Some U.K. politicians are trying once again to pass mass surveillance laws after the Paris attacks. It’s a misguided approach, says a computing researcher.
In response to the terrorist attacks in Paris, the U.K. government is redoubling its efforts to engage in mass surveillance. Prime Minister David Cameron wants to reintroduce the so-called snoopers’ charter—properly, the Communications Data Bill—which would compel telecom companies to keep records of all Internet, email, and cellphone activity. He also wants to ban encrypted communications services.
It is statistically impossible for total population surveillance to be an effective tool for catching terrorists. [Conclusion]: Mass surveillance makes the job of the security services more difficult and the rest of us less secure.
(Score: -1, Troll) by radu on Monday January 26 2015, @12:48PM
Top computer researcher finds out Windows is not the only operating system! Really!
Soylentils, did you know that?!
(Score: 2) by khakipuce on Monday January 26 2015, @12:58PM
For some it is a mater of dogma and they have to force it through whatever the implications and indeed whether it is worth it or not. For the last labour government it was ID cards for this it is the snooper's charter amongst other things. They simply will not be swayed by evidence, practicality or popular opinion.
(Score: 3, Informative) by juggs on Tuesday January 27 2015, @03:15AM
If I remember it was the previous Labour government that first tried to introduce a form of snooper's charter. The Conservative government were dead set against it. It was then reintroduced by the Conservative government in 2012 and roundly defeated. This time it is being introduced as late amendment to an already complex bill by a bunch of Lords, the fear being that neither the Lords nor Commons will have adequate time to consider or debate on it before having to vote on it in the pre-election wash-up.
It should also be noted that it is not just related to electronic communication. The amendment also targets postal services and slightly oddly includes some sections about monitoring educational institution performance (although I must admit I had somewhat glazed over by the point I read down that far - bludgeoned by legalese!).
The amendment in full can be found here: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/lbill/2014-2015/0075/amend/su075-I-rev-b.pdf [parliament.uk] (that's a UK government site).
(Score: 2) by Whoever on Tuesday January 27 2015, @04:33AM
Exactly. The slate article refers to an article published in 2006. The mathematics of false positives haven't changed in the meantime, yet the "security services" still want to pile on more haystacks in their search for that elusive needle.
A cynical person might think that the real purpose was to gather information that could be used for blackmail.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 26 2015, @01:02PM
they spend money. Which is what it is all about.
More people die[600k/yr] from their philly cheese steak addiction in a year than all of the terror attacks since the beginning of time have killed.
(Score: 2) by WizardFusion on Monday January 26 2015, @01:10PM
Well then, what america needs now is "A War On Philly Cheese Steak"
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Monday January 26 2015, @04:19PM
The problem is that a War on Philly Cheese Steaks doesn't generate exciting television. I mean, who really wants to watch fat people running on treadmills for an hour a day, or doctors saying "eat more fresh fruits and vegetables" or Michelle Obama showing kids how to grow healthy food? By comparison, chasing down the Evil Terrorists all over the globe feels like a real-life version of 24, complete with real explosions!
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 3, Funny) by WizardFusion on Monday January 26 2015, @04:44PM
Can you imagine Jack Bauer taking down a sandwich with some C4 strapped to it. That's exciting TV right there.!
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Monday January 26 2015, @11:28PM
And just imagine Mythbusters' take on packs of chips/nachos for the delight of couch potato geeks.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2, Funny) by khallow on Monday January 26 2015, @01:27PM
More people die[600k/yr] from their philly cheese steak addiction in a year than all of the terror attacks since the beginning of time have killed.
Depends on your definition of "terror attacks". And we'll need this mass surveillance system in order to fight those vile purveyors of philly cheese steak doom and save people from themselves.
(Score: 2) by wantkitteh on Monday January 26 2015, @08:39PM
Judging the importance of terrorism by comparing only death figures is wilful ignorance of the rest of the damage a terrorist incident is capable of achieving. Imagine if the 9/11 attack passenger planes all focused on the Pentagon - the number of deaths would still have been less than the accidental deaths to pillows and soft beddings across the year, but the impact on society would be much more far-reaching and potentially catastrophic.
