It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Terror strategy: MI5 might share information on 20,000 UK suspects

page: 1
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 4 2018 @ 04:58 AM
link   
It's posted in this forum , just for a laugh . Where else should this story go ?



Home Secretary Sajid Javid is to reveal plans for MI5 to declassify and share information on UK citizens suspected of having terrorist sympathies. The security services currently hold information on around 20,000 such people, labelled "subjects of concern".




Sajid Javid will suggest greater sharing of information between the state and the private sector




In his first speech on security since replacing Amber Rudd as home secretary, Mr Javid will suggest increased - and faster - sharing of information between security services, the private sector and other partners. He is expected to say: "That includes faster alerts for suspicious purchases, improving security at crowded places across the UK, and reducing the vulnerability of our critical infrastructure."


Read the link :

www.bbc.co.uk...


Comment :



The BBC's security correspondent Frank Gardner said the number of people being talked about was "in the hundreds not the thousands". While officials were adamant that early intervention could protect those potentially vulnerable to radicalisation, he said there was a risk that entirely innocent people could find themselves "effectively blacklisted". Councils said they already played a role in reporting early signs of radicalisation but their staff could not be expected to do the jobs of intelligence experts or police officers. "Information sharing could be a positive step," said Simon Blackburn, from the Local Government Association. "But local authorities are not MI5 and it's essential that the police and security services lead on responding to and acting on any threats."


This is an interesting development , particularly in regard to the 'private sector' or in other words , local businesses , or in other words Tesco , Asda , Co-Op , Sainsbury's .

While the local government association offices'r concerns regarding the actual abilities of local government employees to 'keep secrets' as it were , raises a good point . How good will they be at handing out prejudicial applications of common sense to 'individuals' as well ?

Which leads on ... to businesses . Note there is no comment from any business association on this matter . Will they have to write in new secrecy clauses to shop staff ? At what levels will these datas be shared ?

In the interests of keeping people safe , a laudible objective in a diverse world , is it a good idea to involve private enterprise in data sharing at this , clearly important, level ? Not meaning to criticize too directly , but , what's not to say , that the 'customer service desk' will become the wholesale target ? What you're asking for , effectively , is to put the public (which includes all the shop staff doesnt it ?) in even more danger , by presenting the places where they shop

in the frontlineof anti-terrorism manoeuvers .

You also run a huge risk with public safety when shops are invited to administer secretised arbitrary justice on the basis of 'suspicions' .



The move was not aimed at "hardened plotters", he told BBC Radio 4's Today, but the "large pool" of people who might assist them in different ways, for instance by lending money.


You'd like to repeat here that the vast majority of "hardened shoppers" , aka the general public , have little to fear from the furtherance of such data sharing plans . However , in this case , put in the perspective that private enterprise really has no particular business in the world of spying . If for example one of these 20 000 suspected radicals who wish to undermine the values which hold us together , were to decide to spread their hateful ideas , in the shops themselves , they would now consider that they hit a legitimate target . This is unacceptable , and needs a transparent solution , discuss .




posted on Jun, 4 2018 @ 05:28 AM
link   
Um. I suppose if people don't like being in the spotlight for their behaviour then they could leave the country.

I think that the government are now just trying to join things up, so that people who are on watch-lists and who are a concern to the security authorities are known to other authorities. Not sure of the private enterprise link, except some companies have contracts with the government and local authorities.

It would be useful for local council adoption agencies to know that the family they are thinking of allowing to become foster carers are probably unsuitable, or that guy wanting to work in the local school has just come "home" from Syria.



posted on Jun, 4 2018 @ 05:30 AM
link   
The rich(and their henchmen on their payroll, from the politics), worldwide, try to install their defense system(excused with "anti-terror"), they fear the revenge of the exploited people, from their view these people are all potential terrorists.

And the people sit in a pot of hot water, observing how the water in this pot starts to boil, while posting selfies to social media platforms.

Fighting each other, instead of fighting the real terror system that is slowly installed by the rich big brothers and their willful, greedy, power-possessed henchmen.

Feeding that monster with data, instead of trying to hide their last personal belongings.

