Brits Must Trade Digital Freedoms For Safety, Says Crime Agency Boss

bestweasel writes: The Guardian has an interview with Keith Bristow, the head of the National Crime Agency, (sometimes called Britain's FBI, apparently) in which he says, "Britons must accept a greater loss of digital freedoms in return for greater safety from serious criminals and terrorists." He also mentions pedophiles, of course. The article seems to cover just the highlights of the interview, but in another quote he says that for "policing by consent," the consent is "expressed through legislation." While this might sound reassuring, it's coupled with the Home Secretary's call last week for greater mass surveillance powers. Presumably whoever wins power in the elections next year will claim that this gives them the required consent (that's democracy, folks!) and pass the laws.

Comments

Trading Freedom for Security?

[brainboyz]

Because that always works out well for those giving up freedoms. Always.

Re:Trading Freedom for Security?

[DoktorMidnight]

Well, not that *one* time, but we never really talk about that so it doesn't count.

Re: Trading Freedom for Security?

[Anonymous Coward]

Next time they should give up a little freedom for dental care.

Re:Trading Freedom for Security?

[Anonymous Coward]

we never really talk about that so it doesn't count.

The thing we should be talking about is how and why politicians worldwide are running a fear campaign, with the central message that loss of freedom is a necessary path to security.

Just a few weeks ago, Australia's Prime Minister, Tony Abbott, said:

"Regrettably, for some time to come, Australians will have to endure more security than we're used to, and more inconvenience than we would like. Regrettably for some time to come, the delicate balance between freedom and security may have to shift.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/201...

There's no doubt they're coordinating their attacks on our freedom, but who is driving the campaign and what is their end goal?

Re:Trading Freedom for Security?

[trewornan]

There may be a worldwide campaign but I think this guy is merely a copyright industry whore.

Re:Trading Freedom for Security?

[alex67500]

MORE LIKELY ILL JUST STICK TO REDDIT, I SEE THE SAME STORIES ON THERE DAYS EARLIER.

We all read most of the news on Slashdot one to five days before. I come here for the quality of the comments.

Re:Trading Freedom for Security?

[tehcyder]

OK, then we should disband all our armed forces, law enforcement agencies and the judicial system: we obviously can't have any security at all, as it inevitably curtails our freedom to some extent.

Re:Trading Freedom for Security?

[Scarletdown]

Autorefresh sucks too!

about:config

accessibility.blockautorefresh true

Re:Trading Freedom for Security?

[rvw]

we never really talk about that so it doesn't count.

The thing we should be talking about is how and why politicians worldwide are running a fear campaign, with the central message that loss of freedom is a necessary path to security.

Only one reason: because the people want it. Fear is an easy emotion.

Re:Trading Freedom for Security?

[Wootery]

who is driving the campaign and what is their end goal?

It must be the Illuminati, right? Do shut up.

If you have compelling evidence of a global conspiracy, then show us. If not, then cut it out; there are simpler explanations than global conspiracies.

Re:Trading Freedom for Security?

[tehcyder]

As long as we can bear arms in the open, why not?

Good luck with your coonskin cap, never say die attitude and hunting rifle against an F-16 or cruise missile.

Re:Trading Freedom for Security?

[Jason Levine]

Well, to be fair trading freedom for security hasn't worked any time anyone has tried it... but they've got a good feeling about it this time!

Re:Trading Freedom for Security?

[NetNed]

Not sure who it is, but I am pretty certain this is why we have saw it ramped up over the last year.

Re:Trading Freedom for Security?

[usuallylost]

Just from reading these articles over the years, watching the news and my general observations I think their motivations are fairly clear. Powerful entrenched economic interests such as the entertainment industry, news media and financial industry all feel threatened by the freewheeling ways of the Internet. Those interests are demanding action from the government to protect their economic models. Governments fear terrorists. In some ways they fear them more than the public does as nothing motivates politicians more than preserving their power and position. None of them want to be the one that didn’t foil the next big attack. Governments also fear the free flow of information among the public. That fear manifests in places like China with the Great Firewall and similar technologies deployed in places like Iran and Saudi Arabia. It also manifests in things like so many countries attempting to develop things like ability to turn off the Internet. In the Western countries it seems to be manifesting as this desire to monitor everything and everyone. My gut feeling on this is that their proposed strategies for dealing with these things do more harm than good. I guess that is not surprising in my view considering fear, especially irrational fear, is not a good basis for developing public policy.

Re:Trading Freedom for Security?

[strikethree]

There's no doubt they're coordinating their attacks on our freedom, but who is driving the campaign and what is their end goal?

I do not know who, but we read about it in Brave New World and 1984. They want power. Absolute, soul crushing, power. The infamous "they" are closer than ever before to getting it... but what then? Absolute power is not enough to satisfy. After a decade or two, what then? There will be incredible death and destruction.

And the cycle will begin again... probably with sticks and stones this time.

Re:Trading Freedom for Security?

[Somebody Is Using My]

It's a false comparison anyway.

In these bargains we do not trade "freedom for security" against some threat; instead we trade away our freedoms for a different kind of threat. History has shown that governments can be as dangerous to their populace as the criminals against whom theysupposedly protect. By giving up our freedoms, we are merely trading the types of risk we face: criminals, terrorists, et al. are an extremely rare but potentially quite deadly threat, whereas governments are an all-pervasive threat (to life and property) but the effects are usually much more limited in scope (usually restrictions on how you act or spend your money at first, although governments also have the potential to be far more dangerous).

Governments claim we must give up freedom for security, but we get no security out of the trade; we merely exchange an immediate (if unlikely) danger for a certain one down the road. Unfortunately, evolution has left our species with a poor ability to assess danger beyond the immediate future, a fact of which governments take advantage when they trot out their "facts" and "statistics" about how horrible is terrorism. Scared by the loud noise, we dart for any apparent shelter, often mistaking an alligator's jaws for a sheltering cave.

Let's not all be scared apes; let us look before we leap. The threat from which we need "protecting" is largely bluster and the security we are being promised is an illusion. Neither are worth sacrificing our freedoms.

Re:Trading Freedom for Security?

[dywolf]

were there an edit button i would change "is about" to "involves".
how many years now without an edit button? too many.

Re:Trading Freedom for Security?

[Somebody Is Using My]

The end goal is simple; they want to make things easier and safer for themselves.

Government is made up of people, and those people have the same wants and desires as ourselves. In particular, they want their jobs to be less difficult and they want security of employment. These laws help enable these desires. Catching criminals is tough work, but it is easier if you have the ability to watch everyone all the time. Certainly it would be better for them to have these powers written into law so they are all above-board; that way there is no risk to their jobs when they are caught spying.

But like any other person, they are too focused on the immediate goal, unaware of how the accumulating powers of government might be misused in the future (or downplaying the risk because the immediate advantages are so obvious). It is only when the power is misused that they may regret the decision. Unfortunately, history has shown that accumulated power will inevitably be used, which is why these mistakes are all the more tragic.

It's not a conspiracy of the powerful working against us; it's an accumulation of human short-sightedness that puts the wrong tools into the hands of the corrupt.

Re:Trading Freedom for Security?

[ArcadeMan]

“Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't after you”
  Joseph Heller, Catch-22

Re:Trading Freedom for Security?

[Anonymous Coward]

The thing we should be talking about is how and why politicians worldwide are running a fear campaign, with the central message that loss of freedom is a necessary path to security.

Only one reason: because the people want it. Fear is an easy emotion.

People want to be scared? I don't think so. But if you scare them with something suitably intangible and offer a nicely expensive (as in, costing freedoms), they'll flock to you for protection. For surely, sacrifices have to be made!

There are plenty of suitably intanglible threats that can be used to play on the emotions. Terrorism is a good one. Scary brown people that proved they could reach out and touch you, yet are otherwise mostly overseas. Child molesters is another good group of bogeymen; it directly appeals on our instincts to protect children and has a built-in notion that such people are beyond the pale already and therefore acceptable targets whatever you throw at them.

"The internet" is also very intanglible to many people, so it's a good sauce to add danger to the danger, and so emphasise the need to act and do whatever it is the politician is proposing. Note the complaints about "cyberbullying" that keep on popping up. It's hardly that much worse than bullying ever was, but it's much more visible (messages you can show to others instead of just hissed threats and meaningful gestures in passing) and it involves that nebulously dangerous thing, them intarwebbertubes!

