Privacy and the State

[Flosshilde]

Scotty, Pee, et al, seem to be of the view that surveillance is OK because it stops 'the bad guys'. I would like them to say what level of surveillance they would be happy with? Emails (& ordinary mail) opened & read? Telephone conversations listened to (which I think is the next step from what the USA is doing & The UK govt wants to do)? How about neighbours (& family) acting as spies & reporting on them? Eventually everybody becomes the 'bad guys'. Police infiltration & surveillance isn't aimed just at Islamist bombers; it's also carried out against people who's aims are peaceful, legal, protests against power stations, for example.

[amateur51]

The logic here is flawed. Even more effective was my father in law's rowan tree, which he said kept out witches. We never saw a witch, so therefore the tree was 100% effective.

Having said that, I think the security services are probably quite effective, but by the very nature of their operations we are unlikely to know even vaguely how effective they are.

Exactly Dave2002 - we also don't know how (in)competent the would-be 'terrorists' are :smiley:

[ahinton]

Gee, thanks, ahinton ... :laugh:

Wrong end of stick grasped here, scotty, though I accept that I could have expressed this more clearly and with less risk of misinterpretation; my response to Mr Pee sought to imply that I wasn't patronising him and that I was also not patronising you even though it was your remark and my response thereto that seemed to have prompted Mr Pee to write as he did. I trust that I've cleared this up now; apologies.

That said, there remains a number of issues that have yet to be addressed here. One is the question of who besides the security services might be given powers by government to snoop, such as NHS, the police, local authorities, DWP, armed forces, HMRC and who knows who else - and to what extent might it extend to large corporations? What about the banks? - would RBS and Lloyds TSB be given greater snooping powers than others because (currently they're part taxpayer owned? and would that change when each returns to private status? What about the firms to which work is subcontracted by government departments with powers to snoop? - will they be granted the same or similar powers throughout the course of their government contracts as would the government departments themselves? Another is the seemingly surprising situation in which some people who deplore phone and email hacking when undertaken by the media or its agents nevertheless seem relatively comfortable about the proposed snoopers' charter; shome hypochrishy, shurely? Again, what about the security of the security services themselves (or the police and armed forces, for that matter)? - just as no security measures, however tight and well organised, can guarantee the absence of any terrorist activity, there can be no guarantee that the security of those organisations might not be breached or at least compromised by the odd members of staff who decide to bat for another side or both sides - it's happened before and, in a world in which insider dealing is rife in the fields of finance and commerce, why and on what grounds should anyone blithely assume that the security services, police and armed forces would somehow be free of the risk of this?

[Dave2002]

Exactly Dave2002 - we also don't know how (in)competent the would-be 'terrorists' are :smiley:

But we do know about some recently sentenced ones! http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/ju...sts-edl-jailed

[ahinton]

It is nevertheless true that more people in the USA were killed by toddlers in 2013 than by terrorists.

Indeed - and, whilst the fact that US gun laws need the thoroughgoing reform that they almost certainly won't get might be seen as aside from the subject under discussion, it is nevertheless relevant to serious consideration of that subject and the mentalities that espouse the kind of paranoia that is arguably inevitable in a country with gun laws such as apply in most US states.

There's also http://www.newsmax.com/newswidget/US...n=widgetphase1.

[ahinton]

On the other hand there have been no terrorist attacks at all during 2013 in Germany, which like most EU countries has extensive data-protection laws. Does this justify the lack of surveillance? or is it perhaps because Germany isn't a terrorist target, having not carried out any invasions or military threats?

NOW we're getting to the point!...

[ahinton]

Are you being ironic again? :erm:

Surely you understand that the security measures at airports will not "catch terrorists" because they are designed to deter them from attempting to board an aircraft with, for example, the Stanley knives used by the 9/11 gang, as well as, of course, any other material or equipment that could endanger an aircraft. There have not been any such attacks for a number of years now thank goodness- or rather thank those security measures. Even the stupidest terrorist will think twice before attempting to board a plane with harmful equipment these days. Therefore the measures are a success. Of course they will not catch terrorists; that is not their intention. The intention is to keep us safe whilst in the air.

That's fair enough up to a point, Mr Pee, but MrGG's "piece of theatre" argument still looks more than merely plausible when one realises that these kinds of measure apply only to flying; when did you last have to go through security to board a National Express coach or a long-distance train?

[ahinton]

An opportunity to sit at one's computer a be counted.

I've signed that; it seems to be garnering a fair amount of support, which surprises me not at all. I assume that NSA will already be aware that I've done so...

