Slashdot Mirror
UK Taps 439,000 Phones, Now Wants To Monitor MPs
JPMH writes "With the largest density of CCTV cameras in the world, and an increasing network of automatic number-plate recognition cameras on main roads, Britain has long been a pioneer for the surveillance society. Now new official figures reveal that UK agencies monitored 439,000 telephones and email addresses in a 15 month period between 2005 and 2006. The Interception of Communications Commissioner is seeking the right for agencies to be allowed to monitor the communications of Members of Parliament as well, something which has been forbidden since the 1960s. It must be that it is bringing their numbers down: on the law of averages they should be monitoring at least 5 of the MPs."
Lovely idea, except there are MPs and MPs. They aren't going to be listening to John "Slippy Shoulders" Reid trying to work out how the latest disaster is Someone Else's Fault. Opposition Members might find some 'unusual' feedback on their lines, however.
"I Know You Are But What Am I?"
Know where everyone is.
Pick them up when the time's right.
I sometimes think freedom is simply a government not having the right to know where you are.
The thing that annoys me about this stuff is that the justificaiton for it seems to be mainly catching terrorists, but it will only catch the stupid or incompetant ones. So the government can catch some dissaffected and naieve youth with a half-baked plan that he may never commit and give it as an example of how they are winning the "war on terror".
I would of thought rule number one for any competent terrorist these days is "don't use electronic communications of any sort". We know that real terrorist cells can lie dormant for years - I'm sure they don't worry about the couple of days it might take to send a letter or spoken message.
All they have to prove is that all these spying saves one child. Presto. Everything and anything can be justified under the slogan, "if it saves one child, it is worth it."
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
Ugly words, but true. If the party in power in the UK wants to imprison everyone whose last name begins with the letter "A", there
is nothing to stop them, as long as they can win votes of confidence and continue to maintain a majority. There are no checks and balances at all, except for the control of the House of Commons.
Look at the Iraq War. Is there any public support for it in the UK ? Not much. Is there any chance of the public's will actually being
translated into a change in policy ? Not apparently.
And, as we are finding out in America, it's when your Government is headed by messianic war criminals that you really start to feel the need for
checks and balances.
Now that government officials find themselves questioning the suspiciousness of their words or actions, fearing misunderstanding at every step... well, they'll pass laws to make it perhaps less restrictive for themselves in subtle ways, while appearing to be under the same circumstances as everyone else.
What, do you expect empathy from a system that let things go this far? Once those in charge are comfortable with their own security under such a system, they're free to become increasingly afraid of change, of differences, of people interested in learning what they themselves don't wish to have looked into.
Even if the result doesn't reflect the expected fictions, you can expect it will be harder than ever to reverse, or to justify a revolt against to fix. Now that it is becoming a fully ubiquitous part of your nation, it will become a point of your nation's pride. Hell of a legacy for the ultra-reactions from a four planes hitting three buildings in another nation, and its aftershocks.
Ryan Fenton
My definition of a police state: When the lawmakers exempt themselves from the laws they make and enforce on everyone else.
Transporter_ii
Doctors destroy health, lawyers destroy justice, universities destroy knowledge, religion destroys spirituality
Any Canadians willing to sponsor a immigrating Brit?
No. Don't run away to North America just because you don't have the balls to stand up to the thugs in your own country. Your grandma didn't run away. You shouldn't either.
I suspect this extention of phone tapping to MPs is specifically aimed as George Galloway as Blair's desperate for dirt on one of the biggest thorns in his side.
You yanks are all bleating on about how bad this is and how high these figures are. What makes you think your own government is being any less nosy about your affairs? Ignorance is bliss
You do realise that there is no amorphous blob called the police? You realise that the police are made up of a bunch of people, some of whom are very competent, some of whom are less so. This is why the police can do one job well, and one job badly, because there were different police in handling the issue.
So many people on slashdot seem to have difficulty in dealing with groups of people. I guess it makes it easier to argue.
I do agree with what you are trying to say, except for the last bit, nobody cares about George except his own staff. But nothing they have said is logically incorrect.
No need to go all the way to Canada. I'm looking at a place closer to home: Eire. They speak English, and are in the EU so I don't even need a passport to move there. Emigration looks more appealing every day.
If I have nothing to hide, you have no reason to search me
BTW, do you really think the cameras are archived or looked at in any depth.
That might make you feel safe for now, but what about the future. What about when image recognition if to the point that the computer can recognise you, and thus record everywhere you have been. Does that worry you? Is that really that far away? How much did the ministry of defence spend on Image Recognition last year? Any idea? A scary amount, whatever it is.
Well at the point where the Crown thinks I'm an enemy I'll just stop visiting the country :-)
Honestly, I agree the cameras are a waste of effort, but the privacy issues are just not there. You're OUT IN PUBLIC for crying out loud.
Tom
Someday, I'll have a real sig.
After all the the talk about "Sleeping Walking Into A Big Brother Society", a proper Big Brother is finally being discussed. Big Brother in 1984 didn't give a damn about the "proles" (which is what all the other Big Brother threats up until now were about), all the surveillance was for making sure party members kept in line.
That must be why there has been proposal after proposal for more and more big brother style policies, few if any of which are/would be effective. It was to get to the point where the government could monitor itself, which is far more likely to succeed, as there are a lot less people to watch.
At some point, somewhere, the entire internet will be found to be illegal.
Mr. Winston Smith, we know who you've been talking too...
Look Out Above!
OK lets break this down 795 which are empowered to get access to communications data made 450,000 requests over 15 months, lets have a think shall we 795 bodies, not just MI6 and GCHQ. These requests include requests for email addresses and phone numbers. Hrmm what groups could be doing this perhaps the TV licensing people? Perhaps the tax man wants some details? Not made any Student Loan payments (SLC)?oh wait one of the listed bodies was the serious fraud office and Financial Services Authority. SO lets get this right 795 bodies made requests for contact information (sometimes they wanted more than that) for what's probably completely legitimate reasons (for example last time I had contacted the Pensions office was two houses ago, so the nice informing letter about the state of my state pension would have required a request for contact information because I've given them none.) They've also been used for crime fighting from serious fraud (personally I'm against fraud) and finally the media grabbing fight against terror.
What's the article actually about? The amount of communications data requested and intercepted has not increased, Tony Blair has actually taken note of the ID card E petition and given people who cared a response even if he disagrees with them(28,000 is a small number when compared to 60 million), Sir Swinton the guy who stated last year that the UK was a surveillance society doesn't like the fact that surveillance hasn't decreased (but supports the current system to stop terrorism) and is calling for the policy of no bugging for MP's be lifted to promote transparency and fairness, oh and a knee jerk sensationalist call from a Tory shadow secretary.
Yes Britain has moved into being a surveillance society, but shall I tell you what I don't care. I can't find CCTV camera unless I really look for them and they have come in handy for me personally in the past, the automatic number-plate recognition cameras are a good idea, you know its handy being able to catch people who are driving without road tax or insurance as well as people who speed. But then again maybe I'm the only one who thinks banned drivers should be caught and kept off the roads? Yes I know speed cameras are bad, but watch how a particular road is handled when those cameras are turned off for a week, there are times when their actually a good idea (radical I know, I still admit many are stupid) When measures which are truly invasive are proposed I'll care and be out there marching for it. I don't support things for terrorism but I do like to see government working together to catch the benefit fraud and serious criminal.
In short sensational article designed to make predominantly American site start ranting about privacy caused people to rant about privacy.
>> anyone who is against this is clearly on the side of the terrorismists,
>> and actually WANTS us to get bombed.
To quote Pastor Martin Niemöller:
You'd think history would have taught you better than to say something that naive and cowardly. For comparison, there are probably as many serial killers in the wild as there are terrorists in the United States. Would you so easily give up your rights to catch these serial killers as well? Do you honestly think the government will give you back these rights once the serial killers or terrorists are caught?
Sacrificing the rights of millions of people to catch a small handful of "potential" criminals is a ridiculous price to pay. You scare far too easily.
How do you equate being out in public with it being okay to track my every move? I go out every day, and thousands of people "see" me. Not a single one of them knows all the places I've been, they only see me for a moment or two. This is such a huge difference from the government tracking everywhere I go that I'm scared to think there are probably many folks like you who cannot recognize the distinction.
I'm pretty certain it's not perfectly legal to just follow someone around in public all you wanted. While IANAL, I think that could be considered stalking, and I'm fairly certain that's a crime.
If I wanted to hide from the man I wouldn't go for a walk out in public with my face in full view.
So you're a hoodie, who likes stalking people? And you haven't got an ASBO?
At some point, somewhere, the entire internet will be found to be illegal.
Well I dunno about the UK, but in Canada following someone is legal provided that you are not threatening them (e.g. they are not confined) or placed in danger (e.g. push them into traffic). If you keep a reasonable distance and stick to public property, you're perfectly within your means.
It's when you start interacting with them directly (speaking, touching, etc) that you cross the legal boundary.
My point is if you want to remain private you have to do private things. Walking about in public, with your face totally exposed is not how you keep private any more than sending your credit card # in cleartext over HTTP is any way to keep that private.
People don't get the issues [like any other field] but will hit the hot button that makes the most noise. It's the same with red light cameras. They're no more a violation of your privacy, then cottage cheese is (and if you think that comparison makes no sense, congrats you got my point).
Tapping phones is different, as there is an expectation of privacy over a landline since it's reasonable to assume your neighbours are not tampering with telecommunications gear. So if the UK govt is needlessly and without warrant tapping people, then there is an issue. But the cameras? They're nothing more than a budgetary blight that should be removed because it's a WASTE OF FUCKING MONEY.
Tom
Someday, I'll have a real sig.
Right now I (and I suspect most people) feel free to leave the house without worrying that the government (or anyone else) will be watching me the entire time and compiling a dossier on my movements for later possible use against me. I (and again, most people) would like to retain that freedom.
You don't know what you've lost until it's gone, and when the day comes that you have to think through the potential political implications of leaving the house every morning, you'll really miss your old de-facto privacy.
I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
Isn't sentencing people who have committed crimes the whole point of the criminal justice system?
I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
I don't need advanced CCTV cameras to violate your rights. Get that through your head.
People were being unlawfully detained althrough history. CCTV is not an enabler of this.
Yes, be angry at the CCTV, but not because it violates your privacy, but because it's a waste of money.
Tom
Someday, I'll have a real sig.
No, it isn't alcohol. That's a symptom, not a cause.
It really happened because of two words, just like here in the U.S.: apathy and fear. I don't know how long this crap has been going on in the U.K., but this culture of fear really took off in the U.S. after 9/11. The government, of course, sensing a chance to greatly expand its powers by capitalizing on fear, jumped all over this golden opportunity. Unfortunately, people in this country have become so complacent--after all, the government is there to protect us, right? Anyone, anyone? Buehler, Buehler?--that they ignore the fact that freedom from tyranny is being taken away, little by little. And as long as they can still watch the latest reality TV show on the tube, and there's still plenty of beer in the fridge, it doesn't matter, right?
Wait, who's that knocking on my doo...............
MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?
(can't believe I'm replying to AC)
Brilliant. Spot on. Genius move. Master stroke.
I, for one, would prefer that public servants are 100% spied upon. I'm for full disclosure of their every move, such that paparazzi and gossip are unnecessary.
So, you want to serve the public? We'll forgive any past mistakes, but you must agree to be a truly public figure.
The very idea that leaders should enjoy more privacy (or perquisites, privileges, worship, etc), is an annoying leftover from kings, and ultimately rooted in the remnants of our primate nature. I want hard working people running the show, not a gaggle of buffoons who look good on the telly.
"Press to test."
(click)
"Release to detonate."
No, but I think it would be very tempting for the government to start using the data it gathers on everybody(!) for political purposes. (e.g. "Joe Schmoe goes to AA meetings on Thursdays and is having an affair with his secretary; they meet at the No-Tell Motel every other Friday night and prefer their sex doggy-style. We'll just file that information away for now, in case Joe Schmoe ever runs for office or ends up in a position of power and we need to 'lean on' him a little"). Blackmail can be a very effective way of getting people to do what you want without anybody else ever knowing about it. Or the government can just use it to keep tabs on the whereabouts of their political opponents... in fact they do this already, just on a much smaller scale because they are limited by available manpower.
While I agree that government needs more accountability, I just don't see the V for Vendetta future. No supreme rule ever lasts.
V for Vendetta was indeed overstated (it was based on a comic book for heaven's sake!) but history has shown over and over again that left to their own devices, governments can and will do all kinds of nasty things. Power corrupts, and giving the government unrestricted access to everyone's personal details gives them a lot of power.
I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
May I assume you turned the jerk down the hallway that was goofing off all day in then....
I rarely read replies, it's my opinion and if you thought about your opinion a little more, I'm OK with that.
Its only a crime until the government wants to do it. Then they just write an exemption to the law.
"On a scale from 1 to 10, people are stupid"