The Real Big Brother

[guzzi]

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.

"

 

Can you explain why you think that surveillance has little to do with protecting us from our enemies? The statement that governments 'always got off on control' doesn't seem like a credible explanation, given that we elect our government to lead us and that control is therefore one of their basic functions. Surely it is more credible to believe that our government does indeed carry out surveillance to protect us from real enemies?

[Lxxx]

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.

"

 

Can you explain why you think that surveillance has little to do with protecting us from our enemies? The statement that governments 'always got off on control' doesn't seem like a credible explanation, given that we elect our government to lead us and that control is therefore one of their basic functions. Surely it is more credible to believe that our government does indeed carry out surveillance to protect us from real enemies?

 

Care to elaborate who these big, bad 'enemies' are??

[guzzi]

OK, Lxxx, as you haven't been able to explain why you think surveillance has little to do with protecting us from our enemies, I'll have a go at explaining who our enemies are.

 

Our troops are currently involved in the current War in Afghanistan, as part of ISAF. There are many different insurgent groups who are usually characterised as 'The Taliban'. Our forces clearly require intelligence support.

 

There are many non-national groups who pose varying degrees of threat on the UK mainland and in Northern Ireland. Not all are paramilitary - some 'glorify terrorism' but others are violent organisations. Here is the current Home Office list: http://www.homeoffic...ups?view=Binary

 

There are nations with whom Britain is not at war but which nevertheless threaten British interests and are legitimate subjects for surveillance.Here is a link to the UK National Security strategy http://www.direct.go...ecuritystrategy

 

I would regard criminal suspects and criminal organisations as legitimate subjects for surveillance, as they represent a threat to life and property.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

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 think you are making a mistake here. You are addressing the effectiveness of the use of signals intelligence but you are not addressing where it is used and the justifications for its use today.

 

You are referring to the use of a particular form on intelligence gathering when used during a war. And intelligence gathered from enemy military organisations. Nobody would deny the importance and justification of collecting information from the enemy during WW2 nor during other conflicts.

 

However, we are now addressing the matter of information gathering on citizens within our country. It is not a time of war and the purpose is not observe the communications of an enemy military complex. The circumstances are very different.

 

Besides, were intelligence gathering to be solely or primarily driven by a need to find or monitor Al Qaeda and affiliate organisations it would not be techint or sigint that would be a main source, but human intelligence. Very little can be gathered on muslim terrorists through means other than human intelligence operations.

 

I don't know how widespread surveillance is today, nor I suspect do you or Lxxx.

Do you not think we have a fair idea? I mean, we only to look at the cameras in every public area.

 

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.

Why would you expect it? I believe that the prevalence of cameras has nothing to do with terrorism at all, but is rather a monitoring of public behaviour for the purposes of identifying those who break the law.

 

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.

I agree with you there.

 

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.

I don't think you are making the distinction between surveillance and State access to private information conducting by all citizens with targeted surveillance.

There is a difference.

 

Nevertheless, I presume from your response that you think it is quite acceptable for the State to have access to, store, and read all private communications between citizens, just in case something is picked up that is useful to enforcement agencies. Am I right?

 

If so, I think you need to justify your position better if you think good evidence is needed to access a person's communications. Saying 'I have no secrets' doesn't cut it.

 

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.

The issue is again not about effectiveness but more about the justification of any entity to think it is entitled to have access to private communications. The State presents itself in the role of protecting the public and therefore being of benefit to the people. I don't believe that to be the case, but were I to believe that then evidence ought to be had first being gaining access.

It's a question of why the State believes it is entitled to see and store e-mails to and from relative and friends, for example.

[Lxxx]

I don't feel we inhabit a 1984 style Orwellian Big brother state YET, but we're rapidly descending down the road to it. Anyone who cares to open their eyes can see it in front of them, it's not exactly hidden in plain view. But of course that's only my point of view, others will have their's, and I would love to be wrong on this and be told further down the line that we haven't got there and that Lxxx is a tit for daring to raise his suspicions before the event, but evidence shows we are getting there, bit by bit.

[MilitantDogOwner]

I don't feel we inhabit a 1984 style Orwellian Big brother state YET, but we're rapidly descending down the road to it. Anyone who cares to open their eyes can see it in front of them, it's not exactly hidden in plain view. But of course that's only my point of view, others will have their's, and I would love to be wrong on this and be told further down the line that we haven't got there and that Lxxx is a tit for daring to raise his suspicions before the event, but evidence shows we are getting there, bit by bit.

 

Lxxx is a tit.

 

Historically any time anyone mentions surveillance, some says "1984" or Orwell.

 

The Intelligence services have been monitoring communications for many decades even before cctv started appearing on the scene.

 

The simple fact of the matter is in 99% of cases, the Government is not interested in Joe Blogs or Dave Smith. It is only if they do something that raises a question mark, that interests are raised.

 

There isnt some mega facility where for every citizen there is a Government wage slave sat at a display watching your every move (the scene in the Simpsons movie is a good example).

