The Big Brother Thread

[davidbfpo]

Actually the article's full title is 'NSA and GCHQ: the flawed psychology of government mass surveillance' and yes it is in The Guardian. The sub-title is probably more telling:

Research shows that indiscriminate monitoring fosters distrust, conformity and mediocrity

Link:http://www.theguardian.com/science/h...nce?CMP=twt_gu

I am uncertain about the science, but it certainly fits in here!

[davidbfpo]

The debate in the UK over privacy and security has restarted as the Conservative government proposes a new law on extending surveillance and adding safeguards.

Today I found a number of good commentaries; if you want the "spin" by some papers assisted by the intelligence agencies you will find them too about a week ago.

The Economist 'To MI5 with love':http://www.economist.com/news/britai...pies-mi5-love?

Jamie Bartlett concludes:

First, it’s not clear how long any measures will even work. Thanks in part to Snowden revelations, soon there will be a new generation of easy-to-use encryption services. The net will become more private and also more difficult to censor and monitor, and I think this might require a very real rethink in how we do intelligence.

And then there is a risk of serious long term damage to the economy, especially the digital economy, of monitoring too much, or forcing companies to install the equipment required to collect and store internet connection records. It’s not quite clear either how serious or damaging this might be, but I think it could be more than the government thinks. And as more of life goes online, we’ll need ever more powerful encryption, not less. This can save the police a fortune in reducing cybercrime, although will certainly make other types of policing more difficult.

Link: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technolog...ts-or-not.html

Heather Brooke's pice is sub-titled:

The new surveillance bill renders the citizen transparent to the state, putting every one of us under suspicion. It would serve a tyranny well.

Link:http://www.theguardian.com/commentis...george-orwell?

Janet Daley in The Daily Telegraph is rather trenchant, as the title suggests:

Britain trusts its spies too much – even when they’re threatening our freedom
It is deeply worrying that the government could soon have the legal right to snoop on the private activities of all law-abiding citizens

Link:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...r-freedom.html

[davidbfpo]

In the UK licence plate readers (LPR in the USA) are known as Automatic Number Plate Readers (ANPR) and as the title implies we have a lot of them:

UK number plate monitoring one of the 'world's biggest surveillance systems'

Link:http://www.v3.co.uk/v3-uk/news/24371...llance-systems

Personally I am not shocked that the (publicly owned) system across the UK ANPR system currently has 8,300 ANPR cameras (mainly overt on main roads and motorways or inter-state) in use submitting 25-35 million ‘read’ records to the National ANPR Data Centre daily, but lacks any legal framework or governance.

What is odd is that a former senior UK CT police officer, now having oversight of surveillance cameras has spoken publicly asking why:https://www.gov.uk/government/speech...ing-university

He is also critical of:

In the UK our (police) database is touching 18m images made up of custody photos (The FBI has 51m). They include photos of people never charged, or others cleared of an offence.

ANPR was originally limited to the "Ring of Steel" around the City of London IRRC long ago when the IRA were bombing London. Their arrival on motorways was originally announced as a prelude to road charging, traffic control and more - not for policing. They have been added in most city centres and almost every port.

The publicly owned system can be supplemented by downloading imagery from the privately owned and to my knowledge not netwworked ANPR at petrol filling stations, let alone car parks or airports.

[davidbfpo]

Where does one start? "Big Sister" the Home Secretary will not explain why:

Theresa May has refused to say whether Britain's security services are accessing medical records and other potentially sensitive information.The home secretary said she did not want to "go down the route of giving information about the sort of data sets that are being acquired".
She was speaking to the draft Investigatory Powers Bill committee.
It was revealed last year that GCHQ is downloading large amounts of personal data to aid its investigations.
It could include the personal details of "a large number of individuals, the majority of whom will not be of any interest to the security and intelligence agencies", according the draft bill.
The information from these "bulk personal data sets," which could include everything from the electoral register, supermarket loyalty schemes or bank records, is then analysed to enable investigators to "join the dots".
The practice is covered by old legislation and has never been debated by MPs. "The UK does not undertake mass surveillance".

Link:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-35300671

An Australian SME responds on whether 'big data' helps:https://counterterrorismmatters.word...ter-terrorism/

[davidbfpo]

First up a NYT article 'New Technologies Give Government Ample Means to Track Suspects, Study Finds', which refer to a Harvard report due out today and is sharp retort to officialdom's frequent doom-laden statements:

Now, a study in which current and former intelligence officials participated concludes that the warning is wildly overblown, and that a raft of new technologies — like television sets with microphones and web-connected cars — are creating ample opportunities for the government to track suspects, many of them worrying.

Link to NYT:http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/01/us...tudy-finds.htm

Link to report (37 pgs):https://cyber.law.harvard.edu/pubrel...ark_Debate.pdf

[davidbfpo]

From a newly found CT blog an article that sets out to:

To understand the utility of bulk communications data in intelligence and CT, you first need to re-consider the needle/haystack analogy typically used when discussing intelligence agency use of bulk datasets.

(He ends with) contrary to Binney’s evidence – bulk communications data does and should play a critical role in the work of UK intelligence agencies.

Link:https://counterterrorismmatters.word...ll-submission/

[davidbfpo]

A short commentary by a good journalist, Paul Lashmar and subtitled:

These pieces of research indicate a pattern of behavioural change that dampens dissent and resistance to overbearing power, both of which are hallmarks of an active democratic citizenry.

(He concludes) In culmination all these pieces of research are indicating a pattern of behavioural change that dampens dissent and resistance to overbearing power, both of which are hallmarks of an active democratic citizenry. What this suggests to me is that that the terrorists have won another unexpected if particular blow against liberal democracy as it is superseded by a security state.

Link:https://www.opendemocracy.net/uk/paul-lashmar/undigested-snowden?