Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

What are your views on Government Surveillence? watch

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I would like to know your views on this topic because I'm doing a short film which is based around this and it would be very useful to know.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Not a good thing,it is just another means to spy on humans to ensure we remain under control and repressed.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    A really bad thing, reminds my of Orwell's 1984. No real democracy can thrive under these conditions.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    While the people carrying out the surveillance are doing so purely for our benefit, it is good. But that is a fantasy.

    When they are anonymous, with an agenda that has evolved as it has moved from media demand --> government knee-jerk policy --> civil service interpretation --> outsourced service ---> management needing profit --> redefining 'success' to more cheaply achieve Service Level Agreements --> senior managers leaning on supervisors to get results --> recruitment of junior staff who actually do the snooping --> poor training and systems --> limited or non-existent safeguards because they cost money --> the need to get results, regardless of the citizen's actual intent --> expanding the meaning of 'evidence' to include 'may suggest potential future behaviours' --> presumption of guilt without trial --> the need for secret trials --> abuse.

    Add to that the data being stored overseas on insecure sites owned by 3rd parties.

    And the personal data being sold, such as the NHS does to health insurance companies and the DVLA to debt-collectors.


    It's a nice idea, but it is too easily abused.
    • TSR Support Team
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    Moved to Politics
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Will you're shirt film be addressing the belief that government surveillance is bad whilst surveillance conducted by Google/Facebook and sold to the highest bidder is ok?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rock Fan)
    Moved to Politics
    Why?

    This isn't a political issue, it is an international, social and ethical one. It covers current affairs, technology and society. How is it UK politics?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    I haven't got a problem with it. I've got nothing to hide, and it's in my best interest that the government do find people who may be a threat to my security.

    I think privacy isn't quite what it used to be 50 years ago. In my opinion, we've just got to trust the government to handle our personal data responsibly.

    However, it does pee me off when profit making companies, such as Google and Facebook, farm our data only to sell it off. That is unethical, and a clear breech of our trust. The difference between Facebook and the government is that the government will use the data for (relatively) good use, whilst Facebook will give it away to God knows who, all so it can make its shareholders a bit happier. :hmpf:

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    So the government and GCHQ etc can monitor every single thing that happens on the internet. For starters it's not one person who is looking through my facebook messages for juicy gossip, it is a super computer which filters out keywords, patterns etc and most probably discards a large portion of your internet activity. The way I see it is the way the monitor the internet is like CCTV. They CAN see where you are going but unless you're intentions are bad they really don't care.

    If people in government were flicking through my facebook messages then more pity them cos there's not a lot of interesting stuff going on on there. I haven't got anything to hide, there are some personal conversations I wouldn't want to be made public but the government don't exactly run a campaign saying "guess what person x said about his girlfriends best friend"

    People scream breach of privacy and civil liberties etc when they've got nothing to hide, I wonder if they'll change their tune if it turns out the next 9/11 is prevented because communications were intercepted?
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Surveillance targeting specific people for good reason is fine, but blanket surveillance is what a lot of people consider unacceptable.

    And the "if you've got nothing to hide you've got nothing to fear" argument is the mantra of pretty much every despot in history, and it's a pathetic argument. Opposition to mass surveillance of the general public is based on the principle more than anything.

    And if you don't understand why mass trawling the private communications of journalists (including investigative journalists) is a bad thing, then I pity you.
    http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2...ashington-post
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RFowler)
    Surveillance targeting specific people for good reason is fine, but blanket surveillance is what a lot of people consider unacceptable.

    And the "if you've got nothing to hide you've got nothing to fear" argument is the mantra of pretty much every despot in history, and it's a pathetic argument. Opposition to mass surveillance of the general public is based on the principle more than anything.

    And if you don't understand why mass trawling the private communications of journalists (including investigative journalists) is a bad thing, then I pity you.
    http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2...ashington-post
    So what is your opinion on CCTV cameras? That is mass surveillance of the general public. I keep seeing the argument "yeah will it's the principle" but never actually see a solid reason why it's bad.

    I understand your point about investigative journalists and that is potentially open to abuse, but surely monitoring what journalists may or may not publish is not a bad thing, especially if they're on the verge of spilling state secrets. I do however understand how it is a system which COULD be abused.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by blue n white army)
    So what is your opinion on CCTV cameras? That is mass surveillance of the general public. I keep seeing the argument "yeah will it's the principle" but never actually see a solid reason why it's bad.

    I understand your point about investigative journalists and that is potentially open to abuse, but surely monitoring what journalists may or may not publish is not a bad thing, especially if they're on the verge of spilling state secrets. I do however understand how it is a system which COULD be abused.
    Usually there's a reason for CCTV cameras, like in shops to help prevent/reduce shoplifting. Or anyone who wants to deter burglars from a property. They are put in places where someone thinks they are needed for some reason, rather than being put anywhere and everywhere "just in case".

