Comments for http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/pm/2008/07/would_you_like_the_police_to_k.shtml http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/pm/2008/07/would_you_like_the_police_to_k.shtml en-gb 30 Mon 03 Aug 2015 20:17:02 GMT+1 A feed of user comments from the page found at http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/pm/2008/07/would_you_like_the_police_to_k.shtml mittfh http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/pm/2008/07/would_you_like_the_police_to_k.shtml?page=96#comment31 And while we're on the subject, don't forget that an email is about as secure as a postcard - any computer the email passes through between your mailserver and the recipient's mailserver could potentially take a copy of the email, then forward it on. There is no way you or the recipient could know who'd been looking at it en-route.Of course, you could encrypt all your emails using something like PGP, but that in itself would almost certainly raise suspicion...Especially as many encryption algorithms floating around are virtually uncrackable (the RSA recently abandoned its competition to crack RC5-72 after it had been running for over 3 years without a result, despite several distributed computing efforts to crack it) and have no "back door" (unlike the US Government's Clipper Chip and other Key Escrow examples) Thu 17 Jul 2008 08:28:08 GMT+1 DI_Wyman http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/pm/2008/07/would_you_like_the_police_to_k.shtml?page=93#comment30 It may have already been mentioned earlier in this thread but I thought ISP's, Telco's etc have to collate their customers data so that Big Brother can sniff through it at will?Surely the issue is not that BB can get their sticky fingers all over the data, but just which agencies?As a blogger has pointed out would you want the DWP to know that you have been shopping on-line at Woolies?re phone taps, they are / were far more common than you might think. Whilst working for the GPO (remember them) then later, BT, it was not unusual to see 'different' jumpers on the distribution frames in telephone exchanges. And on rare occasions we would stumble into a 'strange engineer' who would always beat a hasty retreat when challenged!Mind you, in this day and age there are far easier ways of listening in on land line conversations. Thu 17 Jul 2008 06:27:50 GMT+1 Deepthought http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/pm/2008/07/would_you_like_the_police_to_k.shtml?page=90#comment29 Fifi (25),I did not have that issue, and that does sound - shall we say, interesting?I had mysterious clicks/grunts etc. I did not have the Howard Marks effect (pick up phone and hear replay of your last call), but enough to make me beyond suspicious.It's died down, in my case, due to brother's job changing (no longer intersects with mine, and no longer (or, very very much less) do I have brother phone me up for advice re his job [I'm not making this up; G*d knows what government policy was made by my comments]). Wed 16 Jul 2008 20:30:29 GMT+1 RJMolesworth http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/pm/2008/07/would_you_like_the_police_to_k.shtml?page=87#comment28 The only consolation in all this snooping is that we know the security services have not been right about anything since the second world war. Whether it was the Falklands, 9/11, WMD, 7/7, JCdM, you name it. They either were not there or got it wrong. With all this data they are analysing will they do any better? You never know. Perhaps they will find Bill Lawton. Wed 16 Jul 2008 19:23:07 GMT+1 Hugh_Z_Hackenbach http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/pm/2008/07/would_you_like_the_police_to_k.shtml?page=84#comment27 Just listening to this afternoon's pm on iPlayer (I have a note from my mum explaining why I wasn't here 'live'!)Theresa May and the John Lewis item. When a political party really wants to get some legislation through Parliament, they normally wake up the party whips, feed them some red meat and set them loose. I guess today, they must have all been out shopping! Wed 16 Jul 2008 18:34:59 GMT+1 needsanewnickname http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/pm/2008/07/would_you_like_the_police_to_k.shtml?page=81#comment26 Deep:"But as for database after database, all linked up together, with officials leaving their laptops on trains full of unencrypted and unpassworded extracts of the databases, (or CDROMs, or memory sticks, how come none of those have been lost yet?)