privacy vs terrorism

Soldato
Joined
25 Jun 2009
Posts
3,494
Location
Weston-super-Mare
Simple question. Promted from a disscusion at work, and feel like I want to see how the general public feel.

What price are we willing to pay to prevent terrorism? The government are looking deeper into our personal communications (not crazy tin foil hat wearing man here, its true) in order to prevent terrorism. If we all presume for the duration of this thread that there are no ulterior motives on the part of the government, then is it more important to preserve our right to privicy, or is it more important to potentially save some lives?

I'm not the best at making my posts seem grand and intellectual, but I'd like to hear your thoughts.
 
Providing there are proper safeguards in place I see no reason why everyone's privacy can't be compromised to prevent violence.
 
Interesting. Me and my colleague both felt that letting the govenment look at our (albiet mundane) private conversations was kinda like letting them win. We felt that terrorists are best ignored. I suppose at somepoint someone is going to ask weather I would feel that way if someone deer to me was a victim. Obviously I cant say for sure, but I would like to feel like my values would not be swayed either way.

EDIT - them is the terrorist not the gov lol.
 
There's a comment on reddit that has resurfaced in light of recent events and political changes. It was posted by someone claiming to be from a nation run by a dictatorship with zealous surveillance, though doesn't actually give a name. Makes for an interesting read.

http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyvie...e_the_government_should_be_allowed_to/cd89cqr

I live in a country generally assumed to be a dictatorship. One of the Arab spring countries. I have lived through curfews and have seen the outcomes of the sort of surveillance now being revealed in the US. People here talking about curfews aren't realizing what that actually FEELS like. It isn't about having to go inside, and the practicality of that. It's about creating the feeling that everyone, everything is watching. A few points:

1) the purpose of this surveillance from the governments point of view is to control enemies of the state. Not terrorists. People who are coalescing around ideas that would destabilize the status quo. These could be religious ideas. These could be groups like anon who are too good with tech for the governments liking. It makes it very easy to know who these people are. It also makes it very simple to control these people.

Lets say you are a college student and you get in with some people who want to stop farming practices that hurt animals. So you make a plan and go to protest these practices. You get there, and wow, the protest is huge. You never expected this, you were just goofing off. Well now everyone who was there is suspect. Even though you technically had the right to protest, you're now considered a dangerous person.

With this tech in place, the government doesn't have to put you in jail. They can do something more sinister. They can just email you a sexy picture you took with a girlfriend. Or they can email you a note saying that they can prove your dad is cheating on his taxes. Or they can threaten to get your dad fired. All you have to do, the email says, is help them catch your friends in the group. You have to report back every week, or you dad might lose his job. So you do. You turn in your friends and even though they try to keep meetings off grid, you're reporting on them to protect your dad.

2) Let's say number one goes on. The country is a weird place now. Really weird. Pretty soon, a movement springs up like occupy, except its bigger this time. People are really serious, and they are saying they want a government without this power. I guess people are realizing that it is a serious deal. You see on the news that tear gas was fired. Your friend calls you, frantic. They're shooting people. Oh my god. you never signed up for this. You say, **** it. My dad might lose his job but I won't be responsible for anyone dying. That's going too far. You refuse to report anymore. You just stop going to meetings. You stay at home, and try not to watch the news. Three days later, police come to your door and arrest you. They confiscate your computer and phones, and they beat you up a bit. No one can help you so they all just sit quietly. They know if they say anything they're next. This happened in the country I live in. It is not a joke.

3) Its hard to say how long you were in there. What you saw was horrible. Most of the time, you only heard screams. People begging to be killed. Noises you've never heard before. You, you were lucky. You got kicked every day when they threw your moldy food at you, but no one shocked you. No one used sexual violence on you, at least that you remember. There were some times they gave you pills, and you can't say for sure what happened then. To be honest, sometimes the pills were the best part of your day, because at least then you didn't feel anything. You have scars on you from the way you were treated. You learn in prison that torture is now common. But everyone who uploads videos or pictures of this torture is labeled a leaker. Its considered a threat to national security. Pretty soon, a cut you got on your leg is looking really bad. You think it's infected. There were no doctors in prison, and it was so overcrowded, who knows what got in the cut. You go to the doctor, but he refuses to see you. He knows if he does the government can see the records that he treated you. Even you calling his office prompts a visit from the local police.

You decide to go home and see your parents. Maybe they can help. This leg is getting really bad. You get to their house. They aren't home. You can't reach them no matter how hard you try. A neighbor pulls you aside, and he quickly tells you they were arrested three weeks ago and haven't been seen since. You vaguely remember mentioning to them on the phone you were going to that protest. Even your little brother isn't there.

4) Is this even really happening? You look at the news. Sports scores. Celebrity news. It's like nothing is wrong. What the hell is going on? A stranger smirks at you reading the paper. You lose it. You shout at him "**** you dude what are you laughing at can't you see I've got a ****ing wound on my leg?"

"Sorry," he says. "I just didn't know anyone read the news anymore." There haven't been any real journalists for months. They're all in jail.

