News GCHQ releases first open-source project on GitHub

More to the point, why do some people think that GCHQ aren't trying to stop terrorists attacking us, and instead are convinced they're oppressing us?

 

So no answer about why you believe a database like Gaffer wouldn't be used in future operations against victims of police misconduct then?

People don't think GCHQ aren't trying to stop terrorists, at least i assume most don't, the problem, or as you quaintly put it the reason some people think they're oppressing us is because they're carrying out bulk surveillance of both the innocent and guilty, because they've a unit called JTRIG, programs like GATEWAY: the "ability to artificially increase traffic to a website", UNDERPASS to "change outcome of online polls" among many other programs.

If as you say GCHQ are only trying to stop terrorists then why the need to surveil both the innocent and guilty, why the need to collect so much information on everyone and not just the bad guys?

It's not like they don't know who the bad guys are in the first place after all, IIRC every terrorist attacker has already been know to the security services, heck them A holes that carried out the attacks in Paris organised themselves using unencrypted SMS.

 

I'm glad you asked this because it really is the nub of the matter.

It's because they/we don't know who all the bad guys are. It's a bit like how a Policeman policing a crowd observes everyone. He isn't doing it to oppress the innocent, but because if he doesn't watch everyone, he could easily miss something important.

 

False analogy. A policeman may watch the crowd, but he doesn't invade their privacy on the off chance that they might be up to no good. He doesn't do a stop and search without reasonable grounds just because he doesn't like the look of a guy --oh hang on, he does.

In all cases of terrorist attack it has been revealed pretty quickly that the perpetrators were already in the crosshairs of various security services. They already knew who the bad guys were. Whatever their problem in stopping them, a lack of random information on the activities of the general public wasn't one of them.

 

Not only that but the analogy fails when it comes to scale. A policeman might see a crime taking place in a small crowd. Once you scale that crowd to the size of an entire country, or even the EU it will be impossible to see crimes taking place in plain sight. Like terrorists openly discussing their plans on skype and facebook

 

It's a very good analogy.

Similarly, why aren't shop CCTV cameras switched off when no known shoplifters are in the store? Is it to oppress the customers?

The fact the recent perpetrators were already known isn't really a good argument to use against the work that the security services do. Quite the opposite I'd say.

 

I reckon GCHQ have much bigger eyes and ears than a Policeman. They don't catch it all, yet, but isn't that exactly what they're working towards?

 

A more suitable analogy is why aren't shoppers personal affects rifled through when they leave.

 

No, it's a bad one because, like your CCTV analogy, it fails to recognise the boundary between the public and the private. It's OK for a store owner to deploy CCTV in his own shop; if I don't like it I don't have to go there. GCHQ however proposes the equivalent of deploying CCTV cameras in our private homes. Or, as theshadow2001 says, the equivalent of the shop owner rifling through each shopper's personal effects before leaving the store.

The fact that CGHQ was already quite able to identify the bad guys by its current means, without having to access people's private internet activities and communications is another argument against having such access. They clearly don't need it.

 

What Nexxo said but also we seem to have known who the bad guys are, AFAIK every A hole that's gone on a killing spree has, in hind site, been known to the security services, it seems it's not a problem with not having enough data or evidence, but that there's a lack of targeted surveillance.

I've got nothing against gathering data on a person or people but as Nexxo points out it should be based on reasonable grounds, if like yourself there's no reasonable grounds to suspect you of being Mr Evil then what you get up to should be your own business, not something that can be stored in a database for retroactive investigations in the hope something is found.

 

I disagree.

Everyone is watched to establish who is suspected of wrongdoing.

That's how the "unknown" become "known".

 

GCHQ disagrees with you. They think that data is invaluable because it allows them to retrospectively investigate terrorist links.

 

Therein lies the crux of it. Your disregard for the difference between what is private and what is public. Either you don't see it or you don't care.

 

Another way of looking at it is, either you think the security services are trying to protect us, or you think they are trying to oppress us.

 

I think they are oppressing you whilst trying to protect you.

 

The problem with that is threefold.

1. Who decides what is 'wrongdoing'? You been visiting gay porn sites? Some people in government will argue that is a sign of a depraved mind, right there. Some governments --ones that the UK is quite friendly with-- think that just visiting websites of contrary political opinion is wrong.

2. How is 'wrongdoing' interpreted? Are you a gun aficionado who visits the Guns & Ammo website? Are you also a political history student googling a lot of articles on Islamic extremism of late for a class assignment? Booked a flight to Pakistan recently to visit relatives (sorry, flight denied. Please come with us, a nice gentleman from national security would like to talk with you... for eight hours, without break. No, you can't make a phone call).

3. Who watches the watchers? Loveint: check out the term. Power corrupts; it's human nature. And the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

 

I think they're just trying to protect us.

 

I disagree with GCHQ. So?

I think that they don't see the difference, like you don't see the difference between the public and the private.

As I said before: the road to hell is paved with good intentions. I'm sure that basically GCHQ has our interests at heart. But they are a governmental institution hence subject to politics, and they are a human institution hence subject to human failings and stupidity. You never give people too much power over other people --especially without public accountability.

Think Gabriel's Greater Internet Dickwad Theory:

Normal person + large audience + anonymity (i.e. lack of public accountability) = Dickwad.

Here's nexxo's Greater Human Dickwad Theory:

Normal person + great power + lack of public accountability = God Complex.

 

Isn't that what True Lies was based on?

 

These are good questions but are nothing new. The application of law is no more relevant now than it was, say 50 years ago.