[ahinton]

Some points which, as far as I can see, have not been made specifically above. (But apologies to anyone who has made them.)

Edward Snowden is on the record as saying he (and therefore, clearly, others) was authorised to hack anyone, anywhere. This would include the President, if he had specific email authorisation. He has also explained that NSA is able to hack into servers, a much more efficient process than hacking individuals (!).

The NSA's defence of its policies, that it has helped catch two [!] terrorists is refuted by a number of reputable sources.

It is beyond common sense to assume that the NSA (given its data mining resources) would record only the 'metadata' on communications (i.e. only the two telephone numbers involved, in the case of phone calls), and not the data stream of the call (or email content). Whether it does or not the metadata can be analysed in such a way to highlight communications 'interesting' to NSA, prompting further mining of the email/phonecall content (see Guardian stories passim). (This would now be true of this posting, as it would be possible for NSA to identify me through my ISP and then look at everything else I do online....)

The dominance of the US electronic industry enables it to access worldwide communications, overriding local privacy laws.

Once data of this kind has been captured, it is open to being accessed by others than those who mined it.

This last point is, I think, of especial significance in that not only can such data be marketed indiscriminately for megabucks but when security services such as NSA, GCHQ et al are careless with it and it gets into the wrong hands as a direct consequence of their incompetence, anything can happen.

[Bryn]

I've signed that; it seems to be garnering a fair amount of support, which surprises me not at all. I assume that NSA will already be aware that I've done so...

Likewise. Hopefully others here have, or will have, followed suit.

[Richard Barrett]

Police infiltration & surveillance isn't aimed just at Islamist bombers; it's also carried out against people who's aims are peaceful, legal, protests against power stations, for example.

Exactly. I suppose if you never protest against anything, or communicate with anyone else who has ever protested against anything, like for example those members of this very forum who openly espouse shall we say anti-establishment tendencies, you can consider yourself safe from eavesdropping. Unfortunately for all the innocents here it's already too late! :laugh:

[Serial_Apologist]

Join the club - before membership is full, if you haven't already

[scottycelt]

The logic here is flawed. Even more effective was my father in law's rowan tree, which he said kept out witches. We never saw a witch, so therefore the tree was 100% effective.

Having said that, I think the security services are probably quite effective, but by the very nature of their operations we are unlikely to know even vaguely how effective they are.

I agree that we cannot be sure and it doesn't follow logically that because of increased surveillance any terrorist plots are foiled, even though "common sense" might suggest that there is a better chance of success in that area if our intelligence services are up to speed on what nasty little surprises might be being planned for us elsewhere.

Some appear to be of the opinion that if the UK pulled its troops out of Afghanistan tomorrow extreme Islamists would suddenly leave us alone.

'Credulousness' and 'flawed logic' are not necessarily confined to those who take quite the opposite view and believe that will only encourage more terrorist outrages.

[Richard Barrett]

Some appear to be of the opinion that if the UK pulled its troops out of Afghanistan tomorrow extreme Islamists would suddenly leave us alone.

(a) Countries not party to the Iraq and Afghanistan invasions have not been targeted by terrorists. But perhaps this is mere coincidence.
(b) Let's have a bit less of the "extreme Islamist" talk. Invariably the reasons given for attacks from the "Muslim world" on the West are couched in political and not primarily religious terms, and centre on the various imperialistic incursions made by Western countries in the middle East and elsewhere, and on the West's role in Israel's oppression of Palestinians. This fact of course is downplayed by politicians because it isn't in their interests (see my earlier post quoting Foley on the economics of war) to admit that the solution to the problem lies in stopping the military aggression.
(c) There are many arguments for an immediate pullout from Afghanistan, quite apart from the prevention-of-terrorism one. People are dying there (and in neighbouring Pakistan) all the time as a direct result of the US-led occupation. Is it such a bad idea that this killing should stop?

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

not me scotty but i do think we would save some lives and limbs amongst the troops ... and save a fortune that we currently just blow away ...

the security game is a very big business, an almost perfect protection racket eh?

and recall the MoD gravy train

whilst we do face criminal conspiracies with political motivations, it does not seem to me very different to the Troubles and the IRA campaigns .... watching that excellent series on Iraq last night, i was struck by the closeness of the resemblance of the religious divides in Belfast and Baghdad ... what we could do without it seems to me is all talk of war, against Terror, Taliban or Drugs .... war talk is a form of gangster extortion, the billions we have wasted on violence and ineffective strategies is beyond the tolerable in such economically challenging times