back to article Snowden speaks: NSA spies create 'databases of ruin' on innocent folks

Ex-NSA contractor turned whistleblower Edward Snowden used his first public Q&A to call for the US to lead a global initiative to ban mass surveillance of populations. He also wants governments to ensure that intelligence agencies can protect national security while not invading everyday privacy. "Not all spying is bad. The …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.
  1. Charles Manning

    Targeted surveillance is pretty much the old-school way of doing things. The plods get some tip-off from the public, get a warrant and do some wire tapping etc. The critical factor is that you need someone being vigilant enough to give the tip-off. No tip-off and the whole chain does not happen.

    The whole point of mass surveillance is that it does the data mining for you and generates the tip-offs.

    Without that, 99% of what the NSA does is meaningless and you might as well shut them down.

    Asking the US to ban mass surveillance is like asking them to give up the atom bomb. The fox will not hand over the keys to the hen house.

    I am not at all suggesting the NSA are a nice bunch of people on an ethically sound mission, merely that they cannot provide a useful surveillance function to help detect criminals unless they profile all the data they can get their mits on.

    There really is no middle ground. You can't find the needles unless you sift through the haystack.

    1. dan1980

      Re: Charles Manning

      . . . and if it can be proven you're not finding the needles anyway?

      Given that, the implication is that you can either have marginally more effective protection but at the cost of the near-complete loss of your privacy or you can have less-effective protection but keep your privacy.

      Matt Bryant's rants aside, Alexander has all but confirmed that this broad, ongoing erosion of privacy has not appreciably made the US a safer place so what, then, is the pay-off for the loss of privacy?

      Given it's the people who are both the recipients (ostensibly) of the protection and the targets of the surveillance, shouldn't it be up to them to decide how much they are willing to pay for that protection?

      1. Charles Manning

        Re: Charles Manning

        People seem to have picked up my comments the wrong way.

        I don't think the NSA are doing a good job finding needles. It does not even appear they are finding needles, just burning bits of the haystack.

        I don't think they are making USA safer.

        I don't think they should even be looking.

        However there is no middle ground either. The NSA cannot fill their function (ie. to snoop and find potential terrorists and other threats) without data mining everyone.

        To perform their role, and not impinge on the average citizen or others is a very delicate line to tread and is probably impossible. The NSA have proven themselves unable to act with the level of responsibility and restraint required when given such wide powers. IMHO, they cannot be trusted and there is absolutely no indication they can be brought back on track with fresh management or oversight. If it was up to me, I'd shut them down since regular policing seems to be doing a better job.

        Basically, USA have to decide whether they want to keep the NSA and everyone snooped, or shut down the NSA altogether. They cannot have it both ways.

    2. Thesheep

      False needles

      Unfortunately, given that the 'needles' that the NSA are searching for are vanishingly rare, most of what they will find are going to be false positives. Which is going to be worse than useless. And of course the NSA has no role or authority to catch criminals: they are tasked with security and intelligence.

    3. CmdrX3

      As pointed out in another article about The Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board report, they had this to say.

      "Based on the information provided to the board, including classified briefings and documentation, we have not identified a single instance involving a threat to the United States in which the program made a concrete difference in the outcome of a counterterrorism investigation,"

      To me, that's a pretty damning indictment on the usefulness of the mass surveillance. While the technology may be cheap (which I doubt when Govts are involved) I doubt the whole [illegal] program itself is cheap and the results according to this report show that there is not a single return on the investment. There is however a massive price and that is the privacy and civil liberties of citizens.

    4. Lars Silver badge
      Flame

      @ Charles Manning

      You are totally right, the best way to prevent speeding and drunk driving is to close all roads and ban cars. But on a more serious not, what makes you so damned scared. Are you, or are you just too dumb to understand how much you pay for services you don't need.

    5. Eddy Ito

      "The whole point of mass surveillance is that it does the data mining for you and generates the tip-offs.

      Without that, 99% of what the NSA does is meaningless and you might as well shut them down."

      April 15, 2013. Having been warned numerous times about potential upstarts and even interviewing those upstarts the Boston Marathon was still bombed. Afterward with photos of suspects they had plenty of forewarning and knowledge of, they had to turn to the public to identify them. No data mined tip-off, no clue as to what or when and they still couldn't recognize someone they sat across the table from and 'interviewed' after being warned. It seems that even with all that mass surveillance 99% of what they do is meaningless. Last one out, turn off the lights.

    6. Trevor_Pott Gold badge

      I am okay with the needles going unfound. Liberty is too high a price to pay for the illusion of security.Indeed, it would be too high a price to pay even for actual security.

      Leave the hay where it is, and give up the search for needles.

      1. willi0000000

        c'mon now, everybody knows that the way to find the needles is to burn down the haystack and sift the ashes.

      2. dan1980

        @Trevor_Pott

        Yep. At some point, the people of the US (and their government) have to ask themselves what is more important - their "essential libert[ies]" or their "temporary safety".

        A hackneyed quote perhaps but apt nonetheless.

        When thinking about the men and women who instituted, supported, expanded, conducted and concealed these activities, I wonder how they would answer, face-to-face with some of the founding fathers of their their country, who professed the value of liberty and freedom above all other concerns.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          You Americans give far too much weight to the "founding fathers". They are just people who probably would have done exactly the same thing today if they could have had that power. They are just symbols, and i'll bet each and every one of them had their own Monica Lewinsky tugging at their parts.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Stop

            The Framers

            Jefferson had an affair with a cousin's wife--or came close. Later he actually had children by one of his slaves. Benjamin Franklin was an infamous gad about whose sone rejected him and all he stood for by returning to England. There is not a single one of those men that was perfect. That makes their achievements even more astounding. They were flawed human beings who found a proper way for a populace to govern itself. That is what is going on right now. It's not pretty, but then neither is sausage making.

            1. SundogUK Silver badge

              Re: The Framers

              That is certainly NOT what is going on right now.

              1. Anonymous Coward
                Anonymous Coward

                Re: The Framers

                @SundogUK

                You may well be right, sir. But, everytime we get into a tight spot we teeter on the edge of the abyss. We may still plunge into tyranny, but them's the breaks. Either we will survive this crisis, or you would be well advised to prepare for war with us, because if we lose this fight, we will become a tyranical power bent on world domination.

          2. dan1980

            @terra

            Perhaps, and for every "power always thinks that it is doing God's service when it is violating all his laws" or "there is danger from all men. The only maxim of a free government ought to be to trust no man living with power to endanger the public liberty" there may well be a Sedition Act*.

            But the broader question, I suppose, is: when looking back at 21st century America, would Bush, Obama et al rather the histories say that the US faced tragedy and terror and stood firm, neither cowering nor wavering but instead strengthened their commitment to liberty and freedom or that they sold cheaply the freedoms so dearly won during the American Revolution?

            Ignoring the 'Founding Fathers', for what values will the presidents and politicians of this era be known?

            And at any rate, I am not a US citizen, just someone who knows a few, the majority of whom strongly believe in the ideals of freedom and liberty as the cornerstones and guiding principals of that country.

            * - Not that Adams actually supported that Act (and the associated others) but, nevertheless, he signed it into law.

          3. Primus Secundus Tertius

            @terra

            Well said, sir. The only reason the US has a democratic constitution is that its creators distrusted the voters less than they distrusted each other. Those creators were worldly wise politicians, and that is why the constitution they created has lasted so long.

            The kings of Rome lasted two centuries. The republic lasted five centuries. The empire, in the east, lasted over a thousand years. How long will the US last?

          4. Michael Wojcik Silver badge

            @terra

            You Americans give far too much weight to the "founding fathers". They are just people who probably would have done exactly the same thing today if they could have had that power.

            Argumentum ad hominem. The character of Benjamin Franklin or any of the other political theorists of the early USA has no bearing on the quality of their theories. But do come back when you learn how to pose a rational argument.

            (For that matter: Many of us keep the "founding fathers" well in perspective. Many of us are well-aware that the US wasn't the first modern European-derived liberal republic, that the founders were motivated largely by economic interest, that their philosophies were based on a long European tradition with sprinklings of ideas from other places, and so on. Of course, many of us are also capable of avoiding sophomoric generalizations about the beliefs of the entire population of a nation.)

          5. Scott Holland

            @terra

            "You Americans give far too much weight to the "founding fathers". They are just people who probably would have done exactly the same thing today if they could have had that power. They are just symbols, and i'll bet each and every one of them had their own Monica Lewinsky tugging at their parts."

            I'll be the first to admit that none of them were perfect. But as for the "They would do it too" argument I have to say no, they would not. These men knew what it was like to live under the thumb of a oppressive ruler. Something no native born American can presently say. Now, would King George have taken advantage of such a program had it existed? No doubt he would.

            I can't speak about all of the founders, but Washington certainly wouldn't even entertain the idea that such a program was legal. As you may know, he was a war hero, and the first president. He didn't really want the job of president, he wanted to retire after the war, but the people pretty much demanded that it be him. So, he answered the call.

            He reluctantly accepted a second term, and flat out refused a third. The official restriction that presidents may only serve 2 terms was passed after WW2, to prevent another FDR. Until that time, all presidents willingly stepped down after 2 terms because of the precedent set by Washington.

            After the war, they didn't just want to make him president. They were ready to make him an actual king. A position he absolutely refused with the reasoning (paraphrasing): "I just fought a very bloody war to throw off one king. I didn't do it so we could just replace him with another."

            On the ceiling of the capitol building is a large mural titled "The Apotheosis of George Washington". For decades, the man was practically revered as a god.

