The price of liberty used to be eternal vigilance

[Grumpmeister]

Nowadays according to Isabella Sankey, Liberty's policy director, accepting terror attacks is the price of Liberty. 

This woman has managed to piss me off on two levels. Firstly what right does she have to say that the public should accept the risk of being killed or injured or losing loved ones in terror attacks just so that they can have some privacy. And secondly she has put me in a position where I agree with Hazel Blears.

This is a transcript of an exchange that took place during a meeting between the Parliamentary Intelligence and Security Committee and civil liberties groups.

Hazel Blears, leading Labour member of committee: "You are saying that bulk collection is a step too far in terms of infringement of privacy and, therefore, that if we are unable to analyse targets and develop targets in a way that, subsequently, would contribute to national security, you are prepared to forgo this possibility because of the intrusion into people’s privacy.
"Your balance falls in not having bulk collection at all."

Isabella Sankey, director of policy at Liberty: "Absolutely."

Blears: "If there were evidence that the ability to have bulk collection and then to interrogate it through targeted searches that are properly authorised under a legal framework had helped to develop targets, prevent plots and contribute to national security, would your view be different?"

Dr Eric Metcalfe, appearing on behalf of human rights gropu Justice: "No."

Sankey: "No."

Sir Malcolm Rifkind, former committee chairman: "If evidence emerged through bulk interception that even you acknowledged had led to terrorists being arrested or prevented from carrying out their objectives, are you saying that, as a matter of principle, you believe so strongly that bulk interception is unacceptable in a free society that you would say that that was a price we should be willing to pay, rather than allowing intelligence agencies to use bulk interception methods?"

Sankey: "Yes."

Metcalfe: "Yes."

Rifkind: "And that is the view of your colleagues as well?"

Emma Carr, director of Big Brother Watch: "Yes."

George Howarth, committee member: "You object to that in principle, which is fair enough, but do you accept the corollary to that, which is that some things might happen that otherwise might have been prevented?"

Sankey: "Yes. That is always the case in a free society. Some things might happen that could have been prevented if you took all of the most oppressive, restrictive and privacy-infringing measures. That is the price you pay to live in a free society."

Are there civil liberties that need to be defended? Absolutely but the majority of the public, especially after seeing footage coming out of ISIS controlled territory, are perfectly happy for their communications to be monitored in bulk if it helps prevent any attacks over here. This is something you would be perfectly well aware of if you deigned to descend from your ivory towers and walked around in the real world.

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/563737/UK-terror-attacks-a-price-worth-paying-for-privacy-say-civil-rights-groups

[apc2010]

Words fail me......

[Steve]

same here

[Barman]

For once, I agree with them....

[Uncle Mort]

I'm with Liberty on this one. The mass collection of personal data/communications is fundamentally wrong in a free society. Government intrusion into our private lives should be kept as small as possible, be it telling us how much we should eat, drink, smoke up to reading our private correspondence. If that cost is a raised possibility of a terrorist attack then so be it.

It's also interesting to note that the two statements quote both start with the word if. It appears that that there is no evidence that bulk collection actually works, just supposition.

Sorry but if the majority of the public are happy for their communications to be monitored on the off chance that an attack gets prevented then I fear they really have turned into sheeple. And that's a word I abhor.


 

[Barman]

I'm with Liberty on this one. The mass collection of personal data/communications is fundamentally wrong in a free society. Government intrusion into our private lives should be kept as small as possible, be it telling us how much we should eat, drink, smoke up to reading our private correspondence. If that cost is a raised possibility of a terrorist attack then so be it.

It's also interesting to note that the two statements quote both start with the word if. It appears that that there is no evidence that bulk collection actually works, just supposition.

Sorry but if the majority of the public are happy for their communications to be monitored on the off chance that an attack gets prevented then I fear they really have turned into sheeple. And that's a word I abhor.

Our posts crossed Uncle....

Perfectly put.... 

[Barman]

Tim Worstall makes a better job of it than I ever could...

And there’s a rather difficult calculation to be made. Full on Nazi style threat of invation permits rather more curtailment of civil liberty than does 50 people blown up on the Tube every decade or so. The loss of liberty needs to be proportionate to the threat to it in other words.

Think of this from he side. We could larelgy close Ritchie’s tax evasion gap by simply banning the use of cash and insisting that all transactions, of any sort, go through monitored electronic payment systems. Is that loss of liberty worth closing that tax gap?

Ritchie would almost certainly say yes. I wouldn’t and I would be right.

Is the mass monitoring of the population worth stopping 1%-2% of the murders that happen in the country each year (total is in the 800 range a year, terrorism is a handful). Y/N?

Your choice but it’s something that people can righteously differ on.

We’ve even another way of looking at this. The statistical value of a life is around £2 to £3 million. We should therefore be willing only to spend up to that amount for however many lives are being saved by our spending. Who wants to try and work out whether the surveillance state costs more than the handful of lives saved by not having a few terrorist attacks?

Yes, this is all a rather harsh calculus. But everything has a value, even civil liberty and the lives of the slain.

Which gives us our final calculus. How many would be willing to fight and die to prevent the imposition upon us by Johnny Foreigner of said surveillance state? 300,000 maybe, as fought in WWII? Then that’s the scale of damage that we should be willing to put up with without having it imposed then, isn’t it?

Yes, there’s holes in all of those arguments and comparisons. But the basic logic is still true. There’s a value to having freedom and liberty and that value is greater than some number of lives lost by still having freedom and liberty. The difficult question is, what is that number?

Clicky...

[Uncle Mort]

Before someone comes out with usual stock phrase:

[Barman]

Before someone comes out with usual stock phrase:

 

[Steve]

Before someone comes out with usual stock phrase:

But that wasn't what those two brain frozen in the moment Liberty reps were objecting to was it. 

Liberty have been quick to put a much more sensible line out:

https://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news/latest-news/human-rights-headlines-13-march-2015

[Uncle Mort]

But that wasn't what those two brain frozen in the moment Liberty reps were objecting to was it. 

They were objecting to the mass collection of information on everyone and that's the usual phrase uttered by those who support this  kind of intrusion.

It was a pre-emptive argument. 

[Steve]

But that wasn't what those two brain frozen in the moment Liberty reps were objecting to was it. 

They were objecting to the mass collection of information on everyone and that's the usual phrase uttered by those who support this  kind of intrusion.

It was a pre-emptive argument.

Well they should have been a lot cleverer with their words.  They gave a blanket objection to any mass data monitorin no matter how many lives such might save.  The ever worth listening to Shami was quick to put out a short and far better note and now they've released the statement I linked to earlier.  As I read it Liberty now say no mass data surveillance without proper evidence of its effectivity AND proper independent scrutiny as to its use.  Works for me.


 

[Uncle Mort]

As I read it Liberty now say no mass data surveillance without proper evidence of its effectivity AND proper independent scrutiny as to its use.  Works for me.

And that is exactly what the Committee wanted as an answer. But we have to take the word of the surveillance agencies and the government as to the effectivity and to the independence of the scrutineers. That doesn't work for me as they have already shown to act unlawfully when it suits them.

[Steve]

As I read it Liberty now say no mass data surveillance without proper evidence of its effectivity AND proper independent scrutiny as to its use.  Works for me.

And that is exactly what the Committee wanted as an answer. But we have to take the word of the surveillance agencies and the government as to the effectivity and to the independence of the scrutineers. That doesn't work for me as they have already shown to act unlawfully when it suits them.

And that is wrong.  But the 3 idiots did not say that given several chances to.  Shami is all politeness and charm on the box but I suspect she might just have called that bunch the idiot fuckwits that they were for opening gobs before thinking.

[Barman]

We should not forget that we invaded Iraq based on dodgy intelligence and look how that turned out...

We should not forget what we have achieved in Libya and what the government wanted to do in Syria...

We should not forget that the government has disarmed us...

We should not forget that the government invited millions of Muslims into the country - many of whom now hate us...

We should not forget how RIPA was miss-used....

The answer to terrorism is not more government.