The justifications for indiscriminant mass surveillance are becoming increasingly absurd. False calls to patriotism and unwavering professionalism are entirely at odds with known reality - let's recall some facts.
Anonymous yesterday organised a simultaneous protest around the world against the revelations of mass surveillance by our own governments. Ignored by the media, this was an important event: "the beginning is near".
The UK government continues to use the potential embarrassment of the White House as an argument against justice and liberty in the UK.
The UK government has decided that journalism can be classed and pursued as "terrorism" in the courts. This is outrageous and dangerous in the extreme; it is incompatible with basic democracy.
In the rush to spread the information revolution, digital development agendas pose an increasing threat to privacy. But are they also unknowingly facilitating new surveillance capabilities?
Next week will see a public meeting in London discussing what we can do about the rise of mass government surveillance. Anthony Barnett outlines why this is a crucial issue, and why you should be there.
Which spy agency would you choose to monitor your life, asks Goran Fejic.
A degree of surveillance is necessary, but key to its functioning in a democracy must be oversight and accountability and as much transparency as is possible. Here are some ideas.
State interception of postal correspondence marks the first major privacy scandal of modernity. The real question, then as now, is how the public reacts - it is this that will determine the future of state surveillance. And the signs don't look promising.
Swedish police authorities have secretly established illegal databases of Romani people in a program originally designed for counterterrorism operations. Sadly, this is nothing new in Sweden's century long campaign against the Romani people.
