The Real Big Brother

[guzzi]

If you are not doing anything dodgy you have nothing to worry about so whats the problem?

If you were to find your business leaking business...and then found your business plan, accounts, marketing strategy and customer email list in the hands of an American Company...would you still be saying that?

 

There is such a thing as economic warfare too.

 

I would say that any of the things you don't want to be accessed should be stored on private servers, behind a firewall, not accessible from the internet. That ought to be sufficient for commercial information.

So kill the idea of Cloud Computing you mean?

 

Yes, as far as confidential data is concerned. That doesn't kill the idea off, though, as Cloud Computing is still applicable at a mass market, consumer level. I'm personally very happy to use cloud based services to store and replicate my data, but as I said, I don't really have any secrets.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

What do secrets have to do with this?

[Lxxx]

What do secrets have to do with this?

 

+1.

[guzzi]

What do secrets have to do with this?

 

The possibility of intercepting communications has existed at least since Walsingham deciphered Mary Queen of Scots' letters, and no doubt for centuries before that. A secret is something that you don't wish to be known by others, and if we are wise, if we have any, we choose our medium carefully.

 

We have always had to choose the level of security we apply to our secrets, just as we have always been well advised to lock our house. This development changes nothing except scope.

 

(edited for grammer!)

[La_Dolce_Vita]

But the topic is about the role of organisations in intercepting our private communications or having access to them. Though you refer to history of such surveillance and the fact that you have no secrets. Does the history and the fact that you have no secrets justify surveillance?

[Albert Tatlock]

(edited for grammer!)

[Lxxx]

He seems to be part of the 'I've got nothing to hide so why do I fear total surveillance' brigade, which I think just about says it all.

[MilitantDogOwner]

He seems to be part of the 'I've got nothing to hide so why do I fear total surveillance' brigade, which I think just about says it all.

 

"Total surveillance". Pffh.

 

Yes because the Government cares what brand of tin foil you use for your anti-government mind ray experiments.

[Lxxx]

http://www.dailymail...k-concerns.html

 

'Smith! 6079 Smith W.! Yes, you! Bend lower, please! You can do better than that. You're not trying. Lower please! That's better, comrade.'

[MilitantDogOwner]

http://www.dailymail...k-concerns.html

 

'Smith! 6079 Smith W.! Yes, you! Bend lower, please! You can do better than that. You're not trying. Lower please! That's better, comrade.'

 

This story reminds me of the urban legend of Xbox Kinects being hacked asnd used as intrusion/surveillance devices. Which turned out to be utter bollocks.

[guzzi]

But the topic is about the role of organisations in intercepting our private communications or having access to them. Though you refer to history of such surveillance and the fact that you have no secrets. Does the history and the fact that you have no secrets justify surveillance?

 

Neither. What justifies surveillance is the fact that we have enemies who wish to do us harm. Signals intelligence won the battle of the Atlantic during the Second World War, and has been said to have shortened the war by at least two years. It is therefore very effective, and has saved many lives. Radio listening stations were the technology used in the 1940s, it is obvious that listening to internet traffic is necessary now.

 

Lxxx uses the term 'total surveillance' but this is misleading as there is no routine surveillance in most public places, in the home, in written correspondence, in private offices. There has obviously been an extension of surveillance in certain areas, notably internet communications, number plate recognition and the proliferation of security cameras. On the whole, I regard these as good things as they are there to protect life and property, and assist in the enforcement of law and order. Whilst we live in a democratic state, I feel protected by these things rather than threatened.

 

The important thing is to ensure that in a democratic state, accountability is in place. In Britain, Parliamentary and judicial oversight is in place.

 

http://www.gchq.gov.uk/AboutUs/Pages/Accountability-and-the-Law.aspx

[Lxxx]

http://www.dailymail...k-concerns.html

 

'Smith! 6079 Smith W.! Yes, you! Bend lower, please! You can do better than that. You're not trying. Lower please! That's better, comrade.'

 

This story reminds me of the urban legend of Xbox Kinects being hacked asnd used as intrusion/surveillance devices. Which turned out to be utter bollocks.

 

 

Haha...I posted this one up purely for you MDO, and you didn't disappoint. So predictable

[La_Dolce_Vita]

Neither. What justifies surveillance is the fact that we have enemies who wish to do us harm. Signals intelligence won the battle of the Atlantic during the Second World War, and has been said to have shortened the war by at least two years. It is therefore very effective, and has saved many lives. Radio listening stations were the technology used in the 1940s, it is obvious that listening to internet traffic is necessary now.

I think you mixing up the broader use of intelligence with surveillance.

 

Simply because there are people who could and would do us harm if they had the capability and opportunity to do so does not in itself mean that surveillance is required. Nor that it should conducted as it is nor as widespread in its application. That has to be demonstrated.

 

Lxxx uses the term 'total surveillance' but this is misleading as there is no routine surveillance in most public places, in the home, in written correspondence, in private offices.

The term 'total' refers to the extent to which surveillance covers areas. It makes no difference whether it is routine or not. There is the ability to monitor such area. Although I agree, 'total' would be exaggeration. But you are aware of the areas to which monitoring can be done.

 

There has obviously been an extension of surveillance in certain areas, notably internet communications, number plate recognition and the proliferation of security cameras. On the whole, I regard these as good things as they are there to protect life and property, and assist in the enforcement of law and order. Whilst we live in a democratic state, I feel protected by these things rather than threatened.

Now you have moved onto something different. You were talking about 'enemies' and you have now included crime.

Let's exclude crime, because cameras show no evidence of preventing crime., except with reducing car speeding.

 

You may feel protected. Is that illusory? Does it matter?

[Lxxx]

But the topic is about the role of organisations in intercepting our private communications or having access to them. Though you refer to history of such surveillance and the fact that you have no secrets. Does the history and the fact that you have no secrets justify surveillance?

 

Neither. What justifies surveillance is the fact that we have enemies who wish to do us harm. Signals intelligence won the battle of the Atlantic during the Second World War, and has been said to have shortened the war by at least two years. It is therefore very effective, and has saved many lives. Radio listening stations were the technology used in the 1940s, it is obvious that listening to internet traffic is necessary now.

 

Lxxx uses the term 'total surveillance' but this is misleading as there is no routine surveillance in most public places, in the home, in written correspondence, in private offices. There has obviously been an extension of surveillance in certain areas, notably internet communications, number plate recognition and the proliferation of security cameras. On the whole, I regard these as good things as they are there to protect life and property, and assist in the enforcement of law and order. Whilst we live in a democratic state, I feel protected by these things rather than threatened.

 

The important thing is to ensure that in a democratic state, accountability is in place. In Britain, Parliamentary and judicial oversight is in place.

 

http://www.gchq.gov....nd-the-Law.aspx

 

The term 'total surveillance' means the extent that they have the capability to cover most parts of your life. Obviously until we get the camera in the TV (nod to MilitantDogOwner) then we can obviously stay under the radar to some degree but that is decreasing rapidly...and it's got little to do with protecting us from our 'enemies', real or perceived.

 

Government have always got off on control and ever increasing means of it however we have until now been able to keep in place a series of checks and balances to maintain civil liberties and some degree of privacy, real or imagined. Now we are only another 'terrorist attack' away from it being cranked up another level entirely (see the US for that), and once you lose a certain amount of freedom, you never get it back.

[guzzi]

LDV, in order:

 

My example concerned the interception of communications during the Second World War, the current thread is about the interception of communications in the modern world. Historical efficacy is, in my view, a valid and good indicator of the value of such interception in the modern world.

 

I don't know how widespread surveillance is today, nor I suspect do you or Lxxx. However, I am content that accountability to Parliament and to selected members of the Judiciary is in place. I would expect and hope that the breadth of surveillance activities is a response to the threat level, currently at least substantial on the mainland UK and severe in Northern Ireland.

 

Most areas could be monitored given sufficient resources, but they are obviously not. Total surveillance implies the kind of Orwellian state Lxxx somewhat hysterically invokes but which we do not inhabit.

 

On the extension of surveillance, I would definitely not want to exclude crime, as surveillance is highly relevant to detection and prosecution.

 

As regards your final questions, I believe that surveillance measures are effective. For example, following the Baltic Exchange and Bishopsgate truck bombings by PIRA, the City of London implemented the "Ring of Steel" policy to deter vehicle bombs. Given the hugely destructive effect of those two attacks, similar attacks by Jihadist terrorists would be hugely attractive to them. Nevertheless, there has been no such attack since Bishopsgate in 1993.

 

A further example is the 2006 plot to bomb transatlantic flights. Covert surveillance of Ahmed Ali yielded information that initiated a wider surveillance operation, prosecution and the saving of thousands of lives.

 

So in short, yes, I feel protected and no, that isn't illusory. Of course, no protection is perfect, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be done.