David Cameron Says Fictional Crime Proves Why Snooper's Charter Is Necessary 179
An anonymous reader sends this story from TechDirt:
"You may recall the stories from the past couple years about the so-called 'snooper's charter' in the UK — a system to further legalize the government's ability to spy on pretty much all communications. It was setting up basically a total surveillance system, even beyond what we've since learned is already being done today. Thankfully, that plan was killed off by Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg. However, Prime Minister David Cameron is back to pushing for the snooper's charter — and his reasoning is as stupid as it is unbelievable. Apparently, he thinks it's necessary because the fictional crime dramas he watches on TV show why it's necessary. Cameron said, 'I love watching, as I probably should stop telling people, crime dramas on the television. There's hardly a crime drama where a crime is solved without using the data of a mobile communications device. What we have to explain to people is that... if we don't modernise the practice and the law, over time we will have the communications data to solve these horrible crimes on a shrinking proportion of the total use of devices and that is a real problem for keeping people safe.'"
I know right? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Its the same reason that we should be increasing our ability to hunt down hobbits. If they get control of that ring again it could be the end for us all!
Don't you know anything, the ring was melted down to nothing in the fires of Mt. Doom. It's no longer a threat.
It's magic, ESP powers, aliens, Time Lords, Daleks, and robots that we need to defend against according to such reliable TV and movie series as "A Certain Magical Index", "Warehouse 13", "Aliens" 1 through 4, "Dr. Who", etc.
After all, how can we puny humans stand up to an alien with magic and ESP powers that can travel through time without having the ability to snoop on their communications?
Re: (Score:2)
Then how come the Lidless Eye [ltmuseum.co.uk] is still open?
Also true for the Steve Jackson Games raid (Score:4, Interesting)
The Feds really did have to raid Steve Jackson Games [wikipedia.org], because otherwise dangerous computer hackers might use their site to learn dangerous hacking techniques, like "Roll 3d6. If you get better than 15, your probe breaks through the firewall undetected!".
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
From our viewpoint it's just ridiculous. However, from a conspiracy-crazy early 90's law enf
Re:I know right? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, at least it's a fitting comment to the loonie bin that rules the UK.
Re: I know right? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I suggest you visit the nearest emergency medical centre and have a brain scan to hopefully rule out a stroke, brain tumor, or cerebral aneurysm. This is not a joke.
a stroke might be better news than being "healthy" in this case ;)
Idiocy. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Idiocy. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Idiocy. (Score:5, Funny)
DC is America's thermal exhaust port. It's where all the hot air comes from.
And it's filled with womp-rats.
You know what else we need (Score:4, Interesting)
Warp drive. Lawyers with a conscience. Guns which never need reloading. And magic infinite photo enhancement. When do we get those, huh?
Re:You know what else we need (Score:5, Funny)
Oh, please, I know this thread is about science fiction and unrealistic drama, but lawyers with conscience... the rest I could see, but that really pushes the envelope.
Re: (Score:2)
I know it was a joke. But lets not forget that there are lawyers who work pro-bono on various human-rights and other good cause cases.
So there are lawyers with consciences. It's just that the money grubbing bastard lawyers tend to make the news more often.
Re: (Score:3)
The 99% of shitheaded lawyers make the rest look awful.
Re: (Score:2)
Well most lawyers will agree that a corporate lawyer is so low life that they don't want anything to do with them so the average lawyer does have some morals.
As an aside, we had a corporate lawyer running the country for a while. He's the one that started the whole out sourcing thing going.with NAFTA. Destroyed his party and it has only recently came back, now with an economist in charge. Stupid idiot really believes that mono-culture is for the best.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Weapon Shop guns. They'll only fire in self-defense.
From "Weapon Shops of Isher", if it's not clear.
Re: (Score:2)
Weapon Shop guns. They'll only fire in self-defense.
Dunno...I think I'd rather have a Lazy Gun myself.
If nothing else, they're much more amusing to see in action.
Re: (Score:3)
First we need to legalize the police creating GUI interfaces in Visual Basic in order to track IP addresses.
