Every phone call, email or website visit 'to be monitored'

If something like this is going to pass then it's time for the people to pass a law that states all those working for the government must have every moment of their lives recorded and reviewed real time by civilian run company. Every moment from the minute they start working for the people until they've finished their term.

They're the ones who should be spyed on and have a database of everything they do and say. I'd bet the farm that more crimes and acts of terror have been commited by them any other group.

Unless they have something to hide from the people they should have no reason to reject such a thing right? Only those who truly want to serve the people and help their society should be in power and I doubt such people would have a problem with their lives being monitored.

Originally posted by News And History

Every phone call, email or website visit 'to be monitored'

www.telegraph.co.uk

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."

(visit the link for the full news article)

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 government!

Never was any good ...

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!

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."

Shami Chakrabarti, the director of Liberty, said the details of the policy remained unclear. "The Home Office has been sending out conflicting signals on the superdatabasefor some months, frantically briefing journalists in private but failing to publish any detailed proposals," she said. "If this statement from the home secretary marks a genuine change of direction on privacy policy, we will welcome it. However, it might be wise to read the small print first," she said.

Home secretary rules out state-run 'super-database' but firms would store details of calls, emails, texts and web browsing

If someone down the road tried to use the fact that I surf sites such as this one, porn, downloads(free & legal FSX/FS2004). I would just laugh in their face. What's wrong with watching naked women? Are the thought police against my heterosexuality?

Originally posted by kid_of_3NKi
reply to post by logician magician

 

Dude,

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

Ko3

That's all great except that the "fashist" government didn't kill 3000 of its own citizens.

A government super-database

ARGUMENTS FOR:

A central database of all citizens' personal, medical and financial details would make for greater government efficiency by breaking down unnecessary barriers between departments.

All the information to be collated is already stored on databases. Sharing it intelligently can't reasonably be called intrusive.

It will benefit members of the public by making it unnecessary for them to give the same information to different government departments.

It will enable government departments to respond more quickly and effectively to people's needs.

It will help to identify and check benefit fraud.

ARGUMENTS AGAINST:

The state's intrusion into the private lives of citizens is going too far. This would be a snooper's charter.

There is no valid reason for allowing doctors and medical authorities to access our tax records, or the Inland Revenue to access our medical records.

Far from leading to greater efficiency, it will result in more mistakes and confusion. Government databases already store huge quantities of information about us, and much of it is inaccurate.

It won't work. The NHS computer system has been an expensive disaster. Assembling a super-database is a recipe for confusion and even greater incompetence.

We have a right to enjoy privacy. We do not exist for the convenience of the state. On the contrary, government departments exist to serve us. It is time to call a halt before the nightmare of Orwell's 1984 becomes a reality.

I think the cons are enough to warrant serious concern & the pros are irrelevant, simply because we've got a seriously inept, incompetent & blatantly corrupt government that will no doubt just end up losing the data or simply abuse it. For the ten years that they have been in power, there's is absolutely no reason whatsoever why anyone should trust them.

This government is beyond a joke. Democracy in action, or should I say "Welcome to the whore house."

MPs will be offered a “bribe” worth up to £5,000 each to back Gordon Brown’s ­reform of the Commons expenses system this week.

www.express.co.uk...

Gordon Brown ‘bribes’ Unionists to back 42-day terror vote.
www.timesonline.co.uk...

Gordon Brown humiliated in the Commons as smear MP demands public apology.

www.dailymail.co.uk...

GORDON Brown’s reform of MPs’ expenses was declared dead by David Cameron last night despite “bribes” of up to £5,000 to back it.

www.thesun.co.uk...

Only an idiot would trust this government.

there is a site in france that already monitors audio conversations . the system works by recognising key words ie bomb , attack. it then homes in on that conversation and records it . whether you like it or not big brother is watching you and there is little you can do about it . however you can have some fun with it and make the sneakys earn there money . evey time you write a mail or use your mobile drop a few choice words into the conversation ie bomb etc it. will get you noticed but it will waste somebodys time

if politicians can shred their secrets why can't I?

no class justice please, I am sick and tired of it.

when are we the people gonna judge them?

[edit on 27-4-2009 by Grey Magic]

Originally posted by Rockpuck

Stupid Americans .. this is a UK story, about Britain. It has nothing to do with us... Yet anyways.

Actually, we are both is the same boat no matter what side of the pond you are on.

On this side, we call it the Information Awareness Office.

IAO

We are both having our freedoms restricted in so many ways. Personally, I feel that if citizens of both the UK and the US come together, we can make things better for all concerned. It is about individual rights and liberties.

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]

Well there you have it. There is no sense in arguing with you at all anymore as you would be more willing to see the destruction of your country rather than restrict the Internet.

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.

That's just one fallacious block of text, isn't it?

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.

Why is it weak, because a warrant is required before the police can install a wiretap on someone's telephone lines?

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.

Again, another block of fallacy.

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.

Again...

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.

Well, you kind of have it right. You see, a lot of these restrictions, without proper analysis, can appear to be foreboding. The government knows (as the founders did - which is why we have an electoral college) that the common man operates more on emotion than on reason. The common person does not take the time to apply critical thinking and reasoning to the restrictions (like, turning off the Internet in order to save the world... which I'm sure you would still be up in arms about).

