Being away has made me feel a little detached from the sound and fury of home. But, as I used to work for them, I have followed the GCHQ/NSA business quite closely. It seems as if, suddenly and because of inept handling of the Guardian by 'the powers', people are waking up to the enormous ubiquity of surveillance in the UK.
So much has been written during the last few weeks (including this reflection from Der Spiegel in Germany) and I won't add to it here. But, what it all suggests is that – as I have written before now – (a) we need a public debate about the powers of 'the powers' who act in our name, (b) we need a public debate about what sort of security we want and expect, and (c) we need to ask if the answer to (a) and (b) has any consequence for the realism of our expectations.
We can't have our cake and eat it. If we want total security – which means giving security services some substantial leeway – there will be a cost in terms of privacy. If we want less surveillance, we must be forgiving when stuff gets missed by the security services.
Given that total security is an illusion anyway, I prefer to limit the powers of 'the powers' and then face the consequences. And I would resist complaint against the security services if/when stuff gets past them. We can't have it both ways.
If anything, however, all this Guardian/Snowden business demonstrates the importance of a free and professional press, capable of investigating and digging deep behind the propaganda. Which, of course, raises the further question about the viability of a responsible and professional press when the digital revolution is rendering the old business models obsolete and making it harder for good journalism to survive or thrive.
We have choices…
August 22, 2013 at 11:51 am
I often encounter people, who don’t like to make choices, but I tell them that if they don’t act, others will make a choice instead.
August 22, 2013 at 12:53 pm
If HMG authorises recordings of as many communications as possible, keeps those securely, and those who wish to access any have to apply to access any at all giving a security/criminal apprehension reason then I’d accept that as far as it goes. Selling suchlike onto the USA or others is another matter, and should be even more strictly examined on an item by item basis imo.
All very well to say we cannot be totally secure – of course not! having been directly threatened by Martin McGuinness, a couple of Al Queda wannabes and been a quarter mile away from a bomb explosion in Bristol I’d rather more than less.
Giving my name and address to MIwhichever on a CND march caused me no harm at all.
August 22, 2013 at 1:53 pm
[…] https://nickbaines.wordpress.com/2013/08/22/safe-and-sound/ […]
August 22, 2013 at 6:37 pm
Absolutely agree, Nick, especially with the importance of a free and critical press. Whatever the justifying rhetoric about security says, if you give people powers, they will use them, whatever the circumstances.
August 23, 2013 at 10:54 am
“If anything, however, all this Guardian/Snowden business demonstrates the importance of a free and professional press, capable of investigating and digging deep behind the propaganda.”
Whilst I wholly agree with that we have had too many instances over the years when the press – print and televisual – have been less than professional and responsible, and the current unrest over the role of the media is the result. It will take time to settle down, especially since, as you remark, the printed media is in turmoil as digital media make uninformed instant comment more appealing.
It is imperative that professional journalism reforms itself quickly so that there is a source of reflective, nuanced responsible journalism.
August 25, 2013 at 10:23 am
I do not trust the conservative party to handle intelligence information properly. One only has to look back to impact of the leaking of the Zinoviev letter. On the other hand a bishop with a big mouth played a crucial part in the royal abdication. Perhaps the diocesan reorganization is the establishments revenge?
August 25, 2013 at 10:25 am
David, the diocesan reorganisation has come not from the establishment! Intriguing links…