Everyone walking around is scared. They can't talk to anyone else because they don't know who is reporting for the government. Hell, at one time YOU were reporting for the government. Maybe they just want their kid to get through school. Maybe they want to keep their job. Maybe they're sick and want to be able to visit the doctor. It's always a simple reason. Good people always do bad things for simple reasons.

You want to protest. You want your family back. You need help for your leg. This is way beyond anything you ever wanted. It started because you just wanted to see fair treatment in farms. Now you're basically considered a terrorist, and everyone around you might be reporting on you. You definitely can't use a phone or email. You can't get a job. You can't even trust people face to face anymore. On every corner, there are people with guns. They are as scared as you are. They just don't want to lose their jobs. They don't want to be labeled as traitors.

This all happened in the country where I live.

You want to know why revolutions happen? Because little by little by little things get worse and worse. But this thing that is happening now is big. This is the key ingredient. This allows them to know everything they need to know to accomplish the above. The fact that they are doing it is proof that they are the sort of people who might use it in the way I described. In the country I live in, they also claimed it was for the safety of the people. Same in Soviet Russia. Same in East Germany. In fact, that is always the excuse that is used to surveil everyone. But it has never ONCE proven to be the reality.

Maybe Obama won't do it. Maybe the next guy won't, or the one after him. Maybe this story isn't about you. Maybe it happens 10 or 20 years from now, when a big war is happening, or after another big attack. Maybe it's about your daughter or your son. We just don't know yet. But what we do know is that right now, in this moment we have a choice. Are we okay with this, or not? Do we want this power to exist, or not?

You know for me, the reason I'm upset is that I grew up in school saying the pledge of allegiance. I was taught that the United States meant "liberty and justice for all." You get older, you learn that in this country we define that phrase based on the constitution. That's what tells us what liberty is and what justice is. Well, the government just violated that ideal. So if they aren't standing for liberty and justice anymore, what are they standing for? Safety?

Ask yourself a question. In the story I told above, does anyone sound safe?

I didn't make anything up. These things happened to people I know. We used to think it couldn't happen in America. But guess what? It's starting to happen.

I actually get really upset when people say "I don't have anything to hide. Let them read everything." People saying that have no idea what they are bringing down on their own heads. They are naive, and we need to listen to people in other countries who are clearly telling us that this is a horrible horrible sign and it is time to stand up and say no.

I think his point that mass surveillance has not once in history ever done anything to help the populace is quite profound. Never. There is no example of it ever being a benefit to security/safety/whatever, it has only ever turned out to be a tool of control.
 
Total security from electronic surveillance is completely unattainable. There will always be a means to communicate outside of the government electronic drag nets. Even if they ban end to end encryption, not only will it be near impossible to enforce, it will also not stop people finding different encryption tools.

They already have everything they need. Billions of £ in resources, excellent training, updated laws that have voided centuries old rights that took wars to achieve.

It seems the more electronic snooping gadgets and tools the intelligence sector gets, the less real investigative work they actually do. Maybe it is time they stop farting around drag netting people sharing recipes over facebook and whatsapp and started targeting people who have malicious intent.

Only so much should be done in the name of security, I would rather have the risk of a terrorist attack hanging over me than have to live in a society where everything is over the top monitored and all the authorities are armed to the teeth at every biometric checkpoint. If it wasn't for the likes of clegg standing up for age old liberty and common sense, we could see an absolute ridiculous expansion of the police state. Of course by living in a police state society we are only allowing the terrorists to win and how is a society like that even worth fighting for?
 
I'd like to give some credit to David Cameron, I'd like to credit him with proposing the most ridiculous and stupid idea in relation to the modern world and countering terrorism.

So he'd like to see "backdoors" built into messaging apps, funny that's not the kind of backdoor I usually associate with public schoolboy Tories! He may as well have said that part of the new Conservative manifesto will be to stop rain falling in the UK between the months of May and September, he's actually got a more realistic chance of sticking to that than outlawing or neutering inter personal messaging.

This is of course for our own good, don't doubt that for one moment, in one fell swoop it will put and end to international terrorism, oh yes it will...

Because let's face it there were no acts of terrorism before we had mobile phones and the internet, oh no lord absolutely not, all those bombings and hijackings were all just random un coordinated acts of violence with no planning or thought behind them, it's only since the inception of the internet and modern communications that we the public have become endangered and frail.

If we choose to ignore the fact that the problem of terrorism will not simply cease with the removal or adulteration of any method of communication shall we ask if it's even possible ? Well if the government make it illegal to use such apps then of course it's possible right? erm nope, have you ever downloaded a file be it music, movie or software, if you haven't do you know someone who has ? I'll bet you do, and that's all legal and above board with total backing from the government isn't it? the software which enables downloading is freely available, all the filters the government forced ISP's to put into place are worthless and pointless, so it will be with encrypted messaging in regards to preventing acts of terrorism.

