Privacy and the State

[Beef Oven]

local councils and ripa 1


2

3 including the BBC!

4

whatever the mechanism it will be misused, often on a rather banal quotidian basis but that just lulls us for the biggies ....

You need to expand a little, right now it reads like a conspiracy theory sound-bite. Not saying you don't have a point.

[ahinton]

What is incontrovertibly true?

What Richard Barrett wrote of as being so!

Whether our rulers are understandably a little irritated or not by such a discussion the fact is that this discussion on personal privacy is all over the media at present and the politicians are being asked some very searching questions. If it is considered 'quaint' by some to point out that democratic governments tend to change in political outlook and personnel on a regular basis, then so be it! Of course, we can all claim that no political party truly represents our view of morality. I often do myself these days, but there's party political democracy for you, imperfect as it is.

But an important point here, which Richard Barrett and others have already made and which you seem studiously to be avoiding, is that, when all parties likely to be capable of forming a government (or at least participating in a coalition) at the next General Election have broadly similar views on this matter, the sense of democracy - to the extent of there no longer being and alternative for which dissenters may vote - is compromised; what we face on this is rather less "imperfection" per se in parliamentary democracy as an increasing dilution of opportunities for parliamentary democracy.

As for being 'credulous' that is surely more than matched by others who appear to indulge in an automatic cynicism about what any UK government does or does not do?

I suspect that such cynicism is an automatic response only in a small minority of those who express views on governmental activities and, indeed, the principal mood is less one of cynicism in any case than one of increasing and perfectly understandable despondency.

[Boilk]

...others who appear to indulge in an automatic cynicism about what any UK government does or does not do?

I suspect those who engage in "automatic cynicism" of the UK government are generally less docile and manipulatable creatures than those who engage in an automatic trust which is rooted in a belief that the UK government is an inherently benevolent entity guided by a moral compass. :laugh::laugh::laugh:

[french frank]

With equal respect, I never said you didn't address the issue in your 5 points (point 5 takes it's strength from an attack on the people/group in the government rather than the issue, that's all).

And you see no connection between particular powers and the individuals given the authority to use those powers?

but Scotty made the point very simply earlier on, that the risk is extremely small that the authorities would have the time, resources or even inclination to bother innocent/non-profile suspects.

But it isn't 'the authorities' who actually access the information: it's individuals. They are able to access what they are told to access, what they are not told to access and what they are told not to access. And they (authorities and individuals) can do what they want with it.

You kinda accept this point when you refer to MI5/police being unable to monitor and prevent the slaughter of Lee Rigby.

I didn't accept the point at all. It was not suggested by either police or security services that if they had had more resources and more people (ergo more time) and greater powers they could have prevented it, but that such random acts would never be totally preventable.

[Beef Oven]

And you see no connection between particular powers and the individuals given the authority to use those powers?

But it isn't 'the authorities' who actually access the information: it's individuals. They are able to access what they are told to access, what they are not told to access and what they are told not to access. And they (authorities and individuals) can do what they want with it.


I didn't accept the point at all. It was not suggested by either police or security services that if they had had more resources and more people (ergo more time) and greater powers they could have prevented it, but that such random acts would never be totally preventable.

1. That's right, in as much as the individuals are merely part-players.

2. Never mind those on your list, it's journalists that pose the real threat (we arrest kerb-crawlers, not the prostitutes).

3. I did not mean you 'voluntarily' accepted this, your argument 'assumes' it.

[anotherbob]

What Richard Barrett wrote of as being so!

He said "it's nevertheless incontrovertibly true that our rulers would much prefer that this discussion were prevented from taking place at all."

Can such a statement be "impossible to dispute" or "beyond question", which is what I understand to be the meaning of incontrovertible?

[french frank]

Never mind those on your list, it's journalists that pose the real threat (we arrest kerb-crawlers, not the prostitutes).

And where do they get their confidential information from? Never from official sources, I take it.

[scottycelt]

What Richard Barrett wrote of as being so!

What Mr Barrett 'wrote of as being so' is merely his personal opinion, nothing more or less. He is perfectly entitled to that opinion but the fact that others disagree with him demonstrates that it cannot possibly be described as 'incontrovertibly true'!

But an important point here, which Richard Barrett and others have already made and which you seem studiously to be avoiding, is that, when all parties likely to be capable of forming a government (or at least participating in a coalition) at the next General Election have broadly similar views on this matter, the sense of democracy - to the extent of there no longer being and alternative for which dissenters may vote - is compromised; what we face on this is rather less "imperfection" per se in parliamentary democracy as an increasing dilution of opportunities for parliamentary democracy.

I am rarely accused of 'studiously avoiding' anything here, in fact I sometimes feel I may well have precisely the opposite "problem" ... :laugh:

Any imperfections and shortcomings of our democratic system is not the issue here. The privacy of the individual is the one we are supposed to be discussing and whether the security services have any right to secretly monitor communications of certain individuals they suspect may be about to cause serious trouble in the future for the likes of you and I. Many will consider that can be justified in the cause of the greater good ... I certainly think so!

I suspect that such cynicism is an automatic response only in a small minority of those who express views on governmental activities and, indeed, the principal mood is less one of cynicism in any case than one of increasing and perfectly understandable despondency.

Are you saying that because some people are politically 'despondent' the security services should not be keeping a close eye on likely troublemakers in the most effective way possible? What would be your alternative strategy to try and prevent the next bomb going off in one of our major cities? Is there any realistic alternative that can be tried?

[Beef Oven]

And where do they get their confidential information from? Never from official sources, I take it.

We don't ask kerb-crawlers the name of the ho they were propositioning, I take it.

[ahinton]

He said "it's nevertheless incontrovertibly true that our rulers would much prefer that this discussion were prevented from taking place at all."

Can such a statement be "impossible to dispute" or "beyond question", which is what I understand to be the meaning of incontrovertible?

I would submit that the sheer number of examples where politicians have sought to push such issues under the carpet and those in which they have succeeded in doing so by so waffling, dissembling and doing anything at all except address them is evidence enough.

[anotherbob]

I would submit that the sheer number of examples where politicians have sought to push such issues under the carpet and those in which they have succeeded in doing so by so waffling, dissembling and doing anything at all except address them is evidence enough.

Enough to make it "likely" but not "incontrovertible".
In a place like this where so many people are so sure they are right I think it is important that they should use words carefully.

[Richard Barrett]

the fact that others disagree with him demonstrates that it cannot possibly be described as 'incontrovertibly true'!

Whether you agree or not with keeping the PRISM programme secret, it is incontrovertibly true that the US and UK governments wanted to keep it secret, and that we wouldn't know about it now were it not for Snowden, and therefore it is equally true that in keeping it secret they prevented the present discussion from happening. I don't see how that in itself is a matter of opinion.

[ahinton]

Any imperfections and shortcomings of our democratic system is not the issue here. The privacy of the individual is the one we are supposed to be discussing and whether the security services have any right to secretly monitor communications of certain individuals they suspect may be about to cause serious trouble in the future for the likes of you and I. Many will consider that can be justified in the cause of the greater good ... I certainly think so!

Then you have a good deal more confidence in the talent, diligence and administrative efficiencies of the security services and those who function within them than do some! Have not the many careless instances of mishandled data by other government departments alone ever caused you to be concerned about the potential consequences of a snoopers' charter? And, as I've already said, who is to determine of what grounds who might be deemed to be a "terrorist" or "terrorist supporter", especially in a climate in which Britain's armed forces have meddled in the affairs of other countries that have never invaded Britain? This kind of thinking never admits of the possibility that other might view the British armed forces and security services as "terrorists" for having done that kind of thing; the fact that more than half of a polled sample of the electorate don't want that kind of activity to occur, let alone be forced to fund it, ought to give you cause to think more about this. An Afghan acquaintance of mine who has lived in Britain since before the Soviet invasion of his country has told me that he fears this kind of thing very much, just because he is an Afghan and known to be such, on the other hand, he has said that he has received much sympathy from non-Afghans here whom he knows, some of which apologises for what Britain has done in his country.

Are you saying that because some people are politically 'despondent' the security services should not be keeping a close eye on likely troublemakers in the most effective way possible?

Did I actually write that? What I did write referred to people's despondency - dismay, disappointment and disillusionment might have been better d-words, I suppose - about the actions, inactions and uncaring nature of the government of the day, not the security services per se who are, after all, obliged under contract to do what the government tells them to do and what the law allows (except where the law can be gotten around to suit a particular agenda).

What would be your alternative strategy to try and prevent the next bomb going off in one of our major cities? Is there any realistic alternative that can be tried?

Whilst such activity cannot be prevented by any means whatsoever, it could very likely be discouraged as a consequence of Britain pulling out of Afghanistan, reducing the scale and increasing the efficiency of its armed
forces and setting an example as a nation bent on encouraging reductions in violence; foolproof it would not be, but it would help. Trust in one's government has been mentioned, aside from the general depletion in this in recent times, the more snooping that can go on unhindered and supported by the law, the greater will be distrust in general.

If the activities of the security services are anything like as woefully inefficient and incompetent as those of defence procurement have been over the past decade or more (and I'm not saying that this is the case), the level of public trust in them would disappear altogether, particularly given their statutory immunity from accountability.

[ahinton]

Enough to make it "likely" but not "incontrovertible".
In a place like this where so many people are so sure they are right I think it is important that they should use words carefully.

OK, but see post #192...

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

You need to expand a little, right now it reads like a conspiracy theory sound-bite. Not saying you don't have a point.

well a sound bite it is, but does follow from a previous post reference to blighters etc ... RIPA has been seriously over and mis-used; mechanisms such as PRISM would become irresistible temptations is what most of us are asserting, hence the need for public accountability if they are truly needed in the first place .... i am a follower of Ike in that regard, beware the blighters that make sell and use the stuff as taxpayers we get very little value for the billions that flow down the drain at MoD and MI 1-n &c and nor can the plod be taken at their word

how many people died on our roads this week so far? where is the panic? cheap argument but alas valid ....