Spies

[For Us All]

Leaders of MI5,MI6 and GCHQ claim that the recent disclosures by Edward Snowden and the Guardian newspaper have severely damaged our national security.Should the security services be allowed to look at emails and phone messages to try and protect us?

 

Views and opinions please.

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/terrorism-in-the-uk/10434196/Terrorists-are-rubbing-their-hands-with-glee-after-Edward-Snowden-leaks.html

[RAF Vale]

Yes, I would prefer the security services read my emails reference my travel arrangements to go to Vale games than me and my mates get blown up on the way there.

[JOHNNYAITCH]

Yes..what really matters is what is done with the info

[Jimmy]

I dunna care. I have nothing to hide.......

[JOHNNYAITCH]

I dunna care. I have nothing to hide.......

 

That's what they want you to believe:shifty: You won't get that next job cos they know that you are a football supporter and they don't employ football supporters :(

[Tone]

I'm the same, I have nothing to hide and, when we participate in email, social media and so on, we speak out loud. It's just the same as holding court in a pub or, somewhat differently, those people who have annoying phone conversations on trains.

 

But why is it that, when we acquire this intelligence, people consider that we shouldn't do whatever takes to thwart the threats? If it means drones, traditional airstrikes or boots on the ground, someone has to stop these bad guys before they act.

[JOHNNYAITCH]

I'm the same, I have nothing to hide and, when we participate in email, social media and so on, we speak out loud. It's just the same as holding court in a pub or, somewhat differently, those people who have annoying phone conversations on trains.

 

But why is it that, when we acquire this intelligence, people consider that we shouldn't do whatever takes to thwart the threats? If it means drones, traditional airstrikes or boots on the ground, someone has to stop these bad guys before they act.

 

You'll be Ok then if something you say quite innocently in an email is intercepted, interpreted a certain way, perceived as some sort of thereat and you're interned for a while whilst they investigate you and find out you're not a bad guy?

 

My point being that not only bad guys will be apprehended on the basis of gathered info...those with nothing to hide will also be affected as others may not think that you have nothing to hide...that something you see as perfectly innocent they do not

 

It all depends how the info is used

[Tone]

It all depends how the info is used

 

D'accord, mon ami.

[Paul6754]

Leaders of MI5,MI6 and GCHQ claim that the recent disclosures by Edward Snowden and the Guardian newspaper have severely damaged our national security.Should the security services be allowed to look at emails and phone messages to try and protect us?

 

Views and opinions please.

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/terrorism-in-the-uk/10434196/Terrorists-are-rubbing-their-hands-with-glee-after-Edward-Snowden-leaks.html

 

I'm all for it as I've nothing to hide. I'm also for id cards and mandatory DNA testing, particularly the latter would save lives, cut crime and save huge amounts of money.

 

Better to be proactive than reactive.

 

Snowden is a very naive and stupid man.

[Andyregs]

We definitely live in the post privacy age. I've always presumed/expected that laws have always been broken by spies and the like, and have been happy to be ignorant of it to some degree as long as such methods aren't used in courts of law necessarily.

The big issue is how it's used and being careful how much of our civil liberties we are happy to give up to balance our safety. What if you are very critical of governments or lead a protest group and you are wrongly held based on such information. Even if it's for one day? some would argue that if 100 people are arrested and released but one terrorist is caught and lives are saved then it's good....as long as they aren't the one arrested obviously.

As for ID cards, i haven't seen a decent argument for them. The financial cost would be massive, and the problems would be huge (what info would you keep on them...health?...criminal?...financial?, what about identity theft?). Added to that, the only way you could actually use them proactively is if the police were given powers to racial profile. You look slightly dark skinned, can I see your ID card please.

I've always wondered how happy we would be to be ignorant of certain practices. Watching 24 made me think about torture. We all if asked would be against its use probably. And obviously it would be stupid for it to be used to find information for a court case. But if we had arrested a terrorist, and we were 99%sure he was a terrorist, and he knew of an imminent attack, would we expect someone to do what was necessary to get the information? It goes against everyone I've always believed in (I've always argued against things like the death penalty for example), but I can't say if it came down to it, If I had to make the call, I'd be totally against it. And from a philosophical point of view, it could possibly be justified. The lives of thousands against the pain of one possible terrorist?

I do accept that with regards to protecting the country and it's people, things will never be black and white. The problem with the grey bits are because some of the grey areas break laws, who polices them, and how do we make sure things don't go too far,that too many liberties are given up.

[For Us All]

Should Edward Snowden and those at the Guardian newspaper be charged with treason for leaking sensitive information which puts people in danger?

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/press/guardian-editor-alan-rusbridger-to-face-mps-over-edward-snowden-intelligence-leaks-8930265.html

[JOHNNYAITCH]

I'm all for it as I've nothing to hide.

 

But what you see as nothing to hide others may see as something more sinister and use their knowledge of that against you and you might not even know that they have done so.

 

SHould you not be in control of what people know about you?

[JOHNNYAITCH]

what info would you keep on them...health?...criminal?...financial?, what about identity theft?

 

Just enough to identify someone maybe biometric info. Health/criminal/financial details would not be held on the card but on a centralised DB. Identify theft would in fact be made more difficult especially if combined with 'token' verification

 

Of course the security on the centralised DB would have to be the very best that there is..we may not be ready for that yet

 

). Added to that, the only way you could actually use them proactively is if the police were given powers to racial profile.

 

Nonsense

 

"Sir we're looking for a 6 ft white guy wearing jeans and an Iron Maiden t-shirt named Arnie Shufflebottom who is wanted for a theft and you match that so may we see your ID card please to prove that you are not Arnie Shufflebottom"

 

Plenty of proactive situations

[geosname]

I.D. Cards are widely used here, every Thai has one. If you have any dealings with government, passport,driving license, etc you need one, opening,closing,using a bank account and even changing money needs an I.D. Card. There is no magnetic strip or embedded chip to hold information.

Im not a supporter of governments sifting emails or listening in. The first question I ask myself is would I trust the people who could have access to the information?... the answer is a resounding NO... the second question is would the information be safe?... the answer again is no.

How much personal freedom should we forsake to protect personal freedom?

[JOHNNYAITCH]

The first question I ask myself is would I trust the people who could have access to the information?... the answer is a resounding NO... the second question is would the information be safe?... the answer again is no.

 

Excellent questions..are the people entrusted with this info competent enough? How would things change as governments change? Should govt even have access to the info?

 

It all depends what they do with the info