rdave13

Maybe the Belgian government will take action against GCHQ.

Brain

Under

Massive

Plasma

Kinetic

Induced

Neurosis

Budgie escaped?

Lasers Of The Very Intense Class

Eureka.. Heat, Lead melts

A serious heated debate with short ad breaks for lead balaclavas.

re: Mr Mistoffelees post Today at 9:22AM

Harrumph and bother, so you are conspiring to circumvent surveillance. I may have to ask in Helproom for a workaround for this problem.

Woolwell

Let's look at the evidence;

'If a terrorist commits an atrocity near you then you could be in the front of the queue demanding why they were not stopped, where was the intelligence against them, etc. As I said earlier it is a balancing act.'

'However the threat of terrorism does mean that unfortunately a degree of restriction and surveillance occurs to people going about their normal business in the interests of the safety of the majority.'

'This is a no win situation. Whenever there is a terrorist attack people jump up and down and ask why the intelligence agencies did not know about x or y but at the same time they do not want surveillance. Getting the balance right is difficult.'

Are you really trying to say that you don't think 'the balance' is tilted towards excessive surveillance of the whole population?

I'm sorry if my perceived 'I'm always right' attitude offends you. Your 'I'll weasel out of what I said' approach is just as dispiriting.

That's, probably, the place to leave it. Your blindness to the notion of civil liberties is incurable.

Should be: 10% off

Woolwell

I see I need to spell it out.

When I said 'no one' I meant that in places like this all over the web any mention of a government doing anything will bring about complaints about money being wasted. But, on surveillance, it seems people don't make the same comments.

You keep saying 'it's a balance' but you seem to have decided which side of that balance you wish to be heavily weighted.

The point about 'why weren't they stopped' is meaningless. You could say the same about the drunk driver who knocked down a child. The husband who repeatedly beat his wife. The mother who killed her own child.

Take that last one. Would it be acceptable for every baby to be brought up by the state because some of them will be injured if left with their natural parents? Or, if left in the home, should the NHS fund weekly check-ups to ensure there are no physical injuries?

Of course not.

Then why should it be acceptable for the state to monitor everyone's online activity because a very tiny minority of those people wish to do bad things?

bumpkin, I can circumvent the usual security safeguards in your HTTPS, SSL and VoIP communications and I am monitoring your budget with a view to cutting it down as you are spending in excess of reasonable expenses. You have bought too many pairs of socks this year.

fourm member

Did you not imply by "It seems that, just as no-one questions the costs of this item whereas everything else is scrutinised" that their budget was not scrutinised?

I suspect that you have no facts to back up your statement about most anti-terrorist activity.

If a terrorist commits an atrocity near you then you could be in the front of the queue demanding why they were not stopped, where was the intelligence against them, etc. As I said earlier it is a balancing act.

Woolwell

Where did I say their budget wasn't scrutinised?

I'm saying they shouldn't have the budget because most anti-terrorist activity does nothing to identify or discourage terrorists.

Mr Mistoffelees,

" Leave nothing to chance with one of my lead balaclavas"

I would but they are a few pounds too much for me:-)

"don't be ridiculous just get a Burka."

What good will one of those do when GCHQ/MI5 target you with their mind-reading beams? Leave nothing to chance with one of my lead balaclavas.

fourm member - So you know the proportion of budget spent on "illegal" surveillance. William Hague BBC Newshas stated there isn't illegal surveillance by GCHQ on UK citizens.

You cannot simply draw comparisons with UK surveillance and that in Iran or China or N Korea. I agree with you that terrorism has won if we have a totalitarian state system but we are far from that. Terrorism has also won if there are indiscriminate bombings which spread fear and stop people trading, holidaying or going about their normal business. However the threat of terrorism does mean that unfortunately a degree of restriction and surveillance occurs to people going about their normal business in the interests of the safety of the majority. It is, as I said earlier, getting the balance right that is difficult.

caccy, don't be ridiculous just get a Burka.

Wearing a motorcycle helmet all the time except indoors.

fourm member - How do you know that huge amounts are wasted?

Of course every email, etc is not being individually read by a person. It is largely a computerised operation looking for keywords and patterns.

This is a no win situation. Whenever there is a terrorist attack people jump up and down and ask why the intelligence agencies did not know about x or y but at the same time they do not want surveillance. Getting the balance right is difficult.

I don't think there are enough civil servants to read every email. If there are then we should sack some instead of cutting other services. They can trawl through my stuff all they want - some of it might amuse them!!

Nor me, even though there would be absolutely nothing of interest to find.

0

"ould it be OK for me to visit your house and look through all your personal stuff."

We're not talking about individuals, but the state.

Would you be happy for the police, maybe Special Branch or other spooks, to enter your premises without a warrant?

I would.

I do not accept the nothing to hide nothing to fear argument put forward by those that wish to intrude on our privacy.

I may get bored but would it be OK for me to visit your house and look through all your personal stuff. I suspect not.

I think Fruit Bat /\0/\'s comments would be the same as mine.

Nothing to hide and would bore them to death.

As I am not (nor intend to) planning anything

Subversive

Illegal

or even Immoral

I'll let them bore themselves to death reading whatever they want of mine.

No comment, in case someone is checking this forum!.

nowt