Snowdon is a dummy

Cabinet ministers and members of the national security council were told nothing about the existence and scale of the vast data-gathering programmes run by British and American intelligence agencies, a former member of the government has revealed.

Chris Huhne, who was in the cabinet for two years until 2012, said ministers were in "utter ignorance" of the two biggest covert operations, Prism and Tempora. The former Liberal Democrat MP admitted he was shocked and mystified by the surveillance capabilities disclosed by the Guardian from files leaked by the whistleblower Edward Snowden.

"The revelations put a giant question mark into the middle of our surveillance state," he said. "The state should not feel itself entitled to know, see and memorise everything that the private citizen communicates. The state is our servant."

Women want equality not special treatment.

What is wrong is that women tend to get harsher sentences for violent crimes, because there's some idea that they're worse than violent men because they're going against their nature.

"Whenever women have insisted on absolute equality with men, they have invariably wound up with the dirty end of the stick. What they are and what they can do makes them superior to men, and their proper tactic is to demand special privileges, all the traffic will bear. they should never settle merely for equality. For women, "equality" is a disaster."

Robert Heinlein

The Australian government was aware of the US National Security Agency's top-secret Prism program at least two months before the Guardian revealed its existence to the world.

David Cameron has accused the Guardian of harming the fight against terrorism by publishing what was in effect "stolen information" about the spying powers of GCHQ, but revealed he is open to suggestions about how the security services could be better governed.

The prime minister said newspapers should "think about their responsibilities" for helping to keep Britain safe after the Guardian ran a series of stories based on leaks from the US whistleblower Edward Snowden.

The stories revealed the extent of secret surveillance programmes carried out by GCHQ and its US counterpart, the National Security Agency (NSA).

Alan Rusbridger, editor-in-chief of the Guardian, has defended the newspaper's reporting of files leaked by Snowden, saying it highlighted formidable technologies "beyond what Orwell could have imagined".

However, Cameron's comments back up the stance of Sir Andrew Parker, the new head of MI5, who suggested this week the leaks had undermined the fight against terrorism.

... ... ...

Snowden leaks published by the Guardian were damaging to security, says Nick Clegg
His comments follow those earlier this week from Andrew Parker, the new head of MI5, who launched a scathing attack on the leaks

The Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg has said some of the "technical secrets" disclosed by the former US intelligence operative Edward Snowden and published in the Guardian would be of "immense interest" to terrorists.

Mr Clegg, who was speaking on his weekly radio phone-in on LBC 97.3, said the use of mass surveillance programmes by Britain's intelligence agencies is a totally legitimate area for debate but that "technical information" which may have "passed readers by" could give terrorists an advantage.

His comments follow those earlier this week from Andrew Parker, the new head of MI5, who launched a scathing attack on the leaks and warned that the disclosure of the "reach and limits" of the GCHQ's capabilities was a "gift" to terrorists.

Mr Parker dismissed suggestions that the agencies were trawling through people's private lives for anything that looked interesting as "utter nonsense".

The Guardian has since vowed to publish more leaks from the former US intelligence worker Edward Snowden.

Speaking on his weekly radio phone-in on LBC 97.3, Mr Clegg said that the Guardian leaks were damaging.

"I have got no doubt that there were some parts of what was published which will have passed most readers of the Guardian completely by, because they were very technical, that would have been of immense interest to people who want harm," he said.

But he said the development by the agencies of powerful new communications surveillance techniques raised wider issues of concern.

"I think there is a totally legitimate debate to be had - and my experience speaking to people in the intelligence agencies is they recognise this - about the use of these new, incredibly powerful technologies," he said.

"We have regulations that were designed for an age which is quite different now. Both terrorists and states and security agencies now conduct this battle online in a way that was unimaginable just a few years ago.

"What that means for privacy and proportionality, that is a totally legitimate area of debate. How you hold the secret parts of any state to account is an incredibly important issue.

"Secrecy is necessary, of course it is. You must absolutely defend the principle of secrecy for the intelligence agencies, without which they can't keep us safe. But you can only really make secrecy legitimate in the eyes of the public if there is proper form of accountability."

Mr Snowden, who is in Russia, leaked information to the Guardian in May that revealed mass surveillance programmes such as the US National Security Agency (NSA)-run Prism and the GCHQ-operated Tempora.

Editors on the NSA files: 'What the Guardian is doing is important for democracy'

On Thursday the Daily Mail described the Guardian as 'The paper that helps Britain's enemies'.

[NYT]In a democracy, the press plays a vital role in informing the public and holding those in power accountable. The NSA has vast intelligence-gathering powers and capabilities and its role in society is an important subject for responsible newsgathering organisations such as the New York Times and the Guardian. A public debate about the proper perimeters for eavesdropping by intelligence agencies is healthy for the public and necessary. ... ... ... ....

[Spiegel]The utmost duty of a journalist is to expose abuses and the abuse of power. The global surveillance of digital communication by the NSA and GCHQ is no less than an abuse on a massive scale with consequences that at this point seem completely unpredictable. .... .... ... ...

[Haaretz]Journalists have only one responsibility: to keep their readers informed and educated about whatever their government is doing on their behalf – and first and foremost on security and intelligence organisations, which by their nature infringe on civil liberties. The Snowden revelations, and their publication by the Guardian, have been a prime example of fearlessly exercising this journalistic responsibility. ... ... ... ...

[LeMonde]The decision by Edward Snowden to leak to the media an important amount of top-secret documents showing the unprecedented reach of electronic surveillance was a historic event. It has raised major questions on the control of the internet, on the balance between counter-terrorism and civil liberties, on the oversight of intelligence activities by democratic institutions. ... ... ... ...

[El Pais]When a newspaper prints a story, or a series of stories, such as the Snowden case, the first attacks are always aimed at its editors and publishers. State or homeland security reasons are always claimed. ... ... ...

[Slate]I have just been reading Tim Weiner's history of the CIA, Legacy of Ashes, which is heavily based on leaked and declassified government documents. Over and again, one is struck by how poorly Americans' interests have been served by secrecy – and by the folly, misjudgment, and abuse of power that might have been prevented by public knowledge. One does not have to admire Julian Assange or Edward Snowden to recognise that their revelations, filtered by scrupulous journalists, have served the fundamental democratic interest of knowing what our governments are up to and how they may be abridging our rights. ... ... ... ...

[The Hindu]As an editor I am confronted every day with difficult questions about what to publish and what not to. A newspaper comes across documents from all kinds of sources but authenticity is only a necessary but not sufficient condition for disseminating the information these contain. ... ... ... ...

[Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung]The Snowden affair, one day, will be understood as a historic milestone at which democratic societies began to realize that the political cost of new technologies still needed to be negotiated. Hans-Magnus Enzensberger, one of Germany's last great intellectuals and certainly not a leftist, sees it as a transition to a post-democratic society. And had the Snowden files not opened our eyes to this transition already, the way how the current debate about these documents unfolds, certainly did.These revelations are not only about secret services, but just as much about all the new social touchpoints of every citizen who is equipped with a smartphone and online access: Who controls and analyses these touchpoints and why? Is it so difficult to understand that in a world in which – according to Eric Schmidt's concise formulation – the digital self not only mirrors but substitutes our true selves, all these issues become questions of human rights? ... ... ... ...

[Only first paragraphes of selected papers copied/pasted. For full report see see link above.]

No 10 dismisses Vince Cable claim that UK arguably lacks proper oversight of MI5, MI6 and GCHQ, as Clegg plans review

Senior members of the coalition are at odds over Britain's intelligence agencies after Downing Street dismissed a claim by Vince Cable that Britain arguably lacks a proper system of oversight.

As the business secretary praised the Guardian for performing a considerable public service in publishing leaked documents from the US National Security Agency, No 10 said David Cameron was satisfied with the current system of oversight. But the prime minister's spokesman added that members of the national security council, of which Nick Clegg is a member, were entitled to question the intelligence agencies.

The spokesman said: "There is a debate that is outside of government that is often reported in [the Guardian] and other newspapers. There is the scope for members of the national security council, privy councillors, to ask questions and the like to better understand the work that the agencies do. That is always open to them."

Downing Street moved to clarify Cameron's thinking after Cable confirmed that Clegg was setting in train an examination of the oversight of Britain's intelligence agencies.

The business secretary said the Guardian had made the "entirely correct and right" and courageous decision to publish details from secret NSA files leaked by the US whistleblower Edward Snowden. He said that arguably Britain did not have proper oversight of the domestic intelligence service MI5, its overseas agency MI6 and the eavesdropping centre GCHQ.

Cable's views were given short shrift by Downing Street. The spokesman pointed out that the prime minister had said on Thursday: "If people want to suggest improvements about how they are governed and looked after I am very happy to listen to them, but as far as I can see we have a very good system."

Asked whether the government was setting up a review into the oversight of the agencies, the spokesman said: "There is not a government review in the way that you described – correct. There is no government review." ... ... ...

Hillary Clinton has called for a "sensible adult conversation" to be held in a transparent way, about the boundaries of state surveillance highlighted by the leaking of secret NSA files by the whistleblower Edward Snowden.

In a boost to British deputy prime minister Nick Clegg, who is planning to start conversations within government about the oversight of Britain's intelligence agencies, the former US secretary of state said it would be wrong to shut down a debate.

Clinton, who is seen as a frontrunner for the 2016 US presidential election said at Chatham House in London: "This is a very important question. On the intelligence issue, we are democracies thank goodness, both the US and the UK.

"We need to have a sensible adult conversation about what is necessary to be done, and how to do it, in a way that is as transparent as it can be, with as much oversight and citizens' understanding as there can be."
... ... ... ...