Stop Watching Us

Now that will teach them.

Still, why not?

Stop Watching Us.

I do think, though, the lousy little low-intelligent contractors on the other side of the pond who for money would probably even sell their grandmothers will neither get stopped by their masters nor by their conscience due to a petition signed by 500,000 or several millions of MUPs (Most unimportant persons);  same goes for their British brothers in crime (GCHQ), and for any other secret service.

Alas! If at least they stopped to use the word 'intelligence' pertaining to their spooks. It's just ridiculous.

* * *

No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.

UN Declaration on Human Rights

Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

Benjamin Franklin

 

[The National Security Agency's] capability at any time could be turned around on the American people, and no American would have any privacy left, such is the capability to monitor everything: telephone conversations, telegrams, it doesn’t matter. There would be no place to hide.

Senator Frank Church, 1975

Unwarranted government surveillance is an intrusion on basic human rights that threatens the very foundations of a democratic society.

Tim Berners Lee

 

Democracy requires an informed citizenry in order to function properly, and transparency and accountability are essential parts of that. That means knowing what our government is doing to us, in our name.

Bruce Schneier Schneier.com

 

Hypocritical cant

To start with the beginning: For the past 20 years I have been fully aware that when researching 'hot topics' there would be third listeners - at least now and then. That's why I use to greet those listeners and wish them a nice day. Hm, well, sometimes I'd be a tiny bit mocking.

No need to say what I think about the fact per se.
However, I am surprised that 'everybody' - politicians and media - by their reaction would try to make people think wiretapping of / spying on politicians and journalists would not be the norm.
What hypocritical cants. Otherwise secret services* would have nothing to do, would they?

The Afghan government is clearly upset by revelations that Germany's foreign intelligence service (BND) had been spying on the country's trade and industry minister. It says it will approach Berlin in the next few days.
News broke at the weekend that the BND had read e-mail correspondence between Der Spiegel reporter Susanne Koelbl and an Afghan politician between June and November 2006, sparking outrage because of the breach of press freedom.
It only emerged on Thursday (Apr. 24) that Trade and Industry Minister Amin Farhang was the actual target of the operation. No explanation has been given for why he was under scrutiny.
Farhang, who lived in Germany for a number of years, has told the German newspaper Neue Osnabruecker Zeitung that his life was now at risk because the measure implied that he was co-operating with hostile forces.
"Because of this absurd lie that I'm some kind of double agent, my life and the lives of my family are in great danger," he said. "I could be shot on the street tomorrow," he added.
Full article here.

As said, I am not surprised about the fact itself. Just one question, though.

Given I do understand Mr. Farhang correctly, he says his life is at risk because corresponding with a German journalist implies he was co-operating with hostile forces.

So, why are there still hostile German soldiers in Afghanistan?

Would be nice if the answer would not be 'Germany is also defended at the Hindu Kush', for a change.

* not: intelligence services