Privacy and the State

[Richard Barrett]

If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear.

This is clearly untrue. Numerous arguments are marshalled in this article on the website of the ACLU: https://www.aclu.org/blog/national-s...something-fear

[An_Inspector_Calls]

But really: I think we can assume that any terrorist worth the name is going to assume that GCHQ et al are going to try to monitor their electronic communications, and that with the resources available to them they'll probably succeed in doing so. On the other hand, until the revelations under discussion, most ordinary citizens would have assumed that their electronic communications are not being monitored because after all we're not living in some kind of Orwellian surveilance culture, are we? But now we find that actually we are, supposedly as a price worth paying for our security from attack by terrorists, supposedly in a democratic society although none of us was ever give the opportunity to vote for or against such measures, because it was hoped that we'd never find out and no doubt feared that we might not make the "right" decision.

My Dear Queen of all terrorism knowledge, the terrorists may well assume that we're trying to monitor their activities (how perceptive), but I rather think it's the manner of doing so that they might not comprehend. And you know for a fact that all UK citizens have all of their electronic communications monitored right now?

[ahinton]

My Dear Queen of all terrorism knowledge

If you must insist on writing to the Queen, please send your correspondence to Buckingham Palace raher than airing its contents as a reply to a post here by Richard Barrett.

Did you read the link that he posted? If so, do you consider it to be a pack of agenda-driven terminological inexactitudes?

the terrorists may well assume that we're trying to monitor their activities (how perceptive), but I rather think it's the manner of doing so that they might not comprehend.

On what specific evidence do you base that doubt? Terrorists, potential terrorists and others with all manner of possible agendas either already know or are busy trying to find out how to get into the systems of the British police, armed forces, GCHQ and the like and, to the extent that they are successful in such endeavours, they'll obviously be able to discover all that they feel that they need to know about the manner in which thos organisations monitor what they do; by getting into such systems I do not just mean hacking into them electronically from outside but also placing people strategically within their premises for various purposes including the collection of data on those organisations' policies, procedures and actions.

And you know for a fact that all UK citizens have all of their electronic communications monitored right now?

Did he actually say that? The point is not so much what they're actually doing at any given moment as what they're capable of doing and consider themselves empowered to do without the prior written consent of the owners of the data that they may monitor.

[MrGongGong]

There's no "supposedly" about it. If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear.

Even though there is plenty of hard evidence to the contrary ?

but go ahead ....... it reminds me of someone I know who is an artist.
He was stopped in the street by the police in London and searched
they then found that he had some craft knives in his bag (he is AN ARTIST ?????)
so took him down the station. He said that he was at no time at all worried because
"everyone knows that they wont really arrest someone who listens to Radio 4" !!

So all you need to know is that when you get duffed up by dodgy men in the back of a transit van
all you have to say is

"Shula is married to Alistair, who is the vet, but she used to be married to Mark who died in a car crash and they have a son called Daniel"


and they will let you go !

Maybe I might try leaking that ?

[ahinton]

So all you need to know is that when you get duffed up by dodgy men in the back of a transit van
all you have to say is

"Shula is married to Alistair, who is the vet, but she used to be married to Mark who died in a car crash and they have a son called Daniel"

and they will let you go !

Maybe I might try leaking that ?

Not in my direction, you shouldn't! Although my name is Alistair, I am neither a vet nor married to someone named Shula nor a father so, as I'd be lying through my teeth if I said all that, I'd better be especially careful to avoid getting "duffed up by dodgy men in the back of a transit van"!

[Richard Barrett]

My Dear Queen of all terrorism knowledge, the terrorists may well assume that we're trying to monitor their activities (how perceptive), but I rather think it's the manner of doing so that they might not comprehend.

Firstly, no technical details have been made public as far as I'm aware. Secondly, about half a million people had access to the same material as Snowden, so it's by no means inconceivable that someone else among them would have taken what they knew to a foreign government or a terrorist organisation. And you do your arguments no credit by your mode of address.

[ahinton]

you do your arguments no credit by your mode of address.

True, but then such gratuitous modes of address are more often than not resorted to by those who use them in substitution for arguments when and because they have no such arguments in the first place; what kind of "argument", after all, is represented by Our_Dear_Calls' empty, meaningless and illogical presumption that, whilst terrorists might assume that their activities are being monitored, they might not understand the manner in which such monitoring is being carried out?

[Mr Pee]

what kind of "argument", after all, is represented by Our_Dear_Calls' empty, meaningless and illogical presumption that, whilst terrorists might assume that their activities are being monitored, they might not understand the manner in which such monitoring is being carried out?

What's illogical about that?

[ahinton]

What's illogical about that?

I'm surprised that you seem to need explanation of this but, if terrorists / suspected terrorists / would-be terrorists / potential terrorists or their sponsors are aware that their activities are being monitored and understand the rôles, responsibilities and actions of organisations such as GCHQ, how could they at the same time not know how they're being monitored?

[Richard Barrett]

What's illogical about that?

It isn't illogical, but as John Lanchester recently wrote after being given access to Snowden's materials:

It's worth taking a moment to ask how helpful the publication of information about this is to the bad guys. (Girls too. But mainly guys.)

The answer is evident, I think, in the under-remarked fact that Osama bin Laden's compound in Abbottabad didn't even have a telephone line running into it. In other words he not only didn't use the net, computers or phones in any way at all, ever, he was suspicious of the actual physical apparatus itself.

This means that the bad guys know very well that they have to be careful. (It should also be noted that the absence of any electronic footprint at the Abbottabad compound was – as depicted in the movie Zero Dark Thirty – a sign to the spies that something fishy was afoot. Nobody innocent has no electronic footprint.)

Some of the jihadi materials I read in the GCHQ documents make it clear that the terrorists are very well aware of these issues. There is a stinging jeer in one jihadi text, apropos a Swedish documentary that made clear certain bugging capabilities in Ericsson's mobile phones: "It is customary in the Scandinavian countries to publish such helpful materials."

While the broad details of general strategic surveillance are shocking and need to be known, the thing that would be helpful to the bad guys is the publication of the specific technical details. These the Guardian and its partners have gone to great lengths to keep secret.

[amateur51]

It isn't illogical, but as John Lanchester recently wrote after being given access to Snowden's materials:[/I]

Very interesting stuff - do you have a link for this please? PM is fine if it's not a good idea to put it up here.

[Richard Barrett]

Sorry, I thought I'd given a link: it's here.

[amateur51]

Sorry, I thought I'd given a link: it's here.

Many thanks.

[Mr Pee]

I'm surprised that you seem to need explanation of this but, if terrorists / suspected terrorists / would-be terrorists / potential terrorists or their sponsors are aware that their activities are being monitored and understand the rôles, responsibilities and actions of organisations such as GCHQ, how could they at the same time not know how they're being monitored?

Quite easily, unless the Guardian or some other irresponsible rag leaks the technical details of the Security Service's operations.

[Mr Pee]

Sorry, I thought I'd given a link: it's here.

Thanks for the link. Very interesting reading. However, unlike the typically paranoid Guardian journalist, none of it worries or concerns me in the slightest. On the contrary, I am encouraged that those who seek to do us harm have to contend with such a level of scrutiny. It is very likely that the use of such measures has prevented an atrocity such as 7/7 from occuring again.