View Full Version : Civil Liberties groups...
I'm currently listening to Digital Fortress (got too many books on the go to read it, so CD version has had to do!) and heard some interesting points about civil liberties groups.
The book, for those who don't know is about encription, and the NSA wanting to be able to slip a backdoor into a new "unbreakable" encryption system, so that they can easily access any encrypted data.
Back to the real world:
The security services have saved lives by intercepting electronic communications.
Civil liberties groups appear to be against goverments eavesdropping in on phone conversations and intercepting emails and other electronic communication, claiming that it infringes the right to privacy and goverment employees can't be trusted.
Now given that it's been shown to be benificial (ie saves many lives) to do the things that civil liberties groups are against, surely it would be better for those groups to concentrate on exposing any abuses of the system rather than trying to prevent the system in the first place?
You may have a point - but I'm still not too keen on government officials having access to my privacy.
On BBC1's Bailiffs programme recently there was an ex policeman who is now in debt collection asking his 'friend' in the local CCTV office to keep an eye out for a known debt absconder.
Corruption IS all around us. Access to such information WILL be abused IMO.
philip.j.fry
27-04-2005, 16:05
Now given that it's been shown to be benificial (ie saves many lives) to do the things that civil liberties groups are against, surely it would be better for those groups to concentrate on exposing any abuses of the system rather than trying to prevent the system in the first place?
When the information is hidden, we really have no idea when and how much abuse of the system occurs.
(Good book btw, shame I was cheering the 'bad guys' on :D)
When the information is hidden, we really have no idea when and how much abuse of the system occurs.
(Good book btw, shame I was cheering the 'bad guys' on :D)
I would guess when the information gained from abuse causes miscarriges of justice etc.
If someone intercepts one of my emails and reads it, but does nothing about the content, then big deal, but if they read it and start stalking me, then the law is there to deal with them.
Or I have an email conversation with someone about overthrowing the goverment, and get arrested just for the conversation, that would be abuse, but if I was put under surveilance to try and find out when I was going to do it, or if I was serious, then that would be sensible action by the security forces
I would guess when the information gained from abuse causes miscarriges of justice etc.
If someone intercepts one of my emails and reads it, but does nothing about the content, then big deal, but if they read it and start stalking me, then the law is there to deal with them.
But what if the letter contains private and sensitive information? What if it contains medical issues that your life insurance company would like to know about and arranged for one of their people to intercept it to find out things about you?
What if it was a junk-mail company getting hold of your mail to tailor it's offers towards your lifestyle? Hardly a major issue I know but just an example of how it could (and most probably WOULD) be abused.
I don't really care the government that the government treats me like that, providing, and only providing, it is for the sole purpose of saving lives. For any other purpose i'm not too enthusiastic about it.
I don't think there really would be all that much abuse. The only people with access to that kind of power, would be experienced CIA/NSA employees that would be trusted and have a high security level anyway. More to the point, reading between the lines, I don't think employees would have the time to abuse their position, they are overworked as it is.
You'd always get some abuse of the system, partly because all humans are that way. Police officers abuse their priledges, but does that mean we shouldn't have coppers? You have to balance the good they can do, with the bad they can do.
Flubflow
27-04-2005, 16:53
All this idea of government intrusion for the sake of the common good all falls apart when you consider the fact that real criminals won't be using such government approved backdoor enabled encryption systems. Furthermore the crimals will tend to use stenographic encryption too in order to hide the fact that the message is even encrypted.
All this idea of government intrusion for the sake of the common good all falls apart when you consider the fact that real criminals won't be using such government approved backdoor enabled encryption systems. Furthermore the crimals will tend to use stenographic encryption too in order to hide the fact that the message is even encrypted.
Crimes have been prevented, lives have been saved through electronic communication interception.
Bunch of Al Quida members were caught in Pakistan (or nearby) through their mobile phone use. They thought if they kept moving their sims into different phones they couldn't be tracked :rofl:
Many paedophiles have been caught through eavesdropping in on private conversations they've had with underage children.
The backdoor in a goverment approved encryption system (known as Digital Fortress) was from the book of the same name, and fictional, although the book does come up with a good way to get people to use the Digital Fortress encryption, and those who keep using normal encryption will still have them broken by "Translator"
Now given that it's been shown to be benificial (ie saves many lives) to do the things that civil liberties groups are against, surely it would be better for those groups to concentrate on exposing any abuses of the system rather than trying to prevent the system in the first place?
Would you have an objection to someone opening all of your post at the sorting office and reading through it *just in case* you were writing to someone and planning a terrorist attack?
The point is (and I've made this one before in other threads), what this is proposing is to treat *everyone* as a potential suspect (and in this case, not "just" Muslims!)
There have been other organisations that have done the same thing. The KGB, the Stasi and many other "secret police" organisations for a start.
Do you *really* think it's a good idea to emulate them "for our protection"???
There have been other organisations that have done the same thing. The KGB, the Stasi and many other "secret police" organisations for a start.
Do you *really* think it's a good idea to emulate them "for our protection"???Bit unfair drawing parallels between the security apparatus of communist regimes and our own security organizations.......
Interesting to note though that they did keep crime at a very low level with those tactics.
The only way such info could be abused is if you have a secret that can lead to blackmail by the governments or individuals..If there are no secrets then I can't see it being a real problem.
So what if anyone reads my medical notes..I don't care if some MI5 soul reads about my two labours and my lump removal. :rolleyes:
Only if one has any skeletons in one's cupboard that one has not been honest about to the world is there any need to worry...and frankly better to let all into the glare of public scrutiny than to worry about what someone might discover.If you have a criminal record that you have not disclosed to an employer well that's your fault for not being honest.If you are cheating on your spouse well perhaps it's time to come clean.If you are fiddling your tax well shame on you.If you are a terrorist then let's be having you.If it helps to prove my innocence then you can access everything in my records.
This is where me and liberal idealism part.If we are going to have accountability in public life for those who are in power then it must apply to everyone..even the lowest of us.We can't pick and choose what is in the public domain and then insist that we are the exception.
The simple fact is, if there is any abuse, you will find out about it. Just because you don't know about it at the moment, it doesn't mean it isn't happening.
I agree with Incognitas (don't be too surprised!), if there is nothing to hide, why worry? And any abuse of power would soon be noticed.
The security of the many is more important than the indignation of the few.
cookie_365
27-04-2005, 20:08
I think the problem is that our technical ability to discover information about others has outstripped our pyschological ability to deal with the knowledge that other people have discovered information about ourselves.
We need less privacy, not more.
Everyone has skeletons in the closet somewhere, everyone has a medical history of some sort, everyone has a financial history.
So, you get your kicks by (for example) rubbing your 'bits' with dried goats vomit? Chances are that there a thousand or even a million other people round the world just like you - and thanks to the internet there's probably a discussion forum just for you.
So, you get your kicks by (for example) branding your 'bits' with hot electrical wire? Chances are that there a thousand or even a million other people round the world just like you - and thanks to the internet there's probably a discussion forum just for you.
So, you get your kicks by (for example) branding your 'bits' with hot electrical wire and then rubbing them with dried goats vomit? Chances are that there a hundred or even a thousand other people round the world just like you - and thanks to the internet there's probably a discussion forum just for you.
And I expect most people have some kind of odd thing about them that they're embarrassed about others finding out about.
If we could read everyone elses mind, we'd learn not to care about others knowing our confidential secrets, because we'd see that they have the same kind of secrets as us anyway. And we'd just learn to be upfront about them and make the best of them, not try to deny them.
Yes, there are practical issues about, say, being charged a different insurance premium because everyone now knows your medical history, but I'd say that's a matter for what we do with the info, not whether the info should be secret in the first place.
i think the idea of being spied upon or someone watching mine or someones communications is not palatable.
rightfully so!
Flubflow
27-04-2005, 20:18
Bit unfair drawing parallels between the security apparatus of communist regimes and our own security organizations.......
Interesting to note though that they did keep crime at a very low level with those tactics.
Not unfair at all. The execution may vary but the basic idea is the same.
You can even have zero crime. The trouble is, how far do you want to go to get it.
Flubflow
27-04-2005, 21:21
I think the problem is that our technical ability to discover information about others has outstripped our pyschological ability to deal with the knowledge that other people have discovered information about ourselves.
We need less privacy, not more.
Everyone has skeletons in the closet somewhere, everyone has a medical history of some sort, everyone has a financial history.
So, you get your kicks by (for example) rubbing your 'bits' with dried goats vomit? Chances are that there a thousand or even a million other people round the world just like you - and thanks to the internet there's probably a discussion forum just for you.
So, you get your kicks by (for example) branding your 'bits' with hot electrical wire? Chances are that there a thousand or even a million other people round the world just like you - and thanks to the internet there's probably a discussion forum just for you.
So, you get your kicks by (for example) branding your 'bits' with hot electrical wire and then rubbing them with dried goats vomit? Chances are that there a hundred or even a thousand other people round the world just like you - and thanks to the internet there's probably a discussion forum just for you.
And I expect most people have some kind of odd thing about them that they're embarrassed about others finding out about.
If we could read everyone elses mind, we'd learn not to care about others knowing our confidential secrets, because we'd see that they have the same kind of secrets as us anyway. And we'd just learn to be upfront about them and make the best of them, not try to deny them.
Yes, there are practical issues about, say, being charged a different insurance premium because everyone now knows your medical history, but I'd say that's a matter for what we do with the info, not whether the info should be secret in the first place.
It not about anything as simple as embarrassment. That's just your own pervy mind at work. Amongst other things, it is about ones basic right to expect a personal and private matter between innocent parties to remain private. If there was no technological barrier then would you allow cameras in your home and a surgically implanted GPS & Audio transmitter on your person?
__________________
The simple fact is, if there is any abuse, you will find out about it. Just because you don't know about it at the moment, it doesn't mean it isn't happening.
I agree with Incognitas (don't be too surprised!), if there is nothing to hide, why worry? And any abuse of power would soon be noticed.
The security of the many is more important than the indignation of the few.
I'm surprised you haven't gone all the way and done your usual trademark tut tut "human rights" rolleyes sarcastic comments.
Abuse of power would certainly be noticed. Usually in the first instance by the innocent person on the receiving end of the abuse. Trouble is, would anyone listen to the victim under the weight of misinformation against him?
I'm surprised you haven't gone all the way and done your usual trademark tut tut "human rights" rolleyes sarcastic comments.
Abuse of power would certainly be noticed. Usually in the first instance by the innocent person on the receiving end of the abuse. Trouble is, would anyone listen to the victim under the weight of misinformation against him?
Well, if you didn't know about the so-called "invasion of privacy", would you have a problem with it? It could be happening even as we speak. How do you know that the hospital staff don't peruse your records? How do you know someone at the exchange isn't listening to your phone conversations? How do you know you are not already under surveillance?
People would find these things out in one of two ways: firstly, the abuse of power argument. Sure it probably would happen, but it probably does now. Secondly, skeletons coming out of closets. You get caught by the powers that be finding out you are up to no good. Trouble is, if that happens now, people fall back on their "human rights" (just for you;) ) and claim that they should not be able to be caught by unfair means!
cookie_365
27-04-2005, 21:49
It not about anything as simple as embarrassment. That's just your own pervy mind at work.
Quite possibly :) !
Amongst other things, it is about ones basic right to expect a personal and private matter between innocent parties to remain private. If there was no technological barrier then would you allow cameras in your home and a surgically implanted GPS & Audio transmitter on your person?
If the same applied to everyone else, then yes. On the basis that with 6 billion other personal and private matters to be checked out on the rest of the planet, no-one would particularly care about mine.
Flubflow
27-04-2005, 22:14
The only way such info could be abused is if you have a secret that can lead to blackmail by the governments or individuals..If there are no secrets then I can't see it being a real problem.
So what if anyone reads my medical notes..I don't care if some MI5 soul reads about my two labours and my lump removal. :rolleyes:
Only if one has any skeletons in one's cupboard that one has not been honest about to the world is there any need to worry...and frankly better to let all into the glare of public scrutiny than to worry about what someone might discover.If you have a criminal record that you have not disclosed to an employer well that's your fault for not being honest.If you are cheating on your spouse well perhaps it's time to come clean.If you are fiddling your tax well shame on you.If you are a terrorist then let's be having you.If it helps to prove my innocence then you can access everything in my records.
This is where me and liberal idealism part.If we are going to have accountability in public life for those who are in power then it must apply to everyone..even the lowest of us.We can't pick and choose what is in the public domain and then insist that we are the exception.
If you think that then why do you post here under a nickname? At the moment you get a certain level of anonymity and freedom. How would you like that taken away? If for the sake of some kind of common good you had to reveal personal things about yourself then you would probably decide not to bother posting here anymore. I know I'd feel that way.
If not then feel free to post your real name, address and medical records, tax records etc here so we can all publically scrutinise them. I promise I won't twist the information against you. Honest. Na, didn't think you would.
I really don't mean to sound harsh in what I'm saying but I think that if at the first hurdle you so freely give up your personal privacy and freedoms then you are on a road to a much worse place because they will then find it even easier take what little freedoms and privacy you have left at some later date whenever there is some other bogeyman that we somehow have to be afraid of.
If you think that then why do you post here under a nickname? At the moment you get a certain level of anonymity and freedom. How would you like that taken away? If for the sake of some kind of common good you had to reveal personal things about yourself then you would probably decide not to bother posting here anymore. I know I'd feel that way.
If not then feel free to post your real name, address and medical records, tax records etc here so we can all publically scrutinise them. I promise I won't twist the information against you. Honest. Na, didn't think you would.
I really don't mean to sound harsh in what I'm saying but I think that if at the first hurdle you so freely give up your personal privacy and freedoms then you are on a road to a much worse place because they will then find it even easier take what little freedoms and privacy you have left at some later date whenever there is some other bogeyman that we somehow have to be afraid of.
Sorry, one of us is getting confused here. I thought we were discussing info being available to a Government agency, not the local newsagent. Have I got this wrong? :confused:
If it helps save lives, or promotes the security of my country, I will lay my life open to the relevant authorities. Presumably you wouldn't?
Flubflow
27-04-2005, 23:07
Well, if you didn't know about the so-called "invasion of privacy", would you have a problem with it? It could be happening even as we speak. How do you know that the hospital staff don't peruse your records? How do you know someone at the exchange isn't listening to your phone conversations? How do you know you are not already under surveillance?
People would find these things out in one of two ways: firstly, the abuse of power argument. Sure it probably would happen, but it probably does now. Secondly, skeletons coming out of closets. You get caught by the powers that be finding out you are up to no good. Trouble is, if that happens now, people fall back on their "human rights" (just for you;) ) and claim that they should not be able to be caught by unfair means!
We are taking about abuse of powers and not the personal voyueristic perusing of peoples records by some bored operator (which in itself is pretty sick anyway).
Abuse is more to do with what is done with the information (or misinformation).
I don't have a problem for example with medical professionals privately discussing my records in the course of their duty on a case but I would object to them being passed on to a friend of a friend or a company for some other motive that I personally didn't sign up for.
Nobody "falls back" on their human rights. It seems we always have to fight for them at every stage of the game usually because of people like you who are so willing to mock and throw them all away.
There have been other organisations that have done the same thing. The KGB, the Stasi and many other "secret police" organisations for a start.
Do you *really* think it's a good idea to emulate them "for our protection"???Bit unfair drawing parallels between the security apparatus of communist regimes and our own security organizations.......
Why? We've already seen erosion of the right to trial by jury, the right to remain silent, the right not to be locked up without trial and many more.
It's a dangerous path we're on, but we're being lead along it by the nose because "it's for our own protection"...
Interesting to note though that they did keep crime at a very low level with those tactics.