Unfortunately, the people looking for the excuses to shift the money from the government's coffers to the pockets of private contractors and military suppliers are just as good at figuring out stuff like that and are capable of playing around with the intelligence and statistics to ensure the equations stay in the buy-more-drones zone.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 26 2015, @11:30PM
Really? Really-really?
(Score: 1) by Nuke on Tuesday January 27 2015, @02:06PM
More people die[600k/yr] from their philly cheese steak addiction in a year than all of the terror attacks
There is a difference. I, and most people, have chosen not to become addicted to philly cheese steak. However, I cannot choose not to be attacked by a terrorist because their attacks are random.
Also, there is a natural limit to the damage caused by philly cheese steak addiction. There will always be a very large majority of people who do not become victims, and the Western World at least seems to have reached a steady state in this respect. Given that the Western World is overcrowded anyway, we can allow people the freedom of philly cheese steak, and cheerfully give Darwin awards to its fatally addicted. However, "terrorists" (for the sake of a word to describe all psychopathic nutjobs) would have no limits if they were not checked; it is in their creeds to destroy as many people as possible. Look in history for previous examples.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by zocalo on Monday January 26 2015, @01:13PM
It's really starting to look like our leaders are just as brainwashed and fanatical about the "one true solution" as the terrorists they claim to be fighting...
UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 26 2015, @06:17PM
Mass surveillance is far better at keeping people in power than in protecting random citizens from terrorist attacks. It's a much easier task.
But given that the NSA spies on everyone one does wonder who really is in power by now ;).
(Score: 2) by frojack on Monday January 26 2015, @08:47PM
In almost every single case of recent terrorist attacks in the west the perpetrators were already known to security services but were not been given sufficient attention due to the security services having too much data and too many possible targets.
The mass of data is part of the problem, but the inability to distinguish between useful data is another.
Turns out if you just watch travel you get a pretty good clue about posers vs doers.
One key factoid about actual terrorists vs wannabe is that of the actual perpetrators seem to travel to war zones for "training" and then return, and live semi quietly for a while. (Terror school drop out syndrome).
Instead the FBI rounds up some poor deluded poser on the internet, talks him into buying some C4 and makes a big show of arresting them.
Then there's the problem of "politically correctness blinders".
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Monday January 26 2015, @11:36PM
The irony? Those security services asked for it [wikipedia.org] then they couldn't stop from asking.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by juggs on Tuesday January 27 2015, @04:10AM
Perhaps with more complete, all encompassing data the spooky types think they will be better equipped to tightly focus on the real threats rather than the great mass of "could be" suspects.
In theory, that makes sense. In practice, access to that data invariably gets out of hand and inevitably abuses occur.
(Score: 2) by zocalo on Tuesday January 27 2015, @10:37AM
Sure, being able to go back and look at all your metadata for a given terrorist after they manage to pull of an attack or are prevented from doing so is great, and being able to go back and actually look at/listen to their conversations and those of their associates is even better, but not so much if the cost of being able to do that is being more reactive than proactive. Being able to thwart attacks but not secure convictions due to lack of hard evidence isn't ideal, but it's still miles ahead of what seems to be the current status quo of being able to provide huge volumes of data about terrorists that just managed to pull off a successful attack, quite probably dying in the process, and any associates have already gone to ground in Iraq, Syria, or wherever.
UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
(Score: 3, Insightful) by wonkey_monkey on Monday January 26 2015, @01:15PM
Mass surveillance makes the job of the security services more difficult and the rest of us less secure.
So, just create a whole new security service that runs the mass surveillance programme and follows up on the results, separate from the "traditional" security services, so they can keep doing whatever they were doing before the old-fashioned way. Now we're safer and mass surveilled!
I mean, it'll cost more money, sure, but if you don't want to pay more tax to be safer, you're probably a terrorist.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Dale on Monday January 26 2015, @01:54PM
Terrorism prevention was never the point of mass surveillance. It was merely the excuse. The point has always been about local control, investigation, and knowledge. The authorities have always wanted the information and terrorism is the excuse they use to get it.
(Score: 2) by Geezer on Monday January 26 2015, @03:28PM
Bingo!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 26 2015, @05:23PM
It's very cynical what you write, but the evidence supports your claim: mass surveillance is done by many different governments, left right and center. And it is very expensive (expensive data centers). So there is budget for it.
If multiple successive governments of differing political parties keep allocating money for it, then it is seen to be important for all those governments irrespective of ideology.
And if the official excuse is easily debunked, then the *next* government could use debunking that as a way to score points ("the previous government did expensive mass surveillance for zero anti-terrorism results but I promise to cut those organizations' budget and reorganize them") and get elected. But they don't.
Maybe it's a bit like J. Edgar Hoover in the USA: "three presidents tried to fire him but were too scared because of the scandals he could reveal". First priority of a slightly-evil mass surveillance organization would have to be to secure their own jobs and budget, by controlling the people who hold their purse-strings (senate oversight committee). For the greater good, of course... [insert hollow voice "the greater good!" from "Hot Fuzz" film]
(Score: 2) by opinionated_science on Monday January 26 2015, @08:59PM
I'll up you a Bingo and add Wahoo!
(Score: 2) by threedigits on Tuesday January 27 2015, @08:09AM
Terrorism prevention was never the point of mass surveillance.
You should learn to use your logic.
fact: they do it to prevent terrorism
fact: they spy on you
Question: who are they afraid of? who is the terrorist?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 27 2015, @11:19PM
Yes, the point of terrorism prevention is to terrorise population into submission.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Phoenix666 on Monday January 26 2015, @03:29PM
We know that the mass surveillance has stopped no significant attrocity, only fabricated ones. We know that mass surveillance has been used only for economic advantage and social control. So, we need to up-end this system, for certain, but also to design a better successor that safeguards against sociopaths and greed (inclusive of greed for power and for money).
It is difficult to do this, but it is possible. More than possible, it is essential. We can, as a species, figure this out and thrive, or we can follow the local mass extinction events that visited earlier cultures like the Maya or Khmer, ie, cultures whose ambitions and greed outstripped their ecospheres' carrying capacity.
At the moment pre-20th century power structures and practices are racing toward WWIII, and given their entrenched power and momentum they just might get there, but there are many more positive revolutions being born that are unbound by those strictures.
I suggest that if you have spare time outside of the day job you do to keep food on the table, that instead of dissipation (WoW for 80hrs/wk, sports for any length of time, drugs/alcohol/etc) that you devote your valuable time and skills to either 1) upending the powers-that-be or 2) furthering the advent of positive change for humanity. The bonus is, when you tackle either you are getting an automatic two-fer because you're also tackling both. You might be a lowly scripter or embedded systems tech, but if you choose to, you can use what you know in your free time to make others more free instead of less.
Work for freedom and human dignity, not the further empowerment of evil sociopaths. Do it not, and we all lose. Do it, and we all win.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by fliptop on Monday January 26 2015, @05:34PM
06/28/2013 - General Alexander - Director, NSA [nsa.gov]:
Which of the 54 were fabricated?
Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.
(Score: 3, Informative) by frojack on Monday January 26 2015, @08:56PM
Which of the 54 were fabricated?
Probably all. They refuse to release any details.
Meanwhile the Boston marathon Jury selection is in its second day.
The French Police are finding cell phones in terrorists jail cells.
All over Europe they are rounding up terrorists who have traveled to the middle east for arms training.
All after the fact.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Tuesday January 27 2015, @12:05AM
Right? I mean, I have a magic rock that has prevented literally hundreds of terrorist attacks. no, I'm sorry, I can't share any details with you because that's classified. but trust me, it's totally worth the $200 billion increase in my funding that I'm requesting next year. I know that sounds like a lot of money to give me based on faith, but you don't want the terrorists to win, do you?
