Critics attack 'dangerous' gov't comms-snooping plan
Oh dear, oh dear

I'm surprised to see no comments on this article. Indeed I have also been surprised at the lack of comment on similar subjects (on ZDNet) in the past.

It's only by speaking out and acting now, before it's too late, that we have any chance of infuence. Otherwise we are just sleep walking into a society of total surveillance and total control.

Apart from that, I have discovered from past experience that an organisation cannot offer us a satisfactory service and, at the same time, police us. These are mutually incompatible activities.

Posted in reply to Critics attack 'dangerous' gov't comms-snooping plan

Body [quote="Moley"]I'm surprised to see no comments on this article. Indeed I have also been surprised at the lack of comment on similar subjects (on ZDNet) in the past. It's only by speaking out and acting now, before it's too late, that we have any chance of infuence. Otherwise we are just sleep walking into a society of total surveillance and total control. Apart from that, I have discovered from past experience that an organisation cannot offer us a satisfactory service and, at the same time, police us. These are mutually incompatible activities.[/quote]

Alert me when my forum post is replied to.

This government appears to be developing a key area of expertise, namely drawing up plans to put its citizens' personal data at risk.

I fully accept that there needs to be a mechanism for the security services (and them alone) to gain access to the content of individuals' communications, where they have a legitimate concern, in order to protect the security of the population. They obtain a warrant, use this to obtain the data, then analyse it. Note that this is to protect the security of the population - not to increase the revenue of the government.

However, the key here is that they have to go through a legal process to obtain the data, ensuring the power cannot be abused.

This new proposal (and let's hope it is a proposal, to be debated fully and openly) apparently will allow the government to collect all data we transmit over our internet connection - commercially sensitive emails, telephone calls, personal banking transactions, credit card details, login passwords, indeed a huge amount of sensitive data... and store it in one of the government's renowned secure centralised databases.

Since, and with good reason, few people trust the government to keep data secure, this idea of a centralised database is one of the main reasons why people dislike the ID cards scheme. Now they are doing it again with our internet traffic.

What is wrong with the traditional, and indeed existing, scheme of obtaining legal permission first, for a specific data collection operation, and then collecting the data? Why is this government obsessed with storing so much of our personal data centrally and consequently putting such data at risk of theft or misuse? There surely cannot be any legitimate benefit which offsets this.

In fact I would go as far as to suggest that the government's duty to protect its population from harm would be better fulfilled were they to do nothing, than implementing their various databases supposedly designed to protect us. The bigger threat to our personal security and freedom appears to be not criminals and terrorists, but the government themselves.

Is there nobody in government with the population's interests at heart?

Body [quote="mmfb123"]This government appears to be developing a key area of expertise, namely drawing up plans to put its citizens' personal data at risk. I fully accept that there needs to be a mechanism for the security services (and them alone) to gain access to the content of individuals' communications, where they have a legitimate concern, in order to protect the security of the population. They obtain a warrant, use this to obtain the data, then analyse it. Note that this is to protect the security of the population - not to increase the revenue of the government. However, the key here is that they have to go through a legal process to obtain the data, ensuring the power cannot be abused. This new proposal (and let's hope it is a proposal, to be debated fully and openly) apparently will allow the government to collect all data we transmit over our internet connection - commercially sensitive emails, telephone calls, personal banking transactions, credit card details, login passwords, indeed a huge amount of sensitive data... and store it in one of the government's renowned secure centralised databases. Since, and with good reason, few people trust the government to keep data secure, this idea of a centralised database is one of the main reasons why people dislike the ID cards scheme. Now they are doing it again with our internet traffic. What is wrong with the traditional, and indeed existing, scheme of obtaining legal permission first, for a specific data collection operation, and then collecting the data? Why is this government obsessed with storing so much of our personal data centrally and consequently putting such data at risk of theft or misuse? There surely cannot be any legitimate benefit which offsets this. In fact I would go as far as to suggest that the government's duty to protect its population from harm would be better fulfilled were they to do nothing, than implementing their various databases supposedly designed to protect us. The bigger threat to our personal security and freedom appears to be not criminals and terrorists, but the government themselves. Is there nobody in government with the population's interests at heart?[/quote]

Alert me when my forum post is replied to.

We all get spam and malware emails which waste time and clutter up the communications network. There are horrendous websites condoning and encouraging suicide, giving instructions on how to murder those with different 'religious' persuasions etc. So why aren't they on top of the list to be snooped on and removed from circulation? We all know they are there, the ISPs have the ability to shut them down. OK, there's the censorship issue, but surely commonsense tells us that should not be allowed to be put forward in defence of blatant evil? Let's be reasonable and draw the line.

Body [quote="GeoffO"]We all get spam and malware emails which waste time and clutter up the communications network. There are horrendous websites condoning and encouraging suicide, giving instructions on how to murder those with different 'religious' persuasions etc. So why aren't they on top of the list to be snooped on and removed from circulation? We all know they are there, the ISPs have the ability to shut them down. OK, there's the censorship issue, but surely commonsense tells us that should not be allowed to be put forward in defence of blatant evil? Let's be reasonable and draw the line.[/quote]

Alert me when my forum post is replied to.

Why do the government and the relevant authorities not target the bad guy's instead of this broad brush philosophy which affects all of us detrimentally, but does little to curb the real problems and bring the bad guys to book.

However, I disagree that the ISP's should be responsible, this job should be left to the duly constituted authorities and done under warrant. No thank you to private policing!

Body [quote="Moley"]Why do the government and the relevant authorities not target the bad guy's instead of this broad brush philosophy which affects all of us detrimentally, but does little to curb the real problems and bring the bad guys to book. However, I disagree that the ISP's should be responsible, this job should be left to the duly constituted authorities and done under warrant. No thank you to private policing![/quote]

Alert me when my forum post is replied to.