I guess that is not the way we could fight and win against that big brother terror monster, that tool for the real criminals, which think this tool would safe their greedy a$$es!



posted on Jun, 4 2018 @ 05:46 AM
link   
a reply to: paraphi

Er , sort of , but the talk is of sharing with shops , and return sends of shopping anomalies .
What needs clarification maybe , is that shops , supermarkets , or others , are not authorities , and that shop staff or customers should not really be carrying the burdens of responsibilities that go with the administration of authority .

supermarkets, would become open targets , by joining up in the 'joined up' system... therefore customers may not wish to shop there , except that there is little choice of shopping experience in the food market .. in which case almost any supermarket becomes vulnerable to attack .

That is not a situation the public wants or needs . Someone being paid a basic wage for basic security work , within a supermarket , maynot necessarily be remunerated effectively or fully enough for being required to take part or keepsecrets about customers , or indeeed bear the burden of protecting the interests of society against politically motivated terrorists . They dont wear stab vest , at the moment , for example , whereas the police , generally do
. It is seen as a necessity , and part of the job , of protecting the state and the public . Drawing in shops , is not a good idea



posted on Jun, 4 2018 @ 05:53 AM
link   
This actually going to be people who support IS and the like? Or is it going to be anyone who ever liked a facebook post or retweeted something from someone dodgy?



posted on Jun, 4 2018 @ 06:36 AM
link   
a reply to: SprocketUK

Its about 'subjects of concern' , who've raised 'suspicions' . Which is the touchy-feely language of the professionals . The kind of language that could lead almost anywhere in future . We dont doubt the MIs and or the police know what they're doing , as in they know who they're looking for , and they know where to prioritise . Its perhaps more of concern that the average joe who is asked to join the 'fight' against terror is prepared whatsoever for the roles they're being asked to take part in .
Or another way the elevated levels of danger which shop staff and public will endure via the necessary association involved



posted on Jun, 4 2018 @ 07:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: SprocketUK
This actually going to be people who support IS and the like? Or is it going to be anyone who ever liked a facebook post or retweeted something from someone dodgy?


Exactly.

One minute its jihads next next its anyone that has liked a tweet or made a comment that is Anti UK government policy.

Next thing you know anyone who politics fall out side the two party Labour/Tory dynamics will be having names published with employers denying them jobs and mobs knocking on doors.

This is going to lead to extra judicial vigilantism.



posted on Jun, 4 2018 @ 07:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: paraphi
Um. I suppose if people don't like being in the spotlight for their behaviour then they could leave the country.



I am a UK citizen. I have a RIGHT of abode in this country. What if my Anti UK government policy stance puts me on this "watch list" ?

Should I then be subject to denying of jobs and vigilantism?


What this policy is saying is: "We cut to many police and law in enforcement agency's so # it let the public sort it out!"

We have innocent until proven guilty for a reason. This encourages extrajudicial vigilantism.



posted on Jun, 4 2018 @ 07:45 AM
link   
a reply to: DieGloke

Yeah, that's how I see it.

You can be Abu Hamza and call for the death of infidels and it takes 10 years before you get anything done to you, but you retweet Nigel Farage and suddenly you could end up jobless, homeless, childless.



posted on Jun, 4 2018 @ 07:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: SprocketUK
a reply to: DieGloke

Yeah, that's how I see it.

You can be Abu Hamza and call for the death of infidels and it takes 10 years before you get anything done to you, but you retweet Nigel Farage and suddenly you could end up jobless, homeless, childless.



That's what I see this resulting in......


UK have been cutting freedom of speech for a while. I think they have hit a brick wall now and worried that anymore heavy handed tactics like sending the bacon in and arresting us plebs, so they are trying another tact. Public names and let the court of public opinion to ruin those who speak out saying non govement approved language and holding non government approved ideas.
edit on 4-6-2018 by DieGloke because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 4 2018 @ 07:55 AM
link   
a reply to: DieGloke


Yeah. What will happen is that twitter and Facebook and all those other social media platforms will become places where just one opinion gets touted over and over. It wont be censorship per se, but it will have the same result.



posted on Jun, 4 2018 @ 08:08 AM
link   
a reply to: ZIPMATT

Just found this elsewhere, quite timely ...

