
Whistleblower uncovers London police hacking of journalists and protestors - troubleden
https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2017/04/15/hack-a15.html
======
dbcooper
That article is based on an article and an opinion piece that were published
in the Guardian last month:

[https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/mar/22/whistl...](https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/mar/22/whistleblower-
police-hacking-spying-scotland-yard)

[https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/mar/21/ipcc-
investi...](https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/mar/21/ipcc-investigates-
claims-police-used-hackers-to-read-protesters-emails-jenny-jones)

~~~
andy_ppp
You make it sound as if the article was written by a journalist, not a person
who had been leaked to and is a part of the story. Anyway, that whistle blower
and the leaker could both get 14 years under proposed anti-whistleblower laws:

 _The Guardian failed to point out in its report that new legislation proposed
by the Law Commission would make the author of the anonymous letter, Jones
herself, and the journalists at the Guardian, liable for prosecution—with up
to 14 years in jail._

It seems totally futile to stand up to these people.

~~~
anqh4
>that whistle blower and the leaker could both get 14 years under proposed
anti-whistleblower laws

Why do we have to consider what essentially is treason to a nation to be ok?

You have to go to the electorate and tell them "you see, this guy just leaked
these documents which put our nation's security at risk. Shall we just set him
free?". I'm sure that'll go well... you have Snowden/Assange to see how it
went.

~~~
IanCal
Why should we not support those who expose _wrongdoing_? That's the core of
the issue you're ignoring here, whistleblowing is not just releasing whatever
things you want.

If we as a nation want those activities, then we should make them legal and
clearly defined. If not, then stopping those activities from taking place
hardly sounds like "treason".

~~~
DanBC
> then we should make them legal and clearly defined

We did, in 1998, in the Public Interest Disclosure Act
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_Interest_Disclosure_Act...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_Interest_Disclosure_Act_1998)

And we made things a bit better for NHS Whistleblowers with the Freedom to
Speak Up Review and and NHS Improvement (was Monitor) Freedom to Speak Up
policy which is compulsory for NHS Trusts

[https://improvement.nhs.uk/resources/freedom-to-speak-up-
whi...](https://improvement.nhs.uk/resources/freedom-to-speak-up-
whistleblowing-policy-for-the-nhs/)

[https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/sir-robert-
franci...](https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/sir-robert-francis-
freedom-to-speak-up-review)

~~~
IanCal
Sorry, I think I wasn't clear. I meant making the activities that people blow
the whistle on legal/clearly defined as expected practice, rather than
whistleblowing itself. If as a country we're OK with doing X and not with
people whistleblowing about the country doing X, then we should make X clearly
defined as legal.

I don't think we _should_ make these things legal, personally, but I think
they should either be legal so whistleblowing doesn't make sense or illegal
and whistleblowing is encouraged.

~~~
DanBC
We have made surveillance legal, and provided a framework of protections,
under Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act.

Before RIPA we had a bunch of different public bodies using surveillance with
little control over what they were doing. After RIPA they can still use
surveillance if they follow the correct procedures, and some of the abuses
were reigned in.

The police especially have strong powers to use surveillance.

~~~
IanCal
And so something that falls entirely within both the letter and spirit of
those regulations wouldn't be something a person would have protections for
'whistleblowing', right? Since it's not really whistleblowing in those cases.

------
dghughes
I'm not anti police or law but some chilling recent events worry me.

A similar thing happened in Quebec, Canada.

[http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/canada/montreal/quebec-
journalis...](http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/canada/montreal/quebec-journalists-
police-spying-1.3833507)

And in Newfoundland a man who made comments on Twitter criticizing the police
was tracked down then hauled off to a psychiatric hospital. He was admitted
against his will and using suspicious methods.

[http://www.nationalpost.com/m/wp/news/canada/blog.html?b=new...](http://www.nationalpost.com/m/wp/news/canada/blog.html?b=news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/court-
defends-political-dissent-after-n-l-man-sent-to-psychiatric-hospital-for-
criticizing-police-shooting)

------
dTal
>The Bindmans LLP law firm, acting on behalf of Jones, contacted six of those
listed to verify their passwords (the others could not be traced). In
response, five of the six gave passwords that matched those given in the
letter, and the sixth was nearly a match.

Well jeez no wonder they were hacked if they're that easy to socially
engineer. "Verify my password? That's funny, you're the third one this
month..."

