Slashdot Mirror


UK Government Says More Spying Needed

An anonymous reader writes "Our wonderful government here in the UK has decided we're not being surveilled enough, and agreed to spend £12 billion on a programme to monitor every Briton's phone calls, e-mails, and internet usage. According to various sources, upwards of £1 billion has already been spent on the uber-database. Rationale? Terrorism, of course (no prizes for guessing). Needless to say, not everyone is as happy as Larry over this: Michael Parker pointed out how us Brits are being 'stalked.' I'm just looking forward to when the data gets lost."

17 of 297 comments (clear)

  1. Keyhole career. by Ostracus · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ""Our wonderful government here in the UK has decided we're not being surveilled enough, and agreed to spend £12 billion on a programme to monitor every Briton's phone calls, e-mails, and internet usage."

    With economies going the way they are. job security will be spying on each other.

    --
    Shai Schticks:"You don't make peace with friends, you make peace with enemies"
    1. Re:Keyhole career. by negRo_slim · · Score: 4, Insightful

      With economies going the way they are. job security will be spying on each other.

      Fear, what can't it do?

      --
      On the Oregon Cost born and raised, On the beach is where I spent most of my days
  2. Ah! by kamikazearun · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Soon the l337 h4x0r d00d5 will have access to private details of every citizen of the UK.

  3. It's about control not terrorism by whoever57 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The UK had its own domestic terrorists for decades: the IRA. Yet the government did not feel that such pervasive monitoring was necessary. Now, largely because of something that happened 3000 miles away, the UK feels that such pervasive monitoring is necessary.

    I say BS: every agency is wetting themselves hoping to get their hands on this data so that they can pursue their own petty agendas in the same way as RIPA powers have been used for trivial reasons.

    Everyone has something to hide. Not necessarily illegal, but enough to coerce behavior.

    --
    The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    1. Re:It's about control not terrorism by easyTree · · Score: 4, Insightful

      What's bizarre is that our government has such intrusive tendencies as to have a camera covering every stretch of the country yet also has such 'religious tolerance' that those who wish to wear a burqa, which is effectively a personal tent, allowing them to avoid any kind of indentification, are free to do so. That's what I call an inconsistent set of beliefs. IMO, any group serious in their intent to monitor the population would not allow the monitored to so easily avoid their gaze.

      Could this be the governemt being manipulated by security theatre experts?

      SecurityAdvisors> Omg, we're running out of ponies!
      Government> Aaaarghhh, Panic!
      SecurityAdvisors> Never fear, our surveillance systems will save us. *cough* a bargain at £12 Billion"

    2. Re:It's about control not terrorism by canthusus · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The UK had its own domestic terrorists for decades: the IRA. Yet the government did not feel that such pervasive monitoring was necessary. Now, largely because of something that happened 3000 miles away, the UK feels that such pervasive monitoring is necessary.

      I disagree - I don't think the change is that monitoring is suddenly *necessary*, more that it's suddenly *possible*.

      Decades ago we didn't have the technology to routinely capture, store and process this information. Decades ago, the public might not have stood for it.

      Now we have the technology. September 11th didn't make monitoring necessary, but did make it politically acceptable.

      Why do governments build such systems? Because they can.

    3. Re:It's about control not terrorism by mormop · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Absolutely. If I recall correctly the security services had, by 1974, infiltrated the IRA to the point where they knew who all the main players were and at one point actually had an informant at the highest level of the IRA council. The decision to "take them down" however was vetoed because they knew it would be a bloodbath with a high possibility of collateral damage, embarrassing for the UK and politically disastrous with the US.

      But, what it did prove is that there's no substitute for someone on the inside, which I suspect is what every criminal and real terrorist will be aiming for in the offices that handle the information and ID data of every UK citizen. Besides, all that will happen is that that real terrorists won't use email. phones etc., for planning their terrorising because at the end of the day, planning a terrorist attack is not the sort of thing that requires instantaneous communication. They're in no rush as long as there's a big bang at the end of it.

      Personally, as a child of the sixties who lived through the cold war and the IRA terror campaign I still can't reconcile current government behaviour with the idea that we were the good guys because in the eastern bloc, you were watched wherever you went, your phones could be tapped and your personal mail could be intercepted by a government that used the defence of the state from the evil decadent westerners as its justification. At least in East Germany they managed to keep peoples personal records securely locked away in a basement.

      At the next election my questions to the doorstep candidate will be "Will you/your party scrap ID cards, the universal snooping database, the retention of innocent people's DNA, PFI and dumbaarse IT projects that will cost 300 new schools worth before it becomes obvious they crap? If the answer is yes they get the vote. The economy isn't too much of a concern as this lot have screwed up so badly it'd take a real dickhead to do any worse. At the last election our Labour MP had a majority of about a 100. I don't think he'll be back next time.

      --
      Hmmmmmm..... Deep fried and look like Squirrel.
  4. I'll take the risk then! by dogganos · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I have thought over it many times and, regarding myself, I have concluded: I would prefer to live freely and unobserved and someday die in a terrorist attack, than live in a "security" hell for all my life with cameras and RFIDs up my ass.

    Put aside the fact that surveillance almost never stops a attack - only it helps find the burned-out guys.

    And some semantics: How many of you walk in the street and feels ''terrorized''? On the other hand, how many of you feel terrorized by the fact that your every moment is on tape, and your personal data wanders in places you don't know?

    1. Re:I'll take the risk then! by johannesg · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Amen. Once in a while you wish Slashdot had a golden +10 moderation, and this is one of those times.

      "Terrorism", when looked at number of deaths per year, is basically a total non-issue. How many people have been killed by terrorism in the UK in the last 50 years? Would anyone support a program where you spend _millions_ per prevented death, knowing that far more deaths could have been prevented by spending the same money to prevent something with far higher mortality rates - say, by improving traffic safety, or by reducing the number of smokers?

      Terrorism is such political bullshit. Sure, some people get killed (and I grief for them), and we do need to be careful - but we should not, under any circumstance, change our entire way of life, the entire structure of our civilisation, just because a bearded monkey in a cave in Afghanistan got a little upset with us.

      There is no al queada (oh sure, there are some people taking that name, but there is no Dr. Blofeld-style, centrally led organisation hell-bent on destroying western civilisation. It is all opportunistic, people sharing a banner that was largely _invented_ by the US). And bin Laden, if he is still alive at all, is a sick, dirty old man living under extremely poor conditions in a cave somewhere in Afghanistan or Pakistan, and only a threat to himself.

      Stop the fear already.

    2. Re:I'll take the risk then! by BiggerIsBetter · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Stop the fear already.

      Stop what fear? I don't know ANYONE who is fearful of terrorists, or being caught in terrorist acts. I don't even know anyone who knows anyone who is scared of this BS. As near as I can tell, it's 100% political propaganda that nameless people are scared and want more big-brother style "protection". People want more self reliance and an honest right to defend themselves when the need arises... be it from terrorist, thugs, or the government.

      A challenge to all Slashdotters: If anyone can tell me of people - either you, or people that you personally know - who are genuinely afraid of these things happening, post your stories now:

      --
      Forget thrust, drag, lift and weight. Airplanes fly because of money.
  5. Re:When I was a kid... by unlametheweak · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Modern day Britain reminds me of the science fiction dystopia portrayed on the old British TV show The Prisoner.

    It's sad and foreboding how social and technological dystopia's emerge from what was once only imaginative musings of science fiction writers.

  6. The United Kingdom is now The Villiage by Chris+Tucker · · Score: 5, Insightful

    And you're ALL Number 6.

    Do you have the courage that Number 6 had? Will you fight back against Number 2?

    Are you just "A number" or are you Free Men & Women?

    The choice is yours.

    --
    Guaranteed! This comment 100% Anthrax free!
  7. Abuse of power ? by Davemania · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I am sure many reader are probably aware that assets of Iceland's bank were seized using anti-terrorism laws. Out of curiosity for people from the UK, is there even any reaction to this misuse of power ? With the economic going down, and surely crime rate will rise, I wouldn't trust the civil servants with powers like this.

  8. Re:When I was a kid... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I live in Sweden, and it seems that the law that was supposed to be passed has been changed to be a bit less draconian.

    But honestly, I don't think there is almost any point in trying to do anything about the actions, or symptoms, of terrorists and terrorism.
    Increased security and surveillance simply doesn't help at all. It is to easy for them to just do something else. The possibilities are virtually endless.
    Granted, some of the captured people that they claim was trying to commit these kinds of crimes probably would have carried them through...but if the society they had grown up in had been less insane, they probably would never have considered these actions to begin with.

    The ONLY thing that can be done is to do something about the causes of it.
    Instead, our governments are busy BEING the causes of it. Utterly cluless.

  9. Opportunity cost by 91degrees · · Score: 5, Insightful

    In the last 5 years, there have been roughly 100 deaths related to Terrorism in the UK. The death rate under the IRA was slightly higher at about 50 per year. Let's take that higher figure and assume some 500 deaths over the next 10 years.

    So, to fight this, we have a £1 billion database, a £12 billion surveillance program, and an ID cards scheme costing £18 billion. £31 billion for fighting those 500 deaths, or £62 million per death presumably prevented.

    Perhaps if this £31 billion was spent on subsidising healthy food or teaching kids to cook properly and healthily, we could see a drop in the several thousand heart disease related deaths each year. If it was spent on road safety perhaps we could see a drop on the 3000 or so people killed on the roads each year.

    Why are we worrying about terrorism?

  10. In every country ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Unfortunately most people fail to see the connection between lists and any danger. The lists are being made to influence people who speaking out against the ones in power. But most people fail to see the danger of giving the power seekers ever more data to mine on everyone. Knowledge is power and the ones in power seek the use that knowledge to prevent people standing against their point of view.

    With ever more detailed lists on peoples views, soon we end up with people fearful of what they say on the phone and in emails, for fear of their views could even just risk being taken out of context and seen in any way critical of the people in power. At that point, the ones in power are influencing people directly.

    At that point, we live in a police state, where freedom is gone and replaced by fear of the ones in power. Problem is, we are getting there now, and from here on out, its simply a matter of consolidation of ever more detailed data mining.

    The central reason why centuries ago votes were made in secret, was to prevent the ones in power, from seeking to influence the voters. Yet the power seekers are forever seeking to game the system to gain ever more information on peoples opinions. Now the ones in power are building automated systems to influence people.

    Throughout history its been shown time and time again that the ones in power become ever more corrupt over time without any feedback on how they are behaving. Its been show so many times through history.

    Most people don't realise the game people in power are playing. People in power are not so interested in individuals. The ones in power are interested in adding everyone to different lists so they can then control and profiling groups of people, so they can then use divide and conquer tactics, to break groups of people up. The goal is that the fragmented groups cannot then stand and oppose the point of view of the ones in power. That is why they data mine.

    The lessons of history have not been learned by enough people. Looks like the world is seeking to repeat the mistakes of the past. Freedom and democracy are constantly undermined by a minority of people in power for their own gain. Its just a matter of time and how far we are going to let them all game the system to push the excesses ever more unfairly in their favour. After all, its not as if they are robbing hundreds of billions of tax payers money to keep their rich lifestyles while millions risk loosing everything.

    Anyway, if the millions of people can't buy bread, then let them eat cake. ... My point is, the names in history change and the names of their ideologies change. But what remains is basic human psychology and that doesn't change. The lack of empathy of the ones in power over their powerless minions never changes. For all their words, its only their actions which count and millions now face loosing their jobs and millions are treated unfairly by the ones in power.

    In such a world, its no surprise that the ones in power would want to watch their minions very closely. After all, people could start to complain its getting all to unfair. But we cannot have that. We need ever more laws to protect the ones in power and ever more laws to keep the minions down and away from power.

    The world will never change until everyone worldwide realises that people who constantly seek power over others have a recognisable cluster B personality disorder. All cluster B personality disorders are ultimately driven by fear. And the ones with the disorder constantly seek to control that fear and control everyone around them based on their fear. (There are multiple fears, two examples are lack of attention and the other is fear of lack of power. The attention seekers want more attention (they were deprived of parental attention as children. The ones who want power seek to prevent anyone ever having power over them again, the way they were treated unfairly as children)... The very nature of seeking power over others, means that person seeks to push other

    1. Re:In every country ... by somersault · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The ones in power are interested in adding everyone to different lists so they can then control and profiling groups of people, so they can then use divide and conquer tactics, to break groups of people up. The goal is that the fragmented groups cannot then stand and oppose the point of view of the ones in power. That is why they data mine.

      The US and the UK both have governments with powerful spying ability, and yet both countries only have 2 political parties that are likely to win general elections.. so I don't really get your reasoning on this. Seems to me like if this were happening, we'd have a lot more competition going on in politics. Perhaps your reasoning is that it will happen if we're not careful? Personally I'd be quite happy for people to be thinking for themselves more and not just splitting every issue into diametrically opposed viewpoints.

      That would be a clever way to operate if you are in power and want to keep it though - creating distrust among the opposition so that they split into groups. Then they have less voting power. Just saying "we are better, vote for us" - as politicians and their fanboys so often seem to be doing - doesn't really get results very quickly.

      --
      which is totally what she said