EU security proposals are 'dangerously authoritarian'

Wicksta said:
Do you have the facts/costings/proposals? If not then why are you continuing to argue?
Click to expand...

Does that matter in a thread speculating about the topic in hand?

None of us are "qualified" to make a judgement, but everyone is allowed an opinion.
 
Bubo said:
Like any rational person I would make a personal decision whether I want to break the law or not. Also I wouldn't be so selfish to assume just because I want to do something then everybody else has to bow down to me.
Click to expand...

.

But if you don't get the fact that the argument "I have done nothing wrong" or "if it catches criminals I'm all for it" are both fundamentally flawed by the single fact that the Government decides what is illegal for the supposed good of the people and one day you could be one of those who has done something wrong or is one of the criminals.

Perhaps if or when it happens you may be of a different opinion

Of course if for one moment you would make the mistake of thinking they do only have our best interests at heart go look at all the proposals to make MP's and Parliament exempt from the Freedom of Information act. Because that was done for the good of the people wasn't it? ;)

I suggest you scroll back up and re-read my Jefferson quote.

Wicksta said:
Sorry I'm confused now - are you bothered about this or not? Do you have the facts/costings/proposals? If not then why are you continuing to argue?
Click to expand...

I am arguing against the general erosion of our rights and civil liberties (and having vast amounts of data automatically stored and accessible by any Government agency is an erosion ) but I was agreeing with Dolph that the article posted in the OP being sans facts.
 
LordSplodge said:
I'll rather take the almost improbable risk of me or my family being involved in a Terrorist incident rather than have mine (and their) civil liberties eroded (and this is aimed at UK law not the one proposed by the EU but the point applies).

...

I'll also point out that none of these laws prevented the London bombings.
Click to expand...

It should be remembered that surveillance laws have stopped quite a few terror attacks in this country, including this one: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6195914.stm . Perhaps if we could establish who their targets would have been we could ask them if they'd prefer to have been blown up in this terrorist attack or have the sensible surveillance legislation in place that prevented this attack.

That the security services weren't able to stop the London bombings to me just illustrates what a difficult job it is and the need for greater assistance from the law. We shouldn't be making their job more difficult than it needs to be on the basis of complaints from a small but powerful civil rights lobby.
 
scorza said:
It should be remembered that surveillance laws have stopped quite a few terror attacks in this country, including this one: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6195914.stm .
Click to expand...

Using CCTV to catch criminals isnt the issue here, i'm pretty sure most people are more then happy for that to happen. Its when they use CCTV for other uses then catching crooks.

That the security services weren't able to stop the London bombings to me just illustrates what a difficult job it is and the need for greater assistance from the law. We shouldn't be making their job more difficult than it needs to be on the basis of complaints from a small but powerful civil rights lobby.
Click to expand...

And to do that we have to sacrifice our liberties? I don't think so.
 
scorza said:
It should be remembered that surveillance laws have stopped quite a few terror attacks in this country, including this one: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6195914.stm . Perhaps if we could establish who their targets would have been we could ask them if they'd prefer to have been blown up in this terrorist attack or have the sensible surveillance legislation in place that prevented this attack.

That the security services weren't able to stop the London bombings to me just illustrates what a difficult job it is and the need for greater assistance from the law.
Click to expand...

It should also be remembered that due to so called intelligence a lot of innocent people have had their houses raided and property seized in dawn raids.

It's about balance and correct use of surveillance. Correct use of CCTV and correct use of the Governments powers is fine by me as long as its use is monitored by a independent third party.

Without strict regulation you get councils using the RIP act to spy on dog walkers and parents!.

We shouldn't be making their job more difficult than it needs to be on the basis of complaints from a small but powerful civil rights lobby.
Click to expand...

Wrong. It is the peoples duty to question everything the Government does. It is the only way we can be sure they are acting in our interests rather than theirs.
 
scorza said:
It should be remembered that surveillance laws have stopped quite a few terror attacks in this country, including this one: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6195914.stm . Perhaps if we could establish who their targets would have been we could ask them if they'd prefer to have been blown up in this terrorist attack or have the sensible surveillance legislation in place that prevented this attack.
Click to expand...

