Do GCHQ/MI5 etc need more powers to fight terrorism?
Discussion
ATG said:
Yes but do you speak as someone who is a position to judge what the security services need? That would be a "no".
Well, quite. However, the natural urge for organisations such as that is to constantly clamour for more powers. The House of Lords currently thinks they have enough to do what they need - they just need permission from someone. Y'know, oversight and so on. What they now want is a carte blanche to do what they want, whenever they want, to whom they want. That's not to say that the ones at the top of the tree don't do it anyway, but still. I think those powers are too much and that they don't need them. You may find other people, more well-versed than I who are not part of the security services that agree.http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8119047.stm
So before they get in, possibly as a sop to David Davis MP and Shami Chakrabarti CMD said that.
Then the Tories get in with the Lib Dems and they change their tune.
How does what CMD said before the 2010 election compare to what Anderson QC said last week about the intolerable mish mash of legislation covering state snooping?
So before they get in, possibly as a sop to David Davis MP and Shami Chakrabarti CMD said that.
Then the Tories get in with the Lib Dems and they change their tune.
How does what CMD said before the 2010 election compare to what Anderson QC said last week about the intolerable mish mash of legislation covering state snooping?
Edited by carinaman on Tuesday 16th June 16:01
Digby said:
It's OK, MPs are exempt.
BlackLabel said:
When the DWP can ask to view your browsing history, it does make me wonder what more powers could the security services need, when the f
king job centre can enjoy my secret porn stash by request.BlackLabel said:
It takes 30 people full time to keep tabs on 1 bacon dodging, death to everyone and looking forward to the 76 virgins type nutter.There are quite a lot of them out there.
I concede they need more manpower.
I strongly suspect they need more powers too.
I knew it would be a day or two until this came up. The news mentioning the attacker in london was on whatsapp just before the attack, made sure to show a random screen shot saying "your message is encripted end to end".
They need more man power but the snoopers charter gives too many people access to information they do not need. Only a matter of time before an ISP gets hacked or a person abuses the system.
They need more man power but the snoopers charter gives too many people access to information they do not need. Only a matter of time before an ISP gets hacked or a person abuses the system.
BlackLabel said:
On Thursday it was' We are not afraid, our way of life and commitment to freedom will not change.'Two days later and it's 'let's us this as an excuse to go on a fishing trip through everyone's emails'.
BlackLabel said:
If people want to encrypt their communications, they will, & the government just has to learn to operate around that.DaveCWK said:
If people want to encrypt their communications, they will, & the government just has to learn to operate around that.
You are probably right of course but you can bet your bottom dollar this will be an excuse to turn the ratchet another click to gain access somehow to the usual messaging services.Having now gained access to our browsing history for the local governemnt and the potatoe board on the back of "security measures" it can't be long before they are also allowed to view every thing we send by any fashion whatsoever.
Hope I'm being a bit tin hat brigade to be honest but we are on a slow march to full communication access in my opinion. Personally I couldn't give a s
t what the real security services can read but including every other government agency and quango in the legislation was unnecessary in my view. Having worked alongside a local authority in the past I wouldn't trust them with the location of a birds nest !
Edited by steveatesh on Sunday 26th March 17:18
IT should be an open platform for MI6,MI5 and GCHQ but not the police.The police should get a heads up from them.
The problem is not lack of powers it is lack of man power sifting through all the gathered material.You can't keep cutting budgets and staff and expect to run a service at 100%.
The problem is not lack of powers it is lack of man power sifting through all the gathered material.You can't keep cutting budgets and staff and expect to run a service at 100%.
smifffymoto said:
IT should be an open platform for MI6,MI5 and GCHQ but not the police.
I don't think end to end encryption should be weakened for anyone. I'm sure at least one of those three has the technical capacity to work around it to a limited extent in exceptional circumstances and I'm fine with that.Amber Rudd said:
The best people who understand the technology, who understand the necessary hashtags to stop this stuff ever being put up, not just taken down, but ever being put up in the first place are going to be them.
Shut up you tool.steveatesh said:
DaveCWK said:
If people want to encrypt their communications, they will, & the government just has to learn to operate around that.
You are probably right of course but you can bet your bottom dollar this will be an excuse to turn the ratchet another click to gain access somehow to the usual messaging services.If conspirators are too stupid to use the tools freely available to any programmer to write their own encrypter, then access to messaging services might let you read some useful messages. But are many really that thick? Maybe they are?
0000 said:
I don't think end to end encryption should be weakened for anyone. I'm sure at least one of those three has the technical capacity to work around it to a limited extent in exceptional circumstances and I'm fine with that.
Yeh, it's when the handset is compromised. All of the encryption in the world won't stop messages being read then, as it's only so in transit.As we see from the CIA leak, there are ample tools to do that.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff