What do you think about government surveillance?

Published by Ya'qub on 28 February, 2009 - 14:19

Primary tabs

Submitted by Ya'qub on 28 February, 2009 - 14:27

One Nation Under CCTV

I read this news story... and it made me question surveillance... it's claimed that it only happens to protect us from terrorist attacks... but is this really true?

Britain is the most spied-on country in the world, with the largest numbers of CCTVs in the world

Civil servants attacked for using anti-terror laws to spy on public

Controversial surveillance powers employed to fight terrorism and combat crime have been misused by civil servants in undercover "spying" operations that breach official guidelines, the Guardian has learned.

• Officials at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) did not have proper authorisation when they went undercover posing as anglers to glean information about imported fish;

• A manager responsible for authorising surveillance at the NHS anti-fraud agency routinely gave officials "carte blanche" in surveillance operations;

• Tracking devices were attached to vehicles in a bid to monitor the disposal of waste, after the Environment Agency received apparently incorrect advice from the Home Office

• Potential prosecutions were jeopardised because those conducting the surveillance operations were not properly trained and had not followed procedures

• A large array of public bodies are also using surveillance powers, including the Charity Commission, Royal Pharmaceutical Society and the BBC.

Reports of inspections by the watchdog, the Chief Surveillance Commissioner, stretching back to 2003 shed new light on how government departments have been using surveillance powers.

The documents obtained highlight how the powers are "widely used" by Royal Mail, which uses hidden "viewing galleries" in sorting officers and local authority CCTV to secretly monitor its staff.

And finally a lovely quote:

"Those who would happily give up a little freedom in order to gain a little security, will deserve neither and lose both"
-Benjamin Franklin

—

Don't just do something! Stand there.

Submitted by Seraphim on 28 February, 2009 - 22:02

Should we really give up our rights just for the terrorists?
Find another way.

—

Back in BLACK

Submitted by You on 28 February, 2009 - 22:06

Agreed.

Those that need to get around surveillance will probably find ways while the normal people suffer due to it.

With the internet, snooping has become even easier, but some agencies around the world want it to be even simpler so that they can monitor everything from a central location instead of putting any effort in.

Atleast in the past spying on someone's conversations meant that they would have to get off their ass and bug a phone/telephone line - now the security services complain if they have to deal with encryption even though the original methods would work just as well.

Adding to that is the question of when a person becomes a criminal. At what stage of "preparation" has the person gone far enough to be convicted, locked up?

Should you wait for a crime to take place, or lock up the potential perpetrator before he/she can act?

—

"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.

Submitted by RI_RS on 1 March, 2009 - 12:01

You wrote:

Adding to that is the question of when a person becomes a criminal. At what stage of "preparation" has the person gone far enough to be convicted, locked up?

Should you wait for a crime to take place, or lock up the potential perpetrator before he/she can act?

What if they had second thoughts last minute and didn't go through with it?
What if they got a 'revelation'?

If they 'prepare' but would never have, in the grand scheme of things, actually gone through with what they were planning to do... you've convicted and imprisoned someone 'potentially' innocent... and how would it look to the public? They've not imprisoned someone for committing an act of terrorism but for WANTING to.... you can't imprison people for THINKING.

Imo though it MIGHT be too late... You don't have any right to throw someone in jail until they've actually physically done something wrong...

Anyone can plan to bomb. The Terrorist is the one who actually does it.

—

#Before you look at the thorns of the rose , look at it's beauty. Before you complain about the heat of the sun , enjoy it's light. Before you complain about the blackness of the night, think of it's peace and quiet... #

Submitted by Ya'qub on 1 March, 2009 - 18:47

That's Minority Report, isn't it?

Police use methods, like reading the future, to see who will commit a crime before they do it, and then they arrest the person before they actually carry out the crime.

And that age-old silly question: If you had the opportunity to go back in time and kill Hitler before he became powerful, would you do it?

—

Don't just do something! Stand there.

Submitted by You on 1 March, 2009 - 19:08

I was not thinking that far into fantasy.