            But, in no small measure, because of his humility, belief in freedom, and dedication to the principles of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, Americans still enjoy more freedom and more protection FROM the government than most in the world. But those protections have been steadily eroded over the decades. Snowden helped to reveal just how much.

            1. Trevor_Pott Gold badge

              @Scott Holland

              "But, in no small measure, because of his humility, belief in freedom, and dedication to the principles of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, Americans still enjoy more freedom and more protection FROM the government than most in the world. But those protections have been steadily eroded over the decades. Snowden helped to reveal just how much."

              And that's the bit that Titus Technophobe can't understand. That freedom is not "safety form terrorists." Freedom is the right to be free of government interference.

              I was born a citizen of Canada. I never swore any oath of loyalty or pledged my fealty, industry or liberty to her government. I am forced to obey because if I don't obey men with guns with drag me away to prison. If I resist being dragged away, they'll kill me. Obey or die. Those are my choices.

              I absolutely never pledged my loyalty, fealty, industry or liberty to the United States of America. I have said that I am not an enemy of her people or her government on forms when I cross the border, and I believe that to be an entirely truthful statement.

              But neither am I a loyal servant or even an ally. I am, in fact, entirely disinterested in what happens to the USA or her people excepting where their self-immolation can and does affect my home.

              I am not an anarchist, nor am I a right libertarian. I believe governments have a place - and important place - and that a social democracy is preferable to the street gangs of anarchy, feudalism, capitalism, socialism, communism, fascism, and most other forms of government.

              But i also believe that the role of a government is to govern. Not to rule. That people should be free to pursue their own aims and desires so long as those aims and desires aren't deleterious to society as a whole.

              We wouldn't give an atom bomb to a civilian. There is no purpose for such a device that is not deleterious to society as a whole and the risk is far too great that it would fall into the hands of someone who would actually use it - accidentally or otherwise.

              Similarly, we cannot give a panopticon to a government. There is no purpose for such a device that is not deleterious to society as a whole and the the risk is far too great that it would be misused - accidentally or otherwise.

              The founding fathers weren't the greatest people. In fact, in a lot of ways, it seems they were pretty awful people...but their lessons have been build upon. We've learned a few things - in blood - that reinforce what those founding fathers sought to teach...and more besides.

              The purpose of freedom is to ensure that governments remain afraid of their people and never seek to rule them again. That's the bit that matters.

      3. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        @Trevor_Pot

        Leave the hay where it is, and give up the search for needles.

        You do have the luxury of commenting from a country where, to date, the level of Islamic terrorist activity is very low.

        I had friends on tubes when Islamic extremists blew up London. Lucky for them they got away with it that time.

        This doesn’t seem to have happened for a while. That said there seems to have been plenty of needles in other places. Personally if the intelligence services are responsible I would rather like them to carry on reducing the frequency of this sort of thing.

        1. codejunky Silver badge

          Re: @Trevor_Pot

          @ Titus Technophobe

          How many times have the extremists blown up the UK? How many hits have we taken? How about the US? The recent report showing this excessive data collection has stopped nothing. The claim was 50 attempts stopped by this excessive monitoring and yet the figure is a big fat round one.

        2. 's water music

          Re: @Trevor_Pot

          > You do have the luxury of commenting from a country where, to date, the level of Islamic terrorist activity is very low. [snip 2005 tube bombing refs] Personally if the intelligence services are responsible I would rather like them to carry on reducing the frequency of this sort of thing.

          I would rather they concentrated on preventing donkeys kicking people to death. They could significantly raise their run rate of lives saved.

        3. PJI

          Re: @Trevor_Pot

          So, you think this intrusion into "ordinary" lives can prevent tube attacks by extremists. So why did it not work?

          Do you really think the loss of freedom is worth the price of being under control all the time? How did Britain survive the IRA for so many years? The dangers then were far greater and real; but we managed to live and have our being, relaxed and peaceful, even though most of us had heard bombs explode (three in my part of London) or knew people who had been affected in, say, the Harrods bomb or the destruction of Manchester city centre. Fortunately, mass hysteria against Irish accents did not occur and fear of visiting the Tower of London was not apparent.

          Grow up and accept that nasty things do happen but we must not let them beat us by extreme measures that change our own lives more effectively than the terrorism itself. You are more likely to fall under a bus or a car or slip on an icy street and bang your head lethally. Are you going to forbid all traffic and confine people indoors when the Winter comes? Oh, most accidents happen at home. Forget that. Lots of burglaries and assaults too. Hmm.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: @Trevor_Pot

            So, you think this intrusion into "ordinary" lives can prevent tube attacks by extremists. So why did it not work?

            Have there been any attacks on the tube recently?

            Do you really think the loss of freedom is worth the price of... How did Britain survive the IRA for so many years? ... Fortunately, mass hysteria against Irish accents did not occur and fear of visiting the Tower of London was not apparent.

            During the time of the IRA there wasn’t as such an Internet. But that said it is rumoured that GCHQ did collect traffic information. So a question for you do you think that some, maybe even quite a few, of the attacks by the IRA were thwarted by this monitoring? Possibly allowing the lack of fear of people with Irish accents, visits to the bloody tower and so on …..

            Grow up and accept that nasty things do happen ... change our own lives more effectively than the terrorism itself. ...... Hmm.

            I don’t think of the Internet monitoring as much of a change between now and say the 1970s and 1980s. I would see this monitoring as very similar to what happened with telecoms but extended to encompass the Internet. How do you see it?

            1. Gordon Stewart

              Re: @Trevor_Pot

              @Titus Technophobe

              "Have there been any attacks on the tube recently?"

              Well, no - but neither have there been any alien invasions or incidences of cheddar mutating into flesh devouring monsters. Ah, the NSA & GCHQ's excessive snooping *must* be the reason then!

              I'd say it's significantly more probable that there just aren't many people who want to go round blowing things up, or indeed have the ability to do so.

              BTW, I have a rock that keeps away tigers for sale - you interested in buying? It's always worked for me so far!

            2. Anonymous Coward
              Mushroom

              Re: @Trevor_Pot

              I'm sure they did monitor, must have been directed by good intelligence in those days. Perhaps that helped.

              Of course it wouldn't have been enough even if they had been able to monitor everything. I'd always wondered whether airport airside security was very good then or whether the authorities were just very lucky. Tuirns out it was the latter, there was a bomb that didn't detonate placed on a Trident airliner flying from Belfast to London. The reason it didn't work is simple, it was placed under a seat but luckily the passenger that sat there was a fat bastard and his weight disrupted the device so that either the timer failed or the wiring was disconnected in a crucial spot. It was found at Heathrow and the whole thing was hushed up.

              You won't find this in the official archives, but I know someone who was there and it's as true as any other actual IRA incident of the 70s. Personally I missed the Harrods bomb in the early 80s by about half and hour, some of my friends were inside the place when it went off. None of us would have been in favour of the current arrangements because on a large scale they just don't work and they are a threat to everyone for as long as the data is kept in storage for poring over later.

              Sometimes it just comes down to the percentages, there is a tiny chance of being killed by a terrorist in your lifetime but being totally surveilled is always a 100% bad thing for the population at large.

            3. T. F. M. Reader

              Re: @Trevor_Pot

              @Titus Technophobe: "So, you think this intrusion into "ordinary" lives can prevent tube attacks by extremists. So why did it not work?" - "Have there been any attacks on the tube recently?"

              No, but that is because I am wearing a bell around my neck, no thanks to mass surveillance. Terrorist attacks have not stopped: the killing of the soldier in Woolwich by two maniacs is but one recent example. My bell is not designed to help with that, sorry. Surveillance was supposed to help, but didn't.

              1. Anonymous Coward
                Anonymous Coward

                Re: @Trevor_Pot

                My argument being that certainly in the last 50 years this country, the USA and your country probably have been subject to what you might describe as dragnet surveillance, although I would not see the monitoring of communications traffic as such.

                As has, been rumoured but never officially confirmed, there has existed collection of communications traffic information by intelligence services. Just to explain this would be the details of who has called who, and not the content of the message. Where an analysis of traffic information has revealed cause for concern thereinafter, and with the appropriate authorisation, monitoring has also included the content of communications.

                It is my opinion that the Snowden revelations are nothing particularly new. Now in the last 50 years of so I have felt largely that I have lived in a society with a strong principle of personal liberty. In your terms I do not think that either I or society has given up any liberty comparing now to say 1960.

                So have you actually got any coherent argument to counter this opinion? As I have said previous perhaps this time you could take this opportunity to leave aside your somewhat bombastic and frankly insulting rhetoric.

                1. Anonymous Coward
                  Anonymous Coward

                  Re: @Trevor_Pot

                  > It is my opinion that the Snowden revelations are nothing particularly new. Now in the last 50 years of so I have felt largely that I have lived in a society with a strong principle of personal liberty. In your terms I do not think that either I or society has given up any liberty comparing now to say 1960.

                  The 1950s and 1960s was a much freer time. The western world had come out of war rationing in a big way, science was seen as the future and for the first time we could look forward to a more positive future. Then the cold war set in. A situation created entirely by a few people in governments. Ordinary people weren't interested in nuclear weapons, the vast, vast majority of them just wanted to get on with their lives.

                  Now we have the "threat of terrorism". Again, this atmosphere has been whipped up by governments and media in cahoots with them to further particular aims. I don't believe that average man and woman in the street is much concerned about these things.. they just want to get on with things.

