News:

Unnecessarily argumentative

Main Menu

Human rights and public safety

Started by Dave, June 07, 2017, 12:10:00 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Dave

This has been triggered by elephants detected in various rooms during recent events - actually the elephants have been lurking in the dark corners for a long time.

The subject of human rights does crop up, at the monent mainly in terms of whether or not some immigrants should be deported if they face any possibility of danger to their persons. However I only seem to hear the extreme political arguments on it in the media - and we all know that even the slightest tinge of a political agenda blows all pragmatism into outer space.

But how do you protect the public against elements that are already covertly embedded? We once had trouble over our police making too much use of the "Suss Law", a law that said a police officer could stop and question any person whom they suspected of some form of illegality. Almost inevitably, at the time especially, 90%+ of those stopped were black and most of them not actually committing anything illegal at that time. The police are trained to spot unusual behaviours and read body language, though they may not do it right every time. The limits of this range from letting the skill atrophy to developing paranoia.

Situation: a twenty-something Asian male, carrying a rucksac, boards a crowded bus looking a bit apprehensive. He is exhibitting some of the profile of a bomber, (though I might be more worried if he is smiling these days,)  He is also showing signs of any normal Asian student who fears someone may think he is a bomber and start a panic. Whatever, there may well be muttering and the eyes of many may be on him, furtively or otherwise, increasing his apprehension, maybe any sense of 'apartness', cultural segregation, and may even be a factor in his, later, radicalisation.

The city of Gloucester, from its history, is quite a cosmopolitan place and has a large Muslim population and a thriving mosque. As I have said before the Asians normally integrate well and go about their daily activities just like all others. But I have noticed lately that there are, perhaps, fewer young men around on the streets, this bothers me for no reason I can analyse.

So, do the police have to stop every Asian carrying any kind of package, looking a bit on the chubby side or looking apprehensive or happy? Knowing that if they are right in their suspicions they, and those bearby, might get blown to bits. Does every venue now need a "bomb vault" where every attendee has to deposit every bag over the the size of a small money purse (which could still hold a fragmentation grenade)? Or are bags to be flatly banned from venues?

Are we willing to put up with a degree of cellphobe and  Internet monitoring, censoring or controlling to make communications more diffucult for the terrorists (knowing they will still find ways round anything but the miost draconian measures.)

So, the main aress in this as written here:

1. The rights of immigrants against being deported.
2. The right to be free of the risk of "excessive security measures" in everday life.
3. The rights and expectations of citizens of any origin that might be seen as a rusk by the public.
4. The rights of use of the cellphone system and Internet whilst recognising the many risks and misuses they are subject to.

Tomorrow is precious, don't ruin it by fouling up today.
Passed Monday 10th Dec 2018 age 74

Davin

We are losing our privacy rights. And while I understand that complete privacy is not something we can achieve, we should have some level of privacy that gets protected.

The complicated legal issues around privacy comes from the issue of ownership. Who owns your phone records and internet search history? Well many in the current government as well as the corporations do not want the owner of that data to be us individuals. And if we don't own that data, then the constitution doesn't apply to "unreasonable searches."

I think we need to put in place a law that states that the data is ours to do with as we choose, that it belongs to us. If we use a company, are merely entrusting our data to the corporations to use on our behalf as we allow.

I'm not arguing for ultimate secrecy however, I think that the process for acquiring a warrant is a good way for law enforcement to gain access to an individuals data. It has a request that details the justification for the warrant as well as the scope of the data to be collected and it has oversight. All those are good things. And I know it can be and has been abused, but here's the thing with that, it can legally be called an abuse of the system. With all this non-oversight, scopeless, and unjustified data collection that we currently have going on... well it can be called an abuse of power, but it's not necessarily, legally wrong.

Any way, in general, I think people in this country should be free to walk about without getting harassed by anyone (police harassment included), and we don't need a police state. And our agencies shouldn't be spying on our own citizens.
Always question all authorities because the authority you don't question is the most dangerous... except me, never question me.

Dave

I think, in this ever more connected world where data is both a valuable commercial commodity and a rich source of, for want of a more better phrase, "social and demographic"  data for those monitoring public matters. I am sure there is jargon for what I am trying to say! And we cannot play in their pool without handing all kinds of stuff over. Still waiting for the furst publicly available encrypted-speech cellphine system.

Whilst cellphone and email traffic is only scanned for key words or phrases, or purchases of the components for explosives, poison gasses etc, I am not so bothered. As has een said by the pundits it is virtually impossible to read every email and transcribe or listen to every cellphone message for full content.

I think we can expect more metal detector systems in venues and thus more rukes on what you can take in. Sad that I consider this not surprising, but maybe that is because these things are still catching up with all that future-fiction I read...

