Turn on thread page Beta

Conservatives to introduce "snoopers charter" watch

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ThatPerson)
    Out of interest, how do you know this? I doubt that this would be public information.
    Stella Rimington talked about it in her book, others have written about it. That MI5 ceased its counter-subversion activities in the early 1990s is in the public domain
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Noble.)
    I've never quite understood the issues people have with this. GCHQ probably won't even have enough manpower to look into every single threat/alert that comes though, let alone snoop into random people's activities
    This, 100%.

    The main limiting factor in the ability of the security agencies to spy on people is manpower; you need analysts to assess the information you have collected. Their time is limited, and they tend to spend it on real threats, not checking up on people's porn histories.

    Unfortunately, many people have an overly conspiratorial view of the intelligence community, and an exaggerated sense of their importance and the degree to which intelligence agencies are interested in them and their private lives.

    They are interested in finding people who want to set off bombs, or engage in espionage against the UK government. They are not interested in the personal habits or political views of ordinary citizens
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    I've not heard anything convincing on why we need it.

    I'm not bothered about it invading my privacy, i'm sure i'm not of any interest to the security services but then stuff like recording webcams is a bit much.

    Those parroting the nothing to hide nothing to fear nonsense are really missing the much more worrying aspect of all this surveillance, i don't care about my own privacy so much as about stuff like this:

    GCHQ captured emails of journalists from top international media

    GCHQ ordered to destroy documents from illegal communication interceptions between kidnapped Libyan dissident and his lawyers

    and the chilling effect it may have on people far more important than myself.

    Then theres the people we're handing all this power to, they don't seem like the nicest bunch:

    MI5 accused of covering up sexual abuse at boys’ home


    Geoffrey Prime
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Quantex)
    The problem is the security services do not have a lot of oversight, so giving them new powers depends on how trusting you are. Some, particularly those in favour of big government, are quite happy with this, some of us don't have such blind faith in government organisations. We are talking about a security service that has a long history of spying on MPs.
    That's not really true; the Wilson Doctrine has been in effect since the 1960s

    And this has nothing to do with "blind faith in government". It does have to do with rejecting the conspiracy theorist mindset that says that those people in the intelligence community, who are hard-working and dedicated public servants, are actually evil oppressors who want to use the information they collect for political purposes.

    It's just asinine. The best form of oversight for the intelligence community is political oversight; each of the agencies are overseen by a Secretary of State. I personally would be happy to introduce the Inspector-General system used in the United States and Australia, but that doesn't preclude giving the agencies the powers they need in the meantime
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:


    That was part of an exercise to determine the degree of specificity GCHQ could achieve in sampling and pulling data from the fibre-optic tap they have on the internet backbone. It was not a deliberate spying operation on journalists

    That was wrong, and the fact it has come to light and been adjudicated in open court and that the services have accepted their practices breached the human rights act, evidences the fact that the agencies are under lawful, democratic control and subject to the courts.

    Then theres the people we're handing all this power to, they don't seem like the nicest bunch:

    MI5 accused of covering up sexual abuse at boys’ home
    That was definitely wrong, and there were many abuses by the security services in the Northern Ireland war. The army and the RUC Special Branch also acted unlawfully and even criminally in many cases.

    But that period, and the terrorist campaign that imbued the service with that kind of mindset, is over. They are much more under democratic control now than they ever have been
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    The security services are not going to be bothered about your dodgy porn habits. They are far more concerned with the people who might be viewing ISIS videos or posting sympathetic messages for example.
    I don't think that's the point. If someone wants to watch Pokemon online, they should be able to do so without worry someone is watching them watch it.
    Offline

    11
    To be honest, I think the Internet is a public forum, so I don't have a problem with people's activity being monitored and stored. In reality, I imagine it would be more about computer software analysing traffic and flagging up users with a large number of visits to dodgy sites. The image of government officials randomly flicking through the personal web history or YouTube preferences of tens of millions of people doesn't seem at all realistic

    You have a right to privacy in your own home, and I don't think webcams should be hacked into, or anything as invasive as that. And I'm not sure they have a right to record all the voice-mail, telephone messages, and emails and store them without good reason - those are private communications. So I've got mixed opinions about it.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MatthewParis)
    It's highly unlikely that there was a leak from MI5 to a trade unionist that he was under surveillance.

    Many trade unionists who were active in the Thatcher years came to believe that the state was conspiring against them, and that they were under surveillance and the like.

    Undoubtedly a few trade unionists like Scargill might have been for short periods, say during the miners' strike, but for the most part they were not and there aren't really ways they would be able to find out if they were
    Well Given the government literally admitted it to my dad once labour got in I'm going to inform you you are wrong.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    I'm disappointed, but it was inevitable. No way in hell will this make us any safer, those with a will to do harm will simply behave more conspicuously when communicating.

    Every society is riddled with criminals, calling them terrorists in order to induce fear within society is not the right way to pave the road towards a surveillance state.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    I'm normally supportive of mass surveillance because it's a necessity, but the Tories have already shown that they're completely out of touch, they know absolutely nothing about technology, they'll introduce completely arbitrary rules against the wishes of the entire country, and so on. They've shown that they're genuinely dangerous and they will abuse this.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MatthewParis)
    So you would prefer the government didn't have the tools it needs to investigate and disrupt terrorist plots and espionage against the United Kingdom?
    A far simpler solution would be to stop supporting tyrannical regimes and invading countries, then 99.9% of terrorists would be no more.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by n00)
    I've not heard anything convincing on why we need it.

