
GCHQ can monitor MPs' communications, court rules - quickfox
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/oct/14/gchq-monitor-communications-mps-peers-tribunal-wilson-doctrine
======
andyjohnson0
Then it seems that MPs might need to start deploying and using crypto in their
everyday work - in a similar way to some mainstream journalists [1][2]. Which
is a real shame and a serious distraction.

Also, the Prime Minister and most members of the cabinet are MPs. I wonder if
this disclosure affects them too?

[1]
[http://www.tcij.org/resources/handbooks/infosec](http://www.tcij.org/resources/handbooks/infosec)

[2]
[http://www.cjr.org/behind_the_news/hacks_hackers_security_fo...](http://www.cjr.org/behind_the_news/hacks_hackers_security_for_jou.php)

~~~
onion2k
_Then it seems that MPs might need to start deploying and using crypto in
their everyday work_

All MPs official business should be a matter of open, transparent public
record. Nothing they do as part of their every day work should be encrypted or
private. The singular exception should be matters of national security, and
even then their communications should be recorded in a secure manner with full
accountability under the law if there's any suspicion of wrongdoing (e.g.
lying to parliament about another countries WMDs).

Public office should be public.

~~~
spacecowboy_lon
Why the convention is that constituents have the same privacy they would with
their lawyer / doctor.

Would you raise issues with your representative if the tabloid press could
harvest it and selectively quote you to monster you.

~~~
onion2k
You're suggesting that MPs should be able to conduct business in secret in
case the tabloid press lie about someone. Have you ever heard the phrase '2
wrongs don't make a right'?

~~~
vidarh
No, he's suggesting that MPs should be able to conduct business in secret
because portions of the public have concerns that they have good reason to
raise with an MP yet where even the mere knowledge of the basics of the
conversation might negatively affect their lives.

E.g. lets say a drug addict who has successfully managed hid their addiction
wants to offer their perspective of new drug legislation to their MP. Or a
paedophile who wants to gather support for promising treatment option. Or
someone with family or community ties to extremists of some shade or the other
wants to propose ways of reducing their influence.

There are a multitude of situations where there might be bad fallout from
public knowledge about what a persons raises with their MP even if what they
raised is positive for the wider community.

Yes, secrecy also allows for negative effects, but it's not nearly as simple
as just writing off the benefits of being able to guarantee privacy.

~~~
astazangasta
Anonymity does not require secrecy. See Reddit, 4chan, etc: open, anonymous
communication.

~~~
spacecowboy_lon
Err this is about a constituant talking to their MP you can not not
anonymously lobby and MP

~~~
astazangasta
Why not? Lobby your MP, have identifying details removed from the public
record. We do it with all sorts of records with confidential or secret
details.

~~~
JupiterMoon
Partly because of the rule that MPs are only supposed to deal with their own
constituents. Therefore they require your name and address on
communications...

------
mrmondo
Maybe this could be a good thing? Maybe if the MPs feel that they're under
surveillance like the rest of us they might not be so quick to support global
spying.

~~~
madaxe_again
Nah. They'll just change the law to exempt themselves. The easiest way will
probably be to define a new "class" of citizen, who is above all of the
Surveillance, which is for the cattle.

They'll enshrine this so deeply in law there will be no going back without
violent revolution.

That won't happen though, as the cattle are distracted and well fed - and any
move against them which fails will only serve to further their interests, for
you are simply a terrorist who hates the British values of suspicion, greed
and prejudice.

If the opposition has too good a reputation to be called a terrorist, I.e.
They're in government, famous, etc., again, easy, say they're a paedophile and
nothing they say will ever matter again.

Either way, don't expect positive change from this. Expect May to hop up on a
podium and explain that human rights prevent us from keeping you safe from the
terrorists and so we must pass a bill that allows us to shoot dangerous people
and the ten billion illegal immigrants who are taking your jobs right now, on
sight, oh and by the way we're exempt from Surveillance.

~~~
rmc
The UK is not a republic. There is nothing illegal about there being different
legal categories of people.

~~~
vidarh
UK is still a EU member. Article 20 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of
European Union states that "Everyone is equal before the law". Article 21
further expands on forms of discrimination prohibited by the charter.

The UK has legally incorporated the requirements of the Charter via the Human
Rights Act.

Even if the UK were to exit the EU, the UK is also a member of the Council of
Europe, and bound by the European Convention on Human Rights, and
discrimination under the law is also prohibited by Article 14 of the ECHR.

------
jimrandomh
The scariest thing about today's intelligence agencies is not the possibility
of governments using them to exert totalitarian control. The scariest thing is
that the intelligence agencies don't seem to even be loyal to their
governments.

~~~
gknoy
They might perhaps feel that their role is more like a combination of the
Ministries of Love and Peace, and thus loyal to what they see as the
government. In fact, one might even say that they are loyal to their
government, rather than to their nation.

------
orian
It always feel to me quite ironic that countries which used to advocate
freedom and free speech these days have most intense surveillance operations.

~~~
kozhevnikov
Surveillance is the opposite of privacy, the opposite of free speech is
censorship, and GCHQ doesn't advocate that yet.