It was not mass surveillance that helped with this though, but specific and targetted observation. I don't think anyone here is arguing that there should be no surveillance at all, but arguing that mass surveillance is unnecessary, draconian and incredibly expensive.

That the security services weren't able to stop the London bombings to me just illustrates what a difficult job it is and the need for greater assistance from the law. We shouldn't be making their job more difficult than it needs to be on the basis of complaints from a small but powerful civil rights lobby.
Click to expand...

It doesn't actually indicate anything of the sort though, the security services did not fail to stop it because they were restricted by law, they failed to stop it because they didn't realise it was going on. They did look at the suspects, but decided there was no reason to observe them.

There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that mass surveillance would have done anything to prevent the attacks, even mass surveillance requires some element of decision to check the actions of a specific individual.
 
Dolph said:
It was not mass surveillance that helped with this though, but specific and targetted observation.

I don't think anyone here is arguing that there should be no surveillance at all, but arguing that mass surveillance is unnecessary, draconian and incredibly expensive.



It doesn't actually indicate anything of the sort though, the security services did not fail to stop it because they were restricted by law, they failed to stop it because they didn't realise it was going on. They did look at the suspects, but decided there was no reason to observe them.

There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that mass surveillance would have done anything to prevent the attacks, even mass surveillance requires some element of decision to check the actions of a specific individual.
Click to expand...

Excellent post Dolph and points out very well the issues with mass surveillance.

However as I said in my previous post they have an equally poor record with targeted surveillance.
 
LordSplodge said:
Excellent post Dolph and points out very well the issues with mass surveillance.

However as I said in my previous post they have an equally poor record with targeted surveillance.
Click to expand...

Indeed, this is why it's important to (a) have an independant judicary and (b) require authorisation based on reasonable grounds by said independant judicary for this sort of thing.

It's also why we really need a properly written and binding constitution stating clearly what our rights are.
 
Interesting that of the things quoted in the OP:

Civil liberties groups say the proposals would create an EU ID card register, internet surveillance systems, satellite surveillance, automated exit-entry border systems operated by machines reading biometrics and risk profiling systems.

The UK already has:

1. "ID cards" - contracrt awarded and work under way
2. "Internet Surveillance Systems" - ask BT how they funded the 21CN and what concessions they had to make to their network for the Government as a result.
3. "Satellite Surveillance" - not much.... yet
4. "automated exit-entry border systems operated by machines reading biometrics and risk profiling systems" - not automated, but read up on the eBorders and IRIS programmes.
 
Dolph said:
It was not mass surveillance that helped with this though, but specific and targetted observation. I don't think anyone here is arguing that there should be no surveillance at all, but arguing that mass surveillance is unnecessary, draconian and incredibly expensive.
Click to expand...

The point is that in this case the convicted terrorists in this case had their privacy violated, and their property was confiscated by the state - all legally. It's like 1984 all over again! No doubt some in the civil rights lobby would say that they'd rather be blown up in an improbable terrorist attack than live in such a state, personally I wouldn't.

Wrt mass surveillance remember that CCTV helped enormously into the investigations of the July 7th attacks and the subsequent killing of Jean-Charles de Menezes. Use of CCTV in the latter proved beyond all doubt that the police's statement that Jean-Charles was wearing a suspicious, thick coat in the height of summer was wrong, plain and simple.

Dolph said:
It doesn't actually indicate anything of the sort though, the security services did not fail to stop it because they were restricted by law, they failed to stop it because they didn't realise it was going on. They did look at the suspects, but decided there was no reason to observe them.

There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that mass surveillance would have done anything to prevent the attacks, even mass surveillance requires some element of decision to check the actions of a specific individual.
Click to expand...

The security services knew about the July 7th bombers, but did not regard them as a priority for investigations. I support any reasonable changes to the law that empowers the security services to improve their judgement in such cases.
 
Teki187 said:
So were is our referendum?
Click to expand...

Most people in this country are so dim they can barely manage to operate a telephone to vote about Britains Got Brother III Get me Out of Here.

Do you really want them to vote on a document they've never read and wouldnt understand even if they did?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom