Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Security Crime United Kingdom

Edward Snowden Leaks Could Help Paedophiles Escape Police, Says UK Government 510

Posted by samzenpus
from the root-of-all-evil dept.
An anonymous reader writes "Paedophiles may escape detection because highly-classified material about Britain's surveillance capabilities have been published by the Guardian newspaper, the UK government has claimed. A senior Whitehall official said data stolen by Edward Snowden, a former contractor to the US National Security Agency, could be exploited by child abusers and other cyber criminals. It could also put lives at risk by disclosing secrets to terrorists, insurgents and hostile foreign governments, he said."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Edward Snowden Leaks Could Help Paedophiles Escape Police, Says UK Government

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 07, 2013 @03:59AM (#45353849)

    Those demagogical assholes are the worst terrorists of all.

    • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 07, 2013 @04:08AM (#45353943)

      Let's see.

      "Save the children"? Check.

      "Terrorism"? Check.

      "For your own good"? Check

      If you can't smell the heavy miasma of bullshit wafting off this, you need a new fucking nose.

      • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 07, 2013 @05:25AM (#45354261)

        (Copied from a Techdirt comment):
        I wonder if the CIA distributes pedo material the same way they get Swiss bankers to drink-drive?

        Imagine you are a UK minister. Like most men you look at porn because you're biologically programmed to like pictures of woman doing stuff. Like most ministers you pretend porn is vial and evil, because that's how you get elected.

        CIA wants to turn you into an apparatchik, so they do their 'redirect' attack, the one they use to MITM Google in one of the leaks. CIA redirects them to a kiddy porn server in Orlando, now the logs of both GCHQ and NSA show them visiting a kiddy diddling site.

        CIA man visits minister and explains the shock and outrage at finding this, but assures minister that he's a good man and therefore the CIA won't tell.

        Minister can't go to MI5 because Parker could be a CIA apparatchik (he is doing an attack on the free press FFS). Indeed he can't get help at all, because all it takes is ONE apparatchik among the people in the know and he is gone.

        It may sound fanciful, but the mechanisms are already in place. Also read a few leaks. The plan to attack Greenwald & Wikileaks.

        http://www.thetechherald.com/articles/Data-intelligence-firms-proposed-a-systematic-attack -against-WikiLeaks/12751/

        The leverage they got over a Swiss Banker:

        http://www.businessinsider.com/edward-snowden-describes-cia-tricks-2013-6

        The weird way ministers are behaving.

        • by FriendlyLurker (50431) on Thursday November 07, 2013 @05:38AM (#45354323)
          Yes, can will and probably has. Basically you are naming one of the down sides to an unchecked, unsupervised, unaccountable security apparatus that can operate in the dark as it pleases. There are many others such as using the security apparatus for industrial espionage/pure profit motive and crush political dissent as they did with the Occupy movement.
          • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 07, 2013 @06:18AM (#45354481)

            What do you mean "the down side"? There is no up side.

            You can't point at other regimes and decry their dictatorial policies, and then have a secret arm of government of your own acting with the power of all three arms of government, with no oversight or accountability.

            Wake up. The dictators aren't in Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt or wherever else you may think they are. The most insidious dictators are right here, ruling YOU.

            • What do you mean "the down side"? There is no up side.

              If you're a banker or other criminal type with inside connections to the survellance complex, the up-sides clock into the trillions.

              It is only a matter of time before the men in charge of the NSA and GCHQ start getting invited to City dinners, if they aren't there already.

            • by argStyopa (232550) on Thursday November 07, 2013 @09:58AM (#45355537) Journal

              And you're just being a demagogue.

              To claim there is no need, no value, no "up side" to having a strong national intelligence organization marks you as irrelevant to the discussion as the blind patriots knee-jerking that "it's fine because I have nothing to hide".

              There IS a tremendous value to a strong intelligence capability.
              But our society was built on the need for responsible oversight, generally delegated to our elected representatives.

              The blame here I place (as usual) on Congress. If they were exercising responsible, firm, intrusive oversight - with absolute, immediate, and unremitting punishment for the people involved (firing certainly, prosecution as required - and not a bunch of chattering ninnies that have proven their inability to be trusted to keep secrets secret (so as to remain closely advised by the agencies without fear of destroying the value of intel and methods with self-serving 'unattributed' leaks), I don't believe we'd have this problem.

              But now we have self-interested politicians, committed to maintaining a political divide and advantage at ANY cost (even to the republic), who thus cannot really be trusted with anything important and who block each other (despite both sides' recognizing the need) from reforming anything substantively. I guess we lose then.

              • by Shark (78448) on Thursday November 07, 2013 @11:06AM (#45356205)

                If they were exercising responsible, firm, intrusive oversight - with absolute, immediate, and unremitting punishment for the people involved (firing certainly, prosecution as required

                While in theory, you're right, in practice, that is unsustainable. You *can* have someone principled and just in power but that is largely an exception to the norm. That position will always devolve and attract the lying cheats who will do anything to attain that power. The reason is pretty simple, the honest man typically has no real desire or need for power and will typically be at a great disadvantage for their unwillingness to cheat to maintain it.

                The blame here I place (as usual) on Congress.

                That's disingenuous. Best you can do is blame the population for not offering principled people who run for office, or in the rare cases where this happens, blame the population for not supporting those guys in favor of the typical establishment stooges.

                Even that isn't fair though... Would you risk of life-destroying consequences that rocking the boat too much in congress will most likely bring down upon you? Would you go head-up against the intelligence agency that can pull out or simply fabricate information to publicly humiliate and destroy you if you so much as threaten them? And even if none of that would stick, are you game to find out what other tricks those guys have to take you out of the picture? Would you wish it on someone else?

                The bottom line is this: You didn't follow - or hold your politicians to - the constitution (that thing meant to limit the power of government). You now have a government with so much power that it can destroy anyone or anything threatening to take it away. And by 'you' I mean the population of the US.

                Don't feel too bad about it though... You at least *have* a pretty good constitution to return to, hard as that goal may be to reach. The rest of the world isn't so lucky.

                • by nbauman (624611) on Thursday November 07, 2013 @12:23PM (#45357119) Homepage Journal

                  You at least *have* a pretty good constitution to return to, hard as that goal may be to reach.

                  FOR SALE. A Constitution. In perfect condition. Hardly ever used.

                • by s.petry (762400) on Thursday November 07, 2013 @12:35PM (#45357265)

                  That's disingenuous. Best you can do is blame the population for not offering principled people who run for office, or in the rare cases where this happens, blame the population for not supporting those guys in favor of the typical establishment stooges.

                  How do you blame people when they are intentionally mislead, uninformed, and outright lied too? The take over of journalism started a long long time ago, and the last of the "journalists" for large print and television happened decades ago. You could blame the people that ignored the laws that allowed the monopolization of media in the 70s maybe, but corrupt journalism was rampant in the 60s even without monopolization.

                  People warned us that when the AP becomes the only source of "News" we are fucked, but those voters didn't even know that there were laws being cooked because the "News" prevented those laws from becoming public knowledge. If you didn't pay attention to comedians like George Carlin you simply didn't know.

                  Hell, if the Internet was censored as people in power want, you would still not know about any of these programs.

                  I agree that it's disingenuous to blame just congress, but it's just as disingenuous to blame a public that has no knowledge unless they are actively seeking it. It should bother you that "News" agencies collaborate and release stories that the administration approves of. It should bother you that instead of Television "News" programs talking about real issues, the programming focuses on celebrities first, propaganda second, and misinformation third.

                  The answer goes back in time and requires us to cut the strings tying all of these agencies together. Media monopolies need to be broken up, and journalism needs to once again become journalism. With an informed public we have a chance for reform. With an ignorant public there is no chance of reform, it will just be a few people that see reality bickering on sites like Slashdot.

              • That value you espouse is eating the country from the inside. I dont give a fuck how important you think it is, when those that engage it step over the line, its time for sunshine sanitation.
                • by DutchUncle (826473) on Thursday November 07, 2013 @11:52AM (#45356687)

                  I dont give a **** how important you think it is, when those that engage it step over the line, its time for sunshine sanitation.

                  As a third party reader, I see the two of you as being in violent agreement. I read one comment about "absolute, immediate, and unremitting punishment" for abuse, and another about "step over the line", and they agree.

                  I agree too. The *biggest* problem in the NSA fiasco, just as it was in the financial fiasco and the CIA-agent-disclosure fiasco, is that somebody wasn't taken out and shot for treason. Perhaps multiple somebodies. Destroying trust in the financial system, destroying trust in the lawful exercise of legitimate police powers, destroying trust in society as a whole - these are treasonous offenses against the very fabric of our nation that far outweigh any of the money and information involved.

              • by nbauman (624611) on Thursday November 07, 2013 @12:32PM (#45357231) Homepage Journal

                And you're just being a demagogue.

                To claim there is no need, no value, no "up side" to having a strong national intelligence organization marks you as irrelevant to the discussion as the blind patriots knee-jerking that "it's fine because I have nothing to hide".

                There IS a tremendous value to a strong intelligence capability.
                But our society was built on the need for responsible oversight, generally delegated to our elected representatives.

                If I had to choose between living in 1984 -- which is what we're doing -- and the consequences of not having any secret spying at all, I'd go with the consequences. I think I'm more likely to be arrested for expressing my Constitutional rights than I am to be killed by terrorists.

        • by nbauman (624611) on Thursday November 07, 2013 @12:19PM (#45357077) Homepage Journal

          That sounds like the Spitzer scandal. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eliot_Spitzer#Prostitution_scandal [wikipedia.org]

          Eliot Spitzer was the Democratic governor of New York State, and most Democrats thought he was an effective, aggressive governor, especially when it came to fighting the Republicans.

          As a result of the money-laundering provisions of the PATRIOT act, Spitzer's bank reported his money transfers to a federal agency. They were required to report transactions of $10,000 and over, but they chose to also report transactions under $10,000 because they looked suspicious.

          It turned out that Spitzer was using that money to pay an escort service -- which is legal in New York State. When the (Republican) federal prosecutors found that out, they started "investigating" and found some theoretical law-breaking because he had ordered an escort not just in New York State, but also in Washington, DC, which made it an interstate matter. Then they leaked the investigation to the press, and the (Republican) prosecutor made a deal with the effective (Democratic) governor that they would drop the prosecution if he would resign as governor. He was replaced in succession by his Lieutenant Governor, David Paterson, whom everybody, including Paterson himself, agreed was a nice guy who wasn't an effective (Democratic) governor.

          So here's a case where the Republicans used their investigative powers under the PATRIOT Act for a partisan attack against an effective Democratic governor, by leaking accusations of lawbreaking that didn't hold up. (Several other clients were caught in this trap, and none of them was prosecuted -- because they hadn't broken any laws.)

          When you give unaccountable spying power to a secret agency, they can and will use it for their own selfish purposes.

          The only consolation was that Spitzer had done the same thing himself during his career. A big part of his career was prostitution busts. Tartuffe, anyone?

      • by FriendlyLurker (50431) on Thursday November 07, 2013 @05:33AM (#45354291)

        If you can't smell the heavy miasma of bullshit wafting off this, you need a new fucking nose.

        And yet, the demonize Snowden rhetoric made it pas Slashdot editors to make front page. How many times is that now even just in the last few days? [slashdot.org]

        Wikileaks has shown us that Reddit cofounder Alexis Ohanian was attempting to abuse his position, sell out and leverage reddit users by working for Stratfor [startpage.com]. They turned him down apparently due to already having the area covered. Could we now be witnessing Slashdots Ohanian moment, now directed they peddle pathetic anti-Snowden properganda to the front page?

        • by femtobyte (710429) on Thursday November 07, 2013 @12:45PM (#45357377)

          There's plenty of propaganda articles making it to Slashdot, but I don't think this is an example of what you're saying it is. The general "Slashdot hive mind" mentality is not friendly towards claims of "oh noes, think of the pornchildren!" being used to suppress information. As a piece of propaganda, this article is guaranteed to backfire (as demonstrated by all the upmodded comments in this thread). No one here is being swayed to the conclusion "Snowden helps pedophiles"; the only message coming across is "Whitehall officials are lying liar scum."

          To spot a real propaganda article, look for pieces that harness the "groupthink" to produce a positive reception for some corporate agenda (rather than producing a near-unanimous backlash against the article claims). This article is simply ordinary tabloid clickbait for the Slashdot audience. The propaganda work was the original Telegraph piece linked, aimed at an audience who are terrified of the lurking pedos they've been trained to fear --- those are the people intended to be deceived by the crap coming out of Whitehall.

      • by bfandreas (603438) on Thursday November 07, 2013 @05:41AM (#45354337)
        Cameron and May have no place on a high horse.
        The UK Tories have a long track record of comically wrong policies. Especially May is utterly despicable. Anybody remember the Snooper's Charta? Guess what? GCHQ didn't need it at all. And the Snooper's Charta was killed off(read: tabled) for being too far-fetching. Add to this the abysmal PR campaign where they painted an invitation for illegal immigrants to call a phone number for deportation on the side of lorries. And the text message campaign doing the same. And now they say that unearthing their lack of oversight aids pedos, terrorists and crims.
        Where before this their policies seemed to be merely incompetent they now look like acts of malice.

        The UK shows the least grace of all parties involved in the Snowden revelations. Pity the country that NEEDS The Grauniad.
      • by Chatsubo (807023)

        "Yes your honour, but have you considered that by arresting me for killing peadophiles you're actually helping the peadophiles? You should set me free immediately so I can carry on breaking the law.... for the children".

      • by Lumpy (12016)

        It's just proof that the UK is under control of the United states. If I was a UK citizen I would be outraged that my government is doing whatever it is being told by a foreign country.

        • Sadly (for me, as a Brit), it seems it's the other way around. GCHQ has been giving lessons to foreign counterparts in how to get around that nations laws and cooperate for their common "good".

      • by epine (68316)

        Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel—until he breaks cover shrieking "Pedophile, over there, getting away!"

    • by Taco Cowboy (5327) on Thursday November 07, 2013 @04:37AM (#45354087) Journal

      First, they said he was a traitor.

      Then, they accused him of stealing.

      Followed closely with the accusation that he has been a Soviet spy.

      Now ?

      Edward Snowden, according to them, is aiding pedophile and all other sexual perverts, especially those "exploiting innocent children", to evade surveillance by the "GOOD GUYS", namely, the spooks/cops/big brothers.

      In other words, Edward Snowden, to some, is a de-human-izer.

    • by prefec2 (875483) on Thursday November 07, 2013 @04:53AM (#45354157)

      Well, it worked before. The British have this fabulous web-filters for content, which allow to control the delivered content. A clear censorship mechanism. They defended it with the child porn argument and the keep porn away from children argument. It worked. In Germany it did not, but they only used the child porn argument and were caught lying, about its effectiveness. and yes it was only a scheme to gain votes for the conservatives. However, Cameron that little anti-democrat tries to transform the UK in one of Orwell's fantasies to finally abolish any opposition to his classistic view of the world. Poor Britain. :-(

    • by N1AK (864906) on Thursday November 07, 2013 @04:57AM (#45354171) Homepage
      Welcome to democracy. I'm not even sure many of the politicians believe this kind of nonsense but god forbid voters think of you as being soft on criminals or ineffective at fighting terrorists.

      The average UK citizen will accept, or in fact welcome, pretty much any kind of invasion of privacy by the state if it doesn't inconvenience them in going about their day to day life. So we probably shouldn't be lumping all the blame on politicians for expressing views that match us.

      The media also deserves considerable blame. We went through decades of terrorism with the IRA a group that was massively more dangerous, coordinated and smarter than the radicalised Islamists that threaten us now and we carried on regardless. Look up the 1996 Manchester bombing, which I remember vividly, and you'll see how dangerous they were and how recently. But we didn't throw away all our rights and privacy to fight it and we rebuilt the area better than it was before as a massive 'fuck you' to the scum bags that did it. Why are we so afraid of the idiots they call terrorists these days? Because the media constantly barrages us with stories about plots, dangers, threats from around the world like it's some kind of miracle that I've survived the last week.
      • by Anne Thwacks (531696) on Thursday November 07, 2013 @06:58AM (#45354637)
        The average UK citizen will accept, or in fact welcome ...

        The average UK citizen does not believe a word the politicains say, and is far to busy looking at page 3 to give a shit.

      • You kind of contradict yourself here. You point out that the average Brit was not put off by the IRA which I agree was a far bigger threat (sponsored by Americans I may add), but then claim that we're afraid of the Islamist idiots.

        I don't think we are at all afraid of the Islamist idiots. The media doesn't barage us with stories either. Sure there are a few but most people don't take much notice.

        As for surveillance, I think the prevailing attitude is that spies spy. What on Earth do we expect them to
    • by mwvdlee (775178)

      The UK government talking about how those leaks might help paedophiles helps paedophiles as well.
      Having any kind of freedom and basic human rights helps paedophiles.
      Being born helps paedophiles.
      You know what doesn't help paedophiles? Terrorism.

    • by TWiTfan (2887093)

      I'm just surprised they haven't tried yet to trump up some pedophilia or sexual assault charge on Snowden. That particular brand of character assassination seems to have replaced the old-fashioned assassination-by-bullet in the CIA arsenal of late, when someone starts leaking [theguardian.com] or questioning the U.S. dollar [guardian.co.uk]. It's probably only because they know he's in a country that isn't going to extradite him no matter what they try to trump up (or maybe they're afraid of overusing the technique and having the press reali

  • Oh christ... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by mirix (1649853) on Thursday November 07, 2013 @03:59AM (#45353851)

    Is there anything that they won't use the 'think of the children' line on?

    Pathetic.

    • by Tablizer (95088) on Thursday November 07, 2013 @04:04AM (#45353903) Homepage Journal

      Is there anything that they won't use the 'think of the children' line on?

      Healthcare.

    • Re:Oh christ... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Freshly Exhumed (105597) on Thursday November 07, 2013 @04:05AM (#45353905) Homepage

      They'll be adding the usual "You are either for us or you are for paedophiles!" line soon enough.

      • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 07, 2013 @04:17AM (#45353993)

        It's an interesting twist: instead of claiming spying is essential for the nation's foreign intelligence capabilities and security when faced with nation state adversaries, they are now claiming spying is needed to combat internal, run-of-the mill criminals. So they are basically admitting they are building a surveillance state where every possible law that the leaders imagine can also be enforced.

        If we are to configure our society so that every sicko that enjoys child molestation videos in the privacy of his home is immediately apprehended, then it seems to me any type of dissent of conspiracy against the government becomes impossible. Good luck explaining to the public that's a bad compromise.

        • by Impy the Impiuos Imp (442658) on Thursday November 07, 2013 @06:23AM (#45354503) Journal

          This post is important. They swore up and down these were emergency, temporary powers needed to combat terrorism. "The Constitution is not a suicide pact."

          Drug war won't be far behind. These liars already took a law in the 1990s to fight terrorism, swore it would only be used for that, and immediately began using it to spy on and arrest prosaic drug dealers.

          They didn't even bother regurgitating the fiction drug dealers were akin to terrorists. They brazenly stated, "Well, the law doesn't specifically state only terrorists.". They wasted no time at all before deliberately abusing their power.

          • by pellik (193063)
            Our new surveillance laws already have a loophole for just this purpose, too. The NSA can't spy on Americans, but it can and does save any evidence of a crime being committed in it's database. The FBI and DOJ both have access to the database. Thus, any evidence of any crime being committed is automatically stored and passed on to the FBI and DOJ.
        • by Xest (935314) on Thursday November 07, 2013 @06:51AM (#45354615)

          Actually I think the public do get it, the problem is that the public's threshold for saying enough is enough is just that much further down the line than that of the typical Slashdot poster.

          We saw it under Gordon Brown's government where the move towards a surveillance state simply went too far and it actually became an election issue. Labour lost the last election in part because for many people ID card databases, an ever expanding CCTV network, terror laws that were used by councils to spy on people who didn't pick up their dog's poo and to seize Icelandic government assets, attempts to get everyone on the DNA database indefinitely, the government's greenlighting of Phorm and such, internet monitoring programmes and the digital economy act were just too much. Brown's government also regularly used the "think of the children" argument and it did in fact wear thin with voters quite quickly.

          Of course it didn't do us much good as the guys that followed still had their flaws, and whilst they cancelled the ID card program, dealt with excessive DNA retention of people not convicted of crimes, and put curbs on some of the anti-terror laws they've still clearly let GCHQ spy on everyone and anyone, and although to be fair they seem to have delayed some of the Digital Economy Act ideas such as 3 strikes almost indefinitely at this point they still haven't scrapped it altogether.

          But fundamentally I think it showed that the public does have it's limits in terms of not wanting a police state, those limits just tend towards a lot less freedom and a lot more surveillance than most of us here would like though the public in general would still not accept that type of encroachment on freedom and rights that Gordon Brown and friends wanted. Unfortunately though that's the cost of democracy, it means we don't get our way as a minority, even if we genuinely believe that what we believe makes more sense. Freedoms and rights weren't the most important election issue, it still fell behind the way more important economy arguments, but it was definitely enough of an issue to be brought up in debates, policy, and papers a fair bit - it made it onto the radar precisely because people had had enough.

          This is why personally I don't really fear an out and out police state here in the UK - the general public wouldn't tolerate it, even with the paedo argument getting put forward, though I do fear things being a little more towards that direction than I'm personally comfortable with - we're already at that point.

      • Re:Oh christ... (Score:5, Insightful)

        by AmiMoJo (196126) * <.ten.3dlrow. .ta. .ojom.> on Thursday November 07, 2013 @04:35AM (#45354081) Homepage

        The worst part is people actually believe them. The security forces have been revealed to be little more than criminal scum, gleefully breaking the law and violating human rights, egged on my the Americans. It's disgusting and I'm ashamed to have them working in my name.

        You know what, I think GCHQ might actually be worse than a paedophile, if such a comparison is even possible. The latter ruins a few lives at most, the former has undermined our very democracy and hurt all of us deeply.

        • Re:Oh christ... (Score:5, Insightful)

          by wvmarle (1070040) on Thursday November 07, 2013 @06:06AM (#45354421)

          NO, you get that the wrong way around

          The problem is those evil pedophiles, praying on our children, preferably online.

          To prevent that from happening, significant and highly invasive surveillance is needed because those evil pedophiles are so good at hiding their activities.

          So it's those evil pedophiles ruining all our lives, not those saints working at GCHQ and NSA and the rest, those glorious people keeping us all safe and protected from those pedophiles, and all we have to do is give them complete insight in all our communications and our private lives. A tiny offer to make, just think of the children!

          Full disclosure: I'm practicing for a new career as politician. Aiming for a +5 insightful. As soon as I can manage that, will run for office!

        • by trewornan (608722)
          I don't know about GCHQ but Special Branch and MI5 are actually worse (or at least as bad) as paedophiles. see here [dailymail.co.uk]
      • Just a comment about what that quote is based on: When Bush said that he wasn't referring to individuals, but rather foreign governments who harbor known terrorists. Either those governments are with us in finding and capturing them, or they're against us; a middle ground is not permitted. Taking the later option will result in the US government going after them with full military force and will not count as a war of aggression under international laws (whereas previously it would have.) That was the basis

    • by thegarbz (1787294) on Thursday November 07, 2013 @04:12AM (#45353965)

      In defense of the government's statements they've held out an extraordinarily long time before invoking children in this debate.

    • by hweimer (709734)

      Is there anything that they won't use the 'think of the children' line on?

      Sure, when dealing with pedophiles in the intelligence services [bbc.co.uk].

    • It's actually a good thing that pedophiles can escape police detection.

      The foundation of society relies on the ability of people to function as a dynamic social group. This means there must be rules to keep the group coherent; however it also means that there must be the possibility for transgressions to keep the group from completely destroying itself by rigid enforcement. If it were impossible to get away with anything--murder, rape, child pornography--then it would be conceivably too difficult to ge

  • There we go. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 07, 2013 @03:59AM (#45353857)

    Now we know they're desperate, hate the population, and have entirely run out of arguments.

    Time to recall this government. Failing that, maybe just kick them some more while they're down. It's what they'd do to us, after all.

  • And so it begins (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Rumagent (86695) on Thursday November 07, 2013 @03:59AM (#45353861)

    Give it a couple of weeks and Snowden will be labeled a pederast and it will play over and over in the news until it is true.

  • Ah yes, (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ColaMan (37550) on Thursday November 07, 2013 @03:59AM (#45353863) Homepage Journal

    The old, "Associate your target with helping pedophiles" approach.

  • Danger danger! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ibib (464750) on Thursday November 07, 2013 @03:59AM (#45353867) Homepage

    The secret police state is at risk!

  • by hawkingradiation (1526209) on Thursday November 07, 2013 @04:02AM (#45353881)
    If they are dumb enough to not know that the government was spying on them and looking for them. *government staggering - Must....catch...paedophiles...at...all costs (gasp)*
  • consistent much? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Ubi_NL (313657) <joris&ideeel,nl> on Thursday November 07, 2013 @04:03AM (#45353887) Journal

    Yeah, and sale and possession of firearms enables rapist to threaten and rape children! Yet we don't seem to imply the same logic there. How strange.

    Child rape is becoming the new Godwin. Before we know it Glenn Beck will be using it every other sentence as well.

  • by pegasustonans (589396) on Thursday November 07, 2013 @04:05AM (#45353917)

    We've heard from David Cameron that Snowden's leak "damaged national security."

    Cameron made veiled threats suggesting he could take the media to court over publishing the leaks.

    Government enforcers employed heavy-handed tactics to intercept, detain and threaten those even tangentially connected to the leaks.

    Many were forced to destroy technical equipment in a quixotic quest to purge the unpurgeable.

    Now, all of that failed. Predictably, this is the kind of horse shit they've resorted to slinging.

  • Pffft... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Pav (4298) on Thursday November 07, 2013 @04:08AM (#45353941)
    If they ACTUALLY wanted to help kids they'd apply some actual knowledge gathered from study in this area and develop strategies to minimise occurrence, but it's SUCH a successful rhetorical boogieman/distraction...
  • Yes, but... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Stolpskott (2422670) on Thursday November 07, 2013 @04:09AM (#45353949)

    Yes, the publicizing of the NSA and GCHQ's surveillance capabilities COULD in theory help paedophiles avoid detection... but I suspect that most paedophiles are not so technically savvy that the details will be important to them. For the majority of them, just as for the majority of the general population, the message they will take away is that "Big Brother Is Watching You", and if they do not assume that from the very start, then they are very naive.
    The other side of the coin would be an interesting one - perhaps a Freedom Of Information request to GCHQ, to ask how many man-hours as a percentage of their total work is spent tracking and investigating paedophiles. I would wager a lot of money that, if they were to give an honest answer to that, it would be 0. GCHQ are not, and never will be, interested in tracking paedophiles.

    • Re:Yes, but... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by FireFury03 (653718) <slashdot@nexusuk.oGAUSSrg minus math_god> on Thursday November 07, 2013 @04:26AM (#45354033) Homepage

      The other side of the coin would be an interesting one - perhaps a Freedom Of Information request to GCHQ, to ask how many man-hours as a percentage of their total work is spent tracking and investigating paedophiles. I would wager a lot of money that, if they were to give an honest answer to that, it would be 0. GCHQ are not, and never will be, interested in tracking paedophiles.

      And nor should they be, anymore than GCHQ should be going after shop lifters or any other petty criminal.

      Their excuse is that they can ignore due-process to accomplish the all important job of maintaining national security. They can do this because the government has passed various "anti-terror" laws which more or less eliminate the need for due process. Unless you're going to start labelling paedophiles, shoplifters, drug sellers, etc. as terrorists (and therefore apply the anti-terror laws) then you're going to have to follow due process, which means warrantless spying seems like its out of the picture...

      And yes, I'm aware that all sorts of non-terrorist activities are now being labelled as terrorism just so they can use those broad laws... *sigh*

  • by bob_super (3391281) on Thursday November 07, 2013 @04:34AM (#45354069)

    Faith in humanity restored.

  • Thanks. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 07, 2013 @04:39AM (#45354099)

    For confirming that nothing Snowden has leaked did actually endanger anyone.
    Because if it had, we'd be hearing about that 24/7.

  • UK (Score:5, Funny)

    by thetagger (1057066) on Thursday November 07, 2013 @04:46AM (#45354133)

    I was going to argue that the UK is a Banana Republic but it just occurred to me that they are a Banana Monarchy.

  • by henrypijames (669281) on Thursday November 07, 2013 @05:06AM (#45354211) Homepage

    ... so we better get some pollution going.

  • This reeks of desperation. Whitehall must really be on the backfoot.

  • by nimbius (983462) on Thursday November 07, 2013 @06:10AM (#45354437) Homepage
    as it implies a few things for starters.
    1. Britain, having exhausted all other methods of corrective action against pedophilia and child exploitation that may prove fruitful given its nature in the UK, now relies on a clandestine american spy program that hasnt been proven to catch a single pedophile, let alone terrorist.
    2. the spy program, although decried throughout europe and asia as invasive and inappropriate, is however of such great importance to the efforts of the UK to fighting crime as to be above critique. Nay, it is above even mentioning the very programs or policies in place.
    3. That edwards revalations may prove fruitful to hostile governments neglects to inform the reader that the information disclosed is related to a government that practices rendition, harbored a network of secret prisons, exercises indefinite detention against foreign and domestic nationals, and practices torture. the hostile government in question also operates the largest prison population in the world.
    4. that so far your only response to the snowden revelations has been to harass and intimidate your own journalists into silence has exposed the ineptitude and desparation with which you seek to just make the whole thing go away. That somehow you think this condescending appeal to the humanity of the UK through your 'think of the children' rhetoric is even plausibly considered valid is laughable. Glen Greenwald is evidence enough you couldnt care less.

