.... the worry is not so much a police state but more a consumer dystopia ...... google and amazon using your entire online history to control what you see and what you buy ......
And people throwing that comment about is as lazy as anything else.
Most people don't have anything to be concerned about with regards to this, and that is a fact.
If you have got something to hide, then hide it. We all know anything we put online can be potentially found, and in years gone by similar complaints were made about whatever powers were in place.
I expect many Americans were very concerned to discover their government was violating the constitution by secretly recording their phone calls.
Everyone should be concerned by the security revelations. They reveal an unprecedented level of intrusion into people's personal lives by our own government and others. I don't see how any reasonable person would be ok with any of that.
Realism allows people to understand that this doesn't affect them in real life.
Not true.
The fact is, if people think they are under surveillance and being monitored, even if they are not doing anything illegal, they self censor, cut down or stop criticising authority for example just in case. That has major implications for free speech and freedom of expression.
I have no problem with data being gathered provided it is targeted, a warrant is obtained and procedures are followed properly because the target is suspected of a crime. But no government should have the power for blanket widespread monitoring and surveillance of it's law abiding citizens "just in case they are criminals". How on Earth can anyone argue that is not treating all citizens as potential criminals is beyond me. The fact the data mining is initially done by complex computer algorithms makes zero difference in that respect.
And both the NSA and GCHQ have been reported to have gathered such information on opponents and activists, and attempted to use that information to try and discredit their critics and to discredit political activists.
For me it's simple. It's because I'm far more likely to be the victim of a terrorist attack, than be arrested for anything I might see, do or write on-line or in an e-mail. If it were the other way round, I'd probably feel differently. Call me naive, but I genuinely feel that as I don't have anything to hide, this new law can only help me, not hinder me.
Actually, you're statistically more likely to be accidentally killed (let alone arrested) by the Police than by a terrorist attack.
Actually, you're statistically more likely to be accidentally killed (let alone arrested) by the Police than by a terrorist attack.
Way some of the drive, I believe it, but do the stats show that you're more likely to be wrongly arrested for plotting terrorism than being a victim of a terrorist attack? That's the one that interests me.
Way some of the drive, I believe it, but do the stats show that you're more likely to be wrongly arrested for plotting terrorism than being a victim of a terrorist attack? That's the one that interests me.
These are 2009 numbers, but doubt they'll have changed much:
In the UK since 9\11 1,471 people have been arrested for terror offences, of those 13% have been convicted, so that's 1280 people wrongly arrested for terror offences since 9\11.
In the same time period the number of people killed by terror attacks in the UK is 53 (with 700 injured).
So yes, statistically, you're more likely to be wrongly arrested for plotting a terror attack than to be involved in one (though skin colour may play a part there).
These are 2009 numbers, but doubt they'll have changed much:
In the UK since 9\11 1,471 people have been arrested for terror offences, of those 13% have been convicted, so that's 1280 people wrongly arrested for terror offences since 9\11.
In the same time period the number of people killed by terror attacks in the UK is 53 (with 700 injured).
So yes, statistically, you're more likely to be wrongly arrested for plotting a terror attack than to be involved in one (though skin colour may play a part there).
Just because an arrested person is not convicted does not mean they were wrongly arrested. That is a bizarre comment to make.
Across the board, a large number of people arrested are not convicted. Arrest is part of an investigative process, and an arrest has to be based on reasonable suspicion.
And people throwing that comment about is as lazy as anything else.
Most people don't have anything to be concerned about with regards to this, and that is a fact.
If you have got something to hide, then hide it. We all know anything we put online can be potentially found, and in years gone by similar complaints were made about whatever powers were in place.
Shite
It has just been released that compromising photos that have been intercepted routinely get shared around by NSA employees. I would be willing to bet the same goes on in GCHQ.
That is just one example of what innocent people have to fear. Only the intended recipient has any right to see such photos.
It has just been released that compromising photos that have been intercepted routinely get shared around by NSA employees. I would be willing to bet the same goes on in GCHQ.
That is just one example of what innocent people have to fear. Only the intended recipient has any right to see such photos.
Stuff such as this is a breach of what the regulations are for, if it happens, and it probably does on a small scale. That is nothing to do with being a police state etc though.
If someone puts compromising photos online, they should realise that potentially others will be able to see them.
No doubt people working for the companies concerned can access private stuff too.
These things are a breach of employment regulations, not a police state watching what we're all doing.
Stuff such as this is a breach of what the regulations are for, if it happens, and it probably does on a small scale. That is nothing to do with being a police state etc though.
If someone puts compromising photos online, they should realise that potentially others will be able to see them.
No doubt people working for the companies concerned can access private stuff too.
These things are a breach of employment regulations, not a police state watching what we're all doing.
Those things prove that the standard government line about 'strict controls' over access to the data is a crock of shite.
Those things prove that the standard government line about 'strict controls' over access to the data is a crock of shite.