And I'm not just pulling that out of my rear-end either. Pay attention at new bills and news stories about some type of restriction that come out. Pay close attention to the threads and you'll see that maybe.. MAYBE 45% of the readers here take the time to actually read a full bill, speech, news story, allegation, etc.. The rest of them just jump on the emotional bandwagon of paranoia and the thought "Oh, if it came from ATS it must be true!"

In fact, there is a large chance if you do not understand the necessity of monitoring the Internet - or monitoring a bank, a sports event, why the president is monitored by secret service, why people go into witness protection, etc... - then you are actually falling for the same appeals of emotion that you describe - the only difference being that they come from your peers here on ATS, Conspiracy profiteers like Alex Jones, and from your own insecurities.

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.

Have you ever heard of witness protection? Do you understand it? Are you intelligent enough to compare and contrast it with what you just said?

I don't think you are.

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.

Perhaps you should take your own advice.

In the future, you may also want to stay away from ad-homs. They only weaken your argument.

If that is the case, then both of are arguments are nill.

At least I know when I'm being fallacious (I do it all the time.. it's called rhetoric). You appear to actually believe that you are not using fallacy as a weapon.

An old saying comes to mind. "It is better to be thought a fool than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt."

Yes, and any old fool can quote the words of another man.

reply to post by logician magician


First off, you need to stop being so abrasive because you come off like a jerk.

Second, do you really not see any inherent problems with keeping huge centralized databases of all communications?

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.

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 Nickmare
reply to post by logician magician

 

First off, you need to stop being so abrasive because you come off like a jerk.

First off, If you don't want to read what I have to write, you don't have to. Second off, you need to go take some sensitivity classes, because it's YOU who ARE COMING OFF AS A JERK, RIGHT NOW!

Me: 0
You: 0

If it fell into the wrong hands, think of what damage could be done.

Oh, BOO. If you got in a car crash, think of the damage that could be done! I bet you still drive though. Using the fear of possibility as an argument is near sighted, and dim-witted.

Logical fallacy: Fear of possibility - Your argument has been nullified.

Me: 1
You: 0

This would essentially be the #1 dream target for every hacker in existence (including terrorist hackers).

If you are worried about hackers, would you be worried if this database was only accessible over a fiber-optic line with 1024 bit encryption, tunneled through SIPRNet? How about with qubit encryption?

Do you think all the banks and all of the military systems that utilize the internet should be SHUT DOWN because of hackers?

Something tells me that you aren't really worried about hackers, but you're just using them as a weak argument point.

Logical fallacy: Hasty Generalization, Red Herring (et. al.). Your argument has been nullified.

Me: 2
You: 0

And, how do you trust the people that hold onto this data so blindly? I'm tired of the sheep mentality.

You can't trust someone unless you are willing to give them a chance. If you aren't even willing to give them a chance, how can you ever trust them?

Logical fallacy: Guilt By Association, Spotlighting (et. al) - Your argument has been nullified.

Me: 3
You: 0

HOW TO TRUST THE GOVERNMENT:

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.

Follow this simple list, and you too, will be able to experience the joy of seeing that you in fact CAN trust your government. Like people, governments are not perfect - but it is through those imperfections that we learn to love.

Me: 4
You: 0

I don't even know what good it would do if these weren't problems.

What is that? You don't know what good a fire extinguisher would do if there wasn't a fire?

Logical fallacy: Non-Sequitur - Your argument has been nullified.

Me: 5
You: 0

It would only be useful for monitoring everyone except people who actually have something to hide. It isn't that hard to encrypt data.

It isn't that hard to not get arrested either. I've been doing it for a long time. For some reason, a bunch of other hard heads are still able to wind up in the back seat of a cop car.

It's not that hard to do a lot of things, but that doesn't mean that people will do them.

Logical fallacy: Appeal to Common Practice - Your argument has been nullified.

Me: 6
You: 0

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?

What?

Logical fallacy: Slippery Slope, Affirming the Consequent - Your argument has been nullified.

Me: 7
You: 0

Police state behavior is alarming. Putting too much power in anyone's hand is a bad idea.

Logical fallacy: Hasty Generalization - Your argument has been nullified

Me: 8
You: 0

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.

Logical fallacy: Guilt by Association, Spotlighting, Ridicule, etc.. - Your argument has been nullified

Me: 9
You: 0

The only way "terrorists" win is if you give up your freedoms because you are scared...

Should I even say it?

Me: OVER 9000!!!!
You: 0

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.

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!

Exactly.

Maybe if we all crawled under a big rock and withdrew from societal structure then maybe, just maybe, they will leave us alone and focus on what really is important!

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....

...you do know this article is about Britain right? It's not about the U.S....if it were about the U.S. it would be a firestorm.

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.

If the government wanted to spy on everyone, they wouldn't need a reason.

reply to post by logician magician


Did you read my last post, I think it addresses a lot of points that others don't. I would appreciate your thoughts.

I seriously can't believe that anyone actually thinks something like this is acceptable. There are actually people out there who think it's okay for government to monitor every aspect of society's communications? Shocking... and very sad...

Saying "well if you aren't doing anything wrong then you have nothing to hide" is the dumbest, most insane argument ever. Do people simply not understand freedom or liberty anymore?