~~~
deadbunny
Blaming the victims? Really?

~~~
TallGuyShort
Why this stigma against acknowledging that potential victims can (and would be
wise to) take steps to protect themselves.

Yes, dressing a certain way, drinking a lot of alcohol, and attending a party
doesn't begin to excuse rape. But that doesn't mean it was a good idea and is
something you should do without considering the possible consequences.

If someone calls and says they work for a security firm, offers to confirm if
you were involved in a hack and you do tell them your password, you are
probably falling for a scam. That's all GP is saying.

~~~
Joeboy
> If someone calls and says they work for a security firm, offers to confirm
> if you were involved in a hack and you do tell them your password, you are
> probably falling for a scam. That's all GP is saying.

GP is suggesting that the people involved were clueless rubes who gave out
their passwords to people of unknown identity, which I submit is almost
certainly untrue.

~~~
TallGuyShort
You're possibly right, but that _is_ pretty much what the article says.
Perhaps there was more of a trust established between the parties. Perhaps
they were shown a list of compromised passwords and asked if any of their
passwords appeared on the list. But pointing out that what the article
actually says happened makes you an easy target is hardly uncalled for. I'm
taking issue with the "blaming the victim" card. Bad security practice is bad
security practice and pointing it out doesn't make you Hitler.

~~~
Joeboy
> I'm taking issue with the "blaming the victim" card.

I also tend to gag slightly at the phrase "victim blaming", because I think
it's a shibboleth that identifies your allegiances and shuts down critical
thinking. But I don't actually think it's unwarranted here. Yes, the article
says the people involved gave Bindmans their passwords. It also says those
passwords were defunct, and that Bindmans had them anyway. It _doesn 't_ say
that they didn't make reasonable efforts to verify that sharing the passwords
was the right thing to do (which, as it turns out, it was). It's _extremely_
ungenerous to respond to that by saying they deserved it for being so crap at
security.

> Bad security practice is bad security practice and pointing it out doesn't
> make you Hitler.

I am willing to concede that it's unlikely anybody in this thread is Hitler.

------
acd
Its an issue when you self censor opinions which deviate from the mass. It
also an issue of freedom of press. The government know who you talk to through
metadata collection even if you use encryption.

~~~
ak4g
I find myself self-censoring on topics like this, not because of what I
(don't) fear is being done by authorities, but because I can't help but to
note that we're not, in fact, living in some Orwellian dystopia, and that
seemingly the surveillance that is being done is promulgating a safe and
stable society, but not toeing the sky-is-falling line doesn't do much for
those numbers by my username.

Meanwhile, there _are_ places that are living in a dystopia, and the single
most important goal of the powers that be in those places is undermining the
rule of law. So I can't help but be skeptical of stories like this.

We have a society where we can air discussions about topics like this, and
where criminals can be kept out of the public sphere, and these are good
things. There. And hey, tonight at least, for once, I won't go to a throwaway
to say so.

~~~
yAnonymous
>We have a society where we can air discussions about topics like this

If anything, cases like this demonstrate how quickly that can change when you
soften surveillance and free speech laws. Look at Turkey. Turning a democracy
into a dictatorship took only a few years.

The German government, too, is working on establishing a massive censorship
complex. How can you tell it's censorship? They don't bother going after the
people who make supposedly illegal statements. Instead, they pressure social
networks directly to make the statements disappear without any legal process.

Right now, many people are cheering, because it works in their favor, but
they're too shortsighted to realize that it'll eventually be used against
them, too.

Note that I'm not even saying that certain statements shouldn't be punishable,
but in a democracy, there must be a legal process for each and every case.
When opinions or money decide what should be censored, it stops being a
democratic process.

~~~
germanier
Sure the German justice goes after people making unlawful postings and entire
specialized police units are being established. Charges and successful
verdicts regarding internet posts are nothing new at all. However, going after
the posters (and even just identifying them) takes a long time. Much to long
compared to the speed postings get shared.

~~~
yAnonymous
It's not the German justice going after it, that's the point. Why would they?
They're not looking to punish anyone, but simply make unwanted statements
disappear.

Right now, they've appointed a private organization (Arvato) that belongs to
the Bertelsmann group, which has a strong lobbying branch and is very close to
the government.

So basically, a private corporation is allowed to run its own show on all ends
and it'll only get worse when they turn this into a law.

