Civil Liberties groups...

Xaccers · 27-04-2005, 15:56

I'm currently listening to Digital Fortress (got too many books on the go to read it, so CD version has had to do!) and heard some interesting points about civil liberties groups.
The book, for those who don't know is about encription, and the NSA wanting to be able to slip a backdoor into a new "unbreakable" encryption system, so that they can easily access any encrypted data.

Back to the real world:
The security services have saved lives by intercepting electronic communications.

Civil liberties groups appear to be against goverments eavesdropping in on phone conversations and intercepting emails and other electronic communication, claiming that it infringes the right to privacy and goverment employees can't be trusted.

Now given that it's been shown to be benificial (ie saves many lives) to do the things that civil liberties groups are against, surely it would be better for those groups to concentrate on exposing any abuses of the system rather than trying to prevent the system in the first place?

**Russ** · 27-04-2005, 16:03

You may have a point - but I'm still not too keen on government officials having access to my privacy.

On BBC1's Bailiffs programme recently there was an ex policeman who is now in debt collection asking his 'friend' in the local CCTV office to keep an eye out for a known debt absconder.

Corruption IS all around us. Access to such information WILL be abused IMO.

philip.j.fry · 27-04-2005, 16:05

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xaccers

Now given that it's been shown to be benificial (ie saves many lives) to do the things that civil liberties groups are against, surely it would be better for those groups to concentrate on exposing any abuses of the system rather than trying to prevent the system in the first place?

When the information is hidden, we really have no idea when and how much abuse of the system occurs.

(Good book btw, shame I was cheering the 'bad guys' on

)

Xaccers · 27-04-2005, 16:32

Quote:

Originally Posted by philip.j.fry

When the information is hidden, we really have no idea when and how much abuse of the system occurs.

(Good book btw, shame I was cheering the 'bad guys' on

)

I would guess when the information gained from abuse causes miscarriges of justice etc.
If someone intercepts one of my emails and reads it, but does nothing about the content, then big deal, but if they read it and start stalking me, then the law is there to deal with them.

Or I have an email conversation with someone about overthrowing the goverment, and get arrested just for the conversation, that would be abuse, but if I was put under surveilance to try and find out when I was going to do it, or if I was serious, then that would be sensible action by the security forces

**Russ** · 27-04-2005, 16:37

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xaccers

I would guess when the information gained from abuse causes miscarriges of justice etc.
If someone intercepts one of my emails and reads it, but does nothing about the content, then big deal, but if they read it and start stalking me, then the law is there to deal with them.

But what if the letter contains private and sensitive information? What if it contains medical issues that your life insurance company would like to know about and arranged for one of their people to intercept it to find out things about you?

What if it was a junk-mail company getting hold of your mail to tailor it's offers towards your lifestyle? Hardly a major issue I know but just an example of how it could (and most probably WOULD) be abused.

punky · 27-04-2005, 16:48

I don't really care the government that the government treats me like that, providing, and only providing, it is for the sole purpose of saving lives. For any other purpose i'm not too enthusiastic about it.

I don't think there really would be all that much abuse. The only people with access to that kind of power, would be experienced CIA/NSA employees that would be trusted and have a high security level anyway. More to the point, reading between the lines, I don't think employees would have the time to abuse their position, they are overworked as it is.

You'd always get some abuse of the system, partly because all humans are that way. Police officers abuse their priledges, but does that mean we shouldn't have coppers? You have to balance the good they can do, with the bad they can do.

Flubflow · 27-04-2005, 16:53

All this idea of government intrusion for the sake of the common good all falls apart when you consider the fact that real criminals won't be using such government approved backdoor enabled encryption systems. Furthermore the crimals will tend to use stenographic encryption too in order to hide the fact that the message is even encrypted.

Xaccers · 27-04-2005, 17:03

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flubflow

All this idea of government intrusion for the sake of the common good all falls apart when you consider the fact that real criminals won't be using such government approved backdoor enabled encryption systems. Furthermore the crimals will tend to use stenographic encryption too in order to hide the fact that the message is even encrypted.

Crimes have been prevented, lives have been saved through electronic communication interception.
Bunch of Al Quida members were caught in Pakistan (or nearby) through their mobile phone use. They thought if they kept moving their sims into different phones they couldn't be tracked

Many paedophiles have been caught through eavesdropping in on private conversations they've had with underage children.