    A lot of them are in public places anyway, so a CCTV camera on a street isn't really much of a privacy issue in the way that mass trawling of private communication is.
    • Study Helper
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Study Helper
    Really bad. We live in a world where people's lives are just as digital as they are physical so there's really not much practical difference between digital and physical surveillance. The whole "if you've got nothing to hide you've got nothing to fear" argument is a massive fallacy - you could use that exact same argument to support banning curtains or building in 1984esque telescreens into every house. If you have the ability to tap into anyone's online activities, you've basically removed that person's right to privacy. It's got nothing to do about "not having anything to hide". Privacy is a basic human right. Law enforcement officers (or private companies) should not have the right to access personal information unless they have an incredibly good reason for it.

    All of this mass, blanket surveillance is simply a vector for authoritarianism. There is no rational basis for which a government, which respects its citizens, would need to have a blanket surveillance program for everybody. It may seem harmless today (it's not, if you pay attention to Snowdon, but you could be forgiven for thinking it is) but it's the start of a very, very slippery slope. If you start legalising 'less serious' intrusions into privacy then you're paving the way to make more serious intrusions acceptable. This erosion of privacy should be seen as completely socially unacceptable and I cannot understand why people are so willing to sell their privacy to governments (and corporations).
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Simes)
    Why?

    This isn't a political issue, it is an international, social and ethical one. It covers current affairs, technology and society. How is it UK politics?
    If it's about UK government surveillance then UK politics is appropriate, however society would be a better home for this thread, so I've moved it there.

    In response to the OP, what sort of surveillance are you getting at? Are you thinking about stuff such as MI5 watching suspected terrorists, or National Crime Agency officers watching criminals? Or do you mean day to day surveillance such as CCTV in public areas, or even councils going through people's rubbish to make sure they're putting the correct waste in the correct bins? It's a really broad subject that you could discuss here.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by moonkatt)
    society would be a better home for this thread, so I've moved it there.
    Thank you.

    (Original post by moonkatt)
    councils going through people's rubbish to make sure they're putting the correct waste in the correct bins?
    Actually, that's a good one.

    When living in Leeds the council put identifying chips on all the bins. It was to be one of the trial sites for taxation on rubbish according to weight. A good and fair idea, yes?

    We lived at the top of a cul-de-sac and our bins lived on the corner near the junction. Passers-by used our wheely-bins as street litter bins. I didn't care - better that than the pavement.

    The night before bin collection, about ⅓rd of the other residents moved their wheely bins to the collection point outside our house. Most residents would put their rubbish bags in neighbour's bins rather than wheel their bin up the street. Makes sense to me. Easier on them, quicker for the bin-men, saved blocking the street.

    But why the hell should I pay for their rubbish?

    So I was one of the residents in Leeds who committed criminal damage by cutting the chips out of the bins so that the council couldn't spy on my bin.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    CCTV is only used for good. :rolleyes:

    "The camera is looking into my living room window and bedroom window."

    "A PREGNANT mother was horrified to see live pictures of her BED on a travel news website. "

    "Anger over CCTV at Weymouth pensioner's bedroom window"

    "Two council CCTV camera operators have been jailed for spying on a naked woman in her own home."


    Nothing to hide, nothing to fear, eh? :rolleyes:
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    NSA & GCHQ are the threat to privacy. But Muslim terrorists are the threat to humankind. So those terrorists are a lot more dangerous.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MatureStudent36)
    Will you're shirt film be addressing the belief that government surveillance is bad whilst surveillance conducted by Google/Facebook and sold to the highest bidder is ok?
    No it will be fictional, the government listening to someone's phone conversation and finding it suspicious so they track them down only to find that the people having the conversation are innocent and all the things the government thought they heard they weren't as they sounded, they got it wrong. Like inuendos they took what the people were saying in the conversation seriously. So I was just wondering if the government really listen to everyone's conversations and what do people think about it.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by skygough)
    No it will be fictional, the government listening to someone's phone conversation and finding it suspicious so they track them down only to find that the people having the conversation are innocent and all the things the government thought they heard they weren't as they sounded, they got it wrong. Like inuendos they took what the people were saying in the conversation seriously. So I was just wondering if the government really listen to everyone's conversations and what do people think about it.
    Governments don't randomly listen in.

    Read up on RIPAs

    http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regul...owers_Act_2000
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MatureStudent36)
    Governments don't randomly listen in.

    Read up on RIPAs
    Okay, thank you
 
 
 
Poll
Who is your favourite TV detective?
Useful resources

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.