A media post-mortem into the UK’s surveillance report. Plus, why five years on in Argentina the media looks so familiar. (LISTENING POST, LINK TO VIDEO + TEXT)
It has been close to two years since Edward Snowden blew the lid off the mass surveillance carried out by the US’s National Security Agency and by the UK’s Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ). And it has taken almost that long for the UK’s Intelligence and Security Committee (the ISC) to figure out what to make of it all in order for an «informed and responsible» debate—as the committee put it—that balances the individual’s right to privacy with our collective right to security to take place.
The ISC’s report concludes that the GCHQ’s surveillance fell within the legal framework and was necessary for uncovering terrorists and cybercrime. These findings are not surprising: the report’s authors were appointed by the government. The committee members were supposed to know what GCHQ spies were up to but they did not. It look Snowden to tell them. These findings did not go down well with those close to the story, including Snowden, who provided this British jury with all of the evidence. Some think the state protects their citizens from terrorism; civil liberties groups disagree.
Talking us through our lead story this week in London is Carly Nyst, the Legal Director of Privacy International; Eerke Boiten, senior lecturer at the University of Kent; Ryan Gallagher, a journalist at The Intercept; and Andrew Griffin, a journalist at The Independent.