Surveillance happens in shops, in the streets, by retailers, police, health service, all all government departments who pay you anything and so on and so on.
All public places which is one thing.
What the government want now is more powers that enable indiscriminate snooping on emails and other private communications.
What the government want now is more powers that enable indiscriminate snooping on emails and other private communications.
Yes, would people and buisness like or agree that all letters that are posted, must be opened up and read by the state before being delieved to the people they are addressed too, Did the uk government used to complain and say how wrong other counties were wrong for doing this kind of thing
Really? Most shops now have cctv. They issue timed receipts for sales.
And are we expecting the shop owners to review all their cctv and consider reporting to the authorities anybody who purchases a knife in a sinister way ?
Doesn't matter if it's Facebook, Twitter, Openreach, Royal Mail, O2 etc etc, I wouldn't expect any of those companies to be monitoring my communications.
Now if the intelligence forces want to apply for a warrant to tap my phone, read my email or check my letters that's fine.
I have nothing to hide from the police, but I sure don't want to share my life with some minimum wage, random data clerk tasked with checking my communications just in case there is something to report to the police.
If we get to that point the terrorists will just apply for jobs in the comm's industry to cover their mates and gather intel. We'd have effectively gifted them their own branch of MI5!
Its a wonderful country having CCTV up your backside wherever you go, but that's not all, that wretched woman Teresa May wants further powers so that our liberties are further decreased! that's email, online chats, searches, forums, cell phones, will it ever end? >:(
The thing about the Home Office is that we got the same kind of thing from the Labour side - it seems our politicians are too lily-livered to say No to the security services. The sop of a war on terrorism is meaningless, we have had terrorism in this country for millennia - from Bodicca murdering the citizens of Chelmsford under the Roman Empire, Guido Fawkes and the Gun powder plot, to the Irish troubles and now Middle East terrorism. That is before you get to Militant Animal Rights terrorists who are not above murder. Terrorism has been around for a long time and will continue to do so. The way our rights to privacy are being eroded to make way for this war on terrorism is as clear an example of Benjamin Franklin's quote "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety"
Terrorists by definition want to dismantle the current political system in order to replace it with their own - by giving up liberty and privacy we are doing the dismantling for them!
And are we expecting the shop owners to review all their cctv and consider reporting to the authorities anybody who purchases a knife in a sinister way ?
Doesn't matter if it's Facebook, Twitter, Openreach, Royal Mail, O2 etc etc, I wouldn't expect any of those companies to be monitoring my communications.
Now if the intelligence forces want to apply for a warrant to tap my phone, read my email or check my letters that's fine.
I have nothing to hide from the police, but I sure don't want to share my life with some minimum wage, random data clerk tasked with checking my communications just in case there is something to report to the police.
If we get to that point the terrorists will just apply for jobs in the comm's industry to cover their mates and gather intel. We'd have effectively gifted them their own branch of MI5!
Government departments routinely search these sites and catch benefits cheats and people they want to locate.
The greatest threat to the UK public comes from the UK government. Using FUD to get the public to accept more and more encroachment upon their individual liberties which is actually making them less safe.
Nonsense, you have evidence of a known murderous individually who freely set up Facebook accounts and communicated about wanting to kill. So your argument falls flat on its face.
Terrorists by definition want to dismantle the current political system in order to replace it with their own - by giving up liberty and privacy we are doing the dismantling for them!
Well the rate at which people sign up to Facebook, Google and You Tube indicates they aren't concerned about their liberty or privacy as they give it away free to companies that aren't publicly accountable.
Nonsense, you have evidence of a known murderous individually who freely set up Facebook accounts and communicated about wanting to kill. So your argument falls flat on its face.
He wasn't murderous before he committed his murder
Well the rate at which people sign up to Facebook, Google and You Tube indicates they aren't concerned about their liberty or privacy as they give it away free to companies that aren't publicly accountable.
Except that when they sign up to any internet service they do not expect that PRIVATE messages between them and other users be subject to indiscriminate data collection by the state.
Would you expect the state to open your snail mail letters because they MIGHT be communications with terrorists? No, you would be up in arms. Why should email or private online messaging services be any different?
Pertinent question: If Facebook has a "moral duty" to report UK citizens breaking UK laws, should it also report LGBT people in countries where that is illegal?
Well the rate at which people sign up to Facebook, Google and You Tube indicates they aren't concerned about their liberty or privacy as they give it away free to companies that aren't publicly accountable.
1. But the degree of privacy they get on Facebook et al is generally within their own remit (check your privacy settings)
2. If you allow wide scale surveillance then it also increases the risk of people being caught up that have no interest in surveillance - and they will end up having to prove it. This is a complete reversal of the age old principle of being innocent until proven guilty.
3. The sheer volume of surveillance data is such that it will take time to actually sift through it to find what you need - such that by the time you have it is too late.
