Two years after the Edward Snowden leaks alerted the Intelligence and security committee about what was going on in the department they were meant to be overseeing they have finally published a report. I think it comes as no surprise that if finds little fault in what GCHQ has been doing for all these years and only suggests a few minor tweaks to our current surveillance laws, that's unless I've missed the part where they apologies to the public for their failure in allowing the SS to carry out wholesale monitoring of people private communications. Anyhow, in the short time I've had to digest the reports on the report one sentence stuck out to me. "While we recognise privacy concerns about bulk interception, we do not subscribe to the point of view that it is acceptable to let some terrorist attacks happen in order to uphold the individual right to privacy – nor do we believe that the vast majority of the British public would." Among the many other criticisms that people are bound to raise over the Intelligence and security committee report i wanted to ask if people think the above quote is true, are people happy to give up their right to privacy if it means stopping terrorist attacks ?
No, not at all, we already know that's a load of bollocks. The last major terror attack in the US was done by two bored Eastern European twenty somethings with store bought fireworks and a couple of pressure cookers. How does wholesale monitoring of communications defend against the random nutter in his garage turning kitchenware into weapons? Did it stop the two nutters driving a car into Lee Rigby and hacking him to death with knives? Of course it didn't, they weren't so stupid as to broadcast their little scheme on the internet or mobiles. Will it stop the next American who buys a gun in a store and presses against the back of a Police Officer's head? Doubt it. We've already seen the practical use of mass communication monitoring in China for decades and more recently in Iran, Syria and Ukraine. All it's good for is helping the people in power target the people they find inconvenient more efficiently.
Intel we be collected regardless of public opinion. As long as it doesn't have a tangible negative impact in a persons lives they tend to not care. Is Intel collected on me, I would assume yes as I have travelled to many countries, partake in social media and am involved in academics. Has an actual person looked at this intel, I have no idea. As long as I don't get placed on a no fly list or have my door kicked in I don't really care. Government agencies also don't care what I think.
Considering the fact that it's the communications meta data that security services are interested in, I'm personally not worried by that data being made available to them. I get the fact that some people are alarmed and I can understand why they feel that way. I just don't think I'm important enough or enough of a threat to anyone for my comms activity to be actively monitored by the security services. I'm much more worried by threats like hacked hardware, technology manufacturers using their retail devices to mine personal data, insecure storage of personal data and all sorts of other invasions on and threats to our personal privacy. I do wonder why these seem the lesser evil to some people?
I didn't say that it was a good argument or that the actions are just or right. Simply that if it doesn't have a direct impact on peoples lives, most won't make a fuss.
I feel the same, that if it has no impact on my life, they can monitor whatever they like, if however they cause me to not be able to live my life in the way I have become accustomed then there is a problem.
I agree that the concern scales with impact, but I have zero trust that the people with access to the data are competent enough to do anything useful with it, or to keep it secure from other, smarter people with more nefarious goals. Their possession of unnecessary data - by which I mean data they do not have the manpower to review seems like an accident waiting to happen. More than all that I am insulted by the unstated assumptions that underlie the quote and which I think are subject to far more challenge than the quote itself. TL: DR I'm not the vast majority of the British public apparently
Sorry to say but that's a fallacy, yes the UK agencies only collect the metadata on UK residence but the ISC report fails to address that they have access to the other agencies data. We already know from the Snowden leaks that the UK and US agencies (along with many more) share the data they gather so they can circumvent local laws that prevent them from reading the content of our private communications. And it's not just because of the Snowden leaks that we know what they done, the Investigatory Powers Tribunal found that GCHQ had acted illegally in the scale of its intelligence sharing with the NSA, although for some strange reason only prior to December 2014. Have they not already effected the way you live your life ? Do you feel free to have a private conversation with someone via emails or any other form of electronic communication on any subject you like.
Sorry to say but i have my doubts, or are you happy that certain words could put you on a watch list ?
if they put me on a watch list, then they wont find me doing anything I shouldn't so they would be wasting resources, not really my problem, but if that was causing me to be unable to do perfectly legitimate tasks, then it would be a problem, which could in theory be fought in court.
Fair point. Regardless though, I still don't feel concerned about that. To be put on a watch list, I would imagine there is a criteria that would have to be met, not simply using a few hot keywords on comms once or twice. If that was the lowest criteria, then the security services would be swamped with the workload. There has to be some physical interaction with the data, so that the background noise is filtered and the security services can take action on flagged people. I would have thought that part of the criteria would be continued usage of keywords, who people were communicating with and where in the world people were talking to others and the nature and content of their comms. That should mean the innocents are filtered out. I'm guessing there though, as I'm not privvy to the inner workings of the security services. if this is the case though, then why should I be worried? I'm more than happy to accept that and feel it has no impact on my life. It would take a security service officer about 30 seconds to realise I'm no threat to national security. The way I look at it, much more personal data on each and every one of us is being held by commercial enterprises that the security services could even hope for. Our personal spending habits, our tastes in clothes, food & drink, our sexual preferences and deviances and all manner of data on us is out there stored and being used as a commodity without us even realising. That sends shivers down my spine much more. I often hear many people kicking up a fuss about the security services but don't hear as much clamour about commercial enterprises and how they mine and use our data. Which has more impact on our lives? think about the junk mail, targetted ads, financial decision making and all other manners in which commercial data on us is utilised and how often.