~~~
agd
It's not quite as simple as that. Mass surveillance alone harms free speech
because it affects people's behaviour. If you know everything you say and do
is recorded, you tend to say and do a lot less than you would otherwise.

~~~
superuser2
>If you know everything you say and do is recorded

Intelligence agencies didn't _want_ us to know that, we learned it from
whistleblowers.

~~~
agd
Intelligence agencies are full of smart people. They know that secrets this
big can't be kept indefinitely. Once the cat's out of the bag, then the
panopticon comes into effect. They have factored in the effect on free speech
into their decisions.

------
verinus
Always when it comes to privacy I like so cite Benjamin Franklin:

“Those who surrender freedom for security will not have, nor do they deserve,
either one.”

― Benjamin Franklin

~~~
mikecb
This quote is taken egregiously out of context.[1] You could still say its a
nice quote, but its power comes from an appeal to authority, in this case, a
founding father, and despite the fallacy inherent in such a tactic, the extent
to which it does not apply to the liberties we talk about today suggest we
could do much better than to bring it up every time.

[1] [https://www.lawfareblog.com/what-ben-franklin-really-
said](https://www.lawfareblog.com/what-ben-franklin-really-said)

~~~
PythonicAlpha
Benjamin Franklin, being a big man, but still a human. We must not think, that
he could comprehend our future problems.

Of course he did only talk about his current problems.

Still it is a very good quote that deserves to be seen not only in it's
singular, historical meaning, but also in a wider look.

And as we see, we all need a broader look to preserve humanity -- or freedom
and humanity will finally perish.

~~~
mikecb
Exactly what I said, just don't attribute it to Ben Franklin.

------
mikecb
Eventually the UK may decide that no one should be monitored without probably
cause, but suggesting that any portion of society, especially those with
power, should be exempt from a regime the rest of society is subject to is a
worse proposition than having pervasive monitoring applied equally.

------
maaarghk
This is a reversal of the Wilson doctrine. [0]

A few months ago there was a leak [1] which suggested GCHQ were spying on
Scottish MSPs (Members of the Scottish Parliament) and MEPs.

Now, of course, they can continue to spy on Scottish elected officials without
anyone being able to claim unfair treatment of MPs over others.

Edit: The other argument is of course that before this ruling, MPs were "above
the law" so to speak. So in that sense it is a bit of a re-balancing.

[0]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilson_Doctrine](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilson_Doctrine)

[1] [http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-
politics-3365...](http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-
politics-33650000)

~~~
spacecowboy_lon
I remember chat to a HOC worker and there was some disgruntlement that the
staff had to have Developed Vetting (ie TS clearance) and there is very little
checks made on MP's

------
cm2187
Because MPs are a bunch of dangerous terrorists!

~~~
SideburnsOfDoom
You probably think you're just joking:
[http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/jun/15/green-
party-...](http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/jun/15/green-party-peer-
put-on-database-of-extremists-by-police)

~~~
morsch
Presumably you are aware of this, but let me spell it out: The MP from that
article hasn't been involved in any violent crime, much less anything
resembling terrorism. She's just an active participant of civil society and an
opponent of the police state. Of course, unlike actual terrorists, this makes
her a real threat.

We have the same thing in Germany, the domestic intelligence services keeping
tabs on MPs. Of course Germany has a rich tradition in this kind of behaviour.

------
togusa
Well there goes democracy.

~~~
mtgx
That's what you get when a secret spying-oriented Court has to rule on this.
It's like asking the FISA Court rather than the Supreme Court whether the NSA
can spy on American citizens and politicians.

~~~
vidarh
Actually, while it may be a "spying oriented Court", there should have
absolutely no surprise here.

(EDIT: To be clear: I find this spying disgusting, but that does not change
the fact that there was no good legal basis for assuming MPs were somehow
protected)

The idea that MPs were above being spied on had no basis in law whatsoever.
The only reason some people believed this was that Wilson said so, and nobody
challenged the fact that no law was passed to actually prevent the security
services from carrying out such spying. But the public statements of the prime
minister has no legal standing whatsoever to set policy for government
departments.

That MPs for decades have believed that the word of a politician not packed up
by actual laws, or even actual government policies passed on to the security
services, would in any way protect them is what is bizarre here.

On the upside, someone finally challenged it in court, rather than just
blindly accept the "of course the Wilson doctrine still stands" nonsense.

------
pjc50
Update: Parliament will hold an emergency debate on the subject on Monday.
[http://www.westerndailypress.co.uk/MPs-hold-emergency-
debate...](http://www.westerndailypress.co.uk/MPs-hold-emergency-debate-
politicians/story-27991305-detail/story.html)

------
petepete
Hopefully someone will guide MPs in setting up an encrypted alternative.

Slightly ironic considering James H. Ellis worked for GCHQ

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_H._Ellis](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_H._Ellis)

------
nomercy400
Wouldn't they be doing it regardless of the court ruling anyway?

