horribleblob Posted July 10, 2014 Share Posted July 10, 2014 The way I see it is, if you are not doing anything wrong then you have nothing to hide... Using whose definition of "not doing anything wrong" – yours, or those gathering information about you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjw47 Posted July 10, 2014 Share Posted July 10, 2014 How much is the government allowed to know? Speaking of which, Germany just told top U.S. embassy intelligence official to leave country. Oh boy. Bit of a black eye for Obama, there. Well seeing as how the CIA hacked Angela Merkel's private phone I'm not surprised. We are supposed to be allies! What do you reckon their doing to nations they're not friendly with? ---------- Post added 10-07-2014 at 17:31 ---------- ]GCHQ is operating at a level more advanced than any US counterpart[/url]. It is time that the British public gets angry about this. Good God man! We're British, we may write a strongly worded letter to the Times but that's about the height of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
onewheeldave Posted July 10, 2014 Share Posted July 10, 2014 The way I see it is, if you are not doing anything wrong then you have nothing to hide.. I don't mind my information being out there and looked at if needs must. You must be OK with the idea of surveillance cameras being installed in every room of your house then? After all, if you're not doing anything wrong, then you'll have nothing to hide? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tzijlstra Posted July 10, 2014 Author Share Posted July 10, 2014 Isn't it something of a balance Tim? On the one hand, we need our intelligence service to be in the know, so as to avert any potential threat. On the other hand, we want to know that they are acting for, and in, the best interests of the public. Yet, if there is transparency around their activity, if politicians are more clued up about what goes on and what GCHQ know; isn't that in itself a danger? Presumably, the more people in the know, the more chance the bad guys have of finding out how they are being spied upon and who is ratting them out etc... I don't know. How do you reconcile national security with the publics desire for privacy? This is where my principles probably override general opinion. I don't think it is right that we have a (what is effectively) police state that can throw its weight around unchecked and for me that is more important than the very unlikely chance that I get caught up in some extremist attack. Then there is also the complex factor that the policing is indeed feeding extremism. For example, do we, as citizens, know which Syrian rebel group was supported, no doubt by MI6, to try and get rid of Assad? I would not at all be surprised if some of the ISIS fellas are walking around with intel obtained through the UK state, would you? I believe (and fear) that the government is overstating the terrorism threat to ensure it can get away with a lot of extra surveillance/policing that normally would be deemed unacceptable. Stop-and-search is done under the terrorism moniker, dispersal of groups, the journalist filming the old man at Sheffield station: Delete those images under the terrorism act or else! The issue that the actual government is not au fait with what is going on (I genuinely don't think they are) means that some bureaucrats can run a self-serving prophecy that enables them to keep claiming money for new toys and projects that they no doubt deem critical to success, but in actual fact have increasingly negative side-effects on the population they are seeking to serve (allegedly). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Waldo Posted July 10, 2014 Share Posted July 10, 2014 I imagine the situation you describe in your last point, happens quite often... Individuals over-stating a threat in order to justify their own (or their departments) existence and to keep the funding coming. Surely the government have processes in place, to minimise that kind of deception? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjw47 Posted July 10, 2014 Share Posted July 10, 2014 I imagine the situation you describe in your last point, happens quite often... Individuals over-stating a threat in order to justify their own (or their departments) existence and to keep the funding coming. Surely the government have processes in place, to minimise that kind of deception? Not sure they have. Whenever MOD budget time comes around the battle between the Army, Navy and Air Force for a bigger share of the pie is conducted with some venom. Invariably there are a shoal of letters to the papers from a load of retired Generals,Air Commodores and Rear Admirals, explaining how their particular service is more important than the other two. The security services are in a particularly good position here. After all, there are all those known knowns, known unknowns and unknown unknowns they have to combat. They need shed loads of money but can't tell you why because then they'd have to kill you, and with that lot you can't be sure they're joking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ricgem2002 Posted July 10, 2014 Share Posted July 10, 2014 As a citizen in this glorious country I am always a bit dazzled by something. As a nation the British stop things like identity cards and population registries, shouting freedom and demanding liberty. Yet at the same time the government has one of the most powerful secret services in the world and is using it against it's own citizens under the banner of "anti-terrorism". You might not be aware