Skip to main content

Big brother (and his mates) are watching

There is a programme that I am told is shown on the television called "The News".  This television programme has a number of, what I assume are spin-off daily and weekly pamphlets, called "Newspapers".  I try to avoid both the television and printed versions as they drive me right up the sodding wall!  However, I've been unable to escape the story of how the Government is planning to introduce legislation, similar to that it opposed in opposition (lying bastard politicians), that will allow the police and MI5 (and no doubt your local council) to intercept you electronic communications.  Obviously, they won't be allowed to read any of the intercepts (and I'm sure we all trust government employees not to sneak a peek) without a warrant from a judge.

If this story is true then it is an outrageous intrusion into our privacy. 

There are already procedures in place that allow intercepts to be performed.  But they do have a lot of rather boring and tedious rules associated with them.  Given that intercepts can already be performed lawfully with good reason, I can only assume that the new information will be sought where there is not good reason, i.e. the Government is arranging a fishing expedition for the security services.  As with most things politicians do, it's not the doing that is important but the being seen to appear to be doing.

Anyway, it doesn't really matter what our lot get up to because as usual they do it bigger and better in the USA.  The US Government, through the National Security Agency (NSA) is currently spending about $2 billion on a brand spanking new home for its cyber spies.  The facility in Bluffdale is designed to house up to a yottabyte of data (that's about 500,000,000,000,000,000,000 pages of text or about a quadrillion gigabytes), which will be processed by a supercomputer capable of speeds over 1.75 petaflops (one petaflop means the execution of a quadrillion operations every second).

The purpose of this facility is to monitor and read all electronic communications.  To be clear, electronic communications includes emails, website visits, web searches and most telephone calls.  The NSA, like our own GCHQ, already has the ability to monitor communications for certain key words and flag up those words for more detailed examination.  However, the new NSA facility will do this on a truly industrial scale and it will monitor ALL communications not just particular ones from specific targets.

Why should we care about some secret US listening post?  It has nothing to do with us because we're not American, right?  Don't forget that our own Government already allows a giant US satellite listening post at Menwith Hill in Yorkshire, which has just undergone a multi-million pound refit and currently sports 33 eavesdropping domes.

So while the UK Government plans to allow British intelligence services to listen into our communications for somewhat vague reasons, it seems that the US will also be monitoring us.

I am a little surprised that there's been very little press attention paid to the US plans.

On a side note, I suppose if we really wanted to annoy the NSA we could all sign up for huge amounts of spam mail and let the NSA fill its data centres with that rubbish for a bit... they probably have quite good spam filters though I imagine.


Popular posts from this blog

Ched Evans

Before I begin, I will say that at around 4,500 words this is probably the longest blog I’ve ever posted but I think it’s all necessary to set the scene for this case and explain the background that has been largely ignored or airbrushed in the press. Despite its length, I have not attempted to include every little detail of either fact or law but have done my best to provide a balanced picture of the Ched Evans case, what happened and why the courts reached the decisions they did. There has been so much written about the Ched Evans case over the past weekend, much of it based on a very shaky grasp of the facts and law, that I decided I would read up about the case and weigh in (hopefully on a slightly firmer footing than most of the articles I’ve read so far).

Broadly speaking there seem to be three groups who have opinions on the case:
1.Sexual violence groups (including people describing themselves as “radical feminists”) who appear to take the view that the case is awful, the Court o…

How do the police decide whether to charge a suspect?

A question I’m often asked by clients (and in a roundabout way by people arriving at this blog using searches that ask the question in a variety of ways), is “how do the police decide whether to charge or take no further action (NFA)?”
What are the options?
Let’s have a quick think about what options are available to the police at the end of an investigation.
First, they can charge or report you for summons to attend court.  Charging means that you are given police bail and are required to attend court in person.  A summons is an order from the court for you to attend or for you to send a solicitor on your behalf.  In many cases where a person is summonsed, the court will allow you the option of entering a plea by post.
Second, you may be given a caution.  These can be a simple caution, which on the face of it is a warning not to be naughty in future, or it can be a conditional caution.  Conditions could include a requirement to pay for the cost of damage or compensation, etc.  Either…

Bid to prevent defendants knowing who accuses them of a crime

When I read The Trial by Kafka and Nineteen Eighty-Four by Orwell, I took them as warnings of how a bad justice system wrecks lives of those caught up in it. Sadly, some Members of Parliament and the House of Lords seem to view the books more as a guide to how they would like our Criminal Justice System to run. Today, I read of plans to hide the names of accusers and witnesses from defendants in a large number of cases. Victims of sexual offences, such as rape, have had the right to lifelong anonymity for many years now. This means that it is a criminal offence to publish information that will lead to a complainant being identified. A Bill currently being considered by Parliament would extend that anonymity to bar defendants and their lawyers knowing the name of the person accusing them. This would apply not only in sexual offences, as has been reported in the press, but also in violent offences.
The anonymity currently offered to victims of sexual offences is not total, the complainant…