No wonder we get sick of that Westminster lot

simon ess said:
There is a lot of truth to that, but...

The people who are sceptical and suspicious of monitoring are those who recognise the sacrifices made by previous generations to secure and defend our freedoms.

Monitoring may well be a useful tool, and somewhat justified, but it must be questioned and scrutinised at every level.
Click to expand...

targetted monitoring of individuals they have reason to suspect is one thing - tbh they do that already , but widespread monitoring of everyones traffic isn't a great idea , not only is it an impingement of civil liberty but its also pointless because the sheer volume will swamp any useful info even with the use of computer programs like prism
 
simon ess said:
There is a lot of truth to that, but...

The people who are sceptical and suspicious of monitoring are those who recognise the sacrifices made by previous generations to secure and defend our freedoms.

Monitoring may well be a useful tool, and somewhat justified, but it must be questioned and scrutinised at every level.
Click to expand...

I agree. But times and circumstances change; and like previous generations we have to change with them.
 
big soft moose said:
its also pointless because the sheer volume will swamp any useful info even with the use of computer programs like prism
Click to expand...

Indeed. If you monitor everyone, you actually monitor no-one.

viv1969 said:
I agree. But times and circumstances change; and like previous generations we have to change with them.
Click to expand...

No change in circumstance will ever persuade me to give up hard fought freedoms. Ever.
 
the quote I was thinking of is Benjamin Franklin

"those who would give up an essential liberty to purchase a little temporay safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety"
 
simon ess said:
Indeed. If you monitor everyone, you actually monitor no-one.



No change in circumstance will ever persuade me to give up hard fought freedoms. Ever.
Click to expand...

I find that rather sad.
 
viv1969 said:
I find that rather sad.
Click to expand...

Really? Have you thought that through?

You would be willing to give up personal freedoms?

What on earth would persuade you to do that?

And why sad? What do you find sad about the defence of freedom?

I'm genuinely baffled.
 
I simply find such a complete unwillingness to adapt equally as baffling.

I don't see the possibility of monitoring as being something that would see me giving up any kind of freedom.
 
simon ess said:
The people who are sceptical and suspicious of monitoring are those who recognise the sacrifices made by previous generations to secure and defend our freedoms.
Click to expand...
I agree 100%, maybe its the older generation that are a little wary of the constant monitoring processes through camera's
and data bases, etc. However, the "younger ones" are happy to slap their private lives all over social media,
and probably not give this stuff a second thought.

big soft moose said:
the main thing i'd fear about ID cards would be the governments basic incompetence , and propensity to b****r up everything they touch - also ID cards wouldn't stop terrorists , these are people who can get a forged biometric passport (or in some cases a genuine one entered onto the system by a corrupt official), how long do you think it will take them to forge an ID card - hell you could probably do it in photoshop
Click to expand...
Although I don't often agree with moose, I do on this.
I have nothing to hide, but I fear that our freedom (as per Simons post) is being eroded a little at a time.
 
Last edited:
arclight said:
Key Points
  1. David Cameron and Ed Miliband begin by debating need to protect UK from terrorism
  2. Ed Miliband then accuses the PM of being "frit" of taking part in election TV debates
  3. David Miliband says the Labour leader is "chicken" of being in a debate with the Greens
Three of the key points from today's rabble debate. Get the important item out of the way quickly then get on with the trivia.
Click to expand...
Try watching BBC Parliament and sit through a debate on primary legislation. PMQs is 30 minutes a week, and you get the worst two minutes of it shown on the news. Debates on legislation are nothing like PMQs.
 
big soft moose said:
the main thing i'd fear about ID cards would be the governments basic incompetence , and propensity to b****r up everything they touch - also ID cards wouldn't stop terrorists , these are people who can get a forged biometric passport (or in some cases a genuine one entered onto the system by a corrupt official), how long do you think it will take them to forge an ID card - hell you could probably do it in photoshop
Click to expand...

I've always been a bit bemused by the whole Identity Card resistance. Maybe it's because for years I lived in a country where it's compulsory for nationals to have one from the age of 14, and foreigners couldn't really function there without an Identity Number either. It's just something people take for granted, and it doesn't feel like civil liberties are being eroded.
 
Ricardodaforce said:
I've always been a bit bemused by the whole Identity Card resistance. Maybe it's because for years I lived in a country where it's compulsory for nationals to have one from the age of 14, and foreigners couldn't really function there without an Identity Number either. It's just something people take for granted, and it doesn't feel like civil liberties are being eroded.
Click to expand...

yeah but you live in a country where the government manages to issue the right identity card to the right person. A freind of mine applied for a passport recently and got a passport in a completely different name (but with his photo) sent to him. When I applied for a driving licence change of address , they sent the ammended driving licence back to the old address (where fortunately i still had a postal redirect in place), a couple of years ago my mother was refused access at heathrow because according to her passport records she was dead ! This is what happens when you have a civil service that couldnt find its own arse without both hands and a 3 man working party led by a government who couldn't effectively lead a 2 year old to the toilet.

Also is your ID card automatically linked to your finger prints, DNA sample, criminal record etc (or someone elses finger prints/DNA sample/record if the f*** it up).
 
I am not sure what freedoms were fought for that would be affected by monitoring communications.
Though we all use the internet, so we are constantly monitored anyway. By Google who then can aim advertising at us. Most of us shop in Sup[supermarkets, Tesco Club card points, a way of giving you something for nothing? Is it hell, its a way of monitoring what you buy so they can push other products at you.
You drive anywhere and you'll hit ANPR cameras.
You already leave a huge footprint where ever you go anyway, although the holders of that information are businesses, not Government. Not sure I'd trust Tesco's more than I'd trust MI5!
What the security services want is to be able to look at triggers in communications, that currently they don't know about. If you are doing nothing wrong, you wont trigger any interest and even if you do, you'd soon be rowed out.
The bigger question here which everyone avoids is whats most important, a 'hand won freedom', that doesn't really exist and was never fought for, or innocent peoples right to be protected against terrorism.
Some clearly think thats a hard decision. For me it's not. The Security Services/GCHQ can hold whatever they like about me, it really makes no difference to my life at all.

Like Richardoforce, I lived in a Country where an ID card was compulsory, although we issued our own. I also worked in a job where I was required to carry an ID card all the time. It's hardly an issue, unless you want to make it one, and even then most issues are unfounded.
 
Last edited:
Big soft moose said:
This is what happens when you have a civil service that couldnt find its own arse without both hands and a 3 man working party led by a government who couldn't effectively lead a 2 year old to the toilet.
Click to expand...

you do realise you are criticising Joe public here, it is the complacency & CBA attitude of your typical british workforce that make the mistakes not the government.
 
Last edited:
AHILL said:
you do realise you are criticising Joe public here, it is the complacency & CBA attitude of your typical british workforce that make the mistakes not the government.
Click to expand...

Its the governments employees though - I wouldn't tolerate that kind of crap performance from my team.

I used to work for a council and i know first hand how difficult it is to discipline or otherwise adress poor performance (due to internal redtape and bureacracy) - the sort of incompetence/conduct that would get you your walking cards in the private or third sector is often ignored because managers just CBA with the 4 reams of paperwork in triplicate that would be required to do anything about it
 
chrism_scotland said:
Sick to the back teeth with Westminster, wish we'd voted Yes in September, the Holyrood lot might not be much better but at least they're closer to home.
Click to expand...

You'd just have scottish morons to contend with instead of english ones
 
Bernie174 said:
I am not sure what freedoms were fought for that would be affected by monitoring communications.
.
Click to expand...

may be the right to the fredom of speech/expression (ironic given all the je suis charlie) - with the govenment monitoring your every word for anything they don't like, you'll no longer be able to express that you feel big brother is ungood or that the ministry of love is double plus bad. ;)
 
chrism_scotland said:
Maybe so but personally I'd rather be run by Scottish morons than English ones I didn't vote for.
Click to expand...

You would be, wouldn't you! Really moronic ones! I've just been astounded to hear the SNP First Minister call for a reduction in UK oil taxes in the light of falling world oil prices and Scottish oil job losses. Presumably she still thinks English tax payers will keep paying and paying!
 
chrism_scotland said:
Maybe so but personally I'd rather be run by Scottish morons than English ones I didn't vote for.
Click to expand...

chances are you'd be mainly ruled by EU morons - as Scotland on its own would be even weaker at standing up to them than the condoms
 
may be the right to the fredom of speech/expression (ironic given all the je suis charlie) - with the govenment monitoring your every word for anything they don't like, you'll no longer be able to express that you feel big brother is ungood or that the ministry of love is double plus bad.
Click to expand...