But it works well as a danger-amplifier even if the supposed thread isn't all that big on using the internet really. Terrorists on teh intarwebz? Like there's ADSL or cable in the desert. And satellite comms are well and thorougly infiltrated by the US government. They're far more likely to send a trusted family member with an envelope or some USB sticks than post stuff in the open.

It works well for adding scare value to child molesting too; most actual abuse doesn't happen on the internet and where it does, that part is easy to fix: Underage children shouldn't get unsupervised access to the digital world. But because parents evidently cannot keep the family computer in the living room in Britain, they now have a nation-wide censored-by-default porn filter "to protect the children" by treating everyone as a child by default. This quite separately from the earlier IWF-run child porn and wikipedia pages filter. It's no surprise politicians keep on proposing measures to snoop more and restrict more "on the internet", for they don't understand it and so it must be controlled by law and force.

So really, this guy is only saying that yes, there'll be more restrictions, because the politicians want to restrict you, for your own protection. Because of their ignorance really, but it's for your protection, honest. Politicians' honour!

Re:Trading Freedom for Security?

[clam666]

Personally I think this is a good idea. I think props should be given to whomever came up with the idea. A change in techology, that provides safety and protection from the government, should always be welcome.

Huzzah to Keith Bristow.

Re:Trading Freedom for Security?

[Zontar The Mindless]

If they're smart, they'll never add an Edit button.

Re:Trading Freedom for Security?

[kilfarsnar]

who is driving the campaign and what is their end goal?

It must be the Illuminati, right? Do shut up.

If you have compelling evidence of a global conspiracy, then show us. If not, then cut it out; there are simpler explanations than global conspiracies.

Meh, even with compelling evidence most people won't believe a conspiracy is afoot. I've discovered that, outside of mathematics, it is quite difficult to prove something. There is always another possible explanation people can use, if they don't want to go in the conspiracist's direction. Or they'll say that someone would talk and expose the plot, or that such a level of organization isn't possible, or some such comforting rationale.

As we well know, people are good at continuing to believe what they have always believed. On any side of an issue people can discount evidence or say, "Maybe that's true but it doesn't necessarily follow that what you're saying is correct." What if the AC above provided links to documents from a Bilderberg meeting where they talked about using fear to control the population? (Incidentally, the existence of the Bilderberg group was once thought to be a conspiracy theory, but is now understood to be a real thing). The documents' authenticity would immediately be suspect. Can you prove the document is genuine? Good luck with that. So the document can safely be ignored because it cannot be proven as genuine. What if someone came forward and said they has spoken to a member of the conspiracy and had it confirmed? Hearsay. What if someone said they themselves were a member of a conspiracy? Well, everyone they implicate is going to deny it and the person will be ostracized.

If there were a global conspiracy to curtail freedoms, there is likely little direct evidence of it. Likely nothing is written down, and no one is going to talk about it. It probably can't be proven. So those of us who think that powerful people coordinate in secret to advance their interests will continue to believe that. And those of us who think events have a more mundane and ordinary cause will continue to think that. And people who think there is some sort of objective reality will continue to think that as well.

Re:Trading Freedom for Security?

[JonnyCalcutta]

I'd mod you up if I could, that's a pretty good description and pretty much sums up my thoughts. Its a non-conspiracy of people with their own agendas, failings and short-sightedness.

I think the bit you missed though is that the problems arise when they _are_ powerful. My failings affect myself and my immediate family, theirs affect millions of people.

Re:Trading Freedom for Security?

[bluefoxlucid]

On one hand, the Internet makes it easier for pedophiles to find small children, who are often Internet-savvy in the same way they are get-out-of-mommy-and-daddy's-sight-to-do-something-naughty savvy: we all grew up on slipping one by our parents to go play with our friends and get ourselves into trouble, and the Internet is one more tool to do that, and adults on the Internet can interact with children without being noticed at large.

On the other, I would much rather chance the occasional small child get buttraped now and then than ensure with regular frequency that said small child will grow to a young adult and commit a largely non-harmful crime of stupidity (music swapping, a 16-year-old e-mailing around pictures of himself getting a blowjob from a 14-year-old, etc.) and be exposed to state-sanction buttrape in a juvenile or adult correctional facility for a few years on end.

Delaying harm is not protecting from harm.

Re:Trading Freedom for Security?

[gsslay]

I'm really looking forward to the date when a politician makes a speech regarding the end of these temporary "for some time to come" shifts.

Happily, we have reached the point where the authorities no longer need these measures. So we will be putting and end to what we always suggested was only a temporary inconvenience. We are freely relinquishing these powers and the balance between freedom and security is restored."

Somehow I doubt this will ever happen and I can't remember it ever happening before. Funny that, isn't it?

Re:Trading Freedom for Security?

[penguinoid]

There's no doubt they're coordinating their attacks on our freedom, but who is driving the campaign and what is their end goal?

The terrorists. They hate our freedom.

Re:Trading Freedom for Security?

[JesseMcDonald]

Exactly. If your opponent has to send out an F-16 and/or a cruise missile against every guy with a hunting rifle, they're sure to lose. Guys with hunting rifles are cheap and plentiful; F-16s and cruise missles, not so much. Just be sure to avoid making an easy target by gathering together in one place. Technology makes a good force multiplier—especially for the aggressor—but the whole point of asymmetric warfare is to avoid fighting your much larger and better-funded opponent on their own terms.

Re:Trading Freedom for Security?

[kilfarsnar]

Well, at the moment it seems only the anglo countrys

That might lend credence to a conspiracy theory. Those governments are already known to coordinate pretty closely. If ambassadors meet and decide a particular course of action is beneficial to their respective governments, is that a conspiracy? That's the trouble with that word. The difference between conspiracy and coordinated action is often in the eye of the beholder.

Re:Trading Freedom for Security?

[Ravaldy]

Every time I see a topic like this I get confused. What freedom are we talking about?

As far as I know you still have the same freedom you had before. You are by no means obligated to use electronic devices.

Someone enlighten me.

Re:Trading Freedom for Security?

[Wootery]

Granted, but my points stand.

I invoke Hitchens's Razor: What is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

Re:Trading Freedom for Security?

[Wootery]

I've discovered that, outside of mathematics, it is quite difficult to prove something.

Huh. I always found it hard to prove things inside of mathematics :P

To your first paragraph: indeed, that may be so, but my points stand: I demand to be convinced.

Or they'll say that someone would talk and expose the plot, or that such a level of organization isn't possible, or some such comforting rationale.

Indeed. This sort of reasoning can be safely dismissed, due to the existence of secret military projects all round the world. Missile bases in Cuba, say - it wasn't due to leaks from staff that the USA found out about them.

What if the AC above provided links to documents from a Bilderberg meeting where they talked about using fear to control the population?

That would be damning evidence if its authenticity were reasonably assured, and I would concede. You're right that 'proving' it to be the real deal wouldn't be easy.

I guess I'm saying: fair points, but I'm still unconvinced. My own suspicion is that there's a combination of countries just blindly following the USA's lead, and cynical power-grabs as politicians see how effective bullshit fear campaigns can be.

Re:Trading Freedom for Security?

[ultranova]

The thing we should be talking about is how and why politicians worldwide are running a fear campaign,

Are they? Britain, USA and Australia aren't the world.

Re:Trading Freedom for Security?

[cusco]

Just look at Operation Northwoods, a conspiracy by the Pentagon to carry out terror attacks against American targets to justify an attack on Cuba. It had been unanimously approved by the Joint Chiefs before an appalled President Kennedy canceled the project. To get to the Joint Chiefs scores of people had to be involved. No one ever talked, it never made it into the press, no documents were ever leaked. It was discovered by accident as part of a FOIA request on a peripherally-related subject. If you ask most people about it today they'll refuse to believe it, even if you show them the documentation.

Re:Trading Freedom for Security?

[Anonymous Coward]

The for the children argument is beginning to get annoying. Since when is the government responsible for raising our children. Maybe with the way they want to dumb our children down by screwing up education, our children will need help to raise theirs but for now it is our responsibility.
You may want to protect my children but who is going to protect them from you?

Politicians should not be the only ones with a say in our lives. If this keeps up I will have to get ready for a global rebellion. What is happening to our world?

Re:Trading Freedom for Security?

[matbury]

Yep, USA, Canada, UK, Australia, & New Zealand, AKA "The Five Eyes." They're valiantly defending us from an unprecedented wave of attacks from paedophiles, kidnappers, and terrorists. If it weren't for them we'd be overrun, our children taken into sex slavery, our families kidnapped, and our public buildings and spaces blown up. I'm so grateful they've been able to stop all this simply by recording and storing every electronic communication we make.

