Data monitoring taken too far?

[The Wise Monkey]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7962631.stm

Is this a legitimate way to help prevent terrorism or is this just another method of control in an increasingly "Big Brother" society?

Discuss.

[RickyTick]

The right to privacy is fundamental to Nations that embrace freedom. Giving up more and more freedoms in the name of "security", is precisely what the terrorist groups are hoping for. Its begins the decline of our "Western" way of life.

If Liberal Democrat Tom Brake is against this, then you Brits need to convince Daniel Hannan to oppose it too. They could apply enough pressure of PM Brown to reconsider this attack on personal freedoms and liberty. Isn't London quickly being known as a safe haven for terrorist cells? Maybe Great Britain needs to be less liberal with who they let in the country.

I'm thinking that if the authorities have reasonable suspicions of a particular person, then why not get a court order to monitor that person's internet activities, and not the whole lot.

jmo

[The Wise Monkey]

I'd be surprised if this wasn't happening already to some extent.

[partyman97_3]

I tend to agree with Ricky, Wasn't it Benjamin Franklin who said "The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either."

[zburns]

First, I agree with all your statements; no argument. Your analysis is too simple, no offense meant. We elect leaders who "should honestly" try "all the way down the chain of government" to protect the population from terriorist attacks. I emphasize the word "honest". There is no one more despicable than a "dishonest" politician who knowingly lies to his constituents.

Right now there is a beginning movement in the US for citizens to throw out the lying politicians and get honest ones in office who we can trust.

Those comments aside, if terriorist use the internet to facilitate their plans, then government must use technology to disrupt, disable and capture them. If this includes a perception of appearing to step on our constitutional rights to a small degree, then so be it; but any effort in this direction must be monitored in an effective and believable manner.

In the US we depend on the news media to honestly report on government activities. If there are elements of the news media that are dishonest in this endeavor, then their viewership should shut them down by not supporting their advertisers until "that media" becomes honest.

At some point the American (and the British, and all free people) should be able to depend on "honesty" down the line in government and media reporting. At that point we will become safer.

All of the above aside for my next point. In the US, all of us are called upon many times to disclose our SS number to Banks, Doctors, etc. for various reasons, as well as other "private" information. We never complain about that when in the same breath we complain about "big brother".

My point is that if you trust your "Bank of America" (not exactly a small town, corner store) with your Social Security number, you should likewise be able to trust all your government officials from city, state up to federal. If we as inidviduals do not take on the immediate responsibility to throw out the lying SOBs in Washington right now as soon as possible, we have no one but ourselves to blame for whatever trouble comes down on us in the near future regards terriorists or financial ruin.

zburns.

[The Wise Monkey]

Hah, stick it to the man? :P

[zburns]

Obviously my comments are more aimed at the current US political situation than the UK article which I did read yesterday but did not address it directly in my above comments. It is my impression that the terrorist threat to the UK is more imminent (or the threat is more public) than in the US; but the general threat is against all democracies particularly "western ones".

My thoughts are that you have to trust politicians or the upper tier leaders to do the right thing; if they abridge our rights, they should do so only on a temporary basis, ie. until the terrorist threat is minimized or going downhill which it is obviously not. But you have to trust the politicians not to lie to the public and there should be checks and balances by the general populace on that trust.

For the idea or requirement that "you must trust the politicians", thousands and millions of Americans and Europeans are going to have to pay more attention to their personal leaders, their public pledges and remarks , DAILY, and hold them accountable for honest leadership.

[The Wise Monkey]

How can we politicians possibly be the squeaky clean people that they need to be? Things like this shouldn't really happen...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7970731.stm

[zburns]

Your current example is a smaller version of what I am talking about. At least they seem to have corrected the problem quickly, and, I assume they are being forthright in there representations.

If you want to see real corruption and lying, start watching the hearings going on in the US Congress right now. Many Americans are fed up and think the tipping point is near where our present crowd of politicians will be thrown out 'en masse' in the next election.

I go back to my main point. We are in a war against a massive terrorist conspiricy against free people; to date, at least in the US, the people have been "leaving the politicians alone" , ie. trusting them without verifying that trust. I truly believe this period of blind trust in elected officials is coming to an end.

To fight a war you must trust leaders to do the right thing and be honest about the peoples concerns. If they (pols) must tread on your or my rights (separate but similar countries) then it should be with our understanding and the mutual consent of the respective electorates.

Monitoring internet activities or any other activity for the end result of rooting out terrorists and preventing attacks and deaths should be permissible if the method provides the best possible outcome (ie prevention). As long as the data gathered is not used in any other way to deliberatly infringe citizens rights, and only used to root out terrorists elements within a society, and if it is the fastest, most effective method to do so, then it should be allowed.

But there must be some person or persons in charge who really can be trusted to say they are going after terrorists only and not using the data against the citizentry as a whole for other reasons (non terrorists). This only works if you can really trust the politicians not to lie and cheat, etc..

This is life and death stuff we are talking about here; also, survival as free countries for which thousands of our individual countrymen have paid for with their lives over the last several hundred years.

A new political awareness is needed where millions of citizens hold politicians accountable for their daily / weekly actions to do the right thing; as for the politicians themselves, they should cut out the BS in theirs speeches, tell the truth and do their jobs according to "a new standard of political awareness by the citizens that elected them". A politician should be very afraid to take his constituents "for granted" any longer.