Slashdot Mirror
David Cameron Says Fictional Crime Proves Why Snooper's Charter Is Necessary
An anonymous reader sends this story from TechDirt:
"You may recall the stories from the past couple years about the so-called 'snooper's charter' in the UK — a system to further legalize the government's ability to spy on pretty much all communications. It was setting up basically a total surveillance system, even beyond what we've since learned is already being done today. Thankfully, that plan was killed off by Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg. However, Prime Minister David Cameron is back to pushing for the snooper's charter — and his reasoning is as stupid as it is unbelievable. Apparently, he thinks it's necessary because the fictional crime dramas he watches on TV show why it's necessary. Cameron said, 'I love watching, as I probably should stop telling people, crime dramas on the television. There's hardly a crime drama where a crime is solved without using the data of a mobile communications device. What we have to explain to people is that... if we don't modernise the practice and the law, over time we will have the communications data to solve these horrible crimes on a shrinking proportion of the total use of devices and that is a real problem for keeping people safe.'"
Its the same reason that we should be increasing our ability to hunt down hobbits. If they get control of that ring again it could be the end for us all!
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
By that logic, the best way to prevent 9/11 would have been to cover up the small thermal exhaust port on the World Trade Center that led directly to the main reactor.
Warp drive. Lawyers with a conscience. Guns which never need reloading. And magic infinite photo enhancement. When do we get those, huh?
Of course, the stories I'm following are the ones that picture totalitarian governments. We should therefore pass laws barring any government agency (there than very local law enforcement) from having any powers.
âoeAny society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.
We already know that things which happen in soap operas come to pass, in real life - as programmes like those set the agenda for what "ordinary people" assume is socially acceptable: both for their own behaviour and that of others. Those programmes (and cop shows, too) also tell people what is an acceptable reaction to given situations.
Some (non-viewers) might say that these are fictional drama and therefore should be treated as non-real and non-realistic, but just check out TV forums and see how many posters refer to actors by their characters' names. For a lot of people, TV is real-life: just as Google IS the internet as far asa they're concerned.
politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
Well, at least he admits his madness. His reality is fantasy.
"Reality" is the only word in the language that should always be used in quotes.
Brave Sir Robin ran away. ("No!") Bravely ran away away. ("I didn't!")
We won't be able to catch the suicide bombers either if we can't analyse their mobile communications after the bomb goes off!
He should watch more of the shows where a halfway decent hacker and a computer can sniff out any kind of information, whether it's somewhere on the internet or not, even if it's hidden on a standalone computer in some godforsaken place of the marble we're on, a truly good hacker can dig it up.
So what does he need those laws for? He should hire a few more of those wonderful hackers.
Given the right price, I'm for hire, btw...
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
As Regan looked at the world through the fog of dementia and dirty windows at the White House he couldn't distinguish between movie scripts and reality. (Remember the refit of the New Jersey?) It seems that Cameron has lost more than a few brain cells too.
And we really need to catch them and lock them up to make sure they'll never do it again!
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Cameron notices his butler has a tv and spends time watching it, realises this could be a way to communicate with the proles "on their level"
Your TV prviledges are revoked, go to your room!
"Enjoy what you're doing! If it becomes drudgery, you're doing it wrong!" - Jim Butterfield
Techdirt is honest reporting at its finest, rivaling even Slashdot's journalistic integrity. They're both very upfront and clear about their biases.
...his reasoning is as stupid as it is unbelievable.
Sometimes that isn't bias, as much as an accurate and objective assessment. It is a bad idea to seriously consider every ridiculous statement instead of dismissing it outright.
That's why politicians start from ridiculous propositions -- so that any "compromise" is well in their favor.
It seems to me, from the British TV I watch, that the UK is clearly in need of a Time Lord's Charter, authorizing the use of the Tardis and associated technology in solving existential threats to the Earth.
I know it's not so much a slippery slope as a sheer faced cliff, but in this case I'm all for calling it what it is.
Cameron's quote, from the article, actually goes like this:
"In the most serious crimes [such as] child abduction communications data... is absolutely vital. I love watching, as I probably should stop telling people, crime dramas on the television. There's hardly a crime drama where a crime is solved without using the data of a mobile communications device."
So it's "think of the children" yet again! Only this time he backs that "view" with an even more ludicrous point.
When did "keeping us safe" become the primary function of government? Oh, that's right, George Bush and John Ashcroft used that as an excuse to make us live in a police state right after 9/11. Now it has spread to the whole democratic West. Good thing the terrorists didn't win.
And while we're at it...
Whenever a controversial law is proposed, and its supporters, when confronted with an egregious abuse it would permit, use a phrase along the lines of 'Perhaps in theory, but the law would never be applied in that way' - they're lying. They intend to use the law that way as early and as often as possible.
Meringuoid's Law, 2005, Slashdot.
Im convinced that if people in congress or this administration (or any administration in the past 20 years actually) tried to use this same argument, the polls would show over 1/2 of the us here in the USA would also be all for it
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
who says that tv shows and movies are heavily not influenced by government agencies doings or their manipulation? You get full circle, we need to defend from what we are actually doing, or need to defend to the boogeyman we just put in front of you. And you will be convinced because you just saw it on tv. Never seen such political way to say "you are all retards and i will take advantage of that".
Not to defend him by any means, but in this instance his statement is no more stupid than invoking 1984 or other dystopian works of fiction as the reason the Snooper's Charter is to be avoided. Fiction they may be, but these works portray possibilities that inform how things might turn out in reality given a course of action, even if the actual outcome resembles the fictional scenario only in kind, not in actual detail. The ability to gain insight into ourselves is one of the many reasons we find works of art valuable in the first place. The key is not to confuse fiction with reality which admittedly many do.
"...over time we will have the communications data to solve these horrible crimes on a shrinking proportion of the total use of devices and that is a real problem for keeping people safe."
Ahh, yes, the spectre of bad things that could happen in the future. We can't show any actual evidence of the value of these kinds of programs right now, because it is fictional, but think of what might happen tomorrow! As Wimpy would say, "I will gladly protect you Tuesday for your liberty today."
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
Whenever a controversial law is proposed, and its supporters, when confronted with an egregious abuse it would permit, use a phrase along the lines of 'Perhaps in theory, but the law would never be applied in that way' - they're lying.
just like the patriot act. we have the author of the bill running around now stating that he never intended for it to be used in the way its being used. Well if you didnt intend for it to be used in this way, why did you write it in a way that it COULD be used in this way???
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
Let's face it, 90% of people are fucking stupid, and believe everything they see on TV, including "crime dramas" where unbelievable feats of forensic science are achieved in every episode. People eat this shit up, and most of this stupid underclass believes it is necessary to prevent or solve crimes.
This is why the revelations that these ubiquitous, omniscient surveillance systems exists generated nothing more than enthusiastic yawns among the populace.
People... just... don't... care...
Honestly, the people who do care, even being as vocal as they can be, make an almost imperceptible noise against the drums of big tyrannical government - like an annoying mosquito in the ear of the underinformed, low-information majority who just wants to know when the next episode of the Kardashians or Property Brothers or CSI or other mindless drivel will be on.
keeping people safe.
This is the big problem. You can't keep people safe and there's on need to strive to do so to the absolute. You can keep them safer, and the trick is to strike the right balance between their security and their freedom.
If only there was some apposite quote from an elder statesmen of a bygone age...
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
At what point is a bias no longer a bias but a measurable fact?
Being unable to distinguish between reality and TV seems a rather clear indication of mental retardation.
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
What Britain really needs is a real Sherlock Holmes. He can only invade your privacy if you're within his sight.
only the police used historical mobile data to find some suspects in the Madeleine Mcann disappearance case (to the shame of the Portugese police who no doubt didn't have access to such, if they weren't incompetent as described in the media :) )
So there's a real-life case of what he's saying being true, while those TV crime dramas do exaggerate the possibilities (think CSI using the reflection in a car body as evidence, or 24 using satellite tracking video data, or Bladerunner zooming into a picture to see behind objects) that doesn't mean the drama series are based on nothing but fantasy.
So the question isn't really that we can do these things, or even if the police use these things in their work; but how do we ensure that the authorities use them responsibly, openly and without abusing them. I'm certain we can't trust the security services to check themselves, and politicians seem to be in the thrall of these guys, so what can we get that puts the correct restrictions on this data so its used as we want it to be?
