Surveillance state, check - secret trials, check

[Ozzie Osmond]

Yes, as you mentioned above the key thing is for this to be in the hands of judges, not politicians.

[wolves_wanderer]

MX7 said:

thinfourth2 said:

All this secert squirrel st will end when we have an election and we kick this new labour scum out of office

How many times do you think you'll use that line before the next election?

It doesn't make him wrong though does it?

[MX7]

wolves_wanderer said:

MX7 said:

thinfourth2 said:

All this secert squirrel st will end when we have an election and we kick this new labour scum out of office

How many times do you think you'll use that line before the next election?

It doesn't make him wrong though does it?

I think it's a bit like those Magic Eye pictures. If you can't see it, you can't see it...

[AshVX220]

OK, a question for those who oppose such things.

How do you propose to conduct a trial which contains evidence that is classified?

[V8mate]

roachcoach said:

ExChrispy Porker said:

I agree with this.
RIPA for example.
Surveillance that has always taken place is now regulated and abused wholesale suffering from frankly epic scope creep.

Fixed that for you.

It's ok, they're only going to use it on criminals, paedos and terrorists.


Of course....quite how they can identify these people in isolation without dragnet style surveillance.....

And I think surveillance of individuals and the mass storage of data from everybody is worlds apart.

[The Black Flash]

AshVX220 said:

OK, a question for those who oppose such things.

How do you propose to conduct a trial which contains evidence that is classified?

If you can't show the person accused what the evidence against them is, then you can't try them.

To allow ministers, of all people, to specify trials where the accused cannot see what they are accused of, and by what evidence, is highly dangerous IMO.

[AshVX220]

The Black Flash said:

AshVX220 said:

OK, a question for those who oppose such things.

How do you propose to conduct a trial which contains evidence that is classified?

If you can't show the person accused what the evidence against them is, then you can't try them.

To allow ministers, of all people, to specify trials where the accused cannot see what they are accused of, and by what evidence, is highly dangerous IMO.

That doesn't answer the question, we're talking about classified methods and sources. Stuff is classified for a reason. In this instance it is to protect either the method or the source. The suspect does not need to know how he was caught. You were caught, if you're innocent, then fine you're innocent and you'll be able to get aqcuitted (unless you're a complete tool). If you're guilty, then how you got rumbled is not something you need to concern yourself with.

If you're guilty, and you somehow get let off (most likely on some dodgy technicality) after finding ut a little about "methods and sources", then those methods and sources are blown. In some instances, those sources could be the life of an informant, I doubt informants are treated very well, when they're discovered.

So, how do you maintain the security of classified information in a court?

[Alfa numeric]

AshVX220 said:

That doesn't answer the question, we're talking about classified methods and sources. Stuff is classified for a reason. In this instance it is to protect either the method or the source. The suspect does not need to know how he was caught. You were caught, if you're innocent, then fine you're innocent and you'll be able to get aqcuitted (unless you're a complete tool). If you're guilty, then how you got rumbled is not something you need to concern yourself with.

If you're guilty, and you somehow get let off (most likely on some dodgy technicality) after finding ut a little about "methods and sources", then those methods and sources are blown. In some instances, those sources could be the life of an informant, I doubt informants are treated very well, when they're discovered.

So, how do you maintain the security of classified information in a court?

So how are you supposed to defend yourself if you don't know what evidence they have against you?

[V8mate]

Alfa numeric said:

So how are you supposed to defend yourself if you don't know what evidence they have against you?

Of course you know; it's all in your 'Sent Messages' folder.

[Ozzie Osmond]

AshVX220 said:

How do you propose to conduct a trial which contains evidence that is classified?

How can "evidence" possibly be "classified"? It's either proper evidence or it's not.

[AshVX220]

Alfa numeric said:

AshVX220 said:

That doesn't answer the question, we're talking about classified methods and sources. Stuff is classified for a reason. In this instance it is to protect either the method or the source. The suspect does not need to know how he was caught. You were caught, if you're innocent, then fine you're innocent and you'll be able to get aqcuitted (unless you're a complete tool). If you're guilty, then how you got rumbled is not something you need to concern yourself with.

If you're guilty, and you somehow get let off (most likely on some dodgy technicality) after finding ut a little about "methods and sources", then those methods and sources are blown. In some instances, those sources could be the life of an informant, I doubt informants are treated very well, when they're discovered.

So, how do you maintain the security of classified information in a court?

So how are you supposed to defend yourself if you don't know what evidence they have against you?

I don't know. Maybe if you try to defend yourself, because you know what you've done, then your stuffed anyway? If you know what you've done or planned and know how you did or planned it and try to defend against that, then you're in trouble.

I don't think the entire hearing should be behind closd doors, just the bits that are classified. I would expect they have a large amount of evidence in order to bring it to court anyway. The initial Method or source, may have just been the catalyst for more normal surveillance. So, in quiet they say, this is what rumbled us to the suspect. Then in public after the jdge has acceepted the classified bit, they discuss the remainder of the un-classified case, such as the normal surveillance methods etc.

I don't have the answer to the question, but I can certainly understand and appreciate why the question is being asked.

[AshVX220]

Ozzie Osmond said:

AshVX220 said:

How do you propose to conduct a trial which contains evidence that is classified?

