Turn on thread page Beta

The British Police State and Electronic Surveillance-must read article watch

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Thought provoking, if mildly depressing article. Please read and comment if you have an open mind and are willing to question power, although I know that is depressingly few people nowadays.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SaucissonSecCy)
    Thought provoking, if mildly depressing article. Please read and comment if you have an open mind and are willing to question power, although I know that is depressingly few people nowadays.
    I'm wondering if there is some joke here about the fact we can only read the article if we spy on you to work out what you've been reading, since you can't be arsed to provide link...
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    http://britishdemocraticparty.org/th...urveillance-2/

    Someone bothered to tell me at last....
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    If you are concerned about the UK government spying on you, it is probably nothing compared to your phone

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-34732514
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by ByEeek)
    If you are concerned about the UK government spying on you, it is probably nothing compared to your phone

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-34732514
    This seems to be the odd paradox of privacy. Government spying is always evil and wrong, regardless of circumstance, yet the majority of the populace are just fine with commercial data collection.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Any organisation that has to call themselves democratic always worries me.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aj12)
    yet the majority of the populace are just fine with commercial data collection.
    Except in an American survey where 54% of users had decided not to install an app after learning how much personal information they would need to share to use it.

    I am becoming increasingly concerned about not only the state, but companies getting hold of my data. Once they have it there is nothing I can do about it. They can sell it and ultimately it can be used against me, whatever they like.

    The only way I can see anything changing fast in favour of privacy is when a hacker discovers the porn habits of one of our senior politicians. It will happen sooner or later.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ByEeek)
    The only way I can see anything changing fast in favour of privacy is when a hacker discovers the porn habits of one of our senior politicians. It will happen sooner or later.
    Considering the habits of senior politician's spouses is already public knowledge, that ship has sailed.

    The argument that these measures are about security will always trump personal embarrassment, it'll only take another 7/7 for people to demand to know how security services can't trace people talking about plans. People won't accept deaths as a price for privacy. Why should they?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Drewski)
    The argument that these measures are about security will always trump personal embarrassment, it'll only take another 7/7 for people to demand to know how security services can't trace people talking about plans. People won't accept deaths as a price for privacy. Why should they?
    You are right to an extent. Never underestimate the role in selling fear to make people vote for you. But if people dying unnecessarily is the argument, then why are we not ploughing £Billions into road safety or cancer research, rather than on dubiously legal wars abroad which most would concede have made the world more dangerous, not less.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Drewski)
    Any organisation that has to call themselves democratic always worries me.
    Oh great. Don't even look at the article objectively, simply condemn anything on any website that doesn't represent the establishment-worshipping consensus. Why do you have to politicize the website name, rather than just reading the contents of the article? That represents everything that is so determinedly close minded and partisan about our so-called 'thriving democracy'.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aj12)
    This seems to be the odd paradox of privacy. Government spying is always evil and wrong, regardless of circumstance, yet the majority of the populace are just fine with commercial data collection.
    I think you've created a bit of a false dichotomy there. Most people concerned over civil liberties, that I have read/encountered, seem to me to view the two forces as collaborative, and are equally concerned over both.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ByEeek)
    You are right to an extent. Never underestimate the role in selling fear to make people vote for you. But if people dying unnecessarily is the argument, then why are we not ploughing £Billions into road safety or cancer research, rather than on dubiously legal wars abroad which most would concede have made the world more dangerous, not less.
    People accept that roads are inherently dangerous. People don't accept others plotting to detonate bombs on public transport. The two are very different.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ByEeek)
    If you are concerned about the UK government spying on you, it is probably nothing compared to your phone

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-34732514
    (Original post by Aj12)
    This seems to be the odd paradox of privacy. Government spying is always evil and wrong, regardless of circumstance, yet the majority of the populace are just fine with commercial data collection.
    Good points. I went out into Lincoln yesterday with my Android smartphone. The Google Now app or whatever it is called these days knew where I'd parked my car when I went to the cinema & where I was having lunch. Despite the fact that I had GPS off & no Wifi on (therefore it could only use cell masts). I'm still bemused quite how it knew this. & I'm also annoyed it remembered where my car was parked yesterday but not where I parked it last week at Alton Towers when me & my friends had to spend 10mins searching for my car as I couldn't remember which area I'd parked it in (doh!).

