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???

I'm amazed so many people are scared/worried about terrorism. Doesn't this mean they have won? I guess growing up in London in the 70s has made me immune to the fear or something.

Yes OP, I am more worried about the erosion of civil liberties. The death of Jean Charles de Menezes by the hand of the state still shocks me.

I grew up in the UK, but now live abroad, so every time I come back to the UK, I can see how much civil liberties are eroded by stealth. MI5 and the global government (Bildeberg group et al) are to be feared much more than terrorism. (Lots of it funded by governments.)

Problem Reaction Solution

Government creates a problem (eg terrorist attack; 9/11, 7/7 were all inside jobs)
Public has a reaction (fear)
Solution, the government instigates more restricitive policies and civil rights are eroded.

The future is this:
Babies will be microchipped at birth; there will be a database of everybody. You will need to be microchipped to function in society. Eg no such thing as cash, credit cards to pay for things. If you misbehave, your microchip will be switched off.

Small example of this, new drivers have option to have a black box fitted in their cars to monitor driving, to "reduce insurance costs". They are not allowed to drive at night.
DSD's bf works shifts, so has to drive at night to get to and from work. Gets calls from installer of black box because it is not connected properly and they cannot track him.
DP used to work in IT for the police. Basically, all cars will have "black boxes" built into the CPU. Road tax will be scrapped, and you will pay per mile. If you refuse to give your bank details, then your car will be switched off via satellite.
Anyone noticed that we no longer have little round tax discs in our cars? Everything is done electronically. Wedge. Thin end of.

The murder of Mohammed Salem in 2013 was deemed a terrorist attack

A useful list of foiled terrorist plots (the ones that are public, anyway) here. And don't forget that the peace in N Ireland is looking shaky right now too

Another one with nothing to hide, but really we do have a right to privacy. The UK has come under lots of threats throughout history but it was still illegal to open someone else's snail mail. There are lots of reasons for people needing privacy and the threat of terrorists is really extremely low to justify current levels of intrusion, much less upping the ante.

"I'm amazed so many people are scared/worried about terrorism. Doesn't this mean they have won?"

You have misunderstood the question which was to ask which do you worry about MORE. One or the other. The word used should have been "concerns" really. You make out that we are frightened bunnies too scared to leave our homes! Until people change their daily habits such as using different methods of commuting etc, for fear of another 7/7 then no, the terrorists have not won and in fact have had no effect. Yes, Tunisian tourism will take a dip for a while, but tourists will be back.

Harvey: " Small example of this, new drivers have option to have a black box fitted in their cars to monitor driving, to "reduce insurance costs". They are not allowed to drive at night.
DSD's bf works shifts, so has to drive at night to get to and from work. Gets calls from installer of black box because it is not connected properly and they cannot track him."

Am I missing something? This was a CHOICE of whoever had the black box fitted, presumably with the full knowledge of the benefits and restrictions it would involve. Presumably it was done for their own benefit to reduce insurance costs for themselves. I don't understand your point at all. Take out the box, pay the same insurance costs as other new drivers and use the car when you like.

I don't really have a problem with the idea of road tax being charged per mile travelled. Heavier road users SHOULD pay more, be it an individual driver or a company. Again, don't see your point.

As for microchipping babies.....

There are some good arguments on this thread about privacy laws. Yours aren't amongst them. They gave me a giggle but....

This is definitely my last post:

My paranoia does sometimes get the better of me and I start to wonder whether the more, shall we say, entertaining, claims of state control are actually planted on social media by unknown forces specifically to try and divert attention from those who are trying to make a salient point. Too many whacky and "out there" ideas on one thread means the whole thread gets dismissed as a meeting place for crackpots. Which would be unfortunate.

As long as there are Chinese Walls between databases, which is something the majority of people feel strongly about, the scope for 24/7 tracking and interference with the lives of citizens is vastly reduced.

It's more effective form an intelligence point of view to make human contact with people than to rely exclusively on data trawling anyway.

I am a great believer in cockup theory combined by the desire of businesses to flog commercial 'solutions', particularly to Government, whilst forgetting there can be unintended consequences from such technologies and products.

The ID card thing was a good example - basically a useful idea that started to take on gargantuan dimensions and consequently freak lots of people out.

Oh, the lockup theory is true for most things in life IMO

Having grown up in a very democratic country with lots of personal freedoms in which having an ID card is an entirely normal and accepted thing to do, I don't fully understand the hysteria about it, but I appreciate that's just me.
I had to apply for a new passport this year and was fingerprinted for it for the first time in my life. I was quite interested to note how perturbed I was by that experience.

