News Snooper's Charter back on the table, says May

As uncomfortable as I might be with this "government snooping" malarkey (no-one likes being watched, right?), I always end up asking myself the same two questions:

1: Realistically, what's the worst that can happen if they do?

2: Realistically, what's the worst that can happen if they don't?

And then I think "fair enough", and carry on as normal.

 

I guess I get different answers to those questions.

 

How come?

 

Well, I see unfettered mass surveillance by the government as more threatening than what it purports to protect us from.

In the first instance the worst case for me is (I presume) worse than your worst case.

Either I've read too much fiction or too much history. I hope it is the former.

 

Ever read 1984? Brave new world?

 

It was a matter of time really, unfortunately people don't seem to care

 

1. They can lock you away and make your family's life miserable all based on fabrication.

2. People die.

Honestly that is what they hope it will help protect against. If only they could monitor our thoughts, then no one would ever be harmed in any way (they wouldn't even make it to twitter)!

/killswitches. :>

 

Who knows for certain, but if we look back through history at other surveillance states they don't paint a pretty picture.

Maybe some extremists would plant bombs or kill some people, Oh wait that already happens doesn't it.

 

Obligatory TED talk:

 

It seems to me the government are in a very tricky position. If they don't do all they can to thwart the (very real and increasingly more frequent) plans of those who want to do great harm to our society, we play merry hell with them.

And if they do do all they can (and it does work, make no mistake - security agencies do regularly discover and thwart nasty people's plans to do very bad things. Look at this, for example - "MI5 head warns al-Qaeda is planning 'mass casualty attacks against the West'", people play merry "1984" hell.

I suppose it's a side effect of our relatively very comfortable society - the very thing our government is trying to protect, so we can carry on buying all our nice things and enjoying our computer games.

(I have read both '84 and BNW - both great books. I have also seen Octopussy and the Borne films. All very entertaining works of fiction).

 

The problem with that example is that it comes from the head of MI5, there's no way of knowing if what he claims is fact or just words used to seek justification for the need to take away our privacy.

Secondly he claims it's a Syrian based cell, I'm unsure how gathering data on every person living in the UK relates to a group of people residing in Syria, or why if these people are already know do we need to treat everyone in the UK as guilty.

Lastly it seems very implausible that the collection of metadata on the population of an entire country would achieve the stated outcome, would someone plotting an attack really use a system they know is being monitored?

It's not about catching those who wish to do us harm, as Glenn Greenwald says in the excellent video VipersGratitude posted, it's about conformity, obedience and submission.

 

I see that as paranoid fantasy, I'm afraid. You do remember the attacks on Charlie Hebdo, right? 9/11? 7/7? (edit: ...and Lee Rigby?).You know British nationals are fighting for IS abroad and if they come back might well want to spit in our ice cream?

Like I said, the security services have uncovered some pretty sinister plans. If they hadn't, we might not be able to sit quite so comfortably whilst procrastinating on the internet.

To suggest it's just about "obedience, conformity and submission" is madness.

 

If it's such madness please do point me to even one instance where the interception of communication metadata has lead to the arrest of someone.

The fact is in all of those attacks you mention the perpetrators were already known to the security services yet it stopped nothing, I ask again what has, or what is the collection of all this data meant to achieve?

Won't these people who wish to do us harm just use other forms of communication that are not being monitored?

EDIT: To save you the trouble i have found the only instance of when the collection of metadata has lead to a conviction.

Does one conviction warrant the invasion on 65 Million peoples basic human right to privacy?

 

Good thing there was mass surveillance in place to highlight and prevent these attacks.....oh wait.....

 

LOL.

As the IRA used to say, "We only have to be lucky once, they have to be lucky every time".

Unfortunately, some terrorist plots will succeed. To suggest that means the work of the security services is pointless or in vain is, again, misguided. Just look at the things they have prevented.

Here's a good one for you:

Suicide bomb plotters sentenced to over 90 years' imprisonment.

Eleven men from Birmingham have been sentenced to terms of imprisonment ranging from 40 months to life for their involvement in a major terrorist plot. They had planned to carry out suicide bomb attacks on a bigger scale than the 7/7 attacks in London in 2005. The plotters carried out fundraising in the UK, posing as collectors for a legitimate Muslim charity, and raised thousands of pounds for extremist purposes. Two of them travelled to Pakistan to receive terrorist training. They subsequently plotted to carry out suicide bomb attacks to inflict as many deaths and injuries as possible. Those sentenced were:

Irfan Naseer (31) – life, to serve a minimum of 18 years
Irfan Khalid (28) – 18 years with five years' extension, to serve a minimum of 12
Ashik Ali (28) – 15 years with five years' extension, to serve a minimum of 10
Rahin Ahmed (26) – 12 years, to serve a minimum of 6
Bahader Ali (34) – 6 years, to serve a minimum of 3
Mohammed Rizwan (29) – 4 years, to serve a minimum of 2
Mujahid Hussain (21) – 4 years, to serve a minimum of 2
Shahid Khan (21) – 40 months, to serve a minimum of 20
Khobaib Hussain (21) – 40 months, to serve a minimum of 20
Ishaaq Hussain (21) – 40 months, to serve a minimum of 20
Naweed Ali (25) – 40 months, to serve a minimum of 20
The convictions are the result of a joint operation between the Security Service and West Midlands Police. More than 25,000 pages of evidence were produced in a lengthy investigation, including video and audio material in which the men were recorded discussing their intentions. Irfan Naseer, Ashik Ali and Irfan Khalid were convicted in February 2013 of engaging in conduct in preparation of terrorist attacks. The other plotters had earlier pleaded guilty or were found guilty of a range of offences. In sentencing the men, Mr. Justice Henriques said:

"Your plot had the blessing of al-Qaida and you intended to further the aims of al-Qaida. Clearly nothing was going to stop you, short of the intervention of the authorities. I have no doubt you would have continued with your plan but for that intervention."

https://www.mi5.gov.uk/home/news/news-by-category/criminal-cases.html

"BUT OMG 1984!!!"

 

Do any of them involve the collection of metadata?

EDIT:

No one is saying the work of the security services is pointless, what people are saying is that state surveillance on it's own population is unwarranted, that it does more damage than any terrorist attack could ever do.

 

I've no idea but the collection of metadata will help them (the security agencies, NOT the government) become more effective in preventing future attacks.

Nah. Doesn't bother me in the slightest.

 

Then why are you using these as examples of the legitimacy of mass surveillance?

 

It was more to highlight the general work that MI5 do, and the threat is real. It's not difficult to see how "mass surveillance" would be very useful to them though, yet some still chose to believe it's about "obedience and control" or other such nonsense.

Look, we're never going to agree on this. You carry on thinking the government is out to get us and I'll carry on thinking they're trying to protect us. Deal?

 

Isn't that the crux of your argument though, that surveillance of the entire population by the state will prevent future attack?

Are the security service not part of the government?

Look, no one is saying that targeted surveillance is not needed but that's the point, the snoopers charter is anything but targeted.

If you have no problem with the invasion of privacy would you care to PM me all the passwords to your email accounts, all of them not just the clean ones but the ones you may use for less wholesome uses. How about you PM me your internet history for the last year?

After all if you've done nothing wrong you've got nothing to hide right?

As I've said no one is doubting the work that MI5 does, or that the threat is real, what's being called into question is if a surveillance state is a proportional response to that, or if it will even lead to the prevention of future attacks.

If you truly believe that it's about catching these people that wish to do us harm and not about "obedience and control" or other such nonsense, then i can only guess you did not watch the video posted by VipersGratitude.

Obviously i can't force you to watch it, but i would implore you to take 20min out of your life to watch it as i would like to hear what your take is on what Glenn Grenwald says about privacy and why it's so important.

It's not a matter of "there out to get us" it's much more basic than that, it's about creating a prison in your mind, it's about having a place to go to be free of the judgmental eyes of others, it's about privacy.