GCHQ,Prism and all that.

[Kaiser_Soze]

I think the issue is that in the UK we have processes for achieving what GCHQ want. If you want to tap someones phone or read their emails, you have to go to a judge and get a warrant and get it signed off. At least then people are going through the motions of getting it checked out. In the US, with PRISM, it appears that there is less of a check and balance. They can snoop on whoever they wish all in the name of Dubya's War on Terror.

Vince Cable's concern is that the UK have approached the US asking them for information on subjects knowing that they won't need the approval from judges etc and that their snooping isnt being monitored. There is a difference between snooping within allowed frameworks and bypassing those safeguards.

 

[drew]

It's not about being naughty. There are plenty of fully legal activities or items you might want to keep private for all manner of reasons. It also restricts legal personal exploration and experimentation which in turn affects intelligence and creativity. And what for? I have always felt that when an authority resorts to this blanket absolute surveillance it implies they're not smart and don't really know what it is they're looking for; I prefer intelligence led security. It seems in most cases terrorists are already known to the authorities; so what benefit are we getting from this?

By intelligence led security are you suggesting they rely on a disenfranchised of each terrorist group to grass up his mates? Rather hit or miss? Personally I don't have a problem if the security forces have equipment that highlights when someone uses key words or is visiting sites promoting extremism or bomb making and the like.

I wonder if Robert Eaton would have preferred the terrorist were caught before they got on those planes because security forces were eavesdropping on the perpetrators. Could have spent the last 12 years with his wife and maybe in that time, his children!

 

[Kaiser_Soze]

By intelligence led security are you suggesting they rely on a disenfranchised of each terrorist group to grass up his mates? Rather hit or miss? Personally I don't have a problem if the security forces have equipment that highlights when someone uses key words or is visiting sites promoting extremism or bomb making and the like.

I wonder if Robert Eaton would have preferred the terrorist were caught before they got on those planes because security forces were eavesdropping on the perpetrators. Could have spent the last 12 years with his wife and maybe in that time, his children!

Bit unnecessary. It's been proved that the Americans were aware of a plot to attack New York but didn't know how or where until about 2 hours before the attack. You can't stop every terror attack or threat. The war on terror is as winnable as the war on drugs.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

By intelligence led security are you suggesting they rely on a disenfranchised of each terrorist group to grass up his mates? Rather hit or miss? Personally I don't have a problem if the security forces have equipment that highlights when someone uses key words or is visiting sites promoting extremism or bomb making and the like.

I wonder if Robert Eaton would have preferred the terrorist were caught before they got on those planes because security forces were eavesdropping on the perpetrators. Could have spent the last 12 years with his wife and maybe in that time, his children!

Intelligence led doesn't just mean employing snouts. By this I mean a smarter more focussed approach and not blanket surveillance. The security forces have limited resource, time and money so they should use them wisely and concentrate on finding the bad eggs and not waste their time bothering the majority of the nation. It's not perfect but neither is the current method. But considering the risk/benefit of both I prefer my approach.

I shall ignore your highly unnecessary reference to Robert Eaton.