Privacy and the State

[ahinton]

History shows that once a surveillance-obsessed system takes things to that kind of level (as for example in the GDR), being innocent, or having "nothing to hide", doesn't actually protect you from anything. So be careful what you wish for.

Indeed - and, looked at from the other end of the telescope, one might ask a surveillance-obsessed government the clumsier sounding but nevertheless pertinent question "if you have nothing to fear and no evidence that everyone under such surveillance has done something wrong, why impose it?", although one would expect no answer at all, let alone an honest one...

[An_Inspector_Calls]

History shows that once a surveillance-obsessed system takes things to that kind of level (as for example in the GDR), being innocent, or having "nothing to hide", doesn't actually protect you from anything. So be careful what you wish for.

History shows us that having surveillance of a society prevalent or not makes no difference; a malevolent state can usually do what it wants.

[Richard Barrett]

a malevolent state can usually do what it wants.

My point exactly.

[amateur51]

History shows us that having surveillance of a society prevalent or not makes no difference; a malevolent state can usually do what it wants.

I thought the point at issue was that the State is watching us but had not soght permission to do so - they've been found out, thus confirming what many people felt and some people knew - they can not be trusted.

Sir Malcolm Rifkind, Chair of the relevant House of Commons committee, was very circumspect and embarrassingly evasive this morning under interrogation from Sarah Montague on BBC Radio 4's Today programme.

We pay for them to keep us safe and they need to be accountable to us always.

[ahinton]

History shows us that having surveillance of a society prevalent or not makes no difference; a malevolent state can usually do what it wants.

All too true - but in what's now being revealed / discussed / evaded &c., the collusion and co-operation of any number of malevolent states is required and that's potentially a good deal more dangerous than individual rogue malevolent states.

[Richard Barrett]

Quite so, am51. And I think it's clear that most people, unlike An_Inspector_Calls, would indeed object to having all their electronic communications potentially scrutinised by the state, if we were asked, which we weren't. Presumably Edward Snowden joined the US security services out of a patriotic motivation to serve his country, and then found that the beacon of liberty he'd signed up for was no less reprehensible than the supposed enemies of freedom it sets itself against. As a result of acting on this realisation, he will probably be looking over his shoulder for the rest of his life, wherever he manages to spend it. That's the kind of moral authority we should be looking to, not the people who claim to have our interests in mind while spying on us.

[amateur51]

All too true - but in what's now being revealed / discussed / evaded &c., the collusion and co-operation of any number of malevolent states is required and that's potentially a good deal more dangerous than individual rogue malevolent states.

Especially when they have created 'snooping by proxy' which is what I understand Mr Snowden to have discovered. This enables Cameron to say, as he has done today, that our security services behave within the law - but he doesn't complete the sentence with 'because they receive the information on our citizens that our services wish to know via the security service of another state the activities of whose spooks are not proscribed by our laws'. :erm:

[amateur51]

Quite so, am51. And I think it's clear that most people, unlike An_Inspector_Calls, would indeed object to having all their electronic communications potentially scrutinised by the state, if we were asked, which we weren't. Presumably Edward Snowden joined the US security services out of a patriotic motivation to serve his country, and then found that the beacon of liberty he'd signed up for was no less reprehensible than the supposed enemies of freedom it sets itself against. As a result of acting on this realisation, he will probably be looking over his shoulder for the rest of his life, wherever he manages to spend it. That's the kind of moral authority we should be looking to, not the people who claim to have our interests in mind while spying on us.

We can expect any day/month now that Mr Snowden's reputation will be besmirched in some way, he will be accused in his absence of some extradictible offence, etc which will keep him on the run until he runs out of options or indeed until some mystery attack of remorse seizes him and he 'decides' to kill himself with the aid of assassination-by-proxy.:sadface:

[An_Inspector_Calls]

I thought the point at issue was that the State is watching us but had not soght permission to do so - they've been found out, thus confirming what many people felt and some people knew - they can not be trusted.

Sir Malcolm Rifkind, Chair of the relevant House of Commons committee, was very circumspect and embarrassingly evasive this morning under interrogation from Sarah Montague on BBC Radio 4's Today programme.

We pay for them to keep us safe and they need to be accountable to us always.

Have they been found out? its' perhaps a little early to say, unless of course, you're just gagging to prove a conspiracy.

I thought Rifkind was quite clear, unevasive and straightforward on the Today programme.

[An_Inspector_Calls]

Quite so, am51. And I think it's clear that most people, unlike An_Inspector_Calls, would indeed object to having all their electronic communications potentially scrutinised by the state, if we were asked, which we weren't.

Really? In these days of Facebook and the like, where people seem determined to splash their private lives as much as possible all over the internet (the more the better, it seems), are you so confident that the majority share your paranoia about personal privacy?

And anyone with half a brain should be aware that using a mobile phone freely dumps their conversation into the public domain - if they're not, they haven't been to the movies enough.

[amateur51]

Have they been found out? its' perhaps a little early to say, unless of course, you're just gagging to prove a conspiracy.

I thought Rifkind was quite clear, unevasive and straightforward on the Today programme.

We'll have to agree to disagree about the performance of the Member for Kensington then, A_I_C :biggrin:

I have no additional information, only a strand of discovery concerning the secret dealings of our government & spooks over the last 40 or so years, as befits a concerned citizen of these Isles over 61 years :winkeye:

[amateur51]

Really? In these days of Facebook and the like, where people seem determined to splash their private lives as much as possible all over the internet (the more the better, it seems), are you so confident that the majority share your paranoia about personal privacy?

And anyone with half a brain should be aware that using a mobile phone freely dumps their conversation into the public domain - if they're not, they haven't been to the movies enough.

Why is it paranoia, A_I_C? :erm:

Paranoia is a clinical description of a severe psychiatric disturbance that is quite different from someone who just disagrees with you :winkeye:

Speaking personally, I'd exclude the latter before daubing someone with the former :biggrin:

[vinteuil]

concerning the secret dealings of our government & spooks :

Ammy - it is of the nature of spooks that their activities are secret.

You may not see the point in this country having a secret service. I do. And in so doing I also accept that many of their activities will be covert, and not amenable to the open accountability which we require of normal servants of the state.

[Richard Barrett]

There is no conspiracy. It's just the logical response of a state apparatus which perceives the threat to its hegemony of social media being used as a medium of direct democracy, as in Turkey where prime minister Erdogan has recently and rightly highlighted the "menace" (ie. to his ongoing campaign to centralise power in the AKP and himself) of Twitter and Facebook.

[eighthobstruction]

I wonder what a really top notch malicious Stazi costs these days....surely beyond our economic bounds....