The backdoor in a goverment approved encryption system (known as Digital Fortress) was from the book of the same name, and fictional, although the book does come up with a good way to get people to use the Digital Fortress encryption, and those who keep using normal encryption will still have them broken by "Translator"

27-04-2005, 18:36

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xaccers

Now given that it's been shown to be benificial (ie saves many lives) to do the things that civil liberties groups are against, surely it would be better for those groups to concentrate on exposing any abuses of the system rather than trying to prevent the system in the first place?

Would you have an objection to someone opening all of your post at the sorting office and reading through it *just in case* you were writing to someone and planning a terrorist attack?

The point is (and I've made this one before in other threads), what this is proposing is to treat *everyone* as a potential suspect (and in this case, not "just" Muslims!)

There have been other organisations that have done the same thing. The KGB, the Stasi and many other "secret police" organisations for a start.

Do you *really* think it's a good idea to emulate them "for our protection"???

Ramrod · 27-04-2005, 19:09

Quote:

Originally Posted by Graham

There have been other organisations that have done the same thing. The KGB, the Stasi and many other "secret police" organisations for a start.

Do you *really* think it's a good idea to emulate them "for our protection"???

Bit unfair drawing parallels between the security apparatus of communist regimes and our own security organizations.......
Interesting to note though that they did keep crime at a very low level with those tactics.

**Maggy J** · 27-04-2005, 19:27

The only way such info could be abused is if you have a secret that can lead to blackmail by the governments or individuals..If there are no secrets then I can't see it being a real problem.

So what if anyone reads my medical notes..I don't care if some MI5 soul reads about my two labours and my lump removal.

Only if one has any skeletons in one's cupboard that one has not been honest about to the world is there any need to worry...and frankly better to let all into the glare of public scrutiny than to worry about what someone might discover.If you have a criminal record that you have not disclosed to an employer well that's your fault for not being honest.If you are cheating on your spouse well perhaps it's time to come clean.If you are fiddling your tax well shame on you.If you are a terrorist then let's be having you.If it helps to prove my innocence then you can access everything in my records.

This is where me and liberal idealism part.If we are going to have accountability in public life for those who are in power then it must apply to everyone..even the lowest of us.We can't pick and choose what is in the public domain and then insist that we are the exception.

me283 · 27-04-2005, 20:05

The simple fact is, if there is any abuse, you will find out about it. Just because you don't know about it at the moment, it doesn't mean it isn't happening.

I agree with Incognitas (don't be too surprised!), if there is nothing to hide, why worry? And any abuse of power would soon be noticed.

The security of the many is more important than the indignation of the few.

cookie_365 · 27-04-2005, 20:08

I think the problem is that our technical ability to discover information about others has outstripped our pyschological ability to deal with the knowledge that other people have discovered information about ourselves.

We need less privacy, not more.

Everyone has skeletons in the closet somewhere, everyone has a medical history of some sort, everyone has a financial history.

So, you get your kicks by (for example) rubbing your 'bits' with dried goats vomit? Chances are that there a thousand or even a million other people round the world just like you - and thanks to the internet there's probably a discussion forum just for you.

So, you get your kicks by (for example) branding your 'bits' with hot electrical wire? Chances are that there a thousand or even a million other people round the world just like you - and thanks to the internet there's probably a discussion forum just for you.

So, you get your kicks by (for example) branding your 'bits' with hot electrical wire and then rubbing them with dried goats vomit? Chances are that there a hundred or even a thousand other people round the world just like you - and thanks to the internet there's probably a discussion forum just for you.

And I expect most people have some kind of odd thing about them that they're embarrassed about others finding out about.

If we could read everyone elses mind, we'd learn not to care about others knowing our confidential secrets, because we'd see that they have the same kind of secrets as us anyway. And we'd just learn to be upfront about them and make the best of them, not try to deny them.

Yes, there are practical issues about, say, being charged a different insurance premium because everyone now knows your medical history, but I'd say that's a matter for what we do with the info, not whether the info should be secret in the first place.

kronas · 27-04-2005, 20:09

i think the idea of being spied upon or someone watching mine or someones communications is not palatable.

rightfully so!

Flubflow · 27-04-2005, 20:18

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ramrod

Bit unfair drawing parallels between the security apparatus of communist regimes and our own security organizations.......
Interesting to note though that they did keep crime at a very low level with those tactics.

Not unfair at all. The execution may vary but the basic idea is the same.

You can even have zero crime. The trouble is, how far do you want to go to get it.