So, how many child abductions/abuses, kidnappings, and terror attacks have they stopped because of this so far? How much does that add up to per crime?

Re:Trading Freedom for Security?

[kilfarsnar]

I guess I'm saying: fair points, but I'm still unconvinced. My own suspicion is that there's a combination of countries just blindly following the USA's lead, and cynical power-grabs as politicians see how effective bullshit fear campaigns can be.

And you could very well be correct! Opportunity and aligned interests can explain a lot. I was more reacting to the need for proof. It's very hard to prove things on the Internet.

Re:Trading Freedom for Security?

[kilfarsnar]

Yes, our military and intelligence agencies work to manipulate US opinion and drive world events. It can be difficult to know whether a given event or dynamic is due to disparate forces or coordinated action. I am reminded of Operation Gladio in which the CIA planted bombs in Italy and blamed it on the communists. As I said, most people don't consider that angle. And if it is pointed out to them, a lot still won't believe it or incorporate it into their world view. If you are onto Operation Northwoods, I suspect you might be onto a more recent deception; one that cannot be discussed in polite company.

Re:Trading Freedom for Security?

[Wootery]

Indeed.

Re:Trading Freedom for Security?

[cusco]

An even more amusing aspect of Gladio is that part of the funding was run through the Vatican Bank, and much of the organization and planning was done through the P2 Masonic Lodge (of which Berlusconi was a member at one point). Any of those points will make a lot of people blow their top, pointing fingers and screaming "Conspiracy Theorist!" Never mind that it's all well-documented.

Re: Trading Freedom for Security?

[LinuxLuver]

He's the very model of a modern major.. ....fascist.

Re:Trading Freedom for Security?

[kilfarsnar]

LOL!

Re:Trading Freedom for Security?

[dywolf]

So mods who apaprently never took a basic civics course modded it 0 flamebait.
I didnt think i'd have to break so Barney style, but here we go:

They fail to understand that perfect freedom is anarchy, and precludes living in groups as anything approaching free and equal members. The only way a group can experience perfect freedom is if only only person in the group, lets call him the Leader, enjoyrs perfect freedom, and everyone else enjoys less than that. Because perfect freedom is the freedom to do ANYTHING. including murder and theft or other impositions on others that involve them giving up their freedom. Example: if person A enjoys perfect freedom, and uses it to carry out murder on Person B (assuming he can without repercussions because he HAS perfect freedom), Person B obviously is not enjoying perfect freedom, having just lost his right to life to A's right to murder.

Thus in a free society we trade, via laws enacted and enforced by government, certain freedoms to enhance the freedoms of others. This way we achieve greater equality of freedom across society, with everyone enjoying a higher level of freedom. A few people, lets just The Powerful Minority, are forced to give up some level of their freedom, specifically what they would lord over everyone else and use to reduce everyone else's level of freedom, so that everyone else can enjoy a higher level of freedom.

Ergo: the very act of living in a civilized society involves the trading of absolute freedom, an ideal that cannot exist for everyone at the same time ina group, for the security and stability of having a higher and equal levle of freedom than they would otherwise have under the thumb of a Powerful few who did enjoy absolute freedom.

Re:Trading Freedom for Security?

[ihtoit]

yeah, there are specific exemptions in eg the Human Rights Act, where rights granted* can be abrogated for reasons of protection of public morals, protection of public safety, national security, preventing violent disorder, and lawful punishment of crime (and FOR NO OTHER REASONS).

*Read the HRA properly and carefully. It gives no GUARANTEES of rights, it GRANTS rights. Something granted is something that can also be taken away. It is further devalued by section 71 of the serious organised crime and police act which basically grants immunity to public authorities (to whom the HRA solely applies) and employees thereof who turn evidence in ANY OTHER PROCEEDING. HRA isn't worth SHIT.

Re:Trading Freedom for Security?

[ihtoit]

it's a lot easier for paedophiles to procure children by gaining employment in such industries as affords them direct and practically risk-free access to OTHER PEOPLE'S CHILDREN, on top of which they get PAID:

Schoolteachers
Social workers
Nursery nurses
Hospital technicians
Other medical practitioners (eg child/educational psychologists, play centre therapists, GPs, paediatricians)
Foster carers
Scout leaders
Priests
YOI (secure unit/borstal) staff
Judges
Politicians
Media personalities

Mass media is awash with cases of ALL of the above being involved/implicated and even convicted of fucking our babies.

Re:Trading Freedom for Security?

[bluefoxlucid]

It is, but that's not the point. The Internet is an additional vector, and one in which the perception of anonymity is largely available as a starting point. Children like anonymity: they don't want their teachers telling their parents about stuff.

Interaction with a teacher means the child has a direct, plausible link to the teacher, and everyone knows who the teacher is in relation to the child. Interaction with a stranger means the child doesn't expect the stranger to regularly talk to his parents (although may worry about the stranger coming to FIND his parents), and the stranger doesn't expect anyone to know who the hell he is if the child tattles (he may even be out of his local area, and picking up a target while 100 miles from home, thus the man-hunt will likely fail). People are too dull-minded to realize the child on the other end is not actually a child, but Chris Hansen, so rational arguments here are unimportant: sometimes it works, and often people are idiots.

And, still, the heavy crackdown creates all kinds of problems where a young adult (not a child) of high school age may wind up indicted and arrested for doing things teenagers do, like showing their dicks to other teenagers. E-mail your penis to a 14-year-old once, and involve the cops--you'll get arrested. The big secret is you'll get arrested EVEN IF YOU'RE 15. In some states, two 17-year-olds having sex would both be arrested and charged with rape (yes, they both raped each other). Imagine what this does.

The law at least needs reasonable exemptions. I'm a fan of age-exemptions and good faith: If you're 19, and you have a 17-year-old girlfriend or acquaintance or whatever, that's close enough. If you bone her and 18 is legal, well, look, you're like... either pre-existing romantic-sexual relationship, consideration of pre-existing non-sexual relationship (yeah, you've known this girl since you were 14, and now you've started to bone? Look, I can let that slide), or narrow gap (she's only 2 years younger than you--of course you can bone her). If she sends you pics of her boobs... you should probably delete them; but I would suggest jurisprudence provide leniency for a barely-out-of-high-school kid who has a collection of boob picks high school girls sent him, and hasn't shared them: this isn't a child pornography distribution ring, and you should probably just order the images destroyed and tell everyone to stop being idiots before they wind up on the sex offender registry.

We treat this kind of shit like we've just stumbled over 40-year-old teachers boning 7th grade girls and distributing MPEGs and live streaming video all over Vietnam and Canada. It's stupid that sexting a girl you share a class with can get you tried as an adult and branded a sex offender for life. Unless you're her teacher, of course; then you get the hammer, because lol u dum.

Language

[Anonymous Coward]

In this day and age (in an oecd country at very least) "digital freedoms" are a subset of "freedoms". Spin it how you will, they want your privacy to not exist

Meanwhile...

[advocate_one]

Our press are outraged that the Police were using RIPA powers to track down press sources...

Re:Meanwhile...

[Anonymous Coward]

The Daily Mail is outraged? I'd never have guessed!
 
This is absolutely an awful thing, but the Daily Mail is not a reputable source; They are a tabloid newspaper, remarkably similar to Murdoch-style sensationalism and rhetoric. It's almost exclusively right-wing, too.

He may as well have said

[Saint Gerbil]

"They have already won, run for your lives! In other news I shouldn't be in this job!." - Keith Bristow

God save the queen The fascist regime

[fustakrakich]

The monarchy still rules. It is your "democracy" that is ceremonial.

Brits don't have this guy on their money

[Spy Handler]

maybe they should.

Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
  -Benjamin Franklin, 1755

Re:Brits don't have this guy on their money

[norriefc]

Didn't help stop The Patriot Act

Re:Brits don't have this guy on their money

[mentil]

Jefferson said lots of great things about freedom, too, but quickly became corrupt once he became president. It's easy to be an idealist when you don't have power.

Re:Brits don't have this guy on their money

[91degrees]

This tired old quote is always posted without any thought or analysis. It's dumb. We trade liberty for security all the time. The police are allowed to arrest people based on probable cause.

