Yes go on. Don’t care. Keep grazing.

grazing? Is that spy code for something. I dunt no wot u meen!

Baaaaa!

There you go, slackalice, is that enough processing power for you?

not even close…

Good luck to anyone who fancies the job of monitoring the endless, relentless, outpourings of digital drivel that emit from most people nowadays.

Do you think that they’ll have to click on every Facebook link that says ‘like this if you want to stop one-legged children with cancer, starving to death while being eaten by hamsters’?

Only it’s not people, but a form of E-life.

Good luck to them if they want to make sense of some of the stuff posted on here.

I have an image of GCHQ servers just imploding one day when trying to process another ‘what tyres’ thread.

hat the companies said, basically, is that they don’t allow any unfettered open-ended access, but that they just respond to lawful requests. What that precisely entails, in this case, is anyone’s guess.

So why is this any different to what they can do now in terms of breaking down your door and going through your stuff? That requires a warrant now obtained in court, so why doesn’t this?

If you care about democracy, this stuff matters. Democracy is founded on the premise of liberty, equality, freedom and autonomy. Granted, there are bigger rights then privacy (equality and freedom), but privacy is a founding principle of modern democracy because it is required for autonomy. As a citizen the idea is that you are not part of an amorphous mass but you are an individual with a right to privacy.

Privacy then is not negative (“having something to hide”) but positive and relates to themes of dignity and the management of boundaries regarding what one wishes to share, reveal or allow access to. It also allows for people to be different and have unusual ideas and practices free from unwanted interference from the state and other actors. Beyond concerns about unintended consequences (data leaks, hacks, use by regimes) there is the more general principle that what is yours by legal right (European) has been taken and employed without consent.

Not to forget the way that the UK and US seem to have circumvented their respective laws governing this type of operation by effectively taking in each other’s washing. When govts regard themselves as being above the law we really are deep in it…

The thing is, I doubt they have the time, budget, interest or processing power to do anything useful with my data.

I post photos on FB
I post idle chat and rubbish on STW
I buy stuff
I read the news
I download music
I talk to my nieces of FaceTime
I watch stuff on i-player
I laugh at silly videos on you tube

I realy dont care if they can access that. I always assumed they could anyway!

So I take it you’d have no objection to random covert searches of your home while you were out?

Just to add (for those who care), in terms of what you can do: 1) Write to your MP telling of your unhappiness (an email will do); 2) support civil rights groups who promote privacy (e.g, The Open Rights Group); 3) use alternatives to Californian tech-companies.

The latter point is a key one as it is the lack of diversity in the market place that has allowed this to happen. I was talking with a senior figure who in the 2000s used to advise Microsoft on privacy and while he had an inkling something like this was going-on, he did not realise the scale of it and the precise means by which it works. Again, his answer is that a more diverse marketplace is required. Despite governments’ protestations otherwise, monopolies and tiny markets work well for them.

I’ll desist after this quote:

“The potential for misuse of this power [new technology] is terrifyingly high, to say nothing of the dangers introduced by human error, data-driven false positives and simple curiosity. Perhaps a fully integrated information system, with all manner of data inputs, software that can interpret and predict behavior and humans at the controls is simply too powerful for anyone to handle responsibly. Moreover, once built, such a system will never be dismantled. Even if a dire security situation were to improve, what government would willingly give up such a powerful law-enforcement tool? And the next government in charge might not exhibit the same caution or responsibility with its information as the preceding one. Such totally integrated information systems are in their infancy now, and to be sure they are hampered by various challenges (like consistent data-gathering) that impose limits on their effectiveness. But these platforms will improve, and there is an air of inevitability around their proliferation in the future. The only remedies for potential digital tyranny are to strengthen legal institutions and to encourage civil society to remain active and wise to potential abuses of this power.”

The authors of this passage? Eric Schmidt and Jared Cohen (p. 176) in their book “The New Digital Age”!

We should assume the internet’s terms of service are that all use will be monitored.

Seems like a good idea to me, I’d rather all my Internet and telecoms traffic was monitored if that means there is a lower risk of being hit by a terrosit attack or indeed if (actual and wannabe) could not access material online without being monitored

Is there any actual specific evidence that allowing unlimited monitoring has ever done anything to prevent a terrorist attack? Ever?

And I don’t mean governments or security forces vaguely saying that it does, While they invariably request/demand yet more powers. I mean them actually coming out and proving that monitoring peoples communications like this has ever foiled a terrorist attack. Or anything else they claim it prevents, for that matter.

I mean in the real world too. As opposed to in the ongoing James Bond film playing in their paranoid, over-fertile imaginations?

We should assume the internet’s terms of service are that all use will be monitored.

Seems like a good idea to me, I’d rather all my Internet and telecoms traffic was monitored if that means there is a lower risk of being hit by a terrosit attack or indeed if (actual and wannabe) could not access material online without being monitored

Disappointing – while a defence technology, Paul Baran and Vint Cerf thought of IP/TCP as a more anonymous technology with high hopes for the future for a “neutral network”.

On terrorism this is more thorny, but let me turn this into a question – at what do you (or anyone else) draw the line on the balance of security versus civil liberties? Should privacy exist at all? Should we be monitored 24/7 by every means possible? If not, at what point does it become unacceptable? If we can work out a baseline, this will provide ground for discussion.

So I take it you’d have no objection to random covert searches of your home while you were out?

I would object as I regard my home as private, I do not regard my internet traffic as private.

Right – devil’s advocate mode, for the purposes of debate:

So I take it you’d have no objection to random covert searches of your home while you were out?

If they let themselves in with a key, and put everything exactly back where it was leaving no trace, would that make it simply an academic question?

(I’ve got another point but let’s do this one first)

…and another thing!

I do not expect that there is some super spy sat in a bunker somewhere reading my Facebook posts. The data is mined, electronically filtered and proabably binned when they realise I do not intend to blow anybody up. I do not feel like my privacy is violated when this is all carried out by a piece of software.

Saxabar, would not 24/7 monitoring of everything we did not represent a presumption of guilt? Our legal system is based on a presumption of innocence, so surely monitoring should only be used when there is a suspicion of guilt from other sources, rather than the de facto standard.

Another well written comment – http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/06/08/what_about_a_us_tech_boycott/

If they let themselves in with a key, and put everything exactly back where it was leaving no trace, would that make it simply an academic question?

If instead of putting it back where it was they actually put stuff back where it belongs then they would be very welcome!

A politician that argues this is all fine and unfortunately necessary has no credibility at all – make it legal first if it is so innocuous.

@Willard – agreed! (And as you intone, there are already legal grounds for accessing SNS and other information).

I realy dont care if they can access that. I always assumed they could anyway!

For me it is like them reading my mail

None of it is really private tbh but none of it is the states business either and they should leave me alone. It is snooping and i have th eright to a private life. FFS if my partner or mother or mate did this I would be cross never mind the state

Is there any actual specific evidence that allowing unlimited monitoring has ever done anything to prevent a terrorist attack? Ever?

I doubt it as the terrorists have the sense to encrypt – think they got Bin ladden by snooping though

Amusingly you can use certain products – the US govt are complicit in this [ dunds and created]as it helps dissidents abroad to stay online anonymously and not be prosecuted by oppressive regimes like in say Syria. Libya, Iraq etc

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tor_hidden_service#Hidden_services

oh the ironing

It has a diverse base of financial support;[10] the U.S. State Department, the Broadcasting Board of Governors, and the National Science Foundation are major contributors.[12] As of 2012, 80% of the Tor Project’s $2M annual budget comes from the United States government, with the Swedish government and other organizations providing the rest,[13] including NGOs and thousands of individual sponsors.[14]
In March 2011 The Tor Project was awarded the Free Software Foundation’s 2010 Award for Projects of Social Benefit on the following grounds: “Using free software, Tor has enabled roughly 36 million people around the world to experience freedom of access and expression on the Internet while keeping them in control of their privacy and anonymity. Its network has proved pivotal in dissident movements in both Iran and more recently Egypt.“[15]

think they got Bin ladden by snooping though

I thought the Dr. that was treating him grassed him up. Which I think is still how most crimes and acts of terrorism are solved and the perpetrators captured. There is always someone willing to run off their mouth. CSI and super inteligent CIA analysts are for the big screen.