But how are we to know what are legitimate tasks, what you shouldn't be doing, or that what is acceptable today won't change tomorrow ? My point being that just the mere chance that something you say in a private conversation could see you being added to the watch list of 1.2 million people (as of two years ago) surly has an effect on what you feel comfortable talking about. When the Stasi were spying on the population people probably thought the same, I'm doing nothing wrong so I've got nothing to hide, that it wasn't their problem, they were seen as an oppressive regime but when we carry out the same type of spying on the population it's not oppressive. As for fighting it in the courts how exactly would you go about that seeing as the SS have already breached solicitor client confidentially in the past ? Well we know that as of two years ago the NSA had 1.2 million people on it's watch list, we also know they have a database that allows them to search all the data for keywords. I would imagine that the system automatically flags comms containing certain keywords and then it's up to the operative if he/she wants to delve deeper, such as searching the database for every instance of your IP address, every time and place you used your credit or travel card, who you've been speaking to, etc, etc. If it was just about threats to national security you would have a valid point, but we know that's not the only thing these 'tools' are being used for, that's the problem with such overreaching powers with little to no oversight, there open for abuse. The SS know far more about us than any commercial enterprises as they have access to their data and everything on top of that, and while it can be annoying to receive junk mail, targetted ads and the like there not trying to stop you from doing something, or being oppressive.
Entirely reasonable practice as far as I'm concerned. There will always be bad apples in any organisation who choose to abuse the system. In all our history as humankind, we've never yet managed to develop a system or organisation that is infallible to human abuse or error. That doesn't make those abuses right or fair though and more should be done to eridicate the bad apples from the security services. I think you underestimate the amount and scope of personal data that is available to commercial enterprises. the ramifications of this data can be oppressive too. Try arguing with a bank manager when your loan is refused due to an incorrect credit rating. Just one example. Another could be the blacklist database that was available to many building contractors, with the names of builders who were blacklisted for numerous reasons, mostly unfairly. So what are the security services trying to stop me from doing exactly? How are they oppressing me? I really don't see or feel that. At no point in my life have I been stopped from doing what I want to do or to say what I want to say, ever, by the security services. I think this type of argument sounds more like paranoia than rational debate.
So you're happy to live in a society where your every move and everything you say is monitored to make sure you are towing the line ? I would have thought you read my reply to RichCreedy as well where i pointed out that it's not just a few bad apples, but in case you missed it they have breached solicitor client confidentially and they have been doing that for over 5 years, they have captured emails of journalists, those a just a few examples of how the SS have abused their powers. I could go on about how the police have abused RIPA, or how councils are abusing investigatory powers to spy on people. I'm not doubting that data that is available to commercial enterprises can also be oppressive, but incorrect credit ratings can be corrected and the building contractors blacklist is/has been investigated and the ramifications (afaik) are still playing out, yet these are all single instance and not a homogeneous mass data collection intended to create a profile of peoples lives. Seeing as everything they do is secret how am i or you to know what is, or is not acceptable ? If being under surveillance and a lack of privacy is not oppressive would you care to allow me to wire up your house with CCTV, to listen in on your phone conversations, to route your internet connection through my proxy ?
Bit of an exaggeration there don't you think? By your own admission there are a mere 1.2 million people on the watchlist, cosidering the combined population of the US and UK is many times that number, I definitely think you are exaggerating both the extent and scope of the surveillance that is carried out by the security services. It would be physically impossible for any of the security services to carry out that amount of surveillance, even if it was a combined effort. Let's try looking at this another way then. what would you propose to be a fair and effective solution to surveillance? Do you propose that our security services should not carry out surveillance, or that the scope and reach should be limited? I understand where you are coming from in highlighting the problems, I don't agree with some of the points you've raised. so moving on, what do you think the security services should be doing? They are far from single instances, there are many ways in which commercial enterprises are far more invasive to our personal privacy than the security services could hope to get away with. The fact remains that this is often seen as the lesser evil and I struggle to understand why people excuse that but are up in arms over the security services? As for profiling, companies do profile both potential and existing customers, making use of the raft of personal data that is available as a commodity. I think you should try finding out more about that topic before you dismiss it. You seem to be insisting that every person is under that level of surveillance, which we both know that they are not. Those who have been flagged and deemed a threat probably are, and rightly so. What's the alternative? Wait for another 7/7 or 9/11 before we take action?
No i don't think it's an exaggeration, yes there are 1.2 million people on the US (only) watchlist actively being monitored, but everyone is being passively monitored and having their electronic communications swept up and stored. This is one of the conveniently worded answers given in the ISC report "GCHQ are not reading the emails of everyone in the UK" (emphasis added) what they mean is that a person isn't reading them, they admit that the SS are carrying out bulk interception it's just they don't see this as surveillance because a human isn't viewing it. If you don't believe it's within the capabilities of the SS to carry out bulk interception, or that's not what there actually doing then may i point you to this page on the Open Rights web site that have published 12 PDF's detailing the mass surveillance being carried out by the SS, from chapter one they state... And it's not just the reports from the Open Rights group that details the actions of the SS, a quick Google search will turn up hundreds of other examples. My main three would be Targeted surveillance not mass surveillance Prior judicial authorisation for all surveillance decisions Increasing the legal protection for communications data (metadata) so that it is the same as for the content of communications Look I'm not saying that they shouldn't be carrying out surveillance, just that there powers have been allowed to grow unchecked by the very people like the ISC who are meant to protect our rights. The reason people are up in arms over state surveillance is because the ramifications are entirely different than when a commercial enterprise hold small snippets of information about you. Even if they held lots of information about your life they don't have the power to control society or peoples lives in the same way as the state does. From my understanding every person is under that level of surveillance, sure a human isn't actually looking at that information 24/7 but they don't need to, as the NSA says "collect all the signals, all the time" once you have collected the signal you can go back to any point in time. Also i was answering you question about "what are the security services trying to stop me from doing exactly? How are they oppressing me ?", if being under surveillance doesn't stop you from doing anything, or doesn't make you feel oppressed then you won't mind me setting up surveillance surely ?
