Do GCHQ/MI5 etc need more powers to fight terrorism?
Discussion
'If you've done nothing wrong you have nothing to hide....
http://www.theguardian.com/law/2015/apr/18/grevill...
I have every confidence in the authorities and I'd trust them and their intentions explicitly.
http://www.theguardian.com/law/2015/apr/18/grevill...
I have every confidence in the authorities and I'd trust them and their intentions explicitly.
speedy_thrills said:
I always remember the Nicaraguan affair where the CIA thought Nicaraguan Sandistas, who had overthrow a dictator the US was propping up in Nicaragua, where communist (though they where actually really socialists) and proceeded to fund properly awful terrorists to fight a democratically elected government that went on to implement land, education, health and constitutional reforms paving the way for a more modern state. When you listen to the views expressed today your cringe at what was being said and done by the US.
When you look back on the whole filthy affair now it's clear the security services lacked oversight by people with forethought and principals to stop the CIA undermining future US governments and influence in the region.
Why stop there? Most of central and south america has been sodded up by the CIA at one point or other since 1945; they couldn't help themselves, the whole lot stank quite badly.When you look back on the whole filthy affair now it's clear the security services lacked oversight by people with forethought and principals to stop the CIA undermining future US governments and influence in the region.
dudleybloke said:
If the sis stop protecting nonces they will have more time to fight terrorism.
And bent Coppers:https://www.change.org/p/ukhomeoffice-seek-apology...
So much for 'If you've done nothing wrong you have nothing to hide', ahem, cough, splutter.
article said:
The Government is still looking to push major new spying powers into law, despite a report it commissioned advising that they weren’t needed.
Theresa May has already said that the Government will push the legislation through in autumn so that it can be enacted before the end of the year, just hours after the critical report was published.
One of the headline parts of the Snoopers’ Charter is that it will require phone networks and internet service to providers to hold communications between their customers, and then give access to that data to intelligence agencies. But the Anderson Report warned such powers weren’t necessary.
The report echoes previous criticisms that the proposed legislation is far too wide-ranging and puts too much power in the hands of the home secretary — instead recommending that the decision to look through people’s private messages should be made by a judge. The report says that “there should be no question of progressing proposals for the compulsory retention of third party data before a compelling operational case for it has been made out (as it has not been to date)” — directly contradicting the May’s argument for the legislation.
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/snoopers-charter-theresa-may-to-push-huge-new-spying-powers-through-parliament-despite-major-report-concluding-it-is-not-needed-10313042.htmlTheresa May has already said that the Government will push the legislation through in autumn so that it can be enacted before the end of the year, just hours after the critical report was published.
One of the headline parts of the Snoopers’ Charter is that it will require phone networks and internet service to providers to hold communications between their customers, and then give access to that data to intelligence agencies. But the Anderson Report warned such powers weren’t necessary.
The report echoes previous criticisms that the proposed legislation is far too wide-ranging and puts too much power in the hands of the home secretary — instead recommending that the decision to look through people’s private messages should be made by a judge. The report says that “there should be no question of progressing proposals for the compulsory retention of third party data before a compelling operational case for it has been made out (as it has not been to date)” — directly contradicting the May’s argument for the legislation.
BlackLabel said:
carinaman said:
David Davis MP will be found atop a hill in Oxon with a strange little injury to his wrist.
It's a shame he never became Home Secretary. There was someone on the radio last week saying how badly written the Legal Highs bill was.
I am wondering what Theresa May's new and improved Snooper's Charter rewrite in time for the autumn will be like?
Theresa May says we need the Snooper's Charter to protect against Child Sex Exploitation. She also said she cares about victims.
But former police officers that come forward with details of historic sexual abuse against children aren't exempt from prosecution via the Official Secrets Act?:
http://www.exaronews.com/articles/5530/how-mps-vot...
It doesn't make sense to me.
So Theresa May cares about future possible victims of child sexual abuse, but she doesn't care about children sexually abused in the past?
'Justice delayed is justice denied' depends on who the victims are, and who the perpetrators are?
There's something quite ideologically sinister about a certain faction within the Tory party.
It's like the AMG Black Series of New Labour's Climate of Fear.
Edited by carinaman on Friday 12th June 15:31
carinaman said:
Theresa May says we need the Snooper's Charter to protect against Child Sex Exploitation. She also said she cares about victims.
But former police officers that come forward with details of historic sexual abuse against children aren't exempt from prosecution via the Official Secrets Act?:
It doesn't make sense to me.
No. I have no idea how even the slightest hazard to whistleblowers is compatible with a culture of openness and the reduction of corruption.But former police officers that come forward with details of historic sexual abuse against children aren't exempt from prosecution via the Official Secrets Act?:
It doesn't make sense to me.
carinaman said:
There's something quite ideologically sinister about a certain faction within the Tory party.
It's like the AMG Black Series of New Labour's Climate of Fear.
