The intense gullibility of Snoopers' Charter cheerleaders

Unfortunately there are an awful lot of hopelessly gullible people in the United Kingdom. In fact these days the hopelessly gullible are clearly an important electoral demographic, hence the Tory government's ever increasing insistence on addressing the British public in glib, over-simplistic and downright misleading platitudes ("all in this together", "living within our means", "Brexit means Brexit" ...)

Out of this hopelessly gullible demographic, one group stands out above all others: the cheerleaders for Theresa May's introduction of the most invasive state surveillance regime of any democratic country on earth.

I've already written an article explaining how the Tory "catching nasty terrorists" justification is an utterly insufficient explanation for why their Snoopers' Charter gives all kinds of non-terrorism related institutions like the Food Standards Agency, the Health and Safety Executive and the Gambling Commission the ability to trawl through the Internet browsing history of any innocent person they may take an interest in. You can read that here.

Anyone who thinks that the threat of terrorism is adequate justification for allowing employees of the Food Standards Agency the opportunity to trawl through the private Internet browsing data of innocent people is obviously astoundingly naive.

One of the most common concerns about state surveillance legislation is the potential for function creep*. The astounding thing about the Tory Snoopers' Charter is that they've already built function creep into the legislation by allowing dozens of non-terrorism related government agencies and quangos to use these invasive snooping powers.

The fact that the Snoopers' Charter enables state spying that goes way beyond the stated justification is far from the only complaint, but the litany of problems with this atrocious piece of legislation simply doesn't deter the right-wing authoritarian "nothing to hide, nothing to fear" crowd.

One of the Tory trolls who regularly bombards the Another Angry Voice Facebook page with his rote learned tabloid drivel tried to defend the Snoopers' Charter by saying that he didn't mind having his private personal data nicked and kept in massive, easily-hackable data dumps, "as long as they do the same to terrorists".

The idea that this mass trawling of the private browsing data of millions of people is going to catch any terrorist aside from the feeblest kind of idiot is laughably naive because any terrorist with a grain of sense is already using VPNs, anonymous Tor networks, end-to-end encryption and the like to evade mass data trawling.

The idea that harvesting the private communications data of millions upon millions of innocent people and dumping it into easily-hackable databases is a price worth paying in order to catch only the most idiotic of terrorists is absurdly naive.

The foolishness of people who would give up their own liberties (like the right to privacy for example) out of fear is best summed up by the Founding Father Benjamin Franklin who said "those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety".

The problem with right-wing cheerleaders for intrusive state surveillance isn't just their naivety, it's also their cognitive inconsistency.

When it comes to the latest Tory privatisation scam these right-wing Tory apologists are always ever so keen to explain that "the state is too big, and too inefficient to run public services properly", hence the need for public assets to be sold-off on the cheap or simply given away for free to the private sector. However when it comes to state surveillance these Tory apologists are suddenly singing a completely different tune. When it comes to the state creating vast data dumps containing the private information of millions of British citizens and British businesses, they suddenly expect us to believe that the state is so magnificently efficient and infallible that the chances of corruption, data loss and vulnerability to hacking are 0%!

Another example of this kind of cognitive inconsistency is the way that in just a matter of days right-wing loud mouths went from damning Fidel Castro as a horrible dictator to ecstatically cheering over the introduction of an invasive state surveillance system that Castro and the Cuban communists could never have imagined in their wildest dreams.It's clear that right-wing cheerleaders for the Snoopers' Charter are not only staggeringly ignorant about the fact that this bill would only ever catch the most inept of terrorists, they're also capable of the most extraordinary displays of Orwellian Doublethink.

On one level it is actually amusing to witness the remarkably naive and staggeringly hypocritical mental contortions these people are prepared to make in order to justify a state surveillance system that would have made the East German Stasi turn green with envy.

On another level it's deeply concerning that huge numbers of people are actually such enthusiastic supporters of Theresa May and the Tories continually stripping away our rights and liberties that they're willing to overlook the woefully flawed "preventing terrorism" justification narrative; the unlikeliness of actually catching real terrorists through mass data trawling; the dangers of corruption, hacking or data loss; the fact that function creep has actually been written into the legislation; the appalling precedent set to repressive regimes like Turkey and Egypt; and the danger of such surveillance powers eventually falling into the hands of someone even more fanatically right-wing and authoritarian than Theresa May.

