UK Taps 439,000 Phones, Now Wants To Monitor MPs 290
JPMH writes "With the largest density of CCTV cameras in the world, and an increasing network of automatic number-plate recognition cameras on main roads, Britain has long been a pioneer for the surveillance society. Now new official figures reveal that UK agencies monitored 439,000 telephones and email addresses in a 15 month period between 2005 and 2006. The Interception of Communications Commissioner is seeking the right for agencies to be allowed to monitor the communications of Members of Parliament as well, something which has been forbidden since the 1960s. It must be that it is bringing their numbers down: on the law of averages they should be monitoring at least 5 of the MPs."
Re:Oh please let them be monitored (Score:5, Insightful)
Know thy (internal) enemy (Score:5, Insightful)
Know where everyone is.
Pick them up when the time's right.
I sometimes think freedom is simply a government not having the right to know where you are.
Dumb (Score:4, Insightful)
I would of thought rule number one for any competent terrorist these days is "don't use electronic communications of any sort". We know that real terrorist cells can lie dormant for years - I'm sure they don't worry about the couple of days it might take to send a letter or spoken message.
If it saves one child .... (Score:3, Insightful)
The UK is a parliamentary dictatorship (Score:2, Insightful)
is nothing to stop them, as long as they can win votes of confidence and continue to maintain a majority. There are no checks and balances at all, except for the control of the House of Commons.
Look at the Iraq War. Is there any public support for it in the UK ? Not much. Is there any chance of the public's will actually being
translated into a change in policy ? Not apparently.
And, as we are finding out in America, it's when your Government is headed by messianic war criminals that you really start to feel the need for
checks and balances.
Now you've gone too far. Or not. (Score:3, Insightful)
What, do you expect empathy from a system that let things go this far? Once those in charge are comfortable with their own security under such a system, they're free to become increasingly afraid of change, of differences, of people interested in learning what they themselves don't wish to have looked into.
Even if the result doesn't reflect the expected fictions, you can expect it will be harder than ever to reverse, or to justify a revolt against to fix. Now that it is becoming a fully ubiquitous part of your nation, it will become a point of your nation's pride. Hell of a legacy for the ultra-reactions from a four planes hitting three buildings in another nation, and its aftershocks.
Ryan Fenton
My definition of a police state (Score:5, Insightful)
Transporter_ii
Re:Fuck this... (Score:5, Insightful)
No. Don't run away to North America just because you don't have the balls to stand up to the thugs in your own country. Your grandma didn't run away. You shouldn't either.
Re:Oh please let them be monitored (Score:5, Insightful)
I suspect this extention of phone tapping to MPs is specifically aimed as George Galloway as Blair's desperate for dirt on one of the biggest thorns in his side.
Just the UK huh? (Score:4, Insightful)
You yanks are all bleating on about how bad this is and how high these figures are. What makes you think your own government is being any less nosy about your affairs? Ignorance is bliss
Re:Oh please let them be monitored (Score:5, Insightful)
So many people on slashdot seem to have difficulty in dealing with groups of people. I guess it makes it easier to argue.
I do agree with what you are trying to say, except for the last bit, nobody cares about George except his own staff. But nothing they have said is logically incorrect.
Re:Fuck this... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Fuck this... (Score:5, Insightful)
That might make you feel safe for now, but what about the future. What about when image recognition if to the point that the computer can recognise you, and thus record everywhere you have been. Does that worry you? Is that really that far away? How much did the ministry of defence spend on Image Recognition last year? Any idea? A scary amount, whatever it is.
Re:The UK is a parliamentary dictatorship (Score:4, Insightful)
This is not true. First the party in power has to write a law that makes it a crime to have such a name. Then they have to convince the democratically elected House of Commons to pass it. Then they have to convince the House of Lords to pass it. Then they have to convince the Queen to give her assent.
The party in power does not have the authority to imprison people at will without passing a law. That is a constitutionally protected right found in the Magna Carta [statutelaw.gov.uk], dating back almost eight centuries.
Re:Fuck this... (Score:3, Insightful)
Honestly, I agree the cameras are a waste of effort, but the privacy issues are just not there. You're OUT IN PUBLIC for crying out loud.
Tom
Re:The UK is a parliamentary dictatorship (Score:3, Insightful)
They've got people in Guantanamo who've been held prisoner longer than many Nazis leaders were after WWII.
Finally, Proper Big Brother (Score:3, Insightful)
That must be why there has been proposal after proposal for more and more big brother style policies, few if any of which are/would be effective. It was to get to the point where the government could monitor itself, which is far more likely to succeed, as there are a lot less people to watch.
Re:Oh please let them be monitored (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:If it saves one child .... (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Oh please let them be monitored (Score:5, Insightful)
Predictable Reaction (Score:2, Insightful)
What's the article actually about? The amount of communications data requested and intercepted has not increased, Tony Blair has actually taken note of the ID card E petition and given people who cared a response even if he disagrees with them(28,000 is a small number when compared to 60 million), Sir Swinton the guy who stated last year that the UK was a surveillance society doesn't like the fact that surveillance hasn't decreased (but supports the current system to stop terrorism) and is calling for the policy of no bugging for MP's be lifted to promote transparency and fairness, oh and a knee jerk sensationalist call from a Tory shadow secretary.
