Monitor me and die of boredom, why don't you?!

Further to my preceding post on government monitoring of all electronic communications and to the gasps of Shlock-Horror from the usual liberal hypocrites who love using governmental powers to beat you up if you break one of their beloved shibboleths on race or colour, forgive me if I yawn!  Acording to them it was going to be the culmination of George Orwell's prophecies when camerers were placed in public places but the only result has been an increase in police arrests following outbreaks of public disorder or criminality.  So what's not to like about that?

The same applies to monitoring communications but if you don't like the idea of your late night, computer visits to 'Pussy Galore's Delights' then don't go there.  Or, if you really cannot resist the urge, then keep going happy in the knowledge that your infinitesimally tiny number of electronic bytes will be the equivalent of four snowflakes in Russia in the winter.  Unless, of course, one of Pussy Galore's 'gels' gets bumped off suddenly, in which case the plod will be quickly at your door - and quite right, too!  And if that's embarrassing, well, tough!

That, of course, is a trivial possibility compared to the all too real dangers and potential tragedies that are being plotted even as I write.  I would rather risk losing my dignity by being exposed as 'Pussy Galore's oldest customer, in all senses of the word, than have bits blown off me in a tube train.  In fact, I would prefer it to reading about other people having bits blown off them, too.  And I would remind so-called liberals that semtex is soooo 20th century now!  In the future, the weapon-of-choice for your urban terrorist is likely to be infinitely more serious and far-reaching in its consequences than anything we have seen so far.

Yes, of course, no-one trusts governments but all that is needed are some simple and effective safeguards.  For instance (and I don't suppose this is comprehensive), the legislation should make it crystal clear as to which suspected crimes and misdemeanours would allow a person's electronic records to be investigated.  Inside the security agencies, only specific and senior officers should be able to give consent to such investigations and they should be warned that they personally will be held legally accountable for their decisions.  In other words, no more hiding behind a minister who, we all know, hasn't a clue!  At this stage, we are dealing with intelligence matters rather than legal ones and so the basis for proceding with an investigation should be 'reasonable suspicion', not 'reasonable proof'.  Obviously, any unauthorised investigation, or release of information, not concerned with the sort of matters covered under the Act would be a criminal offence with severe penalties.

Over 3,000 people were slaughtered on 9/11 and many more injured.  I am not being flippant when I suggest that "you ain't seen nuthin' yet"!

 

Comments

[Whyaxye]

Agreed. Of course, when the big one goes bang in London, liberals will have lots of reasons why it was not their fault.

Must dash now. I want to Google this Pussy Galore site before the spooks get there and ruin it...

[David Duff]

Ah, Mrs 'W' out for the evening, is she?

[david morris]

Sorry to disagree D, but is this not thin end of the wedge (and all that) ?

Kind regards

[David Duff]

Well, David, it's probably not very thin! In fact, when you gauge the scale of the work involved it is pretty bloody huge! However, whilst I admit that mistakes will be made and perhaps some individuals will be harrassed and embarrassed, nevertheless, I put it in the scales against the outcome of a successful atrocity using 21st century weapons.

[rogerh]

Could it be that modern code-making is so effective that GCHQ can only uncover messages between the incompetent. These being hardly worth the cost. From which it follows that unkind persons might be thinking P45 time all round or 're-purpose'.

I suspect that looking at the general public's traffic might identify a few eco-warrior and junior bang-makers but any seriously bad persons already stay well away from the internet and phone systems. Then there is the difficulty of false leads. Futile, but it avoids the really serious threat - P45, and you know who will pay the bill.

As for a nuke in Knightsbridge, it will be survivable, most of us will live and HMG will do lots of hand-wringing but squinting at emails will not prevent it.

[Andrew Duffin]

D, your post could be abbreviated to one well-known sentence: "If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear".

Is this really your view?

To be polite, I disagree.

[David Duff]

Andrew, I will respond to both your comments here and in the thread below.

It is difficult for me to defend government intrusion into private affairs because I don't trust them any further than I can throw them into a gale! However, I do believe that a careful monitoring of e-communications would yield excellent intelligence against people who are prepared, and will soon have the means, to execute a frightful atrocity.

Also, I do trust in our very old and very robust democracy. Yes, all the sily little abuses of power alluded to by my e-pal, Webwright, will occur but I do not think it is beyond the wit of man (and parliament) to devise rules to ensure that the knowledge gained will not be abused. You mentioned Europe (from whence I think this action has been prompted) and I agree that there could be problems from that direction. Even so, I keep reminding myself of the alternative which would be a decision to deliberately ignore a golden source of intelligence.

I am reminded of the American Sec. of State prior to WWII who refused permission to his code-breakers to attack foreign diplomatic codes on the grounds that 'gentlemen do not read other gentlemen's correspondence'!

Feel free to disagree as forcibly as you like!