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."
See how they like it.
liqbase
May I be the first to say holy fucking shit. I mean, I knew it was bad. I once counted three hundred or so security cameras on a trip around Liverpool but I never once suspected that we had it anywhere near this bad.
And these goons want a road-pricing scheme via GPS tracking? Jesus f-ing Christ. Next they'll want to photograph people in toilets in case they decide to take drugs in them. They really are that bat-shit crazy!
My Grandma died last year of cancer. She was one of the brave women that gunned down German planes over Widnes during World War II. Their generation's sacrifice, every single last one of them appears to be in vein. For we've become the very thing we fought sixty years ago. How did this happen? How did we let ourselves be cowed in to this?
The faceless little shits behind this will never be known. Their crimes will never go punished.
Any Canadians willing to sponsor a immigrating Brit?
Simon
Slashdot Burying Stories About Slashdot Media Owned
The figure seems particularly large when you consider that around 5,000,000 crimes were reported in England and Wales during the same period. Does one in twelve crimes require a wiretap? Or is it possible that at least some of the surveillance is politically motivated?
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
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
Why shouldn't MP's be treated the same as ordinary citizens? They are not above the law, and can be sued/tried etc like any other citizen.
When the next London bombings occur everyone will complain that nothing was done to stop anyone, and it will all be the security services fault. You people need to decide what it is you want.
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
I find it highly unlikely that the people in power (yes, in power; not "representing") would tolerate being surveiled. It's been forbidden for 40 years FOR A REASON: they don't want to be watched. Nobody does: not MPs, not office or factory or construction workers, not layabouts, not housewives. It's offensive to any human because it's degrading and subordinating.
Here's the test:
If this push is rebuffed, that's MASSIVE and blatant hypocrisy on the part of the lawmakers of the land. They tolerate and directly facilitate the surveillance of their constituents, but consider themselves above their constituents, and thus above such proletarian shackles. That's the status quo, and has been since it became technologically feasible to surreptitiously monitor them 40 years ago. Even if they don't allow this, it's a small news item in a world of bigger things to spin, so not many people would notice, let alone think about it enough to care, let alone act.
If they cave in, I don't know what to think. In my opinion, the public should at least be able to monitor the actions of its government and its agents, but it is abundantly clear that MPs at large disagree emphatically with that notion. Therefore, they'd have a different motive. Placating the public? "See? We're under a microscope too, the humans were meant to live!" I doubt that. The public may have the power to unseat them, but it desperately lacks the will to do so. Just don't care? Not a chance (remember: humans hate this). Just hard to imagine this outcome.
Finally, the footsteps in the night are coming for them, too.
This is not true. First the party in power has to write a law that makes it a crime to have such a name. Then they have to convince the democratically elected House of Commons to pass it. Then they have to convince the House of Lords to pass it. Then they have to convince the Queen to give her assent.
The party in power does not have the authority to imprison people at will without passing a law. That is a constitutionally protected right found in the Magna Carta, dating back almost eight centuries.
Bogtha Bogtha Bogtha
Slashdot Burying Stories About Slashdot Media Owned
Sort of like all of the info that J Edgar Hoover accumulated as head of the FBI? Not very useful in court but great for ruining lives, political careers, etc.
It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning
There were NOT 439,000 requests to tap phones. There were 439,000 requests for "communications information". This includes requests for lists of e-mail addresses, lists of numbers called, etc, in addition to taps.
I'm not saying that is a good or bad thing, just that the headline is incorrect and sensationalist.
SirWired
Instead of using security cameras, which have a bad public perception, we could instead mandate that all television importers be required to install cameras inside their sets. This way we could have nearly 100% coverage, even inside people's houses (where most crimes are committed), yet not be so obviously pervasive as to give citizens discomfort.
Naturally there would be a public concern of targeted "viewing", so we just have to hire people to monitor these sets and do it at random. That way, people won't actually know if they're being monitored or not.
We could call these modified TV's... telescreens.
In the US you charge them with something else all the while you really did it because of their name (sounded Arabic). Even bogus testimony by "classified witnesses" who's id can't be reveal because of national security claims. Then you deny them bail and let their case stew in court for ages. By the time all of the appeals have gone through years may have passed.
They've got people in Guantanamo who've been held prisoner longer than many Nazis leaders were after WWII.
It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning
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.
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.
Your post makes no sense. I never said people have no privacy, nor should they expect it. I said if you're exposing your secrets to the world, don't expect them to be private. I don't want my genitalia on the web, so I wear pants. Amazing feat of security that. Kudos on trying to embarrass me though. Your AC troll-fu is just too weak.
If you're walking about, in public, in plain view OF EVERYONE, expect no privacy in terms of your whereabouts. That's just common sense. Even the common criminal knows that.
Next time you try to come up with an argument, think it through first.
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.
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.
Of course, if you're British and you care about your every move being monitored by the government, you should sign the official petition against the GPS tracking of every single UK vehicle for the purposes of the new "pay as you drive" scheme.
This petition has been in the news a lot this week, but if you've not already signed it, you should consider doing so as it's due to close TODAY (20th Feb). So far, an incredible 1.7 MILLION people have signed.
Take a look at the research papers linked here and this one in particular:
The Economics of Mass Surveillance and the Questionable Value of Anonymous Communications (PDF)
by George Danezis and Bettina Wittneben.
You may think that half a million phone tapped is not that much... well think again, the social network effect is probably exposing all of Britain. Ask for your rights to be respected now.
Of course not. But it sure makes it a lot easier to do it wholesale.
In the real world, things aren't determined by what is theoretically possible, but by what is economically feasible. Ubiquitous CCTV cameras make wide-scale person tracking economically feasible, and that is the key.
By analogy: You don't need a nuclear bomb to kill everyone in Chicago.... given enough time and effort, you could do it with a machete. But once you have a nuclear bomb, it becomes a whole lot more likely that you can pull it off, and thus a whole lot more likely that you will try.
I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
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.