E.U. Panel Invites Snowden to Testify

[TSS]

There is only one law to enforce no matter if criminal or political, and you don't enforce laws by breaking them, you just create a justification to break the law.

That is why law enforcement agencies should go through a judge - security agencies and special forces are not law enforcement agencies, they have two jobs to do, protection of the state, and securing that states interests abroad. As it is they are bound by common law, that alone restricts their ability when dealing with nations who do not have the same arrangements, therefore they need to work around things at times, get creative.....occasionally that blows back and the public get all up in arms as they did over the snowden affair, it'll die down though and they'll have to get creative in other ways...

Edited January 10, 2014 by Sky Scanner

[questionmark]

That is why law enforcement agencies should go through a judge - security agencies and special forces are not law enforcement agencies, they have two jobs to do, protection of the state, and securing that states interests abroad. As it is they are bound by common law, that alone restricts their ability when dealing with nations who do not have the same arrangements, therefore they need to work around things at times, get creative.....occasionally that blows back at the public get all up in arms as they did over the snowden affair, it'll die down though and they'll have to get creative in other ways...

There is no special rule in any country that has a constitutional exception for the military or intelligence agencies to violate citizen's rights. Only in totalitarian regimes or in countries that have no/have invalidated/ the constitution that is possible. To this day that does not apply to the USA or most EU countries,but seeing some reactions I am not so sure about that anymore..

[Space Commander Travis]

When it comes to other law enforcement agencies I agree the order should come through a judge. When it comes to the security services and special forces they should have two goals in mind - staying ahead of their counterparts in those agencies in foreign countries, and using whatever means to stay ahead. Had I been a US citizen at the time this broke I would have been quietly impressed at the scope of people and politicians they were either monitoring, or who's data they were storing for a short period of time. My own countries role doesn't surprise me, or annoy me, what would annoy me is if they were not using every means possible to do their job.

Here's an interesting question: if they had blown a terrorist operation that was being planned thru their dilligent monitoring of everyone's communications (or so we're expected to believe), would they have trumpeted it loudly from the rooftops? I expect they would, wouldn't they, since it would justify what they were doing, and guarantee that Government would continue to give them all the funds they ask for. So how many terrorist operations have they uncovered? Can you think of any? That's the question mark () that's over this business to me. Is it actually effective? Or are they so swamped with data that they simply don't have time, even with their supercomputers, to analyse it and glean anything useful from it? Is it in fact that old favorite thing that Governments do, doing something because they feel they have to be seen to be Doing something, whether or not it is actually at all effective?

[questionmark]

Here's an interesting question: if they had blown a terrorist operation that was being planned thru their dilligent monitoring of everyone's communications (or so we're expected to believe), would they have trumpeted it loudly from the rooftops? I expect they would, wouldn't they, since it would justify what they were doing, and guarantee that Government would continue to give them all the funds they ask for. So how many terrorist operations have they uncovered? Can you think of any? That's the question mark ( ) that's over this business to me. Is it actually effective? Or are they so swamped with data that they simply don't have time, even with their supercomputers, to analyse it and glean anything useful from it? Is it in fact that old favorite thing that Governments do, doing something because they feel they have to be seen to be Doing something, whether or not it is actually at all effective?

Well tnx, but for me this is a question of principle: The constitutional law is above all and breaking the law is breaking the law... no matter for what reason.

Edited January 10, 2014 by questionmark

[TSS]

Here's an interesting question: if they had blown a terrorist operation that was being planned thru their dilligent monitoring of everyone's communications (or so we're expected to believe), would they have trumpeted it loudly from the rooftops? I expect they would, wouldn't they, since it would justify what they were doing, and guarantee that Government would continue to give them all the funds they ask for. So how many terrorist operations have they uncovered? Can you think of any? That's the question mark ( ) that's over this business to me. Is it actually effective? Or are they so swamped with data that they simply don't have time, even with their supercomputers, to analyse it and glean anything useful from it? Is it in fact that old favorite thing that Governments do, doing something because they feel they have to be seen to be Doing something, whether or not it is actually at all effective?

I doubt it, security agencies shouldn't be concerned about public relations (and rightfully so), they also don't need to show how it was successful to the public in order to gain funding from the government to continue, since the government of the day will be well aware of the methods they are using. Politicians take the flake for the security services, therefore I would suggest that rather then singing from the rooftops about a successful terrorist plot foiled in order to justify spying, they would just let it all die down and be forgotten about and just carry on as normal.