German sources:

[https://netzpolitik.org/2016/sz-recherche-so-arbeitet-das-
fa...](https://netzpolitik.org/2016/sz-recherche-so-arbeitet-das-facebook-
loeschteam-in-berlin/)

[https://www.heise.de/tp/features/Lobbyismus-Koenig-
Bertelsma...](https://www.heise.de/tp/features/Lobbyismus-Koenig-
Bertelsmann-3572721.html)

\----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

>However, going after the posters (and even just identifying them) takes a
long time.

That doesn't justify censorship in any way. You sound like a government shill.

~~~
germanier
How do you explain the countless penalty orders and verdicts over internet
posts that were issued in the last thirty years then? People were punished for
internet posts that are against the law and will continue to be punished for
internet posts.

Arvato was contracted by Facebook to enforce their own terms of service and
comply with the law. They are free to contract any company they like to
operate on their platform. It's not the government that chose Arvato.

If you think that law is the result of lobbying alone you haven't followed to
large public debate that happened over this topic the last year at all.

And please refrain from name-calling. This doesn't make your arguments look
any better.

~~~
yAnonymous
The Arvato team was appointed by Facebook after the German government
complained and pressured them into deleting hate speech, without further
explanation what exactly that is. They now want to turn that pressure on
social networks into law.

Like I said:

>Right now, many people are cheering, because it works in their favor, but
they're too shortsighted to realize that it'll eventually be used against
them, too.

The problem is that hate speech is the most generic term ever and can be used
(and already has been used) to censor anything.

>People were punished for internet posts

Yes, I mentioned that, but they didn't start an investigation against all
authors of deleted posts. Millions of posts and pages with millions of
followers were deleted without any legal repercussions. If the post is not
enough concern to start an official legal investigation, there's no legal
ground to delete it.

You are defending censorship. Saying you sound like a government shill is
putting it very nicely.

------
balthamael
V for Vendetta was supposed to be a cautionary tale, not a manual or goalpost.
Britain really has gone to shit. Probably one of the last countries I'd want
to move to.

~~~
dijit
Agreed, I am British and got out just before the full power of the
Conservatives was realised.

I would not plan on going back any time soon, I'm sure I'm not a minority in
thinking this.

~~~
developerdanny
I'm British and I'm scared I'm going to be worse off staying in Britain - how
did you come to be able to leave?

~~~
dijit
Ironically because we are in the EU I was able to find a job very easily.

------
Theodores
This is a new chapter to:

[https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B00CNVPERS/ref=dp-kindle-
redirec...](https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B00CNVPERS/ref=dp-kindle-
redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1)

"'Undercover lays bare the deceit, betrayal and cold-blooded violation
practised again and again by undercover police officers - troubling, timely
and brilliantly executed.' Henry Porter

The gripping stories of a group of police spies - written by the award-winning
investigative journalists who exposed the Mark Kennedy scandal - and the
uncovering of forty years of state espionage.

This was an undercover operation so secret that some of our most senior police
officers had no idea it existed. The job of the clandestine unit was to
monitor British 'subversives' \- environmental activists, anti-racist groups,
animal rights campaigners.

Police stole the identities of dead people to create fake passports, driving
licences and bank accounts. They then went deep undercover for years,
inventing whole new lives so that they could live incognito among the people
they were spying on.

They used sex, intimate relationships and drugs to build their credibility.
They betrayed friends, deceived lovers, even fathered children. And their
operations continue today.

Undercover reveals the truth about secret police operations - the emotional
turmoil, the psychological challenges and the human cost of a lifetime of
deception - and asks whether such tactics can ever be justified."

\- this book I read in three days, it was that thrilling!

------
afoot
So the Met asked the indian police, who in turn reached out to groups (!) of
local hackers to carry out the work, who then presumably passed the data back
through the chain to the Met.

Hard to believe someone found out with such a watertight process...

------
Darthy
This is utterly unacceptable. Time for the electorate to put their foot down
and set an example by disbanding the entire force and replace it with a new
one.

But guess what the electorate will say? "They only came for the Socialists.
I'm not a Socialist". Sad times.

~~~
sien
The intelligence services have been doing this forever in most countries. If
you don't know about it you're not paying attention.

Here is PJ O'Rourke writing about this in the 1960s in the US.

