May 23rd: UK Terror Threat Level raised to highest level

[hitmanNo2]

So what's the point in increasing surveillance if we don't already act on stuff we've already got?  You'll just get more situations like Manchester.  It's completely nonsensical. 

[Tw1tch]

Increasing surveillance isn't the only thing that needs to happen, actionable intelligence needs to be, you know actioned. What that action needs to be I couldn't tell you, I'm not a CT expert, I'm a bartender.

 

I'm sure it's probably not the case but it seems we've become to reactive as opposed to pro-active but that may just be to the clandestine nature of these operations, the government shouldn't be shouting about the things they catch, or maybe they should to deter potential attackers. I don't know.

 

All I know is 22 more innocent people are dead, and that *fruitcage*s me off, as Im sure it does you. And surely almost anything we can do to stop that is worth the price?

[hitmanNo2]

Mass surveillance is a fools errand.  There are better ways to spend resources.

 

I would be intrigued as to the statistics of plots stopped from traditional data gathering compared to snooping though.

[DrAlexanderTobacco]

As awkward as this is to say, terrorism is largely ineffective (but absolutely tragic). It's the deathknell of the failure of Islamic extremism, which has been attempted and eventually stamped out whenever it popped up. I'm talking about outright salafism and wahabbism here, ultra-conservative islamic doctrines. Flare-ups such as Algeria, bosnia, dagestan, chechnya etc were all stamped out relatively quickly and this is what's happening currently in Iraq and Syria. 

 

 

It's still incredibly tragic, and I understand that. But you're talking about sacrificing an incredible amount of privacy and liberty on an emotional basis.

 

Let me ask you this question - Should these powers only be for the government you trust? The Government is sovereign, on the day they govern. Election day, all bets are off. We still live in a democracy, despite how out-of-whack things might seem. Regardless of your side on the political spectrum, I'm sure everyone can see reasons why their opposition shouldn't get over-intrusive surveillance or "enhanced interrogation".

 

 

E: Not to mention how we've already established that the police just don't have the resources or the time to monitor individuals. GCHQ have been having huge issues with increased signal-to-noise based on the scope of their surveillance etc.

[DarkLite]

Not acting on intelligence doesn't work. I don't see any harm in operating more stringent surveillance of the population, you never know what you might catch. And its better than doing nothing, things will still get through (for example lone wolf attacks which are almost impossible to predict).

 

I'm not saying he could've been caught by an extensive surveillance system, in fact it's likely he wouldn't have been but what do you think the families of those who suffered on Monday would say if there was a chance that he'd have been picked up if everyone was subject to invasion of privacy by HM government?

 

Ok, as my father worked in Special Branch, he has an insight on this kind of thing. He has always, always maintained that:

 

1) Nothing to fear, nothing to hide is an idiotic argument

2) You simply cannot monitor everyone at once all of the time

 

Let's start with 'Nothing to fear'.

 

First off, if you're monitoring all of the people all the time, you are not using a perfect, infallible system with no internal bias or private interest. You are using other people. Other people who might want to sell private information. Other people who might be blackmailed into selling private information. Other people who might leave private information in a laptop case on a train. Other people who might be stalkers in the making. Other people who might just be sociopaths looking for victims. Etc.

 

Another thing to think about: You're creating a massive stockpile of valuable information. Credit card numbers, email passwords, ates of birth, passport numbers. That information has to be stored somewhere, that information is now a massive goldmine for any hacker who wants to make a *suitcase* ton of money, or worse, a cyber warfare unit from another country who is after state secrets.

 

What you're advocating is a system which is ripe for corruption, will help the government repress the groups it doesn't like (say, anyone who doesn't want the NHS to be privatised, or gay people) and will set up a massive theft of private data. It's not a question of 'if', it's a question of 'when'.

 

And with the question of capability: If you spread your time over literally every *fruitcage* person in the country, you're going to miss things. We simply do not have the capability, nor will we EVER have the capability, to effectively monitor everyone all the time. The best use of time and effort is to figure out who the most likely suspects are and then check them out. That's not just what I think, that's what Mi5 thinks - the Mi5's DIGINT narrative reports in 2010 even admit that they simply could not follow up every lead because they were drowning in information and false positives.

[Tw1tch]

I'm not suggesting Gestapo techniques of actively listening in but passive surveillance of a programme looking for key words and patterns of internet searches for example.

 

If I search how to construct an energetic device on Google that should most definitely throw a red flag up at headquarters for someone to take a proper look.

 

Never mind, just realised I'd forgotten about the recent-ish legislation allowing the government to do just that. Now it'll be interesting to see if their algorithms work and if we can use this information to mitigate circumstances like Monday.

 

I'd like to apologise for being a bit of an *albartroth*, to be honest I should have been asleep like four hours ago but this heat is horrendous.

 

I have a lot of respect for Law Enforcement and don't want to appear to be criticising them unfairly, it would've been impressive for them to have caught this. I'm just a little riled up and it probably doesn't help Tuesday was six years since I lost a friend to an IED in Afghan so it struck quite close to home.

[evilrobotshane]

For every one that happens, a LOT are stopped before they get to that point. I don't know numbers nor how it's done.

 

I appreciate that Tw1tch is in a rough place emotionally at the moment. This is still pertinent though, because people will make important decisions at times of stress.