." They will be, John they will be.Yep; loads more info to be carelessly lost by idiots Wed 16 Jul 2008 17:30:02 GMT+1 David_McNickle http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/pm/2008/07/would_you_like_the_police_to_k.shtml?page=78#comment25 A lot of odd things that I have written are already on Google. Wed 16 Jul 2008 17:05:57 GMT+1 Fifi http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/pm/2008/07/would_you_like_the_police_to_k.shtml?page=75#comment24 Deep (na-na-na-19) : Any landline calls we make or receive, which mention any of the military aircraft whose low flying over the house occasionally renders telephone calls impossible due to the noise, are abruptly cut off. Ringing back is no problem.. but it is tiresome having to. Wed 16 Jul 2008 16:45:15 GMT+1 Thunderbird http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/pm/2008/07/would_you_like_the_police_to_k.shtml?page=71#comment23 23 Wed 16 Jul 2008 16:11:56 GMT+1 U11235707 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/pm/2008/07/would_you_like_the_police_to_k.shtml?page=68#comment22 @22How many private blogs are there? Wed 16 Jul 2008 16:07:22 GMT+1 Thunderbird http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/pm/2008/07/would_you_like_the_police_to_k.shtml?page=65#comment21 Why stop at phone and text records..... How about the govenment having records of all blog entries?That should sort the men from the mice Wed 16 Jul 2008 16:05:15 GMT+1 needsanewnickname http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/pm/2008/07/would_you_like_the_police_to_k.shtml?page=62#comment20 To quote my morning paper, which I don't often do - in fact, this may be a Frog first - 'Telecoms companies have already been obliged to keep records of all phone calls and texts for the previous year since October'.Slightly inelegantly put, but, if true, worth noting. Wed 16 Jul 2008 15:46:10 GMT+1 needsanewnickname http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/pm/2008/07/would_you_like_the_police_to_k.shtml?page=59#comment19 No.And gawd 'elp the poor plod trawling through the posts here on the Frog. They'll get very confused.Here's a strapline* for you:iPM: You heard it here first. Ages ago.* Actually, I originally typed 'satrapline'. A satrap, originally, meant "protector of the province [or] power" but is now used to mean "a subordinate bureaucrat or official", a gurgle search reveals. Wed 16 Jul 2008 15:34:32 GMT+1 Deepthought http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/pm/2008/07/would_you_like_the_police_to_k.shtml?page=56#comment18 Fifi (18),Oddly enough, I too believe my phone was tapped in the past - and I think I know who and why. The who was HM Government. The why is connected to brother's job and mine, and it was the period just before and a bit after he started the new job. However, in this case, there probably was justification, even though they drew a complete blank.I still greet the listeners in occasionally, during normal conversation - throw in a "and Hi there to all of you listening in".But as for database after database, all linked up together, with officials leaving their laptops on trains full of unencrypted and unpassworded extracts of the databases, (or CDROMs, or memory sticks, how come none of those have been lost yet?).As WR says, the last measure was a step too far.If politicians think we have nothing to hide, so it's OK, let's put 24/7 survalence on all the politicians, and broadcast that to everyone else. After all, what have they to hide? Wed 16 Jul 2008 15:27:07 GMT+1 Fifi http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/pm/2008/07/would_you_like_the_police_to_k.shtml?page=53#comment17 Ratty (legs) : By coincidence, I have today obtained evidence that my suspicions of having been phone-tapped by a local business a few years ago were probably not so far-fetched after all.(Some froggers may remember me speaking of the slimeball suit-wearer going to gaol for 6 months after the dodgy detective agency was caught having tapped phones and hacked into computers of a local authority and another statutory agency, on behalf of him and its other dodgy clients.)It's not THAT it can happen, that we should be worried about. It is the use this information CAN be put to, should the instigator of the tapping/logging happen to have unpleasant motives. Ratty, I'm with you on this one. That is the scariest book in the English language. Wed 16 Jul 2008 15:15:13 GMT+1 mittfh http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/pm/2008/07/would_you_like_the_police_to_k.shtml?page=50#comment16 Good points - any terrorist worth their salt would only use the phone to arrange meetings with others in their cell - in crowded, public locations which would make any attempts to record the conversation very difficult. Or (especially if they've read the occasional spy novel or two) communicate entirely in a "plainspeak" type code - anyone listening in will hear what appears to be an ordinary conversation, but in reality the words are carefully chosen and convey a hidden meaning.If technology was successful in locating terrorists, then why haven't police forces across the world found Osama bin Laden yet? He famously shuns the use of mobile phones, yet still manages to send the occasional promotional video to al-Jazeera via courier...Besides which, I was always under the assumption that sleeper cells operated independently, with little or no communication with HQ on the Afghan/Pakistan border... Wed 16 Jul 2008 13:13:09 GMT+1 Hugh_Z_Hackenbach http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/pm/2008/07/would_you_like_the_police_to_k.shtml?page=46#comment15 The recent past clearly shows that our government can't be trusted to keep its citizens personal information secure. Feeble apologies excuses from politicians after the event rub ‘salt into the wound’.How stupid do the government believe terrorist are? If all our electronic communications are stored and monitored, would they use electronic communication that isn’t traced back to