[https://books.google.com.au/books?id=WEmN1ZKrYpsC&lpg=PA238&...](https://books.google.com.au/books?id=WEmN1ZKrYpsC&lpg=PA238&ots=cq0fdzd2DY&dq=pj%20orourke%20undercover%20police&pg=PA238#v=onepage&q=pj%20orourke%20undercover%20police&f=false)

People don't just don't care that much.

It is worth worrying about though. With the NSA and computer surviellance
we've created a 'turn-key tyranny'. And people have been worrying about that
since at least the 1970s: [http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2012/04/influential-
senator-w...](http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2012/04/influential-senator-
warned-in-1975-the-national-security-agencys-capability-at-any-time-could-be-
turned-around-on-the-american-people-and-no-american-would-have-any-privacy-
left.html)

~~~
fredley
What about Intelligence services? This is a local police force!

~~~
DanBC
Police have their own intelligence services in the form of "special branch".
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Branch](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Branch)

~~~
walshemj
There has always been a tension between the Met and the security service with
the Met trying to get more powers in that area - even the Official Mi5 history
comments on it.

------
cies
> police hacking of journalists and protestors

Because they are the real terrorists. I seriously think they had dissidents in
mind when pushing for all those "anti-terror" surveillance laws.

~~~
ak4g
If this was illegal surveillance, then obviously it wasn't within the scope of
what's allowed by said anti-terror laws.

This doesn't add up for me yet, because I don't understand what the supposed
motive is. Do the police have much interest in journalists accounts? I mean
really, what's the thinking here? Are London police ignoring murders of
journalists? The UK is hardly an autocracy.

Frankly we should wait to see what the IPCC says. This could easily be
entirely fabricated, the only corroboration was information that would be
accessible to cybercriminals, not anything that implicates law enforcement
specifically.

~~~
cies
> The UK is hardly an autocracy.

Not only autocracies do this kind of evil. Especially now that the (deeps
state) ruling class consists mainly of capitalist, you can see that the police
targeting dissidents fits a clear motive.

~~~
richmarr
> Especially now that the (deeps state) ruling class consists ...

Sorry I don't think you should state conspiracy theories as fact without
someone calling you on it. There are reasons for police to spy on activists
(even illegally) without needing to assert the existence of a "deep state"

EDIT: to clarify, above where I say "reasons" I mean just that, not "reasons
that I necessarily agree with"

~~~
TheOtherHobbes
And those reasons would be... what?

These are people with political views the government disapproves of. They are
not bomb-throwing anarchists or people with a history of violence. They are
not organising or threatening acts of public violence.

This is entirely a free speech issue.

~~~
DanBC
Environmental groups had plans to shut down nuclear reactors by blocking water
cooling pipes in the sea.

Animal rights protestors have firebombed[1] several UK department stores (for
selling fur), and abattoirs and milk distribution depots; dug up a corpse from
a grave and held the body hostage; rescued animals from labs and caused damage
to the labs;

Far right groups have rallies that attract considerable violence; an English
politician was murdered by a far right extremist.

Illegal surveillance is obviously, unambiguously, wrong. The people who did it
need to face both disciplinary action and criminal prosecution.

~~~
cies
I do not consider potential property damage to be a form of terrorism (or
otherwise a danger to the public). Potential property damage is not something
that I consider a reason for surveillance. We can wait till the damage happens
and the go look for the perpetrators.

There's real "people harming" evil all over our societies. Evil towards rather
innocent people that destroys lives and kills, often benefiting the
perpetrators (financially, or by pushing their agenda). These, to me, are the
only crimes that need tough surveillance.

~~~
richmarr
> _I do not consider potential property damage to be a form of terrorism..._

So under your definition of terrorism someone needs to be injured? You're
diverging from the dictionary a little there.

~~~
_delirium
I don't find it useful to use the term beyond attacks aimed at actually
terrorizing people. Stuff like suicide bombs in crowded public squares or
metros, sarin gas releases, etc. A particular attack doesn't have to actually
have any victims to qualify (it could be unsuccessful, or the outcome could be
lucky), but it at least has to have that goal, or else how is it in any way
"terror"?

Some kinds of animal-rights attacks on shops or universities could qualify,
especially ones using indiscriminate methods like car bombs. But I don't see
how it makes sense, apart from wanting to use pejorative hyperbole, to use
"terrorism" to describe sabotage that damages equipment on a lab or farm,
things like throwing paint or glue on things, short-circuiting electronics,
etc. We already have the perfectly good words "sabotage" and "saboteur" to
describe those acts and the people who carry them out. If these all start
being grouped under "terrorism", then we end up with absurdities like
describing the Boston Tea Party as an 18th-century terrorist attack, which
I've actually seen people do, but I don't think is useful.