 

I fully expect you to follow my statement up with at least one of the following terms:

1. 1984
   
2. Orwell
   
3. Mainstream media
   
4. random other rubbish about conspiracies
   

[Lxxx]

The system is in place to make sure Joe Bloggs or Dave Smith run along like nice little boys and keep working, paying their taxes and not rocking the boat. If Joe, Dave and another few million decide that they don't like being fleeced by their friendly, cuddly government and decide to exercise a few of their rights under natural law and take themselves out of the system and grow their own food, produce their own electricity, use their own system of barter and live not like a slave anymore, then the surveillance kicks in and the iron fist comes out.

 

'Terrorists' aren't the main focus of government surveillance, they number a tiny, minute percentage of global citizens let alone domestic ones, the bigger risk is a political awakening which would threaten the power government has and the cosy little life the elite have, sat at the top of the tree. That's the reason for increasing surveillance, not for your safety. CCTV and other Big Brother pieces of technology don't stop crimes, they never have done, but they keep a check on people who the government deem a threat to them, real or otherwise.

[MilitantDogOwner]

The system is in place to make sure Joe Bloggs or Dave Smith run along like nice little boys and keep working, paying their taxes and not rocking the boat. If Joe, Dave and another few million decide that they don't like being fleeced by their friendly, cuddly government and decide to exercise a few of their rights under natural law and take themselves out of the system and grow their own food, produce their own electricity, use their own system of barter and live not like a slave anymore, then the surveillance kicks in and the iron fist comes out.

 

'Terrorists' aren't the main focus of government surveillance, they number a tiny, minute percentage of global citizens let alone domestic ones, the bigger risk is a political awakening which would threaten the power government has and the cosy little life the elite have, sat at the top of the tree. That's the reason for increasing surveillance, not for your safety. CCTV and other Big Brother pieces of technology don't stop crimes, they never have done, but they keep a check on people who the government deem a threat to them, real or otherwise.

 

You sound suspiciously like LDV. I did have my suspicousions...

[La_Dolce_Vita]

You had your what?

[MilitantDogOwner]

You had your what?

 

What I did there is called a mistake. Live with it.

[Lxxx]

The system is in place to make sure Joe Bloggs or Dave Smith run along like nice little boys and keep working, paying their taxes and not rocking the boat. If Joe, Dave and another few million decide that they don't like being fleeced by their friendly, cuddly government and decide to exercise a few of their rights under natural law and take themselves out of the system and grow their own food, produce their own electricity, use their own system of barter and live not like a slave anymore, then the surveillance kicks in and the iron fist comes out.

 

'Terrorists' aren't the main focus of government surveillance, they number a tiny, minute percentage of global citizens let alone domestic ones, the bigger risk is a political awakening which would threaten the power government has and the cosy little life the elite have, sat at the top of the tree. That's the reason for increasing surveillance, not for your safety. CCTV and other Big Brother pieces of technology don't stop crimes, they never have done, but they keep a check on people who the government deem a threat to them, real or otherwise.

 

You sound suspiciously like LDV. I did have my suspicousions...

 

I wouldn't get too carried away with all these suspicousions, it could look suspicious, what with all this surveillance around n all......

[MilitantDogOwner]

The system is in place to make sure Joe Bloggs or Dave Smith run along like nice little boys and keep working, paying their taxes and not rocking the boat. If Joe, Dave and another few million decide that they don't like being fleeced by their friendly, cuddly government and decide to exercise a few of their rights under natural law and take themselves out of the system and grow their own food, produce their own electricity, use their own system of barter and live not like a slave anymore, then the surveillance kicks in and the iron fist comes out.

 

'Terrorists' aren't the main focus of government surveillance, they number a tiny, minute percentage of global citizens let alone domestic ones, the bigger risk is a political awakening which would threaten the power government has and the cosy little life the elite have, sat at the top of the tree. That's the reason for increasing surveillance, not for your safety. CCTV and other Big Brother pieces of technology don't stop crimes, they never have done, but they keep a check on people who the government deem a threat to them, real or otherwise.

 

You sound suspiciously like LDV. I did have my suspicousions...

 

I wouldn't get too carried away with all these suspicousions, it could look suspicious, what with all this surveillance around n all......

 

Ah internet spelling police. Bless 'em.

[Lxxx]

You had your what?

 

What I did there is called a mistake. Live with it.

 

Haha, awww, see even intellectual muppets can make mistakes. Don't feel too bad sunshine, we won't think any less of you, honest.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

That's not a mistake. I can tell from the spelling that you thought it was spelt like that.

[Max Power]

My concern with the USA being the monitor of all electronic communication and media. is that if they consider anything transmitted which may be read or received by their citizens, which they may consider to be illegal, from someone in a country where it is not illegal to be a crime. They are not averse to demanding that our weak kneed bunch hand over their own citizens, and they invariably give in like the cowards that they are.