The British Government and the Return of the Double Standard

[WARNING: CONTAINS *SOME* LEGAL JARGON]

So I've just seen something which is absolutely disgraceful. But, the topic also has two sides.

This headline from the Independent sums it up:

"Mass surveillance of UK citizens on Facebook, YouTube and Google is legal, says official"

Now. Before we go into this, let's look at what the article has to say.

"The mass interception and surveillance of UK citizens’ activity on Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and Google is legal, the government’s top anti-terror chief has said. In the first detailed defence of the UK’s surveillance policies since the Snowden revelations, Charles Farr, the director general of the Office for Security and Counter-Terrorism, has said that the surveillance of such popular sites is legal because their US origins means they count as “external communications”*.

The basics of this is, following the revelations from Edward Snowden last year, it appears that the Government can legally access your Facebook, YouTube, Twitter and Google Searches WITHOUT  a warrant in the name of counter-terrorism.

Now. In this day and age, Counter-Terrorism is a big thing that is now part of life and designed to keep the people of a certain country (and/or area) safe. This I understand, accept and admire. However, as far as this is concerned, this is double standards.

I was under the impression that certain search terms online we red flagged and if someone looked up these terms a number of times, the authorities could apply for a warrant to track the IP address and THEN access Facebook, Google searches and other social network messages etc. But if this article is to be believed, this is evidently not the case. It appears that, in the name of counter-terrorism, GCHQ and other organisations can just look at our Facebook and things willy-nilly without a warrant. 

To me, this amounts to hacking. Now, I understand that hacking is an umbrella term. However: 

"hack. VERB. Gain unauthorized access to data in a system or computer:

they hacked into the bank’s computer[WITH OBJECT]: someone hacked his computer from another location(as noun hacking) outlawing hacking has not stopped it"
Now, for the moment, let's concentrate at the "unauthorized access" part. The article from the Independent says that:
"In a 48-page statement issued in response to a legal challenge brought by Privacy International, Liberty, Amnesty international and seven other civil liberties groups, Farr admits that the government allows the interception of a massive range of online activities without a warrant"*.
With this in mind: 

"warrant. NOUN. A document issued by a legal or government official authorizing the police or another body to make an arrest, search premises, or carry out some other action relating to the administration of justice:

magistrates issued a warrant for his arrestan extradition warrant"
If you remember these two things, you start to realise that the fact that Governments and Security Firms are accessing your personal information WITHOUT A WARRANT, is illegal. Police cannot pursue a suspect in a case without a warrant for their arrest or to search their dwellings. This is a similar case. The authorities in question should be able to access your personal information and social network pages as long as they have a warrant. 
The fact that they do and don't have a warrant is technically illegal and you could, potentially, sue them for invasion of privacy and for hacking.
So why can't we?
Counter-Terrorism. And a major legal loophole that Britain is exploiting in order to do this unchallenged.
"By defining these web services as “external communications," they fall under the general warrants of section 8(4) of RIPA. This means that a range of activities – from emails to Facebook messages to Google searches – can all be intercepted even when the police have no grounds to suspect the individuals of wrongdoing"*.
Basically, because most of the websites they can access were made and based in America, Britain don't have to follow the same rules as the Americans. So they can search through your internet history without challenge in the name of counter-terrorism.
But what would happen if I, for example, were to hack GCHQ?
According to US Law: "This crime is a class B misdemeanor but if the person causes over $2,500 in property damage it is a class A misdemeanor if the person acted with reckless disregard for the consequences of his or her actions and class D felony if the person acted maliciously"**. Otherwise, I get a hefty fine and a possible prison sentence of many years. Possibly even a Treason charge.
Double standards? Well, it depends on how you look at it. I personally believe it is because it's a case of punishing the many for the actions of the few. Not everyone in the UK is a terrorist. Nor is everyone who's a Muslim, a Christian, a Sikh etc so why not stick with the red flag? OR actually find some conventional evidence that someone is participating in terrorism activities?
I know some people might say to this "Well if you're complaining about this then you obviously have something to hide". That as the case maybe, how people like being hacked and watched by their Government, Big Brother stylee?
That's just my opinion anyway...

*James Vincent, The Independent, "Mass surveillance of UK citizens on Facebook, YouTube and Google is legal, says official", http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/mass-surveillance-of-uk-citizens-on-facebook-youtube-and-google-is-legal-says-official-9543455.html** Christopher Reinhart, Office of Legislative Research, http://www.cga.ct.gov/2012/rpt/2012-R-0254.htm