Yes Britain has moved into being a surveillance society, but shall I tell you what I don't care. I can't find CCTV camera unless I really look for them and they have come in handy for me personally in the past, the automatic number-plate recognition cameras are a good idea, you know its handy being able to catch people who are driving without road tax or insurance as well as people who speed. But then again maybe I'm the only one who thinks banned drivers should be caught and kept off the roads? Yes I know speed cameras are bad, but watch how a particular road is handled when those cameras are turned off for a week, there are times when their actually a good idea (radical I know, I still admit many are stupid) When measures which are truly invasive are proposed I'll care and be out there marching for it. I don't support things for terrorism but I do like to see government working together to catch the benefit fraud and serious criminal.
In short sensational article designed to make predominantly American site start ranting about privacy caused people to rant about privacy.
Pastor Martin Niemöller (Score:3, Insightful)
>> anyone who is against this is clearly on the side of the terrorismists,
>> and actually WANTS us to get bombed.
To quote Pastor Martin Niemöller:
You'd think history would have taught you better than to say something that naive and cowardly. For comparison, there are probably as many serial killers in the wild as there are terrorists in the United States. Would you so easily give up your rights to catch these serial killers as well? Do you honestly think the government will give you back these rights once the serial killers or terrorists are caught?
Sacrificing the rights of millions of people to catch a small handful of "potential" criminals is a ridiculous price to pay. You scare far too easily.
Re:Fuck this... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Fuck this... (Score:5, Insightful)
If I wanted to hide from the man I wouldn't go for a walk out in public with my face in full view.
So you're a hoodie, who likes stalking people? And you haven't got an ASBO?
Re:Fuck this... (Score:3, Insightful)
It's when you start interacting with them directly (speaking, touching, etc) that you cross the legal boundary.
My point is if you want to remain private you have to do private things. Walking about in public, with your face totally exposed is not how you keep private any more than sending your credit card # in cleartext over HTTP is any way to keep that private.
People don't get the issues [like any other field] but will hit the hot button that makes the most noise. It's the same with red light cameras. They're no more a violation of your privacy, then cottage cheese is (and if you think that comparison makes no sense, congrats you got my point).
Tapping phones is different, as there is an expectation of privacy over a landline since it's reasonable to assume your neighbours are not tampering with telecommunications gear. So if the UK govt is needlessly and without warrant tapping people, then there is an issue. But the cameras? They're nothing more than a budgetary blight that should be removed because it's a WASTE OF FUCKING MONEY.
Tom
Re:Put your money where your mouth is, Tom. (Score:3, Insightful)
Right now I (and I suspect most people) feel free to leave the house without worrying that the government (or anyone else) will be watching me the entire time and compiling a dossier on my movements for later possible use against me. I (and again, most people) would like to retain that freedom.
You don't know what you've lost until it's gone, and when the day comes that you have to think through the potential political implications of leaving the house every morning, you'll really miss your old de-facto privacy.
Re:Fuck this... (Score:4, Insightful)
Isn't sentencing people who have committed crimes the whole point of the criminal justice system?
Re:Put your money where your mouth is, Tom. (Score:3, Insightful)
People were being unlawfully detained althrough history. CCTV is not an enabler of this.
Yes, be angry at the CCTV, but not because it violates your privacy, but because it's a waste of money.
Tom
Re:Fuck this... (Score:3, Insightful)
It really happened because of two words, just like here in the U.S.: apathy and fear. I don't know how long this crap has been going on in the U.K., but this culture of fear really took off in the U.S. after 9/11. The government, of course, sensing a chance to greatly expand its powers by capitalizing on fear, jumped all over this golden opportunity. Unfortunately, people in this country have become so complacent--after all, the government is there to protect us, right? Anyone, anyone? Buehler, Buehler?--that they ignore the fact that freedom from tyranny is being taken away, little by little. And as long as they can still watch the latest reality TV show on the tube, and there's still plenty of beer in the fridge, it doesn't matter, right?
Wait, who's that knocking on my doo...............
Re:A better test than you think! (Score:3, Insightful)
Brilliant. Spot on. Genius move. Master stroke.
I, for one, would prefer that public servants are 100% spied upon. I'm for full disclosure of their every move, such that paparazzi and gossip are unnecessary.
So, you want to serve the public? We'll forgive any past mistakes, but you must agree to be a truly public figure.
The very idea that leaders should enjoy more privacy (or perquisites, privileges, worship, etc), is an annoying leftover from kings, and ultimately rooted in the remnants of our primate nature. I want hard working people running the show, not a gaggle of buffoons who look good on the telly.
Re:Put your money where your mouth is, Tom. (Score:4, Insightful)
No, but I think it would be very tempting for the government to start using the data it gathers on everybody(!) for political purposes. (e.g. "Joe Schmoe goes to AA meetings on Thursdays and is having an affair with his secretary; they meet at the No-Tell Motel every other Friday night and prefer their sex doggy-style. We'll just file that information away for now, in case Joe Schmoe ever runs for office or ends up in a position of power and we need to 'lean on' him a little"). Blackmail can be a very effective way of getting people to do what you want without anybody else ever knowing about it. Or the government can just use it to keep tabs on the whereabouts of their political opponents... in fact they do this already [msn.com], just on a much smaller scale because they are limited by available manpower.
While I agree that government needs more accountability, I just don't see the V for Vendetta future. No supreme rule ever lasts.
V for Vendetta was indeed overstated (it was based on a comic book for heaven's sake!) but history has shown over and over again that left to their own devices, governments can and will do all kinds of nasty things. Power corrupts, and giving the government unrestricted access to everyone's personal details gives them a lot of power.
Re:Oh please let them be monitored (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Fuck this... (Score:3, Insightful)