The BBC still doing their bit to promote Snowden’s treachery as a good thing:
Snowden spying leaks prompt millions to protect data
Never mind his spying has resulted in extremely serious difficulties for the intelligence services looking to combat islamic terrorists as they learn not just the intelligence gathering capabilities of the intelligence services but more importantly the techniques used.
The fact that the intelligence services could monitor so much information is nothing new as shown by this report from 1999:
Imagine a global spying network that can eavesdrop on every single phone call, fax or e-mail, anywhere on the planet.
It sounds like science fiction, but it’s true.
So why would the BBC continue to tell us that Snowden has revealed anything new about the extent of surveillance or eulogise him for the service he has supposedly provided to the world?
Anyone would think the BBC believes the real enemy isn’t the likes of the Taliban and its Islamic fellow travellers but the intelligence services who are trying to protect us from such mass murderers.
Is it possible that both islam, in all its variations, and the secret services are our enemies?
Bollocks Alan.
If you think our ‘intelligence’ services are acting on behalf of freemen of England/Scotland/Wales/N Ireland, or the security services give a toss about you or me, then you’re having a laugh. You and I are just tax producers. Human cattle.
Snowden is a patriot (of the USA) and only disseminated facts.
No one should be afraid of the truth.
You’re just shooting at a messenger.
And the BBC haven’t known which way to fall with this one, so they’ve sat on the fence – Impartiality by default, the way it should be.
I really can’t agree with your analysis, Angry man up north.
Compromising intelligence sources is a very serious business indeed. For an old example, see the recent film about Alan Turing (“The Imitation Game”) in which the Bletchley Park code-breaking team had to weigh up the consequences of acting on intelligence from Ultra, in case the Germans worked out the source and changed their cypher system. More recently, during the Falklands War of 1982, the Labour MP and former junior minister Ted Rowlands was recorded in Hansard as saying words to the effect that Britain had been reading Argentine naval cyphers for years; the cypher system was soon changed, robbing Britain of the advantage it had had. The Snowden revelations are likely to do serious damage to intelligence gathering at a time of greatly increased danger.
I don’t share your cynical view of the intelligence services either: they will have saved many lives of ordinary people by preventing 9/11- and 7/7-style attacks in the UK.
‘The imitation Game’ is fact distorting celluloid guff. A visit to Bletchley Park is much more informative. And yes, at a time of war the government calls on (conscripts) all its citizens to participate, academics and scientists and professors like Alan Turing included. Whilst his tragic death was recorded as suicide, the state killed Turing (by default) and was ashamed of his existence. Ted Rowlands was an elected representative, and his actions were stupid (to say the least).
The USA has a written constitution and a Bill of Rights. Their presidents and congress regularly undertake actions which contravenes those documents, and as such, all patriotic americans have a duty to protect their country from enemies (both domestic and foreign), Snowden shines a light on the unconstitutional actions of employees of the people.
He’s a hero to Americans. A hero to all truth seekers. If it assists in the future discipline of US authorities acting in accordance with their constitution, then his actions will have a good infuence on the future.
In the UK we have no constitution. You can quote 1689 Bill of Rights or Magna Carta, but they count for shit for your average bloke / lass in practical terms. Our governments and our ‘intellegence services’ create the very problems you laud them for solving.
Maybe I’m cynical, thats not unfair, but you have no evidence to back up your last sentence, and if you want our government to monitor all of us ‘1984’ style, then I’m not with you. 3 of the 7/7 bombers grew up within 25 miles of where I did – the enemy within -Secret service gonna find ’em all? Wake up!
“Impartiality by default, the way it should be”
That would sound more credible were it not told often enough by the entire BBC top floor.
Hard to credit given the BBC’s uniquely chosen spin on the lawfare committed by its ideological fellow travelers on our armed forces using vast public funds.
And for an organization so committed to transparency, the BBC has curious double standards, using only internal, in secret oversight when caught wanting and held to account, and deploying redactions and FOI exemptions like chaff.
How do you account for that?
Guest Who You misunderstand me.
The BBC should be impartial. It isn’t. That’s why we visit this site I guess. And log down incidences of real bias.
I disagreed with Alan’s take on the matter (fundamentally disagreed as you can see) , and was suggesting that on this occasion, for whatever reason, the BBC were not showing bias to either view on the matter (ie Snowden hero or villain) and sitting on the fence rather than driving a narrative one way or the other.
But, whatever your view on Snowden, (A US hero).
Scrap the telly tax!
‘Guest Who You misunderstand me’
In which case I apologise for seeing a familiar opening counter to a site Editor and even more familiar last paragraph as something it was not intended to be, from a (relatively?) new (infrequent?) friend of the site.
I agree the Snowden case opens a complex can of worms that has nuances that sway between legitimate holding to account of abusive state organs and necessary, or indeed unnecessary requirements of secrecy to protect staff and sources that can, but not always be unacceptable cover ups of abuse. Some secrets do need to be kept, especially at a time when there are those who demand their secrets are whilst taking advantage of competitors or foes who are no longer allowed this luxury.
Which brings me to the BBC, who use default denial and often expensive legal support to avoid being held to account on anything, especially nothing remotely life or death.
So we can agree they are ill-placed to comment on matters of state or corporate security by being raving hypocrites at the very least? Again.
From what I can fathom. MI5 have a vested interest in importing problems like Islam, but despite the pro-EU diversity recruitment program, they also have lots of old fashioned principled pro-British patriots still on board. Proof of that comes from the intelligence agency failures, such as the MI5 career ending attempts to infiltrate UKIP and the drip drip leaking from the investigations into the BBC, due to divisions within MI5 and its links with the Tyndall Centre and the Grantham Institute. Snowden is from the patriotic side. So we should regard him as a good guy. The mass Immigration into this country of Islamic criminals, is used to demand more powers for MI5, and therefore less powers for the British people, including the freedom we had in the 1970’s to criticise anyone the establishment now regard as not a true indigenous Brit. We know from the incompetence and under funding of the Border Agency, and stunts, such as the Ebola stunt, and all those so called British people who have gone to Syria. That despite MI5 being in a mess, MI6 finds the terrorists are relatively predictable and easy to track, as well as the fact that MI6 is less ideologically compromised, due to the fact that it has convinced the diversity loonies that MI6 needs to remain practical and useful about the foreigners it needs to employ, as well as the fact that foreigners are still more diverse than British citizens.
Benjamin Franklin is ‘with’ Snowden the patriot.
“They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
Too right Ben.
Ben would want the Telly Tax scrapped too.
“Snowden’s treachery”?
Are you effing serious Alan?
Snowdon stands up for for free speech and transparency in government. He thinks the people should know about the deceit and lies of our lords and masters, and you think that this is “treachery”?
I’m really going to have to reassess my opinion of this this blog. I though the consensus was basically right, libertarian but apparently Alan thinks we should be championing GCHQ and the CIA. What the fuck?
Life under the jackboot eh? Grand isn’t it?
My previous comment is “awaiting moderation” is it?
Well FUCK YOU.
Your agenda here has little to do with the BBC. That much is obvious.
So long and thanks for all the fish.
Oh, do collect your toys from outside the pram. Moderation is automated and sometimes triggered by the most unexpected things. I think it’s happened to most of us here from time to time.
And the consensus here is, or should be, that the BBC is generally biased. Right and left wing is a side show – the only reason the consensus appears right wing is the general direction of the BBC’s bias.
Backed by The Guardian, currently residing in Russia.
Yer ‘avin a larf, aintcha?
well since mr snowden, if you are so clever,and i am sure you are,why did you not release all this hidden data concerning these labour councils that covered up all these muslim child grooming rings up and down the country for the past 20 years or so,surely mr snowden you had a few files on your database about this,also mr snowden,you reveal alot of secrets about are spies and putting them in danger in there anti terorrist operations,but how many names on your database of these jihadists that we are trying to stop doing harm to are country and the west do you have hidden away but you wont reveal,can you answer that mr snowden.
If I may add something here. Alan is quite right but Snowden is just receiving stolen goods but the content is ‘intrinsicially’ sensitive and secret. All web traffic is monitored by a number of hidden marketing organistaion that are obliged to profile people or organsiations on request from the US Military/CIA or UK . It is easy to monitor your location and interests that Google make a good living making ‘predictions’ – for commercail gain and advantage. If your on facebook most of your personal information is sold wholsesale (UK or EU data laws do not apply in US). The US security services really have it easy collecting this data. All browsers send data of your location and search habits including all mobile devices. A good book on this is ‘The Filter Bubble: What the Internet Is Hiding from You’ by Eli Parsier is a revelation if you don’t know this. What Snowden has to offer is very little but it was secret. That the state snoops on its own citzizens is something that Google does openly and sells that info as advertising as you search. One of the reason I changed to duck duck go. Other search engines are available.
And in this country the MI5 only has to monitor the BBC for overt extremism. Panorama is probably an alert for MI5 that they should again monitor BBC output for political subversives but the Marxists in the civil service may hold the ultimate power in this country. There is a reason for them supporting Islam, we can only guess why. None of us are safe from state snooping or Google. How easy is to monitor BBC twitter feeds? Hacking is as old as the computing itself.
Damn! There are some serious neurotics here? Who do you think the people at GCHQ are? Do you think they are all automata who live in underground cities protected from all the nasty people we all have to put up with? Do they live and operate in a protected ‘black’ world while we live in the hostile, bleak world and never the twain shall meet? Perhaps they’re all ‘greys’ who resemble aliens more than humans. Hell! David Icke is right. Could it be that they are actually humans, like us. Live in house, towns and cities, like us and are concerned for their own little lives, like us? You people need to get your feet back on the ground and stop looking for conspiracies everywhere. The security forces can actually do much less than you imagine in your very special dreams or what you see on TV.