Is anyone else more worried about M15 than about terrorism.

[batshitlady]

That's it really. The state wants ever more surveillance power, ever more restriction on freedom of speech and even, in universities, freedom of thought. It seems to me that it's in their nature to ask for more powers and restrictions to our freedoms and privacy. Are we just going to let them have it???

[meditrina]

The security services will do pretty much what the Government wants them to do.

So when you get an authoritarian one (like Blair, epitomised by the illegal control orders) then there can indeed be unfair erosion.

It's totally right that there is a debate about how much monitoring and intrusive surveillance there is. The more measured approach of the current administration is indeed preferable to its predecessors. And there is definitely a need to deny safe communications to criminals and terrorists. But in looking for them, you'll also see the things around them which may be obviously innocuous or eliminated after enquiry. It's a balancing act.

And one with fairly high stakes, if you look at the rise of online radicalisation.

[JeffsanArsehole]

It's not about emails or inanities.

What about confidential services? Like psychotherapy or your GP? Your lawyer/solicitor? Being monitored in your workplace ? Or in the loos?

[thehypocritesoaf]

Well we didn't intervene in Syria - is that regarded as successful non intervention now?

Wow- so because no one has been killed for ten years in the uk you think we are threat free? You genuinely discount everything else?

[HirplesWithHaggis]

We have intervened in Syria, we've been bombing them for weeks and we used a drone to kill two British citizens.

[thehypocritesoaf]

I'm staggered that people think they're talking it up. This is not what ex radicals are saying.

And yes I was around in the 70s.

[thehypocritesoaf]

Er yes- so you think everything that happened in Syria, - the millions dead, the collapse of the state and the rise of extremism is our fault for intervening two weeks ago?
Fucking hell.

[meditrina]

Active, directed surveillance like that is controlled by RIPA (2000) which comes in for a fair amount of criticism.

I thought Liberty had lobbied for change and welcomed this government agreeing to reconsider it.

[HirplesWithHaggis]

Where did I say that? Hyperbole, much?

[thehypocritesoaf]

It was in response to branleuse assertion that the best way to deter terrorism is to not bomb other countries.

I wonder how she accounts for the rise of Isis in Syria - which yes we hadn't got involved with or bombed (until two weeks ago) - so it sounds just like more anti western propaganda to me.

[atticusclaw2]

Me neither. I have absolutely nothing to hide and therefore I am perfectly comfortable with the steps our country takes to prevent terrorism. Very odd OP IMO.

[HomeHelpMeGawd]

I don't think the dichotomy between addressing terror and reining in MI5 is helpful.

I am concerned about terrorism. I don't see it as an existential threat to national security[1], nor do I think it is a significant risk to my life and limb[2]. But it is a horrible thing and it has a vile positive feedback loop and it can hurt the economy.

I am also concerned about an overweening state. A rationale that is acceptable (stopping an imminent threat to life and limb) can be used as cover for unacceptable rationales (monitoring people with unpalatable politics). Bad actors in the security services can run vendettas against individuals whom they don't like (ex-spouses, for example). And private data can be misused by either the state or others if compromised (eg the row over no encrypted comms, which would fatally compromise financial transactions and medical confidentiality, leading to eg hackers stealing money or employers turning down interviewees with a medical condition).

It is not always the case that an action that addresses one of these concerns will exacerbate the other concern. Each action (well, set of actions) needs to be looked at on its own terms.

[1] Even if a million people were killed, the state would continue to exist, although clearly the government would very likely fall. Even if Parliament were destroyed, the state would continue to exist. Existential threats greater than these were part of our past (Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia)
[2] Risk = frequency * severity. Terrorism happens very rarely in the UK, so even though there is no doubt that attempts to kill tens of thousands are being plotted, people are much more likely to die in a car accident or from smoking

[HomeHelpMeGawd]

Additionally, for those of you saying you have nothing to hide. Other people do! There are plenty of legitimate reasons for privacy, even if you can't think of any that apply to you:

• PINs and other authorisation mechanisms for financial services
  
• Mental, physical and sexual health records
  
• Pictures and records of sexual activity
  
• Shameful family histories (eg criminal relatives)
  
• Physical locations (think those fleeing abuse)
  

etc etc

This isn't about Clubcard records! (Although purchase data, like search histories, can reveal things you may legitimately want to hide from the outside world, such as purchase of pregnancy tests or contraceptives)

[IKnowIAmButWhatAreYou]

I'm not "worried" about either TBH.