                  Over the centuries, governments (albeit secular or religious ones) have sought to enslave the ordinary people to their own selfish aims and perspectives. It is a story told over and over again and we *never* seem to learn those age old lessons.

                  At the current time, we have two things holding the balance: firstly, we have the Internet and electronic surveillance where people can be spying on with a secrecy and scale never before imagined. Secondly, we have widespread and immediate communication that brings to the ordinary joe and joe-ess information about what is going on by these people. Make no mistake, if we didn't have the level of communication available to us, the NSA, GCHQ and their ilk would have a much freer reign and we would have no idea what was going on.

                  Since the second world war, we have the longest period of peace and stability in the western world n recorded history. This is due to communication, education, democracy, a more liberal attitude to those of a different race and a general will to just get on with our lives. It is a triumph, in the main, of our intelligence over our instincts. It has nothing to do with surveillance or spying.

                  As Trevor eloquently puts it, we have the capacity to overcome our basest instincts to be better people.

                  And contrary to what many American politicians think, blasting the shit out of foreign countries will not make them like us. Education, commerce, science and prosperity are the tools of success and will bring with them ability to live with others. Human rights, the decline of religion and a respect for others will naturally follow.

                2. Trevor_Pott Gold badge

                  Re: @Trevor_Pot

                  Dragnet surveillance has indeed impacted my personal liberty. The fact that you, personally, "don't believe we've given up any liberty since 1960" doesn't mean a goddamned thing. I've seen abuses of power first hand. I've had some of those abuses directed at me, personally. Others that have affected the lives of people I care about.

                  Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

                  I believe this is a fundamental truth of human nature.

                  You deny it.

                  Dragnet surveillance is too much power. No argument I might mount, no evidence I present would ever convince you of that, however, because no matter what evidence, no matter what history, no matter which incidents are ever brought to your attention you shrug them off by simply reasserting your personal belief.

                  You are like a door-to-door christian arguing their faith in God. "You can't prove that God doesn't exist so he exists." No matter how much evidence piles up against it, because the evidence isn't iron clad and absolute that person will believe steadfastly in God.

                  You alternate between claiming the ends justify the means and that nobody of import is affected. You are quite liberal with personal attacks in your haughty dismissive sarcasm but decry any attempt to call you on your own personal douchebaggery.

                  I believe in innocent unless proven guilty. I really do. But there are two issues I have with applying this precept to the NSA. The first is that corporations and government organizations are not people. They should not be granted "human rights" and they they must be held to a higher standard than individuals.

                  The second is that we don't need to let the western world become Nazi Germany before we act. We need to see that there is a risk of it occurring, see how it can occur, look for the first signs that power is being abused and then act to reign things in.

                  Abuses of power are occurring, and have been for quite some time. The the real problem is that the sheer scale and cope of what's possible today completely dwarfs anything that was possible in the 60s, 70s, 80s or 90s. ECHELON has got nothing on PRISM, and today's programs make PRISM look like a child's toy.

                  Our technology is racing ahead of our ethics. Our ability to cope with the social changes incurred by the accumulation and centralization of such power is far, far less than our ability to generate new technologies and new means of concentrating even more power.

                  I've been in the room with the overly bright lights a few too many times. I am not a man who has any plans or desires to harm others, to steal someone's job or even to do something so mundane as dodge taxes. Yet I have been to that room too often. I don't like that room, sir. I am not fond of my trips there.

                  Absolute power corrupts absolutely, and all that it takes for evil men to win is for good men to do nothing. We teach this to our children for a reason. It is a true shame these were lessons you've never learned.

                  1. Anonymous Coward
                    Anonymous Coward

                    Re: @Trevor_Pot

                    There is another slant on this also.

                    Bureaucracy feeds itself. Large organisations like the NSA that have no practical limit in their endeavours will grow naturally in scope and size because that's exactly what they do. It is empire building.

                    It's also why the US federal government is the sprawling monster that it is now.

                    And organisations like that are seemingly incapable of seeing this reality from the inside.

                    The NSA will only change its ways when the people and then the administration make it happen.

                    Don't forget, as well as destroying any concept of privacy in the cyber-realm, the NSA and similar organisations are hoovering up billions and billions of dollars of public money in order to achieve it.

                    Just think what could be achieved in the third world with that kind of money properly directed towards education, growth of small business loans..just the kinds of things that the aid agencies say makes the biggest difference to countries currently festering the kind of ill-will towards the US because of its current foreign policies?

                    1. Trevor_Pott Gold badge

                      Re: @Trevor_Pot

                      @Skelband: can't disagree with anything you said, but the solution here isn't anarchy. It's controlled revolution.

                      All laws barring the absolute basics (don't rape, don't murder, don't otherwise deprive people of their fundamental human rights) need to have maximum time horizons. When they hit that horizon they should be brought up for review with severe prejudice towards trowing old laws out. Similarly, all quangos and government organizations should be completely dismantled on a regular basis and their design redone from the ground up with completely new staff and leadership.

                      Recommendations on which law to keep, which quangos/departments to keep and what the details and structure of both will be should be made by independent committees who will prepare reports based on evidence and science. Legislators who choose not to accept a committee recommendation regarding law/quango/departmental review should have to give a public rationale. If the rationale is inadequate then it should be within the power of the citizenry to get X signatures and trigger an election.

                      The solution to corruption is to change politicians and civil servants out regularly. Don't let power concentrate. Ensure the people have the ability to hold the elected and the unelected within their government to task.

                      We also need to get rid of this untenable situation where there are so many laws on the books that any given citizen is breaking several of them every single day no matter how hard they try to be decent folks. The law has become a club used to beat the innocent - and especially the poor - down.

                      Don't even get me started on the statistics of the US prison population, arrest ratios, conviction ratios the "war on drugs" or the sheer lunacy that is the privatization of prisons to form an "industry" around persecution and incarceration.

                      Governments are required...but like diapers, they need to be changed frequently and we always need to be on guard for that telltale smell.

                      1. Anonymous Coward
                        Anonymous Coward

                        Re: @Trevor_Pot

                        > can't disagree with anything you said, but the solution here isn't anarchy. It's controlled revolution.

                        Agreed. I wasn't implying anything like revolution, but the people need to stand up and bring their representatives to book.

                        Problem is, according to what we hear on the Interwebs, a very large proportion don't think that anything is wrong.

                        For us outside the US, I'm not sure what we can practically do outside of lobbying our own parlimentarians to put pressure on the US to change their ways. Although the US is still a strong world nation, they are not nearly as influential as they used to be. What might be an issue is that which plagued the end of the WW2 as regards the Japanese: would they ever find a way to climb down from the status quo while not losing face?

                        1. Trevor_Pott Gold badge

                          Re: @Trevor_Pot

                          Rome fell. The US will too. We should start planning for it be buying and investing at home. It gets easier every day. As the US moves more and more towards "cultural exports" and "intellectual property" - all cloudy and subscription-based, natch - I lose more and more incentive to buy things from them.

                          I'll purchase tangible goods, thanks, and consume my culture from Canadians.

          2. I. Aproveofitspendingonspecificprojects

            Re: @Trevor_Pot why it did not work

            One of the attacks on London's Tube failed because the plonker involved got on a bus.

            To have the mass hysteria rampant in USA deputy sheriffs of You Tube [meme implied, for the hard of thinking] is a complete fail for security and an ongoing hit for UBL. I can't imagine him having a better legacy. How long has it been now?

            And every assault by the securitards is a hit for him. How many other terrorist attacks have come anywhere near that?

        4. NumptyScrub

          Re: Oh Titus, please look at the actual casualty figures...

          quote: "You do have the luxury of commenting from a country where, to date, the level of Islamic terrorist activity is very low.

          I had friends on tubes when Islamic extremists blew up London. Lucky for them they got away with it that time.

          This doesn’t seem to have happened for a while."

          I have the luxury of living through most of the London Bombings of the last 40 years, mostly perpetrated by that terrorist organisation the IRA (or pIRA, or Real IRA, or whichever copycat it was at the time). And I think the reasoning for "we must collect all the chaff in order to sift out the wheat" is a crock of shit; 100% blanket surveillance of every inch of the UK will still fail to catch some "terrorist" plots.

          Also note that over the last half century, we've mostly been terrorised on native soil by Christians (the aformentioned IRA) rather than Muslims.

          I'd also invite you to look at the numbers of lives (potentially) saved; feel free to peruse this list of UK terrorist attacks, add up all of the numbers of killed and injured over the last 40-50 years (I couldn't be bothered, sorry), and then compare them to, say workplace deaths and injuries for one year or possibly road (un)safety figures.

          Then feel free to use those to justify the money and manpower currently spent on anti-terrorist surveillance, vs using that same spend and manpower to make our roads safer.

          I may well be wrong and terrorism might be a credible and likely method of me being killed in the UK. Personally I still think I'm far more likely to die by being rammed off the road by an unobservant driver, but that may be a personal bias based upon perceived threat, rather than actual statistics. I'll be happy to be proven wrong, if UK terrorism attacks are actually far bigger killers than roads or workplace accidents :)

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Oh Titus, please look at the actual casualty figures... @NumptyScrub

            I'd also invite you to look at the numbers of lives (potentially) saved; feel free to peruse this list of UK terrorist attacks,

            The point I am making is that during the last 40 -50 years the UK has always, or at least it is rumored, had in place a communications traffic monitoring system. The monitoring of the Internet as revealed by Snowden is just an extension of the systems.

            As I mentioned before if we hadn’t had these systems how many more attacks would have been successful?

        5. Vic

          Re: @Trevor_Pot

          You do have the luxury of commenting from a country where, to date, the level of Islamic terrorist activity is very low.

          So do you. We all do.

          Vic.

        6. Trevor_Pott Gold badge

          Re: @Trevor_Pot

          @ Titus Technophobe IT wouldn't matter if the level of terrorism were high or not, regardless of the ethnic provenance of the individuals doing the terrorizing. Liberty is too high a price to pay for the illusion of security..

          Maybe I'll die today. Maybe it will be a heart attack from being so overwhelmingly fat. Maybe it will be a car, or lightning, a drug-crazed bum freaking out and trying to rob me or - far, far, far, far less likely - maybe I will be killed by a terrorist.

          Maybe instead of me dying it will be my wife. Maybe my father or sister. Maybe we all die, or maybe we're just wounded and I have to pay large sums of money for the rest of my life to keep us going.

          No matter what may come, fundamental human liberties are too high a price to pay for the illusion of security. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one. Even if that "one" is me. Or my wife. Or any of my loved ones.

          I'm a human being god damn it. I have a choice. I am not an animal run on pure instinct and driven by fear. My ancestors died to build the society we live in today and as his noodly self is my witness, I will do my damnedest to leave it a better world than when I left.

          That means - at a minimum - not giving up those rights that cost us so very much out of fear. It means - at a minimum - not allowing our society to become more like the society the terrorists are demanding we live in just because they use guerrilla tactics against civilians.

          You, sir, are a coward. A dishonorable coward. One that would sell out not only your own self but the rest of your species out of abject fear. I despise you and all who are like you. I am repulsed and offended by your mewling weakness, your greed and your selfishness. I am distressed to know that we share a common genetic heritage. It sickens me..

          If you live in fear of the unlikely, so much that you would betray your fellow man just to lessen the fear that little bit then perhaps you need to work on a little mental exercise.

          I must not fear. Fear is the mind-killer. Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration. I will face my fear. I will permit it to pass over me and through me. And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path. Where the fear has gone there will be nothing. Only I will remain.

          The litany against fear is more effective than the rock in my left hand that keeps tigers away or the PRISM on my right that wards off terrorists. And it doesn't require selling all our souls because of your personal cowardice.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Thumb Up

            Re: @Trevor_Pot

            > You, sir, are a coward. A dishonorable coward. One that would sell out not only your own self but the rest of your species out of abject fear. I despise you and all who are like you. I am repulsed and offended by your mewling weakness, your greed and your selfishness. I am distressed to know that we share a common genetic heritage. It sickens me..

            I'm sorry Trevor: I can't improve on that one bit, and I tried, believe me I tried.

            ElReg, can be have an Upvote +10 button please?

          2. Hit Snooze
            FAIL

            Re: @Trevor_Pot

            >You, sir, are a coward. A dishonorable coward.

            Says the guy behind a keyboard. Just because someone does not share the same opinion as you does not make them a coward or any other name you care to call them. Having to resort to name calling is sad, pathetic, and immediately loses sight of the argument. You had a good post going until the paragraph with the above quote, then you lost all credibility and your good post turned into a schoolboy rant.

            1. Trevor_Pott Gold badge

              Re: @Trevor_Pot

              "Says the guy behind a keyboard."

              I use my real name, on a website where I publish articles. Go to http://www.trevorpott.com and you'll see a great big button for my LinkedIn. My address and phone number are public record and available through the local yellow pages. I own a company - http://www.egeek.ca - where the same sort of information is available through public records, and that company has been mentioned here in the comments, on my personal website and in The Register.

              I hide behind neither pseudonym nor anonymous coward moniker. The individual in question is a coward not because he disagrees with me - I don't give a flaming fuck if you disagree with me, other than that I find arguing with people amusing - they are a coward because of the ideology of outright cowardice they openly espouse.

              Also, for the record, I used voice recognition software to dictate that comment. So basically you're wrong about everything. Welcome to the internet. Your ignorance will be preserved forever.

              1. Anonymous Coward
                Anonymous Coward

                Re: @Trevor_Pot

                You, sir, are a coward. A dishonorable coward. One that would sell out not only your own self but the rest of your species out of abject fear. I despise you and all who are like you. I am repulsed and offended by your mewling weakness, your greed and your selfishness. I am distressed to know that we share a common genetic heritage. It sickens me..

                I will not really go into my opinion of you, other than to say a personal attack on doesn't really provide much to strengthen your argument.

                1. Trevor_Pott Gold badge

                  Re: @Trevor_Pot

                  The argument has been made and made again thousands of times throughout human history. Every time people forget that liberty is too high a price to pay for the illusion of security really bad things happen. Fall of empires kind of bad.

                  You openly preach a doctrine of fear in full ignorance of our species history. I call that outright cowardice. I won't bother with attempting the logical back and forth because fear is by it's very nature irrational. You cannot convince someone who is motivated by fear of anything using logic. It's a basic tenet of human psychology and one of the foundational principles of group dynamics.

                  As for what you think of me, I do hope that you are capable of understanding this, but I could not care half a quantum fluctuation less about what you think of me. As far as I am concerned you are a coward and a traitor to our entire species. The value of your opinion to me is exactly equal the regard I have for the opinions of sociopaths: null.

                  What logical reason would I have to respect the opinion of someone would well sell my freedoms for the illusion of personal security? I cannot comprehend how that individual is any different than an individual who would blithely see me murdered or enslaved for $self_serving_reason. Life without liberty is no life at all. I will fight against people like you who would see me stripped of my liberty with every last ounce of strength, iota of influence, and every bent copper I have.

                  The price of freedom is eternal vigilance. It is against those who would steal our liberties that we must be vigilant. Whether their rallying cry be the illusion of security or a deity that does not exist.

                  1. Anonymous Coward
                    Anonymous Coward

                    Re: @Trevor_Pot

                    OK attempting to strip out the direct personal insults... seems to leave your first paragraph.

                    The argument has been made and made again thousands of times throughout human history. Every time people forget that liberty is too high a price to pay for the illusion of security really bad things happen. Fall of empires kind of bad.

                    Your entire argument appears to be that when people forget liberty empires fall. I have to assume that by 'forget liberty' you mean 'spy on other people is bad'. That said so how do you view the activities of GCHQ's predecessor in cracking the Enigma ciphers?

                    Looking at the rest of your post all I would say that you may have over estimated my place in the grand scheme of things.

                    You openly preach a doctrine of fear ... As far as I am concerned you are a coward and a traitor to our entire species. ... I cannot comprehend how that individual is any different than an individual who would blithely see me murdered or enslaved for $self_serving_reason. Life without liberty is no life at all. I will fight against people like you who would see me stripped of my liberty with every last ounce of strength, iota of influence, and every bent copper I have......

                    I have almost no influence on any of the above apart from a vote for one of three parties all of whom generally seem to approve of that which you seem to disapprove.

                    That said it is still my opinion that the most effective defense against terrorism is police action supported by effective intelligence.

                    1. Trevor_Pott Gold badge

                      Re: @Trevor_Pot

                      Cracking enigma was targeted, and it was spying against the military of a nation state. It was not dragnet surveillance of civilians. That's where you start getting into the SS of Nazi Germany and various other dictators throughout history.

                      Beyond that, your personal influence needn't extend beyond your ability to post. You influence others by voicing your opinion. An opinion so dangerous that it must be challenged. It must be challenged not only on the basis of logical arguments, but also making it perfectly clear that other members of western society absolutely do not find your beliefs socially acceptable.

                      The most effective defense against terrorism is to build a strong a society based on personal liberty and to never compromise your principles, no matter the actions of said terrorists. Show weakness and they will never - ever - stop until you are crushed. Giving up liberty in the vain hope of catching them is demonstrating weakness. You gain nothing and you lose everything.

                      To live in fear is to let the terrorists win. I'd rather die a man than live a coward.

                  2. dan1980

                    Re: @Trevor_Pott

                    I don't quite agree with Trevor's phrasing but I agree with his main point. That much should be obvious from my posts.

                    I don't, however, believe those who disagree to be cowards; at least not necessarily.

                    For my part, my view stems from a personal preference: that liberty and freedom are essential to my own happiness. I would of course love safety as well, but, like any reasonable person, I have priorities and safety is somewhat further down the list than freedom.

                    What follows is selfish - I want a society that protects what is essential to my happiness and quality of life, even if it must lessen the surety of my safety to do so.

                    @Titus evidently has a different personal preference; to him, safety is evidently more important than liberty and freedom and thus he wants a society that preferences the safety of its citizens even at the cost of their freedoms.

                    When I promote and argue for a society that preferences freedom over safety, I am promoting a society that accords with my personal happiness but is in opposition to Titus's personal happiness.

                    So how do we resolve this?

                    From an objective standpoint, treating both safety and liberty as equally important, you have to ask yourself which will be the harder to regain if it is lost?

                    My answer, as well as Trevor's and a great many people on this forum, is that liberty and freedom are by far the harder to regain. History (as well as contemporary events) has shown us that when a people lose their freedoms, the only way to regain them is either a violent revolution or a long, drawn-out conflict; neither without loss of life.

                    In places like Egypt and Syria we have seen just how much bloodshed can result from such conflicts. And, while hard information is difficult to come by, some reports estimate up to 200,000 people interred in North Korean 'labour camps' - often for life, which, in the conditions is often not all that long, with a terrible attrition rate due to starvation, frostbite, illness, etc... Many of the people in these camps are political prisoners.

                    The point is that whatever safety you gain in abandoning freedom and liberty, you will lose far more safety in trying to regain those freedoms and liberties.

                    As a parting thought, let me address one of your (@Titus) statements:

                    "That said it is still my opinion that the most effective defense against terrorism is police action supported by effective intelligence.

                    That opinion is valid and you are entitled to it, but is largely beside the main point, which is that the goal of 'defen[ding] against terrorism', however important, is not more important than defending against the loss of freedom and liberty.

                    To quote Shep Smith (Fox News) when discussing torture: "I don't give a rat's ass if it helps. We are AMERICA! We do not f%$king torture!!"

                    Easily adaptable to this situation. The message is that 'effective[ness]' is not the sole criterion when determining the best course of action. As someone above said, it would be even more effective to put cameras and microphones in every room of every house, apartment, store, office block and public toilet. We could also implant every person with tracking devices that monitor their movements and everything they say, do and see. That would be more effective but that doesn't mean it's the right thing.

                    1. Trevor_Pott Gold badge

                      Re: @Trevor_Pott

                      @dan1980 I believe that anyone who allows fear to rule their judgement is a coward.

                      To be clear: to feel fear is not to be a coward: fear is a good and necessary tool. But fear cannot be allowed to control us. It especially cannot be allowed to control the decisions we make at a societal level.

                      I've no interest in pussyfooting around here with conciliatory gestures and diplomacy. Straight to the heart of it!

                      The argument here is authoritarianism versus liberalism. It is control versus liberty. Religion versus science. It is huddling in a cave, terrified of every sound in the night versus exploration and adaptation. The argument is as old as mankind itself and just as fundamental.

                      Are we to be animals? Ruled by our fear and jumping at every bright light? Or are we to be men, building a better world for ourselves, our society and our descendants? That is the debate that we - as a society - are faced with today.

                      I don't believe that an overwhelming desire for safety is legitimate. I don't believe his "personal preference" is legitimate. I don't believe that his personal preference - or mine - matters a single bent damn.

                      We're not talking here about the choice of wearing blue jeans versus trousers. We're talking about the kinds of decisions that shape entire empires. We're talking about molding societies and building nations.

                      Authoritarian regimes based on control and "security" never work. The peasants get more than a little revolting and a whole bunch of lives are lost.

                      Maybe that's a lesson we need to keep relearning with each generation. Maybe humanity needs to fight this battle forever. That's deep metaphysics to which I will never have answers.

                      What I do know is that we have a choice. We can learn from the past or not. We can choose to overcome our animal fear or we can submit to it. Personally, I view submission to one's own fear as cowardice at a personal level and ruinously dangerous at a societal level.

                      It isn't, however, about what I think, or what Titus thinks. It is about the future of our nations, and whether or not we really need to relearn the lessons that our forebearers died to teach us. Every year we have Remembrance Day; even if some nations call it something else. The catchphrase is "lest we forget" and the lesson is "never again."

                      I have not forgotten, and I will work hard to ensure it doesn't happen again. Too many of my friends have died fighting for my liberty. I owe it to them, to myself and to my entire society to challenge any attempt by anyone - individual or government - to make their sacrifice meaningless.

                      If that nets me downvotes on The Register, sarcastic remarks and the hatred of some commenters...so be it.

                      1. RobHib
                        Unhappy

                        @Trevor_Pott - Re: @Trevor_Pott

                        After reading this I deleted my post, it wasn't off topic but it was off-thread, heated as it is.

                        I agree with just about everything you've said, especially that this argument is about authoritarianism versus liberalism, and those today who hardly care (or the sponges who just suck up the State's mantra without question).

                        I simply despair at the lack of interest average citizens have about their loss of freedoms, they're behaving as if most of the 20th C. never happened—they've seemed to have learned nothing from WWI, WWII, the Cold War etc. It's tragic really, Orwell must be spinning is his grave.

                        Trouble is that mealy-mouth pusillanimous attitude espoused by Titus Technophobe is effectively the prevailing zeitgeist. Despise it as we few may, sufficient numbers are not rioting in the streets or otherwise threatening the establishment to significantly change things; even the momentum has gone out of the issue as it's hardly made the popular news in recent days. From those I spoken to, my observations are that today there's a general resignation that nothing significant can be done about most government these days, thus it's easier to accept what's given.

                        You can see this attitude in Charles Manning's post, even my deleted reply suggested a subversive-workaround to surveillance rather than take the issue head on. Why? Well, democracy isn't working as it should and people have either given up or they're otherwise distracted.

                        It would be informative to know Titus Technophobe's age bracket, I'll bet he's not your age or even mine. If he were then his views would almost certainly be different. He simply hasn't live through the times such as Vietnam, Civil Rights, Kent State etc. which would make him wary of government. I'm a boomer and I lived through '68; in fact, I was a student and out on the streets with most of them back then. Whether we were right or wrong isn't the key issue, it's that we had sufficient commitment to make governments take notice and even act. Ever since that time many of us citizens have had a sense that we have never had as much power to change things as we did back then.

                        Over the years, I've visited many of those WWI and WWII battlefields and there's one thing it certainly teaches which is that there's many who fought and died for freedom and principles of what is right, it's something of which I've never lost sight. What is so depressing about today's attitude is how little commitment the average person has compared to those back then. "Lest we forget", "never again" and "eternal vigilance" weren't just catchphrases, they were embedded in our psyche.

                        1. Trevor_Pott Gold badge

                          Re: @Trevor_Pott - @Trevor_Pott

                          @RobHib thanks for restoring my faith in humanity. It's nice to know that someone else has learned from history. As for age...I'm 31. I've no idea what the rest of this lot are...but I grew up within a stone's throw of a military base. It played a role in shaping my beliefs. It still does.

                          1. RobHib

                            @Trevor_Pott - Re: @Trevor_Pott - @Trevor_Pott

                            As for age...I'm 31.

                            Well you're one of a rare breed. It gives me hope there's still some of the younger generation who are prepared to carry the flag. I usually find those of your age who've such perception and passion have returned from Afghanistan etc. and/or have had mates killed there.

                            Again, I wrote another long reply which I was going to use here but I've self-censored and not posted it (and it had nothing to do with IT). Like you, I feel very strongly about such matters but I'm at a loss how one does anything about it these days other than to bitch online. One warming consolation however is the number of El Reg readers who essentially agree that NSA/GCHQ etc. surveillance stinks, even if they don't agree with Snowden's approach. Well, that's a good start I suppose.

                            1. Trevor_Pott Gold badge

                              Re: @Trevor_Pott - @Trevor_Pott - @Trevor_Pott

                              "I usually find those of your age who've such perception and passion have returned from Afghanistan etc. and/or have had mates killed there."

                              I did have mates killed there. I grew up within pissing distance of a military base, and have spent my entire life connected to the people who work there in one way or another. I was never physically fit enough to serve - or honestly, I probably would have - and I am rather sick of losing friends to the Americans' godawful war.

                              Not that being a civvy means I have the faintest clue in hell what serving on the line is like, just that those who fall there leave behind friends and loved ones here.

        7. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: @Trevor_Pot

          > You do have the luxury of commenting from a country where, to date, the level of Islamic terrorist activity is very low.

          Sorry, but that is a total straw man argument.

          a) It has been declared, by the people that know and are privy to what we cannot know, that the mass surveillance conducted by the NSA to date has not been significantly involved in *any* discovery of terrorist activity to date.

          b) In a free society, you accept that people will do bad things. That is what we as a free people accept. We live with this danger all the time. We do this because the alternative is unthinkable. Ask anyone in China, or North Korea, or East Berlin (when it existed) or Russia what they would rather have, a free society or security: you can't have both.

        8. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: @Trevor_Pot

          The price of freedom is that in a statistically insignificant number of cases, mad people kill others at random and are not stopped before they excute their plot.

          We used to accept this, then some time in the last 20 years or so everyone thought they were at no risk of dying at all except for being killed by maniacs.

    7. T. F. M. Reader

      @Charles Manning

      Untargeted mass surveillance is also an old school way of doing things. In the past it was not closely associated with the United States of America though, but rather with other countries with extensive security apparatuses. It was rarely, if ever, in the arsenal of regular plods, unlike following up on tip-offs. The official justification of "fighting external enemies" is very old school as well.

      The preferred approach in those other countries was labour-intensive rather than technology-intensive, the technological foundation is the only "innovation" the US can chalk up. To put it in terms sadly familiar from our own industry, no "business process" patents will be awarded - just a "one click" one.

    8. LarsG

      "As for the decision to go public, Snowden said he had no choice. Contractors are not covered under existing whistleblowing statutes and said that although some NSA analysts were very concerned about the situation, no one was prepared to put their careers on the line."

      If anything there is probably some real truth behind this statement. I don't think that even President Obama is privy to what really goes on behind the scenes.

      1. rh587

        RE: LarsG

        "If anything there is probably some real truth behind this statement. I don't think that even President Obama is privy to what really goes on behind the scenes."

        Without a doubt.

        The career staffers are not going tell a transitory politician anything they don't need to know, alla Independence Day.

        President "There are no aliens at Area 51"

        Mil Bod "Technically sir, that's not entirely true. Plausible deniability..."

        1. I. Aproveofitspendingonspecificprojects

          Have you got the quote off the real P-dunce that was taken from, just after Pearl Harbour was attacked?

          Not the "live in infamy speech" but the off the record one:

          "Oh?

          Really?

          Oh!"

          or similar.

    9. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Don't oversimplify. It tends to weaken the argument.

      Indeed, there is little difference between plod err...plodding around asking questions when they suspect possible malfeasance and the NSA doing this by electronic means, except for the scale.

      The analogy however breaks down in the face of what happens next.

      Plod wil have to present their evidence - a lot of it possibly circumstantial - to a judge and ask for a mandate to officially open an inquiry and gather evidence on the suspect (s). In this case the judge also decides the scope of the mandate. Any broadening of said scope has to be equally sanctioned by the judge. This guarantees separation between the powers.

      The NSA, however, broad as their mandate is, is not hampered by such trivialities. They qualify every fart as a threat to national security (much as Homeland does, apparently), have the resources and manpower to open an unlimited blanket investigation against which there is no legal protection, decide for themselves if the evidence supports their claim, and nick whoever they want. They can not hauled into a courtroom to explain themselves, and are not bothered by details such as habeas corpus.

      This is wherein the problem lies : not the collection of the information, but the action which is taken upon it. And we all know absolute power corrupts absolutely.

      1. James 51

        Re: Don't oversimplify. It tends to weaken the argument.

        And let's not forget the mortal threat of people recording movies on google glass.

      2. PJI

        Re: Don't oversimplify. It tends to weaken the argument.

        As an ex-plod: asking a judge? Perhaps this is a reference to some USA system or to the Scottish Procurator Fiscal. In England and Wales I never had to ask a judge to be allowed to investigate. One of my jobs was to investigate the causes of any complaint, crime or accident without having to seek permission to do so. Perhaps you are thinking of warrants for property searches.

        However, the real point is that, at least in England and Wales, a policeman can not just do random investigations. There is the concept of "reasonable" suspicion. Of course initial inquiries may involve asking people if they know anything; but it still has to be related. For a burglary in a village in Buckinghamshire, one does not do house to house enquiries in Inverness, asking if anyone saw a strange car outside the house last night.

        To search a suspect's house, the policeman must, then, apply for a warrant with evidence to justify it.

        So, as opposed to this approach involving reasonableness and evidence, the NSA is simply doing the equivalent of detaining and questioning (and recording full details and diary/mobile phone contents) of everyone it meets on the off chance of one of them having done something naughty. This can be summarised as a surveillance society. It is not targetted, nor justified espionage that any country at war or risk of war should do. It is totalitarian-style assumption of rights over all our daily lives.

        If you live in such fear, that you think the loss of freedom is worth the claimed increase in safety, I feel very sad for you. Freedom in a personal sense involves some risk. This 1984 style intrusion has got nothing to do with freedom or safety and, contrary to the thoughts of more extreme USA citizens, is a totally different thing from a state welfare system providing freedom from the worst effects of illness and wont.

    10. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      I am pretty sure cameras and microphones in every house will also general a fair few leads too. Far more than reading everybody's email.

      People might at first feel uncomfortable that they're being filmed w*nking in the shower, and being recorded whispering in their loved-one's ear at night. But the NSA are not interested in this. As long as you're not a terrorist you've got nothing to fear.

      As a first step, let's make it voluntary, and all those supporters like yourself who value security over privacy and 'have nothing to fear' because you've 'got nothing to hide' be the first to have the cameras and microphones installed in their houses.

    11. Michael H.F. Wilkinson Silver badge

      @ Charles Manning

      I always tell my students when they have to do pattern recognition that adding hay does not make finding needles easier. Instead, use a magnet.

      In almost all machine learning (or data mining if you will) good features that give a good (wide margin) boundary in the first place are what you should aim for. A few good (targeted) features in a simple machine learning tool generally give far superior results to poor features combined with more advanced machine learning methods. One key problem in this particular case is that you do not want (m)any false positives, (i.e. false accusations or suspicions), not just because of the risk of jailing or at least harassing innocent people, but also to prevent loads of unnecessary work for people following up on these false leads.

      Thus any way in which you can reduce the probability of false positives is welcome. The simplest is to reduce the number of people under investigation in the first place. Using methods equivalent to the much reviled "wall-of-death" fishing methods, the risk of "collateral damage" as they might euphemistically call this is very real indeed.

    12. Anonymous Coward
      Thumb Down

      But the problem is...

      ...you're not sifting a haystack for needles, you're either sifting a haystack looking for hay or a pile of needles looking for needles...

    13. This post has been deleted by its author

  2. Dr. Ellen

    Amnesty?

    If the US government ever offers amnesty to Snowden, they will be lying. He'll get home, and be disappeared into a deep hole, and whether he's dead or alive, nobody will ever see him again -- except perhaps for Attorney General Holder, who'll drop by occasionally to threaten him.

    1. tom dial Silver badge

      Re: Amnesty?

      And on what basis do you make this rather extraordinary claim? A single example would be quite illuminating.

      1. Pascal Monett Silver badge

        Re: A single example

        I've got an example for you : the continued existence of Guantanamo, despite it being illegal, immoral and supposed to be shut down.

  3. Tank boy

    Whatever

    Snowden is at this point so out of the loop, he can say pretty much anything he wants and pass it of for truth. He could say that he has definitive proof that the tooth fairy exists and the NSA is keeping tabs on the situation, people would probably believe him.

    Come on back to the states Snowden. You'll get your victory parade, replete with a police escort. You can make all the wild accusations you want from a Supermax prison in Colorado, which is better than you deserve.

    1. Denarius
      Trollface

      Re: Whatever

      @Tank boy, Is that really you, Jewelery Bishop ? Your apparent ability to miss _data_ in the article suggests learning difficulties or agent provocatuer activities.

      1. apjanes

        Re: Whatever

        "Snowden is at this point so out of the loop"

        Sorry, where is your evidence for this comment. It is all well and good making a statement of fact like this, but without providing some supporting reasons it is merely a statement of opinion and would better be put, "I think Snowden is at this point so out of the loop". As it is, you may as well say "The tooth fairy does pay for the teeth under children's pillows" it has nearly as much weight.

    2. Schultz
      Angel

      Snowden [...] can say pretty much anything he wants and pass it of for truth

      There is a reason for this: He said a lot of things in the last months and they all turned out to be true. Contrast that with the average statement from the NSA or government officials on the topic.

      They should offer him a position reviewing and supervising the NSA. He seems to have a good idea about what is going on and is brave enough to advocate for change. Just the right person to shut down the ineffective, expensive and unconstitutional programs at the NSA. Pretty much everybody else involved with the NSA seems to attached to their comfortable paycheck or maybe to scared about possible retribution to utter any critique.

    3. Eddy Ito

      Re: Whatever

      People would believe him because he has a lot more credibility than a government that has habitually lied when they get caught. Then they continue to lie in the face of ever mounting evidence. I can understand if you need proof so:

      Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment where the Government gave citizens syphilis, the Pentagon Papers that uncovered the lies about US actions in Vietnam, Dark Alliance where the CIA allowed Nicaraguan drug lords to sell crack cocaine in LA to fund the Contra rebels, Fast and Furious that had government agents overseeing the illegal trafficking of guns to Mexico for what appears to be proving that there is illegal gun trafficking across the Mexican border and no list would be complete without Watergate but this is far from complete as that would be a two hour download on a dedicated OC-192 line.

      1. Captain Hogwash

        Re: Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment

        I've just read about this on Wikipedia. Obviously one should err on the side of caution but, in this case, I suspect the article to be more accurate than your assertion that "the Government gave citizens syphilis". It's still an example of shockingly unethical behaviour by scientists but the case you are trying to argue about Snowden's credibility is not helped by undermining your own.

        1. Eddy Ito

          Re: Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment

          I see your point, my oversimplification resulted in a technically incorrect statement so I shall attempt to expand upon that. Government employees knew individuals were infected and did not inform those individuals. Said individuals proceeded to carry on as people do having sex and children from time to time. While the government employees didn't directly inject people those employees, through lies, allowed their uninformed patients to infect people.

          This seems to be a common feature in how much of the government works. They don't do the dirty work themselves, they have some other sucker do it for them in order to create a few layers of separation. Such separation allowed Holder, after Operation Fast and Furious, to make such audacious statements such as "we are losing the battle to stop the flow of illegal guns to Mexico". Is it possible the people at the top don't know the reason one hand is so busy plugging holes is due to the other hand drilling new ones?

    4. Destroy All Monsters Silver badge

      Re: Whatever

      Snowden is at this point so out of the loop

      So how's the weather in the Big Government Tank in Virginia and so you actually believe you will get pension checks from Uncle Sam later in life?

  4. The Dude
    Holmes

    What will happen in the USA...

    ..if Snowden returns, no matter what they promise, will be much like what happened to Jim Bell. Maybe worse, because Jim Bell didn't actually do anything to anyone or reveal anything.

  5. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    The NSA is just a symptom ot a (corrupt) Corporatist obese and evil government

    Big Government always ends up evil.

    The NSA should not exist, like many evil Big Government agencies; all government existence should be strictly limited, and be viewed as a risky and dispensable luxury, and that maybe there are better solutions for living together, with less deceit, coercion, force, oppression, chronic damage, and death!

    A possible solution is to wipe the slate clean better than the US revolution did, and keep it clean, by making personal (NOT Prussian state) education, vigilance, and the distributed practice and keeping of effective disabling and deadly weapons, as key parts of human culture, so that we have genuine security. We should be very suspicious of all Secret Societies, and other group endeavors which appear to provide no clear benefit.

    1. AndyS

      Re: The NSA is just a symptom ot a (corrupt) Corporatist obese and evil government

      So what you're saying is... you need more guns? So, how's that working out for the USA so far?

      1. rh587

        Re: The NSA is just a symptom ot a (corrupt) Corporatist obese and evil government

        "So what you're saying is... you need more guns? So, how's that working out for the USA so far?"

        Well, Kennesaw, GA went as far as to mandate that every household maintain a firearm and ammunition.

        Between 1982 and 2005 burglaries fell massively and remain well below the national average.

        Chicago has incredibly tight gun controls and massive gun violence involving black market firearms and organised criminal gangs.

        So, what you're saying is... massive cities are the same as rural Georgia.

        How are those massively sweeping statements working out for you?

  6. Salts

    Whatever his motives...

    Give the man his due, he has caused a shit storm and a one that was needed, best of all just after Obama comes up with solutions(ok few months late), he kicks it into touch. Not bad for a contractor, whatever his personal reasons, he has done us all a favour, governments bluster when they get caught with their trousers down and the US government is a blustering.

  7. apjanes

    Power tends to corrupt...

    In thinking about this article, governments and in particular the US government and the NSA the quote came to mind "Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely". In researching the quote I discovered, firstly that I had remembered it slightly wrong and secondly that it came from Lord Action in a letter to Bishop Mandell Creighton in 1887. A longer quote seemed quite apt:

    "I cannot accept your canon that we are to judge Pope and King unlike other men, with a favorable presumption that they did no wrong. If there is any presumption it is the other way against holders of power, increasing as the power increases. Historic responsibility has to make up for the want of legal responsibility. Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men, even when they exercise influence and not authority: still more when you superadd the tendency or the certainty of corruption by authority. There is no worse heresy than that the office sanctifies the holder of it."

    (http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/John_Dalberg-Acton,_1st_Baron_Acton)

  8. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    The relevant amendments read as follows...

    Amendment 1: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

    Amendment 4: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

    Amendment 5: No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb, nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

    Presidents Obama and Bush were steadfast in their ignoring the Consitution of the United States, as have all the other politicians we have elected to office, along with their appointees, such as the nine member Supreme Court. Ignoring the consitution makes their jobs simpler, safer, and more convenient--for them! It diminishes the rights of citizens, of course, but who cares about that? If the citizenry will not get up of of its lazy ass and throw these ne'er-do-well politicians out, then we deserve every abuse they impose on us.

  9. Forget It

    Snowden always comes over as a really smart guy - make a good hubby for some one brave.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      "Snowden always comes over as a really smart guy - make a good hubby for some one brave."

      Chelsea Manning?

      Sorry, couldn't resist the opportunity for that one. I think both Snowden and Manning are heroes, doing things to expose wrongdoing despite the huge personal cost. I'm sure most of the rest of us (Brit, Yank or Antipodean) would have gone along and been complicit in the wrongdoing, and kidding ourselves that it all supported "national security".

    2. I. Aproveofitspendingonspecificprojects

      I wonder why you were downvoted. He always stikes me as a superhero. I wonder if it is because he offends the US caricature of a real superhero as one who wears his undepants over his bodystocking?

      This is an ace quote:

      "There is no worse heresy than that the office sanctifies the holder of it." even better that its more famous accompanying script.

  10. Destroy All Monsters Silver badge
    Trollface

    Obama will fix him ... I mean, this!

    Sean Wilentz – Court Historian, NSA Shill, and Lickspittle ‘Liberal’

    With a few notable exceptions, the "progressive" media matrix – the lefty pundits, thinktanks, academics, and activists who make up the Democratic party’s core intellectual constituency – have reacted to the Snowden revelations with hysterical denunciations, not of the government but of the leaker: the hate emanating from the MSNBC studios is hot enough to burn if you get too close to your television. And it’s not just the pundits: Norman Soloman rightly called the response from progressive Democrats in Congress "murky," and that’s certainly an understatement. Sure, some of this can be attributed to partisanship, but there’s an ideological motivation for this illiberal stance as well. ...

    [Progressive historian Sean Wilentz in The New Republic] – whose work has focused on the role of race and class in American politics – digs up morsels of Internet commentary by Snowden in order to show he’s ideologically suspect. The piece has all the hallmarks of a Pravda polemic, circa 1933, which purports to demonstrate that Stalin’s critics are Trotskyite wreckers on Hitler’s payroll. There is no treatment of Snowden’s claim that the NSA’s intrusive programs violate the Fourth Amendment, or that such a comprehensive spying apparatus conducted in secret represents a mortal threat to our democracy: instead, Snowden, Greenwald, and Julian Assange are given an ideological litmus test at the end of which they are diagnosed as …. libertarians!

    This is their "crime."

    Wilentz cites an Internet posting in which Snowden writes: "It’s my only gun, but I love it to death." This is the Professor’s first clue that Snowden is Not One of Us: "The Walther P22," he avers, "a fairly standard handgun, is not especially fearsome, but Snowden’s affection for it hinted at some of his developing affinities." Why, he probably watches "Duck Dynasty"!

    Horrors! But there’s worse to come....

  11. Roj Blake Silver badge

    I remember a few months back when the boss of M15 said that the Snowden leaks meant that Al Qaeda could now "hit us at will."

    Are we to take the absence of any attacks from Al Qaeda in the intervening time to mean that Al Qaeda don't actually want to attack us? Or is it that the aforementioned spook was lying and doesn't in fact need reams of data on everyone to keep us safe from them?

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      @ Roj Blake

      The "us" he meant was MI5. That's the society that he's most interested in protecting :)

  12. codejunky Silver badge

    I feel sorry for the guy

    Innocent until proven guilty doesnt apply here. Even a neutral foreign party couldnt be found because the US is such a huge and world impacting entity that every country is either for or against them. There doesnt appear to be any way to resolve this well because snowdon should be put on trial, fairly and with the legal protections of the whistle blower weighed against the national security.

    A trial needs to be held on his intentions and his actions, not the bruised ego of a government. I wonder how many people would have the courage to give up their life for what they feel is the right thing. Not sure if I could do that nor if I know anyone who would do that.

    1. tom dial Silver badge

      Re: I feel sorry for the guy

      I don't think "innocent until proven guilty" applies here (yet). If Mr. Snowden were to be arrested, arraigned, and brought to trial, the ground rules would be such that the government would need to prove to a jury beyond their reasonable doubt that Mr. Snowden had committed the specific actions that constitute the crime(s) charged. Absent that he would be found not guilty and released, and could not be retried on the same alleged offenses.

      Juries may, in some circumstances, consider a defendant's state of mind in reaching a verdict, but generally are not supposed to decide guilt or innocence based on whether they think the defendant had good intentions. Jury nullification, however, is rare but not entirely unknown.

  13. Xamol
    Big Brother

    Mass Surveillance

    Firstly before I get instantly flamed; it'll happen anyway but let me start with this: Mass, indiscriminate, secret surveillance is bad. In my opinion (a fairly commonly held opinion) this is because of the potential for what the data collected could be used for in future. Very few people would agree that a state with such power is a good thing if they have any understanding at all of history or some current, less than benevolent regimes. I see that stance pretty much as a principle worthy of vigorous defence.

    With that in mind, try putting yourself in the position of the NSA, GCHQ etc imagine there's a tool you could have that has the potential to help you identify threats to security - on some level you are going to want to have it. It's human nature to believe that you'll use that tool responsibly and for the good of your community. The best of us believe that we can be trusted but even so, you may resist that desire based on your principles. Add to that the pressure that these organisations are under to produce results and it must become very hard to defend a principle that potentially hampers your duty and is probably at odds with other principles you hold regarding protection of life. I guess the point is that I don't think it's realistic to expect these organisations to have behaved much differently. It's also very possible that they have to date, largely been using their power responsibly and for the good of the community etc. (I can feel the down votes coming but please read on...)

    In my opinion, it's the responsibility of the elected government to defend such principles. Unfortunately, at this point politics is introduced so how the hell do you get a clear, sensible position on such an important issue? Imagine yourself in that situation: GCHQ etc tell you it could implement a mass surveillance program and potentially improve security. Great, but you're a good person blah blah blah and mass surveillance is against a strongly held principle blah blah blah. On the other hand, the people who elected you aren't going to be happy about being blown up. What do you do? Well you could put the responsibility onto the people and hold a referendum. Thing is, you were elected to represent the people and to make decisions for them... and besides most people don't have the information or understanding required to make a balanced decision anyway. What do you do?

    Our government(s) went ahead and implemented the surveillance programs with a level of oversight. What would you have done? I think I would have done the same thing, but differently (please read on before you flame me...)

    Firstly, I wouldn't have done it secretly. I would have tried to get broad, cross party agreement on how to proceed - including what oversight, checks and balances should be in place. Then I would have had all parties communicate that agreement with a common message. I recognise that in achieving this I would have to have attained god like power but part of my point is that none of this is easy for the people actually dealing with it for real.

    Anyway, to continue with my plan... The oversight and control of collected data would be from an openly elected body (separate from the users of the data) who would have to publicly report every requested use of that data as well as other details such as when individuals have been identified/associated with the data (i.e. anonymity has been lost) and how many identified individuals are being routinely tracked via this data etc. Add as many measures here as needed to identify if/when the program is being used to monitor the masses rather than select individuals. I'd also have measures to identify when the data had actually done something useful like leading to conviction (none of that and it gets shut down). Naturally, on an IT level, all data that could be used to identify an individual would be encrypted and procedures would be in place to enforce the publicly communicated processes for accessing that data. There would also need to be regular IT reviews from different external companies to ensure that those procedures are properly in place and that data is secure end to end.