Would you consider that to be a price worth paying...???
bmxbandit
27-04-2005, 23:19
But what if the letter contains private and sensitive information? What if it contains medical issues that your life insurance company would like to know about and arranged for one of their people to intercept it to find out things about you?
if you were withholding this info, your policy would probably be void... so isn't this investigating fraud?
i'm not saying private details should be passed around freely though. i'm in favour of of much privacy as possible, but i can see the sense in 'priveledged access'. if only it could be made secure... :erm:
__________________
If you think that then why do you post here under a nickname? At the moment you get a certain level of anonymity and freedom.
we have anonymty to other users, but i'm sure that info about us that the forum mods have access to (in conjunction with the relevant authorities) could easly identify us. in effect, the forum mods are out 'trusted parties' here. we trust them not to give out this info unless they are requred to by law.
The only way such info could be abused is if you have a secret that can lead to blackmail by the governments or individuals..If there are no secrets then I can't see it being a real problem.
Oh gods, here we go again.
How many times do I have to remind people about the right of *PRESUMED INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY*??
*EVERY TIME* something like this comes up, some trots out the old "if you have nothing to hide why should you worry?" rhetoric, without realising that they're really speaking in favour of "if you worry, you must have something to hide".
It is not a matter of what the information can be used for, it is a matter of *why* they want the information in the first place.
*WHY* does our government and our security services not trust us? If they don't trust us, why should we trust them?
*WHY* do they need to have the ability keep tabs on *all* of us? If we are presumed innocent what good will the vast majority of that information do?
Always remember that knowledge and information are *POWER*. By letting a government do this they gain more power over us.
Governments are supposed to work *for* us, not *control* us.
If you have a criminal record that you have not disclosed to an employer well that's your fault for not being honest.
If I have a criminal record that was as a result of an offence unconnected to my work, why should I be forced to have it revealed to an employer?
If you are cheating on your spouse well perhaps it's time to come clean.
Since when did the state suddenly become the arbiter of marital fidelity??
If you are a terrorist then let's be having you.
If I am an innocent citizen *WHY* should I be treated as a potential terrorist??
If it helps to prove my innocence then you can access everything in my records.
"Prove your innocence"??? HELLO!! Remember that "presumed innocent"???
It's the job of the state and its prosecuters to *PROVE* your guilt "BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT" there is *NO* requirement, nor should there be for anyone to have to prove innocence!
If you really want to turn our entire system of justice on its head then please point me to the nearest embassy because I'm going to emigrate to somewhere where basic civil and human rights still have some meaning!!
This is where me and liberal idealism part.If we are going to have accountability in public life for those who are in power then it must apply to everyone..even the lowest of us.We can't pick and choose what is in the public domain and then insist that we are the exception.
If a person in power is not breaking the law and it doesn't affect their exercise of that power, why should it be the business of anyone else what they do? If they're gay (Ron Davies) or cheating on their partner (Robin Cook) or want to dress up in women's clothing and practice auto-erotic asphyxiation (Stephen Milligan) that is *NOBODY'S* business exept theirs.
Unfortunately our gutter press have been getting away with reporting this sort of stuff for ages and the toothless "watchdog" of the PCC have been letting them do it.
However if a person in power *is* breaking the law be it "cash for questions" or gerrymandering or engaged in any other such behaviour which does impinge on their duties then they definitely should be held to account.
This doesn't mean, however, that they or we should be forced to have all of our dealings and private matters held up to scrutiny "just in case".
if you were withholding this info, your policy would probably be void... so isn't this investigating fraud?
Not neccessarily - most policies will be refused if you admit to being tested for AIDS, however being screened for it is permitted but some companies can try to make things difficult for you.
The security of the many is more important than the indignation of the few.
The rights of the many are more important still.
__________________
You can even have zero crime. The trouble is, how far do you want to go to get it.
Ask Judge Death from 2000AD...! :Yikes:
If they're gay (Ron Davies)
Bisexual.
bmxbandit
27-04-2005, 23:29
Not neccessarily - most policies will be refused if you admit to being tested for AIDS, however being screened for it is permitted but some companies can try to make things difficult for you.
wow, thats a bit weird and pedantic... maybe i'm wrong, i cant vouch for insurers' logic :dunce:
I thought we were discussing info being available to a Government agency, not the local newsagent. Have I got this wrong? :confused:
You need to look at the proposed legislation a little more closely (something which, IIRC I pointed out to you in a previous discussion like this).
The suggestion is that your information will be available to *many* different agencies, any of which could have corrupt individuals working for them who could take your information and abuse it in ways that were *highly* detrimental to you.
Bank account number? Mothers maiden name? Date of Birth? Name of your first school? Whoopee, time to clean out me283's bank account...!!!
If it helps save lives, or promotes the security of my country, I will lay my life open to the relevant authorities. Presumably you wouldn't?
If it infringes the basic human rights and civil liberties of myself and everyone else in the country, then damn right I wouldn't!
Remember these are rights which people fought a *World War* to protect!
Do you think if Hitler had won the war we'd be able to have this sort of discussion at all? I'm sure he and his friends would have loved to "promote the security of the country" and "save lives" by trampling over every single right we have!!
__________________
most policies will be refused if you admit to being tested for AIDS,
IIRC it is now illegal to ask if someone has been *tested* for HIV/ AIDS as that is classed as discriminatory.
I believe it is only legal to ask if you have been tested positive.
__________________
If they're gay (Ron Davies)
Bisexual.
Whatever.
It's nobody's business but his and his parters' unless he *chooses* to reveal it to everyone.
Flubflow
27-04-2005, 23:41
Sorry, one of us is getting confused here. I thought we were discussing info being available to a Government agency, not the local newsagent. Have I got this wrong? :confused:
If it helps save lives, or promotes the security of my country, I will lay my life open to the relevant authorities. Presumably you wouldn't?
The statement I was answering to indicated that our lives should be open to public scrutiny.
If you think that then why do you post here under a nickname? At the moment you get a certain level of anonymity and freedom. How would you like that taken away? If for the sake of some kind of common good you had to reveal personal things about yourself then you would probably decide not to bother posting here anymore. I know I'd feel that way.
If not then feel free to post your real name, address and medical records, tax records etc here so we can all publically scrutinise them. I promise I won't twist the information against you. Honest. Na, didn't think you would.
I really don't mean to sound harsh in what I'm saying but I think that if at the first hurdle you so freely give up your personal privacy and freedoms then you are on a road to a much worse place because they will then find it even easier take what little freedoms and privacy you have left at some later date whenever there is some other bogeyman that we somehow have to be afraid of.
After you...Besides I was speaking about the Powers That Be needing to have access to personal info on you and me.If it means that you and I would have better national security then yes I would shout ALL my details from the town hall...but then I really do have nothing to lose sleep over...I really have no problem with anyone wanting to read my emails or listen into my rather banal telephone calls.Even a trawl through my finances will reveal nothing that I'm not prepare to tell anyone..
I thought all the problems related to the belmarsh dozen,15,20 would have been so speedily resolved IF the PTB had actually elected to change the rules about using telephone recordings as evidence...However the PTB don't actually want to allow the use of said recordings...possibly because it opens up a whole can of worms they don't want us to look at..but what I really don't know.
I thought all the problems related to the belmarsh dozen,15,20 would have been so speedily resolved IF the PTB had actually elected to change the rules about using telephone recordings as evidence...However the PTB don't actually want to allow the use of said recordings...possibly because it opens up a whole can of worms they don't want us to look at..but what I really don't know.
As I've said before, (and, remember, I'm the libertarian here!) I have no objection to phone taps being used as evidence *provided* they are put in place based on reasonable grounds in the first place and not simply done as a "fishing expedition".
In fact I've heard a spokesperson for Liberty saying that this is really a no-brainer and they can't understand why the government *won't* allow them to be used!!
Flubflow
28-04-2005, 00:08
After you...Besides I was speaking about the Powers That Be needing to have access to personal info on you and me.If it means that you and I would have better national security then yes I would shout ALL my details from the town hall...but then I really do have nothing to lose sleep over...I really have no problem with anyone wanting to read my emails or listen into my rather banal telephone calls.Even a trawl through my finances will reveal nothing that I'm not prepare to tell anyone..