How can "evidence" possibly be "classified"? It's either proper evidence or it's not.

You've now just lost all credibility. Anything can be classified.

An intercepted e-mail can be classified, because the method of collecting that e-mail is classified. So, therefore, that evidence (the e-mail) is classified.

I guess you've never held a clearance.

[Jimbeaux]

Ozzie Osmond said:

Welcome to a Conservative Britain; the respector of individual privacy; the birthplace of parliamentary democracy; 900 years of trial by jury with justice both done and seen to be done

• Round the clock monitoring of all your communications? Oh yes.
• Secret trials in case the governmemt gets embarrassed? Oh yes.

The only crime today is dissent.

That started under NuLab did it not? Blair, etc.?

[Alfa numeric]

Jimbeaux said:

That started under NuLab did it not? Blair, etc.?

Yup, and was opposed by the Tories. The same Tories that are now championing it.

And of course Labour now oppose it.



Plus ca change...

[Jimbeaux]

Alfa numeric said:

Jimbeaux said:

That started under NuLab did it not? Blair, etc.?

Yup, and was opposed by the Tories. The same Tories that are now championing it.

And of course Labour now oppose it.



Plus ca change...

OK then, at least all is normal.

[AshVX220]

Jimbeaux said:

Alfa numeric said:

Jimbeaux said:

That started under NuLab did it not? Blair, etc.?

Yup, and was opposed by the Tories. The same Tories that are now championing it.

And of course Labour now oppose it.



Plus ca change...

OK then, at least all is normal.

Crazy isn't it, if a politician of one tie colour says black is black, his opposite number will go on public record most vociferously saying that it's white!!

Then when the tide turns, the original politican wil argue beyond a shadow of a doubt that black is white, once his oppo has accepted (or realised) it's black.

[The Black Flash]

AshVX220 said:

That doesn't answer the question, we're talking about classified methods and sources. Stuff is classified for a reason. In this instance it is to protect either the method or the source. The suspect does not need to know how he was caught. You were caught, if you're innocent, then fine you're innocent and you'll be able to get aqcuitted (unless you're a complete tool). If you're guilty, then how you got rumbled is not something you need to concern yourself with.

If you're guilty, and you somehow get let off (most likely on some dodgy technicality) after finding ut a little about "methods and sources", then those methods and sources are blown. In some instances, those sources could be the life of an informant, I doubt informants are treated very well, when they're discovered.

So, how do you maintain the security of classified information in a court?

Your problem is that you are assuming that the charge is being brought honestly.
I am concerned with preventing abuse by dishonest / corrupt officialdom.

"We've found you sending terrorist emails Mr.Vx220 . You're not allowed to see what they are or how we got them. How do you plead? What is your defence?"

[AshVX220]

The Black Flash said:

AshVX220 said:

That doesn't answer the question, we're talking about classified methods and sources. Stuff is classified for a reason. In this instance it is to protect either the method or the source. The suspect does not need to know how he was caught. You were caught, if you're innocent, then fine you're innocent and you'll be able to get aqcuitted (unless you're a complete tool). If you're guilty, then how you got rumbled is not something you need to concern yourself with.

If you're guilty, and you somehow get let off (most likely on some dodgy technicality) after finding ut a little about "methods and sources", then those methods and sources are blown. In some instances, those sources could be the life of an informant, I doubt informants are treated very well, when they're discovered.

So, how do you maintain the security of classified information in a court?

Your problem is that you are assuming that the charge is being brought honestly.
I am concerned with preventing abuse by dishonest / corrupt officialdom.

"We've found you sending terrorist emails Mr.Vx220 . You're not allowed to see what they are or how we got them. How do you plead? What is your defence?"

As I said earlier, I don't know what the answer is, but I absolutely appreciate the need to ensure classified stuff stays clasified.

Maybe a case wouldn't (or couldn't) be brought on just the classified evidence? Maybe, I would present the records of all my e-mail addresses (if you can get those from the ISP, I don't actually know if that's possible) and say, there you go, all the e-mails I've ever sent, there isn't one there that says I'm planning to do "x".

If they then say, "ah, but you haven't shown us e-mail account number 4".

I say, "I only have 3 e-mail accounts, he you go Mr DV Cleared judge, you compare all my e-mails I've declared withe writing style, nuance etc of the account they say I have."

I don't know, as I said, I don't know how to make it work and be safe from wrong or corrupt convictions (maybe I live in too much of a utopia where I trust those with such high level clearance). I don't know the answer, but I can appreciate the need for the question.

[Engineer1]

Paddy_N_Murphy said:

Dixie68 said:

Oh who gives a monkeys, seriously? They can read my emails and monitor my texts for all I care.

So long as they don't tell the wife

Or something you do now that is legit becomes illegal or frowned upon, the Holocaust was aided in some countries by good complete records that included people's religions.

[Getragdogleg]

Engineer1 said:

Or something you do now that is legit becomes illegal or frowned upon, the Holocaust was aided in some countries by good complete records that included people's religions.

Oddly enough this one of my stock replies to the "if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear" brigade when I am discussing DNA records and the scope creep of Govt. organisations.

Just because we are living in relative peace here now does not mean it will always be so, the ethnic cleansing in Bosnia was not that long ago but can you imagine the extra casualties if the racial/religious information was in one big data bank for easy access.