After Apple's shing-dig with their government, the UK government wants Whatsapp et al to do the same. Does isolated incidents, such that occurred recently in London, justify wholesale, unimpeded surveillance of everything that we, the public, do? This is more of a philosophical/ethical question but this event and the Apple one could be points of reference. The UK must be equal to N. Korea, in surveillance terms already, with the amount of cameras placed everywhere here. i feel the government won't stop until they have access to everything and can see everything. Is that the mark of a free cduntry?

 

 

WhatsApp must not be 'place for terrorists to hide'

 

There must be "no place for terrorists to hide" and intelligence services must have access to encrypted messaging services, the home secretary has said.

Khalid Masood killed four people in Westminster this week. It is understood his phone had connected to messaging app WhatsApp two minutes earlier.

Amber Rudd said she would be meeting technology firms this week to ask them to "work with us".

Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn said authorities already had "huge powers". (He is opposition leader)

There had to be a balance between the "right to know" and "the right to privacy", he said.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-39396578

Edited March 26, 20178 yr by StringJunky

Does isolated incidents, such that occurred recently in London, justify wholesale, unimpeded surveillance of everything that we, the public, do?​

 

 

Don't they already watch everything we do? If you step a toe out of line they can cut off access to your bank accounts and deny you your social welfare. London for instance has cameras everywhere in the tube etc. Regardless of whether they watch us or not should the authorities not have the power to track down criminals?

 

 

Don't they already watch everything we do? If you step a toe out of line they can cut off access to your bank accounts and deny you your social welfare. London for instance has cameras everywhere in the tube etc. Regardless of whether they watch us or not should the authorities not have the power to track down criminals?

Stick to the question. When does it go too far?

Edited March 26, 20178 yr by StringJunky

Stick to the question. When does it go too far?

 

 

Why would the government looking at what's app be a problem. They are literally just going to flag key words or sentences they won't review every single what's app message that is sent. Similarly the tube detects if people step onto the train tracks the people watching don't get notified unless somebody fails to move back behind the line that isn't unnecessary surveilance. If however the government was rounding people into camps to keep an eye on them well then that would be a problem. Besides the reality is that the UK probably already reads these messages they just haven't told people about it I'd prefer a level of transparency rather than dishonesty.

Edited March 26, 20178 yr by fiveworlds

After Apple's shing-dig with their government, the UK government wants Whatsapp et al to do the same. Does isolated incidents, such that occurred recently in London, justify wholesale, unimpeded surveillance of everything that we, the public, do? This is more of a philosophical/ethical question but this event and the Apple one could be points of reference. The UK must be equal to N. Korea, in surveillance terms already, with the amount of cameras placed everywhere here. i feel the government won't stop until they have access to everything and can see everything. Is that the mark of a free cduntry?

 

 

When does government surveillance goes too far? When government surveils me. If we're honest, I think most of us would give that answer. However, government may have reasons to surveil its citizens that are acceptable particularly when the surveillance involve threats against the security of our nation from both national and international sources. I'm a relatively private person but I understand our government's position in that if a citizen is doing nothing illegal and the information government collects will be held private, why should any citizen object?

Edited March 27, 20178 yr by DrmDoc

I struggle with this topic.

 

Everyday, we readily and often without thought volunteer our information to corporate interests and surrender our personal data to be sold and shared. We do this with a simple click by accepting terms and conditions and all just so we can use the latest app or social media platform.

 

Our data regularly and repeatedly flows across platforms and across national boundaries. Algorithms and analytics owned by multibillion dollar market cap multinationals understand us better than we understand ourselves. We are probed and prodded and surveilled more than at anytime in human history, and we are largely willing participants in the process, complete with likes, shares, clicks, and online community conversations.

 

I understand the risks in an abstract sense, but in practice struggle to convince myself that the distinction between the corporate world and the government in today's society is really all that clear or the detriment all that different, especially post Citizens United along with our 501(c.)(4) Super PACs.

Edited March 27, 20178 yr by iNow

I struggle with this topic.

 

Everyday, we readily and often without thought volunteer our information to corporate interests and surrender our personal data to be sold and shared. We do this with a simple click by accepting terms and conditions and all just so we can use the latest app or social media platform.

 

Our data regularly and repeatedly flows across platforms and across national boundaries. Algorithms and analytics owned by multibillion dollar multinationals understand us better than we understand ourselves. We are probed and prodded and surveillance more than at anytime in human history, and we are largely oblivious and willing participants in the process.

 

I understand the risk in an abstract sense, but in practice struggle to convince myself that the distinction between the corporate world and the government in today's society is really all that clear, especially post Citizens United with our 501(c.)(4) Super PACs.

I'm struggling with it as well. That's why I asked. I wanted to see people's views, rather than having, or arguing for, a particular viewpoint.

When someone like Erdoğan or Poetin gets in charge and starts abusing the possibilities to wipe out political opposition.

We need to make sure that if that happens, they can't simply change some keywords. Of course, we can also avoid this by our voting behaviour. I guess the US screwed up.

Government surveillance goes to far when it fabricates terror acts as a pretext to increase monitoring of citizens.

Government surveillance goes to far when it fabricates terror acts as a pretext to increase monitoring of citizens.

 

 

And, of course, you have evidence that this happens regularly?