Just imagine someone planning a terrorist attack. at one point should you consider the person a criminal terrorist? Surely waiting for the person to blow others up be too late to act?

At the same time someone may change their mind at the last minute - just like one of the "copycat almost-bombers" on 21 July 2005 who decided not to board a train/bus even though he had a "bomb" (though probably unknown to him that it was faulty - or they were not really bombs depending on what version of the story you believe).

—

"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.

Submitted by Omrow on 2 March, 2009 - 12:19

Salam

Snooping is against the British way.

However, I understand that they need to keep a
track of Wahhabis who might want to harm innocent people.

Ofcourse, there are far better ways to tackles nutters like Al Qaeda and their followers.

To spy on innocent people and make everyone jittery is surely counterproductive.

It does not work.

Omrow

Submitted by You on 2 March, 2009 - 14:09

Omrow wrote:
Snooping is against the British way.

I beg to disagree. When the British empire was at its heights, espionage was one of the tools of the empire's trade.

—

"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.

Submitted by Ya'qub on 2 March, 2009 - 15:16

Omrow wrote:
Salam

Snooping is against the British way.

However, I understand that they need to keep a
track of Wahhabis who might want to harm innocent people.

Ofcourse, there are far better ways to tackles nutters like Al Qaeda and their followers.

To spy on innocent people and make everyone jittery is surely counterproductive.

It does not work.

Omrow

How are 'Wahabbis' the same as al-qaida? Explain please.

—

Don't just do something! Stand there.

Submitted by The Lamp on 3 March, 2009 - 10:08

Ya'qub wrote:

And that age-old silly question: If you had the opportunity to go back in time and kill Hitler before he became powerful, would you do it?

No, because it might trigger so much other harm, which might be 50 times worse.

—

“Before death takes away what you are given, give away whatever there is to give.”

Mawlana Jalal ud Din Rumi

Submitted by Ya'qub on 3 March, 2009 - 14:58

The Lamp wrote:
Ya'qub wrote:

And that age-old silly question: If you had the opportunity to go back in time and kill Hitler before he became powerful, would you do it?

No, because it might trigger so much other harm, which might be 50 times worse.

LOL, I didn't expect anyone to answer it! By 'silly' question I meant 'one that is utterly pointless and stupid and doesn't deserve answering'!

Blum 3

—

Don't just do something! Stand there.

Submitted by You on 3 March, 2009 - 15:38

But you would then get a world with mechs and lasers and other cool weaponry!

Red Alert.

—

"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.

Submitted by Seraphim on 3 March, 2009 - 22:02

Ya'qub wrote:
The Lamp wrote:
Ya'qub wrote:

And that age-old silly question: If you had the opportunity to go back in time and kill Hitler before he became powerful, would you do it?

No, because it might trigger so much other harm, which might be 50 times worse.

LOL, I didn't expect anyone to answer it! By 'silly' question I meant 'one that is utterly pointless and stupid and doesn't deserve answering'!

Blum 3

The consequences of which could be unimaginable. Its not a good idea to meddle with major events like that in history. You could end up creating a wound in time.

—

Back in BLACK

Submitted by The Lamp on 4 March, 2009 - 09:16

Ya'qub wrote:
The Lamp wrote:
Ya'qub wrote:

And that age-old silly question: If you had the opportunity to go back in time and kill Hitler before he became powerful, would you do it?

No, because it might trigger so much other harm, which might be 50 times worse.

LOL, I didn't expect anyone to answer it! By 'silly' question I meant 'one that is utterly pointless and stupid and doesn't deserve answering'!

Blum 3

Yeah, but I thought it was worth answering.

—

“Before death takes away what you are given, give away whatever there is to give.”

Mawlana Jalal ud Din Rumi

Submitted by Omrow on 5 March, 2009 - 11:14

Salam

Ya'qub asked: How are 'Wahabbis' the same as al-qaida? Explain please.

Al Qaeda are followers of the Wahhabi ideology - twisted and evil.

Sometimes they call themselves Salafies. Its the same corrupted form of religion.

These idiots have nothing to with true teachings of Prophet Mohammed.

Omrow

Post reply