[cryptome] Re: Confidentiality between Member of Parliament & Constituent

  • From: Shaun O'Connor <capricorn8159@xxxxxxxxx>
  • To: cryptome@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2015 16:42:48 +0000

my sentiments exactly, almost to the letter. in addition, as I have said
elsewhere. the definition of"terrorist" will become wider and wider
until. if we are not careful. the mere mention of a viewpoint contrary
to government policy will be sufficient to attract the wrath of the

Thinking outside excepted "convention" will be the preserve of the elite
and render the ordinary person completely impotent to raise valid
concerns lest they risk being excised from society.

At this very moment ones religious affiliation is enough to have one
branded as a potential terrorist without so much as a cursory
examination of the facts.
On 31/01/2015 14:10, doug wrote:
> see
> url:http://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/pa/article-2830256/Inmate-MP-phone-calls-recorded.html
> Is an example of breach of M.P./ client privilege between a prisoner
> and his M.P.
> Much legislation and codes of practice covers the confidentiality
> between M.P.s and their constituents, and between M.P.s and other
> departments.  Great emphasis is placed on protecting constituents
> under the Data Protection Act for instance.
> However, mass surveillance in the form of collection of metadata and
> content without a warrant is subject to GCHQs definition of
> "proportionality".  I am all for stopping terrorists in their tracks,
> or catching them out before they do any damage, but to surveil a whole
> population to do so...seems a bit much.  But that is the course of
> action that the world's governments are taking...at a greater and
> greater speed.
> So, if a constituent had a problem with whom to go to over a
> complaint, say about a GCHQ employee committing a wrongdoing of some
> kind and went to his/her M.P. for advice on how to proceed, because
> they were frightened and wanted to remain anonymous...what would
> prevent GCHQ from looking at all the elements of that consultation
> between the M.P. the constituent, and other Government Departments or
> Law Enforcement?  What would stop them from passing on such
> confidential information to people who shouldn't be entitled to
> receive it...and where does this leave the informant in terms of his
> identity being protected
>  Being able to do this could open up all sorts of cans of worms
> regarding protection of the GCHQ civil servant, the government and the
> rights of the constituent...
> There is a danger that avenues for consultation and providing
> information will be closed off to ordinary individuals between
> themselves and the executive, unless anonymity and the opportunity to
> conduct exchanges of information are protected...pro-actively, and
> breaches considered more seriously.
> If people are too frightened to consult, it won't be long before the
> executive starts to get out of touch and tyranny due to
> misunderstanding and misconceptions take over.  It is bad enough at
> the moment...and the way things are going...can only get worse.


Other related posts: