SoylentNews

Mass Surveillance Will Not Stop Terrorism

posted by LaminatorX on Monday January 26 2015, @12:31PM   
from the ministry-of-truth dept.

AnonTechie writes:

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.

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/new_scientist/2015/01/mass_surveillance_against_terrorism_gathering_intelligence_on_all_is_statistically.html

• Re:never the point (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 26 2015, @05:23PM

  by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 26 2015, @05:23PM (#138233)

  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]

  Parent