It's like the AMG Black Series of New Labour's Climate of Fear.
Instinctively I'm against the authorities having more snooping powers, however I saw a program a few nights ago where the Police reckon about 750 British males have travelled to Syria to fight and train with IS, and they think about 350 have returned to the UK, but they have no idea where they are, who they are, and what they are doing. The only way they would be able to to track them down is by intercepting electronic communications, but they do not have that facility. (Or do they?). So 350 ex IS fighters are amongst us, are they planning anything? We don't know. So perhaps they do need more powers.
They're trying to find needles in haystacks.
I struggle to see by how collecting more data, on more people that aren't a threat does anything other than make the haystacks bigger.
Existing legislation crisiticised Anderson QC last week was being misused.
How many times have people that committed terrorist attacks appeared on the radar already?
1. The one in Australia in the shop with the black flag.
2. The pair that killed Drummer Lee Rigby in London.
3. The one in TX. that shot at the building staging the Prophet cartoon competition.
4. The 7 July bombers were on the radar and dismissed as small time fraudsters and jihadi tourist wannabes.
Did the Spooks call the plods up north and say 'These people are probably not a threat, but keep an eye on them will ya?'
Would a Public Inquiry have shown that there was no communication between the Spooks and the police up north?
5. So they didn't manage to stop the 7 July bombers despite having the information on them, but then execute a Brazilian on the tube in a case of wrong hue, wrong place, wrong time?
So when the authorities know who these people are and can't do anything to stop them before they commit their crimes in the name of their terrorist movement or religious ideals how is having more data on more people that aren't a threat helpful?
I'm more of a threat than a dozen from Bradford who have gone AWOL in Turkey en route back from pilgrimage in Saudi Arabia?
I struggle to see by how collecting more data, on more people that aren't a threat does anything other than make the haystacks bigger.
Existing legislation crisiticised Anderson QC last week was being misused.
How many times have people that committed terrorist attacks appeared on the radar already?
1. The one in Australia in the shop with the black flag.
2. The pair that killed Drummer Lee Rigby in London.
3. The one in TX. that shot at the building staging the Prophet cartoon competition.
4. The 7 July bombers were on the radar and dismissed as small time fraudsters and jihadi tourist wannabes.
Did the Spooks call the plods up north and say 'These people are probably not a threat, but keep an eye on them will ya?'
Would a Public Inquiry have shown that there was no communication between the Spooks and the police up north?
5. So they didn't manage to stop the 7 July bombers despite having the information on them, but then execute a Brazilian on the tube in a case of wrong hue, wrong place, wrong time?
So when the authorities know who these people are and can't do anything to stop them before they commit their crimes in the name of their terrorist movement or religious ideals how is having more data on more people that aren't a threat helpful?
I'm more of a threat than a dozen from Bradford who have gone AWOL in Turkey en route back from pilgrimage in Saudi Arabia?
Edited by carinaman on Monday 15th June 19:01
carinaman said:
I struggle to see by how collecting more data, on more people that aren't a threat does anything other than make the haystacks bigger.
It helps a lot if you don't know whether you have a straw or a needle just by looking. More data usually beats better algorithms.carinaman said:
5. So they didn't manage to stop the 7 July bombers despite having the information on them, but then execute a Brazilian on the tube in a case of wrong hue, wrong place, wrong time?
Not sure the people who had information on the 7/7 bombers were the same people running round with guns.JensenA said:
Instinctively I'm against the authorities having more snooping powers, however I saw a program a few nights ago where the Police reckon about 750 British males have travelled to Syria to fight and train with IS, and they think about 350 have returned to the UK, but they have no idea where they are, who they are, and what they are doing. The only way they would be able to to track them down is by intercepting electronic communications, but they do not have that facility. (Or do they?). So 350 ex IS fighters are amongst us, are they planning anything? We don't know. So perhaps they do need more powers.
Well, if the border software worked correctly, then in theory, it shouldn't be hard to track them when they come back in.Tonsko said:
Well, if the border software worked correctly, then in theory, it shouldn't be hard to track them when they come back in.
I've made comparisons to Access Control Lists used in networks before;Name?
Ethnicity?
Age?
Religion?
Source?
Destination?
Would seem to apply with the three sisters from Bradford with their 9 kids that got a flight from their pilgrimage in Saudi to Turkey?
Lazy stereotyping or targeted surveillance?
Cameron bemoans FaceBook and Social Media, but we can't even implement something like Access Control Lists to keep track of those more likely or more susceptible to fall for the caliphate?
'We need these powers to protect the public from paedophiles and terrorists'?
Blair and Campbell misold us the Dodgy Dossier that provided the power vacuum that has allowed Islamic State the terrority to create their caliphate there and wasn't the Prevent programme money misused to put cameras on lamp posts in Brum?
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
People like Snowden.
Edited by carinaman on Monday 15th June 22:06
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff