Turn on thread page Beta

Civil liberties/Surveillance SO underestimated+Want to do something about it?? watch

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    And, what do we do? We had all the Snowdon revelations, on the NSA and GCHQ, and the thing only get's worse and worse, the UK is seemingly the worst in the western world and it's very sinister and oppressive, few take it seriously enough relative to other issues, and it seems a thing we want to live in denial of. I would like to join political action, to protest or lobby, or do whatever I can, I'd like to find people with concerns like mine. I'll expect some of the response to the article below to be the usual pompous, we are English, the only people on earth with a clue, we are beyond question, self-satisfied, 'this is a clueless latin' crap, but hopefully there are some people on here concerned who agree this is a sidelined issue, maybe even some who have personal experience with the invasion of liberty and privacy going on. And maybe anyone who would be interested in gathering people, to protest, petition, whatever it may be, to make a difference on this issue.

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...-privacy-chief

    Benjamin Franklin
    We've already had a concerted effort to stop a free press.

    Those who would give up essentialLiberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

    And there is anti-terror measures, now so extreme as to make me incredulous, that it is helping the average person, plus personal experiences.

    Is anyone else deeply concerned?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    It is a tough nut to crack. The problem is that you are right in that it is getting worse, but on a daily basis, it has absolutely no impact on the majority's daily lives. I certainly don't have swat squads crashing though my window for the posts I make here. Do you? But on the flip side we have nutcases driving trucks through crowds or bombing international airports and popular holiday destinations.

    Where is the balance? I am not sure. I agree with your sentiments but I don't quite know where the line should be drawn.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    I agree with greater surveillance, we need to give more powers to the UK authorities to make them better able to identify terrorists, organised crime, paedos, and get the evidence they need to get more successful convictions and put the enemies of freedom in prison.

    The only reason we enjoy our liberty is because of the protection of the rule of law, the police, the security services and the armed forces and we should empower them more to defeat our enemies.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SaucissonSecCy)
    And, what do we do? We had all the Snowdon revelations, on the NSA and GCHQ, and the thing only get's worse and worse, the UK is seemingly the worst in the western world and it's very sinister and oppressive, few take it seriously enough relative to other issues, and it seems a thing we want to live in denial of. I would like to join political action, to protest or lobby, or do whatever I can, I'd like to find people with concerns like mine. I'll expect some of the response to the article below to be the usual pompous, we are English, the only people on earth with a clue, we are beyond question, self-satisfied, 'this is a clueless latin' crap, but hopefully there are some people on here concerned who agree this is a sidelined issue, maybe even some who have personal experience with the invasion of liberty and privacy going on. And maybe anyone who would be interested in gathering people, to protest, petition, whatever it may be, to make a difference on this issue.

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...-privacy-chief

    Benjamin Franklin
    We've already had a concerted effort to stop a free press.

    Those who would give up essentialLiberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

    And there is anti-terror measures, now so extreme as to make me incredulous, that it is helping the average person, plus personal experiences.

    Is anyone else deeply concerned?
    Snowden himself says these surveillance powers are horribly ineffective and have not prevented a single attack on US soil. Interesting.
    It's on Vice News btw. Check it out
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MagicNMedicine)
    I agree with greater surveillance, we need to give more powers to the UK authorities to make them better able to identify terrorists, organised crime, paedos, and get the evidence they need to get more successful convictions and put the enemies of freedom in prison.

    The only reason we enjoy our liberty is because of the protection of the rule of law, the police, the security services and the armed forces and we should empower them more to defeat our enemies.
    No. Nothing to hide, nothing to fear, was what the SS said. They abuse their power, and 'paedos' seem to be quite prevalent in establishment. The main reason I will never have children is I have experienced how invasive and creepy all this surveillance is.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cbreef)
    Snowden himself says these surveillance powers are horribly ineffective and have not prevented a single attack on US soil. Interesting.
    It's on Vice News btw. Check it out
    It's obvious. If they wanted to protect you from terror, why the endless middle east interventions, why the open borders? What happens governments take all your privacy and liberty is all in 20th century European history, it will be just as dark again.
    Countries like Germany have examined their souls a lot, because of a dark past, and are safeguarding civil liberties. We have no such self-examination ever, we just live with the narrative of our moral superiority, in addition, England is a very conservative, anti-intellectual, apolitical country, so this will not get questioned.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SaucissonSecCy)
    I have experienced how invasive and creep all this surveillance is.
    In what way? What have you experienced?
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SaucissonSecCy)
    Those who would give up essentialLiberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
    This is such a useless quote. Every normal person accepts there has to be some trade off between liberty and safety.

