Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

UK intelligence forced to reveal secret policy for mass surveillance

privacyinternational.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 148 posts

Re: UK intelligence forced to reveal secret policy for mass surveillance

#41

Post by throwawayaway »

peterlawest wrote: post #32
aluhut wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What are these benefits?

I believe it helps ensure security. I don't believe they'd bother doing it if it didn't. I think you're a bit arrogant for assuming they give a fuck what you write to your girlfriend on iMessages. I know you probably disagree with that, but this is my point - not everyone agrees that surveillance is bad. And I'm not alone - I think most people don't really care about surveillance. And this isn't a conspiracy - it's j…

having a policeman standing in your kitchen to prevent domestic dispute, ensuring security.

a webcam in all bedrooms would ensure more security and possibly prevent other types of crime.

most people wouldn't go for those - some security measures are too invasive and ripe for abuse to support.

unless you've missed it, your location and contact endpoints are now permanently stored, and some of your conversations both written and audible are.

if one of your associates is within a certain number of hops from someone deemed undesirable - so are you.

the reason the london met phone hacking scandal resulted in outcry was that the general public could understand what happened.

this is slightly beyond their ken but it's the same problem - questionable powers that are ripe for abuse.

Re: UK intelligence forced to reveal secret policy for mass surveillance

#42

Post by gjm11 »

peterlawest wrote: post #35
ionised wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There hasn't been any evidence to support these 'benefits'.

I don't know what else to say apart from that I've seen the same coverage as you, and I'm not bothered by it. I'm sorry that this seems to infuriate you people so much, but that's my opinion. If I'm happy with it, I'm happy with it. So are many people. Your indignation isn't going to going to change my mind, or many other people's minds.

Downvoting for "you people", a phrase which pretty much universally seems to indicate dismissive contempt and disinterest in engaging the other party's point of view.

Re: UK intelligence forced to reveal secret policy for mass surveillance

#43

Post by ionised »

peterlawest wrote: post #32
aluhut wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What are these benefits?

I believe it helps ensure security. I don't believe they'd bother doing it if it didn't. I think you're a bit arrogant for assuming they give a fuck what you write to your girlfriend on iMessages. I know you probably disagree with that, but this is my point - not everyone agrees that surveillance is bad. And I'm not alone - I think most people don't really care about surveillance. And this isn't a conspiracy - it's j…

> I believe it helps ensure security.

Your beliefs are wrong, as we have been shown that this mass surveillance has failed to prevent even one terrorist attack since its inception.

Couple that with the immense amount of (wasted) tax payer money it costs to run and you've got a disgusting abuse of power and resources in exchange for the mere illusion of security to those who fail to actually do the research required to see through the bullshit.

Re: UK intelligence forced to reveal secret policy for mass surveillance

#44

Post by ionised »

edanm wrote: post #38
duairc wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We have a democracy, and obviously only a minority consider this to be an issue of concern. > > If you have a problem with it, stand for election. There must be a name for this kind of fallacy.

Is it really a fallacy? Part of democracy is accepting that you don't necessarily agree with everyone about everything, and you have to compromise.

When you have secret laws that protect secret proceedings or as we actually have now, agencies that operate in a legal black hole and are completely unaccountable then yes, the idea that this is somehow a democracy is comical.

Re: UK intelligence forced to reveal secret policy for mass surveillance

#45

Post by alandarev »

peterlawest wrote: post #32
aluhut wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What are these benefits?

I believe it helps ensure security. I don't believe they'd bother doing it if it didn't. I think you're a bit arrogant for assuming they give a fuck what you write to your girlfriend on iMessages. I know you probably disagree with that, but this is my point - not everyone agrees that surveillance is bad. And I'm not alone - I think most people don't really care about surveillance. And this isn't a conspiracy - it's j…

Noone has mentioned there that they are afraid of their loveletters to be publicly available, as a consequence of surveilance. (It is possible, but whatever)

Instead, our problem, is that surveilance is being used as a an invaluable tool for autocracy.

And the question is not whether they will use surveilance for oppressing government opposition, but when if not already.

Re: UK intelligence forced to reveal secret policy for mass surveillance

#46

Post by coldtea »

peterlawest wrote: post #24
Nursie wrote: post #7

The political silence on this issue is indeed deafening. As was the press silence (other than the Guardian). The press in this country are far more interested in reality tv, political infighting, fanning flames about 'immigrants' and what the royals are up to. And I suspect it's because most of the public don't care either. There are people who would like privacy, who think that GCHQ should be accountable and then th…

I consider myself an educated, well-informed person, and I have no problem whatsoever with government surveillance. Like anything, it can be abused, but I don't think that outweighs the benefits. I think it's sad that it makes you 'angry' that some people simply disagree with you. We have a democracy, and obviously only a minority consider this to be an issue of concern. If you have a problem with it, stand for elect…

>I consider myself an educated, well-informed person, and I have no problem whatsoever with government surveillance

Well, I don't consider that stance well-informed.

Surely its not informed of the tons of abuses of surveillance from "democratic" governments. And its also not informed of thousands of people rotting in jail, targeted by the police, tortured etc. Perhaps people who think that way, believe that all governments are like their local bubble -- or that it has to be some third-world dictatorship for those abuses to happen.

But I'm pretty sure they're also misinformed about the abuses in their local bubble too.

If you're an American for example, you might not know FBI has an attrocious record (under McCarthyism, under the the direction of Hoover, in the sixties against students and black protesters, up to Occupy Wall Street). If you're British, you might not know of an equally disgusting history. And don't get me started on places like Italy, Greece, Spain etc. Or Latin America for that matter.

Or they know those things but just don't care, because either "this time is different" ("and now we're fully and trully a transparent democracy" -- which is the most laughable ignorance one can muster), or they agree with the abuses.

But there's an even easier explanation: they only care for themselves, and since they don't ever do anything to challenge things you think they are safe.

And it might even be true.

But those that do challenge things (from civil rights activists to new political parties, and from artists to people experimenting with new ways of living), are the ones who make society better. Not the cover-my-asses. And it's those people who challenge things that very much are targeted by the abuses.

And what exactly are the benefits? Living in a nanny state?

[edit: fixed typo, child commenter: you a funny man]

Re: UK intelligence forced to reveal secret policy for mass surveillance

#47

Post by pja »

noir_lord wrote: post #29
peterlawest wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I consider myself an educated, well-informed person, and I have no problem whatsoever with government surveillance. Like anything, it can be abused, but I don't think that outweighs the benefits. I think it's sad that it makes you 'angry' that some people simply disagree with you. We have a democracy, and obviously only a minority consider this to be an issue of concern. If you have a problem with it, stand for elect…

Created 9 minutes ago (as of this post) and has one post. Doffs tin foil hat. I see this a lot on a variety of forums whenever topics like this come up. It would be interesting to do an analysis of the age of the average commenter’s account by topic across popular comment type sites.

We know that the security state is spending large amounts of money employing people to run 'personas' on social media sites, make blog comments etc etc. Sometimes these are spectacularly obvious, but there are plenty who are good enough at their work to look plausible.

The goal is to create the feeling amongst those who are seeking to change the status quo that the population is not with them & that changing things will be difficult, whilst at the same time creating the impression for anyone reading the comments that certain viewpoints are unpopular or contested.

Re: UK intelligence forced to reveal secret policy for mass surveillance

#48

Post by kghose »

peterlawest wrote: post #24
Nursie wrote: post #7

The political silence on this issue is indeed deafening. As was the press silence (other than the Guardian). The press in this country are far more interested in reality tv, political infighting, fanning flames about 'immigrants' and what the royals are up to. And I suspect it's because most of the public don't care either. There are people who would like privacy, who think that GCHQ should be accountable and then th…

I consider myself an educated, well-informed person, and I have no problem whatsoever with government surveillance. Like anything, it can be abused, but I don't think that outweighs the benefits. I think it's sad that it makes you 'angry' that some people simply disagree with you. We have a democracy, and obviously only a minority consider this to be an issue of concern. If you have a problem with it, stand for elect…

Isn't it ironic that you are being downvoted?

Re: UK intelligence forced to reveal secret policy for mass surveillance

#49

Post by coldtea »

peterlawest wrote: post #35
ionised wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There hasn't been any evidence to support these 'benefits'.

I don't know what else to say apart from that I've seen the same coverage as you, and I'm not bothered by it. I'm sorry that this seems to infuriate you people so much, but that's my opinion. If I'm happy with it, I'm happy with it. So are many people. Your indignation isn't going to going to change my mind, or many other people's minds.

>I don't know what else to say apart from that I've seen the same coverage as you, and I'm not bothered by it.

Sure, but then again the majority of Southerners weren't bothered by the slavery or the lynchings either. It took a civil war to make them change their ways.

I mean, if we are to put "not bothered" as some kind of argument.

Re: UK intelligence forced to reveal secret policy for mass surveillance

#50

Post by tomp »

digitalengineer wrote: post #28
prof_hobart wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>And I suspect it's because most of the public don't care either. I think that may be the effect rather than the cause. Public opinion is shaped to a pretty large degree by what the media tells people to be interested in. And with the media mostly telling us that it's happening but that's it's not important, it's for our own good and that anyone publishing details about it (like the Guardian) is threatening national…

I just now realized the double-speak of their name, the Guardian. I thought they guarded the public. Silly me.

What do you mean? Guardian is at the forefront of exposing the leaks and informing the public about the wrongdoings of the government!
Post reply on HN