To make sure that any information "leaked" by Edward Snowden had been protected so that there was no risk to agents in the field or to national security in general.
Or is there strength in the argument that this is just part of a "scare" technique perpetuated by those that would like to have the powers suggested by Theresa May's "Snoopers Charter" adopted into legislation?
Why in June 2015 is it necessary for this: British spies 'moved after Snowden files read' - BBC news 14 June 2015? Surely in 24 months any critical details have been expunged from anything that was allegedly "stolen" by Snowden. In any case I was of the opinion that all Snowden was saying was that the US and UK were spying on its citizens NOT that it had detailed information on them.
Also if the Chinese and the Russians have "decoded" the Snowden files and are now aware of what (then) was being done, things would have been changed as damage control on the part of the security services.
Now that would not make a good news story for the Daily Mail or the BBC!
Or is there strength in the argument that this is just part of a "scare" technique perpetuated by those that would like to have the powers suggested by Theresa May's "Snoopers Charter" adopted into legislation?
Why in June 2015 is it necessary for this: British spies 'moved after Snowden files read' - BBC news 14 June 2015? Surely in 24 months any critical details have been expunged from anything that was allegedly "stolen" by Snowden. In any case I was of the opinion that all Snowden was saying was that the US and UK were spying on its citizens NOT that it had detailed information on them.
Also if the Chinese and the Russians have "decoded" the Snowden files and are now aware of what (then) was being done, things would have been changed as damage control on the part of the security services.
Now that would not make a good news story for the Daily Mail or the BBC!