    Go and spend a few weeks living under ISIS that's what a place looks like when there's no rule of law. Furthermore, Franklin wasn't living in a time when a terrorist group could get hold of a dirty bomb and wipe out 10s thousands of people on the other side of the world.

    I am pro civil liberties in the sense that I'm wary of ISPs being over keen to collect and share information but look what's gonig on in France. You either need to have a vast army of data analysts following every terror suspect or you have to have some kind of database and terror laws.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Drewski)
    In what way? What have you experienced?
    Indications that the most private things are now no longer private. Internet and home. Don't want to go into it too much.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SaucissonSecCy)
    Indications that the most private things are now no longer private. Internet and home. Don't want to go into it too much.
    Well you're not helping your argument too much if you're claiming to have experienced invasion and creep and then don't elaborate on it.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by skeptical_john)
    This is such a useless quote. Every normal person accepts there has to be some trade off between liberty and safety.

    Go and spend a few weeks living under ISIS that's what a place looks like when there rule of law. Furthermore Franklin wasn't living in a time when a terrorist group could get hold of a dirty bomb and wipe out 10s thousands of people on the other side of the world.

    I am pro civil liberties in the sense that I'm wary of ISPs being over keen to collect and share information but look what's gonig on in France. You either need to have a vast army of data analysts following every terror suspect or you have to have some kind of database and terror laws.
    What? What the hell does ISIS having a dirty bomb have to do with being able to survey everyones phone email and homes in this country? (Snowdon already showed how it makes f all difference. ) And if they wanted to protect us that much, why wouldn't they just seal the borders and limit people coming in? Do you honestly believe indiscriminate mass surveillance is more effective than a border force. I'd rather have militant border policing, and an end to entries, because that is much more respectful of liberty than this. I'd even take deportations. But guess, what the neoliberals, or social and economic liberals, whatever you call them, don't like that, it's evil and racist, so we have to live with this sinister paradigm.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Drewski)
    Well you're not helping your argument too much if you're claiming to have experienced invasion and creep and then don't elaborate on it.
    What do you expect? Why should I reveal it here, just to be met with the usual self-satisfied response from people who haven't experienced it, about how it can't be true, or it's imagined. People don't like cognitive dissonance, they don't want their world view messed with, so no-one can question government or the way things are going. Virtually anything can be shown to be the beliefs of a crank. I'm just glad I don't have kids. If people want to dismiss all concerns, fair enough, let them enjoy the future though, there may come a time when they realise it was more serious than they ever imagined.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SaucissonSecCy)
    What do you expect? Why should I reveal it here, just to be met with the usual self-satisfied response from people who haven't experienced it, about how it can't be true, or it's imagined. People don't like cognitive dissonance, they don't want their world view messed with, so no-one can question government or the way things are going. Virtually anything can be shown to be the beliefs of a crank. I'm just glad I don't have kids. If people want to dismiss all concerns, fair enough, let them enjoy the future though, there may come a time when they realise it was more serious than they ever imagined.
    That's more or less why I ask.

    I'd wager I'm at the very least the same age as you (more likely older), have a similar number of online accounts, bank accounts, digital footprint, etc etc and yet have never knowingly encountered anything like you allude to despite having worked in environments where security and surveillance is definitely more widespread and serious than the general population (I'm ex-Forces).

    So I ask what you've experienced / believe you've experienced to see what your motivation for such a topic is and to try and understand what it is you're talking about.

    You claim it's a threat and yet provide no evidence to back this up, instead only offering a 250yr old quote from a guy who has no idea what radio is, let alone high speed internet, and who spoke at a time when it took a day to travel 30 miles. Forgive me for questioning the relevance of that... People who exist now have difficulties keeping up with the rapid development of technology, so a guy who doesn't know what electricity is is hardly an accurate arbiter of the modern privacy issues.

    I'm not blaze enough to say there's no issue whatsoever. Clearly things can go too far - as they can with anything - but we have to know where we are to know how to bring it back.

