I listened to an interview with the Home Secretary, Theresa May, yesterday. She explicitly stated several times that she had no say in the Miranda's detention as it was a police matter. Odd, then, that she is responsible for the secret services and it is MI5, not the police, who are the primary in all anti-terrorism investigations.
The police in the UK do have sufficient independence to arrest against the Home Secretarry's wishes and MI5 have no arrest powers they normally get the Special Branch of the Metropolitan Police to do the arresting I believe. However I think that if she had politely suggested that they be careful not to stretch anti-terror laws to far that they would have probably listened.
The Press Regulation Scheme is in no way similar to the use of MI5 and police resources to interrogate an individual who ,for all in intents and purposes, seems innocent of any terrorism related crime. I see no conflict here with the Guardian's stance on these issues.
As a European I feel very sad that many national governments are so much under the thumb of US. To divert the plane of another nation's leader without due legal justification is a big statement about the lengths our governments will go to satisfy US government policy. I know a great number of US citizens also disagree with these policies. Another sad day for democracy.
Well, yeah. If the U.S. was that concerned about spying as a rule, we wouldn't treat with Israel, China or Russia... ever. Undoubtedly there are other nations with an interest in U.S. secrets that simply don't hit the news that often.
Obama, "you can't have 100 percent security and also then have 100 percent privacy." OK, I agree. So how about you and your "security" agencies are a lot less private about what you're doing. Be completely open about your intentions and let your voters decide if they want to spend billions on it and citizens of other countries decide if they want to use US-based services.
The US government's attitude is akin to an angry parent shouting, "how dare you!" at an impertinent teenager. General Alexander's statement that, "What Snowden has revealed has caused irreversible and significant damage to our country and to our allies" seems like a bland justification for revenge.
There is a key difference between this story and the Snowden case. It is unlikely that the UK government will actively pursue and convict any of the sources of the story. The UK, for now at least, appears less desperate to demonize its citizens.
I am very reluctant to draw parallels between real-life and fiction, but the steady stream of stories from the US from Bradely Manning to Snowden to Barrett Brown is making the possibility of a 1984 style state a real possibility. I have never been under any illusion that my data was safe from prying eyes but the extent of the lies, undemocratic procedures and brutality has shocked me. The commercialisation of intelligence, the penal system and war is adding to the issue.
I don't fear for the privacy of my data; I do feel very anxious about the world that my children will inhabit as adults.
Alas, that wide usage barely shows up in stats. Desktop version has significant market share in some USSR countries (Belarus, Ukraine, Russia), but in others is a couple percents at best. They do brag about the large install base on the mobile, but let's face it: Opera may be the best way to browse the web on your feature-phone, but the experience is still terrible, and Opera does not really show on the mobile traffice map.
So while the deleted comment was unfair Opera's fans shouldn't overdo the effort to portray it as something it was not.
You can click on link and then flag it if you think it's appropriate.
"If you think something is spam or offtopic, flag it by going to its page and clicking on the "flag" link. (Not all users will see this; there is a karma threshold.)"