I agree...it is something which I have been hammering on about for years. In the "good old days" there had to be specific warrants, suspicion of a crime and similar safegaurds before a warrant would be issued by a judge or magistrate. Privacy and confidentiality tended to be respected, long before human rights legislation was invented.
The exception always was the Official Secrets Act, which had Section 9 enforcement, allowing a senior police officer or minister of the crown powers to issue such warrants in the event of a threat to national security. It was the Cold War which changed much of this, the percieved Soviet threat, nuclear weapons and Communist domination and subversion of the capitalist state, Cuba, Tri-Continental, Irish terrorism, Vietnam liberation, and the rise of Communist China which led to the bourgeousie getting very panicky and allowed the security of the state to take precedence over the privacy of the individual.
Over the years, with the internet developing, the law and law enforcement have found it difficult to keep up with internet crime. It requires I.T. skills, a new kind of policing, which the bureaucracy haven't yet mastered; patience and a lot of knowledge about I.T. forensics, tracing, and international co-operation. However, such enforcement and training systems costs money, and is inefficient as far as the state and legal authorities are concerned, and until it actually costs the capitalist system more in terms of loss of profits, then nowt will happen...in my view....:-) .
Until this kind of thinking (fuck your privacy and individual human rights, we are going to collect information about all of you en masse) is overcome, which will only happen when enough of those who make the decisions or become victims big time of the excesses of the state, or businesses suffer huge financial losses due to their systems being compromised and their cash and assets stolen, and the insurance companies decide, like flooding, that the insurance ain't worth it, decide to do something about it, like roast their political representatives and lobby hard to get changes, will we see some improvements. It can be done...but it will take a lot of organising...and, it will happen a long time in the future, as I can't see the masses doing too much about it, too busy trying to rid themselves of consumeritis, or just getting on with earning a living, and trying not to spend it all in the one shop...:-) . All that the likes of you and I can do, is to expose the dangers and try to bring it home to folks that a free internet and the world wide web has its cost in other ways.
On 05/02/2016 21:03, Sean Lynch wrote:
It's theoretically possible to still comply with the spirit of the Fourth Amendment by tightly controlling access to the data. The problem is that there's almost zero chance that will happen, and even if there's an intention to tightly control it, the controls would probably be implemented incorrectly. But I don't see how we're going to stop the surveillance from happening, so fighting for tight controls on access and stronger evidentiary and probable cause standards, along with mechanisms for avoiding parallel construction, seems like our best bet for retaining some modicum of privacy.
On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 10:32 AM douglas rankine <douglasrankine2001@xxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:douglasrankine2001@xxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
Even worse than I thought...
Security systems crap, information kept for ever on everybody who is
captured by the system. Some of the cameras are accessible from the
internet...if one knows where to look. EFF doing its best to sort out
the worst elements of it.
On 29/01/2016 16:55, douglas rankine wrote:
> see url: http://vigilantsolutions.com/
> Nice easy solution to the 4th Amendment rights to privacy etc.
> network spreading all over the USA, sells product to law enforcement
> as well as business. No need for warrants, for suspicious
> reasonable suspicion, or car tracking...can follow a car almost
> anywhere, whole thing is recorded.
> We have APNR on most major routes in the UK, but owned by the state
> and is used by law enforcement and for car taxing purposes.