Writing software for modern day computers and mobile phones is as simple and straightforward to today's modern coder as 1+1 if a terrorist group wished to find a method of sharing global communication which was not privy to any government interception or decryption they will! the only people who will truly be subject to any intrusion by the government will be people like us, plain old Joe public and of course the rhetoric will be "If you're doing nothing wrong then you have nothing to hide!" to which I'd answer "If I'm doing nothing wrong then must I be monitored?"

This isn't about tin foil hats and paranoia, big brother isn't just watching he's listening and now he wants to read too, I don't care that it's David Cameron is bringing this matter to the table, I don't care if it's Tories, Labour or Mickey Mouse and his big band parade, it's not about political alignment it's simply come down to looking out for one another before we allow ourselves to reach a point where we are no longer able to speak freely or to think openly.
 
Terrorism creates a fraction of the casualities/injuries related to gang violence and its effects are greatly exaggerated.
I would not give up my freedom, including the right to privacy, to prevent it.
 
I sort of understand the premise that a method of commutation whereby even with a warrant it can't be intercepted could be detrimental to national security.
 
I think people get a bit carried away here. It's not 'mass surveillance' in the sense that we'd understand it to be.

20 years ago for example with the appropriate court warrant the authorities could listen to every phone call we made, read any letters we sent. This was the extent of 99% of peoples communications. So, for all intents and purposes, everything we said to others remotely could, if the right person could convince a judge that we were reasonable suspects of various offences, be read by somebody else.

Fast forward 20 years.

Nobody really uses land lines to call mates. Nobody sends letters. The methods we use to communicate have shifted. But the powers have not. The ideas being tabled, IMHO in a rather bungled and badly explained fashion, seek to update the powers to give them the equivalent of what they had 20 years ago but no longer have now. Backed up by a solid legal system and the requirement for warrants etc, it's not quite the surveillance state referred to in the above reddit post.

Politicians are not experts in this sort of stuff. They seek advice from those who are - legally and technically. Sadly what has happened here is we have politicians knee-jerking around subjects they do not understand. Which leads to the PM saying stupid things and the media running ridiculous stories about how sending cat pictures via WhatsApp is going to be made illegal.

We trusted our authorities not to use the legal powers they had to intercept mail and tap telephones 20+ years ago to use those powers for political gain. And they didn't do this. Nobody in the UK was made to vanish because they said they were going to vote Labour on the phone in the late 80's. Provided we can still trust the authorities in this country not to use such powers for things as perversely wrong as silencing those who wouldn't vote for them or whatever, then how is it different?

Yes, such powers in certain countries would undoubtedly lead to big problems for the citizens of that country. But then the ability to tap phones and read letters lead to big problems for citizens of certain countries throughout the last 50 years - though not ours.

The story here is the annoying habit our politicians have of speaking out before they've actually bothered to look into something and the amazing habit our media has of blowing everything out of all proportion. Not that suddenly people are going to vanish in the night because they support UKIP and tell mates about it over Whatsapp.

I know it's really trendy and hipster to beleive our government is evil, it's all a sinister plot, etc etc, but we do live in a country where we can be reasonably certain of privacy. The police couldn't care less that you might tell your mate you copied his DVD last night or that you hate David Cameron. I don't think we realise quite how lucky we are to live in a country like ours.
 
Last edited:
I dont have an issue with the authorities being able to get a warrant to intercept communications.. frankly as the NSA etc have proved if you're serious enough you're probably being watched already anyway.

What I do have an issue with is this nonsense about having nothing to hide.

Tens of years ago you would have had something to hide if you were gay.

A few more you'd have something to hide if you were a person of colour who thought you should be treated equally.

Before that? A woman wanting the vote.

Etc etc etc.. times change, what someone thinks is "nothing to hide" nowadays might be normal tomorrow (I'd say a good example is the sweeping legalisation of various currently illegal drugs) so I think saying you have nothing to hide is a sloppy way of saying you agree with the rules as they currently stand.

I can't even begin to think what useful info the govt could get from retaining tons of our communication data anyway, and I don't believe the suggestion is they would actually read any of it anyway.

Point is this isn't how you deal with the problem (in my opinion).. how did you mum always tell you to deal with bullys?

IGNORE THEM!

Don't be having mass rallies, don't be sending 10000 troops to the streets as they are in france.. don't increase the amount of armed police as I believe we're about to.

Hard as it is to stomach you say its terrible.. you mourn the loss.. you punish the culprit.. then move on.

Terrorism seeks to create an environment of fear and to inconvenience people to ensure the dialogue the terrorist want is top of the list..

Looks like they won.
 
Last edited:
If our great grandfathers who fought and died in the war for our freedom could see how easly we now just give them away under the flimest excuse of protection from terriorism not only would they **** themselves laughing I think they would also be a tad dissapointed
what we do or say is none of the goverments business and nor should it ever be
 
What I do have an issue with is this nonsense about having nothing to hide.

Agree - regardless of the threats we should have an absolute expectation of privacy if we are not involved in anything nefarious. But the system as is takes this into account (and I am personally against any parts of it which do not) by requiring a court order in order to access any information. So, the authorities can't just go randomly digging around into peoples private lives for no good reason and neither should they be able to.
 
Back
Top Bottom