equinox_code wrote:

If we were all retrospectively punished for past crimes committed i suspect everyone bar igor would be in prison right now. @adkm. i recall a while ago you told of a friend who accidentally traveled by air with a packet of speed. Would you feel differently if he were punished for this on account of it being documented on the internet? Or if perhaps you lost your job for knowing about it, considering your profession?

It's not against the law to have been in possession of controlled drugs.  You couldn't punish him now.  Nor could I lose my job since I wasn't a Police officer at the time, and didn't know about it until after the fact.

I do wonder (not directed at anyone here) about how little people know about communications data, and what's classed as 'intrusive' surveillance in that respect.  That the organisations can request telecoms data from mobile companies is nothing new, nor is it exciting.  Interogating a mobile phone for texts, emails, calls etc. to build a case of drug dealing is nothing new.  That's just how it's done.  The lengthy forms filled out to request the data require the acknowledgement of likely collateral intrusion; personal data of innocent third parties, generally.  The fact that somebody might read the telephone number of an innocent party - never knowing who that person is or anything else about them - is classed as intrusive.  The notion that anyone would have the time or inclination to conduct unwarranted research on innocent parties is madness.

As Elm highlights, the authorities recognise that different crimes have different levels of seriousness.  With that comes limits on levels of enquiry carried out, and time bars.  Murder has no time bar, road traffic cases generally have a six month time bar.  Drug possession can't be dealt with retrospectively, certain types of dealing can.

Edit: Never mind.

And back to the naming thing and the posh girl mentioned above - in my experience - really , proper posh people, those with class for want of a better word, have in my admittedly limited experience, the ability to show an interest in everyone they meet - and it is done in a seemingly genuine way. Whether it IS genuine or skillfully faked isn't the point - it is pure old-fashioned politeness - and what else are posh people for apart from showing the rest of us a nice way to behave and judiciously spreading some money around if they happen to have it?

Your first comment and your second are two different things. My emails could well have been scanned as part of a routine sweep searching for keywords. But no I don't think their actual contents are of any interest to anyone outside of the intended recipients.

One of the problems is the precedent it's setting.

On scanning tweets and facebook, I can tell you you're wrong.

Individual police forces do that now.

adkm1979 wrote:

So, what's the problem?

I don't think the state should be checking what it's citizens are talking about in private correspondence., even to keep them safe. I'll do a quick list off the top of my head for why I think this. 

- Lack of transparency in what is deemed acceptable content
- Who's business is it but mine and the people I'm writing to?
- What guarantees do I have that they aren't abusing the power? What safeguards are in place to ensure there's no corruption? What are the checks and balances, that are required in any powerful democratic institution?  
- Why is terrorism a better reason to invade my privacy than any other crime? 
- At the moment, all that happens is a brute force scan of word content because that's where the technology is. What happens when computers are capable of a semantic analysis of content? Are the powers rescinded? Will the security services give them up?  
-Privacy in some circumstances is absolutely essential. What happens when a political prisoner is writing to his lawyer? More on this here  
 
There's a heap more to object to but it's late and I'm drunk.

My avatar and paranoid stance are in perfect harmony at the moment.

I was just thinking that.

Fuck, this thing's not working.

Shut up and take my privacy!

Lack of transparency in what is deemed acceptable content
Innocent, legal discussion is acceptable. Discussion of your involvement in criminal activity is less so.

Who's business is it but mine and the people I'm writing to?
Well, it's the authorities business if you're writing to criminals about your criminal activity. Otherwise, nobody cares.

What guarantees do I have that they aren't abusing the power?
Well, you'll never get a guarantee of anything, but there are rules and laws already in existence regarding access to personal information.

What safeguards are in place to ensure there's no corruption?
Again, you can't ensure anything, but there are already rules and laws in place.

What are the checks and balances, that are required in any powerful democratic institution?
The rules and laws already in place regarding access to such info.

Why is terrorism a better reason to invade my privacy than any other crime?
Murder is generally considered the worst crime there is. Mass indiscriminate murder is something most people would rather avoid.

At the moment, all that happens is a brute force scan of word content because that's where the technology is. What happens when computers are capable of a semantic analysis of content?
We get less false results.

Are the powers rescinded?
When they're working better? I hope not.

Will the security services give them up?
Again, hopefully not.
 
Privacy in some circumstances is absolutely essential. What happens when a political prisoner is writing to his lawyer? More on this here
Human Rights do not, crucially, extent to a right to privacy. They afford us the right to repect of a private life. That means that your privacy can be invaded, for example, for the prevention or detection of crime. Scanning an email that nobody thee than the recipient will actually read is minimal intrusion.
 
There's a heap more to object to but it's late and I'm drunk.
There really isn't, but there we are.

Whatever wiped out the dinosaurs would be a good one, if possibly not technically historical.

@Adkm

I'm trying not to get into a multi-quote clusterfuck, so I've slimmed down the response a bit, but not avoided it entirely.  What specific rules and laws are you referencing in the first half of your response? And what do they do to prevent abuse?


Murder is generally considered the worst crime there is. Mass indiscriminate murder is something most people would rather avoid. 
Death count in the last 10 years from terrorism = 50.
Death count over 30 years from IRA terrorism  = 3000.
The most severe legislation when the IRA was around was 7 day detention and trial without jury in Northern Ireland for cases related to terrorism. The definition of terrorism was 'violence for political ends'. 
Legislation since 2000 includes indefinite detention without charge of foreigners, indefinite house arrest without charge, 28 days detention without charge for British citizens, stop and search without suspicion (disproportionately used against ethnic minorities and protestors), banning powers for non-violent political groups. The definition of terrorism is 'action taken to advance any political, religious, racial or ideological cause designed to influence the government of any country or international organisation or to intimidate any member of the public anywhere in the world.' 
Edit: And, of course, surveillance of the entire population's private communications. 

These are not proportional responses to the threat. 

Source 1
Source 2 


Are the powers rescinded? 
When they're working better? I hope not. 

Everyone's got the wrong idea because the sheer volume of data make spying on people impossible, but should it become possible through technological advancement, then we should definitely carry on as then it will really start working. You dope. 

Privacy in some circumstances is absolutely essential. What happens when a political prisoner is writing to his lawyer? More on this here 
Human Rights do not, crucially, extent to a right to privacy. They afford us the right to repect of a private life. That means that your privacy can be invaded, for example, for the prevention or detection of crime. Scanning an email that nobody thee than the recipient will actually read is minimal intrusion.

No, privacy is not a human right. 'Respect' for privacy is vague enough to be contorted to whatever people want it to mean. Obviously, for me, it doesn't include behaviour like scanning what people are writing to each other in the hope that they find something they want to act on. Anyway, you've managed to dodge that last point through objecting to something that wasn't said. The answer to the question 'What happens when a political prisoner is writing to his lawyer?' is that the state can now see anything they say to each other if they use private but unsecured channels. They can do this regardless of the threat to national security the conversation may have.

AJ wrote:

Whatever wiped out the dinosaurs would be a good one, if possibly not technically historical.

That has to count as historical, why wouldn't it? Major event in world history that changed it forever.

Well there's natural history and human history. If we're talking about one we're not talking about the other. Not that it really matters for our purposes here.