Doesn't matter if it's Facebook, Twitter, Openreach, Royal Mail, O2 etc etc, I wouldn't expect any of those companies to be monitoring my communications.
The point is some of those companies do already automatically monitor your messages and sites you visit to 'enhance your experience' by placing ads before you. The ad placed at the top of this page may be as a result of a google search or a website you may have visited.
The point is some of those companies do already automatically monitor your messages and sites you visit to 'enhance your experience' by placing ads before you. The ad placed at the top of this page may be as a result of a google search or a website you may have visited.
Which can be easily avoided using browser extensions.
Tell me, how does one avoid NSA/GCHQ interception of Internet traffic on it's route to it's destination? Short of unplugging the Internet, of course.
i suspect most commited terrorists have other ways of plotting theor crimes than via internet or social media.
Of course they do. Any half way competent criminal is not going to announce their plans on social media. If they are really smart, they will use anonymous burner phones that get used once and discarded. Impossible to trace.
He wasn't murderous before he committed his murder
He had murderous intent and considering these two were known to the authorities it indicates they had the freedom to travel & communicate, rather than the picture being painted of all our privacy being under threat.
Of course they do. Any half way competent criminal is not going to announce their plans on social media. If they are really smart, they will use anonymous burner phones that get used once and discarded. Impossible to trace.
They believe in being martyrs....the two in Woolwich weren't master criminals wanting to get away with their crime.
The thing about the Home Office is that we got the same kind of thing from the Labour side - it seems our politicians are too lily-livered to say No to the security services. The sop of a war on terrorism is meaningless, we have had terrorism in this country for millennia - from Bodicca murdering the citizens of Chelmsford under the Roman Empire, Guido Fawkes and the Gun powder plot, to the Irish troubles and now Middle East terrorism. That is before you get to Militant Animal Rights terrorists who are not above murder. Terrorism has been around for a long time and will continue to do so. The way our rights to privacy are being eroded to make way for this war on terrorism is as clear an example of Benjamin Franklin's quote "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety"
Terrorists by definition want to dismantle the current political system in order to replace it with their own - by giving up liberty and privacy we are doing the dismantling for them!
I agree 100% its just getting a little tiresome now and the public just let this crap happen time and time again! Labour were terrible for it I agree but Teresa May is just a horrendous person set out to take the rights of the public. That quote you gave is one of my favourites from Franklin! he was a great man who we could do with these days but I would guess he would be seen as terrorist himself these days with the views he had.
Which can be easily avoided using browser extensions.
Tell me, how does one avoid NSA/GCHQ interception of Internet traffic on it's route to it's destination? Short of unplugging the Internet, of course.
Think you need to wake up and smell the coffee...it was reporters who hacked peoples phones, it was others who put private naked pictures of celebs on the internet, it was a Russian website that people access to peoples webcams.
The suggestion being most people have no or simple passwords, Facebook and others exploit peoples inertia with their hit seeking adverts.
I agree 100% its just getting a little tiresome now and the public just let this crap happen time and time again! Labour were terrible for it I agree but Teresa May is just a horrendous person set out to take the rights of the public. That quote you gave is one of my favourites from Franklin! he was a great man who we could do with these days but I would guess he would be seen as terrorist himself these days with the views he had.
Here's a good quote that sums up your point about the scary levels of public acceptance of surveillance.
"Liberty cannot be preserved without general knowledge among the people."
John Adams
And another:
"Free people remember this maxim: we may acquire liberty but it is never recovered if once lost" Jean-Jacques Rousseau.
I agree 100% its just getting a little tiresome now and the public just let this crap happen time and time again! Labour were terrible for it I agree but Teresa May is just a horrendous person set out to take the rights of the public. That quote you gave is one of my favourites from Franklin! he was a great man who we could do with these days but I would guess he would be seen as terrorist himself these days with the views he had.
People in their droves are jumping at the chance to throw away their privacy...take a wander round You Tube...there are millions who want to put their life on full public view or want to point their phones at others and dump the footage on the internet for all to see.
The biggest threat to your privacy is probably yourself.
Think you need to wake up and smell the coffee...it was reporters who hacked peoples phones, it was others who put private naked pictures of celebs on the internet, it was a Russian website that people access to peoples webcams.
The suggestion being most people have no or simple passwords, Facebook and others exploit peoples inertia with their hit seeking adverts.
So I guess the documents released by Edward Snowden showing the extent of NSA interception of traffic and how it compromised major encryption protocols were lies? Is that why the US government is chasing him around the world?
I think it is you who needs to wake up and smell the coffee.
Comments
All public places which is one thing.
What the government want now is more powers that enable indiscriminate snooping on emails and other private communications.
Yes, would people and buisness like or agree that all letters that are posted, must be opened up and read by the state before being delieved to the people they are addressed too, Did the uk government used to complain and say how wrong other counties were wrong for doing this kind of thing
And are we expecting the shop owners to review all their cctv and consider reporting to the authorities anybody who purchases a knife in a sinister way ?
Doesn't matter if it's Facebook, Twitter, Openreach, Royal Mail, O2 etc etc, I wouldn't expect any of those companies to be monitoring my communications.
Now if the intelligence forces want to apply for a warrant to tap my phone, read my email or check my letters that's fine.
I have nothing to hide from the police, but I sure don't want to share my life with some minimum wage, random data clerk tasked with checking my communications just in case there is something to report to the police.
If we get to that point the terrorists will just apply for jobs in the comm's industry to cover their mates and gather intel. We'd have effectively gifted them their own branch of MI5!
The thing about the Home Office is that we got the same kind of thing from the Labour side - it seems our politicians are too lily-livered to say No to the security services. The sop of a war on terrorism is meaningless, we have had terrorism in this country for millennia - from Bodicca murdering the citizens of Chelmsford under the Roman Empire, Guido Fawkes and the Gun powder plot, to the Irish troubles and now Middle East terrorism. That is before you get to Militant Animal Rights terrorists who are not above murder. Terrorism has been around for a long time and will continue to do so. The way our rights to privacy are being eroded to make way for this war on terrorism is as clear an example of Benjamin Franklin's quote "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety"
Terrorists by definition want to dismantle the current political system in order to replace it with their own - by giving up liberty and privacy we are doing the dismantling for them!
They did indeed and they included my father my uncles and aunts and many others in my family.
We were under surveillance, they had to shop at particular shops where they were registered. I still have my identity card.
Parts of the country were sealed up and people were arrested and locked up routinely.
Government departments routinely search these sites and catch benefits cheats and people they want to locate.
No it is not....if by chance a telephone operator heard a phone conversation where people planning to kill people....
1) Should the perpetrators rights to privacy be protected they be allowed to carry out murder?
or
2) Or should the operator inform the authorities to prevent a murder?
Nonsense, you have evidence of a known murderous individually who freely set up Facebook accounts and communicated about wanting to kill. So your argument falls flat on its face.
Well the rate at which people sign up to Facebook, Google and You Tube indicates they aren't concerned about their liberty or privacy as they give it away free to companies that aren't publicly accountable.
Except that when they sign up to any internet service they do not expect that PRIVATE messages between them and other users be subject to indiscriminate data collection by the state.
Would you expect the state to open your snail mail letters because they MIGHT be communications with terrorists? No, you would be up in arms. Why should email or private online messaging services be any different?
It is your argument that falls flat.
1. But the degree of privacy they get on Facebook et al is generally within their own remit (check your privacy settings)
2. If you allow wide scale surveillance then it also increases the risk of people being caught up that have no interest in surveillance - and they will end up having to prove it. This is a complete reversal of the age old principle of being innocent until proven guilty.
3. The sheer volume of surveillance data is such that it will take time to actually sift through it to find what you need - such that by the time you have it is too late.
The point is some of those companies do already automatically monitor your messages and sites you visit to 'enhance your experience' by placing ads before you. The ad placed at the top of this page may be as a result of a google search or a website you may have visited.
Which can be easily avoided using browser extensions.
Tell me, how does one avoid NSA/GCHQ interception of Internet traffic on it's route to it's destination? Short of unplugging the Internet, of course.
Of course they do. Any half way competent criminal is not going to announce their plans on social media. If they are really smart, they will use anonymous burner phones that get used once and discarded. Impossible to trace.
He had murderous intent and considering these two were known to the authorities it indicates they had the freedom to travel & communicate, rather than the picture being painted of all our privacy being under threat.
They believe in being martyrs....the two in Woolwich weren't master criminals wanting to get away with their crime.
I agree 100% its just getting a little tiresome now and the public just let this crap happen time and time again! Labour were terrible for it I agree but Teresa May is just a horrendous person set out to take the rights of the public. That quote you gave is one of my favourites from Franklin! he was a great man who we could do with these days but I would guess he would be seen as terrorist himself these days with the views he had.
Think you need to wake up and smell the coffee...it was reporters who hacked peoples phones, it was others who put private naked pictures of celebs on the internet, it was a Russian website that people access to peoples webcams.
The suggestion being most people have no or simple passwords, Facebook and others exploit peoples inertia with their hit seeking adverts.
Here's a good quote that sums up your point about the scary levels of public acceptance of surveillance.
"Liberty cannot be preserved without general knowledge among the people."
John Adams
And another:
"Free people remember this maxim: we may acquire liberty but it is never recovered if once lost" Jean-Jacques Rousseau.
People in their droves are jumping at the chance to throw away their privacy...take a wander round You Tube...there are millions who want to put their life on full public view or want to point their phones at others and dump the footage on the internet for all to see.
The biggest threat to your privacy is probably yourself.
So I guess the documents released by Edward Snowden showing the extent of NSA interception of traffic and how it compromised major encryption protocols were lies? Is that why the US government is chasing him around the world?
I think it is you who needs to wake up and smell the coffee.