You could say that about anywhere where people have access to stuff. Strict guidelines do apply, but if a worker ignores those guidelines, as Snowden has, things don't work as they should.
That is far removed from your claims of a police state though.
The fact is, if people think they are under surveillance and being monitored, even if they are not doing anything illegal, they self censor, cut down or stop criticising authority for example just in case. That has major implications for free speech and freedom of expression.
I have no problem with data being gathered provided it is targeted, a warrant is obtained and procedures are followed properly because the target is suspected of a crime. But no government should have the power for blanket widespread monitoring and surveillance of it's law abiding citizens "just in case they are criminals". How on Earth can anyone argue that is not treating all citizens as potential criminals is beyond me. The fact the data mining is initially done by complex computer algorithms makes zero difference in that respect.
And both the NSA and GCHQ have been reported to have gathered such information on opponents and activists, and attempted to use that information to try and discredit their critics and to discredit political activists.
I don't trust GCHQ and the NSA one miniscule bit. I knew you wouldn't get a reply to what you've typed above. I honestly don't know how GCHQ gets away with some of the things they do. After seeing what the last one stands for, no surprise as to why they're getting away with it.
I don't trust GCHQ and the NSA one miniscule bit. I knew you wouldn't get a reply to what you've typed above. I honestly don't know how GCHQ gets away with some of the things they do. After seeing what the last one stands for, no surprise as to why they're getting away with it.
The real problem is the admitted gathering of data on political opponents and activists, even gathering reams of data on anti-capitalist demonstrators (not just those accused of violence or previously arrested), gathering data on investigative journalists, threatening those journalists or newspapers, gathering data (apparently) on anti HS2 campaigners, attempting to use data gathered to discredit activists and political opponents etc. etc. etc.
My worry is that this government has already branded some legal protest groups, such as Boycott Workfare, as extremists and have made plain their intention to block extremist sites and discussion forums. So I would not be in the least bit surprised if those who are actively involved in such anti cuts campaigns are under extensive monitoring at the moment.
As I said earlier, when people know or believe they are being monitored in such ways they cannot help but self censor themselves, particularly when it comes to anti-government or anti-authority views, and that is not good for freedom of speech.
Having read 1984 I can confirm that no, it really hasn't become a reality.
There is a world of difference between the real world where they will only ever look at something in a reactive way to something that has happened or may happen.
And Orwell's book where people were proactively controlled.
The UN is also concerned about various governments just rubber stamping new surveillance laws without proper transparency, scrutiny and controls in place:
Searching everyone's house once a week would probably help get guns off the streets and save many lives, that doesn't mean it's proportionate to treat everyone as a suspect to collar a minority though.
Same online. Why should everyone be treat as a suspect to find a tiny minority?
Interesting analogy but obviously it would never happen. If you were to make the analogy more in keeping with the government 'snooping' on everyone's internet and phone usage, it would mean the government would have the addresses of EVERY house in the UK but would only search those which they have good reason to. Obviously there aren't the resources to search every house, same as there aren't the resources to actually look at every person's internet history or phone call, it's only those which raise a flag that warrant any further investigation.
William Binney recently testified that the NSA records and stores at least 80% of all audio calls made in the US.
80% of 300+ million people's calls = billions of calls. There isn't the time or the resources to do anything with this information so why's it even a concern?
80% of 300+ million people's calls = billions of calls. There isn't the time or the resources to do anything with this information so why's it even a concern?
How do you know that there isn't the time or resources? They don't need to assign 300 million people to listen to the phone calls, they just need a computer program that can recognise speech and listen for specific keywords. Run 300 million instances of the program in a large server farm, a bit like the ones the NSA and GCHQ have and you can listen into every phone call at the same time.
They're welcome to my shite, Infact I will even tell them what I will be doing so they don't need to look.
On an average day I will hang around digitalspy, read emails from various company's telling me order before 8pm for 20% off.
Google information about something I've seen or heard during the day. Then maybe once a week or so I view a bit of porn, maybe watch a movie trailer . That's about it.
How do you know that there isn't the time or resources? They don't need to assign 300 million people to listen to the phone calls, they just need a computer program that can recognise speech and listen for specific keywords. Run 300 million instances of the program in a large server farm, a bit like the ones the NSA and GCHQ have and you can listen into every phone call at the same time.
So what's the concern with computer searching through calls looking for key words?
We're not talking a real individual listening to another individual's calls, we're talking a computer monitoring billions of calls. Still not getting why this should worry anyone?
Comments
For me, it depends on what the purpose is and the conditions under which they are being kept.
Besides, it's not like an NSA agent is leaking these phone calls onto YouTube.
I expect many Americans were very concerned to discover their government was violating the constitution by secretly recording their phone calls.
Everyone should be concerned by the security revelations. They reveal an unprecedented level of intrusion into people's personal lives by our own government and others. I don't see how any reasonable person would be ok with any of that.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Human-Rights-Philip-Hoyle-ebook/dp/B00LJAYXAS/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1405341358&sr=8-1&keywords=human+rights+philip+hoyle
Not true.
The fact is, if people think they are under surveillance and being monitored, even if they are not doing anything illegal, they self censor, cut down or stop criticising authority for example just in case. That has major implications for free speech and freedom of expression.
I have no problem with data being gathered provided it is targeted, a warrant is obtained and procedures are followed properly because the target is suspected of a crime. But no government should have the power for blanket widespread monitoring and surveillance of it's law abiding citizens "just in case they are criminals". How on Earth can anyone argue that is not treating all citizens as potential criminals is beyond me. The fact the data mining is initially done by complex computer algorithms makes zero difference in that respect.
And both the NSA and GCHQ have been reported to have gathered such information on opponents and activists, and attempted to use that information to try and discredit their critics and to discredit political activists.
Actually, you're statistically more likely to be accidentally killed (let alone arrested) by the Police than by a terrorist attack.
Not phone calls, just nude photos.
Ouch. Yeah, that's not good.
These are 2009 numbers, but doubt they'll have changed much:
In the UK since 9\11 1,471 people have been arrested for terror offences, of those 13% have been convicted, so that's 1280 people wrongly arrested for terror offences since 9\11.
In the same time period the number of people killed by terror attacks in the UK is 53 (with 700 injured).
So yes, statistically, you're more likely to be wrongly arrested for plotting a terror attack than to be involved in one (though skin colour may play a part there).
Just because an arrested person is not convicted does not mean they were wrongly arrested. That is a bizarre comment to make.
Across the board, a large number of people arrested are not convicted. Arrest is part of an investigative process, and an arrest has to be based on reasonable suspicion.
Shite
It has just been released that compromising photos that have been intercepted routinely get shared around by NSA employees. I would be willing to bet the same goes on in GCHQ.
That is just one example of what innocent people have to fear. Only the intended recipient has any right to see such photos.
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140717/11505227920/snowden-says-nsa-employees-routinely-passed-around-naked-photos-that-had-been-intercepted.shtml
"Snowden says" "I would be willing to bet".
Stuff such as this is a breach of what the regulations are for, if it happens, and it probably does on a small scale. That is nothing to do with being a police state etc though.
If someone puts compromising photos online, they should realise that potentially others will be able to see them.
No doubt people working for the companies concerned can access private stuff too.
These things are a breach of employment regulations, not a police state watching what we're all doing.
Those things prove that the standard government line about 'strict controls' over access to the data is a crock of shite.
You could say that about anywhere where people have access to stuff. Strict guidelines do apply, but if a worker ignores those guidelines, as Snowden has, things don't work as they should.
That is far removed from your claims of a police state though.
I don't trust GCHQ and the NSA one miniscule bit. I knew you wouldn't get a reply to what you've typed above. I honestly don't know how GCHQ gets away with some of the things they do. After seeing what the last one stands for, no surprise as to why they're getting away with it.
The real problem is the admitted gathering of data on political opponents and activists, even gathering reams of data on anti-capitalist demonstrators (not just those accused of violence or previously arrested), gathering data on investigative journalists, threatening those journalists or newspapers, gathering data (apparently) on anti HS2 campaigners, attempting to use data gathered to discredit activists and political opponents etc. etc. etc.
My worry is that this government has already branded some legal protest groups, such as Boycott Workfare, as extremists and have made plain their intention to block extremist sites and discussion forums. So I would not be in the least bit surprised if those who are actively involved in such anti cuts campaigns are under extensive monitoring at the moment.
As I said earlier, when people know or believe they are being monitored in such ways they cannot help but self censor themselves, particularly when it comes to anti-government or anti-authority views, and that is not good for freedom of speech.
There is a world of difference between the real world where they will only ever look at something in a reactive way to something that has happened or may happen.
And Orwell's book where people were proactively controlled.
The UN is also concerned about various governments just rubber stamping new surveillance laws without proper transparency, scrutiny and controls in place:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-28367982
80% of 300+ million people's calls = billions of calls. There isn't the time or the resources to do anything with this information so why's it even a concern?
How do you know that there isn't the time or resources? They don't need to assign 300 million people to listen to the phone calls, they just need a computer program that can recognise speech and listen for specific keywords. Run 300 million instances of the program in a large server farm, a bit like the ones the NSA and GCHQ have and you can listen into every phone call at the same time.
Oh...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-28162273
Shit
On an average day I will hang around digitalspy, read emails from various company's telling me order before 8pm for 20% off.
Google information about something I've seen or heard during the day. Then maybe once a week or so I view a bit of porn, maybe watch a movie trailer . That's about it.
So what's the concern with computer searching through calls looking for key words?
We're not talking a real individual listening to another individual's calls, we're talking a computer monitoring billions of calls. Still not getting why this should worry anyone?