them? Pay-as-you-go mobile phones and internet café. Maybe we should all have a mandatory web-cam recording use every time we logon to our computers? We are already photographed everywhere else as we go about our business.So, terrorists and criminal get on with the madness and we pay for some departmental junior to leave our details on a train and then pay some more for a politician to apologise and walk back to their desk. It’s madness. And probably has little to do with this being the prime change for a more secure country and more about a politcal party that doesn’t trust its people.A search for ‘freedom’ quotes ... “They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty nor security” BENJAMIN FRANKLIN “When liberty is taken away by force it can be restored by force. When it is relinquished voluntarily by default it can never be recovered.” DOROTHY THOMPSON.. and my favourite...."I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever, in religion, in philosophy, in politics or in anything else, where I was capable of thinking for myself. Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent. If I could not go to Heaven but with a party, I would not go there at all. THOMAS JEFFERSON: Wed 16 Jul 2008 12:53:48 GMT+1 U11235707 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/pm/2008/07/would_you_like_the_police_to_k.shtml?page=43#comment14 @12Google can scan billions of web pages in seconds; it's used to wading through dross. It finds what you want it to find.Now imagine Plod with her quotas to fill; new shoes and promotion beckon, only the innocence of 'dross' stand in her way; the bigger the sea of dross, the greater the probability of finding a promotion enhancing match. Who knows, it might even be a fair cop... we'll know after 42 days! Wed 16 Jul 2008 12:45:01 GMT+1 mittfh http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/pm/2008/07/would_you_like_the_police_to_k.shtml?page=40#comment13 Ho hum, one step further to a UK equivalent of the US Patriot Act.Meanwhile, I once heard rumours that the US intelligence services may have software that automatically scans the content of emails / internet postings etc., looking for certain words / phrases. Unsuprisingly, I've heard that some people have attempted to guess some of these words/phrases might be and attach them to perfectly innocuous communications; the intent being that the computer records so many false positives that I wouldn't like to be the person filtering through the list... Wed 16 Jul 2008 12:38:09 GMT+1 steelpulse http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/pm/2008/07/would_you_like_the_police_to_k.shtml?page=37#comment12 Quote "Would you like the police to know about all your phone calls and text messages?" Unquote.Eddie, naughty, naughty. Almost caught me then. I am saying nothing - did you get that, Constable Notetaker - NOTHING?If I had risen to the bait of the threads heading by answering it - THEY would have known I complained about it! I will take the Ed Balls' form of the Fifth Amendment - although Mister Ed - talking himself hoarse - seems to have a Five Thousand Five Hundred and Fifty Five amendments he wants us to know about.Childrens Minister - aint he? Joyce Grenfell of blessed memory comes to mind controlling her Class on those old records.George! Don't do that!I wont, Miss - him! lol Wed 16 Jul 2008 12:34:04 GMT+1 theotherdaughter http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/pm/2008/07/would_you_like_the_police_to_k.shtml?page=34#comment11 Why would they want to monitor them all? Most of my texts are along the lines of 'Please by milk' (or eggs or bread as appropriate), or 'Shall be late' and my emails tend are of the 'Can you come to a meeting on...?'. Even the computer would die of boredome reading them. The sheer volume of dross 'they' would have to wade through in order to find the terrorist plot would render them senseless with boredom and they would miss the important bit.SSC (5) I agree with you - should we be scanning the small news items to see what is being buried beneath this big announcement?tod Wed 16 Jul 2008 12:24:23 GMT+1 Simon http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/pm/2008/07/would_you_like_the_police_to_k.shtml?page=31#comment10 Since I live a life of blameless virtue it obviously won't bother me in the slightest......That's the standard argument deployed for any potential breach into your private life. If you're all above-board and legal then you have nothing to fear from this latest measure. So if you object, what are you hiding? What are you afraid of?I thought that the war on Terror was "Intelligence-led" (an oxymoron when applied to the Police, as the de Menezes family know). That ought to mean that the State operates on a targetted basis that it knows or strongly suspects that an act will be carried out, from information received. It should never involve the blanket routine monitoring of every communication in the nation, proactively scanning your life just to try and find out if you're planning something.As the former head of MI5 told the Lords last week "There is no such thing as absolute security", nor can any attempt to reach "absolute security" justify the State prying habitually into the lives of every person.It's bad enough that the RIPA Act (2000) demands that all your communications be held for a minimum 6 months by your ISP/mobile company. That is the same Act recently perverted by local authorities to monitor dog-fouling in the park and to determine whether your kids are eligible to attend a particular school. That was an Act too far, as the recent revelations show, and it was forecast at the time to become a nightmare. To even think of Government trying to monitor every aspect of your life is well on the way to Big Brother.What next? The spy-camera behind the TV screen, the microphones in the wall, children encouraged to inform on parents? In 1984 Winston Smith's love notes to Julia, which he thought incinerated, were shown to him to force him to recant his thoughtcrime and doublethink. Will our own messages be brought forth at our trial, accused of failing to love the Government enough? Will they want to implant us with mind-reading equipment at some future date to detect our own thoughtcrime? Pre-Crime, for those who have seen 'Minority Report'?We've already gone too far down this road. No further.Or swap your mobile for a BlackBerry. The Indian Govt. has recently asked the manufacturers, RIM, for access to communications made over the BB network (in case it was being used by terrorists), only to be told that even RIM and the mobile telco's themselves have no access to that information.WR. Wed 16 Jul 2008 12:21:09 GMT+1 U11235707 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/pm/2008/07/would_you_like_the_police_to_k.shtml?page=28#comment9 On a related aside, If Joe Public wishes to make a surreptitious recording whilst in a public or even governmental environment, are they necessarily obliged to seek permission from all parties?For example, I record when ever I sign on, owing to DWP operatives saying different things when challenged in the past. My justification is based on the golden rule: if they record us via cctv, then we can record them. And as for them giving warning notice, that would only count if we had power of veto, of which we do not. And if they don't like the sneaky way we choose to catch them out, again let us appeal to the golden rule. Wed 16 Jul 2008 12:16:34 GMT+1 vainly_here http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/pm/2008/07/would_you_like_the_police_to_k.shtml?page=25#comment8 SSC (5)I wouldn't trust a computer if I were you. Wed 16 Jul 2008 12:10:25 GMT+1 thenicecatlady http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/pm/2008/07/would_you_like_the_police_to_k.shtml?page=21#comment7 Stainless Steel Cat - I absolutely agree with your last paragraph. This goverment is so underhand it wouldn't know truth and honesty if it bit it on the you know what. Wed 16 Jul 2008 12:06:16 GMT+1 Joe_Palooka http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/pm/2008/07/would_you_like_the_police_to_k.shtml?page=18#comment6 I await the headline 'Big Sister's Gone Too Far'. ;0) Wed 16 Jul 2008 12:04:18 GMT+1 Allan Lewis http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/pm/2008/07/would_you_like_the_police_to_k.shtml?page=15#comment5 Who are you calling a "newspaper"?! Wed 16 Jul 2008 12:01:02 GMT+1 The Stainless Steel Cat http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/pm/2008/07/would_you_like_the_police_to_k.shtml?page=12#comment4 Note that this data is already being collected, the legislation is simply relaxing the authorisation procedures and collecting the data automatically for *everyone*.Vyle (1):It doesn't need a person to monitor this, we're talking about information about who talks to whom, where they are when they use their telephones or e-mail clients, what they search for on the web, *not* (so far) the actual content of those messages. This can easily be collected and tabulated by computer.Will the collected data be available under an FoI request? Should it?Lastly, beware the possibility that this is one of those things that are so common these days: ask for something utterly outrageous so that you can back down and quietly get something only fairly outrageous without the public noticing. Wed 16 Jul 2008 11:59:12 GMT+1 gossipmistress http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/pm/2008/07/would_you_like_the_police_to_k.shtml?page=9#comment3 VH (1) exactly. Re the oldest blogger - my Mum's a mere 76 but she's a demon texter and her txt spk is far more outrageous than mine! Wed 16 Jul 2008 11:56:39 GMT+1 Fifi http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/pm/2008/07/would_you_like_the_police_to_k.shtml?page=6#comment2 Perhaps, thinking of all the email jokes I circulate, they're hoping to be cheered up...?(Either that or they're having a larf...) Wed 16 Jul 2008 11:56:13 GMT+1 Tom_Harrop http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/pm/2008/07/would_you_like_the_police_to_k.shtml?page=3#comment1 Mr Harrop would like to inform the police that he's off to the Open Championship at Royal Birkdale ... so narny, narny, nar, nar! Wed 16 Jul 2008 11:52:13 GMT+1 vainly_here http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/pm/2008/07/would_you_like_the_police_to_k.shtml?page=0#comment0 No.Nor do I think there are enough unemployed people currently available to monitor the communications of 60 million people. Wed 16 Jul 2008 11:38:10 GMT+1