As far as I'm concerned, until keith alexander and clapper and many more are swinging from trees for breaking the laws we know they've broken, everything anyone from the NSA or the federal government says is a lie and they all belong to a criminal gang that the american people have not yet brought to justice. and anyone who excuses or relativizes their known crimes makes himself an accessory.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by juggs on Tuesday January 27 2015, @04:16AM
Would you rather they rounded up people ~before~ the fact? Not sure I like the sound of that system of justice.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Tuesday January 27 2015, @04:39AM
Cough... Well what I meant to say was that in this case they are rounding up those returning from the camps before they have done anything violent in the EU. (other than accumulating AK47s and such prhaps).
(Which is perhaps not exactly the best thing to do, after all maybe they turned away from violence after seeing what is going on over there. But I suspect that is not the case.).
Seems to me that if you go to train and fight in an army of your sworn enemy, you probably shouldn't come home again. I don't understand why the EU lets them come back.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by VLM on Tuesday January 27 2015, @02:48PM
This is also a core aspect of monitoring. The whole "everyone commits ten felonies per day" but it doesn't matter because the cops aren't watching. Well, now they will be watching. So someone who "drives while black" or owns a copy of the Qur'an will be prosecuted for those ten felonies per day.
A large part of PR is re-naming. Look at racial groups going thru re-naming spasms every couple decades, corporate rebranding like blackwater, etc. Concentration camps have a negative connotation because of 40's German foolishness, so we'll have nice humane (sounding) prisons doing the same job. And our camps just coincidentally happen to be entirely filled with minorities who were mostly guilty of reading the wrong books or making the wrong posts on the internet. But they won't be called concentration camps.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 27 2015, @12:53PM
I should believe anything Keith Alexander says, why? It's not like he offered proof of the above.
Speaking at a non-profit AFCEA International Cyber Symposium in Baltimore on June 27, 2013, and reported that day on NBC, General Keith Alexander said the U.S. government disrupted 54 terrorist activities using information collected under the controversial “Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act” and “Section 215 of the Patriot Act.”
Later, during an October 15, 2013, Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, Alexander confirmed that he lied when saying the NSA’s phone surveillance programs had prevented 54 terrorist “plots or events.” Senate Judiciary Chairman, Sen. Patrick Leahy, emphasized the deception, saying “only 13 of the 54 cases were connected to the United States…that only one or two suspected plots were identified as a result of bulk phone record collection.”
A recent New America Foundation study buoys the argument that these records are not as valuable as the government implied. The report found out of the 225 terrorism cases carried out in the U.S. since 9/11, the program “has had no discernible impact on preventing acts of terrorism,” and that in the “majority of cases, traditional law enforcement and investigative methods provided the tip or evidence to initiate the case.” Outgoing NSA Deputy Director John C. Inglis said in a January 10, 2014, interview with NPR that even though the program hasn’t definitively prevented any attacks, “I’m not going to give that insurance policy up, because it’s a necessary component to cover a seam that I can’t otherwise cover.” Fifty Four turned to thirteen, to zero, to an “insurance policy.”
Thank you https://nsarchive.wordpress.com/2014/01/17/the-top-10-surveillance-lies-edward-snowdens-leaks-shed-heat-and-light-on/ [wordpress.com]
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 26 2015, @06:04PM
what is conveniently overlooked in the demise of big cultures like agypt, greek, romans, maya etc. etc.
is the overbearing bureaucracy.
once a certain amount of people figure out that a career w/ wife and well-fed children can be had by helping a ruler (or ruling class) manage the really producing (hard working) population then the bureaucracy becomes a festering cancerous apparatus for the sake of itself without a real benefit to the "managed populace".
not something you will find in school text-books? oh the irony : )
(Score: 1) by Nuke on Tuesday January 27 2015, @02:16PM
We know that the mass surveillance has stopped no significant attrocity, only fabricated ones.
How do you know?
We know that mass surveillance has been used only for economic advantage and social control.
How do you know?
I suggest that if you have spare time outside of the day job........... that you devote your valuable time and skills to either 1) upending the powers-that-be or 2) furthering the advent of positive change for humanity.
Your idea of "positive change for humanity" or mine?
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Phoenix666 on Tuesday January 27 2015, @02:34PM
A guy called Edward Snowden. Or maybe you've been sequestered in a research station on Antarctica for two years and haven't heard of him.
Your satisfaction with the status quo is duly noted. For the record, a real functioning democracy where voting makes a real difference and the 99% actually have real bearing on policy would be a significant positive change for humanity in my book, and by definition in the book of 99% of humanity.
Please don't next trot out a platitude about how people get what they vote for, because clearly they don't.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 1) by Nuke on Tuesday January 27 2015, @05:44PM
How do you know?
A guy called Edward Snowden.
TFA is about the UK. I don't believe that Snowden was privy to everything that happens in the UK, France and everywhere else.
Your idea of "positive change for humanity" or mine?
Your satisfaction with the status quo is duly noted.
Where did I say that I was satisfied with the status quo? I was making the point (I thought it clear enough) that if we compared how I would change the World (and I would) with how you would change the World, they would be very different. Just the style of your comment, which sounds like platform purple rhetoric, tells me that. If we compared with a third person's ideas they would be different again. You seem to assume that there is only one alternative to the status quo, yours, and that everyone else will love it. I think you would be very disappointed after a revolution though - most people are, which is why revolutions are often very shortly followed by another.
Please don't next trot out a platitude about how people get what they vote for, because clearly they don't.
I won't because they don't.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Tuesday January 27 2015, @09:29PM
Platform purple rhetoric? That's a new one. Where is this "purple party?" I was not aware such existed, and certainly not that they have articulated a policy platform for me to pay slavish devotion to. Or maybe you're disputing when other people point out that it doesn't seem to really make a difference which party holds power in America. When Republicans hold power, people have their Constitutional rights violated "trillions of times" by the NSA with no repercussions, people get kidnapped and tortured by the CIA with no repercussions, and Wall Street gets massive tax breaks and carte blanche to break the law. When Democrats are in power, the same thing happens.
Sure, there are probably many differences we could discover between your vision of a better country and mine, and everyone else's. But I propose that committing crimes against humanity is against our most fundamental laws, and those who commit them should be imprisoned and/or face capital punishment. I further propose that government agencies and the people in them that grossly, knowingly, and repeatedly violate our fundamental Constitutional rights should be in prison. And Wall Street bankers should face no less justice than you or I would if we committed the massive fraud, bribery, collusion, and every other financial crime they have committed, and continue to commit. If those things are unimportant to you and not even on your radar screen, then you're right, we long for two different countries, I for America as it has been defined for the last 200+ years and yours some other.
I do suspect, though, that your name is not Koch Jr or Chelsea Clinton or some other above-the-law scion slumming it here on Soylent with us, but rather a reasonably normal person who has to go to work every day and wonders why no matter how hard he works, he just can't get ahead. Maybe you're reacting the way you are because you think I'm a Libertarian, but I'm not. I'm just a guy who's sickened, dismayed, and angered by the direction our country has taken over the last 15 years, and I know in my bones that it can't continue this way much longer. The world has changed too much, whereas the Masters of the Universe won't give an inch.
If you agree with any of this on any level, then perhaps you, I, and all our fellow citizens who are fed up should have a structured conversation among ourselves about how to change this nonsense.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 26 2015, @05:45PM
military hardware is now-a-days a global industry.
it is easy to see who is "serious" and who is only looking for national prestige (as in "weeeeh! look parade!").
countries with no own manufacturing (and RESEARCH) capabilities just like handsome men in inform, because the radar, battle field surveillance or communication gear was just bought from "overseas" and either lacks crucial capabilities or has a remote kill-switch, duh.
so with public mass surveillance becoming publicly excepted i predict that the "poor middle east" will be shafted some more until the ripe time that a really big "false flag" operation takes place in some western country that will galvanize the western hemisphere to "solve" the middle east problem.