or alarm. You then went on to question whether it was okay to spy on a European telecoms provider, our NATO allies, EU partners etc. My answer was yes, absolutely, for the reasons given. 

 

There really is nothing more to add.

[peterms]

Drat I'm not making anything up so there is no need to cry wolf and try to invoke a moderators warning yesterday that clearly doesn't apply to this conversation.

 

The word you used was "blimey", meaning to express shock or alarm. You then went on to question whether it was okay to spy on a European telecoms provider, our NATO allies, EU partners etc. My answer was yes, absolutely, for the reasons given. 

 

There really is nothing more to add.

 

Except to note that a vast amount of the spying is done not for reasons of "national security", or in the interests of the bulk of the people in whose name it is supposedly conducted, perhaps.

[tonyh29]

peterms, on 04 Oct 2013 - 11:48 AM, said:

 

Awol, on 04 Oct 2013 - 11:32 AM, said:

Drat I'm not making anything up so there is no need to cry wolf and try to invoke a moderators warning yesterday that clearly doesn't apply to this conversation.

 

The word you used was "blimey", meaning to express shock or alarm. You then went on to question whether it was okay to spy on a European telecoms provider, our NATO allies, EU partners etc. My answer was yes, absolutely, for the reasons given. 

 

There really is nothing more to add.

 

Except to note that a vast amount of the spying is done not for reasons of "national security", or in the interests of the bulk of the people in whose name it is supposedly conducted, perhaps.

 

 

depends how you define national security   .. as I understand it  Belgacom have a subsidiary called  Bics,  .. which handles data transfers between Europe and the Middle East

 

perhaps that is what GCHQ were allegedly interested in ?

[drat01]

 

peterms, on 04 Oct 2013 - 11:48 AM, said:

 

Awol, on 04 Oct 2013 - 11:32 AM, said:

Drat I'm not making anything up so there is no need to cry wolf and try to invoke a moderators warning yesterday that clearly doesn't apply to this conversation.

 

The word you used was "blimey", meaning to express shock or alarm. You then went on to question whether it was okay to spy on a European telecoms provider, our NATO allies, EU partners etc. My answer was yes, absolutely, for the reasons given. 

 

There really is nothing more to add.

 

Except to note that a vast amount of the spying is done not for reasons of "national security", or in the interests of the bulk of the people in whose name it is supposedly conducted, perhaps.

 

 

depends how you define national security   .. as I understand it  Belgacom have a subsidiary called  Bics,  .. which handles data transfers between Europe and the Middle East

 

perhaps that is what GCHQ were allegedly interested in ?

 

The day justification and suppression of surprise and questioning is based on the notion of "perhaps" then we have a serious problem

[tonyh29]

drat01, on 04 Oct 2013 - 12:01 PM, said:

 

tonyh29, on 04 Oct 2013 - 11:57 AM, said:

 

peterms, on 04 Oct 2013 - 11:48 AM, said:peterms, on 04 Oct 2013 - 11:48 AM, said:

 

Awol, on 04 Oct 2013 - 11:32 AM, said:Awol, on 04 Oct 2013 - 11:32 AM, said:

Drat I'm not making anything up so there is no need to cry wolf and try to invoke a moderators warning yesterday that clearly doesn't apply to this conversation.

 

The word you used was "blimey", meaning to express shock or alarm. You then went on to question whether it was okay to spy on a European telecoms provider, our NATO allies, EU partners etc. My answer was yes, absolutely, for the reasons given. 

 

There really is nothing more to add.

 

Except to note that a vast amount of the spying is done not for reasons of "national security", or in the interests of the bulk of the people in whose name it is supposedly conducted, perhaps.

 

 

depends how you define national security   .. as I understand it  Belgacom have a subsidiary called  Bics,  .. which handles data transfers between Europe and the Middle East

 

perhaps that is what GCHQ were allegedly interested in ?

 

The day justification and suppression of surprise and questioning is based on the notion of "perhaps" then we have a serious problem

 

 

justification       my only comment was to ask a question !!

[peterms]

depends how you define national security   .. as I understand it  Belgacom have a subsidiary called  Bics,  .. which handles data transfers between Europe and the Middle East

 

perhaps that is what GCHQ were allegedly interested in ?

I don't know about that particular case.  What I do know is that's it's been shown beyond any shred of doubt that they hoover up (Hoover - geddit) vast amounts of material on enormous numbers of people, engage in  detailed surveillance of people far removed from anyone's definition of a threat to national security, undertake entrapment...