I thought all the problems related to the belmarsh dozen,15,20 would have been so speedily resolved IF the PTB had actually elected to change the rules about using telephone recordings as evidence...However the PTB don't actually want to allow the use of said recordings...possibly because it opens up a whole can of worms they don't want us to look at..but what I really don't know.
There you go again though. One second you say that you only mean the "powers that be" should have your personal info then the next minute you say that you are willing to shout all your personal details from the town hall to anyone without question for the sake of some imaginary future victim(s). Which is it?
OK, I'll go first then, here's my medical records.....
1964 - German Measles.
1966 - Chicken Pox.
1994 - The Clap, from a ladyboy in Phuket Thailand. ;) <-not true, honest!
Raistlin
28-04-2005, 00:14
1994 - The Clap, from a ladyboy in Phuket Thailand. ;) <-not true, honest!
I'll bet it was 1995 ;)
Flubflow
28-04-2005, 00:17
I'll bet it was 1995 ;)
:rofl:
There you go again though. One second you say that you only mean the "powers that be" should have your personal info then the next minute you say that you are willing to shout all your personal details from the town hall to anyone without question for the sake of some imaginary future victim(s). Which is it?
OK, I'll go first then, here's my medical records.....
1964 - German Measles.
1966 - Chicken Pox.
1994 - The Clap, from a ladyboy in Phuket Thailand. ;) <-not true, honest!
Rhesus problems at birth...
No real childish ailments but any number of vacinations for smallpox,tetenus before I was 5 due to living in Nigeria.
Two pregnancies no problems apart from weight gain.The first labour resulted a labial tear,healed up nicely.Got blocked ducts and bleeding nipples from breastfeeding...
Second labour lasted 48 hours but no problems..Vaginal hemmarroids were a slight worry though..thankfully no stitches required ;)
Large lump removed from left breast 5 years ago..thankfully not cancerous...
Couple of bouts of Cyst..
Shall I go on? :D
Wanna know about my gimpy knee or my tennis elbow?
I see the same old fear-mongering tactics are alive and well from the left.
If you you live in Swansea, and you are worried your neighbour in the DVLA will find out you are a nonce, don't worry, he won't, ever...
People make out that the security services have both the time and inclination to read through everyones emails for a bit of juicy gossip. Are these the same security services that are having unprecdentent recruitment drives due to lack of staff? That they can't go through the emails that are being flagged let alone the ones that arent.
Raistlin
28-04-2005, 00:29
Shall I go on? :D
No thanks.
And that's the biggest problem with freedom of information, too much of it!!
;)
No thanks.
And that's the biggest problem with freedom of information, too much of it!!
;)
Precisely!!!
Flubflow
28-04-2005, 01:09
I see the same old fear-mongering tactics are alive and well from the left.
If you you live in Swansea, and you are worried your neighbour in the DVLA will find out you are a nonce, don't worry, he won't, ever...
People make out that the security services have both the time and inclination to read through everyones emails for a bit of juicy gossip. Are these the same security services that are having unprecdentent recruitment drives due to lack of staff? That they can't go through the emails that are being flagged let alone the ones that arent.
It is fear-mongering that tries to make you believe that you must to give up your all your privacy in order to protect the nation from the big bad wolf.
__________________
Rhesus problems at birth...
No real childish ailments but any number of vacinations for smallpox,tetenus before I was 5 due to living in Nigeria.
Two pregnancies no problems apart from weight gain.The first labour resulted a labial tear,healed up nicely.Got blocked ducts and bleeding nipples from breastfeeding...
Second labour lasted 48 hours but no problems..Vaginal hemmarroids were a slight worry though..thankfully no stitches required ;)
Large lump removed from left breast 5 years ago..thankfully not cancerous...
Couple of bouts of Cyst..
Shall I go on? :D
Wanna know about my gimpy knee or my tennis elbow?
I'd like all your tax records and bank details next please. I'm concerned about the Nigerian connection there. You know there's been a lot of these nigerian financial email scams recently. Being under 5 at the time and despite the fact that the internet wasn't even invented then is no excuse. You're nicked.
;)
It is fear-mongering that tries to make you believe that you must to give up your all your privacy in order to protect the nation from the big bad wolf.
It isn't fear-mongering to me... It is common sense. How can they the security services protect us from a terrorist attack, when they have no evidence to go on? Rely on occaisonal informants and undercover agents? Doesn't sound all that encouraging to me.
However something along the lines of.... Every purchase of a dual use weapon, or key ingredient thereof would be reported to the security services for cross-referencing against anything else which could be concieved as terrorist activity. I doubt it will conclusively prevent an attack, but it would help.
Still, you side-stepped my point. The left make such a huge deal out of this "politics of fear" and scare-mongering, but don't seem to notice when they themselves do it. I am still waiting for this apparently imminent dictatorship that will arrive due to the Parliament Act being in force in 1911.
I see the same old fear-mongering tactics are alive and well from the left.
I see the old "dismiss it as nonsense without addressing the issues", not to mention the "accuse those who support basic liberties of being left wingers" (only a short step from "bleeding heart liberals" going on past record) tactics are alive and well from the right (only a short step from "the string them all up brigade"...!)
__________________
How can they the security services protect us from a terrorist attack, when they have no evidence to go on?
Sorry, weren't people just talking about *too much* information?
How can the security services protect us from the *real* terrorists when *everyone* is a suspect?
Every purchase of a dual use weapon, or key ingredient thereof would be reported to the security services for cross-referencing against anything else which could be concieved as terrorist activity. I doubt it will conclusively prevent an attack, but it would help.
So that's every time you fill your car up with diesel before going down to the garden centre to buy some fertilzer for your garden...? :rofl:
I am still waiting for this apparently imminent dictatorship that will arrive due to the Parliament Act being in force in 1911.
You mean something like a government attempting to force not only ID cards but also a national identity and DNA register on the population and using a completely rigged "consultation" process and distorted statistics plus exaggerated alledged threats of terrorism to justify its actions...???
I see the old "dismiss it as nonsense without addressing the issues", not to mention the "accuse those who support basic liberties of being left wingers" (only a short step from "bleeding heart liberals" going on past record) tactics are alive and well from the right (only a short step from "the string them all up brigade"...!)
I am not dismissing anything. I just wanted to point out that something the left like the castigate the right for almost incessantly, is also commited by the left as well. Strikes me as a bit hypocritical. Dirty politics it may be, but it does grate me.
Sorry, weren't people just talking about *too much* information?
How can the security services protect us from the *real* terrorists when *everyone* is a suspect?
Where do terrorists come from? they don't just fall out of the sky, they come from the general population of this country. Even in 9/11 the terrorists spent significant amount of time in the US prior to the attack. Terrorists in other countries shouldn't be our first concern, the ones resident within our borders should be (according to Blair, upto 200).
So that's every time you fill your car up with diesel before going down to the garden centre to buy some fertilzer for your garden...? :rofl:
So are you finally seeing my point about the sheer scale of possible legitmate leads the security services would have to follow up? Kind of knocks the myth of a bunch of spooks sitting around a computer giggling at some personal information of someone who isn't a terrorist? Another case in point: this thread already numerous phrases that could be flagged as a possible terrorist recruitment website, along with a half a dozen other threads on here. Can you see how many false alarms it would cause, and so as you, the security services just wouldn't have the time or resources to abuse their information.
You can't track people buying all combustable items, but then again, I doubt terrorists would want to use diesel in a bomb anyway, like you claim with ricin, it would be too difficult to cause the damage they'd want to. Something like fertaliser would be better to track but the emphasis would be on unconventional weapons surely, which would be much easier to manage. I am not claiming there is a magic solution (if there was then i'd be a rich man with a Nobel prize), but the security services have to meet what threats are there. That is their job.
Again, we are launching into vast amounts supposition on both sides as I don't work for the security services, and I am guessing you don't either.