The US Bill Of Rights itself has provision for violation of liberty - the Third Amendment allows the governmnet to violate peoples homes in times of war, the Fourth Amendment has explicit exceptions to allow the government to search your home and sieze your property. The Fifth allows the law to deprive you of life, liberty, or property. These are reaonable restrictions on liberty but they are nonetheless restrictions.

Re:Brits don't have this guy on their money

[JonathanR]

Hey! Stop looking behind the curtains.

Re:Brits don't have this guy on their money

[RabidReindeer]

This tired old quote is always posted without any thought or analysis. It's dumb. We trade liberty for security all the time. The police are allowed to arrest people based on probable cause.

It's not dumb. It's precise. essential Liberty. For a little safety.

Ben Franklin was a model businessman and knew that you shouldn't sell cheap things that are dear. You won't be able to buy them back at the same price.

Re:Brits don't have this guy on their money

[Anonymous Coward]

There's a difference between trading liberty for liberty and liberty for security. Examples of the first are things like my liberty to be alilve vs. your liberty to wave a gun around wherever you want. My freedom of speech vs. your right to a private life. Your freedom to defend youself on your distant ranch vs. my freedom to steal your property.

My own liberty for my own security is a different issue and one you have limited right to impose on. My right, as an innocent man* to risk my own life flying without unreasonable restrictions on my privacy and unreasonable monitoring of my movement vs. their wish to impose security theatre.

Most of the time increasing liberty in the second sense increases security against the actual dangerous enemies who are mostly large corporations trying to get away with poisoning your children; polluting your environemnt and ensuring you don't go where you can see what they are actually doing.

* Defined as; anyone not convicted of a crime through a due and fair process in front of a jury of his peers. Including but not limited to most victims of US plea bargaining.

Re:Brits don't have this guy on their money

[91degrees]

Did I misread this? Probable Cause

Re:Brits don't have this guy on their money

[Kielistic]

It's easy to be an idealist when you don't have power.

It seems he understood this and it is exactly why he wanted provisions in place to prevent abuses of power.

I'm not sure how "guy abuses power" is a counter-point to "don't trust those in power to protect your freedom".

Re:Brits don't have this guy on their money

[ihtoit]

that is fucked up. That'd be like DEFRA caving my front door in for growing my own turnips.

Re:Brits don't have this guy on their money

[ihtoit]

what, apart from reducing the standing army to three thousand yet maintaining the military budget?

Bureaucracy

[penguinoid]

Can't they commit crimes without having a bureaucratic agency in charge? Though I suppose something as big as constantly spying on everyone might require a National Crime Agency, as it is too difficult for small time criminals.

Here, you guys have can this quote

[Anubis IV]

Those who would give up Essential Liberty, to purchase a little Temporary safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety

Maybe you can make it work for you better than we've managed on our side of the pond.

(and yes, before someone decides to play the pedant, I'm well aware of the original context surrounding the quote)

Leader quotation bingo

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

It's almost like playing quotation bingo with these issues now.

"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." -- Pitt the Younger

"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- Benjamin Franklin

"The problem in defense is how far you can go without destroying from within what you are trying to defend from without." -- Dwight D. Eisenhower

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." -- George Santayana

Re:Leader quotation bingo

[SuricouRaven]

The freedom-vs-security tradeoff debate has been going on since before there was a written language. It's no surprise that so many figures of history would have had cause to comment upon it.

Re:Leader quotation bingo

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

Of course. But when people who have literally led governments or armed forces can still maintain that position, any appeal to blind trust by an authoritarian government must surely demand a healthy degree of scepticism.

Re:Leader quotation bingo

[AmiMoJo]

I've come to the conclusion that we have to protect our own freedoms. The internet gives us a unique opportunity to do that with strong cryptography that even the government can't break. What Britstow is really saying is that we need to speed up efforts to encrypt and protect everything from the biggest threat to our safety and freedom: him.

Re:Leader quotation bingo

[itzly]

If enough people use encrypted communication, it will only be a matter of time before the use of encryption is made a crime.

Re:Leader quotation bingo

[N1AK]

I've come to the conclusion that we have to protect our own freedoms. The internet gives us a unique opportunity to do that with strong cryptography that even the government can't break.

I'm not so optimistic. We're already seeing hard push back against Apple's decision to design its device encryption in a way that stops it (and thus government) from being able to decrypt it. You can already be compelled by law in both the US or UK to give up encryption keys. If you travel through a UK airport you can be detained and and questioned, without the right to legal representation, under laws that make refusing to answer the question a crime. Governments could block encrypted communication between 'non-certified' parties, where they certify, which would make your self-protect by encryption idea implausible.

As long as a majority of the population is either uninterested in, or against encryption/privacy etc, then there is very little those of us who are bothered can do to protect themselves. Yes I can send my mundane day to day emails encrypted and no one will care, however if I ever did anything that drew attention (supporting a group the government doesn't approve of) then chances are all the steps I take won't stop them.

Re:Leader quotation bingo

[fustakrakich]

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." -- George Santayana

*If you remember the 60s, you weren't there* -- attributed to Robin Williams

Re:Leader quotation bingo

[Savage-Rabbit]

If enough people use encrypted communication, it will only be a matter of time before the use of encryption is made a crime.

Obligatory:
http://xkcd.com/504/

Re:Leader quotation bingo

[erikkemperman]

Of course. But when people who have literally led governments or armed forces can still maintain that position, any appeal to blind trust by an authoritarian government must surely demand a healthy degree of scepticism.

On the other hand, people who've been actually in charge of government and military units know better than most why "blind trust" is the only kind they can appeal to. They know the real reasons for these measures, and why the public must not.

Re:Leader quotation bingo

[tehcyder]

"Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time." -- Churchill.

Civilization is a question of compromises. You can have a sensible debate about specific laws, but blanket statements about absolute freedom or absolute security are essentially meaningless.

Re:Leader quotation bingo

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

Are we talking at cross-purposes here? My point was that plenty of people who do presumably have access to the whole picture, including sensitive details about security procedures and threat assessments and whatever else goes on behind closed doors, still lean toward liberty over security on this issue.

For example, right now the Lib Dems are in government. Their leader is the Deputy PM. They have MPs on relevant select committees in Parliament. As such, it is reasonable to assume that at least some senior Lib Dems have access to sensitive information about any identified threats that are out there. And yet they still all seem to oppose the so-called snooper's charter, citing similar civil liberties concerns to the rest of us.

Re:Leader quotation bingo

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

That is all true, but it's difficult to have that sensible debate when one side's argument is expressed with approximately the intellectual and ethical rigour of "there are scary people out there who you should be scared of, and if you don't let us do anything we want no matter the other consequences then those scary people will kill other people and it will be your fault".

Re:Leader quotation bingo

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

To borrow a well-known retort, if you outlaw encryption then only outlaws will use encryption. How does opening everyone else up to fraud, identity theft, and all the other problems encryption helps to fight on-line do anything to prevent bad people from communicating securely when encryption tools are widely available?

Re:Leader quotation bingo

[itzly]

Of course, things like web sessions with your bank will still be encrypted, so there's no need to worry about fraud and identity theft. Banks and similar institutions will get a proper license to use encryption, as long as the cleartext transaction is logged for government inspection.

Re:Leader quotation bingo

[dns_server]

The problem with that argument is that it only works in the USA, the rest of the world is screwed.

Re:Leader quotation bingo

[brainboyz]

That'll work about as well as criminalizing firearm possession at keeping it out of the hands of anyone.

"What are you talking about? That's a video of my dear aunt Edna. Yeah, I was trying out a bunch of effects for amusement."

Re:Leader quotation bingo

[itzly]

Criminalizing firearm possession works reasonably well in most countries where they don't allow firearms. Sure, you can try to obfuscate your encrypted data, but it's not trivial to do it in an undetectable way. And if you download software for it, how do you know such software doesn't have a secret back door ?

Re:Leader quotation bingo

[v1]

You sure you didn't mean http://xkcd.com/538/ ?

(so much wisdom in xkcd...)

Re:Leader quotation bingo

[erikkemperman]

Ah, my bad, I had taken "that position" in your post to mean the position of the Crime Agency Boss mentioned in TFS, which is to say that security should trump freedom.

Re:Leader quotation bingo

[Mr. Slippery]

Criminalizing firearm possession works reasonably well in most countries where they don't allow firearms.

No, it doesn't. It has the state use force to put people in cages for acts that do not credibly threaten the rights of others, i.e. the mere possession of the tools of self-defense. Under any reasonable definition of "works", ipso facto that's not working.

Beyond that is the problem that such laws have fsck-all effect on violent crime, because the problem with violent crime is the people who commit it and not the tools they use to do so, but that's secondary to the problem that a prohibition law *is*, by its nature, violent crime.

Re:Leader quotation bingo

[Anonymous Coward]

Making it illegal does work after a bit. China's firewall used to be a joke, now it actively changes posts to websites in flight, and the length of time a rogue VPN stays open is hours until it gets stomped.

Same with guns. Venezuela enacted a complete gun ban with "gun surrender centers", with heavy penalties for anyone non-police/non-militia to own one. Now, gun crime is 1/1000 what it was a few years ago, and their gun bans are an example to the world of reducing crime.

Making crypto illegal is easily doable. Crypto is extremely trivial to catch. If the BlueCoat device can't decode it, the parties are now suspect, and it is trivial to go in and raid on that probable cause in real time. Steganography? Maybe, but with heavy criminal penalities and a mandatory watching daemon similar to WoW's Watcher, it will be driven to the edges.

Governments are not stupid. Bans do work.

Re:Leader quotation bingo

[nabsltd]

On the other hand, people who've been actually in charge of government and military units know better than most why "blind trust" is the only kind they can appeal to. They know the real reasons for these measures, and why the public must not.

Do you seriously believe this?

Do you know why the only statistics the TSA provides is on "items seized" and not "failures to seize really dangerous items in tests"? It's because they routinely miss far too high a percentage of dangerous items in tests, and have never actually caught somebody at screening that was intending serious harm.

The "secret dangers" the government is protecting us from basically don't exist. Sure, there are dangers, but invasive screenings at airports, collecting every phone call and e-mail, and tossing people into prison without trials haven't stopped one single plot. The Boston Marathon bombings could likely have been stopped far in advance if data that had been collected not through the drag net that is the NSA would merely have been analyzed in time. Instead, because so much data is being collected, everything important is being overlooked.

Then, there's the whole class of dangers that can't be protected against (the whole "going postal" bit) without imposing dictatorial restrictions on movement, yet governments are actually trying to stop them. Then we have incidents like in Ferguson, MO, where agents of the government might have committed a crime, and when the people complained, they were met with force and had all legal means of redress blocked at every turn. That desire for control by governments is why we need to start reining it in now, before it's too late.

Re:Leader quotation bingo

[BonThomme]

Well, it is classified as a munition by the US. If we can't even call bullshit on that, it's pretty much over.

Re:Leader quotation bingo

[erikkemperman]

I think you may have misunderstood my post -- probably I wasn't sufficiently clear. That the real reasons for these policies is a "desire for control" is precisely what I was suggesting.

Re:Leader quotation bingo

[Archangel Michael]

As I like to say, "freedom is messy". If you're free, then you're free to do the wrong thing. Freedom requires trust that most of the time, people WILL choose to do the right thing. Freedom also requires that we allow people to screw up. Freedom also requires understanding that "bad things" will happen.

I make the analogy that Freedom is like base jumping. It is really fun when everything goes right, but when it goes wrong, it is horrible. However, we don't stop base jumper simply because bad things happen occasionally, for that is the cost of jumping off tall objects.

We must remember this when security vs freedom arguments erupt. The timid slaves want to be taken care of, but we must remind them, that not everyone wants to be a slave.

Re:Leader quotation bingo

[harrkev]

Same with guns. Venezuela enacted a complete gun ban with "gun surrender centers", with heavy penalties for anyone non-police/non-militia to own one. Now, gun crime is 1/1000 what it was a few years ago, and their gun bans are an example to the world of reducing crime.

Yeah. It works GREAT. Same old tired argument. If you actually ban all guns, then gun crime will go away. But then you need to ban fists, knives, ropes, poison, etc. I guess you COULD show up to the funeral of a person stabbed to death and proudly proclaim "You should be thankful that they were not shot to death." Let me know how well that works for you...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C...

Venezuela is currently among the countries with the highest murder rates in the world.

And looking on that wiki page, the graph sure looks like murders are increasing. But at least less people are shot, right?

By the way, similar story in Australia. Harder to get guns. Murder has dropped, but violent crime overall has INCREASED in the last three decades. In the USA, violent crime and murder have dropped more than Australia during the same period.

Re:Leader quotation bingo

[Archangel Michael]

You can have absolute freedom, if you have a government system designed in a way that realizes that one cannot stop bad things from happening. Freedom being exercising free will for one's own self determination, without harming others. The problem is, we have people who want to prevent all bad things from happening, so we outlaw all sorts of things, preventing people from the POSSIBILITY of harming others. So we outlaw pot, guns, alcohol (and then legalize it again). Sometimes the laws we draft cause more harm to society trying to protect it, than having no laws would.

Criminal law is a contract with society, and why I support very harsh punishment for people who break real criminal laws, and changing the laws so that "victimless crimes" are removed from the books. THAT is our social construct for our society. However, it also must be tempered with mercy, or it becomes too harsh for people who make simple mistakes that harm others.

Re:Leader quotation bingo

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

I decided four quotations was enough to make my point, but that observation by Mencken was nearly the fifth. It comes to mind every time some government minister talks about repealing the Human Rights Act and cites the difficulties they've had in deporting a tiny number of high profile people as their justification.

Re:Leader quotation bingo

[nabsltd]

I think you may have misunderstood my post -- probably I wasn't sufficiently clear.

Too subtle, I think. Yes, I did misunderstand.

Re:Leader quotation bingo

[Reziac]

I suspect it may be more "Justifying our jobs", since these invasive policies seem to come from TLA bureaucracies rather than from those actually in charge.

Re:Leader quotation bingo

[ihtoit]

...as has been repeatedly demonstrated. This site has covered such events fairly recently. http://tech.slashdot.org/story... to give four examples.

Re:Leader quotation bingo

[ihtoit]

when seconds count the police are only minutes away.

Fuck you, I would rather have it and not need it than need it and not have it because some snivelling fuckhead like you thinks it's a good idea to put the monopoly on force into the hands of some psycho in a blue fucking uniform.

Re:Leader quotation bingo

[ihtoit]

"I'm suffering from the effects of ongoing PTSI." One symptom of which is memory loss.

Good luck with that.

That's How Law Works

[mentil]

All laws involve giving up freedom to do a certain thing, usually in exchange for security or safety for the society. Other laws, particularly regulations, ensure justice via making society more fair; for example the USA's Civil Rights Act prohibits a variety of forms of discrimination. The problem is that our overlords use propaganda to convince the plebes that a broad selectively-enforced law is necessary when a narrow strictly-enforced law would lead to more security for the society. Being secure in your belief that you won't be imprisoned falsely, or under a law that wasn't intended or reasonable to apply to your situation, is also an important aspect of society's security.

Re:That's How Law Works

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

All laws involve giving up freedom to do a certain thing, usually in exchange for security or safety for the society.

That is a reasonable ethical argument in favour of having laws, but unfortunately it is sometimes quite far from how the world really works. Laws are made by a small group of people, subject to a wide range of influences, most of which are not promoting the best interests of the population. Ideally, the democratic machinery of a government ensures that the population's interests still outweigh the other factors, but I think we all know this doesn't always happen.

The primary benefit of a formal constitution is to establish that certain principles are so important that they must be beyond the reach of whatever small group of lawmakers happens to hold power at any given time. To some extent, our Human Rights Act here has served a similar purpose in recent years, but of course the Tories want to get rid of that as well. In the absence of effective safeguards like this, as we have seen all too often in recent years, the politics of fear can dominate the agenda.

Re:That's How Law Works

[mentil]

I agree, I should've made an addendum that politicians may make laws that are primarily intended to increase the security or safety of a privileged few.

Re:That's How Law Works

[JonathanR]

It should be obvious that politicians project their own fears and desires in the legislation they create.

Re:That's How Law Works

[N1AK]

To some extent, our Human Rights Act here has served a similar purpose in recent years, but of course the Tories want to get rid of that as well.

Those Tories that you decry for wanting rid of it are the same party that were extremely influential in drafting and spreading them across Europe. As long as you, and so many others, see politcal parties through such a biased lens we'll continue to make poor politcal choices. The ECHR is a small group of unelected individuals, they just happen to align better with your (and my) opinion than the conservative party on human rights. Should we have joined the Euro to take economic policy off the small group of lawmakers you think we can't trust and hand it to the EU who you claim have our interests closer to heart? Or have you arbitrarily decided that Europe will protect human rights correctly but won't protect our economy correctly for some reason...