 

That knobend in Manchester and the atrocious thing he did isn't going to change our way of life. Britain, frankly, can take it. What could change our way of life is a lot of pressure from within to throw the rule of law to the wind every time some numpty clacks off a suicide vest somewhere.

 

Keep calm. And carry on. Look what 9-11 did to America, it changed it for the worse forever; we don't want that.

 

(I'm not advocating doing nothing, by the way. Remember the words of the Norwegian prime minister after the Oslo massacre: We will never give up our values. Our response is MORE democracy.)

[shmook]

If I search how to construct an energetic device on Google that should most definitely throw a red flag up at headquarters for someone to take a proper look.

 

Already happened befor the recent legislation you mentioned.

 

As for key word flagging, the Americans had it for years. I'm not sure how much we did, or used info gained from said yanks.

[GI0VANNI]

I have been for 13 year a criminal lawyer in Spain as well as 4 years private security trainer, have post degrees in security, logistics and marketing, have a handgun license in Spain and keep 5 pistols (4 pistols and one revolver) at home without any issue, but here was asked by a police officer to leave even my airsoft guns in Spain instead of trying to import them and be able to play when requested info about the paperwork to fill.

Let me expose some facts, I work in a strongly controlled environment but we have had deaths in custody, drugs, weapons and assault on staff, grievances, fights, hate crime, self harm...

I am used to a quite different system back at home, but so far have identified a worrying lack of proper training in the staff that makes me feel embarrassed but can not continue this line more in deep.

 

The intelligence gathering as said must be controlled BUT also gathering without proper valuation (getting the actionable intelligence) just leads to an excess of data not valuable for the purpose intended (let us say security).

In order to be able to assess a situation the people managing the info (will become intelligence eventually, but is not the same) need adequate vetoing training and skills.

Intelligence análisis is to be done by people again with adequate training and skills.

Once a subject has been flagged as suspicious them is when the extra measures are to be placed in action, but protocols have to be followed in order not to overwork the staff and also to respect people´s privacy.

 

I am more than happy to pay my fines for speeding, but do not want my taxes spent in a speed camera every 100 meters or benefits  instead of NHS, education...

I have seen that the UK has the same problem that led me to flee Spain, a political "casta" out of reality and a welfare state what can not sustain itself but is determined to try to sustain as much as imaginable no mater the costs in money, quality of service, efficiency and "call effect" that has made Spain to have 12 millions of "foreign born nationals" when I left (and this with an unemployment rate much higher than your and minimum wage of 640€ approx).

Just to show you, once I got my job and went to the Job Center to apply for my NIN just entering the place the first question I was asked is what benefits I was in need off, what message do you think you send with this behavior?

[Habakure]

I message of getting facts from an individual, so that every possible benefit is checked and claimed according to individual needs. Seeing as you say you are a lawyer, information gathering is very important and you are aware of that. The benefit system here in the UK is spent more on people in full time employment, than on people who are not.

 

Can we please remember this is about a bomb going off and not about who is claiming what benefit and how it affects the economy.

 

I man has just blown people up, as young as eight years of age, and we are talking about the economy.

 

For *fruitcage*s sake, people are dead and we're moaning about *fruitcage* money?

[Sturm]

Tw1tch, the problem is that eliminating privacy doesn't work.

 

The UK already spies on it's citizens more than any other western democracy. The Manchester bomber was known to the police and MI5.

 

His own family reported him last year for being possibly radicalised. He was already under surveillance.

 

He still killed 22 people.

The US has a much broader spy programme. However, then again, the US is barely even a democracy. If it is a democracy, it is a severely flawed one (several NGO indexes and surveys support this view).

 

But yes, spying is disgusting. It should be labelled as a 'crime against humanity.' However, at least half the world's population lives within the confines of oppressive governments that utilise these tactics.

 

The entire 'greater good' argument is simply one used by sociopathic politicians to personalise their *fruitcage*ed up agendas.

 

Moreover, freedom of speech is a uniquely European phenomenon. Democracy originated in Europe, and so has definitions of selfhood. If Western governments employ spying to combat terrorism, they are effectively giving in to forces that wish to degrade freedom of speech and expression. In that regard, the terrorists get part of what they were wanting in the first place.

[Pdubyuh]

Here in Milton Keynes you had armed police taking the bedding off of homeless people as it posed a security risk, the fact that the 3 homeless people in question have been there for 18 months a would probably be the first people to notice something dodgy or out of place and as we all saw these homeless people are worthless in a crisis its not like they'd help......

[shmook]

To be fair, all the homeless people I deal with are smashed off their face 24/7 and the only thing they manage to notice is a cop approaching so they can try to hide their booze.

[Pdubyuh]

Could well be that if, in your line of work you are having to deal with them it could be exactly for the reasons you stated, if they're not smashed of their faces I dare say you, in official capacity wouldnt have to "deal" with them

[shmook]

I do though. Homeless people have to be moved on in the town I work, regardless of their state of mind, or they risk getting locked up.

[Habakure]

How many times can a homeless person be locked up? I'd imagine in winter a lot of people would rather be locked up in a cell for the night, than in the freezing cold.

[shmook]

Lock up for a breach each time really.

 

As for the cold thing, some do, but a lot don't. It's hassle for them as they end up back at court afterwards.

 

I've locked up regular folk who just want a bed for the night though. Drunken wankers who lose friends yet have a phone nd money for a hotel. I hate those people.