Thought-Factory.net Philosophical Conversations Public Opinion philosophy.com Junk for code
parliament house.gif
RECENT ENTRIES
SEARCH
ARCHIVES
Commentary
Media
Think Tanks
Oz Blogs
Economic Blogs
Foreign Policy Blogs
International Blogs
Media Blogs
South Australian Weblogs
Economic Resources
Environment Links
Political Resources
Cartoons
South Australian Links
Other
www.thought-factory.net
"...public opinion deserves to be respected as well as despised" G.W.F. Hegel, 'Philosophy of Right'

surveillance secrecy « Previous | |Next »
August 22, 2013

The national security state's' reaction to Edward Snowden's whistleblowing material on state surveillance and its secrecy is very disturbing.

BellSsurveillance.jpg Steve Bell

The modus operandi of the UK and US governments is to convey a thuggish message of intimidation. More deeply, however, as Simon Jenkins says:

The material revealed by Edward Snowden through the Guardian and the Washington Post is of a wholly different order from WikiLeaks and other recent whistle-blowing incidents. It indicates not just that the modern state is gathering, storing and processing for its own ends electronic communication from around the world; far more serious, it reveals that this power has so corrupted those wielding it as to put them beyond effective democratic control. It was not the scope of NSA surveillance that led to Snowden's defection. It was hearing his boss lie to Congress about it for hours on end.

This lying to a democratic body indicates that the American (or Anglo-American?) surveillance industry, which grown big by exploiting laws to combat terrorism, has grown has a culture of misinformation. It simply disregards democratic orders to destroy intercepts, emails and files; treats the parliamentary and legal institutions with falsehoods and contempt to the extent that Parliamentary and legal control is a charade.

As John Kampfner remarks with respect to the UK national security state:

Whenever challenged about the breadth of these powers, government ministers talk of checks and balances. None of these work properly: not parliament, not the courts, not ministerial accountability. Most MPs and peers do not have the technical knowledge to grasp the details of online surveillance. It's easy for the security agencies to run rings around them. Lawyers struggle to find out the facts as so much of the legal side of the security state is now held in secret. As for the politics, the government gives the police sweeping, vague powers and then says it cannot comment on operational issues.

The ministers justify the inexorable extension of security powers by resorting to two mantras: "If you've done nothing wrong, you've got nothing to hide; and "If only you knew what we know …"

| Posted by Gary Sauer-Thompson at 7:42 PM | | Comments (2)
Comments

Comments

Good to read it.
I have had two stoushes with Americans I had trusted over these things just recently- de friendings all round.
Thus, it was the more piquant to read the Guardian article mentioning the funding of MI6 concerning the hard drive witchhunt.
I wonder how much money has squandered hounding and harrassing whistleblowers by the political coward classes and their various shills??
Enough to set an aid program somewhere dirt poor and exploited, where people are antagonised enough to become actively resistant to hegemony?

It was interesting that when Obama made some tentative suggestions for changes that might actually inconvenience the security establishment, alarmed conservatives were quick to roll out the Great Terrorist Threat to America again. The truth is that no politician is game to interfere with the security technocrats for fear they will be held responsible for the inevitable next terrorist atrocity.

Rudd/Gillard Labor has been a huge disappointment in this regard in Australia but needless to say nobody on the conservative side is likely to be any better.