    I would also pass a bill that automatically shuts the program down after x years unless that bill is re-ratified in parliament/congress before it expires. This gives the opportunity for it to be amended or ended on a regular basis. Also, the people elected to that body wouldn't be able to hold the position for more than a defined period of time. Hopefully this would help create an environment where whistle blowing is encouraged.

    The elected officials running the body would also have responsibility for reviewing why data has been requested i.e. they would have access to the operationally sensitive information that led to the security services requesting the data. They would also have access to the names of those being investigated (ummm - why are we tracking a Mr Iain Thomson???).

    I'm sure there are lots of other ideas out there that could build on or replace mine but it would be a step in the right direction. I recognise that we would still have mass surveillance but at least it wouldn't be secret, it wouldn't be indiscriminate, it would be demonstrably anonymous (for the masses at least) and it would be easier for the people to influence when it is stopped.

    I know I've proposed that the principle is compromised (which I dislike too) and that's enough for a few down votes at least but would you still be so inflexible if you had just walked out of a tube station that had been blown up? If you would then I very much respect your stance - down vote away...

    I can think of lots of other reasons for down voting this as well; after all, this is a comment on el Reg not a comprehensive political manifesto but I defy anyone to come up with something that isn't objectionable in some way. So before you down vote me or flame me, try coming up with an alternative and post that as well...

    We're all IT professionals and hopefully quite intelligent... so what would you do?

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Mass Surveillance

      @Xamol,

      I would have done exactly what we should have done. Punish those who were supposed to have been on duty, just as we did those at Pearl Harbor, and then set about getting justice for our dead. We did not need a new security program. The newly extended NSA was strictly bureacratic opportunism at work. They could have set about their jobs differently, but sought to exploit the World Trade Center Atrocity as a means to their ends.

      1. Xamol

        Re: Mass Surveillance

        @Billy Catringer

        Sounds very simple and an interesting comparison drawn with Pearl Harbor. However, that was an overt act of war from a nation state so identifying those responsible was simple. I doubt it's so simple to identify the current terrorist cells in the UK and US.

        Bureaucratic opportunism may have been at work but my point still holds that the elected representatives of the people should be held responsible for protecting the privacy of the people. How, is the difficult bit...

        1. Roj Blake Silver badge

          Re: Mass Surveillance

          They managed to identify a couple of nation states to invade after 9/11.

          One of them may even have been tangentially involved.

          1. Xamol

            Re: Mass Surveillance

            That tangent being that they produced oil from which the aviation fuel was derived that powered the planes...

        2. I. Aproveofitspendingonspecificprojects

          Re: Mass Surveillance... the difficult bit.

          elected representatives of the people should be held responsible for protecting the privacy of the people.

          I can't help feeling it is all smoke and mirrors to detract from the fact they already had all the information they needed to prevent or attempt to prevent the attack on the twin towers. It's a very elaborate plan, gone downhill in a slippery handbasket due the weight of the fools onboard increasing exponentially.

          Nobody got done for the ineffective use of information prior to the attack and nobody got done any more seriously after the attack on Pearl Harbour than Lieutenant Kermit A. Tyler who told the radar operators who warned of the imminent attack not to worry about it. (He ended the war a lieutenant

          a lieutenant colonel .)

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Mass Surveillance

      "so what would you do?"

      Well I'd have been realistic. Failure of existing systems enabled 9/11. That should be fixed, but instituting a new, vast automated system wasn't a fix, and never will be. Mass surveillance couldn't even stop the amateurs behind the Boston bombings (despite the Ruskies waving a red flag at the US authorities to alert them). The Times Square bomber, the shoe and underpant bombers were all foiled in their intentions by their own incompetence, not by the expensive and ineffectual NSA+GCHQ. A broadly similar situation exists in the UK over terror attacks and attempts here that the mass surveillance loved by bureaucrats has stopped nothing, and ordinary policing, luck,or incompetence of the attackers has been the main ways they've been stopped.

      Unfortunately, Obama and Congress (and the British parliament) have shown their true colours. They like mass surveillance, they won't condemn it, they won't stop it, and they don't care what the public think. Unfortunately, mass surveillance will evolve as some clever but misguided fool decides that he can code a system that will predict who becomes a terrorist. Two years ago if I'd mentioned Minority Report in this context I'd have been classed as a tin foil hatter. Knowing what we know about the NSA, and its links to the tech industry, and watching how the likes of Google track everything you do to predict what you'll buy, it seems pretty obvious that soon (if not already) innocent people will be labelled by an algorithm that brings together their opinions from online activity, emails, their contacts via email, Linkedin, Facebook, their purchase and travel history, what they read, their choice of news articles they looked at on the internet. And equally, people who are guilty as sin will be overlooked because such a system is flawed.

      To put it simply, mass surveillance is a means of repression. There is no evidence of its successful use for real, democratic security, and plenty of evidence of scope creep and use by the wrong people for the wrong reasons. We expect this sort of behaviour from the Chinese and Russian governments, and we expect it to be used against the people.

      The NSA have done untold damage to the international reputation of the USA, and fiddling around with "oversight" of their activities (which would still be done by the 1%, behind closed doors) doesn't deliver. So what would I do? I'd abolish the NSA as it now exists, and hunt down those allowed or who planned for it to become a data scooping Stasi, and I'd punish them. Oh, and I'd grant an unconditional pardon to Snowden and Manning, and award both the Presidential Medal of Freedom. As things stand that gong is probably being awarded to the highly paid, unaccountable bloke running the NSA. Is that what America stands for today?

  14. John Smith 19 Gold badge
    Unhappy

    "because new technologies make it easy and cheap."

    That's the real and only justification.

  15. tom dial Silver badge

    Somewhere between many and almost all of the comments are seriously over the top. There are on one hand those which fix on the massiveness of the surveillance and its assumed infringment of liberty, and on the other those (far less numerous) which suggest that to prevent terrorist attacks it somehow is sort of warranted. Both claims are, in the present, more than a bit far-fetched.

    There is very little evidence, if any at all, that the domestic phone and other metadata and its analysis has led to any general loss or infringement of personal liberty. There also is little or no evidence that this data has been very useful, let alone essential, in preventing any attacks. Both are understandable inasmuch as the data seems actually to have been used in the order of a few thousand times a year. Arguments on both points seem more hypothetical than real and are likely to remain so.

    I suggest that we are experiencing the early phase of a moral panic, itself fruit of the earlier moral panic that followed upon the 9/11 attack and was enhanced by the Madrid and London bombings. That this is so is suggested by the fact that there seems to be little similar opposition (yet?) to the US Postal Service collection and retention of the corresponding metadata for all first class mail (to "prevent" further anthrax attacks?) or to the cameras on nearly every street corner in US and UK cities. None of this surveillance has any real utility in identifying terrorists (or, indeed, more common criminals) either before or after they act. Yet as far as I have seen, only the Section 215 metadata program has generated widespread opposition.

    The plain facts are that the Section 215 metadata program appears to be effectively useless for its claimed purpose, is extremely unlikely ever to become effective, and costs a lot of money that could be spent much more wisely (although the amount, in federal, or even DoD, budget context really is not very large). Although it could be used by a malevolent government to suppress dissent, there is no evidence that it has been; and a government out to suppress its citizens has plenty of cost effective means to do so, goons and truncheons being among the obvious. It could at the margin be used to intercept terrorists before, or more likely after, they act, but either probability is small and evidence of either is seriously lacking. Even then, its admissibility in a criminal proceeding and its acceptability to jurors are doubtful. We should do without this data, avoiding the small risk of its misuse, and accepting the small risk that it would be necessary, as opposed to merely expedient, to disrupt plots and capture plotters.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      > There is very little evidence, if any at all, that the domestic phone and other metadata and its analysis has led to any general loss or infringement of personal liberty.

      Perhaps you could further define what you mean by personal liberty.

      I would classify it, in this instance, as the ability to be anonymous. The right to a private life. The right to disappear. As human beings, we need this right.

      To all those out their in the "if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear camp", I would ask if you would be happy to walk down the street naked? Would you mind someone watching you take a dump? How about an audience whilst having sex with the missus? How about someone poking around in your diary?

      For something a little more down to earth, how about someone following you wherever you go? In this case it's not a person, but a machine. You might find it creepy having a real someone tailing you all day, but your mobile phone is doing it for you. Don't let the creepyness fool you. The wrongness of it is *not* that there is a person. It is that it is being done at all.

      People think that 1984 is creepy and somehow repugnant because people are doing it. The truth is, that was never how it was going to be. 1984 is happening now and the machines are doing it on a scale that people would never be able to. It is subtle but the fingers of surveillance are going to be everywhere. We have 'leccy meters monitoring what's going on in the house. Your mobile phone is tracking you as you move about. So much communication these days is done entirely electronically. Business is done over the Internet including your banking. Almost all public spaces have a camera poring over them shortly to have face recognition scanning to look for crims. Police will have the same tech strapped to their tunics. Speed camers can now store the registration plates of all that pass. Public transit systems more often than not these days use some kind of smart card which logs all your journeys centrally. Google is trying to convince us to carry cameras around in our glasses: they don't download imagery to the Internet yet (or do they?) but automatic syncing to your Google Plus account will surely follow and you can bet your bottom dollor, it will integrate with face recognition to help you identify your friends, or friends of friends.

      We are a social animal and we like, in the main, to socialise. However, more and more we need to be able to disappear just to retain our sanity. Very shortly, that will be a pipe dream.

This topic is closed for new posts.

Other stories you might like