Re:That's How Law Works

[tehcyder]

Those Tories that you decry for wanting rid of it are the same party that were extremely influential in drafting and spreading them across Europe.

Dave Cameron's bunch of second hand car salesman bear little relation to the Tory party of Winston Churchill.

Oh, and who wants elected judges anyway?

Re:That's How Law Works

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

I honestly don't know what point you're trying to make here. Do you understand that the Human Rights Act is national law, and that the rights and freedoms within its scope can therefore be protected by our own courts without necessarily resorting to any action at European level?

Re:Sounds like OZ

[gargleblast]

If it is called "How To Win Elections and Influence People Through Populism and Fear Mongering", then yes.

Not sure how they get greater mass surveillance...

[ssimpson]

The Snowden revelations show that the UK snoop on its own citizens without any barrier. The RIP Act can be used to compel handing over of pass phrases with threat of 2 year prison sentence for failure to comply. Short of legislating against the use of crypto or allowing 'in camera' use of surveillance material its hard to imagine a what other powers the state are after.

Ironically...

[tlambert]

Ironically...

Crime Agency Boss Must Trade Job For Dole, Says Brits

Hey Britons!

[SeaFox]

If you need any pointers, we have a bunch of books with accounts on stopping tyranny by governments that don't listen to you. You might want to save the tea for yourselves, though.

Re:Hey Britons!

[radio4fan]

Yes, Britain should be more like the US, where there is no mass snooping of email and call data.

Re:No

[gl4ss]

meh, in the UK you're going to need to do some things with computers nowadays, if you for example want to drive a car you own...

would you really not mind having your bank accounts printed on the local newspaper? really really? or your family photos you just sent to your uncle? really really really?

the laws potentially affect you, say, if your local copper envied something you had and wanted to hurt you with some crap he could dig up without a warrant.. because uh, that's what we are actually talking about when we talk about mass surveillance gathering that's searchable - gathering that just gets everything and is later searchable for 'clues' by anyone with access at will.

Re:No

[TheP4st]

If you aren't doing anything illegal online (pirating, illegal pornography, planning terrorism) these laws won't affect you.

The problem with that is that what can label someone as a person of interest with subsequent consequences as ending up a no-fly list often is nothing more than very vague connections to a suspected terrorist, visiting a site or video deemed illegal etc, for an example look at this statement from the London Metropolitan police:

The MPS Counter Terrorism Command (SO15) is investigating the contents of the video that was posted online in relation to the alleged murder of James Foley. We would like to remind the public that viewing, downloading or disseminating extremist material within the UK may constitute an offence under Terrorism legislation.

The Metropolitan police are unable to currently name the law that citizens could be arrested under for watching the video that depicts the beheading of photojournalist James Wright Foley, despite earlier releasing a statement that said any British nationals watching the video could be committing a criminal offence.

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140820/12004128267/theres-reasonable-debate-to-be-had-about-showing-james-foley-beheading-video-claiming-its-illegal-to-watch-is-ridiculous.shtml

If you can't even know what is deemed illegal or not how can you be expected to act within the law?

Re:No

[Thor Ablestar]

"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries." USA Constitution.

Basically it means that 90 per cent of your USA patent laws should be cancelled since they don't promote the Progress anymore.

Re: No

[Anonymous Coward]

If an officer of the Law says something is illegal, then it's illegal and it's not among your State-granted privileges to question authority. Do not cause trouble or inconvenience, citizen-consumer. Remember, we're watching you.

Speaking as a Brit...

[stealth_finger]

...Fuck that.

Welcome to Airstrip One

[Required Snark]

Welcome to Airstrip One, a province of Oceania.

War is peace

Freedom is slavery

Ignorance is strength

Atleast there honest about loss of freedom

[Roodvlees]

Much of the debate was about privacy, atleast now it's clear that it leads to loss of freedom. As for safety, yes giving up freedoms will lead to more protection against crime. But every time the government does a bad job we will suffer less safety, are we that trusting of government?

Australia too

[Anonymous Coward]

... policing by consent ...

State governments have slowly been implementing "Meaghan's law" throughout Australia. State police are trying to create the American-style "criminals have no rights" policy with the proviso that they decide who the criminals are.

... in return for greater safety ...

Regrettably, for some time to come, the delicate balance between freedom and security may have to shift. There may be more restrictions on some, so that there can be more protection for others.
    - T Abbott, leader of Australia, September 2014.

Today was fascinating simply to witness how you can just flick that National Security switch in federal politics and suddenly face almost no real debate.
    - M Fennell, news commentator, September 2014.

Mr Abbott is trying to pass legislation that allows warrant-less searches of all digital devices. Now the British NCA demands a "loss of digital freedoms". Such a timely coincidence will drive conspiracy nuts into apoplectic fits.

Full. Of. Shit.

[seoras]

The best thing to come out of the recent referendum on Scottish Independance has been to re-awaken the British public to politics and government.
It's not enough, there needs to be a more jarring and long lasting wake up call to what politicians are doing for corporates and the establishment under the guise of "public interests".
Mass surveillance isn't protecting us, didn't protect us in the past and certainly won't in the future.
Imagine McCarthyism with full access to your historical digital life to twist into whatever form needed to hound you out of your home, job, school, neighbourhood or even country?
Wake up!

Re:Full. Of. Shit.

[tehcyder]

Imagine McCarthyism

Yes, luckily we never had the real thing here in the UK, unlike the home of freedom.

The solution....

[Anonymous Coward]

FlashBlock and Adblock plus. Use it here, use it everywhere!

Where are the guarantees?

[JonathanR]

They expect us to make the trade, but provide no guarantees that they will perform on their half of the bargain.

See Sousa v City of Antioch for a pertinent example of them denying their obligations.

Citizenship is supposed to involve reciprocal duties of allegiance and protection. Protection is not guaranteed, but you betcha they'll guarantee to get their pound of allegiance.

Re:Where are the guarantees?

[Zontar The Mindless]

You talking about this?

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/ca-...

An interesting case (I read the whole thing) but it has absolutely nothing to do with the issue at hand.

And in any event I think it's likely that you don't really understand the Souza case or the issues that it does raise.

We'll protect you if you give up your freedom

[gijoel]

But who will protect us from you.

Re:We'll protect you if you give up your freedom

[BringsApples]

But who will protect us from you.

A unifying connection between humans, as humans, that peacefully disobeys commands given by corrupt government.

Re:encryption

[itzly]

I'm not proposing anything, just saying that encryption is not a permanent solution.

Re:No

[itzly]

would you really not mind having your bank accounts printed on the local newspaper?

Strawman. Nobody's proposing to have privacy sensitive information printed in the newspaper.

Terrible Secret of Terrorists

[BringsApples]

play Terrible Secret of Space | sed 's/Space/Terrorists/g'

No, seriously people... go stand by the stairs.

Re:No

[K. S. Kyosuke]

You don't have to use Facebook, Google, the internet, computers, or any form of technology if you don't want to. By choosing to use them, you must obey normal laws, including laws against copying and distributing (even for free) copyrighted material.

Of course. And speaking is a privilege, because some people are mute. And you don't really have to speak unless you want to. So it doesn't really matter if you can get thrown in jail for saying a lot of things in many countries because you can just keep you mouth shut and enjoy your freedom. :-p

Criminals, terrorists and paedophiles ..

[lippydude]

You should try and look a little closer to home ref ref ref ref ..

Re:No

[RabidReindeer]

If you aren't doing anything illegal online (pirating, illegal pornography, planning terrorism) these laws won't affect you

Remember, innocent people have nothing to fear.

However you aren't the one who gets to define "innocent".

There is an old fable

[Mantle]

'There is an old fable,' said Hardin, 'as old perhaps as humanity, for the oldest records containing it are merely copies of other records still older, that might interest you. It runs as follows:

A horse having a wolf as a powerful and dangerous enemy lived in constant fear of his life. Being driven to desperation, it occurred to him to seek a strong ally. Whereupon he approached a man, and offered an alliance, pointing out that the wolf was likewise an enemy of the man. The man accepted the partnership at once and offered to kill the wolf immediately, if his new partner would only co-operate by placing his greater speed at the manÃ(TM)s disposal. The horse was willing, and allowed the man to place bridle and saddle upon him. The man mounted, hunted down the wolf, and killed him.

The horse, joyful and relieved, thanked the man, and said: ÃNow that our enemy is dead, remove your bridle and saddle and restore my freedom.