We do need much stricter laws to protect our privacy, but INO it needs to start with the data private companies are allowed to access and store about us. Especially companies like Experian etc.

think they got Bin ladden by snooping though

A whole world of other do do’s, but there other sources that point to torture obtained intelligence (e.g. http://www.ashgate.com/isbn/9781472402554).

Is there any actual specific evidence that allowing unlimited monitoring has ever done anything to prevent a terrorist attack? Ever?
And I don’t mean governments or security forces vaguely saying that it does, While they invariably request/demand yet more powers. I mean them actually coming out and proving that monitoring peoples communications like this has ever foiled a terrorist attack. Or anything else they claim it prevents, for that matter.

AFAIAA, no, hence the ever increasing demands for more powers to snoop, and bigger facilities for doing the snooping.
And it’s not just the NSA, the CIA and FBI have their own systems, as do the US military, and no-one will share the info they obtain, which is why things get missed. Wired magazine do good features on all this stuff.

oh the ironing

Moreover. If TOR is (still) almost wholly funded by the US government, how likely(*) is it that the NSA is already plugged into it and thus everyone who has a reason to be concerned about privacy is nicely flagged up for them.

TOR started out as a military project, but it seems much more likely to me that it’d continue to be funded and its use encouraged if they knew they could crack their own encryption. It’s not something the US take lightly; time was, you’d to sign export declarations before you could download certain versions of Internet Explorer.

(* – funny)

Proper LOL at Obelix’s first one 🙂

Cougar: Tor is open source, no?

binners
Is there any actual specific evidence that allowing unlimited monitoring has ever done anything to prevent a terrorist attack? Ever?

“They” (the security forces) aren’t going to tell you are they ? FWIW I think the answer is yes definitely.

Cougar: Tor is open source, no?

Sure.

But I’d be shocked if the world’s various governments and security forces thought “oh well, we’ll just ignore people using TOR. Oh and here, have some money.”

I’m not suggesting TOR is inherently corrupt; rather that the NSA can probably break it if they have to.

“anthrax”
“jihad”
“dirty bomb”
Now the nsa are gonna come and **** you up. 😀

Does this mean they read the email I sent to the kiddies club about the picnic?

I’ve been working today, so a little late back with my response re amount of processing power… It sounds like there is a lot of it.

As someone mentioned earlier, I pity the poor saps who are tasked with trawling through all that information.

However, as has been going on since mankind got themselves a social hierarchy, those in power are heavily outnumbered by those who are not. In order to keep themselves in power and the standard to which they wish to keep, they instil fear in the populous. For many centuries, they were able to use judgemental deity/s to help them. Nowadays, they use terrorism and the threat of, which is far more effective at keeping the majority who operate their lives in a “what if” mentality, in a state of fear and gratitude for the powers that be for keeping everyone of us ‘safe’.

As I and a few others have posted earlier, if you have nothing to hide, then where really is the bother? What if?! What if?! What if?!!!

As for human rights! Best not get me started on that one. I will say though that the one and possibly only basic human right we are denied, is the one of whether we wish to live or die. Whether we actually have anymore rights is a hotly contested one and whether that is keeping this on or off topic, I’m not sure.

Squirrels.

Does this mean they read the email I sent to the kiddies club about the picnic?

Squirrels.

They want your nuts.

As I and a few others have posted earlier, if you have nothing to hide, then where really is the bother?

Yes our government is benign and I exist to simply provide them with whatever data they request – perhaps i should have a GPS chip installed [after sending a DNA sample]and send them my diary of what I do after all i have nothing to hide.

Privacy is a not about being secret per se it is that fact that what I do has got **** all to do with them and they dont have the right to snoop and what information i share with you , the wife, the internet etc is MY choice

As for human rights! Best not get me started on that one. I will say though that the one and possibly only basic human right we are denied, is the one of whether we wish to live or die

perhaps the state could put you in prison to protect you from harm and maintain your right to life

You got it JY 🙂