Wouldn't trust the establishment to any great degree, not planning on being blown up by terrorists.

The chances of either of them doing something that would actually affect me are non-existent...

[IKnowIAmButWhatAreYou]

I have absolutely nothing to hide and therefore I am perfectly comfortable with the steps our country takes to prevent terrorism.

That is a very naive attitude. People "with nothing to fear" get fitted up all the time.

It's just that the chances of it being you when there are so many more eligible candidates (those that fit the profiles better) are minuscule...

[HirplesWithHaggis]

Massive round of applause for HomeHelp!

[WhirlpoolGalaxyM51]

I'm not particularly worried about either of those things.

I don't trust any "authorities" particularly, and some I have very little faith in indeed.

I don't trust terrorists either, obviously!

Are we talking about the UK and effects on us at home?

I would say I am very worried about the impact of various terrorist groups on citizens of different counties, that's for sure.

[Hassled]

"1 person (1 too many obviously) has died in this country in the last 10 years due to terrorism." - but 10 years ago, 52 people died and since then, 50 specific plots have been prevented due to the work of the security services - here. I stand by what I said - I have no issues about giving up my privacy if it allows them to do their work. And yes, I do realise we're not talking about the source of my Nectar points here.

[PressTheAButton]

I'm not worried about MI5 at all. I'm happy to have increased survellence and would welcome things such as national identity cards.

[specialsubject]

it is quite easy to minimise what you put out there.

pay in cash - yes, that comes out of a bank account, but use cash and no loyalty cards and no-one knows what you bought.
don't fill the internet up with personal detail, even under an alias.
careful what you say and do on mobiles, which are easily monitored. (often just be standing nearby as you shout...) Landlines can be tapped but that is much harder.

nobody can restrict freedom of thought, no-one can read minds. There are places where you get executed for changing religion, this isn't one. There are places with far more active extremists than we have.

let's try and keep it that way. Seems a fair trade to me.

[HomeHelpMeGawd]

Why, thank you Hirples!

Hassled - kind of like a reverse gay marriage scenario - you want to give the state all your personal information, that's your prerogative. Other people will take a different view and should not be pushed into copying you. They have legitimate concerns that you are not in a position to allay on their behalf. There will almost certainly be women who have been physically abused by MI5 employees, for example.

[hotfuzzra]

As a police officer I admit I'm very biased and possibly naive regarding government agencies' work, but I find it hard to believe the powers would allow these agencies to do anything more than setting trigger words or phrases etc relating to national security and running emails, FB posts etc through some sort of search application and then investigating further if a number of triggers or concerns are present.
They're very unlikely to be using this to look at people's sexual activity, whether someone mentions their uncle was in prison (obviously there will be extensive records available for criminal history) or people's PINs!
The amount of paperwork and authorisation it takes just to find out, for example, which phone provider someone uses or anything to do with banking is interminable. "The police" and "the government" aren't going to look at Mrs Jones' bank statement/Internet history/phone locations unless she's tweeted a picture of herself with a kalashnikov during her recent holiday to Syria! (Bit tongue in cheek but I hope you get my general idea. Not very eloquent but earnest.)

[ThroughThickAndThin01]

Homehelp sad as it would be the thought of safeguarding abused women by MI5 employees doesn't ease me as much as protecting hundreds possibly thousands from a terrorist attack.

[squidzin]

thehypocritesoaf is obviously completely and willfully blinkered to Isis and how their rise is directly attributed to Bush/Blair iraq invasion.
.

[ErrolTheDragon]

Terrorists and religious extremists curtail people's liberty and free speech far more than MI5.

Sex offenders impede the full liberty of women and children.

[PacificDogwod]

Of course having a Clubcard is not comparable to infringements of privacy, but it DOES allow a multinational company to collect rather intimate details about individuals. It is also a question as to 'what aim?' - I'd rather have more transparency to allow for less atrocities, than to get a huge concern send more tailored advertising to me

Of course many more planned attacks have been prevented than carried out.
My concerns is more that security forces by their very nature are very likely to be behind the curve and be forced to react rather than be able to forward plan.

It is a very fine line to walk indeed and I do understand the concerns raised, but I don't share most of them.