Whereupon the man laughed loudly and replied, ÃThe hell you say. Giddy-ap, Dobbin,Ã(TM) and applied the spurs with a will.

Re:There is an old fable

[maroberts]

+1 Foundation reference

Most of us

[maroberts]

...would trade a certain amount of safety for freedom.

We want a level of policing that provides a reasonable level of security but does not compromise our lifestyle unless a large number of casualties would result. One or two events per year do not necessitate loss of liberties that affect everyone.

Re:No

[aaaaaaargh!]

In my opinion, the problems are even bigger. No fly lists and other terrorist lists are completely beyond and above law and due process. There is no way you can appeal them or challenge them in court, except possibly, under very exceptional circumstances, at the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg.

And as you rightly mention, there are more and more national "rubber laws" not just in Britain but all over the EU (not to speak of US, who seem to have them traditionally). These are laws that leave it nearly open what exactly constitutes the respective criminal ofense, making it possible to prosecute just about anyone for just about anything if somebody feels a need for it. They violate a basic rights principle, namely that an informed and educated citizen has to be able to tell exactly, from the text of the law, when he would transgress the law.

Last but not least, the biggest problem is that there is a strong tendency to make laws stronger rather than abolishing them or making them weaker, because this is always the safe route for a politician to go (unless he has reasons to believe the law might affect him, so this tendency does not concern anti-corruption and tax evasion laws). Who wants to be held accountable for not having signed this 'anti-terrorist' or 'child protection' law when the something bad happens? And something bad will always happen, that's for sure.

The long-term effect of these processes is increased legal uncertainty for common citizens, much more power for rich citizens who can afford excellent legal council, and an overall fascist society.

Re:No

[tehcyder]

meh, in the UK you're going to need to do some things with computers nowadays, if you for example want to drive a car you own...

So what? Your name and address are on your driving licence and you have to pay road tax anyway. Registering electronically is no different from doing it by paper.

would you really not mind having your bank accounts printed on the local newspaper? really really? or your family photos you just sent to your uncle? really really really?

In what fantasy world would the government print details of your bank account or family snaps in the local newspaper?

the laws potentially affect you, say, if your local copper envied something you had and wanted to hurt you with some crap he could dig up without a warrant.. because uh, that's what we are actually talking about when we talk about mass surveillance gathering that's searchable - gathering that just gets everything and is later searchable for 'clues' by anyone with access at will.

If the police "wanted to hurt you with some crap" I'm pretty sure they wouldn't need electronic information to do so. The protection against that is the rule of law, i.e. police being policed themselves. If that doesn't work, it's irrelevant whether they are using copies of your embarrassing dick picks or confessions beaten out of you with rubber hoses.

Re:No

[itzly]

Your argument makes no sense. Posting your credit card number on-line where any criminal can read it, is different than handing your credit card to the server in a restaurant, for instance, or allowing law/tax officials to see it, or employees from the bank that issued the card.

1984

[Anonymous Coward]

I remember over 10 years ago here on Slashdot, people joked about the various machinations of Governments around the world moving us towards a Orwellian future. People then considered the jokes amusing for a bit but ultimately a bit lame, mostly due to overuse as there was far too many examples to use them in. Now it's no longer lame, it's more a clear fact. And there's nothing that'll reverse the trend it would seem.

I'm a father of a 4 month old. I try to remain positive about the future, hope for humankind. But with this shit it gets real hard sometimes. Doesn't help that fuckheads like ISIS/ISIL are going from strength to strength - it'd be nice to actually see the good guys win for once.

We need heroes of character - living people who we can aspire to be like. But it seems that doing evil things is proving to be more successful.

Re:1984

[AqD]

Great heroes cannot exist without great evils. Often they're only seen as so bright because the opposite is so dark.

We have no-one to look up to but ourselves.

Re:encryption

[itzly]

That's up to you. But keep in mind that by using more encryption, you'll make it more likely that criminalization happens sooner. It will also make it more likely that you'll be flagged, and put under closer surveillance.

Re:No

[tehcyder]

If you aren't doing anything illegal online (pirating, illegal pornography, planning terrorism) these laws won't affect you

Remember, innocent people have nothing to fear.

However you aren't the one who gets to define "innocent".

No, society does.

Re:*sigh*

[tehcyder]

I really wish the British would learn the differences between a pedophile, child pornographer and child molester already. And that being a pedophile is not a crime.

Another Yank without a clue. "Child molesting" is rape, and is a crime. Possession or creation of "child pornography" (i.e. portrayals of child rape) is a less serious crime, but quite rightly still a crime.

Simply being a paedophile and not acting on it is no more illegal than being a Holocaust denier or goat-fucker.

That isn't all you'll have to trade...

[Karmashock]

You'll have to trade everything in the name of security. And when you have nothing left to give... they'll enslave you.

As to the solution here? It is rather obvious but politically incorrect and I have no patience for the horde of mindless tools that with gainsay the obvious. Those that know need not be told. Those that do not know probably wouldn't understand in any case. It isn't time yet.

Re:That isn't all you'll have to trade...

[tehcyder]

Mate, if you're planning an armed revolution (a) don't do it on the fucking internet and (b) don't alienate 99% of your potential foot soldiers by calling them thick.

Or were you talking about something else?

Re:That isn't all you'll have to trade...

[Karmashock]

1. I didn't say anything about being armed.
2. I didn't say anything about a revolution.
3. I am not planning anything.
4. I am not trying to gather minions, meat shields, toadies, or other assorted rabble to another fucking flag.
5. I respect myself enough to express my disrespect of people I hold in contempt.
6. I am talking about people feeding political feedback systems with historically predictable results. Given the context of the topic anyone familiar with the history of this syndrome knows full well what I am talking about. I have no need to explain myself further to those that understand already. To those that don't... I am just an unsupported voice on the internet. Meaningless. I consider any attempt to explain the issue to those that don't already understand to be a waste of my time. It is too complicated and requires too much supporting evidence. What is more, the audience is too small, the respect offered by such people is at best dubious, and I can expect no material compensation for what would be an investment of at least an afternoon.

Just what is.

Re:No

[Mr. Slippery]

If the police "wanted to hurt you with some crap" I'm pretty sure they wouldn't need electronic information to do so.

Maybe not, but oh, it sure helps. And if cops don't need electronic information to hurt me, then they don't need electronic information to hurt bad guys, so they don't need it at all.

The protection against that is the rule of law, i.e. police being policed themselves.

And they're not. From the beat cop on up to the President of the United States, the executive branch is a bunch of violent criminals and their accomplices, with no effective check. So where does that leave us?

Re:No

[BonThomme]

You are, however, dumb enough to not realize that "incriminating and illegal" are in the eyes of the beholder.

Re:encryption

[TheCarp]

Yes, I knew that and accepted those risks years ago. Please, flag me. I revel in the thought that somebody gets paid to read the shit I put out. I hope they feel every bit of hate and vitriol I pile on, and if my use of encryption and tools like tor helps divert these shitbags attention away and helps make their efforts useless....then well, I signed myself up.

Hell, back when there was a protest page to email copies of RSA to an account outside the country...I happily participated and sent that email.

Airstrip One

[wcrowe]

I see things are progressing nicely on Airstrip One.

Re:Airstrip One

[koan]

I prefer my own name, Prison Island.

Let me sum it up

[koan]

Basically they are going to continue screw us (same thing is happening here in the US) and they are going to do it with our permission (not really but it will legislate that way) and if you're against it... the 4 horsemen of the infopocalypse: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... will be evoked.

They are going to take away everything period.

BOHICA

[TheBilgeRat]

Think of the Childrenssss!!!!!

Will the state hire me a personal risk assessor who follows me everywhere and prevents me from doing bodily harm to myself or others? Taste tests my food? I mean, we need to think of the poor insurance rates, people!

Sounds like a threat

[PPH]

Give up your rights. Or else.

On the other hand:

Britons must accept a greater loss of digital freedoms in return for greater safety from serious criminals and terrorists.

Sounds more reasonable. Personally (although I'm not a Brit) I feel more than safe enough. Given this choice, I'd opt for more freedoms.

Re:encryption

[Bob the Super Hamste]

I figure I am already on a bunch of lists, what's one more. I get additional screening about 1/2 the time I fly and if I have checked luggage it always gets searched. I now actively work to poison the well with all this data collection the government does. If they want data I can give them data, granted it is useless but hey it keeps stooges employed.

