Government citizen surveilance program

[Destination]

Keep your own child safe, why is it down to anyone else?

Are you being ridiculous?
Protect my own child from the threat of a dissident republican bomb?

Just how the £&£& would I do that if they bomb a town centre?

 

[spoffle]

Are you being ridiculous?
Protect my own child from the threat of a dissident republican bomb?

Just how the £&£& would I do that if they bomb a town centre?

Ahh, I didn't realise you were talking about government issued bomb proof shields. My mistake, sorry for being so ridiculous.

 

[Destination]

Intelligence can prevent attacks, lead to arrests before they happen, stop things before they occur. Proactive defence rather than reactionary rebuilding. I'd rather the were no bombings at all.
If this involves investigating those who need investigated then do it.
Clearly this needs guidance and oversight, but so far the gield seems split between, i don't want them spying in anyone versus I don't care who you spy upon.

It is t about bomb proof shields, and the only reason I referenced dissidents, who are not a threat to the overall UK security, is because it is local, it is a threat that hasn't gone away, and it doesn't change this thread into another, omfg its the muslims thread.

 

[phill1978]

You are correct it's also about the people who are planning on doing things or have done things that they can therefore protect the rest of us from. Hence why I still like the idea.

So do I. It's just it has to be carried out more transparently and with proper oversight.

nothing radical here. You like your way of life here in the west? well lets keep it as free as possible as that is what makes us better.

 

[Amp34]

Intelligence can prevent attacks, lead to arrests before they happen, stop things before they occur. Proactive defence rather than reactionary rebuilding. I'd rather the were no bombings at all.
If this involves investigating those who need investigated then do it.
Clearly this needs guidance and oversight, but so far the gield seems split between, i don't want them spying in anyone versus I don't care who you spy upon.

It is t about bomb proof shields, and the only reason I referenced dissidents, who are not a threat to the overall UK security, is because it is local, it is a threat that hasn't gone away, and it doesn't change this thread into another, omfg its the muslims thread.

You do realise the significant reduction in terrorist incidents in the UK in the last 15 years has not been because of more draconian monitoring of the web, rather a byproduct of the peace process, right?

And let's also remember there was no wholesale listening of all telephone called in Ireland when the troubles were at their peak. Police still needed a warrant (as they still do now) to wiretap and get other information regarding phone calls. Why should the Internet be any different?

I keep asking that question yet you haven't given an answer to it. Why are there two sets of rules, one for more traditional methods of communication and the other for modern methods?

 

[phill1978]

but so far the gield seems split between, i don't want them spying in anyone versus I don't care who you spy upon.

Not what I was saying, so you need to read a bit more carefully.

I think that there is a definite need, stopping threats is an absolute priority so long as its to protect the actual citizenry

but if you read the leaks and see how far reaching it has gone then you can see that regulation, checks and balances are needed. Even the elected government and the non elected MP's of other parties have been supposedly quite shocked at how far its gone .. i.e these organisations were setup and run at a level outside of their day to day knowledge and long before they got into power or joined politics.

Think about that, most of the political establishment right down at a local level has no idea.

Also think about how your voting decisions effect how safe your child is, the more war the more retaliation .. its not rocket science.

 

[Xordium]

Your idea of safety is throw them into the care of some utterly diabolical LA/council workers who turn a blind eye to children in their care getting raped?.

That's ironic - who was doing the rapin' asim18?

 

[GarethSouthgate]

Is Internet traffic ever going to be secure? Can't/don't they just tap the undersea fibre cables?

 

[Mynight]

Is Internet traffic ever going to be secure? Can't/don't they just tap the undersea fibre cables?

Yeah they can always get the data but it's the encryption that matters.

 

[Amp34]

Is Internet traffic ever going to be secure? Can't/don't they just tap the undersea fibre cables?

It's why many companies are now instigating https as standard (Google etc.). And/or organisations are using encrypted VPNs. Not that the security services are best pleased again...

At the rate things are currently going the security services/governments have three options:

1. Secret Subpoenas for major companies to force them to weaken their software (have a history of this)
2. Ban encryption and VPNs
3. Get an actual warrant for any information they need, like in the real world...

