Do GCHQ/MI5 etc need more powers to fight terrorism?
Discussion
Jasandjules said:
and always seem to know the perpetrators. So then what f***ng good is it to have all the info?!
Great So they know the individuals who have become radicalised and may be involved in terrorist activity. How do you propose they track and monitor them?. Bearing in mind they have to be actively involved in a terrorist plot to be arrested.
Justayellowbadge said:
Frequently, when incidents occur, it subsequently becomes apparent that the security services were aware of at least some of the people involved.
They don't seem to need more powers, just the ability, and perhaps the political will, to properly use those they already have.
Yes indeed. Is it true that the security services had information about those who shot Lee Rigby, but still they omitted to act on it to prevent the outrage? Before they get any more powers to spy on us, I'd want to know that they were making effective use of the powers they already have.They don't seem to need more powers, just the ability, and perhaps the political will, to properly use those they already have.
As EY said, I'm far more concerned about increasing government snooping and interference in our lives than I am about the terrorist threat.
In any case, had we not meddled so much in the affairs of other countries, there would probably have been little or no terrorist activity threatening us. Busybody governments have created much of the problem, and left their ordinary citizens to face the backlash.
JagLover said:
Jasandjules said:
and always seem to know the perpetrators. So then what f***ng good is it to have all the info?!
Great So they know the individuals who have become radicalised and may be involved in terrorist activity. How do you propose they track and monitor them?. Bearing in mind they have to be actively involved in a terrorist plot to be arrested.
JagLover said:
An oft raised complaint is that the security services are aware of the individuals but could not prevent the attack.
In the French case a claim was made that 90% of French Muslims are peaceful and would not take part in violent attacks, which is great until you realise that the 10% that are left would be about 500,000 people.
I think it is the scale of this that would defeat them, they cannot follow every single individual extremist, to do so they would need the resources of a police state.
It's a tough call to make, I can understand that it makes sense for the Security services need to be able to monitor electronic communication of suspected terrorists, but I am totally against the State having the power to monitor everything, to search for suspicious communications. We need to have some trust that if the security services strongly suspect someone, they can can apply for a warrant to monitor electronic communications of the suspect. In the French case a claim was made that 90% of French Muslims are peaceful and would not take part in violent attacks, which is great until you realise that the 10% that are left would be about 500,000 people.
I think it is the scale of this that would defeat them, they cannot follow every single individual extremist, to do so they would need the resources of a police state.
But I do think that Cameron seems to be doing what he always does, all mouth and no action. In contrast France has taken action, and called in 10,000 military personnel to provide security on high risk targets. I doubt if the UK could muster 1000 military personnel.
OK.
More powers: What they will want is laws to require the big IT companies to do their work for them. They want to force Apple, Microsoft and Google to have to hand over communications, preferably without the need to get a warrant.
In order to be able to comply with this they will put these companies to a great deal of expense. Or more likely simply put them into an impossible position. The kind of scenario would be requiring Google to provide access to the world's email. Well, guess what, some of the world's email doesn't go through Google. Some of it is even encrypted using keys that Google have no access to. The NSA and GCHQ are particularly pissed off with technologies where Google and Apple and Microsoft don't even have the means to decrypt their customers' messages.
These technologies sometimes have bugs but the source code to them is in the public domain. There are algorithms that even with access to the source code you can't decrypt the messages without keys you won't have. These algorithms, being in the public domain, can be checked by programmers all over the world so the NSA and GCHQ can't introduce bugs in an attempt to create a back door.
The encryption/decryption genie is out of the bottle and idiots who think you can put back the stopper just don't understand IT.
More powers: What they will want is laws to require the big IT companies to do their work for them. They want to force Apple, Microsoft and Google to have to hand over communications, preferably without the need to get a warrant.
In order to be able to comply with this they will put these companies to a great deal of expense. Or more likely simply put them into an impossible position. The kind of scenario would be requiring Google to provide access to the world's email. Well, guess what, some of the world's email doesn't go through Google. Some of it is even encrypted using keys that Google have no access to. The NSA and GCHQ are particularly pissed off with technologies where Google and Apple and Microsoft don't even have the means to decrypt their customers' messages.
These technologies sometimes have bugs but the source code to them is in the public domain. There are algorithms that even with access to the source code you can't decrypt the messages without keys you won't have. These algorithms, being in the public domain, can be checked by programmers all over the world so the NSA and GCHQ can't introduce bugs in an attempt to create a back door.
The encryption/decryption genie is out of the bottle and idiots who think you can put back the stopper just don't understand IT.
Don said:
OK.
More powers: What they will want is laws to require the big IT companies to do their work for them. They want to force Apple, Microsoft and Google to have to hand over communications, preferably without the need to get a warrant.
In order to be able to comply with this they will put these companies to a great deal of expense. Or more likely simply put them into an impossible position. The kind of scenario would be requiring Google to provide access to the world's email.
This, albeit for lawful intercept with a warrant, has already happened in terms of telecoms service providers. That's what the EU DRD is for.More powers: What they will want is laws to require the big IT companies to do their work for them. They want to force Apple, Microsoft and Google to have to hand over communications, preferably without the need to get a warrant.
In order to be able to comply with this they will put these companies to a great deal of expense. Or more likely simply put them into an impossible position. The kind of scenario would be requiring Google to provide access to the world's email.
Rovinghawk said:
ATG said:
So long as the usual controls are in place,
Allowing for the number of abuses of the system I would want greater controls over who can look at pretty every aspect of my life. I would certainly wish to restrict the number of people having this access and their reasons for doing so. The 'usual controls' are insufficient.I'd hate to think that any office clerk could easily pry into people's lives.
"I remember reading that one of the leakers (Snowden or manning), found that the abuses of the system through general "ladish" behaviour was too much. It was something along the lines of finding a pretty lass and deciding to trawl through anything you could find in order to get a good naked photo or whatever. Will have to find the article."
Yes, I remember reading that somewhere.
Yes, I remember reading that somewhere.
In the form of a change in immigration policy including nationality law and immigration status to jus sanguinis thereby allowing us to stop them getting in and to summarily throw out anyone who presents a threat absolutely.As opposed to the inevitable plan of let them all in and let those who are here stay and stitch up the general population to add the fig leaf of 'protecting' national security.
As most of their operations are secret I don't know enough to judge their work (e.g. how they use existing powers, what their success rate is, if legislation impedes on their ability etc.) I only know when they've failed because it suddenly becomes very public.
Overall it's important people don't have to live in fear of their own security services.
Overall it's important people don't have to live in fear of their own security services.
My view is that they currently have all this access through the various bits of software and information gathering points in the comms network so can pretty much pull anything off the wire as needed, warrant or no warrant.
The growing use of encryption is worrying the data gatherers, so there is a move to try and ban it before it gets too out of hand. f
k 'em.'They' and 'Them' being the aforementioned data gathering organisations.
Increased security may come from a more reasonable foreign policy; we can't change history however - British predilection for sticking our noses into various regions is certainly one of the roots of this current issue but not the only one.
The growing use of encryption is worrying the data gatherers, so there is a move to try and ban it before it gets too out of hand. f
k 'em.'They' and 'Them' being the aforementioned data gathering organisations.Increased security may come from a more reasonable foreign policy; we can't change history however - British predilection for sticking our noses into various regions is certainly one of the roots of this current issue but not the only one.
Edited by Tonsko on Monday 12th January 22:12
To be honest what the security services want is to be able to lock up serious terrorist suspects without trial on the say so of their own intelligence which no one else is allowed to see.
If we had trust in them and this conflict was for only a limited time then it would be ok; but neither of those statements is true.
What we need is an admission from our leaders (they are not leaders, they are just responsible for running our public services) that 100% safety can't be guaranteed whilst the enemy lives amongst us and looks like a large proportion of our law abiding communities.
What's after this, snoopers charter 2...then 3...then 4...then lock us all up?
If we had trust in them and this conflict was for only a limited time then it would be ok; but neither of those statements is true.
What we need is an admission from our leaders (they are not leaders, they are just responsible for running our public services) that 100% safety can't be guaranteed whilst the enemy lives amongst us and looks like a large proportion of our law abiding communities.
What's after this, snoopers charter 2...then 3...then 4...then lock us all up?
Justayellowbadge said:
Frequently, when incidents occur, it subsequently becomes apparent that the security services were aware of at least some of the people involved.
They don't seem to need more powers, just the ability, and perhaps the political will, to properly use those they already have.
Absolutely.They don't seem to need more powers, just the ability, and perhaps the political will, to properly use those they already have.
Saw the culture sec on sky yesterday talking about extra snooping powers and online record keeping being needed on everyone because of paris and the 'professionals' want them and are best placed to judge and act etc, while at the same time saying the UK media can and should do whatever they want with no interference at all from the government
I became quite disorientated with my jaw on the floor while shaking my head
I became quite disorientated with my jaw on the floor while shaking my head
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff