[Josy]

We watched CITIZENFOUR on C4 last night and even though I knew about him and had read up about it all before, I had never watched the movie, I'm just wondering what others think of the information Ed Snowden revealed?

After Laura Poitras received encrypted emails from someone with information on the government's massive covert-surveillance programs, she and reporter Glenn Greenwald flew to Hong Kong to meet the sender, who turned out to be Edward Snowden

What is your opinions on the fact that the government are gleaning tons of info about us from everything we do, including phone data, online searches and purchases, bank info, were we go to, who we visit and so on..

My personal opinion is that it goes wayyy beyond security for the country like threats against terrorists for example which would make it totally acceptable of course if they had reason to investigate people, but where is the line? most of us are not criminals, terrorists etc, it's a complete invasion of privacy and no I don't have anything to hide from anyone but surely this means people that that are not involved in any wrong doings or suspected of being a threat to the country should have the basic right to be left alone?

Opinions?

Edit - I forgot to add, this isn't a debate about whether Ed Snowden was right or wrong to do what he did, I want to know what people think of the information he leaked, which often gets overlooked due to the 'He is a traitor, No he isn't' arguments.

[Nedusa]

Who watches the watchers.......?? where is the accountability. we know power corrupts and people in such positions of absolute power find it very hard to stay honest, neutral and objective.

Therefore it is entirely possible Govt's allow messy issues to be handled by covert agencies for which they have no oversight and things are brushed under the carpet.

As such I believe it is not only right for people like Ed Snowden to blow the whistle from time to time, it is actually their duty to inform the US or UK populations of some of the actions that are undertaken supposedly in their name.

We all want to be kept safe but there is always a line that should not be crossed.

It is also needed to shine a light on illegal or unlawful activities of politicians who subvert normal procedures for personal gain.

On balance the public have a right to freedom of information across all areas of Govt.

[lostalex]

i'm still waiting to see a case of them abusing their power. if they were spying, and then using the information to blackmail people based on what they saw, like maybe they see a man is cheating on his wife, or someone is gay, or someone has a drinking problem, but i haven't seen any evidence that the government agencies are using those types of things against innocent people.

Everything i've seen so far seems like they really are just trying to keep people safe. so i don't understand the problem.

If there was new evidence that actually the NSA or GCHQ were using person information, like personal issues against people from their spying, then i'd have more of a problem with it, but so far i haven't seen them doing that.

So far, all of the leaks have shown that they are doing exactly what we want them to do, which is investigate dangerous people, and do their best to stop them. Do they also discover embarassing things about people? yes, but they aren't persecuting people for embarrassing things like cheating on their wife, or having a drinking problem, they ignore those things.

i watched Citizenfour last night, and i don't think Edward Snowden should go to prison, he seems like a genuinely good guy (unlike greenwald and assange, who just seem to hate the US and want attention) and i think he did the right thing by exposing what he did, but i also think snowden ignored the larger picture, which is that the NSA and GCHQ have not been abusing their powers. I'm sure the NSA and GCHQ find out all sorts of unsavory things about tons of people while they are looking for terrorists, but they haven't been proven to have used that information against anyone innocent. There's no proof that they have abused their power.

[arista]

Josy
if it Stops Terrorists
from Shooting a machine gun
at the public - then its needed
here

[kirklancaster]

I admit to being totally undecided about this issue and cannot really add much to what Josy, Nedusa, Alex, and Arista have already said.

I don't really have a problem with Governments 'investigating' suspicious citizen's where they feel National Security may be compromised, but I am not in favour of 'information gathering' of 'ordinary' citizens who have never given reasons to be suspected of terrorism or similar.

My primary, and very real concern with the above, is Human Fallibility. There is already evidence of Data Bases and Personal Details being sold by corrupt individuals within our Police Service, Vehicle Registration Centre, Local Government and God only knows who else. Money is the great corrupter, and while ever interested parties are covertly willing to pay for Personal Data about people, then there are, or will be sooner than later, corrupt individuals within 'Official' organisations who have access to such information who are eager to trade.

As Nedusa said: "Who watches the watchers".

Uncomfortable stuff.

[bots]

The problem that the security forces face now is that they have to react incredibly quickly to avert a threat. To be able to do this, they have to analyse a huge amount of data very rapidly. So while on the face of it, when looked in isolation, it seems like an invasion of privacy, the fact is the information is being filtered for particular key words and trends. Within that context, its not as bad as it would appear, but of course it can and will be abused on occasion.

I don't think there is an easy answer to it to be honest.

[DemolitionRed]

Sometimes it feels like our government are being guided by George Orwell’s pen.

‘External’ communication can be taken at will, without need for probable cause and this is why the UK authorities had redefined a very large chunk of UK internet use as ‘external’. Facebook is external which means our private emails can be snooped upon and information shared without some internal body having to get the authority to do so.

I very much believe that our present and recent governments have been the architects of fear campaigns as good excuse to set up yet more domestic surveillance that can snoop on its citizens. Whilst security is good, there has to be balance reached between the apparent need for enhanced security and the infringement that causes on our freedom of expression, movement and privacy

[Kizzy]

Maybe there are triggers, things that when purchased in large quantities flag up, large amounts of money are moved around, sites that are suspect?

