It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by News And History
Every phone call, email or website visit 'to be monitored'
(visit the link for the full news article)
The move has alarmed civil liberty campaigners, and the country's data protection watchdog last night warned the proposals would be "unacceptable". Jacqui Smith, the Home Secretary, will argue the powers are needed to target terrorists and serious criminals who are taking advantage of the increasing complex nature of communications to plot atrocities and crimes.
A consultation document on the plans, known in Whitehall as the Interception Modernisation Programme, is likely to put great emphasis on the threat facing Britain and warn the alternative to the powers would be a massive expansion of surveillance. But that will fuel concerns among critics that the Government is using a climate of fear to expand the surveillance state.
Information Commissioner Richard Thomas, the country's data watchdog, told the Daily Telegraph: "I have no problem with the targeted surveillance of terrorist suspects. "But a Government database of the records of everyone's communications – if that is to be proposed – is not likely to be acceptable to the British public. Remember that records – who? when? where? – can be highly intrusive even if no content is collected."
Related AboveTopSecret.com Discussion Threads:
UK: All E-Mails & Phone Data Tracked/Traced
UK launches massive, one-year program to archive every email
[edit on 26-4-2009 by News And History]
The home secretary, Jacqui Smith, today [27th April 09 ] ruled out building a single state "super-database" to track everybody's use of email, internet, text messages and social networking sites such as Facebook and Twitter.
Smith said creating a single database run by the state to hold such personal data would amount to an extreme solution representing an unwarranted intrusion of personal privacy.
Instead the Home Office is looking at a £2bn solution that would involve requiring communications companies such as BT, Virgin Media, O2 and others to retain such personal data for up to 12 months.
The decision to abandon a state central database is a setback for the police and security services who wanted rapid access to the data while conducting counter-terror and crime investigations. Instead they will have to apply for the data to be released to them on a case-by-case basis to each individual telecoms and internet company.
Smith, publishing a consultation paper detailing the private sector solution, said: "Advances in communications mean that there are ever more sophisticated ways to communicate and we need to ensure that we keep up with the technology being used by those who would seek to do us harm."
Originally posted by kid_of_3NKi
reply to post by logician magician
in your, second list, take out the child porn and replace it with conspiracy theories / info.
Do you believe those fashist governments, who want to take away our rights and privacy, who killed 3000 of THEIR OWN citizens on 9-11 realy care about our children and child porn?? NO, all they care for is to keep and maintain their power and control upon us, only that is what they worry about
Originally posted by Rockpuck
Stupid Americans .. this is a UK story, about Britain. It has nothing to do with us... Yet anyways.
Originally posted by GobbledokTChipeater
As it is, that same spy can still filter the secrets back to england. The only difference is they would be monitoring that spy and catch him after the fact. Therefore I don't think your question is applicable.
However, ignoring the above, NO WE SHOULDN'T!
[edit on 27/4/09 by GobbledokTChipeater]
Originally posted by xman_in_blackx
Ignorant? Hmmm. I sincerely hope you are not in a position to be a guardian of our rights and liberties, because if so we are all screwed. If you think that the framers of the US Constitution were paranoid, then I sincerely feel sorry for you.
Yours is the weak analogy. Telephone conversations are just data that travels over switches and routers which are not owned by the individual, but warrants are still required before anyone can legally install a wiretap.
I would suggest that if you are a US citizen, you take some time to review the US Constitution. Realize that these rights were placed there by your so-called "paranoid minds" to protect individual rights from those who would try to overstep their authority.
I find that in your posting on this forum, you tend to use the flawed logic and emotional response phrases from the talking heads. I would suggest that you try to think for yourself instead of having someone do it for you.
For example, any time legislation is written to restrict the rights of individuals, they must make them sounds justified or invoke an emotional response to get you to go along with the restriction.
The "Patriot" Act is one example. Restrictive laws could also be restrictive in order to "save the children" when the law really has nothing to do with children at all. It seems that they would also stoop to new lows to include "child predators" or "child pornograpgy" to invoke these emotional responses and make parents go along completely when it is actually their children's rights which will be taken away.
Take a vacation away from your hubris once in a while. It may do you some good and open your eyes to a new world of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
In the future, you may also want to stay away from ad-homs. They only weaken your argument.
An old saying comes to mind. "It is better to be thought a fool than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt."
Originally posted by Nickmare
reply to post by logician magician
First off, you need to stop being so abrasive because you come off like a jerk.
If it fell into the wrong hands, think of what damage could be done.
This would essentially be the #1 dream target for every hacker in existence (including terrorist hackers).
And, how do you trust the people that hold onto this data so blindly? I'm tired of the sheep mentality.
1. List all of the reasons you currently don't trust the government.
2. Rate the items on the list on a 1-3 scale of how severe they are.
3. Review your list. If it only has one or two minor-medium offenses, then perhaps working on regaining your trust is a good idea. On the other hand, if the list is long then you should critically analyze, backed by evidence and without emotion, if some of the reasons you don't trust the government come from irrational fears or paranoia. It may help to talk to people who do trust the government in order to understand another person's viewpoint as to why they do trust the government.
4. Determine how long ago the last offense occurred. Events that happened a long time ago should more than likely be forgiven. For example if your government used illegal wiretap to spy on terrorist suspects, with many of the tappings being unnecessary 3-5 years ago, perhaps it's time to begin the healing process and forgive them for their mistakes.
REGAINING THE GOVERNMENT TRUST:
1. Create a list of why you want your relationship with the government back the way it was. It doesn't have to be a large list, nor does it have to be on paper (however though it is good at times to have it on paper. This way in case you confuse some facts, you can look at the list and see what was wrong or not). A couple of ideas as to why you want to keep the relationship is good enough.
2. Realize that the relationship with the government will never be exactly the same. It may become stronger because of your ability to move forward, stay the same or it may become worse.
3. Speak with, write to, and communicate with government officials who have offended you. Be honest about what you feel and what you need from the other person to move forward. It might be a good idea at this stage to discuss the lists that you have drawn up in the previous sections. For example, sometimes a simple apology is all that is needed. Other times you may need the person to prove to you that you can trust them again, but you have to give them the chance. Allow them to and give back trust when you feel they've deserved it.
4. Allow yourself the time to heal. You may feel hurt for a while even after you have forgiven the government. This is a normal part of the process and in time you will be able to move forward.
I don't even know what good it would do if these weren't problems.
It would only be useful for monitoring everyone except people who actually have something to hide. It isn't that hard to encrypt data.
Where do you draw the line? Would you be willing to put a camera in your house that the government can access at any moment? Are you in favor of RFID chips? Bar codes on our bodies?
Police state behavior is alarming. Putting too much power in anyone's hand is a bad idea.
Taking steps towards China-like policies is...stupid. Giving up freedom for 'perceived' safety isn't a good idea. You are leaving it up to someone else to decide what is right and what is wrong.
The only way "terrorists" win is if you give up your freedoms because you are scared...
Originally posted by jjkenobi
Yet for some reason you and others continue to post here on this site. Doesn't sound like it's affected you one bit. If you were seriously concerned about being monitored and labeled a terrorist possibility you surely wouldn't be here posting on this website!
Originally posted by Desert Dawg
Over 300 million Americans, right?
Which 150 million are going to watch the other 150 million?
Maybe they can outsource the jobs to Mexico and India....
Originally posted by kindred
You have to laugh when they say it's to combat terrorism. Funny how with all this monitoring of communications and all these fancy spy satellites and still, not only have they not caught the most wanted terrorist Bin Laden, but they apparently don't have a clue where he is.