[nothinglizx2]

If it is in 1's and 0's it can be found, copied, pasted, and printed. It's not a question of "IF" but a question of "WHEN", the best security software written is written by hackers. If a Hacker can write security software then a hacker can find a way around it. For instance look at the difference between a PC/Laptop and an Playstation 2. They are two completely different pieces of Hardware, even though it has taken awhile there are people coming up with playstation 2 emulators. It's taken awhile because the code in the game was created for a specific hardware design in order to make more money. Playstation is constantly coming up with updates for the Vita because Hackers keep finding ways around their security measures. These are just a few examples, but as you can see, you can't stop the flow of information. It's not the collection of information that people should be affraid of, but what's done with what was meant to be even the most harmless bits of data.

[stevewinn]

I doubt it, security agencies shouldn't be concerned about public relations (and rightfully so), they also don't need to show how it was successful to the public in order to gain funding from the government to continue, since the government of the day will be well aware of the methods they are using. Politicians take the flake for the security services, therefore I would suggest that rather then singing from the rooftops about a successful terrorist plot foiled in order to justify spying, they would just let it all die down and be forgotten about and just carry on as normal.

exactly, the security services are not in the business of shouting from the roof tops. its only Snowden and his ilk who do all the shouting.

[Professor Buzzkill]

How can a government show such lack of respect to its own citizens? They don't trust you enough to send an email, but they trust you enough to vote for them in the next election

[questionmark]

How can a government show such lack of respect to its own citizens? They don't trust you enough to send an email, but they trust you enough to vote for them in the next election

I would not even blame them for that (after all the citizens have voted for them and the politiciansshould know what they are), but surely they have my depreciation for violating the constitution they have sworn to uphold.

[Space Commander Travis]

exactly, the security services are not in the business of shouting from the roof tops. its only Snowden and his ilk who do all the shouting.

really? Remember when under New Labour, the Security Forces were boasting that they'd foiled another Terror Plot every other week? Are the NSA so obsessed with being Cloak & Dagger that they wouldn't take the opportunity to demonstrate that they are some use? They ask people to take on trust that they're effective and that their invasions of privacy and so on are justified because they're protecting innocent people from Outrages? If they are so obsessively secret that they have been foiling terror plots and they haven't publicised it, that would seem rather sinister in itself, as surely then they could do anything they liked,.

[Space Commander Travis]

I doubt it, security agencies shouldn't be concerned about public relations (and rightfully so), they also don't need to show how it was successful to the public in order to gain funding from the government to continue, since the government of the day will be well aware of the methods they are using. Politicians take the flake for the security services, therefore I would suggest that rather then singing from the rooftops about a successful terrorist plot foiled in order to justify spying, they would just let it all die down and be forgotten about and just carry on as normal.

Really? Surely any competent government would insist on some evidence that all the funding they give them is justified by results. It needn't jeopardise at all the effectiveness of the Spook services by publicising that a Plot had been foiled, they needn't give any information away about how it was done, or even which agency could be credited with it. But there seems a conspicuous lack of any kind of dicky bird at all from the British or the US Govt. that they've achieved any kind of success at all. It's not like during the Cold War, when they might not want to reveal that one of the other lot's agents had been uncovered or their Schemes had been foiled, for all sorts of reasons; surely the deterrent effect of publicising that there was no point trying to plan any Terror plots since they'd inevitably be uncovered would be useful in itself. So we should just trust the Governments (british and US) because we're sure they know what they're doing?

[questionmark]

Really? Surely any competent government would insist on some evidence that all the funding they give them is justified by results. It needn't jeopardise at all the effectiveness of the Spook services by publicising that a Plot had been foiled, they needn't give any information away about how it was done, or even which agency could be credited with it. But there seems a conspicuous lack of any kind of dicky bird at all from the British or the US Govt. that they've achieved any kind of success at all. It's not like during the Cold War, when they might not want to reveal that one of the other lot's agents had been uncovered or their Schemes had been foiled, for all sorts of reasons; surely the deterrent effect of publicising that there was no point trying to plan any Terror plots since they'd inevitably be uncovered would be useful in itself. So we should just trust the Governments (british and US) because we're sure they know what they're doing?

And even then they were unable to see the obvious:That the Soviet Union was collapsing and we all got caught with our pants down.

[TSS]

Really? Surely any competent government would insist on some evidence that all the funding they give them is justified by results. It needn't jeopardise at all the effectiveness of the Spook services by publicising that a Plot had been foiled, they needn't give any information away about how it was done, or even which agency could be credited with it. But there seems a conspicuous lack of any kind of dicky bird at all from the British or the US Govt. that they've achieved any kind of success at all. It's not like during the Cold War, when they might not want to reveal that one of the other lot's agents had been uncovered or their Schemes had been foiled, for all sorts of reasons; surely the deterrent effect of publicising that there was no point trying to plan any Terror plots since they'd inevitably be uncovered would be useful in itself. So we should just trust the Governments (british and US) because we're sure they know what they're doing?

No news is the best course of actions with intelligence gathering, rather then it being a deterrent (as you infer when saying that publicising a foiled attack would have), it just closes or reduces a potential field of intelligence gathering by making public it's results. When these foiled attacks are made public (in the UK anyway) I would suggest it's because there is no other choice (i.e it will be made public by some over eager solicitor or lawyer anyway, or it happened in public view, or it is released by political reasons and under political pressure)....I can't think of any reason why the security services would want anything made public, or care what the public think about such matters, that isn't their job or concern.

Edit to add - of course a competent government would insist on hearing the results, which of course they will do....what's that got to do with the public hearing about it to though?

Edited January 10, 2014 by Sky Scanner

[TSS]

really? Remember when under New Labour, the Security Forces were boasting that they'd foiled another Terror Plot every other week?

That was Blair for you, what with him being the opportunistic, media savvy waste of space that he was.

[stevewinn]

Really? Surely any competent government would insist on some evidence that all the funding they give them is justified by results. It needn't jeopardise at all the effectiveness of the Spook services by publicising that a Plot had been foiled, they needn't give any information away about how it was done, or even which agency could be credited with it. But there seems a conspicuous lack of any kind of dicky bird at all from the British or the US Govt. that they've achieved any kind of success at all. It's not like during the Cold War, when they might not want to reveal that one of the other lot's agents had been uncovered or their Schemes had been foiled, for all sorts of reasons; surely the deterrent effect of publicising that there was no point trying to plan any Terror plots since they'd inevitably be uncovered would be useful in itself. So we should just trust the Governments (british and US) because we're sure they know what they're doing?

not meaning to repeat what sky scanner as already said. But whenever we hear of a uncovered.foiled terror plot, its made public for political reasons, to reassure the population they are doing everything possible in keeping the population safe, and with 3% of the defence budget going to the secret service it shows the tax payers its money well spent. - for 31 years the British secret service has caused me no harm. why should i expect this to change. this is why i cannot understand questionmarks over reaction. not once i bet has his life been under threat from the security services.

[Space Commander Travis]

I suppose the difference is that, thanks to people like Ian Fleming and John le Carre, the british secret service has traditionally been regarded with some respect by the british people, which is not something that the NSA has really ever enjoyed, it's always been a dark and shadowy, rather menacing organisation, not dissimilar in many people's minds to the KGB during the Cold War. MI5 and so on never spied routinely on the British population, after all. And not only has the NSA been spying on its own people, it's also, or certainly has wanted to, eavesdropped on everything that people in other, supposedly friendly, countries have been doing as well. Really I think these are all good reasons to regard it with suspicion.

[Leonardo]

And even then they were unable to see the obvious:That the Soviet Union was collapsing and we all got caught with our pants down.

The Cold War created the Military Industrial Complex, and it was in the interest of that body that the public did not know the USSR was broke and collapsing from within. That does not mean people in govt did not know the USSR was failing.

As for the unfettered surveillance by Security Services, that it is contradiction of the democratic premises of innocence until proven guilty, and due process of law. The general public, who were being spied on, had no recourse to due process to block/prevent that action.

Allowing govt to assume powers onto itself under the guise of security simply leads to an authoritarian state. History shows this to be true.

Edited January 11, 2014 by Leonardo

[questionmark]

The Cold War created the Military Industrial Complex, and it was in the interest of that body that the public did not know the USSR was broke and collapsing from within. That does not mean people in govt did not know the USSR was failing.

As for the unfettered surveillance by Security Services, that it is contradiction of the democratic premises of innocence until proven guilty, and due process of law. The general public, who were being spied on, had no recourse to due process to block/prevent that action.

Allowing govt to assume powers onto itself under the guise of security simply leads to an authoritarian state. History shows this to be true.

The unit I was working for constantly was planning for Russian eventualities. Not even we knew it. When it finally dawned on me was on the 9th of November 1989 with hundred of thousands of people crossing from East into West Germany. The next day I started looking for a new job knowing that the good times at expense of the tax payer were over..