You want Safety & Security ?

You Demand Ethical security services

You  demand transparency & Public Scrutiny

Sorry you can't have your cake and eat it

There has been much debate as to the rights and wrongs of NSA and GCHQ activities around the monitoring of telecoms. there is a reason for this debate being in the public domain at this time, and it is a serious criminal offence, sanitised by those who wish to justify themselves, they call it whistle blowing. I call it treason.

The demand that the security services should publicly justify and announce every action is faintly ridiculous.

despite the hype, the chances of anyone at GCHQ reading this blog, let alone my emails, is minute.

Lets start with the demand that we are safe at home and in public places, I suspect that we are more likely to be assaulted by a drunk than fall victim to terrorism, In the 1980's I  lived in London during numerous IRA attacks, I have spent time in places around the world that even then were noted for being dangerous places, and I am still here.

the risk to any individual from terrorist attack or of even witnessing such is tiny. but those charged with our security know that it only takes one attack for the demands to know why "they" let it happen begin. So like most people they try to have all the best tools so they can do the job we demand of them. and we are as safe now as we have ever been.

You want ethical security services

No information should be gained from torture.

No use of inhuman treatment of suspects etc etc.

I would say our security services are like most people in this country, pretty decent, ethical people, but they are faced with difficult ethical dilemas a lot of the time, they do not engage in torture, they know it is pointless, most of the time, they can not prevent other nations security services engaging in torch and other abuses, they have neither the power or the right to do so.

They must however react to information that may have been unethicaly obtained, despite the moral objections.You disagree ?
OK here is a scenario, You are duty officer 9pm friday evening, you get a phone call from a terrorism hotline passed to you, the caller claims to be from Syrian security service, says that there will be a series of suicide bomb attacks on london mainline and tube stations on Monday morning,  peak hour and gives you the names of the people who will carry out those attacks,
Now you have to start making decisions,    you ask questions to verify the validity of the information of course
Do you ask how this information was obtained  ? what if the callers states without any hint of remorse that " oh we just applied 240 volts to his............ and he talked"
now if you have just been told the information was obtained via torture you now have a problem do you act on information ? or do you ignore it and let the attack happen ? which is the moral thing to do ?
I think you avoid the question as to how the information was obtained and even if you become aware of unethical methods your duty would be to protect the public first before any moral question.
what would the public have said if following the 7/7 attacks the security service had said oh we were aware of what they planned, but could do nothing as the information was obtained by a third party who used torture.
Life is full of moral and ethical ambiguity and sometimes we have to leave our own moral high ground at home and do what needs to be done, and like it or not, we the public will not forgive if one person dies as a result of someone else's trying to be ethical, nor will we forgive if they are found to be acting unethicaly on our behalf. that leaves those that are on the frontline with little wiggle room.
My solution I do what I think is right, I do not pay regard to how information was obtained, it is too late for that, I pick up the phone and make sure the information is used to prevent death and mayhem, no if's but's or qualms.

Transparency & Public Scrutiny

Simple answer is NO 

the security services have to work in the shadows, when confronting terrorism they face an enemy who use's our system of open democratic government against us to undermine our democracy, when fools moan about  democratic rights of terrorism suspects I despair as they are falling into the trap of assuming the suspect has any interest in democratic rights as anything other than a weapon to be used against us all.

Security service personal are as I have said before a reflection of the populus of this country, fair minded, decent people, they are also, Civil Servants, that is to say servants of the crown sworn to protect and to act only in the interests of the crown, they are trained to act for the interests of the crown or state and the population of the country not for the currently ruling politicians, governments change, the state continues, 

If you are not going to trust the people you appoint to protect you, who are you going to trust ? 

So suppose the traitors and the newspaper editors win, and we go for public access to everything where will that lead ?

Not a world that is safer that is the one thing you can be sure of,  the work of the men in the shadows has saved us all in one way or another over the decades. Do not let these pompus idiots fool you into giving aid to those who would destroy democracy.

Can you have the utopia that the Guardian promises of freedom, security,transparancy, public scrutiny, and ethics ? 

Yes You Can, but you have to leave some of us to walk that fine line, so you can have your democracy and freedom to be as pompus, moraly superior, and ethical as you chose to be.

Treason 

Strong word but one we have to use as this myth that telling all your secrets to the press is an honourable thing has to end. pop stars and celebrities may be good tabloid fodder with tales from back stage but people in positions of trust should rarely go public.  as an employee I owe my employer a duty of trust, if I disagree with how my employer is acting, I take it up with my employer, if it is a matter of legality, I give my employer a chance to change things to comply with the law, if my employer refuses to obey the law then I inform the police or who ever is legal enforcement.  If it is not a matter of legality, then if discusion fails to cover the void then I shut up and quit, The one thing I do not do is go running to the press as my first move.

As a person in possesion of your countries secrets your duty of trust & confidence is even greater, and your personal moral ethical religious or other considerations are secondary.

Giving Classified information to a third party  is Traitorous an act of Treason.