Government citizen surveilance program

[AdladUK]

Has the "if you have nothing to fear" argument been used yet?

I'm not one for physical violence, but I think if someone said that to me in real life I'd have to be physically restrained. Such a narrow-minded and rather insulting way of looking at things.

Makes you wonder though how the GCHQ came to be, let alone how it achieved so much unquestioned power. They remind me of HYDRA from Captain America

 

[scorza]

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...

The sooner we repeal the human rights act the better imo.

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

Alternatively it's pretty much accepted that groups like Islamic State use the internet incredibly effectively and represent an existential threat to people in the UK and other countries. I'm quite happy to forgo my right to privacy to a reasonable extent* if it means we can tackle groups like the Islamic State more effectively.

* by reasonable I mean having my personal data examined by the security services not a doxxing type event.

 

[estebanrey]

I'd love to be Robert Hannigan's postman. I'd open all his mail before putting through his door and when he complained I'd say "Well no one has the right to absolute privacy...besides if you've got nothing to hide an all that.."

Also rather funny that an agency whose entire business is secrecy and spends billions hiding and protecting it's activities is lecturing everyone else on the importance of transparency.

 

[phill1978]

And this is part of what happens at a lower level

http://www.cnet.com/news/cop-charge...iphone/?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=twitter


then lets say the pics go onto the internet and then your stuffed (if your into using your phone like that). This comes from a warrant less cultures within personal data.. I guess it wont be long before we have that sort of case in the UK.

btw that’s the top story on reddit so people do care about this.

Just don’t go thinking anything you do on your phones and tablets is your data and yours only.. it's not.

 

[phill1978]

The sooner we repeal the human rights act the better imo.
.

You have been brainwashed into believing that its a really bad thing to have down to a few stories run by certain political parties that have an agenda, you have sucked it all up. Yes anything can be abused but we don't just chuck them in the bin..


PS your human too ...

 

[robgmun]

Repealling the EU human rights act doesn't mean we'd be left without any human rights at all, or is that what you mistaking actually believe? We'd have our own Human rights act that suits the UK to replace it.

 

[phill1978]

Repealling the EU human rights act doesn't mean we'd be left without any human rights at all, or is that what you mistaking actually believe? We'd have our own Human rights act that suits the UK to replace it.

I think your very naive.

 

[robgmun]

I think your very naive.

I think you've been brainwashed by the big 3 parties into believing leaving the EU is the end of the world

 

[phill1978]

I think you've been brainwashed by the big 3 parties into believing leaving the EU is the end of the world

Actually there is no win by being in and no win by being out. Its a lot more complicated than that. We need trade, that’s what farrage has said recently but not all of the laws.. but then you can't pick and choose everything. Are we too deep in Europe = Yes.

Im not anti UKIP. But if there going to use liberalism just to suit themselves and not the people then I wont be voting for them. There isn’t a party out there (other than the greens and they don't know how money works) that support pulling away from corporate hegemony and supporting the elites and their surveillance state + wars. We are literally burning UK peoples money supporting these expensive tax burdens and tax avoiders, I don’t see UKIP changing that which means a worse deal for you and a split two tear rich / poor Britain.

Rob post me some information to the contrary in the UKIP thread, i don’t want this one derailing.. im open minded but im not into knee jerk political jingoism

 

[Longbow]

Repealling the EU human rights act doesn't mean we'd be left without any human rights at all, or is that what you mistaking actually believe? We'd have our own Human rights act that suits the UK to replace it.

Laws like section 44 of the terrorism act? I don't really think I trust the UK government to come up with a fair human rights law.

 

[phill1978]

Laws like section 44 of the terrorism act? I don't really think I thrust the UK government to come up with a fair human rights law.

They wont and there will be no appeal.

 

[scorza]

And this is part of what happens at a lower level

http://www.cnet.com/news/cop-charge...iphone/?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=twitter

Someone illegally violated someone's privacy and is being prosecuted - what's the problem here?

then lets say the pics go onto the internet and then your stuffed (if your into using your phone like that). This comes from a warrant less cultures within personal data.. I guess it wont be long before we have that sort of case in the UK.

btw that’s the top story on reddit so people do care about this.

Why would the security services having the right to intercept your data mean that it goes on the internet?

I do have to wonder how many redditors who are all like "omg state invading my privacy" were quite happy to look at photos from the fappening.

Just don’t go thinking anything you do on your phones and tablets is your data and yours only.. it's not.

Agreed, I always assume anything I send on the internet is read by Chinese army official.

You have been brainwashed into believing that its a really bad thing to have down to a few stories run by certain political parties that have an agenda, you have sucked it all up. Yes anything can be abused but we don't just chuck them in the bin..


PS your human too ...

You've been brainwashed into believing that state invasion of privacy is a bigger threat to our way of life than terrorism or other non-friendly countries. It isn't. In the information age properly managed surveillance is more necessary now than ever.

How did I ever cope before the Human Rights Act was signed into law in the year 2000...

 

[Amp34]

I'd love to be Robert Hannigan's postman. I'd open all his mail before putting through his door and when he complained I'd say "Well no one has the right to absolute privacy...besides if you've got nothing to hide an all that.."

Also rather funny that an agency whose entire business is secrecy and spends billions hiding and protecting it's activities is lecturing everyone else on the importance of transparency.

Now do as I say, not what I do!

 

[phill1978]

Snipz.

We will just have to agree to disagree on some points. Is the point is it was illegal in the US and its going to become legal here? or is it that the police are struggling to understand what they can and cant access?

Im talking about the potential abuse of this power at every level of government. So, your not going to convince me that its wrong to look out for the bad guys to protect our streets .. because as I have posted maaany times, I agree with you.