of this, but increasingly GCHQ is getting its fingers on all your online information, this might not mean a lot to you until you get some insight into how this actually works. I am speaking as someone who has worked closely with, and has a strong interest in, information retrieval and semantic technologies. Imagine this: Instead of a search-engine there is something called a find-engine. It is an automated process that is continuously trawling the web for information on specific people. To be effective it simply has to index ALL people, because you never know when a human operator goes: "This fellow Tim, I need to know why he is defending muslims on sheffieldforum." (The below is illustration, skip for TLDR) The operator plugs in my name and, very unlike google does (but can do!) finds out that I have aliases on several fora, that I bank with Bank X and these are the account numbers/last withdrawals. Although I am a Dutch national (this is my SoFi number, pob and dob) I do have a NI number which is XXX. That I have money saved here and in the Netherlands, that I went to China in year X to visit communist party member Y. That I spend quite serious money on alcohol, so likely to be a drinker and that I have worked at numerous universities in the last twelve months, as well as for some consultancy firms. It finds images of me through Facebook (despite it being locked down) and analyses my Twitter feed to conclude I talk about football, basketball and internet related things a lot. Every now and then I use TOR, so perhaps I am an online activist, but after using the exploit for TOR recognition they realise I only use it to test things. They realise I never had a speeding ticket, but did get a tramgate one recently. This is all already possible. It is in fact very likely that there is far more than the above that the government knows about me. Add in the advances in semantic technologies and machine interpretation and they can start profiling my life even more - they know I am online a lot, when I am not active on-line must be when I am either away from the house or asleep - this matches my debitcard behaviour, so they can now plan what would be a good time to come into my house (Monday night, basketball and fitness related tweets - let's go then). TL;DR: Why do we let the government get away with this? Is it because we trust them? Do we??? I don't, certainly not under the moniker of anti-terrorism. if you don't like it why don't you just leave the country Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tzijlstra Posted July 10, 2014 Author Share Posted July 10, 2014 Not sure they have. Whenever MOD budget time comes around the battle between the Army, Navy and Air Force for a bigger share of the pie is conducted with some venom. Invariably there are a shoal of letters to the papers from a load of retired Generals,Air Commodores and Rear Admirals, explaining how their particular service is more important than the other two. The security services are in a particularly good position here. After all, there are all those known knowns, known unknowns and unknown unknowns they have to combat. They need shed loads of money but can't tell you why because then they'd have to kill you, and with that lot you can't be sure they're joking. I like the Rumsfeld quote, very true this. I know a colonel in the army who often referred to the waste of resources simply because that was how the budgets and system worked. The news tonight showed a clear example, it is coincidence (I wasn't aware of this urgent law being pushed through when I wrote this post) but listen to the Cameron soundbite where he explains ALL the things that were prevented/crimes that were solved. He never mentions the fact that this is happening at the expense of our civil rights. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjw47 Posted July 10, 2014 Share Posted July 10, 2014 I like the Rumsfeld quote, very true this. I know a colonel in the army who often referred to the waste of resources simply because that was how the budgets and system worked. The news tonight showed a clear example, it is coincidence (I wasn't aware of this urgent law being pushed through when I wrote this post) but listen to the Cameron soundbite where he explains ALL the things that were prevented/crimes that were solved. He never mentions the fact that this is happening at the expense of our civil rights. It is a genuine worry that civil rights are being eroded and that apparently few people care. It seems to me that the political class actually like and encourage the terrorist threat. It allows them to take more and more freedom away from the public without any major objection. At one time we were proud that in this country the police were seen as public servants who's job was to protect and serve. That is no longer the case, 'national security' has allowed the erosion of basic rights which were enshrined in law but are now removed using the excuse of terrorism. We have lost freedoms which were taken for granted when the country was under attack from Germany, a first world, serious power, because apparently we face problems with a bunch of third rate religious fanatics who have no more chance of defeating us than flying to the moon attached to a balloon. Vested interests using the 'national security' excuse have played us like a fiddle. Worrying times. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Se7enhills Posted July 10, 2014 Share Posted July 10, 2014 While ever the left like big invasive governemnt what do you expect? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.