    I'm not bothered about it invading my privacy, i'm sure i'm not of any interest to the security services but then stuff like recording webcams is a bit much.

    Those parroting the nothing to hide nothing to fear nonsense are really missing the much more worrying aspect of all this surveillance, i don't care about my own privacy so much as about stuff like this:

    GCHQ captured emails of journalists from top international media

    GCHQ ordered to destroy documents from illegal communication interceptions between kidnapped Libyan dissident and his lawyers

    and the chilling effect it may have on people far more important than myself.

    Then theres the people we're handing all this power to, they don't seem like the nicest bunch:

    MI5 accused of covering up sexual abuse at boys’ home


    Geoffrey Prime
    ye exactly, why should we trust these spies, nearly everyone in power these days seems a peado
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by interact)
    A far simpler solution would be to stop supporting tyrannical regimes and invading countries, then 99.9% of terrorists would be no more.
    Don't know what world you're living in but it's not the real one. Terrorism has existed for hundreds of years and it will continue to exist. If you think people only do bad things when you invade their country you have a very naive view.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JordanL_)
    Don't know what world you're living in but it's not the real one. Terrorism has existed for hundreds of years and it will continue to exist. If you think people only do bad things when you invade their country you have a very naive view.
    hmm yes very true, but I don't trust these lot
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Actaeon)
    To be honest, I think the Internet is a public forum.
    Not necessarily, there are private websites, not to mention all the private emails, messages and information stored around.

    I oppose the bill on principle.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I may sympathise with their economic policies but I can't culturally work with the Conservatives. What happened to everyone's human rights and civil liberties.

    I read up on what the opposition thought about this, and I think the Tories are being to careless on spying.

    Just like how some people are extrovert and others are introvert, some people generally need privacy to function well; this is exactly why on Mainland Europe and countries like Korea/Japan the locals look down on spying viciously. Some people find it stressful to be constantly spied on, and it restricts freedom of thought; and we haven't thought about those with mental health problems.

    It opens up problems regarding hindrance of political reform or even cyber-bullying; we still live in a country where we need a courts of appeal to stop false prosecutions and misuse of power.

    Who is this targeting? Drug Traffickers? Political Dissidents? Whistle-blowers? Muslims? Ethnicity from separatist backgrounds? Working Class? Unionists? Ethnic Minorities? The political opposition? Think tanks? Politicians? Middle Class? Billionaires?

    Who will have access to this data? Police, Military, Civil Service? Should Doctors need access to prevent 'diseases' from spreading? Will parents be allowed access to stop 'chavvy' children?

    I thought CCTV was bad enough, now we're heading towards a society where everything will be recorded! All it will take is a major incident to loosen the laws again.

    I find it disgusting that no political party is taking this seriously! Only the EU has come close to stopping spying. This is a war tactic, not a civilised political policy.

    It says a lot that even people like the Koch Brothers are supporting efforts against spying too.

    I'm not saying terrorist should win, but we need to think about what we are doing to the general public, and not just wage war on everyone!
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    I find it incredibly ironic people would complain at the government attempting to do this, yet nearly every bloody social network, search provider, mobile phone company etc. already does this to a greater extent?

    Might not be pretty liberal [of me], but I actually support this. I would like our forces to have a greater ability to discover crimes/criminals and take action.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    The security services are not going to be bothered about your dodgy porn habits.
    However the Conservatives are interested in your porn habits, which is why they've outlawed a long list of non-violent, consensual acts in porn. Up until now it has of course been hard to enforce laws like that.

    The problem with all of these sorts of laws is not that it is inherently wrong to monitor people, but that they subvert the usual protections against unjustified searches. If there is evidence that someone is a terrorist then by all means bring that evidence to a judge and receive a warrant to have them placed under surveillance, but it should be as hard to get permission to go over someone's internet usage records as to get permission to search their home. Feeding data automatically into a government database leads to its use in far broader circumstances and enables invasive and oppressing laws that would otherwise be considered unenforceable.
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Observatory)
    However the Conservatives are interested in your porn habits, which is why they've outlawed a long list of non-violent, consensual acts in porn. Up until now it has of course been hard to enforce laws like that.

    The problem with all of these sorts of laws is not that it is inherently wrong to monitor people, but that they subvert the usual protections against unjustified searches. If there is evidence that someone is a terrorist then by all means bring that evidence to a judge and receive a warrant to have them placed under surveillance, but it should be as hard to get permission to go over someone's internet usage records as to get permission to search their home. Feeding data automatically into a government database leads to its use in far broader circumstances and enables invasive and oppressing laws that would otherwise be considered unenforceable.
    While that's true i think that the ends can justify the means.

    Over the last decade we have seen an increased number of terrorists and terrorist sympathisers while at the same time we have seen counter terrorism measures and yet despite this the number of successful large scale terrorist attacks in the UK since 9/11 stands at 1 (7/7) almost a decade ago.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    While that's true i think that the ends can justify the means.

    Over the last decade we have seen an increased number of terrorists and terrorist sympathisers while at the same time we have seen counter terrorism measures and yet despite this the number of successful large scale terrorist attacks in the UK since 9/11 stands at 1 (7/7) almost a decade ago.
    That suggests that the current laws work well, not that government powers need to be radically expanded.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: May 10, 2015

5,564

students online now

800,000+

Exam discussions

Find your exam discussion here

Poll
Should predicted grades be removed from the uni application process
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.