I haven't seen it yet but I can't say I'm surprised by this, I thought it was a given we were all being scruitinised.

[smudgie]

Hmmmm, it still makes no difference to me.
I am of the opinion that the more they know the better.
Shame they can't use all this information to crack criminal cases and help the police to catch the crooks...or do they? Will we ever know ?

[Kizzy]

Shame they can't use all the tech they have to catch high profile peadophiles and it has to be done anonymously...

[Livia]

The price of freedom is eternal vigilance. It's not as if the government are compiling piles of information purely to snoop on ordinary people with ordinary lives. Anyone with a supermarket loyalty card has information stored and passed on about them - what newspaper you buy, how much you spend... it's all amalgamated by companies like Experian who, from the information gleaned, can take a pretty good guess at which way you vote, for instance, and this information is for sale under the trade name Mosac. I don't see anyone cutting up their loyalty cards though. Also, we're less vigilant about our own personal information than ever with half the country sharing personal info, photos etc. social networks.

We might want to live in a country where personal information is totally personal and no information is collated about anyone. But then we'd see how many terrorists incidents are stopped every year because all those incidents would go ahead and there'd be carnage. Then there'd be a thread on how the security services aren't doing enough. It's not possible to have it all ways.

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

Shame they can't use all the tech they have to catch high profile peadophiles and it has to be done anonymously...

Why just 'High Profile' paedophiles? Why not all paedophiles no matter what status in life they are?

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by kirklancaster

Why just 'High Profile' paedophiles? Why not all paedophiles no matter what status in life they are?

Isn't Kizzy referring to the "Anonymous hackers attack on high profile paedophiles"?

[Livia]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

Isn't Kizzy referring to the "Anonymous hackers attack on high profile paedophiles"?

Maybe... but when you're acting outside the law like the hackers are, you have no restrictions like those by which the security services are bound.

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by Livia

The price of freedom is eternal vigilance. It's not as if the government are compiling piles of information purely to snoop on ordinary people with ordinary lives. Anyone with a supermarket loyalty card has information stored and passed on about them - what newspaper you buy, how much you spend... it's all amalgamated by companies like Experian who, from the information gleaned, can take a pretty good guess at which way you vote, for instance, and this information is for sale under the trade name Mosac. I don't see anyone cutting up their loyalty cards though. Also, we're less vigilant about our own personal information than ever with half the country sharing personal info, photos etc. social networks.

We might want to live in a country where personal information is totally personal and no information is collated about anyone. But then we'd see how many terrorists incidents are stopped every year because all those incidents would go ahead and there'd be carnage. Then there'd be a thread on how the security services aren't doing enough. It's not possible to have it all ways.

I agree Livia. I have come to the conclusion after much thought, that I as I am already in favour (as I stated controversially on another thread) of I.D. Cards and Fingerprints and D.N.A. being collected at birth and upon immigration into this country, so it seems ridiculous of me to worry about whether someone somewhere knows which porn channel I'm watching ( JOKE!!!)

No, I agree.

(God, I'm glad I'm not married to you in one way, because I'd end up as a right toadying, obsequious little worm )

[Livia]

Originally Posted by kirklancaster

I agree Livia. I have come to the conclusion after much thought, that I am in favour (as I stated controversially on another thread) of I.D. Cards and Fingerprints and D.N.A. being collected at birth and upon immigration into this country, so it seems ridiculous of me to worry about whether someone somewhere knows which porn channel I'm watching ( JOKE!!!)

No, I agree.

(God, I'm glad I'm not married to you in one way, because I'd end up as a right toadying, obsequious little worm )

That's just how I like 'em, Kirk...

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Livia

Maybe... but when you're acting outside the law like the hackers are, you have no restrictions like those by which the security services are bound.

mmmm, maybe not but I'm not bothered by that sort of "crime" when they've so far only tried to do good things, when there are worse crimes I could be concerned with.

As for the topic, I'm not overly bothered, I'm sure my life is completely uninteresting to anyone snooping

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

mmmm, maybe not but I'm not bothered by that sort of "crime" when they've so far only tried to do good things when there are worse crimes I could be concerned with.

As for the topic, I'm not overly bothered, I'm sure my life is completely uninteresting to anyone snooping

Oh yeah Niamh? Not according to the results of 'What kind of prostitute are you?'

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by Livia

That's just how I like 'em, Kirk...

My cyber romance has a chance - We're compatible.

[Livia]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

mmmm, maybe not but I'm not bothered by that sort of "crime" when they've so far only tried to do good things, when there are worse crimes I could be concerned with.

As for the topic, I'm not overly bothered, I'm sure my life is completely uninteresting to anyone snooping

Until one day you are affected and your life falls apart. They act outside the law and the law is there to protect us.

And yes, me too. Anyone looking in to my personal life will probably be asleep in about fifteen minutes.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Livia

Maybe... but when you're acting outside the law like the hackers are, you have no restrictions like those by which the security services are bound.

Personally I don't believe they are bound at all, I think it's a case of 'do as I say not as I do'

[Livia]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

Personally I don't believe they are bound at all, I think it's a case of 'do as I say not as I do'

Fine.

[Kizzy]

Anyone ever had a tweet removed?...

[Marsh.]

The chips are coming.

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

Anyone ever had a tweet removed?...

I've had posts removed.