Welcome to the Surveillance Society

Are there any private investigators who are not ex-gardai?

You will get the full picture if you chat to one who trusts you. It's a scary picture.

Restraint of trade etc is not applicable and won't make a difference anyway. The problem is that some private investigators and the people who employ them are willing to over-step the lines of legality by paying employees to divulge private and confidential information. That is what the story confirms. We already have laws against this but they are being broken willy-nilly because the data is there it will be divulged and shared.

The only thing that can stop this is to make the retention of such data illegal. That way the temptation is gone and the crime won't be committed. Instead, our laws make the retention of such data compulsory.

More stories from the UK:

17 October 2008 -

BBC: Proposals for a central database of all mobile phone and internet traffic have been condemned as "Orwellian".

16 October 2008 -

FT: Ministers are pushing ahead with contentious plans to give police and security services increased access to communications data because of fears they are failing to keep pace with the use of the internet by terrorists and criminals

Zhou_Enlai wrote:More stories from the UK:

17 October 2008 -

BBC: Proposals for a central database of all mobile phone and internet traffic have been condemned as "Orwellian".

Information will be kept for two years by law and may be held centrally on a searchable database.

Yeah right.

There are pros and cons to this but is there anyone who believes it's 100% intrusive to have mobile phone and internet conversations stored? They are saying that it's the times and dates that will be stored but be under no illusion it'll be conversations and content eventually. Is this right? Shouldn't there be a balance against the potential abuse of such power? I contend it needs a long and hard process of education of the population (this could take decades) to know and realise what the implications of this might be and afterwards a plebiscite on whether it should be introduced in some limited form.

Or maybe not - is it even necessary? Is this like evotingmachines and low-tech is enough tech?

I think there should be no vote. It goes against the fundamental right to privacy and the fundamental right to freedom of thought.

They are doing it because it can be done. There is no end to this. There are two serious side effects which are already in play:

1. People will not feel free and will curb their communications with others for fear of retrieval or interception. This may lead to blackmail or discrimination (which they might not even be aware of) at a later date. This is an attack on the freedom that has made the free world a great place to live.

2. People with money will gain access to this private information and will use if for their own private gain. This will give them an unfair advantage and power over others. Just as the information is kept because it can be, the information will be accessed because it can be. Like I said, it's already proven that this has been happening.

Zhou - did you notice the row between Sarkozy and Barroso over similar?
The internet is a frightening tool when viewed by politicians. Margaret Wallstrom has in part blamed the internet for the Lisbon no vote.

But do M15/M16 and Cheltenham not have the run of this place under current agreements anyway?

I didn't see that dispute. Do you have link? I note that Sarkozy is suing the former head of the intelligence for breaches of privacy. Is Sarkozy fighting for others privacy or is he another abused abuser?

Interesting topic. The general premise of the surveillance society is based on the fact that law abiding citizens have nothing to fear from surveillance. The surviellance theory breaks down, imo, due to the law part. There are so many new laws and so many ways to interpret new and existing laws that the whole system will become warped in time. One may break a law by doing or not doing something and receive punatitve justice for a tangental issue. The private business use of now public information is just the tip of the ice berg.

Zhou's perspective peaks my interest. (I'm not having a pop at yee and generally agree with your stance.) The interest is peaked by what I perceive to be a somewhat conservative view of politics/economics and yet a firm grounding in fundamental rights of people.

Zhou_Enlai wrote:I didn't see that dispute. Do you have link? I note that Sarkozy is suing the former head of the intelligence for breaches of privacy. Is Sarkozy fighting for others privacy or is he another abused abuser?

http://euobserver.com/871/26884

It was about proposed law to cut people off from the Internet if they illegally downloaded. Most young people would be at risk.

Here are two threads in which the politics of internet access are discussed.

http://machinenation.forumakers.com/world-politics-and-events-f27/death-of-free-internet-imminent-t983.htm?highlight=internet

http://machinenation.forumakers.com/language-culture-f9/blogging-and-fora-an-eu-view-t1290.htm

Fair play to the European Parliament. Sarkozy has some cheek asking the President of the Commission to give a personal commitment to fight against a measure passed by the EP. Sarkozy really can be a bit of a tit when he puts his mind to it.

Zhou_Enlai wrote:Fair play tot he European Parliament. Sarkozy has some cheeck asking the President of the commission to give a personal commitment to fight against a measure passed by the EP. Sarkozy really can be a bit of a tit when he puts his mind to it.

The surprising thing is that it was so public. I assume that usually these little things go on behind closed doors.

Damn

http://www.thepost.ie/post/pages/p/story.aspx-qqqt=COMPUTERS+IN+BUSINESS-qqqs=computersinbusiness-qqqid=37504-qqqx=1.asp

Auditor #9 wrote:Damn

http://www.thepost.ie/post/pages/p/story.aspx-qqqt=COMPUTERS+IN+BUSINESS-qqqs=computersinbusiness-qqqid=37504-qqqx=1.asp

I guess this report is already linked to the thread, but I haven't read it yet - it looks very interesting.

http://www.dataprotection.ie/viewdoc.asp?DocID=378

At present, it seems that "covert surveillance" is carried out without a full legal framework and the results can't be used in court.

"Covert Surveillance Bill To place existing practises by the security forces on a statutory basis in line with ECHR obligations: Publication Expected - 2009 "(Department of Justice).

http://www.dublinsinnfein.com/news/8233 Sinn Fein

I haven't been able to find a copy of a Bill.
This is all I could find on the D of Justice website ( about half way down the page ).
Link