'Tesco probably knows more about me than GCHQ': Infosec boffins on surveillance capitalism

www.theregister.co.uk...
edit on 4-6-2018 by Cymru because: Add link title



posted on Jun, 4 2018 @ 09:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: SprocketUK
Yeah. What will happen is that twitter and Facebook and all those other social media platforms will become places where just one opinion gets touted over and over. It wont be censorship per se, but it will have the same result.


If you don't like em, don't use them! Facebook and Twitter are not charities to pander for your requirements.

In typical fashion people are looking at extremes here. It's a massive, far and unachievable step between the security services of the UK tracking Jihadist and their ilk, to turning into a police state where anyone who is anti-government is targeted al la China.



posted on Jun, 4 2018 @ 10:58 AM
link   
a reply to: paraphi

You just have to see what a # up the UK government did with the Prevent strategy to see how the home office cant be trusted.



posted on Jun, 4 2018 @ 02:18 PM
link   
a reply to: DieGloke

Oh, I don't know. Parts of Prevent have worked and certainly focussed people's minds since its creation in 2003 by the incumbent Labour government of the time.



posted on Jun, 4 2018 @ 02:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: paraphi
a reply to: DieGloke

Oh, I don't know. Parts of Prevent have worked and certainly focussed people's minds since its creation in 2003 by the incumbent Labour government of the time.


And other parts have failed miserably.

And don't pull the "its the labour party" partisan # on me. I am neither a Tory or Labor loyalist. I care little for partisan bull#.
If a policy is crap its crap regardless of what party is in power.



posted on Jun, 4 2018 @ 03:00 PM
link   
a reply to: ZIPMATT

Bad idea. Or I should really say, bad idea featuring a slippery slope and too much potential for unforeseen consequences.

Tommy Robinson. Not someone I like, respect or agree with. I still wouldn't want him listed by MI5 as a 'terrorist' and have that list shared with the private sector. I especially wouldn't want the private sector becoming privy to the information that MI5 already withhold from Joe Public. It'd be an extension of the already controversial State data-collection that would potentially further erode someone's right to know what's on file about them.

Dissidents are often labelled 'terrorists.' Musicians have been labelled 'dissidents.' The definition of 'dissident' and 'terrorist' is apt to change for political reasons.

Someone could be on the list without recourse to appeal (they wouldn't know) and find their credit was no good or they couldn't find work. No oversight. It'd potentially be like the US FISA courts with green lights for overwhelming surveillance and nobody to answer to.



posted on Jun, 4 2018 @ 03:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: DieGloke
And don't pull the "its the labour party" partisan # on me. I am neither a Tory or Labor loyalist.


Assume you may not be from the UK as you cannot spell "Labour". Let me re-phrase... Most parts of the Prevent Strategy have worked and it has been iteratively developed since its launch under Labour. Prevent is about stopping people becoming terrorists, and becoming radicalised.
edit on 4/6/2018 by paraphi because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 4 2018 @ 04:10 PM
link   
a reply to: paraphi


That's fine, just so long as each post carries a disclaimer about there never being a different point of view.

Even such private enterprises as newspapers have to adhere to some rules re fairness. Social media should too, since for lots of people it is news.



posted on Jun, 4 2018 @ 04:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kandinsky
a reply to: ZIPMATT

Bad idea. Or I should really say, bad idea featuring a slippery slope and too much potential for unforeseen consequences.

Tommy Robinson. Not someone I like, respect or agree with. I still wouldn't want him listed by MI5 as a 'terrorist' and have that list shared with the private sector. I especially wouldn't want the private sector becoming privy to the information that MI5 already withhold from Joe Public. It'd be an extension of the already controversial State data-collection that would potentially further erode someone's right to know what's on file about them.

Dissidents are often labelled 'terrorists.' Musicians have been labelled 'dissidents.' The definition of 'dissident' and 'terrorist' is apt to change for political reasons.

Someone could be on the list without recourse to appeal (they wouldn't know) and find their credit was no good or they couldn't find work. No oversight. It'd potentially be like the US FISA courts with green lights for overwhelming surveillance and nobody to answer to.


Can you imagine when a Alt right figure head like Robinson gets listed?
The alt right would spin it and in a way rightful so that they are being blacklisted and oppressed. It would give them ammo to use and I would not blame them.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join