<story><title>UK-US surveillance regime was unlawful ‘for seven years’</title><url>http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/feb/06/gchq-mass-internet-surveillance-unlawful-court-nsa</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>ch215</author><text>The way this same story has been spun by the BBC worries me.&lt;p&gt;You&amp;#x27;d think the news line has to be, as the Guardian and others are reporting, GCHQ mass Internet surveillance was &amp;#x27;unlawful&amp;#x27;.&lt;p&gt;The Beeb did go with &amp;#x27;unlawful&amp;#x27; in their original headline but the story has since been watered down with sheer wordiness.&lt;p&gt;&amp;#x27;Unlawlful&amp;#x27; now appears in the tenth paragraph, below an analysis panel, and is only then included in a quotation from a campaign group.&lt;p&gt;Nowhere in the article does the BBC succinctly say a tribunal held that GCHQ breached human rights law. It simply says the agency is now complaint (without saying that it was not for seven years).&lt;p&gt;To me at least, it seems the BBC is becoming less of a public-service broadcaster and more of a state one.&lt;p&gt;--
GCHQ censured over sharing of internet surveillance data with US
&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-31164451&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.bbc.co.uk&amp;#x2F;news&amp;#x2F;uk-31164451&lt;/a&gt;</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>UVB-76</author><text>Diffs: &lt;a href=&quot;http://newsdiffs.org/article-history/www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-31164451&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;newsdiffs.org&amp;#x2F;article-history&amp;#x2F;www.bbc.co.uk&amp;#x2F;news&amp;#x2F;uk-3...&lt;/a&gt;</text></comment>
<story><title>UK-US surveillance regime was unlawful ‘for seven years’</title><url>http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/feb/06/gchq-mass-internet-surveillance-unlawful-court-nsa</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>ch215</author><text>The way this same story has been spun by the BBC worries me.&lt;p&gt;You&amp;#x27;d think the news line has to be, as the Guardian and others are reporting, GCHQ mass Internet surveillance was &amp;#x27;unlawful&amp;#x27;.&lt;p&gt;The Beeb did go with &amp;#x27;unlawful&amp;#x27; in their original headline but the story has since been watered down with sheer wordiness.&lt;p&gt;&amp;#x27;Unlawlful&amp;#x27; now appears in the tenth paragraph, below an analysis panel, and is only then included in a quotation from a campaign group.&lt;p&gt;Nowhere in the article does the BBC succinctly say a tribunal held that GCHQ breached human rights law. It simply says the agency is now complaint (without saying that it was not for seven years).&lt;p&gt;To me at least, it seems the BBC is becoming less of a public-service broadcaster and more of a state one.&lt;p&gt;--
GCHQ censured over sharing of internet surveillance data with US
&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-31164451&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.bbc.co.uk&amp;#x2F;news&amp;#x2F;uk-31164451&lt;/a&gt;</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>pjc50</author><text>Even worse, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-30345801&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.bbc.co.uk&amp;#x2F;news&amp;#x2F;uk-30345801&lt;/a&gt; &amp;quot;GCHQ does not breach human rights, judges rule&amp;quot;. This is ridiculous and insulting.</text></comment>