    So, where are we?
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SaucissonSecCy)
    What? What the hell does ISIS having a dirty bomb have to do with being able to survey everyones phone email and homes in this country? (Snowdon already showed how it makes f all difference. ) And if they wanted to protect us that much, why wouldn't they just seal the borders and limit people coming in? Do you honestly believe indiscriminate mass surveillance is more effective than a border force. I'd rather have militant border policing, and an end to entries, because that is much more respectful of liberty than this. I'd even take deportations. But guess, what the neoliberals, or social and economic liberals, whatever you call them, don't like that, it's evil and racist, so we have to live with this sinister paradigm.
    Why do you think a serious terror act has not taken place in Britain in the last 10 years? Honestly don't care what Snowdon thinks, though I think he did a good thing in exposing and highlighting some of the goings on in surveillance I don't see him as a credible voice on preventing terror attacks.

    Look I think there needs to be some form of judicial oversight in order to ACCESS the data. It should not be up to police to just go and search random peoples history. That is the nuance I look for.

    If a terror suspect is arrested then we should (with a judge's agreement) be able to check his call records and internet history to see who's he had contact with.

    I'm more or less in agreement with the Anderson report from last year.
    http://www.wired.co.uk/article/surve...nderson-report



    ps. I think you have some extremely contradicting views if you're against any data collect but for deportations?!?! Deportation is about the most
    abhorrent abuse of civil liberty there is.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    On balance, I would be happy to let the authorities scan online communications if it increased the chances of picking up those being made by nutters intent on killing and maiming me, my loved ones or other innocent people. I do not believe for a second Snowden's reason for going public was the extent of its effectiveness. He did it on principle. He is a traitor imo.

    I also wonder just how bad these alleged experiences were to give the OP such angst. I can't help but think he just simply shares the same ideology as Snowden.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Drewski)
    That's more or less why I ask.

    I'd wager I'm at the very least the same age as you (more likely older), have a similar number of online accounts, bank accounts, digital footprint, etc etc and yet have never knowingly encountered anything like you allude to despite having worked in environments where security and surveillance is definitely more widespread and serious than the general population (I'm ex-Forces).

    So I ask what you've experienced / believe you've experienced to see what your motivation for such a topic is and to try and understand what it is you're talking about.

    You claim it's a threat and yet provide no evidence to back this up, instead only offering a 250yr old quote from a guy who has no idea what radio is, let alone high speed internet, and who spoke at a time when it took a day to travel 30 miles. Forgive me for questioning the relevance of that... People who exist now have difficulties keeping up with the rapid development of technology, so a guy who doesn't know what electricity is is hardly an accurate arbiter of the modern privacy issues.

    I'm not blaze enough to say there's no issue whatsoever. Clearly things can go too far - as they can with anything - but we have to know where we are to know how to bring it back.

    So, where are we?
    Well some things are timeless principles. I suppose If you are not considered problematic or subversive you are fine. If you are you will certainly not be fine, and it is a very subjective concept.(Human rights abuses and torture, seriously, long term mental harassment as psyops) I getting more into intelligence here. The UN surveillance expert says oversight in the UK is a 'joke' and it's worse than 1984. I can find the article if you want. Nothing to hide nothing to fear, as I say, Europe has been there, it's all in 20th century history. Sure I can accept most people aren't affected yet. But in addition to people being harassed and worse in this climate, the average person in the future faces the fact the more of your privacy corporations have, the more they can sell to you, so naturally they want this. Governments are interested in shaping human psychology, Cameron has a department, and then there is psyops in intelligence. Corporations aid surveillance. So there is a convergence of interests here which put together can be extremely threatening to humans. Add to that that intel are taling about embedding and microchips for the future of social media, and the fact that mind reading tech is no longer sci-fi, and I think you can imagine why this has all has troubling undertones.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by skeptical_john)
    Why do you think a serious terror act has not taken place in Britain in the last 10 years? Honestly don't care what Snowdon thinks, though I think he did a good thing in exposing and highlighting some of the goings on in surveillance I don't see him as a credible voice on preventing terror attacks.

    Look I think there needs to be some form of judicial oversight in order to ACCESS the data. It should not be up to police to just go and search random peoples history. That is the nuance I look for.

    If a terror suspect is arrested then we should (with a judge's agreement) be able to check his call records and internet history to see who's he had contact with.

    I'm more or less in agreement with the Anderson report from last year.
    http://www.wired.co.uk/article/surve...nderson-report


    ps. I think you have some extremely contradicting views if you're against any data collect but for deportations?!?! Deportation is about the most
    abhorrent abuse of civil liberty there is.
    The chances of being killed in one are minute. I would still rather live in France, or the US, if I had the money. In the US I could get shot, in France there is more Terror. But if I could have that without the creepy stuff I experience under New Labour here, I'll take my liberty and autonomy anyday thanks. It's your view, but I'd rather have deportation of risks, and border control than this mass surveillance of every innocent person? Why is it justified, it's an outrage, and clearly has sinister undertones. And again, why do our political class want open borders so much if they care about terrorism? We wouldn't have any risks if we just never had all this flow of people and we weren't so ****ing holier than thou and PC and had a border police too.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SaucissonSecCy)
    Well some things are timeless principles. I suppose If you are not considered problematic or subversive you are fine. If you are you will certainly not be fine, and it is a very subjective concept. I getting more into intelligence here. The UN surveillance expert says oversight in the UK is a 'joke' and it's worse than 1984. I can find the article if you want. Nothing to hide nothing to fear, as I say, Europe has been there, it's all in 20th century history. Sure I can accept most people aren't affected yet. But in addition to people being harassed and worse in this climate, the average person in the future faces the fact the more of your privacy corporations have, the more they can sell to you, so naturally they want this. Governments are interested in shaping human psychology, Cameron has a department, and then there is psyops in intelligence. Corporations aid surveillance. So there is a convergence of interests here which put together can be extremely threatening to humans. Add to that that intel are taling about embedding and microchips for the future of social media, and the fact that mind reading tech is no longer sci-fi, and I think you can imagine why this has all has troubling undertones.
    But none of that means anything. It's just empty rhetoric.

    I read the article. He doesn't offer any proof either.

    "Cameron has a department" - what does that even mean? A department for what? Where? And given he's no longer in power, what relevancy does that have?

    The entirety of the various intelligence organs in the UK numbers less than 10,000 people, the overwhelming majority of whom are support staff, HR, ancillary people who don't do anything but help the extremely small number of people who actively work. I find it impossible to believe that this tiny fraction of the population are responsible for the acute observation of everybody in the country. And I find it impossible because I've been there.

    My former job title? Intelligence officer, RAF.


    Governments aren't the threat. They can't keep up, they can't work bureaucracies fast enough to cope with the march. Google and Apple. They're the trouble areas. But the rub is that people are volunteering to be monitored by them. Then what?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SaucissonSecCy)
    Well some things are timeless principles. I suppose If you are not considered problematic or subversive you are fine. If you are you will certainly not be fine
    Which pretty much sums it up for me. If you are problematic or a subversive I WANT you monitored tbph
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Drewski)
    But none of that means anything. It's just empty rhetoric.

    I read the article. He doesn't offer any proof either.

    "Cameron has a department" - what does that even mean? A department for what? Where? And given he's no longer in power, what relevancy does that have?

    The entirety of the various intelligence organs in the UK numbers less than 10,000 people, the overwhelming majority of whom are support staff, HR, ancillary people who don't do anything but help the extremely small number of people who actively work. I find it impossible to believe that this tiny fraction of the population are responsible for the acute observation of everybody in the country. And I find it impossible because I've been there.

    My former job title? Intelligence officer, RAF.


    Governments aren't the threat. They can't keep up, they can't work bureaucracies fast enough to cope with the march. Google and Apple. They're the trouble areas. But the rub is that people are volunteering to be monitored by them. Then what?
    I'll trust your experience. I'm sure it's not a problem for the vast majority, hence why they don't really see it as a major political issue. Unfortunately I have been psychologically harrassed for going on ten years, have been threatened about wanting to 'expose the government', there has been home surveillance, stalking, people saying stuff to me that they could never say unless they knew what had been said that was so specific within my home and my privacy. And there is powerful tech like voice to skull and ultrasonic weapons which can be used for torture. There is also, as I say, the plan to combine the web tech with microchips, this would interest not just government or corporations. Microchip mind control is an aim.

    **** it, I said it.
 
 
 
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: July 17, 2016

1,840

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.