This is the real world, not 1984.
Government wont be monitoring anything. The Security Services would be monitoring some conversations. If it's mine and I am calling the Home Sec Lady May of Lala land, they will undoubtedly agree with me. If you honesty think anyone cares what we say in the normal course of events, you are deluded. If you think anyone wants to do anything about it, then I suggest you seek help!
For a start its not a practical proposition. How big do you think GCHQ/MI5/Special Branch would have to be to do that?
 
Bernie174 said:
I am not sure what freedoms were fought for that would be affected by monitoring communications.
Though we all use the internet, so we are constantly monitored anyway. By Google who then can aim advertising at us. Most of us shop in Sup[supermarkets, Tesco Club card points, a way of giving you something for nothing? Is it hell, its a way of monitoring what you buy so they can push other products at you.
You drive anywhere and you'll hit ANPR cameras.
You already leave a huge footprint where ever you go anyway, although the holders of that information are businesses, not Government. Not sure I'd trust Tesco's more than I'd trust MI5!
What the security services want is to be able to look at triggers in communications, that currently they don't know about. If you are doing nothing wrong, you wont trigger any interest and even if you do, you'd soon be rowed out.
The bigger question here which everyone avoids is whats most important, a 'hand won freedom', that doesn't really exist and was never fought for, or innocent peoples right to be protected against terrorism.
Some clearly think thats a hard decision. For me it's not. The Security Services/GCHQ can hold whatever they like about me, it really makes no difference to my life at all.

Like Richardoforce, I lived in a Country where an ID card was compulsory, although we issued our own. I also worked in a job where I was required to carry an ID card all the time. It's hardly an issue, unless you want to make it one, and even then most issues are unfounded.
Click to expand...


Never give up anything to the State! All it will ever do, is abuse information and power!

You speak of the security services wanting to be able to look at "triggers in communications". Just think how those "triggers" can be changed with time and would be? If our communications had been recorded thirty years ago, they would now be getting trawled through again looking for anything that could now be deemed unacceptably racist [possibly fair] or religiously homophobic or even [phna phna] sexist! What would the trigger be in thirty years time? He denied climate change? Voted UKIP/Tory/Labour or against the EU? Was a member of a now illegal trade union? Was a Christian?

Any could be possible because 1984 was written as a parable but it's in danger of becoming a textbook!
 
you say what if... but why would anyone want too?

It's reasonably easy to get anything into law, provided a Party has a majority, but its also simple to write in checks and balances. Any extension has to go through the Lords and get signed by the Crown, both are there to stop Government doing what you are suggesting. This is one time where a non elected second chamber does make sense. Then of course there's the Courts, any legislation that was used as you are suggesting would get slung by the courts. Judges are not as daft as some think they are.

And of course you are ignoring the very real practicalities.

I notice as well, no ones answered my point. Is this so called freedom (which it isn't really, there is no real 'right' to absolute privy) worth more than lives, because when you strip away the "What if's" that have nothing supporting them apart from paranoia, thats what this is about.
 
When it comes to governance of a people "what if" is just about the most important question the people can ask.

This "so called freedom" isn't about privacy, it's about the right to speak, think and act as we choose, within the law, without fear of censure or recrimination. This "so called freedom" has been gained in increments, at great cost to individuals and groups, over the last 1000 years and has quite recently been restored to most of Europe.

Is this "so called freedom" worth more than lives? Many have believed it to be worth more than their own lives.

Terrorists hope that we as a society conclude that it is not.

When we give up "so called freedoms" the terrorists win.
 
Yves Geza said:
Never give up anything to the State! All it will ever do, is abuse information and power!

!
Click to expand...

The three greatest lies of all time are:

3) The cheque is in the post
2) Of course I love you baby
1) I'm from the Government and I'm here to help you
 
Bernie174 said:
This is the real world, not 1984.
Government wont be monitoring anything. The Security Services would be monitoring some conversations. ?
Click to expand...

and you honestly think the security services arent an instrument of government interest - if you've got a seance handy you could ask David Kelly how he feels about that.