Your last sentence reads, "And our agencies shouldn't be spying on our own citizens." I agree, and that is the main stance of the liberal attitude. Hiwecer, as has been demonstrated, those genuine citizens who do not believe in what most of the rest of us believe may be the ones with the bomb in their rucksac. As I implied before the more rights you have then possibly the better chance you stand of being blown to bits.  By the person next door to you regardless of his or her colour, beliefs or ethnicity - could well be a WASP.
Tomorrow is precious, don't ruin it by fouling up today.
Passed Monday 10th Dec 2018 age 74

Arturo

I am not for the government or any corporation to have access to people's electronic data. Because as the Russians have shown in the 2016 election, they will use it to manipulate and control us. And anyone not playing their game will be taken away.
It's Okay To Say You're Welcome
     Just let people be themselves.
     Arturo The1  リ壱

Dave

Quote from: Arturo on June 07, 2017, 09:12:30 PM
I am not for the government or any corporation to have access to people's electronic data. Because as the Russians have shown in the 2016 election, they will use it to manipulate and control us. And anyone not playing their game will be taken away.
Given an honest government it may be possibly to legally ban corporations and government agencies using data thry collect but you will only stop illegal data collection and use by never, ever using the Internet.

You must also accept that you are taking one of the "senses" away from the security agencies and providing terrorists with a safe (for them) means of communicating snd spreading their crap. Thus you will have to accept some of the responsibility if those agencies fail to stop the killers.
Tomorrow is precious, don't ruin it by fouling up today.
Passed Monday 10th Dec 2018 age 74

Davin

Quote from: Gloucester on June 07, 2017, 09:54:02 PM
Quote from: Arturo on June 07, 2017, 09:12:30 PM
I am not for the government or any corporation to have access to people's electronic data. Because as the Russians have shown in the 2016 election, they will use it to manipulate and control us. And anyone not playing their game will be taken away.
Given an honest government it may be possibly to legally ban corporations and government agencies using data thry collect but you will only stop illegal data collection and use by never, ever using the Internet.
I don't understand this sentence.

Quote from: GloucesterYou must also accept that you are taking one of the "senses" away from the security agencies and providing terrorists with a safe (for them) means of communicating snd spreading their crap. Thus you will have to accept some of the responsibility if those agencies fail to stop the killers.
No, one of their "senses" is not getting taken away. They can still use that sense if they can justify the use and define the scope by issuing a warrant.
Always question all authorities because the authority you don't question is the most dangerous... except me, never question me.

Dave

Quote from: Davin on June 08, 2017, 03:45:55 PM
Quote from: Gloucester on June 07, 2017, 09:54:02 PM
Quote from: Arturo on June 07, 2017, 09:12:30 PM
I am not for the government or any corporation to have access to people's electronic data. Because as the Russians have shown in the 2016 election, they will use it to manipulate and control us. And anyone not playing their game will be taken away.
Given an honest government it may be possibly to legally ban corporations and government agencies using data thry collect but you will only stop illegal data collection and use by never, ever using the Internet.
I don't understand this sentence.

Quote from: GloucesterYou must also accept that you are taking one of the "senses" away from the security agencies and providing terrorists with a safe (for them) means of communicating snd spreading their crap. Thus you will have to accept some of the responsibility if those agencies fail to stop the killers.
No, one of their "senses" is not getting taken away. They can still use that sense if they can justify the use and define the scope by issuing a warrant.

I was answering Arturo's points mainly here.

The first point means that there is no such thing as secure data on the Internet, especially for the average person who does not have access to deep, multi-layer encryption. So, as Arturo suggested, if no government agency or company was allowed access there would still be covert access by criminals, or rogue officials. Thus the only was to be utterly Internet safe is to never use it. Also  pay cash for everything and rip up your loyalty cards.

Again, Arturo seems to want no-one to have access to personal data and communications, those that want that must accept they will be aiding terrorists. I fully agree that essential, justified access via a warrat is the correct path. But that does still degrade the monitoring ability, the search of all comms for key terms is still a useful tool and, with adequate safeguards, need not impinge on personal rights for the innocent. Hence the need for truly honest government, no "Black ops" within one's own borders at least.

A pundit, on BBC World Service, claimed this morning that terrorism really started in the late 19thC with the increase in mass media. I wish he could have expanded on that but, considering the use of newspaper small-ads as covert notice boards, the growth of the use of the telephone, the invention of radio . . . We live in the mass media/communications world in almost everything we do now.
Tomorrow is precious, don't ruin it by fouling up today.
Passed Monday 10th Dec 2018 age 74