Privacy and the State

[amateur51]

To pick up on someone's point re 'if they've got the tools, they'll use them', it was not unknown for police officers keen to arrest kerb-crawlers and men seeking sex in public toilets to use the vehicle licence register to put pressure ion these men back at their homes. That's not why the data was registered but it was one of the reasons for interrogating the register. :sadface:

[amateur51]

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 ....

Remember when Thatcher's government collected all that data on Poll Tax Bands, swearing never to pass it on to the third party? And what happened? The data was sold on to third parties :yikes::sadface:

I doubt that the political hue of the government is germane to this point.

[ahinton]

An intro to Clive Anderson's programme tonight (which I have sadly had to miss) which I caught on BBC R4 earlier referred to data being collected under such a snoopers' charter not only by the security services but also by other government departments, local authorities, NHS and who can say whom else; given, then, that it's by no means all dependent upon lame excuses about protection from terrorism and terrorist encouragement or indeed even all about national security issues of any kind, real, perceived or conveniently invented, I commend the scottys of this world to have another think about their view on this.

[Mr Pee]

I commend the scottys of this world to have another think about their view on this.

Thank you for that rather patronising instruction; I've had another think and I have not changed my mind.

I know there are some naive folk here who insist that the threat is exaggerated, or that it's all our fault anyway so we just have to put up with it; but regardless of all that, it is the job of our security service to do all they can to detect and prevent terror attacks. In the 21st Century that must include internet monitoring. Without that they are fighting with one hand tied behind their backs.

[ahinton]

Thank you for that rather patronising instruction; I've had another think and I have not changed my mind.

I know there are some naive folk here who insist that the threat is exaggerated, or that it's all our fault anyway so we just have to put up with it; but regardless of all that, it is the job of our security service to do all they can to detect and prevent terror attacks. In the 21st Century that must include internet monitoring. Without that they are fighting with one hand tied behind their backs.

No need for thanks; even scotty wasn't being patronised, let alone you. You continue to refer to the security services, yet my post referred to Clive Anderson's reference to other parties seeking to make use of whatever data that can get their hands on. I'm pleased that you've had another think, but perhaps you might have yet another one on that particular aspect of the issue - i.e. not just security services' access to data but other organisations' ditto. Thank you.

[scottycelt]

... even scotty wasn't being patronised ...

Gee, thanks, ahinton ... :laugh:

[Richard Barrett]

some naive folk here who insist that the threat is exaggerated

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

[scottycelt]

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

On the contrary, that's not a particularly cheap argument but it is also not valid, Calum, surely ...

People die of all sorts of nasty things, naturally or accidentally. Steps are regularly taken by governments to try and reduce such deaths with things like compulsory seat-belts and banning smoking in public areas, etc. Here we are talking about trying to prevent mass-murder and very likely the added horror of revenge arson attacks against mosques and Moslem schools by some of our bull-necked thugs on the far Right.

One could just as easily argue that we shouldn't panic over-much about the neighbours-from-hell who have just threatened to behead granny as a lot more grannies have suffered even greater mutilation under the wheels of the local No 10 bus?

[scottycelt]

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

Might that not itself demonstrate the huge success of the US Security Services in preventing many planned terrorist attacks, therefore wholly justifying the surveillance ... ?

That's not to say the US authorities shouldn't bother changing some of the country's crazy gun laws!

[Richard Barrett]

Might that not itself demonstrate the huge success of the US Security Services in preventing many planned terrorist attacks, therefore wholly justifying the surveillance ...

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?

[Dave2002]

Might that not itself demonstrate the huge success of the US Security Services in preventing many planned terrorist attacks, therefore wholly justifying the surveillance ... ?

That's not to say the US authorities shouldn't bother changing some of the country's crazy gun laws!

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.

[MrGongGong]

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.

Indeed

Much "security" is an act of faith and a piece of theatre
The problem arises when it is revealed that those in charge of these things have been dishonest, duplicitous and have consequently lost the trust of the rest of us.
What strikes me about much of the visible "security" (airports being the most obvious) is the way that it is a piece of theatre that we willingly engage in with the desired effect of reassuring US rather than having any real efficacy in "catching terrorists". There's no problem with that, as such, as long as one realises that (as with the X Factor :yikes:) it's a piece of performance.

[Mr Pee]

Indeed

Much "security" is an act of faith and a piece of theatre
The problem arises when it is revealed that those in charge of these things have been dishonest, duplicitous and have consequently lost the trust of the rest of us.
What strikes me about much of the visible "security" (airports being the most obvious) is the way that it is a piece of theatre that we willingly engage in with the desired effect of reassuring US rather than having any real efficacy in "catching terrorists". There's no problem with that, as such, as long as one realises that (as with the X Factor :yikes:) it's a piece of performance.

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.

[Bryn]

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

[kernelbogey]

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.