Touble is they start off monitoring communications for words like bomb, Allah, and london in the same sentence (thats me f***ed then.. I'll leave a light on for the thought police when they come to kick my door in at 3am) , but down the line that changes to other words the government of the day feels are "politically unsound" like "intend, vote and labour" or "Demonstrate and Paving bill"

Giving up a little bit of freedom is like being a little bit pregnant, and the key to things like charlie hebdo is not to overeact by giving away the freedoms while swept along on a wave of hysteria - I'm sure giving hitler emegency powers after the reichstag fire looked like a good idea at the time too, but that didnt work out so well

Also if GCHQ don't have the capicity to monitor widely - how are they going to catch any terrorists by doing it ?
 
BSM

I dispare at you.

At the moment, GCHQ can only intercept where there's a suspect and there's been a warrant issued.

Thats great, if you know who all the terrorists are. If you don't, then you can't get a warrant, so it all comes as a surprise when something goes bang.

Now, if you are only looking for a limited number of patterns of behavior, or contact points or use of phrases, sifting that out isn't such a big issue.

If, on the other hand you are looking for decent of a Political Party, or a politician, them you need to have a lot of people to deal with the take from that. Is that simple enough for you?

What freedom are you giving up exactly BSM? You don't have the freedom you claim anyway. You are already monitored, you clearly arn't a terrorist either and should you decide to become one then hard luck, I don't care about your freedoms.

So explain in chapter and verse what freedom YOU are giving up. Not supposition, or guess work, or assumption. And please answer the question, is that flimsy assumption of giving up something worth someones life?
 
chrism_scotland said:
Sick to the back teeth with Westminster, wish we'd voted Yes in September, the Holyrood lot might not be much better but at least they're closer to home.
Click to expand...
Your finances were based on oil at $130 a barrel and increasing, you'd have been more screwed with your finances, over and above the amount extra you get from that govt you detest.
 
simon ess said:
When it comes to governance of a people "what if" is just about the most important question the people can ask.

This "so called freedom" isn't about privacy, it's about the right to speak, think and act as we choose, within the law, without fear of censure or recrimination. This "so called freedom" has been gained in increments, at great cost to individuals and groups, over the last 1000 years and has quite recently been restored to most of Europe.

Is this "so called freedom" worth more than lives? Many have believed it to be worth more than their own lives.

Terrorists hope that we as a society conclude that it is not.

When we give up "so called freedoms" the terrorists win.
Click to expand...

Whilst there is a right to free speech, that has to be tempered with moral responsibility, which is where those laws come in. As the world changes (and to a certain extent, views change) so those laws must also change.

I'm not entirely sure what freedoms we are giving up. Monitoring? It's just an extension of what's been happening for years. CCTV everywhere, to counteract the Ira threat london was ringed with cameras monitoring all traffic in and out, all internet is monitored and recorded by ISPs, your phone is tracked. Identity cards? We have them with driving licences, passports, etc. try being stopped by the coppers and if they can't tell who you are you'll be taken to a police station.
 
Byker28i said:
try being stopped by the coppers and if they can't tell who you are you'll be taken to a police station.
Click to expand...

Only if it's necessary for an arrest. You have the right not to identify yourself otherwise.


Steve.
 
Steve Smith said:
Only if it's necessary for an arrest. You have the right not to identify yourself otherwise.
Steve.
Click to expand...

True, but if the officer suspects you of committing an offence, and you refuse to give details, then you will be arrested and taken to a police station. There's a number of reasons you can be stopped under Pace, Criminal justice and public order act, terrorism act, misuse of drugs act, the key phrase is reasonable grounds
 
big soft moose said:
targetted monitoring of individuals they have reason to suspect is one thing - tbh they do that already , but widespread monitoring of everyones traffic isn't a great idea , not only is it an impingement of civil liberty but its also pointless because the sheer volume will swamp any useful info even with the use of computer programs like prism
Click to expand...

Mostly it's data gathered from various sources and then searched for targeted words and phrases. These are scored and raise concerns which can be elevated to alerts over time. Once individuals are alerted, then targeted data gathering is implemented, which may include the circle of contacts. When they say intelligence sources alerted and we took preventative action, similar to that in Belgium, this is effectively what they mean. Sometimes however there are simple tip offs from neighbours etc.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top