You mean something like a government attempting to force not only ID cards but also a national identity and DNA register on the population and using a completely rigged "consultation" process and distorted statistics plus exaggerated alledged threats of terrorism to justify its actions...???
Well, you could exercise the right hundreds of thousands of people have died so you can use, and vote to disagree with the government's plans. You could vote Tory or Lib Dem, either way will stop the ID cards dead. If you are out-voted and Labour remain in power... that's not really a dictatorship is it? In that case you're going to have eventually put up and shut up, or (like OrangeBird, my family, and eventually me) ship out.
I'm gonna go gonna kick Xaccer's arse now for making us go through all the old arguments again ;)
Quote:
If it helps save lives, or promotes the security of my country, I will lay my life open to the relevant authorities. Presumably you wouldn't?
If it infringes the basic human rights and civil liberties of myself and everyone else in the country, then damn right I wouldn't!
Then I guess that's where we differ: If I could help national security by being open to investigation, I would do so; however, I would be pretty miffed if we suffered a terrorist atrocity that could have been (possibly) prevented, but that prevention had been thwarted by people concerned about the infringement of their own personal "human rights". It's just that: we have a different viewpoint.
timewarrior2001
28-04-2005, 10:27
On one hand we have snooping to protect us, which on the other hand could lead to snopping to gather info we dont want people to know.
Damn!
IN all honesty I doubt there much about me the gov dont already know. I mean they know how much I earn, they know where I live, the know my National insurance number, they will know my telephone number. They know my car, make/model/reg. They will know the details of my partner and all her details as listed above. They will know the details of my ex partner and of my son with her.
What wont they know about me, but could get with the snap of a finger?
My bank account details, my medical records, details of any loans, mortgages, insurance policies. Access to my criminal record.
This comes without snooping, so If I was prone to making phone calls to my mates and talking about Bombs and tony blair and total anahilation of the white infidel (for example) Its hardly surprising it would set alarm bells ringing somewhere.
But whats the alternative? miss something and allow hundreds possibly thousands and in rare circumstances even millions to die, because someones liberties were infringined?
Same old phrase still applies, the needs of the many far outway the needs of the few. Personally I'd rather live than worry about Mr Smith being upset because someone MAY be listening to his conversations.
The government does what the government does, none of us here have ever ran a country, we have never had to worry about the safety of milions and the defence of a nation. Until we have then we are not in a position to criticise
I doubt terrorists would want to use diesel in a bomb anyway, like you claim with ricin
Punky, a question for you. I've just been wading through the '200+ bin Laden trained terrorists in the UK' thread again (I did a search on ricin, in fact) and it appears you believed that ricin was found in the flat in Wood Lane. I might add that Graham didn't appear to swallow that particular line, and you had an argument. Are you prepared to admit that you got it wrong? If not, I don't think you can reasonably bring ricin up in this thread, given the history. Also, what do you think about being duped by the Government and police? Happy?
http://www.cableforum.co.uk/board/showpost.php?p=415676&postcount=13
[Of course, if you'd both swallowed ricin made from the recipe in the flat, according to Porton Down you might have suffered slight nausea and vomiting, but would have survived. It wasn't a WMD, it wasn't even a particularly bad poison (try swallowing Domestos and doing a comparison), and most of all it didn't even exist.]
Relating this back to civil liberties, the Guardian has apparently pulled* its report on the lies and spin around the ricin trial after being served with a public interest immunity certificate. This means that the Government doesn't want you to know that there was no ricin and the history of how the case developed. Is the Government on our side here? They don't seem to have served PIIs on newspapers that slavishly reported their (fraudulent) line, or quoted senior policemen making untrue and dangerous statements. Where's the public interest in that?
This illustrates *precisely* why we require civil liberties groups, they're the people who pick up on this and stick their necks out.
*Pretty easy to find out - do a Google search on
ricin ring that never was site:www.guardian.co.uk
Select the cached version of the top result returned
Scroll down to the bottom
Note the 'recent articles' section contains a number of articles from 14/4/2005
14.04.05 Dead man's family pray for his killer
14.04.05 Detective murdered by an obsessive loner
14.04.05 Exaggerated threats
14.04.05 Terror trail that led from Algeria to London
14.04.05 The ricin ring that never was
14.04.05 Police killer gets 17 years for poison plot
14.04.05 London and Washington used plot to strengthen Iraq war push
14.04.05 Milburn apologises for police death
Click on 'The ricin ring that never was'. It's gone. Fortunately, the net being the net, there are loads of copies on other websites. So if you want to read what the Government doesn't want you to, go to Google and put in 'The ricin ring that never was'. Quite an interesting read.
BBK, that is very interesting. I'm not so sure we should take the ricin threat so lightly, but the rest of what you say is of great interest. However, maybe it's just me, but it seems to raise more questions than it answers; something was going on, somehow it was discovered, and action was deemed necessary. Without wishing to sound paranoid, I think that only the barest of details are in the open about this case, and it may never fully come to light. Just my feelings, that's all.
Punky, a question for you. I've just been wading through the '200+ bin Laden trained terrorists in the UK' thread again (I did a search on ricin, in fact) and it appears you believed that ricin was found in the flat in Wood Lane. I might add that Graham didn't appear to swallow that particular line, and you had an argument. Are you prepared to admit that you got it wrong? If not, I don't think you can reasonably bring ricin up in this thread, given the history. Also, what do you think about being duped by the Government and police? Happy?
Well, I brought up ricin not because of Bourgass, but because Graham argued that it made an unsuitable weapon. I was the same argument regarding diesel, and to a lesser extent fertaliser. Raw destruction like in Bishopsgate it can cause, but I am sure terrorists would rather go the unconventional route, if they had the chance.
You are right though, it appears now that ricin wasn't found in the flat, only the ingredients and the recipe, which is cruicially different. I do feel I was misled (and I don't think I was the only one) now as I could have sworn it was reported to me as ricin, in its finished form, was reported in the papers. Of course, given a bit more time, the police may have found ricin in the flat, albeit, not a WMD like you describe. You say the police are responsible for the misleading, I think its probably the media, but if it was the police, then obviously they should be held accountable.
I have always said though, that this post 9/11 attitude of complete transparency in reporting of terrorism related crime, is wrong.
This illustrates *precisely* why we require civil liberties groups, they're the people who pick up on this and stick their necks out.
I am not against civil liberties groups. Not at all. I am against their normally extreme, rigid views on the subject which can lead them to put principal in front of what might be best. There is a need for them though. I want my rights protected, like Graham. I don't want to end up like Zimbabwe or Iraq circa 1990s, or China, now. We are the same in that respect, but as far as I can see, the point where we disagree is on what constitutes 'reasonable lengths' to protect us. I am willing to give away more for the preservation of life (but only for the preservation of life, not for any other non-life threatening issues.)
How can the security services protect us from the *real* terrorists when *everyone* is a suspect?
Where do terrorists come from? they don't just fall out of the sky, they come from the general population of this country.
I thought they came from "organised terror networks". (Well, actually I don't, but that's the BS that we're being asked to believe).
Even in 9/11 the terrorists spent significant amount of time in the US prior to the attack.
But they weren't *from* the general population of the USA, they were *visitors*! Indeed I believe that most of them didn't fill in visa documentation correctly but were let in anyway!
Terrorists in other countries shouldn't be our first concern, the ones resident within our borders should be (according to Blair, upto 200).
So to deal with *up to* 200 *potential* terrorists (and I thought that figure came from the ex-Police Chief, not Blair) you want to keep tabs on up to sixty *MILLION* people?
Talk about using a sledgehammer to crack a nut...! :rofl:
So that's every time you fill your car up with diesel before going down to the garden centre to buy some fertilzer for your garden...? :rofl:
So are you finally seeing my point about the sheer scale of possible legitmate leads the security services would have to follow up?
No, I'm pointing out how ridiculous the idea is that we should allow the security services to monitor everyone because "it won't do us any harm".
Kind of knocks the myth of a bunch of spooks sitting around a computer giggling at some personal information of someone who isn't a terrorist?