Obviously they'll try try 1 and 2 first before potentially changing the law to remove the need for warrants full stop...

 

[spoffle]

That's ironic - who was doing the rapin' asim18?

Ironic? Also he's talking about government (council) employees being somewhat complicit in those situations.

 

[Xordium]

Ironic?

Yes someone who is an apologist for those committing the crimes using the actions of those who were complicit in the coverup is ironic.

 

[spoffle]

Yes someone who is an apologist for those committing the crimes using the actions of those who were complicit in the coverup is ironic.

Yeah, no.

 

[asim18]

Yes someone who is an apologist for those committing the crimes using the actions of those who were complicit in the coverup is ironic.

Sorry to put it to you bluntly but I think you're suffering from delusions or you're just erm stupid.

Now go back to that quote which caused you to lose all rationality (or was it the poster, not the post?):

Your idea of safety is throw them into the care of some utterly diabolical LA/council workers who turn a blind eye to children in their care getting raped?

Tell me where am I defending anyone? Am I supporting anyone?

Why do you think the fact that I hold the failure of authorities with such hate is being apologetic for anyone?

If you actually think about it YOU'RE the one being apologetic for the bloody authorities by telling people they're not allowed to be angry at the authorities. You deluded hypocrite.

 

[FloppyPoppy]

I don't mind this i have nothing to hide

*puts couch over extremely lumpy part of carpet*

Nothing

 

[Xordium]

Tell me where am I defending anyone? Am I supporting anyone?

It's interesting you can't even see it.

 

[Amp34]

http://gu.com/p/4327g

New head of GCHQ speaks... Apparently we don't have a right to privacy... I think article 8 of the European convention of human rights may have something to say about that...

Privacy has never been “an absolute right”, according to the new director of GCHQ, who has used his first public intervention since taking over at the helm of Britain’s surveillance agency to accuse US technology companies of becoming “the command and control networks of choice” for terrorists.

And he then goes on to basically say the Internet is owned by the west (I assume the western governments)

Hannigan asserts that the members of the public “know” the internet grew out of the values of western democracy and insists that customers of the technology firms he criticises would be “comfortable with a better, more sustainable relationship between the agencies and the technology companies.”

Who said we could have a free and fair internet?

Among the advocates of privacy protection who reacted to Hannigan’s comments, the deputy director of Privacy International, Eric King, said: “It’s disappointing to see GCHQ’s new director refer to the internet – the greatest tool for innovation, access to education and communication humankind has ever known – as a command-and-control network for terrorists.”

King added: “Before he condemns the efforts of companies to protect the privacy of their users, perhaps he should reflect on why there has been so much criticism of GCHQ in the aftermath of the Snowden revelations. GCHQ’s dirty games – forcing companies to handover their customers’ data under secret orders, then secretly tapping the private fibre optic cables between the same companies’ data centres anyway – have lost GCHQ the trust of the public, and of the companies who services we use. Robert Hannigan is right, GCHQ does need to enter the public debate about privacy - but attacking the internet isn’t the right way to do it.”

Hear hear!

As usual the favourite tactic is wheeled out. Be afraid of the bogeyman. You don't need privacy, we are here to protect you...

 

[OhEsEcks]

So they've switched up a gear from "won't anyone think of the children!" they were going for with the whole porn filter thing to "you have nothing to hide, unless you're a terrorist!".

 

[asim18]

And he then goes on to basically say the Internet is owned by the west (I assume the western governments)

Yep. Just as I predicted. The internet has/will be taken over.

However at the end of the day this is all inevitable. The internet is just another tool they can use to help them control and rule the world.

Internet - Seized
Privacy - Seized

Truly sad times and a landmark in the historic race for world dominance. The rate of western-governmental seize and control operations has been increasing exponentially. This will end terribly.

 

[asim18]

New head of GCHQ speaks... Apparently we don't have a right to privacy...

You have to think though, could this puppet really be allowed or instructed to say anything to the contrary? If he could it would be akin to Richard Branson telling us we shouldn't have a right to use trains or planes.