You'd think the only way to do this is to enshrine it clearly in law, which is the "charter" he's talking about... now forget the stupid talk of complaining about what he said and start talking about the contents of that law he wants introduced.
I think we can officially declare the UK a lost cause.
It's been fun!
Well if you didnt intend for it to be used in this way, why did you write it in a way that it COULD be used in this way?
Law of unintended consequences. You'll see it any country where laws and lawyers exist. A law is written as X,Y,Z; a lawyer will see it as X,A,C,Y,Z and exploit any and all loopholes that previous precedents or case law will allow. Let's be realistic, some politicians have been lawyers, but your average politician isn't, and they have no idea that "and" is explicit, and "or" can be taken in 12 different ways within a legal framework. Even lawyers who specialize in particular areas get messed up on that.
Om, nomnomnom...
good point, but on that note the laws are generally not written by the politicians, they are salesmen, they get handed the laws that are written by their handlers or companies or lawyers. So in reality I would argue that the laws were written with the loopholes, and in a way that gives himi the excuse of saying it was never intended to be used that way, even though it is
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
In other news, the UK PM Sir Mortimer Chris (played by David Cameron) said:
"It's all because of the invisible leprechauns. It's true, because I saw it in a film. We have to be much tougher on everything and everybody in order to eradicate this terrible pest. The Snooper's Charter is just the beginning; I'm now working on the draft Wear Your Underpants On The Outside For Hygiene Law (WYUOTOFH law).
Most of my cabinet ministers have agreed with me, and those who haven't (because the leprechauns subverted them) have agreed to be publicly crucified in Wembley stadium to atone for their weirdness and sins.
I have instructed our nuclear submarines to go to code Red. Death to leprechauns. God will save us!"
To be, or not to be: isn't that quite logical, Slashdot Beta?
Indeed, he's merely providing a context to which people might be familiar, if he had chosen to give real examples of policework, it would amount to the same dialogue.
Or do these same people chide those who mention Orwell, Rand, and other authors of fiction?
Well, when you look at how many times a reference to a tv show or a movie is made by posters here on Slashdot as justification or backup of their point of view or draw analogies. Just yesterday someone pointed to Bones as an example of a STEM educated woman.
It seems like every story has some posting from a juvenile living in his mom's basement referencing some TV show or movie. It happens every day in every thread.
Cameron was just playing to the audience most likely to buy his drivel.
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
That's if you think "enshrine it clearly in law" will act as a protection against misuse. Unfortunately, recent history casts derision upon that point of view. (I was going to be more "polite" and say "casts doubts", but reviewing recent history, I couldn't justify that more moderate statement.)
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
He's a politician. You can tell he's lying if you see his lips move.
P.S.: I don't follow British politics. If that's an overstatement in British politics, I appologize. I'm assuming that in it's broad aspects it resembles US politics.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
And for all the extra data obtained for the Madeleine McCann case they have got precisely nowhere. Identifying suspects who turn out to be exonerated is the same as not having identified them in the first place.
We'll stay with the stupid because it is that which he is using to justify the law he wants introduced. For example, he cites Sherlock as a use of metadata to solve crimes. The problem with that is that no metadata was ever used by Sherlock. So either he didn't watch it and just assumed or didn't pay attention and just assumed. So not only is he using fiction to try and alter reality, he used the wrong fiction and expects blind obedience to his latest idiotic wheeze.
At this point it doesn't matter what the proposed law might be. "It started off badly but turned out alright in the end" is no way to enact legislation.
"Wait. Something's happening. It's opening up! My God, it's full of apricots!"
Why should we be interested in what you have to say if you preface it with "I'm a teapot"?
"Wait. Something's happening. It's opening up! My God, it's full of apricots!"
British politics differs hugely from American politics. However, yes, in the moving lips = lies point, politicians are the same worldwide.
we need to triple funding for creating GUI interfaces in Visual Basic! Hurry!!!
I have left slashdot and am now on Soylent News. FUCK YOU DICE.
Well, when you look at how many times a reference to a tv show or a movie is made by posters here on Slashdot as justification or backup of their point of view or draw analogies.
We expect more from national leasers than we do from the less than average slashdot reader.