Sorry, did I say anything about that? No, what I was pointing out was the massive number of *false positive* results such a system would give and the fact that it could end up with many *completely innocent* people being investigated or even questioned by security services because of it.
"Oh look, we've got a Muslim who's bought a load of diesel and fertilizer, better keep an eye on him, and whilst we're at it, let's tap his phone, intercept his e-mails and monitor all his contacts *just in case* he might be a terrorist".
Another case in point: this thread already numerous phrases that could be flagged as a possible terrorist recruitment website, along with a half a dozen other threads on here. Can you see how many false alarms it would cause,
Yes, I can see *exactly* that, it's the point I'm trying to make!
and so as you, the security services just wouldn't have the time or resources to abuse their information.
The point is that that information would not *just* be available to the security services, but many other organisations as well. As I've said before *read* the proposals yourself and *see* just who would be able to look up information about you that is *none* of their business.
And also see http://www.informationcommissioner.gov.uk/cms/DocumentUploads/ID%20CARDS%20Q&A%20FINAL.doc this report from the office of the Information Commisioner who has *strong* reservations about the sweeping range of powers and information that it's planned to hold.
I doubt terrorists would want to use diesel in a bomb anyway, like you claim with ricin, it would be too difficult to cause the damage they'd want to.
Really? I suggest you ask Timothy McVeigh who killed 168 people in Oklahoma with a diesel/ fertilizer bomb!!
the security services have to meet what threats are there. That is their job.
The security services are supposed to *protect* our rights, not violate them.
You mean something like a government attempting to force not only ID cards but also a national identity and DNA register on the population and using a completely rigged "consultation" process and distorted statistics plus exaggerated alledged threats of terrorism to justify its actions...???
Well, you could exercise the right hundreds of thousands of people have died so you can use, and vote to disagree with the government's plans. You could vote Tory or Lib Dem, either way will stop the ID cards dead.
Now you're just being incredibly naiive. If (as, regrettably, it seems very likely) Blair gets re-elected (mostly because people don't want Howard and the Tories back in power he will claim that the people have, therefore "supported his manifesto" and thus will claim that they want ID cards.
This is utter nonsense, but that's the way politics works in this country.
He can then re-introduce the ID cards bill and unless a substantial number of *Labour* MPs rebel, he will have enough of a majority to force it through.
Democracy? My ar$e.
If you are out-voted and Labour remain in power... that's not really a dictatorship is it?
If a government abuses its power and forces laws through no matter what the people say, it's the nearest damn thing to it.
In that case you're going to have eventually put up and shut up
No, I will neither put up with abuses of rights, nor shut up about them. I will then exercise my right to protest against them (although I have little doubt that the security services will note my details as "potential subversive" for doing so!)
__________________
If it infringes the basic human rights and civil liberties of myself and everyone else in the country, then damn right I wouldn't!
Then I guess that's where we differ: If I could help national security by being open to investigation, I would do so; however, I would be pretty miffed if we suffered a terrorist atrocity that could have been (possibly) prevented, but that prevention had been thwarted by people concerned about the infringement of their own personal "human rights". It's just that: we have a different viewpoint.
It is much more than that because, with all due respect to your viewpoint, I really don't think that you have thought it through.
You admit above that *even with* your being "open to investigation" terrorist atrocities *could* still happen but as I've said in my message above, what such investigations will result in is a massive number of false positives (not to mention abuses of basic rights and people and organisations having access to information which is none of their business).
Now let's take that a bit further:
Imagine because of a "false positive" you were under investigation as a potential terrorist subject but you (of course) will know nothing about this.
You have paid a lot of money to book a holiday of a lifetime for yourself and the kids to Disneyworld in the USA but when you come to arrive at the airport, you're taken off to a side room and told that you're not going to be allowed on that flight, nor any others, but they won't tell you why.
You go back home and find that your job application for the MOD has been returned (because you're a "possible threat", but you don't know that).
You then find that the Inland Revenue and Customs and Excise are auditing your tax records in case you're laundering money.
This alerts your credit card companies and bank who withdraw your cards and overdrafts.
Suddenly you can't make your mortgage payments.
Now you may claim I'm just "scaremongering" well, yes, I *AM* trying to make you understand that we should *ALL* be scared of such sweeping powers being given away that we will have *NO* control over and *NO* right to get errors corrected because we won't even *KNOW* what is going on!
Are you still convinced it's such a good idea?
I thought they came from "organised terror networks". (Well, actually I don't, but that's the BS that we're being asked to believe).
Whereever they are, they are still resident within the general population of this country, and in others.
But they weren't *from* the general population of the USA,
They lived there though. The US has an obligation to 260m Americans, not least the 3000 in NYC, PA, and the Pentagon, to protect their lives when terrorists attacked them within their soil. The same applies to the UK, IMO.
So to deal with *up to* 200 *potential* terrorists (and I thought that figure came from the ex-Police Chief, not Blair) you want to keep tabs on up to sixty *MILLION* people?
Talk about using a sledgehammer to crack a nut...! :rofl:
That is a (probably conservative) estimate of how many known terrorists are in this country. I'd be suprised if they security services knew about every terrorist in the country, as I doubt anyone could do that job that well. As you said, they have 60m lives to protect regardless how many terrorists are planning on killing them.
No, I'm pointing out how ridiculous the idea is that we should allow the security services to monitor everyone because "it won't do us any harm".
We shouldn't let them monitor everyone because "it won't do us any harm", we should let them monitor us, because they have a job to do, and they need as much information as about everyone to do their job as best as possible.
Sorry, did I say anything about that?
I thought you was saying that the security services would abuse the information that they are privvy, i.e. not use it to save lives. How would you say they would abuse it then?
"Oh look, we've got a Muslim who's bought a load of diesel and fertilizer, better keep an eye on him, and whilst we're at it, let's tap his phone, intercept his e-mails and monitor all his contacts *just in case* he might be a terrorist".
You think we could tap everyone's phone who buys diesel? No wonder you're verging on paranoia. The best you could hope for is to cross reference it with terrorist watch lists. They won't tap your phone if you buy fertiliser. I can promise you that much.
The point is that that information would not *just* be available to the security services, but many other organisations as well. As I've said before *read* the proposals yourself and *see* just who would be able to look up information about you that is *none* of their business.
Don't take my view on one aspect and keep extrapolating it over other issues. As I said before to BBKing, I am against my information being distributed to parties who don't need it, unless it is for the sole purpose of preservation of life. The DVLA don't do that, but the security services do. Giving agencies with low security clearances like the NHS and DVLA access to information they don't need would also present a security risk in itsself so its I can't see that happening.
Really? I suggest you ask Timothy McVeigh who killed 168 people in Oklahoma with a diesel/ fertilizer bomb!!
There's more to terrorism than just killing people. If a terrorist could kill 1 president of the US, or 1,000 citizens of the US, what would you think he'd rather do? Psychology plays a major part of it. An unconventional (i.e. N/B/C weapon would be much more desired than readily available conventional explosives)
The security services are supposed to *protect* our rights, not violate them.
No, they are suppose to protect our lives (from terrorists), and our society from crumbling into chaos (from union bosses in the '70s). It is for the government and human rights groups to protect our rights (see my post to BBKing)
Now you're just being incredibly naiive.
And you are incredibly jaded about the political process. Either way if Labour wins the support of this country and introduces ID cards, then it must be with the support of the majority of the country, otherwise the Tories or Lib Dems would be in power. If you are in the minority, you can't throw your toys out the pram if the policies you don't want get enacted because the majority support them. In a democracy you don't always get your own way. And it looks like I won't either because I don't want Labour to win either. I'm not going to whinge about it, that's democracy and I wouldn't want it any other way.
But they weren't *from* the general population of the USA,
They lived there though.
Yes, but what you are arguing for (as far as I can see) is a system that will record data on the *WHOLE* of the UK population, not just people who are only visiting!
So to deal with *up to* 200 *potential* terrorists (and I thought that figure came from the ex-Police Chief, not Blair) you want to keep tabs on up to sixty *MILLION* people?
Talk about using a sledgehammer to crack a nut...! :rofl:
That is a (probably conservative) estimate of how many known terrorists are in this country.
That is a probably *exaggerated* estimate of how many *potential* terrorists that are in this country.
"Former Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir John Stevens says up to 200 Al-Qaeda "terrorists" are operating in UK." [My emphasis]
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4322611.stm
I'd be suprised if they security services knew about every terrorist in the country, as I doubt anyone could do that job that well.
So to solve that "problem" (if there are so many terrorists *why* haven't we had attacks in this country? Out of all those arrested for the supposed "ricin attacks" why were all but one released?) you want to invade the privacy of everyone, take away basic rights and turn this country into a police state.
As you said, they have 60m lives to protect regardless how many terrorists are planning on killing them.
As I said, they should also protect our *RIGHTS* not take them away.
No, I'm pointing out how ridiculous the idea is that we should allow the security services to monitor everyone because "it won't do us any harm".
We shouldn't let them monitor everyone because "it won't do us any harm", we should let them monitor us, because they have a job to do, and they need as much information as about everyone to do their job as best as possible.
And I'm sure that's what the KGB and the Stasi etc would have said too.
Yes, they have a job to do, but not at the cost of the liberties that make this a *FREE* country.
Sorry, did I say anything about that?
I thought you was saying that the security services would abuse the information that they are privvy, i.e. not use it to save lives. How would you say they would abuse it then?
Did you read that report from the Information Commissioner? *WHY* does a huge list of information need to be kept on everyone? *WHY* does a long list of organisations need access to that information when it's nothing to do with them? *WHY* don't we have a right to know what information is held about us and *WHY* don't we have a right to ensure that it's correct?
*ALL* of these are abuses of the information the government wants to keep on us.
"Oh look, we've got a Muslim who's bought a load of diesel and fertilizer, better keep an eye on him, and whilst we're at it, let's tap his phone, intercept his e-mails and monitor all his contacts *just in case* he might be a terrorist".
You think we could tap everyone's phone who buys diesel? No wonder you're verging on paranoia. The best you could hope for is to cross reference it with terrorist watch lists. They won't tap your phone if you buy fertiliser. I can promise you that much.
*HOW* can you promise me that? You've already admitted that you don't work for the security services and you're speculating.
You're supporting a system which *would* allow for such data to be collected and collated. I'm just pointing out what could happen with a "false positive" result that was generated as the product of three pieces of innocent information being conflated into a "potential terrorist" warning.
The point is that that information would not *just* be available to the security services, but many other organisations as well. As I've said before *read* the proposals yourself and *see* just who would be able to look up information about you that is *none* of their business.
Don't take my view on one aspect and keep extrapolating it over other issues.
I am trying to change your view to a more *informed* one and showing the possible results of an un-informed viewpoint.
Giving agencies with low security clearances like the NHS and DVLA access to information they don't need would also present a security risk in itsself so its I can't see that happening.
But that is what the NIR could do! You seem to think you can say "so far and no more". I don't believe that will be possible.
Really? I suggest you ask Timothy McVeigh who killed 168 people in Oklahoma with a diesel/ fertilizer bomb!!
There's more to terrorism than just killing people.
Of course. "The purpose of terrorism is to cause terror" - VI Lenin
I believe I've made that point in discussions like this before.
If a terrorist could kill 1 president of the US, or 1,000 citizens of the US, what would you think he'd rather do?
But the point is which is *easier* for the terrorist to do? It's very difficult to kill a President. It's much easier to set off bombs.
Psychology plays a major part of it. An unconventional (i.e. N/B/C weapon would be much more desired than readily available conventional explosives)
An "unconventional" weapon is much more difficult to create than a conventional one.
And the IRA were quite happy to create a climate of terror with purely conventional bombs during their campaigns.
The security services are supposed to *protect* our rights, not violate them.
No, they are suppose to protect our lives (from terrorists), and our society from crumbling into chaos (from union bosses in the '70s).
"MI5's main purpose is to protect national security and economic well-being against substantial, covertly organised threats. These threats come primarily from terrorism, espionage and weapons of mass destruction, but the service also works to prevent and detect serious crime within the UK alongside numerous other UK and international law enforcement agencies"
http://www.bbc.co.uk/crime/fighters/mi5.shtml
The use of the security services against Union Bosses is precisely the sort of abuse of power that should be resisted.
It is for the government and human rights groups to protect our rights (see my post to BBKing)
And if the security services are *going* to abuse our rights, we should damn well resist them!
Now you're just being incredibly naiive.
And you are incredibly jaded about the political process.
No, just realistic.
Either way if Labour wins the support of this country and introduces ID cards, then it must be with the support of the majority of the country, otherwise the Tories or Lib Dems would be in power.
Oh *NONSENSE* Punky!
I suggest you look at the turnout of the previous election and note that Labour was elected by a *MINORITY* of the electorate!
If you are in the minority, you can't throw your toys out the pram if the policies you don't want get enacted because the majority support them.
Labour have a *majority* in Parliament. That is *ALL* they need to push their agenda through. The *only* way to stop that is to get *Labour* politicians to vote against their own party!
In a democracy you don't always get your own way. And it looks like I won't either because I don't want Labour to win either. I'm not going to whinge about it, that's democracy and I wouldn't want it any other way.
Punky, if you are going to dismiss legitimate protest as mere "whinging" then I really see no point in continuing to have a debate with you because if that was the case *nothing* a minority could do would change *anything*.
We've gone through all these arguments before. Nothing has changed (unless you have a specific new point to addrss like BBKing did) so I can't really see any reason to carry them on. (apart from the bit about democracy and voting, and that's going on in another thread)
As a side point, I never accused you of whinging, I merely said I wouldn't. Protesting the war, ID cards, etc, is a legitmate protest, as you are entitled to do. Complaining that your party affliiation hasn't won, because the majority supported another, is whinging. If you lose the election you have to get on with it.
Whatever.
It's nobody's business but his and his parters' unless he *chooses* to reveal it to everyone.
But he did reveal it to everyone - when he was about to be exposed for his third 'incident' in a public place (you know the one, when he claimed he was 'chasing a squirrel :rolleyes: ) - and apparently he had the 'full support' of his wife or something.
So should chat room owners/police/authorities be allowed to eavesdrop into private conversations to ensure that grooming isn't taking place, or should they wait until they have some evidence that points to it may be taking place?
cookie_365
28-04-2005, 20:16
I'll bet it was 1995 ;)
I don't think I was in Thailand in 1995 ...... :erm:
It's nobody's business but his and his parters' unless he *chooses* to reveal it to everyone.
But he did reveal it to everyone - when he was about to be exposed for his third 'incident' in a public place
If you are about to be "exposed" and are left with the "choice" of letting the press report it or trying to minimise the damage by pre-empting them and getting it out first, that's hardly a "choice" at all!
__________________
So should chat room owners/police/authorities be allowed to eavesdrop into private conversations to ensure that grooming isn't taking place, or should they wait until they have some evidence that points to it may be taking place?
Provided you are *aware* that such monitoring can take place and agree to it, yes, they should be allowed to.
But that's not the same as you having a private conversation and someone else "ear wigging" on it without your knowledge or consent.
Provided you are *aware* that such monitoring can take place and agree to it, yes, they should be allowed to.
But that's not the same as you having a private conversation and someone else "ear wigging" on it without your knowledge or consent.
Remember the RIP bill that Labour tried to bring in, that would have required large ISP's to send everything you did to the goverment (which Demon/Thus took great delight in pointing out to Labour that at the time it would have maxed out an E1 connection)
Well, small ISP's complained that there was no way they would be able to afford to do that, so the bill was modified so that they would be excluded.
I bet you can see what happened next (if you didn't hear about it at the time), there was an outcry that "criminals" would just use small local ISPs knowing they'd be free to do what they liked without it going to the goverment.
Wouldn't you get the same thing?
Paedophiles would search for chat rooms that didn't eavesdrop, and those that did would be void of them, so they'd still be free to continue to groom without fear of being caught (except by undercover officers posing as children)
Remember the RIP bill that Labour tried to bring in,
Yes, I do indeed.