As i understand this has become a topic because the Westminster nut-job used Whats-app 2 minutes before the attack.

 

What level of surveillance is required to be monitoring the numerous messaging platforms and mount an effective response to suspect messages in under 2 minutes? I don't think it would have made a difference in this case, so i can only conclude this government are using as an excuse to continue their efforts to increase surveillance on the populace.

 

When we start surrendering our liberty the terrorists have won.

As i understand this has become a topic because the Westminster nut-job used Whats-app 2 minutes before the attack.

 

What level of surveillance is required to be monitoring the numerous messaging platforms and mount an effective response to suspect messages in under 2 minutes? I don't think it would have made a difference in this case, so i can only conclude this government are using as an excuse to continue their efforts to increase surveillance on the populace.

 

When we start surrendering our liberty the terrorists have won.

 

+1

Just to clarify i don't believe this, or other, events are staged by the government. Rather it seems a knee-jerk response of a government quick to surveil its populace whenever possible.

I believe "artificial terrorism" is the product of our governments slaughtering its own people for ideological purposes: Global surveillance is the result of tyranny and oppression disguised as "security".

I believe "artificial terrorism" is the product of our governments slaughtering its own people for ideological purposes: Global surveillance is the result of tyranny and oppression disguised as "security".

 

 

And, of course, you have evidence for this?

I think a lot depends on how one feels about their govt. When we trust our leaders and believe they manage ethically our tolerance is higher than when we distrust. Ideally we'd always be able to trust our govt (in a Democracy) and just vote them out when we don't.

 

To address the question more directly I believe we have to allow ourselves (govt represents us) all the tools and capabilities of criminals and our enemies. Hackers are constantly improving their ability to read our emails, look through our pictures, steal account information, put software on our devices, and etc. They do so with no oversight and without court issued warrants. Our privacy is being exploited already and telling the govt they can't have similar technical ability, because we can, doesn't stop millions of others who don't answer to us or operate with our best interest in mind. Rather than demanding the govt not have what's becoming a common technical ability people need to do their Civic duty and ensure the govt we have is an ethical one we can trust to intrude upon individual privacy only when reasonably justified.

Edited March 30, 20178 yr by Ten oz

The problem is that you might trust this government, but there might be a less trustworthy government in the future. Trump has proven that this is a real possibility.

The problem is that you might trust this government, but there might be a less trustworthy government in the future. Trump has proven that this is a real possibility.

Information is power and if they know everything they have absolute power; absolute power corrupts. He's surely a fan of nepotism and that doesn't bode well, being a staple characteristic of a corrupt politician.

Edited March 30, 20178 yr by StringJunky

The problem is that you might trust this government, but there might be a less trustworthy government in the future. Trump has proven that this is a real possibility.

That is what I was alluding to.

All surveillance is wrong; just as any infringement on freedom of speech is wrong.

Edited March 30, 20178 yr by dimreepr

i honestly dont care if the governement has surveillence on me, i dont mind the government knowing what i search and stuff like that. its not like im doing anything illegal, and I don't necessarly see surveillence as an infringement of free speech under certain circumstances sure.

i honestly dont care if the governement has surveillence on me, i dont mind the government knowing what i search and stuff like that. its not like im doing anything illegal, and I don't necessarly see surveillence as an infringement of free speech under certain circumstances sure.

It can infringe your freedom of speech in many ways. For example, you are less likely to talk smack about the government online if you know they are standing over your shoulder. And I understand the whole, "I don't care since I am not doing anything illegal", stance. The problem is it's disturbing to have some random government agent listening in on a conversation, seeing what you are shopping for online, or even know your sexual interests for example.

It can infringe your freedom of speech in many ways. For example, you are less likely to talk smack about the government online if you know they are standing over your shoulder. And I understand the whole, "I don't care since I am not doing anything illegal", stance. The problem is it's disturbing to have some random government agent listening in on a conversation, seeing what you are shopping for online, or even know your sexual interests for example.

There's a lot of organisations trying to profile you but they only get a bit of you. The real problems start when someone has whole profiles on everyone. If that happens, the potential for attempting autocratic control and bypassing democratic processes increases substantially, in my opinion, if the wrong people get at he wheel..

Edited March 31, 20178 yr by StringJunky

i honestly dont care if the governement has surveillence on me, i dont mind the government knowing what i search and stuff like that. its not like im doing anything illegal, and I don't necessarly see surveillence as an infringement of free speech under certain circumstances sure.

 

You don't have to do anything illegal to be considered an intellectual and that's certainly a problem if you live in the wrong country.

 

Being innocent isn't a shield.

Edited March 31, 20178 yr by dimreepr

It can infringe your freedom of speech in many ways. For example, you are less likely to talk smack about the government online if you know they are standing over your shoulder. And I understand the whole, "I don't care since I am not doing anything illegal", stance. The problem is it's disturbing to have some random government agent listening in on a conversation, seeing what you are shopping for online, or even know your sexual interests for example.

Now I understand why people don't like surveillance.

Well, here in the U.S. we are protected because of the freedom of speech to say anything bad about the government. Not so sure how they would react to threats though.

 

In other countries, I can imagine what they would do to someone who is against the government.

 

I think the government agent listening/watching me will be more disturbed than I would of them.

 

( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

 

just kidding