Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Telegraph)   The Guardian is outraged that America's doing pretty much the same thing that Britain has done--by law, and relatively openly-- since 2000   (blogs.telegraph.co.uk) divider line 38
    More: Interesting, Guardian, Britain, New Labour, Nick Davies, first pass, Office of Fair Trading, hypocrisy, Serious Fraud  
•       •       •

6658 clicks; posted to Main » on 10 Jun 2013 at 5:34 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



38 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-06-10 04:35:02 PM  
Most countries have something similar.
 
2013-06-10 05:35:32 PM  
But they knew what they were getting - its a paternalistic (albeit with a Queen), socialist State.
 
2013-06-10 05:36:39 PM  
Well there is, in fact, a difference between government surveillance done in secret, and government surveillance done with the consent of an informed public. At least Britain got to have that debate.
 
2013-06-10 05:36:58 PM  
Conservative UK paper bashes liberal UK paper. Wonder what's the backstory?
 
2013-06-10 05:37:17 PM  
Yeah, but it's always more scandalous when another nation does it.

Imagine the outrage if a similar program was uncovered in China.
 
2013-06-10 05:38:35 PM  
ECHELON
 
2013-06-10 05:38:35 PM  
Our government keeps saying, "It's ok.  We are just eves dropping on foreign communications!  No one cares about foreign devils!"

I'd imagine foreign people would have a problem with that.
 
2013-06-10 05:38:48 PM  
upload.wikimedia.org
 
2013-06-10 05:40:46 PM  

It turns out that having a Bill of Rights that forever forbids the Government to do certain things is kind of a big deal and a major advancement in the cause of liberty.

Till Bush and Obama shiat all over it.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized

dl.dropboxusercontent.com
 
2013-06-10 05:43:06 PM  

BullBearMS: It turns out that having a Bill of Rights that forever forbids the Government to do certain things is kind of a big deal and a major advancement in the cause of liberty.

Till Bush and Obama shiat all over it.


Dude, what are you ranting about.  They rolled it up and smoked it then called in an airstrike of funyons.
 
2013-06-10 05:44:49 PM  

super_grass: Yeah, but it's always more scandalous when another nation does it.

Imagine the outrage if a similar program was uncovered in China.


It would be another Sputnik moment.  "We have to close the surveillance gap!"
 
2013-06-10 05:47:24 PM  
At least the Telegraph gets to weigh in on the big boy stories.  What a transparent article.
 
2013-06-10 05:54:42 PM  

heinrich66: Conservative UK paper bashes liberal UK paper. Wonder what's the backstory?


Conservative rag baffled that a modern media outlet would write a story containing things like "news" and "information" without injecting commensurate outrage into the piece for "balance" and "fairness".
 
2013-06-10 06:04:14 PM  
images.sodahead.com
 
2013-06-10 06:06:10 PM  

amindtat: [upload.wikimedia.org image 800x533]


Is that the cat detector van?  I've never seen so many bleedin' arials!
 
2013-06-10 06:10:42 PM  

the_foo: Well there is, in fact, a difference between government surveillance done in secret, and government surveillance done with the consent of an informed public. At least Britain got to have that debate.


Because, none of the Congress, Senate, or any other government agencies were briefed on what the Patriot Act is.
 
2013-06-10 06:19:07 PM  

Assimilate This: amindtat: [upload.wikimedia.org image 800x533]

Is that the cat detector van?  I've never seen so many bleedin' arials!


They check for unlicensed TVs.  UK
 
2013-06-10 06:22:30 PM  

skinink: [images.sodahead.com image 640x804]


colloquially known as "Big Bro"

The Infamous BIG?
 
2013-06-10 06:23:08 PM  

Zeppelininthesky: the_foo: Well there is, in fact, a difference between government surveillance done in secret, and government surveillance done with the consent of an informed public. At least Britain got to have that debate.

Because, none of the Congress, Senate, or any other government agencies were briefed on what the Patriot Act is.


The Patriot Act, as written requires them to get a warrant. The Obama administration decided in secret that they didn't need to bother to do that.

Only the tiny fraction of Congress sitting on Intelligence committees knew this and they were forbidden to speak about exactly what was going on..

WASHINGTON - For more than two years, a handful of Democrats on the Senate intelligence committee have warned that the government is secretly interpreting its surveillance powers under the Patriot Act in a way that would be alarming if the public - or even others in Congress - knew about it.

On Thursday, two of those senators - Ron Wyden of Oregon and Mark Udall of Colorado - went further. They said a top-secret intelligence operation that is based on that secret legal theory is not as crucial to national security as executive branch officials have maintained.

The senators said that Americans would be "stunned" to know what the government thought the Patriot Act allowed it to do.


Spying on Americans without getting a probable cause warrant is stunning, as it's explicitly forbidden by the Constitution.
 
2013-06-10 06:28:25 PM  
The Guardian hypocritical? Unpossible.
 
2013-06-10 06:56:13 PM  
nytmare
heinrich66:
Conservative UK paper bashes liberal UK paper. Wonder what's the backstory?

Conservative rag baffled that a modern media outlet would write a story containing things like "news" and "information" without injecting commensurate outrage into the piece for "balance" and "fairness".


You have to twist your brain into a knot to follow the Telegraph douchebag's reasoning here.
The way I understand his whining:

Apparently, to go with the times, the UK has made a "RIP act" that regulates previously unregulated government snooping in the UK.
And while that act
a) forbids snooping in general,
it sucks because
b) it gives basically everybody in government and their dogs the right to snoop and it is being widely (ab)used.

The douchebag's employer/colleagues were caught snooping, hoping to get some juicy private dirt or titty pics to publish.
Apparently they were prosecuted under a) for that.
And because the Guardian was ok with that, it means they can't be opposed to b) any longer or something.

The Guardian's "fluff" pieces the guy links to basically say "this law could become something positive because of a), but b) needs some serious fixing".

So if you actually read what he has linked, his argument boils down to:
"The people being against snooping now, were caught being against snooping before. What hypocrites!"
 
2013-06-10 06:57:40 PM  

BullBearMS: Zeppelininthesky: the_foo: Well there is, in fact, a difference between government surveillance done in secret, and government surveillance done with the consent of an informed public. At least Britain got to have that debate.

Because, none of the Congress, Senate, or any other government agencies were briefed on what the Patriot Act is.

The Patriot Act, as written requires them to get a warrant. The Obama administration decided in secret that they didn't need to bother to do that.

Only the tiny fraction of Congress sitting on Intelligence committees knew this and they were forbidden to speak about exactly what was going on..

WASHINGTON - For more than two years, a handful of Democrats on the Senate intelligence committee have warned that the government is secretly interpreting its surveillance powers under the Patriot Act in a way that would be alarming if the public - or even others in Congress - knew about it.

On Thursday, two of those senators - Ron Wyden of Oregon and Mark Udall of Colorado - went further. They said a top-secret intelligence operation that is based on that secret legal theory is not as crucial to national security as executive branch officials have maintained.

The senators said that Americans would be "stunned" to know what the government thought the Patriot Act allowed it to do.

Spying on Americans without getting a probable cause warrant is stunning, as it's explicitly forbidden by the Constitution.


Warrantless wiretaps were started by Bush and ended in 2007.
 
2013-06-10 07:10:09 PM  

Zeppelininthesky: Warrantless wiretaps were started by Bush and ended in 2007.


Are you saying the Obama administration has gotten warrants based upon probable cause of wrongdoing for every single separate individual in the United States?

No. No it hasn't.

It's engaging in blanket spying on everyone without a probable cause warrant for each individual spied upon as required by the fourth amendment.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized

What has happened is that the Obama administration created a secret interpretation of the law saying they didn't have to.

Just as the Bush administration created a secret interpretation of the law saying that torture was OK.
 
2013-06-10 07:20:13 PM  
The act, universally given as RIPA, but RIP Act sounds scarier, requires ISPs to retain email and telephone contact data for 12 months. That data can then be used for targetted investigation by an alarmingly large array of authorities. It doesn't require records of, for example, social media contacts. The Draft Communications Bill would have done very much what the NSA has purpotedly been doing, but it's currently stalled in the House of Commons and is now very likely to fail.

Meanwhile, here's the Guardian's take on RIPA and its relationship to FISAA.
 
2013-06-10 07:27:04 PM  
BullBearMS in for the smackdown. Keep up the good work.
 
2013-06-10 07:37:27 PM  

BullBearMS: Zeppelininthesky: Warrantless wiretaps were started by Bush and ended in 2007.

Are you saying the Obama administration has gotten warrants based upon probable cause of wrongdoing for every single separate individual in the United States?

No. No it hasn't.

It's engaging in blanket spying on everyone without a probable cause warrant for each individual spied upon as required by the fourth amendment.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized
What has happened is that the Obama administration created a secret interpretation of the law saying they didn't have to.

Just as the Bush administration created a secret interpretation of the law saying that torture was OK.


If you are just outraged *now* about warrantless wiretaps, where have you been for the last 12 years?
 
2013-06-10 07:41:32 PM  
So what, they were doing it here before 1776.  Why do you think we have the 4th Amendment?
 
2013-06-10 07:48:57 PM  

Zeppelininthesky: BullBearMS: Zeppelininthesky: Warrantless wiretaps were started by Bush and ended in 2007.

Are you saying the Obama administration has gotten warrants based upon probable cause of wrongdoing for every single separate individual in the United States?

No. No it hasn't.

It's engaging in blanket spying on everyone without a probable cause warrant for each individual spied upon as required by the fourth amendment.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized
What has happened is that the Obama administration created a secret interpretation of the law saying they didn't have to.

Just as the Bush administration created a secret interpretation of the law saying that torture was OK.

If you are just outraged *now* about warrantless wiretaps, where have you been for the last 12 years?


I'll let another Farker speak for me on this:

dl.dropboxusercontent.com

You, on the other hand, only seem outraged now.

Why is that?
 
2013-06-10 07:58:49 PM  

Proximuscentauri: BullBearMS in for the smackdown. Keep up the good work.


dl.dropboxusercontent.com
 
2013-06-10 08:29:01 PM  

BullBearMS: Zeppelininthesky: BullBearMS: Zeppelininthesky: Warrantless wiretaps were started by Bush and ended in 2007.

Are you saying the Obama administration has gotten warrants based upon probable cause of wrongdoing for every single separate individual in the United States?

No. No it hasn't.

It's engaging in blanket spying on everyone without a probable cause warrant for each individual spied upon as required by the fourth amendment.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized
What has happened is that the Obama administration created a secret interpretation of the law saying they didn't have to.

Just as the Bush administration created a secret interpretation of the law saying that torture was OK.

If you are just outraged *now* about warrantless wiretaps, where have you been for the last 12 years?

I'll let another Farker speak for me on this:

[dl.dropboxusercontent.com image 850x244]

You, on the other hand, only seem outraged now.

Why is that?


When Bush passed it 12 years ago I was outraged. Not sure why it is such a big deal now. It was wrong then, and it is wrong now.
 
2013-06-10 08:56:15 PM  

Zeppelininthesky: Not sure why it is such a big deal now.


Because Obama has continued and expanded pretty much every single one of Bush's civil liberties violations, all of which he claimed to oppose

"This administration also puts forward a false choice between the liberties we cherish and the security we provide. I will provide our intelligence and law enforcement agencies with the tools they need to track and take out the terrorists without undermining our Constitution and our freedom. That means no more illegal wiretapping of American citizens. No more national security letters to spy on citizens who are not suspected of a crime. No more tracking citizens who do nothing more than protest a misguided war. That is not who we are. And it is not what is necessary to defeat the terrorists. The FISA court works. The separation of powers works. Our Constitution works. We will again set an example for the world that the law is not subject to the whims of stubborn rulers, and that justice is not arbitrary."

Lying politician is lying.
 
2013-06-10 08:59:06 PM  
Well if the program the US has done in secret has some similarities to a program the UK has done in the open, that obviously means it's okay. I mean, how could it not?
 
2013-06-10 09:06:18 PM  

uber humper: Assimilate This: amindtat: [upload.wikimedia.org image 800x533]

Is that the cat detector van?  I've never seen so many bleedin' arials!

They check for unlicensed TVs.  UK


Looking for RF radiation isn't "spying" except by the loosest definition of the term.
 
2013-06-10 09:11:15 PM  

MrEricSir: Well if the program the US has done in secret has some similarities to a program the UK has done in the open, that obviously means it's okay. I mean, how could it not?


If you like living in a society that would make Michael Bloomberg scream nanny state, then I suppose its just lovely.
 
2013-06-11 12:03:05 AM  
The Brits are subjects

We are citizens

Therein lies the tale
 
2013-06-11 07:39:07 AM  

BullBearMS: Zeppelininthesky: Not sure why it is such a big deal now.

Because Obama has continued and expanded pretty much every single one of Bush's civil liberties violations, all of which he claimed to oppose

"...That means no more illegal wiretapping of American citizens. ...."
Lying politician is lying.


there's nothing illegal about the program. you might not like it, but it follows the laws that Congress wrote and which SCOTUS has repeatedly approved. what Bush was doing was illegal, and the illegalities were fixed.

again, we might not like it, but that doesn't make it illegal.
 
2013-06-11 07:40:08 AM  
the reason the British Guardian wrote this is because they hired American expat, civil-liberties purist, Glenn Greenwald.
 
2013-06-11 02:53:29 PM  

cleek: BullBearMS: Zeppelininthesky: Not sure why it is such a big deal now.

Because Obama has continued and expanded pretty much every single one of Bush's civil liberties violations, all of which he claimed to oppose

"...That means no more illegal wiretapping of American citizens. ...."
Lying politician is lying.

there's nothing illegal about the program. you might not like it, but it follows the laws that Congress wrote and which SCOTUS has repeatedly approved. what Bush was doing was illegal, and the illegalities were fixed.

again, we might not like it, but that doesn't make it illegal.


It's completely illegal because the Constitution explicitly forbids warrants that are not based on probable cause of wrongdoing. That is completely incompatible with blanket spying on everyone all the time.

The pathetic part about this is they have a secret court that literally never says no when they ask for a warrant, yet they can't be bothered to go get one.

After the 2008 rewrite of the FISA law, they can even start spying immediately on an individual and have a couple of days leeway to get that warrant, yet they still can't be bothered to follow the law.
 
Displayed 38 of 38 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report