Perhaps I'm just inherently less trusting than you are. Your other point is sound, though: if what they're doing is necessary and proportionate, why the secrecy? And if they're being secretive about this, what else don't we know?

I don't think it is in that in the old physical world the only communications monitored would be those of people suspected of being involved in some criminal or terrorist activity.

Even information such as where innocent people go on the Internet and who they contact via email coming out could have serious implications for the individual in their personal and working lives. Provided it isn't illegal it's no ones business where people go or who they talk to.

So for me the blanket capturing of information even if the content isn't read is still going too far. You should always need probable cause to track anything about anyone.

Then you need to add suitable checks and balances on top of only acting with probable cause to make sure that isn't abused.

Well its certainly stirred a few things up:

[urlhttp://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/12/anger-mounts-congress-telephone-surveillance-programmes[/url

Particularly interesting the EU has got involved whereas our own government doesn't think there is an issue.

Snowden had been fired for "violations of the firm's code of ethics"."

Who says Americans don't do irony.

There's also the financial implications surrounding the storage of e-traffic. Government has said that it is the responsibility of the service provider to store this information, the service providers reckon it will be at a huge cost. Guess who will be paying.

All a load of nonsense. I personally don't care one bit if the authorities are watching every single thing I do like a hawk. I don't do anything that would interest them anyway, so what on earth is the fuss about?

If doing this saves one life, let alone a few hundred thousand, why not go for it.

So you have never done anything, ever, on-line that could possibly compromise your job or personal life even slightly? Never viewed any naughty pictures

? What about details of your finances? Happy for details of those to be kept or monitored in cased you start donating to Al-Qaeda?

Now you may not do any of that but that doesn't mean all the data held about you won't find it's way out into the open or be shared with organisations that have nothing to do with anti-terrorism. In fact it's almost guaranteed someone if not many people will have such details exposed.

They won't have broken any laws but details of their financial circumstances, what sites they look at on-line , even details such as to their sexuality which is no ones business but theirs will be exposed and this can have a serious impact on their lives.

The last government wanted to increase the time you could be held without charge to 3 months. If a future government re-introduced that and then this mine of information meant you got detained due to a case of mistaken identity (which has happened to people already) you would most likely lose your job and God knows what else.

This is why you can't dismiss this as "a load of nonsense". It's actually incredibly dangerous and it's naive to think otherwise.

And if having looked through your communications, someone misinterprets something in a way that causes them to believe you [iare[/i a threat, to the extent that they send armed police to follow you onto public transport?

Not like the police have an entirely unblemished record in terms of using their surveillance appropriately to reach the correct conclusions, is it?

I personally find that trying to explain to those so terminally stupid, gullible, or uncomprehending that they can actually state:
"I personally don't care one bit if the authorities are watching every single thing I do like a hawk"
is a monumental waste of time. They have already been assimilated. You just have to shake your head.

Yeah, far better to let the terroristas communicate freely. The paranoia is remarkable. They aren't going to sift through the details of your life, they don't have the time or inclination to do it. All the people moaning about freedom and their privacy on here, probably have Facebook accounts ffs and post their every movement, tea selection, illness and mood swing on there.

A lot of you obviously have things to hide. Just get a cellar with a good lock and a concealed entrance.

If you seriously believe terrorists communicate their plans in insecure emails, voicemails and texts (which even the dumbest tabloid journo these days can hack) then you're either incredibly naive or on a massive trolling mission.

It's rather sweet to see the faith that some people have in the authorities, including the security services and police.

As I've suggested previously, if only those with something to hide object, then how about CCTV inside every home in the country?

It would certainly put paid to at least some domestic violence and some child abuse, and allow very fast detection and judicial action on much more, since those crimes mostly take place in the home.


If the invasion of privacy by the state becomes normalised, what guarantee that 'security' concerns will not, at some time in the future, also include ensuring as little dissent as possible and a totally compliant populace?

Indeed. If this kind of monitoring had been available in the last century Alan Turing would have probably been locked up before he got anywhere near helping win WWII at Bletchley Park and those awkward Suffragettes would have had the state undermining their campaign for the vote.

There are already plenty of examples of where such information has been misused as illustrated in those links I posted earlier in the thread which I can only assume Saddened has not read.

Or he has and is playing the law of averages and assumes the next unfortunate victim won't be him so it's OK if [ithey[/i pay the price for his "freedom".

A bit like the bring back hanging brigade who think the odd mistaken execution of an innocent person is merely unfortunate 'cause its bound not to happen to them.

Wouldn't bother me one bit. If they want to watch me eating my tea, playing on the Xbox and scratching my nads, so be it.

I don't see what the authorities are doing wrong here that the likes of Facebook and in particular Google are doing.

How do you know what interests them?
What safeguards are in place to ensure that only genuine security issues are of interest them?

Facebook and Google have to comply with data protection laws in the countries in which they operate.

When you use their systems despite agreeing to various bits of information about you being shared with other users as you allow or not that doesn't remove these companies obligations under data protection laws.

If they gave information out that breaks these laws they could be sued.

The allegation is the US security authorities are not complying with the data protection laws of varous countries including ours.

So despite the fact you are oblivious to the risks of all this you must surely agree our security agencies are subject to the the rule of law? That is we can't have any agency even those who say they are looking after us operating outside the legal framework that is what ultimately protects our freedom?

As an aside one of the suggestions being put forward is if Google and Facebook have given EU users data to the US they will have broken EU data protection laws and are liable to be sued.

You [ihave[/i to be trolling now.

You are quite clearly either trolling or staggering naive.

For the sake of the discussion, let's assume the latter.

If you cannot tell the difference between information that is revealed freely by and individual and snooping, then you have a problem.

I can tell the difference, I just don't see what the harm is. I really don't what harm will come to me if they do snoop? Why would Big Brother have any interest in little old boring me? Perhaps if you can explain that to me? Them assassinating me on public transport is a bit silly, so keep it to sensible, but detrimental, things that might happen if the Government agencies had complete access to monitoring my life?

It could never happen. No operative could stand reading the shoite you post for any length of time, it's bad enough for us.

A couple of things mentioned on Question Time last night, one being "Why can't a British company invent and host a search engine and a Facebook ?", well nice idea but its never going to happen so in the meantime the other thing makes more sense "Don't ever post anything on Facebook that you don't want others to read and don't believe that when it says "Private" then it means that".

Personally I posted a series of Spike Milligan poems on my Facebook page last night, I hope the various government agencies who will "Share" these around like them this morning.

I didn't mention anyone assassinating you on public transport.

But it is an entirely reasonable illustration of what can go wrong with entirely innocent people when the security forces cock up. After all, what could possibly happen to an electrician going about their life perfectly normally and legally?

There are plenty of other illustrations of incidences where the police have monumentally cocked up – "monumentally" as in mortal errors. The Harry Stanley case is just that springs to mind, since it happened very near where I live.

So to start with, if you cannot comprehend that the security forces and police are far from infallible, then you're staggeringly naive.

If you comprehend the above – and still think that giving the security forces even more scope for error (it has been acknowledged that, for instance, no amount of additional snooping powers would have prevented the murder of Lee Rigby), then you're plain daft.

If you do not understand and value the concept of privacy, you're also daft on that score too.

That you're apparently happy to sacrifice your own privacy is one thing: that you're apparently quite happy for everyone else to sacrifice theirs too, and daft enough to fall for the cretinous line about 'if you've nothing to hide', is yet another illustration of the parlous state of public discourse in this country.

and now [url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013/jun/14/home-secretaries-clegg-snoopers-charterfour former Home Secretaries are urging Clegg to drop his opposition to the snoopers' charter[/url

Why is it whenever something bad happens, or is even hinted at, all politicians want to do is exercise greater control over the lives of the population? The vast majority of whom are no threat to anyone at all.

All four of 'em, need locking up based on a case of mistaken identity. They would soon change their tunes.

In any case just how would the "snoopers charter" have prevented the Woolwich Incident? No one is daft enough to post their intentions to commit such a crime on Facebook. So just what would they be looking for? Someone posting they converted to Islam and because they did which is of course perfectly legal suddenly start treating them as a potential criminal?

Hopefully Clegg will have the balls not to cave in though his past record of working out how to support stuff he claims to be against is not good.