Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

UK Taps 439,000 Phones, Now Wants To Monitor MPs

Posted by Zonk on from the note-quite-enough dept.

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."

19 of 290 comments (clear)

  1. Oh please let them be monitored by LiquidCoooled · · Score: 5, Interesting

    See how they like it.

    --
    liqbase :: faster than paper
    1. Re:Oh please let them be monitored by iainl · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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?"
    2. Re:Oh please let them be monitored by bri2000 · · Score: 4, Insightful
      They're hypocrits who don't like the powers they've granted the police to be turned on them one little bit. For example, when the police are pumping bullets into some guys head down in Stockwell tube because, well there wasn't really a because other than that there'd been a bombing the previous week and the police fancied shooting someone foreign looking, they're "doing an excellent job in difficult circumstances". However, when the police arrest Blair's assistants in dawn raids as part of the cash-for-honours scandal, they're described as heavy handed bully boys harassing people who should be presumed innocent.

      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.

    3. Re:Oh please let them be monitored by mgblst · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    4. Re:Oh please let them be monitored by bri2000 · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Obviously the police are not homogenous. However, so far as I'm concerned the competent, uncorrupt members of the force (assuming there are any) only have the right to be differentiated from the mass if they're prepared to actually bring their incompetent and corrupt colleagues to account rather than closing ranks, stalling and "misplacing" evidence whenever allegations of corruption or incompetence are made. If the police want to stick together they're going to have to be judged together. Sorry, but years of reading Private Eye and its Police 5 section has made me deeply sceptical of the motives of the police.

  2. Fuck this... by Ckwop · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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

    1. Re:Fuck this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    2. Re:Fuck this... by mgblst · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    3. Re:Fuck this... by MillionthMonkey · · Score: 5, Funny

      BTW, do you really think the cameras are archived or looked at in any depth.
      You're right, they're just there to scare you and the images are never archived and nobody looks at them.
      In fact there is no electricity going to the cameras and those in the know often climb up and bash them open to release the candy hidden inside for all the gleeful British children on the ground below.
    4. Re:Fuck this... by jez9999 · · Score: 4, Funny

      If they speak English, why aren't you calling them 'Ireland'??

      --
      == Jez ==
      Do you miss Firefox? Try Pale Moon.
    5. Re:Fuck this... by phookz · · Score: 4, Funny

      Your lack or patriotism and excessive use of foul language has been noted...

    6. Re:Fuck this... by HairyCanary · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    7. Re:Fuck this... by TobascoKid · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.
  3. WTF? Seriously, WTF? by Rob+T+Firefly · · Score: 4, Funny

    But Sir Swinton rejected the suggestion of allowing intercept material on terrorists and organised criminals to be used in evidence in trials. "If terrorists and criminals, most particularly those high up in the chain of command, know that interception would be used in evidence against them, they will do everything possible to stop providing the material which is so very valuable as intelligence."
    This has bended my mind. My mind is now bended.
    --
    Slashdot Burying Stories About Slashdot Media Owned
  4. One wiretap for every twelve crimes? by mrogers · · Score: 5, Informative

    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?

  5. Know thy (internal) enemy by Bushcat · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Know what everyone does.
    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.

  6. My definition of a police state by transporter_ii · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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
  7. Headline is WRONG! by sirwired · · Score: 4, Informative

    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

  8. Re:So what? by Zoxed · · Score: 4, Informative

    > There were 439,000 *requests*.

    Slashdot title: 439,000 phones tapped (dramatic)

    Actual report:
    - 439,000 requests (i.e. a bit less dramatic)
    - link to TFA states telephone *and* email addresses (i.e. a bit less dramatic)
    - TFA says telephone, email and postal addresses (i.e. a bit less dramatic, again)