GCHQ surveillance powers – less ‘Karma Police’ and more ’Creep’ 2


The creepy extent to which folk at GCHQ have been monitoring and spying on all web users has been revealed in leaked documents on operation ‘Karma Police’. The documents published by The Intercept demonstrate that the UK government’s listening service GCHQ was building a “web browsing profile for every visible user on the internet”.

James Baker NO2ID Campaigns Manager said:

“Sensitive meta data can be used to build up a profile of the websites you visit. If you’ve ever sought marriage guidance, googled medical conditions or viewed pornography then chances are this programme will have used that information to build up a profile about you.

“This is out of control surveillance which demonstrates that ,more than ever, we need independent judicial oversight of government surveillance powers.”

These surveillance powers are a typical example of a database state, which is the term we use to describe the tendency of governments to control society by monitoring people. We must have proper judicial oversight, separate from government, to authorize the use of these powers. When parliament comes to debate new surveillance powers it will need to put additional safeguards in place.


2 thoughts on “GCHQ surveillance powers – less ‘Karma Police’ and more ’Creep’

  • cloudstarer

    The security services are vehemently opposed to Judicial oversight.

    The reason for this was demonstrated when Lord Ashcroft alleged The Prime Minister had stuck his wedding tackle into a pigs head in one of the initiation ceremonies of one of the many clubs the extremely rich are fond of joining.

    No person achieves high office (cabinet minister, PM, senior civil servant etc…) unless someone somewhere has some leverage whereby they can be made to do their bidding, usually against the wishes of the electorate.

    And the security services, being spies, have access to this leverage.

    Judges however, while still subject to this system of leverage, are less influenced by it as they are ultimately bound by the rule of law and their decisions can be reviewed and even reversed.

    In short for a judge to issue a warrant, they need to see evidence to support the decision, an MP such as the home secretary will rubber stamp anything the security services put on their desk for fear of the mornings headlines.

    Have a read of http://theleveller.org/2015/09/british-really-laughing/ it’s quite illuminating.

  • cloudstarer

    The security services are vehemently opposed to Judicial oversight.

    The reason for this was demonstrated when Lord Ashcroft alleged The Prime Minister had stuck his wedding tackle into a pigs head in one of the initiation ceremonies of one of the many clubs the extremely rich are fond of joining.

    No person achieves high office (cabinet minister, PM, senior civil servant etc…) unless someone somewhere has some leverage whereby they can be made to do their bidding, usually against the wishes of the electorate.

    And the security services, being spies, have access to this leverage.

    Judges however, while still subject to this system of leverage, are less influenced by it as they are ultimately bound by the rule of law and their decisions can be reviewed and even reversed.

    In short for a judge to issue a warrant, they need to see evidence to support the decision, an MP such as the home secretary will rubber stamp anything the security services put on their desk for fear of the mornings headlines.

    Have a read of http://theleveller.org/2015/09/british-really-laughing/ it’s quite illuminating.

Comments are closed.