    as an american citizen i can only implore europe: please, stop us. this has gone on far enough, far beyond spy vs spy and into america spying on every foreign citizen of any foreign government it chooses under the guise of some malevolent executive privilege we awarded ourselves after jihadists bombed a financial center. we have, as we continue to do today, exercised rendition and torture based on the information we collect using these programs.
  • by Crypto Gnome (651401) on Thursday November 07, 2013 @06:34AM (#45354553) Homepage Journal
    There's no other way to say it - "won't somebody THINK OF THE CHILDREN" is the "Godwin's Law" of todays generation.

    Extra points if you recognize the irony in screaming "think of the children" (ie the problem is that someone was THINKING OF CHILDREN far too much already).
  • Next up: (Score:4, Funny)

    by Issarlk (1429361) on Thursday November 07, 2013 @07:19AM (#45354705)
    "Snowden was a bankster ! He funnelled billions and billions to offshore accounts with his NSA know-how, he's responsible for the housing bubble and crash !"
  • Nineteen Eighty Four (Score:5, Informative)

    by MrKaos (858439) on Thursday November 07, 2013 @07:23AM (#45354711) Journal
    SEX Crime! sex CRIME!
  • by Opportunist (166417) on Thursday November 07, 2013 @08:48AM (#45355039)

    how much this reeks of the average smokescreen "how can we possibly paint him as evil since, well, he is not evil for those that we try to influence". Pretty much anyone here has read the same kind of spiel a billion times, and how $technology or $whatever_big_business_hates helps terrorists and pedophiles, from filesharing to 3D printing to whatever else the powers that are don't like because it hurts their profits and/or reduces their power.

    The problem is that we're preaching the choir here. It's patently pointless to point it out here. Everyone here knows that it's the usual "paint the good as bad" spiel. Problem is that a lot of the people out there actually believe this bull. They didn't learn that it's bull back when they tried to pull the stunt with some technology that we know and hence know that it's not "evil", and that the claims of its potential use to "bad guys" is skewed, at best, and more likely simply a bunch of baloney.

    Because they don't know the technology.

    They could not debunk it back then, and to them it was either believing politicians or us. And, well, why believe the geeks? We just wanted to keep our free songs and movies, even if it means that pedos sneak up on every kid and terrorists flood our cities, right?

    I just hope that the people wake up before it's too late.

  • by ThatsNotPudding (1045640) on Thursday November 07, 2013 @08:49AM (#45355043)
    The last refuge of the true fascist: the straw man of child pr0n.
  • by Joey Vegetables (686525) on Thursday November 07, 2013 @09:32AM (#45355337) Journal
    could also help paedophiles escape. So let's close all the roads, shut down the trains, and require everyone to "shelter in place" permanently. After all, someone must think of the children!!!!
    • by linuxci (3530)

      It's ok, the UK transport network has already been enhanced in such a way that escape is impossible. In other words, delays and congestion are commonplace. Plus trains are too expensive if you don't book weeks in advance.

      Now we know why the UK doesn't have cheap turn up and go long distance rail fares - it's to stop criminals escaping! I feel better now ;)

  • by MysteriousPreacher (702266) on Thursday November 07, 2013 @09:56AM (#45355527) Journal

    Well, we'd better institute martial law if we want to be certain these buggers are caught.

  • by thue (121682) on Thursday November 07, 2013 @10:31AM (#45355873) Homepage

    In the US, they keep pointing out that their program is only about terrorism, and only spies on non-US citizens.

    Not so in the UK, where the program is apparently about spying on everybody, including Britons, even if no terrorism is involved. That is a significant admission.

  • by crath (80215) on Thursday November 07, 2013 @11:13AM (#45356251) Homepage
    In other news, government officials announced they have conclusive evidence that the information leaked by Snowden is causing an acceleration in global warming.
  • Hey, Orwell (Score:5, Informative)

    by dcollins (135727) on Thursday November 07, 2013 @11:35AM (#45356491) Homepage

    I enjoyed 1984 a lot more back when it was fictional.

Real Programmers don't write in FORTRAN. FORTRAN is for pipe stress freaks and crystallography weenies. FORTRAN is for wimp engineers who wear white socks.

Working...