How effective are those walls though? The security agencies have access to police intelligence databases, the DVLA database, the full unedited electoral roll and a massive intercept program that can go through peoples emails and internet history. I'd question just where the barriers stopping them from doing any of that are, because they clearly aren't working

Seriously, different Government departments are not what we need to be worried about here. It's big business and especially big pharma that have the potential to abuse data on a large scale, and constrain our liberties. They have much deeper pockets and the ability to engage in quite bad behaviour just below the radar.

For example, don't ever argue in an obvious way with fracking companies, large property companies, contest the results of a major international drug trial, or become known to companies who supply identity and border control materials on a large scale. They can and do bully civilians.

This will hurt a lot more than MI5 ferreting about in your online life.

I'm another fervent believer in "cock up, not conspiracy" 99% of the time.

I still find it incredible / quaint / terrifying (depending on circumstances / how i'm feeling) that there isn't even the requirement in the uk to have your driving licence with you when driving, and i'm sure any party that tried to introduce it would be roundly criticized and the proposal ultimately defeated.

ChristineDePisan ... re our legal requirement in the UK to carry our driving licences with us while driving.

Personally I always do, as although I have not been stopped for an alleged driving act for a while, in the past if stopped and had my licence on me there was a chance I'd be let off with a warning - but no licence, insurance etc and nearly guaranteed I'd have to take them to a police station at a later date.

That may or may not be an incentive nowadays.

Generally speaking, and I'll happily be corrected on this, we don't tend to be stopped much and so don't need to carry identification, as if we were frequently stopped there would bound to be allegations of 'profiling' - whether percentages of population wise, this was the case.

As to any outcry on security grounds being told to always carry a driving licence when driving (or indeed just out), again personally speaking, but I suspect that it would meet far less resistance just carrying another 'card' on our person at all times we already have, versus paying £30 squids upward to get a separate I.D. card.

"I suspect that it would meet far less resistance just carrying another 'card' on our person at all times we already have, versus paying £30 squids upward to get a separate I.D. card."

Not for me. For me it's the actual being required to carry it that I object to rather than having to pay for another card (although I object to that too). "Security grounds" is far too vague to justify forcing the population to carry ID at all times. I don't like the idea of the authorities being able to see my ID on demand without proper reason.

The reason we no longer have identity cards is the amount of hassle and abuse by petty bureaucrats they caused last time. I don't want to revisit that.

The data industry wanted us to have biometric id at a cost of £90 each, for which we would be liable. I had visions of spending £540 for our family of 6 to get them, and then £90 each every 5-10 years to renew them, plus masses of hassle and expense every time the kids lost one of their cards, plus having to show them to all and sundry to access public services, and then I though 'fuck off' and joined No2ID. It would have been like being robbed, frankly.

OMG, with my ability to lose things, I would be constantly paying out if ID were compulsory.

Very late to this thread, but wanted to say I agree wholeheartedly with its premise.

The threat of terrorism is being used to keep people scared, manipulate and control people. As I heard someone say recently, it's like Orwell's 1984 is being used as a "how to" guide as opposed to a warning.

Well said Topbutton. They've been using this strategy in the US since at least the Second World War. First the commies under the bed, then the war on drugs, now the Muslims, but there is always something to get their knickers into a twist about.

Anyone else getting a little hacked off with all these "wars" ? Drugs. Terror.

When I'm in charge, it will be a criminal offence to use the word "war" in any context, without a definition of what the conditions of "winning" are.

Perhaps we need to use a new word ? Battle ? Battle for terror ? Battle for drugs ... battle for births ... oops, had a slight flashback there.

We could probably also do with concentrating out resources on these struggles. Maybe government should think in five-year plans ?

So, er, which countries have so much better civil liberties than the UK?

The "War on..." motif is very annoying.
I would love to work for MI-5. Can't because I'm too far from London, darnit.

The trouble is that a lot of this erosion of civil liberties is risking alienating our youth and is causing a harm all of its own, like the 14-year-old Muslim lad who was treated as a potential terrorist for mentioning eco-terrorism in a discussion in a French class.

I would love to work for MI-5. Can't because I'm too far from London, darnit.

Really, you'd think in the 20th century they would have invented something to allow people to communicate and collaborate over long distances without travelling ?

Oh. They did. It's called "the internet". (Notes we are fifteen years into the 21st century in some places ).

Perhaps it needs more publicity ?

Anyway, if MI5s criteria for agent selection is location over ability, then I for one, call "bollocks" to any "war on terror". (It's amazing how much government hyperbole disintegrates on contact with critical thinking.). However "stern telling off on terror" probably wouldn't have got MI5s budget approved.

The trouble is that a lot of this erosion of civil liberties is risking alienating our youth and is causing a harm all of its own,

It's amazing how much wisdom there is in history (which is invariably the first subject to suffer when societies become less tolerant).

He who would trade liberty for some temporary security, deserves neither liberty nor security.

Said Ben Franklin - towering polymath of the American Revolution.