[fredley]

As a Brit who finds this sort of thing completely scary/abhorrent, I often wonder what it is about our culture that makes this so. I think a big part of it is the class-system, which has its roots in feudal structures from millennia past, and is still very much alive and well today. We all grow up to develop an innate sense of class (I look up to him, I look down on him etc.), and for the majority of people, they do trust the upper classes. The royal family has approval ratings through the roof, we have an Etonian PM and largely Etonian cabinet. We just don't have the same distrust that most countries seem to have. On the ground, this comes across as "well it's probably for the best, they know what they're doing", when trying to discuss matters like these.

Also, I'm assuming there's an injunction out about this - can't find it reported anywhere in the UK press.

[sievebrain]

The UK has never had to deal with a truly oppressive government, at least not within anything like living memory.

There's also the problem that nobody outside of the software engineering community really understands what the tech can do, or what GCHQ is capable of. My mother's primary comment on the whole thing was, "well we're much too boring to spy on" and that's a sentiment you see a lot. It reflects a misunderstanding of how cheap it is to create robotic law enforcement on top of the 5-eyes infrastructure.

[TheOtherHobbes]

In fact all non-establishment groups - CND, anti-nuclear power protesters, anti-globalisation protesters, trade unions, animal rights activists, UK's own Occupy movement, anarchists, even worthy intellectual left-leaning blogs, and so on - were and are routinely infiltrated and manipulated.

There's nominal press freedom, in that it's possible to call politicians rude names.

But if your movement or leaders become powerful enough to have a hope of influencing policy and to challenge establishment cash flows and power relationships, expect some blow back.

[samscully]

Fortunately the non-establishment groups sometimes infiltrate and manipulate the establishment too [1].

[1] http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/oct/17/jeremy-corby...

[dmix]

Highly unlikely this happens very often at all. Counter-intelligence by the FBI (the primary intel agency dealling with domestic political organizations) is very thorough. It would take an extremely skilled person to get through their interviews, background checks, mandatory polygraph tests, etc.

The FBI are the best trained people in the world at eliciting information from people unwillingly/unknowingly - which is enough of a barrier on it's own.

[_9MOTHER9HORSE]

> There's also the problem that nobody outside of the software engineering community really understands what the tech can do (...)

I think that's the main problem.

The IPB is all about allowing GCHQ and other government agencies to collect all the data they want, but we shouldn't be worried because there will be "safeguards" against the data being accessed arbitrarily.

Those of us who are more technically minded realize that's a false distinction, but most don't.

[JupiterMoon]

> "well we're much too boring to spy on"

Have you asked her why her government feels that it is necessary to spy on her if she is so boring?

[sievebrain]

The Snowden story was vast and limited to the Guardian. In the UK the other media outlets didn't cover it at all, or actively attempted to undermine the reporting (e.g. with stories planted by the British government that were carefully worded to sound like they were from Snowden even if they weren't).

The vast majority of people have not read any of the Snowden leaks and have no idea what they contained beyond "the government spies a lot". So the concept that they might be targeted themselves is just unimaginable to them.

[JupiterMoon]

Tell them then!

[newjersey]

I think the narrative is that the government doesn't spy on her. They also would probably say that they take in the fire hose and only access the communications of the bad guys™

[7952]

> Also, I'm assuming there's an injunction out about this - can't find it reported anywhere in the UK press.

Does this actually reveal anything new? It was previously known that GCHQ were logging email messages, and MPs use email. The story does not suggest that MPs email are exposed to greater scrutiny.

The headline in every paper should be "Government fails to use email encryption". If the email is not encrypted it could be read by foreign governments, criminals, or the tabloid press. Implying that an email is less secure because it travels outside the UK is ridiculous. It was never secure in the first place!

[JupiterMoon]

Bear in mind that MP's correspondence with their constituents is being hoovered up as well. Yes @gov.uk to @gov.uk could be encrypted but constituent to MP email is in some ways more sensitive to GCHQ snooping. The solution remains political.

[alinajaf]

As a fellow Brit, I find your ability to appreciate sarcasm lacking :)

[monk_e_boy]

> we have an Etonian PM and largely Etonian cabinet

This is about money and class. It takes a lot of family money and a sense of extreme security (which comes from class) to tell your son - "Hey, you should become a politician." And for the kid... who knows what kind of mindset it required? Arrogance, winners mentality, thick skin...

The kids I grew up with never had those ideas put into their heads. Hell, most of the kids I grew up with, the parents thought I was bonkers for wanting qualifications, one of the mums told me "In our family, we don't bother with exams and all that rubbish."

[lucozade]

This was news about a year ago. I presume it's in Computer Weekly because the current bill is trying to close some gaps in the Wilson doctrine that were exposed at the time.

[JupiterMoon]

I thought that Wilson doctrine turned out to be nothing? GCHQ said they never respected it and always spied on MPs?

[lucozade]

That's correct. But MPs thought that it should mean something so they've amended the bill accordingly. That's what's going through Parliament now.