~~~
DanBC
For clarity: the examples I gave were of organisations using fire to destroy
property in order to persuade those businesses to stop trading, or to make it
economically impossible for them to keep going.

I mentioned a group that stole a corpse from a grave.

[https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2006/may/12/animalwelfare.top...](https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2006/may/12/animalwelfare.topstories3)

> The militants, including a vicar's son and a psychiatric nurse, led what
> they called a "holocaust" against a farm which bred guinea pigs for medical
> research. Jon Ablewhite, John Smith and Kerry Whitburn pursued a six-year
> hate campaign against Darley Oaks farm in Newchurch, Staffordshire.
> Whitburn's girlfriend, Josephine Mayo, was sentenced to four years for a
> lesser part in the campaign.

> Almost 100 people connected to the farm were targeted. Explosive devices
> were sent to some, mail threatening to kill and maim to others. There were
> attacks on homes, cars and businesses. The relentless campaign culminated in
> the theft of the body of Gladys Hammond, a close relative of the Hall family
> who ran the farm, from her grave in October 2004.

> For months, activists taunted the Halls, telling them the body would be
> returned if they closed the farm. The body was found only last week in
> woodland after Smith told the authorities where it was.

This is a campaign of violence, against people, for political reasons.

------
dovdovdov
Almost makes you think we only have terrorism just so the countermeasures can
be exploited to keep the masses under total control. ;)

~~~
alexandercrohde
I don't know if I believe that, however the spectre of terrorism is WAY
overblown (more people die slipping and falling in the shower). So I do find
it really unreasonable that it's used as an excuse to monitor our
communication...

~~~
passivepinetree
That's a super interesting stat. Do you have a source for it that I can use if
I want to steal your quote?

~~~
alexandercrohde
I'm glad somebody asked for this. I'm going by this:
[http://reason.com/blog/2011/11/21/why-we-should-fear-
bathtub...](http://reason.com/blog/2011/11/21/why-we-should-fear-bathtubs-
more-than-te)

I'm sure somebody out there will argue over the exact numbers, but the general
point that terrorism isn't in the top 100 causes of death is unassailable.

------
NumberCruncher
>> This alleged criminality is the result of a deliberate government policy of
using the police and security services to [...] protect company profits and
the status quo. [...] it is not simply the case that the police and security
services are just being used by the government. In fact, the police and
security services are becoming emboldened to take a more independent role as
direct agencies of the ruling elite, overriding other bodies.

No comments needed.

~~~
retube
> No comments needed

Except that, you know, not sure how impartial the World Socialist Web Site is
likely to be!!

~~~
cies
Impartial or not: let's count the MSM-sources that do not report on this
matter; or only report late (because it would otherwise become weird if they
wouldn't).

I did not see this yet in any of the MSM sites I sometimes poll on these
matters. Nothing yet! If this news if true, which I believe at this point,
then it is a BIG story (proven total failure of democracy, high up officials
in charge have to step down because of protests). Here on HN we seem to
generally agree that it is a big story as it is on the front page for quite
some hours.

~~~
kbenson
> let's count the MSM-sources that do not report on this matter

It originated in the Guardian. That _is_ a MSM outlet. That said, it
originated in an _opinion_ piece. What you have is something that the Guardian
didn't have enough facts for to make a real story yet, and you are expecting
other MSM sources to report on it, which means they would be reporting on a
Guardian opinion piece, since that's all the evidence they have.

I find it _much_ more likely that multiple investigative divisions are looking
into this and trying to find something factual to report. In the end, that is
still one of the major differences between MSM outlets and random small news
sites - one of them is actually expected to be accountable for what they
report.

~~~
cies
> [MSM outlets are] actually expected to be accountable for what they report.

Dunno man. I've seen stuff being reported by MSMs that was well below the
professional threshold for me. Guardian seems to be one to better big outlets.

But I have to give to credit for pointing out a very valid reason for other
MSMs not reporting on it.

~~~
kbenson
> I've seen stuff being reported by MSMs that was well below the professional
> threshold for me.