What you can do

The Snoopers' Charter is now law, but you can still register your dissent at this atrocious piece of legislation by writing to your MP to complain about it, and by signing the petition to have it repealed.You can keep yourself informed on security and state surveillance issues by following campaign groups and informative blogs like Open Rights Group, EDRi, Techdirt, Electronic Frontier Foundation... 

On the whole the mainstream media have been pathetically unwilling to give the Snoopers' Charter the critical attention it deserves, so you can also help to spread public awareness of this woeful legislation by sharing this article.

 Another Angry Voice  is a "Pay As You Feel" website. You can have access to all of my work for free, or you can choose to make a small donation to help me keep writing. The choice is entirely yours.

OR

* = The term "function creep" refers to the way that new laws often end up being used in ways that they were never intended. For example - the use of anti-terrorism legislation to throw an elderly man out of the Labour Party conference for shouting "nonsense" at Jack Straw.

The Tory Snoopers' Charter is now law

"Pry Minister image credit: Richard Littler

The Snooper's Charter became law on the 29th of November 2016 meaning that the United Kingdom now has by far the most invasive state surveillance laws of any nation in the developed world.

The invasive domestic snooping legislation means that the UK state will attempt to maintain a massive database recording the Internet browsing history of every person in the UK, innocent or guilty. They will then allow dozens and dozens of government agencies and quangos to trawl through this database looking for dirt.

Of course it makes sense to allow the secret services to look into what suspected terrorists are plotting, but this legislation doesn't just do that. It goes much much further. The first thing it does is presume that every single UK citizen is a potential criminal who needs to be spied on, then it allows all kinds of non-terrorism related agencies to trawl through people's Internet browsing histories.

The Tory Home Secretary Amber Rudd has continued with the bullshit excuse that this bill is about preventing terrorism by claiming that "the Internet presents new opportunities for terrorists and we must ensure we have the capabilities to confront this challenge", but this kind of fearmongering provides no explanation of why the government just passed a law that allows people working for the Health and Safety Executive, the Food Standards Agency, various Fire and Rescue authorities, the NHS Business Services Authority and the Gambling Commission to rifle through people's Internet Browsing histories.

With even the slightest understanding of the unprecedented powers this bill gives to huge numbers of non-terrorism related government agencies and quangos it becomes absolutely clear that Amber Rudd's justification story makes literally no sense whatever (see image).

A major concern is the potential for corruption in allowing so many agencies the power to trawl through people's browser histories. Just imagine the potential for scammers and stalkers looking for dirt to blackmail their victims with. Allowing the employees of such a huge number of agencies to access people's private data doesn't just provide direct opportunities to scammers and stalkers who might work for these agencies, it also offers them opportunities to steal and sell people's private data to criminals.

Aside from the extraordinary number of agencies that will be allowed to trawl people's Internet histories, there's obviously the problem of keeping such huge stockpiles of private data secure from data loss and hackers. We all remember the stories of government ministers and civil servants losing vast amounts of sensitive data by leaving it on the train, sending it via unrecorded mail or simply stuffing it into bins in public parks. The creation of such vast databases of private information means the potential for human error is absolutely enormous, and that's before we even get to what kind of damage hackers could do with access to the Internet browsing histories of pretty much everyone in the UK.

The German government have recently claimed that they're worried that Russian hackers could interfere with their voting systems and the Chinese have developed incredibly advanced cyber warfare capabilities. The idea that Russian and Chinese hackers wouldn't see the potential value in access to massive data dumps of the Internet browsing records of pretty much every UK resident and business is fantastically naive stuff.

Aside from state sponsored hackers, there are also plenty of criminal hackers out there who must be ecstatic at the idea of the government creating massive stockpiles of private information for them to hack into.

Aside from the security issues and the assault on British liberties this legislation represents, just imagine the precedent that the UK is setting to other authoritarian regimes across the globe by collecting the browsing histories of the entire population. Just imagine the potential for political repression when barbaric and repressive regimes like Turkey follow Britain's lead and begin spying on every single citizen and trawling through their private data looking for anything to persecute their citizens for.

Predictably, despite the obvious concerns, large numbers of right-wing authoritarians are cheering this appalling assault on the right to privacy, the presumption of innocence and the ability of British journalists to do investigative journalism without fear of meddling from any number of state agencies with vested interests in interfering in their work.

These right-wing authoritarian cheerleaders endlessly repeat the idiotic mantra of "if you've got nothing to hide, you've got nothing to fear" without the remotest concern that this new law creates huge new opportunities for corruption, repression, persecution of the innocent and for the loss/theft of private data.

In a way these people are displaying an astonishingly naive and staggeringly hypocritical faith in the ability of government. When it comes to the latest Tory privatisation scam these right-wing apologists will always claim that the state is woefully pathetic and inefficient, so the private sector has to take over. But when it comes to the government running vast databases of private information they've trawled from innocent people, suddenly in their minds, the state becomes so wonderfully and exceptionally efficient that the chances of corruption, data loss and vulnerability to hacking are 0%!

This isn't the only example of right-wing hypocrisy over these invasive new surveillance powers. Just a few days before this legislation gained Royal Assent, these right-wingers were busy lecturing everyone about how horrible and authoritarian Fidel Castro was, but now they're wildly cheering an invasive state surveillance regime that Fidel Castro and the Cuban communists could never have imagined in their wildest dreams.

"Boo to nasty repressive Fidel Castro" these appalling hypocrites shouted, then just a few days later "Hooray for the introduction of the most invasive Orwellian state surveillance infrastructure in the developed world".

The hypocrisy of right-wing authoritarians really does seem boundless.

 Another Angry Voice  is a "Pay As You Feel" website. You can have access to all of my work for free, or you can choose to make a small donation to help me keep writing. The choice is entirely yours.

OR

They don't hate dictators, they hate disobedience

Fidel Castro came to power in 1959 after the Cuban revolution forced the brutal US backed dictator Fulgenico Batista to give up and flee the country.

The US were absolutely furious that their puppet dictator had been deposed so they orchestrated the disastrous Bay of Pigs invasion attempt, attempted to assassinate Castro on dozens of occasions and imposed severe economic sanctions on the people of Cuba.

Castro was committed to socialist principles like universal health and education, and despite the severity of the US trade embargo, Cuba achieved the highest literacy rate of any country in North or South America and developed an extraordinarily successful universal health care system.

It is undeniable that Castro achieved great things, but it's also undeniable that he ruled as the leader of a single party state where political dissent was routinely crushed. Of course it was necessary for their own survival that the Cubans rooted out US backed agitators. Had they meekly done nothing then Castro would soon have been overthrown and replaced with another appalling right-wing US backed dictator (just like the fate of so many other left-wing governments in Latin America). But the necessity of cracking down on US efforts to undermine, destabilise and destroy the Cuban government doesn't excuse all of the repression that went on.

On the one hand Castro achieved miraculous things under extremely difficult circumstances, but on the other hand his regime was repressive and intolerant of dissent.

One of the most interesting things about the social media reactions to Castro's death is the way that so many people have divided themselves into two tribalistic camps, with few people prepared to admit that Castro was a fascinatingly enigmatic character who achieved great things, but who had many flaws too.

Many social media reactions have praised Castro without alluding to any of his failings, while other people have set themselves up as voluntary "Batistabots" with an absolute determination to raid Castro tributes with their efforts to paint Castro as a savage dictator and nothing more (regardless of the fact that the dictator who preceded him was clearly very much worse).

This behaviour is interesting for several reasons. One interesting aspect is the fluidity it demonstrates in right-wing political correctness. We all remember the howls of outrage from right-wingers when people tried to point out Margaret Thatcher's toxic political legacies after she died. Yet given the outpourings of gloating, hatred and gleeful celebration from right-wingers over Castro's death, it's clear that this mandatory "respect for the dead" that right-wingers wouldn't shut up about back when Thatcher died clearly only extends to right-wing demagogues like Thatcher, and not to anyone else.

Another interesting point is the way that right-wingers have used statements of condolence to the Cuban people to attack their political opponents. If a politician is even vaguely left-wing the right-wing attack dogs have been hounding them over their statements of condolence.

Barack Obama is only a left-winger if you're looking at him from a rabidly right-wing perspective. He surrounded himself with Wall Street bankers for his eight years in the White House, he strongly resisted financial sector reform, he oversaw the continued widening of the inequality gap, he pushed hard-right corporate power grabs like TTIP and TPP on the rest of the world, and he was a huge friend to the military-industrial complex.

Here's an extract from Barack Obama's condolence message:

"At this time of Fidel Castro’s passing, we extend a hand of friendship to the Cuban people. We know that this moment fills Cubans - in Cuba and in the United States - with powerful emotions, recalling the countless ways in which Fidel Castro altered the course of individual lives, families, and of the Cuban nation. History will record and judge the enormous impact of this singular figure on the people and world around him ... we offer condolences to Fidel Castro's family, and our thoughts and prayers are with the Cuban people."

That's hardly controversial stuff, but it hasn't stopped wave after wave of right-wingers from attacking Obama, or anyone else who dares to utter anything short of a hateful and divisive Trumpian rant about how completely terrible Castro was and how Cuba needs to cave in to US imperialism at the first opportunity.

These attacks contrast interestingly with the absolute wall of silence from right-wingers when David Cameron paid glowing tribute to the brutal Saudi Arabian dictator Abdullah bin Abdulaziz in January 2015.

You'd have to be suffering an utterly delusional lack of perspective to imagine that Fidel Castro was in the same league as Abdullah bin Abdulaziz when it came to repression. 

Saudi Arabia is a deeply misogynistic Islamist theocracy where women aren't allowed to drive or even leave the home without a male family member to escort them. In Saudi Arabia people are sentenced to death for "crimes" such as being an atheist, being homosexual, or calling for more democracy in the kingdom.

Here's David Cameron's glowing tribute to this savage dictator (who just happened to be the leader of a country that spends £billions per year on British weapons).

"I am deeply saddened to hear of the death of the Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques, His Majesty King Abdullah bin Abd Al Aziz Al Saud ... He will be remembered for his long years of service to the Kingdom, for his commitment to peace and for strengthening understanding between faiths ... My thoughts and prayers are with the Saudi Royal Family and the people of the Kingdom at this sad time. I sincerely hope that the long and deep ties between our two kingdoms will continue and that we can continue to work together to strengthen peace and prosperity in the world."

The idea of Abdullah bin Abdulaziz as having a commitment to peace and the strengthening of understanding between faiths is bizarre enough, but painting Saudi Arabia as a global peacemaker is completely ludicrous given that Saudi Arabia finances terrorist organisations all over the world.

Abdullah bin Abdulaziz was a disgusting man who headed one of the most violent and repressive regimes in the world, yet right-wingers didn't see fit to criticise Cameron's glowing tribute to this appalling dictator.

The contrast couldn't be sharper, and it tells us something interesting about the right-wing psyche. These people don't hate dictators because they're dictators, otherwise the howls of outrage over David Cameron's glowing praise for Abdullah bin Abdulaziz would have been far louder than their furious condemnation of anyone who dares to express condolences over Castro's death.

These people don't hate dictators, they hate disobedience. It doesn't matter how brutal and ideologically extreme the dictator is, as long as they stay loyal to the interests of wealthy elites in the UK and US, they get a total free pass on their human rights abuses, misogyny, homophobia, lack of democracy, war crimes and blatant corruption.

However if a dictator dares to stand up against the interests of wealthy elites in the UK and US then the hatred is unbridled, even if it should be absolutely clear that the dictator is nowhere near as bad as "allies" like the Saudi Arabian regime.

 Another Angry Voice  is a "Pay As You Feel" website. You can have access to all of my work for free, or you can choose to make a small donation to help me keep writing. The choice is entirely yours.

OR