But I don’t think this is black and white.

This is about proper oversight and governance. As said the majority of elected officials in this country didn’t and probably still don’t know what these agencies do ?! These are not private companies, these are public sector organisations like the NHS, Police, HMRC etc

I have seen some people tub thumping about paying the EU 1.7billion ? But then if i asked one of those people do they care how much tax revenue and spending is used on these agencies and for them to show me a report of how effective they are its:

" i don’t care just let them keep me safe even though the roads are crap and the NHS is crap and the legal system is falling apart and children’s services are crap"

simply put:

Proper 3rd party oversight.
Rules to stop abuses of power.
FOI on success rates.
Tax spending.

Im paying for this lot and I want to see what good they are doing, I will vote on the strength of good public spending and properly regulated authorities.


btw sorry if that’s dull and not some sort of tinfoiley wacky statement about 1984

 

[MookJong]

Governments come and go but the security services are always sitting there in the background.

Their actions are never talked about at election times and manifestos will mention defence in relation to our armed forces but never the IS.

They are meant to be there to protect our democracy but they don't really operate in a way we can have any say over, it is a strange and complex situation.

 

[Burnsy2023]

Laws like section 44 of the terrorism act? I don't really think I thrust the UK government to come up with a fair human rights law.

This was a very poorly written bit of legislation that needed to be repealed. I think this was a case the the ECHR really did need to rule against the UK Gov.

 

[scorza]

We will just have to agree to disagree on some points. Is the point is it was illegal in the US and its going to become legal here? or is it that the police are struggling to understand what they can and cant access?

I'd be surprised if a police officer stealing nude photos from someone's phone will become legal behaviour any time soon. We still have the Computer Misuse Act.

Im talking about the potential abuse of this power at every level of government. So, your not going to convince me that its wrong to look out for the bad guys to protect our streets .. because as I have posted maaany times, I agree with you.

But I don’t think this is black and white.

This is about proper oversight and governance. As said the majority of elected officials in this country didn’t and probably still don’t know what these agencies do ?! These are not private companies, these are public sector organisations like the NHS, Police, HMRC etc

I have seen some people tub thumping about paying the EU 1.7billion ? But then if i asked one of those people do they care how much tax revenue and spending is used on these agencies and for them to show me a report of how effective they are its:

" i don’t care just let them keep me safe even though the roads are crap and the NHS is crap and the legal system is falling apart and children’s services are crap"

simply put:

Proper 3rd party oversight.
Rules to stop abuses of power.
FOI on success rates.
Tax spending.

Im paying for this lot and I want to see what good they are doing, I will vote on the strength of good public spending and properly regulated authorities.


btw sorry if that’s dull and not some sort of tinfoiley wacky statement about 1984

I think that's all perfectly reasonable and I agree too - there needs to be all those things. I haven't seen anything to suggest those things won't be there however.

 

[phill1978]

I think that's all perfectly reasonable and I agree too - there needs to be all those things. I haven't seen anything to suggest those things won't be there however.

what irks me is the one dimensional argument tub thumping from both sides.. its either no surveillance or maximum intrusion for protection. And in the heat of the left right battle nobody stops to ask pragmatic questions around tax spending, governance, oversight ( proper 3rd party oversight, not Sir Digby Chicken Caesar the 3rd reporting back to Lord Turkey warbler the 4th) so nothing gets done about it.

But crucially the power the citizen has to be defended against the bad guys is as crucially limited in understanding as to what these services do in reverse to those citizens. Im sure intentions are mostly just, but without knowing more we are staring into a spending blackhole and that's my tax money.

 

[Amp34]

Agreed, I always assume anything I send on the internet is read by Chinese army official.

Personally I'd be less "worried" about the Chinese army intercepting my data than the British government. They are less likely to be able to do anything with it...

You've been brainwashed into believing that state invasion of privacy is a bigger threat to our way of life than terrorism or other non-friendly countries. It isn't. In the information age properly managed surveillance is more necessary now than ever.

How did I ever cope before the Human Rights Act was signed into law in the year 2000...

On the contrary, you appear to have been brainwashed into believing that Islamic fundamentalism is more dangerous than all the previous terrorist groups and that our civil liberties should be removed piece by piece to stop the possible threat of an retaliatory attack.

The fact our way of life is being eroded piece by piece by western governments means the "terrorists" are well on their way to winning.

TBH I've never been a fan of those in "power". The old adage "power corrupts" is true in my experience and so the less power they have the better. It's the reason we need due process, to help keep those in power on the straight and narrow. This due process just so happens to be what is being weakened and removed by those IN power now.

The BBC have picked up this story as well and have a good analysis of the issue for those interested.

But the companies say that while they are willing to co-operate, government surveillance must occur under a legal framework and with oversight, and they have pushed to be allowed to reveal more details about the amount of data they have handed over to government agencies.

...

Mr Hannigan calls for a "mature debate" on just how much privacy these firms should offer, but has yet to be specific on what restrictions he proposes.

And there in lies the problem. Warrants and due process, not secret others and gags. Unfortunately Mr Hannigan appears to follow the road created by his predecessors, a mature debate to him means they they do what they want and we don't get a say.

 

[Amp34]

I'd be surprised if a police officer stealing nude photos from someone's phone will become legal behaviour any time soon. We still have the Computer Misuse Act.



I think that's all perfectly reasonable and I agree too - there needs to be all those things. I haven't seen anything to suggest those things won't be there however.

Unfortunately they currently are not there and in fact the security services are actively discouraging the use of oversight and evidence to monitor them. There in lies the problem.