It's not perfect, but it exists. That's why you see retractions at major
agencies[1]. That said, they don't generally feel compelled to retract
conjecture, unless egregious, and conjecture is often misinterpreted as fact
(likely sometimes because of purposefully vague presentation).

I still view an organization willing to make retractions as a level above one
that isn't, even if the line between conjecture and fact is sometimes obscured
(because they _all_ do that, MSM or not).

1: [http://www.nbcnews.com/id/3891881/ns/about/t/nbcnewscom-
corr...](http://www.nbcnews.com/id/3891881/ns/about/t/nbcnewscom-corrections-
clarifications/)

------
SubiculumCode
Outrageous. I worry we in the USA are going this direction too.

~~~
ak4g
My siblings in this thread need to learn about the reforms that were done
post-Watergate. The rule of law governs everyone, especially law enforcement,
in the USA. If you don't believe that, why do you think lawmakers bother with
getting laws passed to allow surveillance in the first place?

You can't have it both ways. Either LEO follow the letter of the law and we're
not in some 1984 scenario (because there _are_ , in fact, substantial
protections for privacy under the law), or they do not, and we're left with
this mystery of why things like the USA PATRIOT Act exist, which now needs to
be explained.

~~~
effie
Rule of law guarantees law will be applied, not that people rights and freedom
will be upheld.

~~~
TallGuyShort
And it's not even much of a guarantee of that.

------
webmonkeyuk
Yet another good reason to have 2FA enabled

------
mmjaa
Anti-Establishment == Terrorist.

(If you're a member of the Establishment, that is..)

------
OliverJones
When secure passwords are outlawed, only radical activists will have secure
passwords. No, wait ....

------
FireRat666
It is so unfortunate this has been happening and that I am not at all
surprised by it, Thanks

------
samuel23
UK Police subcontract Hackers in India to do something illegal. You do realize
this is stupid fake news??

If you do something colossally illegal, you'd usually try to hide it rather
than subcontract to people you've never met...

------
notliketherest
London? Why does anyone have an anticipation of privacy in the UK? This is the
city with police cameras on every block, surveillance vans, and a prime
minister who literally called the privacy of encryption evil.

~~~
qqg3
London doesn't have "blocks".

Surveillance vans are a myth.

Police cameras? Sure there is plenty of CCTV but most of its is privately
owned and operated.

~~~
SamUK96
> London doesn't have "blocks".

I don't think they meant "block" in the usual American sense, but in the
general sense, that is: "an area".

> Surveillance vans are a myth.

Simply Wrong.

Surveillance vans are not a myth, honestly. Maybe not in the what the police
would call the "plebian" areas, but in the centre and Canary Wharf, you can
see them every now and then, they even have their own WiFi you can try and
connect to, which has like 3 password fields (I've tried when I was passing
one in Canary Wharf).

> Sure there is plenty of CCTV but most of its is privately owned and operated

No evidence for this, and I think the parent comment meant "street-level"
CCTV, not in buildings, and i'de be pushed to say it's more weighted towards
public CCTV (govt.) rather than private.

~~~
vidarh
Most of the "street level" cameras are council owned and operated, outside of
a few areas where the police operate them. City certainly has a _lot_ of
police operated surveillance. But venture outside the most central areas and
there's not much street-level CCTV. As I've mentioned elsewhere, where I live
in London it's about a 20 minute walk in any direction to see one. There are
many parts of London where that is true once you venture outside of zone 1. In
zone 1, yes, you'll be on camera a lot unless you sneak around back streets
and on purpose try to avoid them.

------
bbcbasic
Poor man's PRISM

------
necessity
Doesn't seem like a reputable source.

~~~
cryptarch
Still an interesting suggestion to look into, init?

You might not believe it is fact, but I for one think it's reasonable to give
The Guardian the benefit of the doubt here and have a long hard look at these
programs, if only because it has a non-zero chance of being true and only
costs time to look into.

~~~
nailer
Definitely, but I think most of us would rather read it directly from The
Gaurdian.

~~~
cryptarch
Fair enough. Perhaps it'd make sense to have a primary link and a list of
alternative sources built into HN.

(By which I mean, posters provide an ordered list of links, and perhaps users
could add additional links which are moderated.)

------
nepotism2016
I'm really shocked, not. How else do you control society lol

------
samuel23
You do realize this is stupid fake news??

If you do something colossally illegal, why let the world know by
subcontracting it to people you've never met?

