That's a truly appalling aspiration. If that is indeed their aspiration, which apparently it is (total information awareness, master the internet etc), we'd be safer with them shut down completely. Otherwise as more and more data becomes available online, they'd be in a position of absolute power over the populace (including those who are supposed to control their activities).
That's not keeping us safe, that is endangering the things they purport to defend.
Don't you find this aspiration frightening?
It's a grab that happened a decade or more ago.
Oh, that's ok then. Business as usual. Would you prefer people just didn't bother to discuss this topic, or do you have something to say about where the limits on this behaviour should be?
I would prefer that people stop saying that it's a modern development, or that there was no sign of it until Snowden leaked, or that it's some weird new thing. GCHQ at least has been open about their behaviour for years and years. ECHELON was discussed in EU parliament.
> do you have something to say about where the limits on this behaviour should be?
My view is tricky for me to explain, but I'll try.
1) GCHQ need to be allowed to do stuff. The limits should be clear, and defined by law.
2) GCHQ is a secret organisation, thus their oversight must be by people who keep secrets, but who are accountable to the public. GCHQ oversight failed, hard. I'm not sure what should happen. I hope that, in secret, someone is getting a kicking.
3) I don't care what GCHQ does to people who are not subjects of the UK (or whatever the hell England plus others is called now)
4) For UK subjects I would prefer that GCHQ does not collect meta data. I could be persuaded that they can collect targeted meta data, if they have suitable oversight. EG: They know that Bob is a terrorist-sympathiser. (Beyond just looking at a few YouTube videos - this would be things like sending money, fly-posting, fund raising, associating with other terrorists, etc.) GCHQ would apply for, and get, a warrant, and be allowed to collect meta data for that person. Warrants would require oversight, not just by the courts but by the oversight body.
5) For UK subjects I strongly prefer that GCHQ does not collect content data unless they get a warrant.
6) GCHQ claim to obey the law. I want oversight to be stronger, and I want some of the GCHQ choices to be challenged. I don't want weird interpretations of words to guide their behaviours. (EG: Clinton's "I did not have sexual relations" - well, a blow job is sexual to most people.)
Having said all that, I am a lot less bothered by GCHQ data slurping than I am by other potential privacy invasions.
GCHQ has a many petabyte dump of data but there's no impact on me unless they grep my name. (I'm aware that this is like me saying I'm not so bothered by police stop and search powers; me being white and rarely leaving the house means that I'm never stopped and searched.) Plenty of other organisations have my data, and we have many examples of them breaching confidentiality through corruption, incompetence, maliciousness, and so on. I said a bit more about that in this post. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6767612
GCHQ has a many petabyte dump of data but there's no impact on me unless they grep my name.
I'd disagree there - if GCHQ is collecting huge dumps of data, it doesn't have to be your data to affect you directly. For example if your MP or prime minister is deposed because of selective leaks of their data, that could easily affect your life in dramatic ways.
Which is why you should be angry at your government for failing to protect you.
I seriously doubt that. Russia, for example, could not care less about 99.9% of western citizens (whereas for western spying agencies, those are potential dissidents to be kept on check).
And even if they cared, what exactly would they do with that information? It's not like they are particularly powerful, imperialist or try to play global cop (post USSR). It's also not like they arrange puppet politicians and governments in foreign countries, as western powers are known to do.
GCHQ have said for at least 15 years that their mission is to monitor all communications, world wide, at frequencies from DC to light. They've said that they provide intelligence for their customers, who are the Ministry of Defence and other parts of government. (MI5, MI6, etc).
> It's about global information dominance.
GCHQ / NSA have never ever said anything different.
> But this is about an executive power grab,
It's a grab that happened a decade or more ago.