UK Home Secretary: UK Isn't A Surveillance State... And I'd Give You Proof, But You Might All Die Because Of It
from the oh-do-shut-up dept
Theresa May, the UK's Home Secretary has hit back after the UK's Director General of the Office for Security and Counter Terrorism, Charles Farr, revealed how the UK believes it can spy on all "external" communications without a warrant and that it's definition of "external" was pretty close to "everything" (and that's only a slight exaggeration). May's response might be summarized as denying everything and insisting that if the UK government revealed any details, everyone might die. First up, the denial:"Some people have alleged that GCHQ is exploiting a technical loophole in legislation that allows them to intercept external communications - that is, communications either sent or received outside the UK - at will and without authorisation. This is... nonsense."Okay, so perhaps you could reveal more details about what GCHQ is actually doing and whether or not it's actually got any purpose towards national security? Oh, sorry, that would be "helping the terrorists win" of course:
But Mrs May warned that it would be "cavalier and reckless" to let the public know details of which terrorist plots had been thwarted by the security services.In other words: FUD FUD FUD, be afraid!!! Oh, and of course, in her mind, she'd actually prefer it if the UK were even more of a surveillance state:
"Considerable" threats to UK security were developing with the emergence of militant group Isis, the collapse of Syria, the activities of Boko Haram in Nigeria, and the "expanding scope" of cyber crime, the home secretary said.
She concluded by renewing a call to change the law to hand the security services more powers to scrutinise online communicationShe's specifically discussing the so-called Snooper's Charter, which has been soundly rejected by both the public and other politicians, but which her party still wants... because they're scared of fictional TV crime dramas (that's not a joke).
I'm sorry, but this continuing game of "we're not spying on you... but we need more powers to spy on you because FEAR FEAR FEAR... and we can't give you any evidence because you all might die" is getting rather tired.
![Hide This Hide this](https://ii.techdirt.com/s/t/i/topclose.png)
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: fear, fud, gchq, surveillance, surveillance state, theresa may, uk
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I don't live in the UK, but you UK clowns deserve this shit every bit as much as we American assholes deserve ours!
Let commiserate together and have some fish and chips aye?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Huh?
Surely the terrorists are aware of failed terrorist plots.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Huh?
i've thought about these issues from many angles, but neglected to take that into consideration, GREAT POINT...
as per usual, the ONLY people who don't know about the evil being done with OUR MONEY, is US; all the pakistanis, etc know they are being droned to death, its just that WE DON'T KNOW 'WE' are doing it...
(not that there aren't a disappointing number of citizens who don't give a shit about droning poor brown people a half a planet away for no good -or legal- reason...)
just like a lot of the secret squirrel stuff
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Huh?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
National Security
To call that a "considerable threat to UK security is just nonsense.
She should try reacting to terrorism in the way recommended during the war:
"Keep calm and carry on"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Appealing to one's mortality to give credit to your argument?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A carefully-worded non-denial
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: A carefully-worded non-denial
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The BBC was prescient
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Torture in the UK
Read some of my reports on the UK intelligence services.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Torture in the UK
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Torture in the UK
No, we're BEYOND that fucking point, now.
That point is a dot on the horizon.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Above
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Well, yeah, the excuse is rather tiresome, but damn, it works so well and has for so long without fail that there is no chance in hell that they're gonna replace it with another tired excuse any time soon.
Why should they?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The whole "terrorists" thing wore thin years ago
[ link to this | view in chronology ]