Of course we are constantly disappointed.
True in some cases. Though you'll probably remember that the base draft of most laws are written by politicians, in turn the faults in those law will transfer over because the one doing the draft or final draft listen to the one who wants it written as such. I've seen this in action up here in Canada both in federal and provincial politics, it's very easy to make a non-threatening phrase turn into something that twists the entire meaning and not make it so.
An example from the US: The passing of the restricted magazine law in NYC(I believe it was). The phrasing was explicit, written by politicians, and didn't exclude police, and other law related personal. In turn, it fully disarmed the law enforcement side.
Om, nomnomnom...
Or do these same people chide those who mention [...] Rand
Yes. Those guys are idiots.
>The British people don't want a greatly expanded form of Stasi style spying.
Please do not tell me what I do or do not want.
Anything that keeps me and my children safe is always a good thing. I welcome this idea.
Donald Regan was Treasury Secretary and later Chief of Staff for Ronald Reagan, an actor who played the President of the United States.
The /g isn't strictly correct, because sometimes somebody might actually want to refer to Regan, but it's probably 99% correct.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
I think using Knight Rider and Macgyver as reference for national security policy would be far more effective that the murder porn shows.
The Feds really did have to raid Steve Jackson Games, because otherwise dangerous computer hackers might use their site to learn dangerous hacking techniques, like "Roll 3d6. If you get better than 15, your probe breaks through the firewall undetected!".
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
Firstly, Cameron didn't say it was necessary. He merely used that example to illustrate what he was saying.
Cameron's first act as PM was to repeal Labour's ID Cards Act (which was compulsory fingerprinting, numbering and recording on a national database to hook up all govt databases) and destroy the hard disks Guardian-style. Maybe this is where he got the idea.
He also attended the inception meeting of NO2ID, the immensely successful campaign that Labour's Home Minister Secretary at the time, David Blunkett, acknowledged in his final speech.
The Tory Snooper's Charter was a mess. Expert after expert (including industry data-rape experts from Google et al) slagged it off in official proceedings and even an open letter. We're kinda used to Govts being clueless about IT but what was properly disturbing was how the Home Office ignored all this clear and helpful feedback. So certainly, Theresa May should be sacked.
I'm not sure Cameron ever stepped in until now. Under pressure from his party, Clegg eventually said he wasn't going to support any such Bill and so that killed it for this Parliament.
We badly need an Act clawing back some of the surveillance powers of the state. They can do already do any surveillance at the ISP level they want as well as lock up people for not disclosing their public keys. There are no checks on that power whatsover in this country bar possibly The Guardian.
So that's a summary of where we are. The debate I wanted to highlight is how do we assess Cameron's views on this:
Few people know this but Cameron used to write a column for the left-wing Guardian. And he was far more liberal a couple of years before he got into power.
Has he gone from liberal to totalitarian in 3-6 years? If so, why? Is it merely scary-sounding intelligence reports or is it possible that our secret services are blackmailing him?
Or is he merely trying to shift the cost burden of surveillance from the state to the ISP/customer? And if so, why is he talking about a dead Bill which he has almost no chance of reintroducing (since he'll almost certainly be kicked out in 2015)?
He could bring David Cameron's administration down with two words... Ok, not two. Six.
"Don't you think he looks tired?"
Worked for Harriet Jones.
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
You don't need to pretend to be a piece of trash; we already have many people like that in society, and I see them every single day.
I think he's wrong and his policies are misguided. But it doesn't look to me like he said the fictional stories proved that these methods were useful, just that they illustrated how they were useful.
It's only fiction because the snooper's charter was stopped. If they did have access to all data everywhere, solving crimes would be a lot more like the fiction.
Calling this stupid and unbelievable is an unforgivable journalistic error, as it speaks directly to a large part of the population, being those who enjoy the crime dramas. It is classic understanding of the intended audience, and gives a lot of information concisely.
Modernizing the law will give access to more data and solve more crimes, and that is both what he said and a true statement.
Note, I am not supporting his side. Just pointing out that mischaracterizing comments is not helping.
No, I do think it's stupid and unbelievable. I'm just arrogant enough to want to come to that conclusion myself.
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
The current situation is EXACTLY what American "liberals" were predicting would be the result, before it was passed. They passed it anyways, if it was "unintended" then they were total idiots who should listen more.