Well, small ISP's complained that there was no way they would be able to afford to do that, so the bill was modified so that they would be excluded.
I bet you can see what happened next (if you didn't hear about it at the time), there was an outcry that "criminals" would just use small local ISPs knowing they'd be free to do what they liked without it going to the goverment.
Wouldn't you get the same thing?
Paedophiles would search for chat rooms that didn't eavesdrop, and those that did would be void of them, so they'd still be free to continue to groom without fear of being caught (except by undercover officers posing as children)
Yes, you're exactly right.
A similar thing happened with the "Clipper Chip" fiasco in the states (for those who don't remember, the US government wanted to put an encryption chip in everyone's PC with a "back door" so the US security services would be able to read your mail. Of course the criminals would just "super encrypt" their messages etc and thus defeat the measure).
The point is whether it's chat room monitoring or ID cards or any other such thing, the law abiding public will be the ones most affected by it, whilst the criminals will simply find ways of circumventing the measures.
Rhesus problems at birth... <snippity>
No but I'd love to see your bank statement! That pack of OHP pens you got from Smiths on Wednesday looked rather expensive. ;) :p:
No but I'd love to see your bank statement! That pack of OHP pens you got from Smiths on Wednesday looked rather expensive. ;) :p:
Ah but I don't use an OHP so it wasn't me... :p: Perhaps you mistook the whiteboard pens I purchased for OHP ones? ;)
The point is whether it's chat room monitoring or ID cards or any other such thing, the law abiding public will be the ones most affected by it, whilst the criminals will simply find ways of circumventing the measures.
What you proposed, that it would be fine as long as users were told about it, would enable them to circumvent it. If it wasn't known, then there is more chance of catching paedophiles grooming children.
Most internet paedophiles have the same level of net savvie as joe public, if they're told they'll be listened into, then they won't use those sites, but if they aren't told, then they won't know that they might be listened in on and therefore be likely to be caught
Ah but I don't use an OHP so it wasn't me... :p: Perhaps you mistook the whiteboard pens I purchased for OHP ones? ;)
I'm sorry to say the "computer" says OHP. Lock her up boys!!! :p: ;)
What you proposed, that it would be fine as long as users were told about it, would enable them to circumvent it. If it wasn't known, then there is more chance of catching paedophiles grooming children.Most internet paedophiles have the same level of net savvie as joe public, if they're told they'll be listened into, then they won't use those sites, but if they aren't told, then they won't know that they might be listened in on and therefore be likely to be caught
That is rather tortuous logic, I'm afraid and doesn't really follow.
If you were a parent wouldn't you want to know which chat rooms are safe for your child to use? The *providers* would certainly want to let you know because it would get them more customers to subscribe or be advertised at, so there's no real sense in trying to withold information.
And ok, maybe you'd get some of them, but eventually the information would get out as the press would report that a paedophile grooming a child was caught after being monitored in a chat room and the others would go "oops, better not go there, then".
That is rather tortuous logic, I'm afraid and doesn't really follow.
If you were a parent wouldn't you want to know which chat rooms are safe for your child to use? The *providers* would certainly want to let you know because it would get them more customers to subscribe or be advertised at, so there's no real sense in trying to withold information.
And ok, maybe you'd get some of them, but eventually the information would get out as the press would report that a paedophile grooming a child was caught after being monitored in a chat room and the others would go "oops, better not go there, then".
I've never seen a media report on paedophile grooming that mentions a specific chat room service.
If it occured without telling the paedophiles which services were being eavesdropped on, then they would either not use chat rooms for fear of being caught, or expose themselves to an increaced chance of being caught.
What you've suggested will have them all going to non-eavesdropping chat rooms where children will still go, in the knowledge that they can happily groom children for sexual gratification without being caught.
I've never seen a media report on paedophile grooming that mentions a specific chat room service.
But we're talking about a system that hasn't been introduced yet!
If it occured without telling the paedophiles which services were being eavesdropped on, then they would either not use chat rooms for fear of being caught, or expose themselves to an increaced chance of being caught.
I'm sorry, but this still doesn't follow because the paedophiles would just take the first opportunity to switch their target over to instant messaging or netmeeting or e-mail.
What you've suggested will have them all going to non-eavesdropping chat rooms where children will still go, in the knowledge that they can happily groom children for sexual gratification without being caught.
Firstly I would remind you that the internet and all other such systems are *not* a babysitting service. It is the job of the *parents* to ensure the safety of their children, not expect others to do it for them.
Secondly, yes, paedophiles can still do what you describe, there is *NO* way of stopping that. But in those "non-monitored" rooms it will still be possible for undercover law enforcement officials to go online and present themselves as potential "grooming targets" (carefully to avoid entrapment claims) and then catch the paedophiles that way.
What I don't want to see, however, is some sort of "global monitoring" of *all* chat rooms for the same reasons as I object to such monitoring of e-mails, phone calls, chat forums or any other breaches of privacy.
But we're talking about a system that hasn't been introduced yet!
I'm sorry, but this still doesn't follow because the paedophiles would just take the first opportunity to switch their target over to instant messaging or netmeeting or e-mail.
Firstly I would remind you that the internet and all other such systems are *not* a babysitting service. It is the job of the *parents* to ensure the safety of their children, not expect others to do it for them.
Secondly, yes, paedophiles can still do what you describe, there is *NO* way of stopping that. But in those "non-monitored" rooms it will still be possible for undercover law enforcement officials to go online and present themselves as potential "grooming targets" (carefully to avoid entrapment claims) and then catch the paedophiles that way.
What I don't want to see, however, is some sort of "global monitoring" of *all* chat rooms for the same reasons as I object to such monitoring of e-mails, phone calls, chat forums or any other breaches of privacy.
I agree that the internet is not a babysitting service, however, just as illegal activities in the real world should be made as difficult to get away with as possible, I believe the same goes for the internet.
The problem paedophiles have with IM services and email is that you leave a paper trail, most chat rooms when you close the private chat, it's gone, lost forever, nothing to incriminate.
In clandestinly monitored rooms there is both the chance of catching the paedophile through eavesdropping and through posing as a child, thus increasing your chances of catching criminal behaviour.
That is rather tortuous logic, I'm afraid and doesn't really follow.
If you were a parent wouldn't you want to know which chat rooms are safe for your child to use? The *providers* would certainly want to let you know because it would get them more customers to subscribe or be advertised at, so there's no real sense in trying to withold information.
And ok, maybe you'd get some of them, but eventually the information would get out as the press would report that a paedophile grooming a child was caught after being monitored in a chat room and the others would go "oops, better not go there, then".
According to your logic surely that would be infringing the child's right to peruse chatrooms. I would have expected you to have argued that the child should be able to see anything on t'internet so long as it didn't affect *you*??
...or maybe you are not so libertarian that you do actually recognise the concept of parenting?? :)
just as illegal activities in the real world should be made as difficult to get away with as possible, I believe the same goes for the internet.
And so we get back to the start of this discussion and several others.
Yes, it's *possible* to make it "as difficult as possible" for criminals to get away with illegal activities, but *not* at the cost of removing basic liberties from everyone.
And I think I'll leave this here.
__________________
According to your logic surely that would be infringing the child's right to peruse chatrooms. I would have expected you to have argued that the child should be able to see anything on t'internet so long as it didn't affect *you*??
...or maybe you are not so libertarian that you do actually recognise the concept of parenting?? :)
Children have rights, but since they *are* children, not adults, those rights must be tempered by a certain amount of "parental control".
I have not and would not argue against that.
And so we get back to the start of this discussion and several others.
Yes, it's *possible* to make it "as difficult as possible" for criminals to get away with illegal activities, but *not* at the cost of removing basic liberties from everyone.
And I think I'll leave this here.
But no one is forcing you to use a chatroom and have sensitive conversations which may be listened in on though are they? You have the right not to use the chatrooms if you object :)
vBulletin® v3.8.11, Copyright ©2000-2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.