Re:*sigh*

[PPH]

Possession of "child pornography" in itself is not a form of aggression

But it supports a process that, at its source, must exploit children (issues about loli cartoons aside). It supports a market where the production and dissemination is illegal.

Very bad idea

[Anonymous Coward]

Those who would trade freedom for security deserve neither.

Do The Math

[JimSadler]

Crime and violence relate to population density. The more people per square mile in an area the more laws and secuity are needed. And now we also have a double whammy. We must not only consider population density but also wealth density and tech density as well. For example there are several spots in the US where a small area infested with radiation would lead to such a financial disaster that unusual security must exist. And then there is technology density to consider. A strike upon some areas would disrupt so much tech and tech investment that it could take down a nation. Look at the horrors caused by a failure of a few investment firms has already put upon all of us. It was done by greed and stupidity but enemy agents could have created a similar collapse and frankly they still could. As an example imagine you are set up on an island and you form a firm that offers a ghost stock. The ghost stock simply mirrors who well General Motors stocks are doing. Yet you have no overhead and can pay out a bit more than those who own real GM stock receive. Over time you build up a large following and start to control billions of dollars. And then, simply because you are an enemy, you pull the plug and collapse the value of the frim completely setting off a cascade of failures. Keep in mind that you could set up systems like this for thousands of stocks from different companies. Your ghost market could get enough power to actually control the real markets.

Re:Do The Math

[ihtoit]

I'll buy all of that when you show crime figures for Calcutta and Tokyo.

I'll make that trade :)

[davidwr]

I'll give up some safety for some freedom.

Oh wait, you mean the other way around? I think subjects of The Crown fought this war once already.

Re:No

[JesseMcDonald]

However you aren't the one who gets to define "innocent".

No, society does.

Of course. "Society" is just another way of saying "other people with more power than you," where "power" can be political or financial or even just the power of being in the majority—none of which justifies the violation of your rights as an individual.

V For Vendetta Speech

[HannethCom]

Good evening, London.

Allow me first to apologize for this interruption. I do, like many of you, appreciate the comforts of every day routine- the security of the familiar, the tranquility of repetition. I enjoy them as much as any bloke. But in the spirit of commemoration, whereby those important events of the past, usually associated with someone's death or the end of some aweful bloody struggle, a celebration of a nice holiday, I thought we could mark this November the 5th, a day that is sadly no longer remembered, by taking some time out of our daily lives to sit down and have a little chat.

There are of course those who do not want us to speak. I suspect even now, orders are being shouted into telephones, and men with guns will soon be on their way. Why? Because while the truncheon may be used in lieu of conversation, words will always retain their power. Words offer the means to meaning, and for those who will listen, the enunciation of truth. And the truth is, there is something terribly wrong with this country, isn't there?

Cruelty and injustice, intolerance and oppression. And where once you had the freedom to object, to think and speak as you saw fit, you now have censors and systems of surveillance coercing your conformity and soliciting your submission. How did this happen? Who's to blame? Well certainly there are those more responsible than others, and they will be held accountable, but again truth be told, if you're looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror.

I know why you did it. I know you were afraid. Who wouldn't be? War, terror, disease. There were a myriad of problems which conspired to corrupt your reason and rob you of your common sense. Fear got the best of you, and in your panic you turned to the now high chancellor, Adam Sutler. He promised you order, he promised you peace, and all he demanded in return was your silent, obedient consent.

Last night I sought to end that silence. Last night I destroyed the Old Bailey, to remind this country of what it has forgotten. More than four hundred years ago a great citizen wished to embed the fifth of November forever in our memory. His hope was to remind the world that fairness, justice, and freedom are more than words, they are perspectives.

So if you've seen nothing, if the crimes of this government remain unknown to you, then I would suggest you allow the fifth of November to pass unmarked. But if you see what I see, if you feel as I feel, and if you would seek as I seek, then I ask you to stand beside me one year from tonight, outside the gates of Parliament, and together we shall give them a fifth of November that shall never, ever be forgot.

A simple remedy - -

[gelfling]

Every crime, or infraction is automatically and instantly a capital crime. From mass murder to littering, everything invokes an instantaneous no trial no appeal death penalty.

Re:A simple remedy - -

[ihtoit]

who's going to appoint the Judges? You?

Re:A simple remedy - -

[gelfling]

No Judges. Just cops.

Re:A simple remedy - -

[ihtoit]

but you're basically bestowing them the gift of Godhood.

I would ask, what gives you the right?

Re:A simple remedy - -

[ihtoit]

(I don't mean you, personally. Or do I? Maybe. The question should probably be, "What gives anyone the right to appoint anyone else as sole arbiter of Justice, or even themselves in said role?"

Re:No

[RabidReindeer]

However you aren't the one who gets to define "innocent".

No, society does.

Of course. "Society" is just another way of saying "other people with more power than you," where "power" can be political or financial or even just the power of being in the majority—none of which justifies the violation of your rights as an individual.

The joke's on him. He thinks he's "Society". Society might think otherwise.

"The Joke" - Milan Kundera

[seoras]

Milan Kundera's book "The Joke" is fascinating insight into what happened in a Soviet block country (Czech) when someone wrote a joke to a friend on a postcard which the authorities saw and used.
We used to look at the East and feel good in ourselves that we weren't being watched and that we had freedoms they didn't. Not any more....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Joke_(novel)

Ben Frankin already talked about this

[thunderclap]

“Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety” Words to live by. Hope the brits enjoy the V is for vendetta reality they are creating for themselves/

Re:*sigh*

[thunderclap]

I really wish the British would learn the differences between a pedophile, child pornographer and child molester already. And that being a pedophile is not a crime.

Another Yank without a clue. "Child molesting" is rape, and is a crime. Possession or creation of "child pornography" (i.e. portrayals of child rape) is a less serious crime, but quite rightly still a crime.

Simply being a paedophile and not acting on it is no more illegal than being a Holocaust denier or goat-fucker.

I love insane people they make me laugh. However, they are a danger to themselves and others so I generally avoid them. Being a pedophile IS a crime. By definition: http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/...

pedophile pedfl/ noun noun: paedophile; plural noun: paedophiles; noun: pedophile; plural noun: pedophiles a person who is sexually attracted to children.

Is that British enough for you? How ever here is something you don't grasp. It is virtually impossibly for people afflicted with this mental disorder ( http://focus.psychiatryonline.... ) to NOT molest children. Either they rape them or they force them to engage in sexual acts with each other, or they trade in the movies and photographs of others who have done so. For example Steven Collins has admitted to being a pedophile because he exposed himself to a child. Sadly, the statute of limitations for his child molestation crime as ran out in NY state, he cannot be charged. Nevertheless, he acts on his impulses. Oh and being a Holocaust denier or goat-fucker are also illegal. The second is bestiality, the first is a crime is Germany and Israel. It is the only that isnt a crime here because it falls under free speech and has nothing to do with sex. So to be succinct: Pedophile = child molester. Child molester = Child pornographer, They are the three sides to the same evil triangle.

don't care who said it - they're right

[ihtoit]

Anyone who surrenders a little liberty for the illusion of security deserves neither and will lose both.

Fuck your movie references, fuck your "what-if" liberal bullshit, fuck your community spirit and herd immunity mentality - it's all SHIT. I AM FREE because I SAY I AM, NOT because YOU feel like "granting" me that which I am entitled to by virtue of the fact that I LIVE. And I will defend to the DEATH my right to say what I want in whatever forum I find myself. NOBODY is forcing you to listen, and YOU DO NOT have the right to censor me to quell your moral outrage. FUCK. OFF.

Re:Or Trojan'd cpus/gpu/ethernet controllers/etc

[ihtoit]

uh... that isn't the intention of TPM. TPM is a subarchitecture to facilitate platform authentication (eg signing a specific software license to a specific hardware setup and locking it in - prime example is WGA. Change something like the graphics card or upgrade the RAM, WGA kicks in and locks out your Windows license. Some soft encryption packages would use TPM if available to salt volume encryption, otherwise they use clock-based random number generators). TPM by itself is practically useless as the simplest attack vector imaginable - a cold start - is also the simplest way to defeat it.

Re:No

[ihtoit]

When I challenged the Met to show the precise area of terrorism legislation that specified the offence, I was threatened with arrest for wasting police time.

The fuck??

quote

[midknightfalcon]

“They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” Benjamin Franklin, Memoirs of the life & writings of Benjamin Franklin