    Regarding Govt surveillance, I thought they already could monitor your Internet history, IP address etc.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tempest II)
    Despite the fact that I had GPS off & no Wifi on (therefore it could only use cell masts). I'm still bemused quite how it knew this.
    Despite the fact you thought you had location services and wifi switched off, that doesn't mean they were actually switched off.

    I was rather alarmed by this report from the BBC about how your apps record a lot of data about you and then send it to third party companies and organisations

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-34732514
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Drewski)
    Any organisation that has to call themselves democratic always worries me.
    I mean, again I am aghast at this. That this is what you pic out from reading this. Shows how much denial is working in mainly supposedly liberal people, regarding what is happening to their country. The results of this culture of surveillance will be anything but 'liberal'. It's in every history book. Script already written. OK I'm done.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SaucissonSecCy)
    I mean, again I am aghast at this. That this is what you pic out from reading this. Shows how much denial is working in mainly supposedly liberal people, regarding what is happening to their country. The results of this culture of surveillance will be anything but 'liberal'. It's in every history book. Script already written. OK I'm done.
    Oh grow up. You know full well that the quality of the message is judged by the vehicle it comes in just as much as it is by what it contains.

    Did I say anything negative about the article? Am I disagreeing with it? Did I say that it should be ignored? No, I merely made a flippant comment on the source, but I did not say that the message was therefore dubious - you read that into the comment yourself.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Drewski)
    Oh grow up. You know full well that the quality of the message is judged by the vehicle it comes in just as much as it is by what it contains.

    Did I say anything negative about the article? Am I disagreeing with it? Did I say that it should be ignored? No, I merely made a flippant comment on the source, but I did not say that the message was therefore dubious - you read that into the comment yourself.
    For part 1)Do I? Not by me, and anyway what constitutes a credible 'vehicle' to you, as this so clearly isn't(for unspecified reasons-be nice if you could clarify them too) One coming from, and/or influenced by vested interests like tech companies or intelligence services or home office ministers? A pro establishment newspaper? Give me an example alternative view and explain why it is a more, not less objective and credible place for it to come from.

    For part 2)You just contradicted yourself. It's an obvious implication in what you just said.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    It is extremely worrying the extent of the spying. Now most will say that when our data is monitored it's all done automatically with filters and that there will only be human involvement, the authorities will only act if they find grounds to do so. But what grounds do they have to be using those automatic scanning programs and filters on our data in the first place? Surely if there is no grounds to suspect someone of being a terrorist then none of their communications should be monitored, not even by automatic programs looking for suspicious keywords? When there are grounds, then the monitoring can begin AFTER you've got the grounds to suspect them of terrorism.

    That's pretty much how the police work, they can't arrest someone without any grounds, then have a nosey about their life, find drugs in their house/in their pocket and then use that as grounds to justify the original arrest. Because while you might have found something illegal, you carried out the arrest before having grounds, which makes it an unlawful arrest and a blatant attempt at perverting justice.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KvasirVanir)
    It is extremely worrying the extent of the spying. Now most will say that when our data is monitored it's all done automatically with filters and that there will only be human involvement, the authorities will only act if they find grounds to do so. But what grounds do they have to be using those automatic scanning programs and filters on our data in the first place? Surely if there is no grounds to suspect someone of being a terrorist then none of their communications should be monitored, not even by automatic programs looking for suspicious keywords? When there are grounds, then the monitoring can begin AFTER you've got the grounds to suspect them of terrorism.

    That's pretty much how the police work, they can't arrest someone without any grounds, then have a nosey about their life, find drugs in their house/in their pocket and then use that as grounds to justify the original arrest. Because while you might have found something illegal, you carried out the arrest before having grounds, which makes it an unlawful arrest and a blatant attempt at perverting justice.
    Yup. Hand the state powers, believe them to be your saviour, have no healthy distrust of authority and government(which is everything that made the anglosphere nations great) and it heads to dark places. Of course it's illogical and not in or benefit, but states exist seemingly to expand their power, would be nice if it was abroad rather than crushing our own citizens. People have bought into the anti-terror concept too obediently, without suspecting side effects or ulterior motives. Besides if they didn;t want you hurt in terrorist attacks(as if anyone believes the governemnt is concerned about you like that) they would not be going into these illogical wars, which we have no money to pay for, and only breed more and more terrorists and de-stabilize countries more. You cannot bomb countries into democracy ffs.
 
 
 
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: November 11, 2015
Poll
Do you think parents should charge rent?
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.