Identifying suspects who turn out to be exonerated is the same as not having identified them in the first place.
No. It is worse, unless the process leads to eventual success.
those same liberals all voted for the law. 2 members of the senate and 62 or so members of the house voted no or present. which is worse, warning us about how evil it is and STILL voting for it
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
Obvious bias is indeed obvious, but, to be fair, it only points out that the reason is stupid, and does not comment on the law itself. It doesn't really need to either, since the /. groupthink will tell 95% of us what to think about it anyway.
You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
Ahhh, if it's all the same to you, I'm not quite done with my critical reasoning skills yet. But, I promise, the moment I'm done with them, I'll come chase shadows with you on your imaginary demon hunt.
You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
It's used in fiction because the writers are on a tight schedule and so aren't above a bit of deus ex machina to get over a sticky plot point. Of course, fiction writers need not concern themselves with the human rights of fictional characters.
Here in the real world, people have rights that must be respected and reality rarely alters itself to drop key evidence in a detective's lap at the 50 minute mark so he can solve the case before the show ends, even with mobile data. Fortunately, criminal masterminds that can erase all evidence of their crime EXCEPT for their cellphone are also quite rare here in reality.
What suspects? They have 3 guys who were doing a little burglary at the time talking on their cellphones. Do they REALLY think those guys were out and about stealing the silver and wondered to themselves how much their fence would give them for a kid? Or is it more likely they were calling back and fourth talking about how the cops were out in force and perhaps they should go somewhere else to steal the silver?
So all that mobile data and they're still clutching at straws and have no idea where the kid is. Thank God for mobile data!
Or do these same people chide those who mention Orwell, Rand, and other authors of fiction?
You know, there are different levels literary significance. Comparing a weekly crime drama meant solely to get ratings to a great literary work themed by the author to provide a message is kind of like the idiot in the post further down validating arguments used by a state leader to justify a surveillance state because random people in an Internet forum use the same type of argument. If people can't make that distinction we are lost already considering what's shown on TV.
Who is John Galt?
It's used in fiction because the writers are on a tight schedule and so aren't above a bit of deus ex machina to get over a sticky plot point. Of course, fiction writers need not concern themselves with the human rights of fictional characters.
Actually, I think it's more used because they like to pander to the large subset of the population that _loves_ to see fictional heroes violate the rights of the "bad guys". It works in real life politics, after all. Just look at the ridiculous populatic of Sherrif Joe Arpaio. TV crime dramas are full of "good guys" who lie, cheat, steal, torture, murder, and otherwise violate pretty much every principle they're supposed to uphold, but it's ok because they have virtually a 100% success rate (except for the recurring genius serial killers with whom they're involved in an intensely personal cat and mouse game) at not only closing cases, but getting the right guy. Most of the heros of these shows belong behind bars themselves, but people cheer them on because they're "getting" the bad guys one way or another.
Of course, aside from the pandering, there's also the possibility of direct influence by the military and three letter agencies and their ilk (not to mention affiliated commercial entities with a financial interest in the spying industry). That may sound like conspiracy theory material, but it's really not. It's quite well known that the US military has, for example, certain requirements for how the military is depicted in exchange for use of military resources in entertainment. It's also completely factual that the CIA used to have a movie financing arm and still provides all kinds of consulting services to Hollywood. Frankly, it wouldn't be too surprising if there were still producers, directors and writers directly on their payroll like there were back in the 1950s.
You must be from the right, because I actually said "liberals." I did NOT say "Democracts." Most Democrats are not liberals. There are only about 2 liberals in the Senate, and 50 or so in the House. So it is pretty clear that the liberals did vote with their warning, and the Dems didn't listen.
British politics differs hugely from American politics. However, yes, in the moving lips = lies point, politicians are the same worldwide.
British politicians lie using bigger words.
Unfortunately Australian politicians went the other way, our current prime minister cant stop saying boats for some strange reason.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
picking nits. While not all democrats are liberals this is true, there are way more than 2 + 50 but I get what you are putting down The libertarians were also warning from the begining. Its as if the far left and far right get things right, for different reasons and the "middle" who all want "compromise" cant get jack shit right
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same