Re:You know what else we need (Score:5, Funny)
I really don't think we should legalize Visual Basic.
Re: (Score:2)
I really don't think we should legalize Visual Basic.
so lets compromise, how about medical visual basic? you need a script, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
In one of the very few detective shows I enjoyed, rideable spider robots with wheeled feet and childish AI personalities were *absolutely essential* to effective crimefighting.
There's another one which I sincerely hope David Cameron never sees involving "crime coefficients."
I agree with his logic (Score:2)
Of course, the stories I'm following are the ones that picture totalitarian governments. We should therefore pass laws barring any government agency (there than very local law enforcement) from having any powers.
Re: (Score:2)
of course, you've just used things you saw on TV to advocate what laws the government should pass..... and you didn't see any resemblance to Cameron doing exactly the same thing?
I blame modern education that eschews classical teaching in favour of shiny technology :-(
Re: (Score:2)
of course, you've just used things you saw on TV to advocate what laws the government should pass..... and you didn't see any resemblance to Cameron doing exactly the same thing?
I blame modern education that eschews classical teaching in favour of shiny technology :-(
What do you blame for missing that he obviously did that on purpose? Subject line was kind of a big hint there.
The bigger problem (Score:5, Informative)
We already know that things which happen in soap operas come to pass, in real life - as programmes like those set the agenda for what "ordinary people" assume is socially acceptable: both for their own behaviour and that of others. Those programmes (and cop shows, too) also tell people what is an acceptable reaction to given situations.
Some (non-viewers) might say that these are fictional drama and therefore should be treated as non-real and non-realistic, but just check out TV forums and see how many posters refer to actors by their characters' names. For a lot of people, TV is real-life: just as Google IS the internet as far asa they're concerned.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's the same as the affect of 'CSI' on civilian expectations of police work.
Re: (Score:2)
That might be a bit of a leap there.
When I read a novel, I say/think $CHARACTER did something, even though I know that they don't exist, and I find I do the same in all sorts of entertainment, television included. Also, the names of the characters are a great way to refer to the person without having to memorise their names, or expect others to do so as well.
In fact, come to
What's his need? (Score:2)
He should watch more of the shows where a halfway decent hacker and a computer can sniff out any kind of information, whether it's somewhere on the internet or not, even if it's hidden on a standalone computer in some godforsaken place of the marble we're on, a truly good hacker can dig it up.
So what does he need those laws for? He should hire a few more of those wonderful hackers.
Given the right price, I'm for hire, btw...
Re: (Score:2)
I thought you were going on about the pointlessness of destroying The Guardian's computers and hard drives regarding the Snowden documents. That is, any hacker can find those documents so why would you bother destroying The Guardian's hardware?
This is the UK establishment all over (Score:2)
Cameron notices his butler has a tv and spends time watching it, realises this could be a way to communicate with the proles "on their level"
Ok, Mr (Score:4, Insightful)
Your TV prviledges are revoked, go to your room!
Time Lord's Charter (Score:5, Funny)
It seems to me, from the British TV I watch, that the UK is clearly in need of a Time Lord's Charter, authorizing the use of the Tardis and associated technology in solving existential threats to the Earth.
Re: (Score:2)
If you're replying to a post about a Time Lord's Charter, you're supposed to say "I say we take off and EXTERMINATE the entire site from orbit."
Re: (Score:2)
Now, now, that is clearly the Dalek's charter.
Re: (Score:2)
I say we take off and nuke the entire site from orbit.
It's the only way to be sure.
While I'm all for nuking England as the food is terrible and the prime export is nanny state totalitarianism, we would need to find a substitute for the art it produces. Canada gave us Beiber. England gave us the Beatles and Heavy Metal.
Re: (Score:2)
Canada gave us Diana Krall and William Shatner. Just press the button.
I'm sorry, but (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
One of the first tasks of a government to to prohibit private wars and vendettas, called "preserving the King's peace". From there, you get a slippery slope that honest governments admit exists, and used to work hard to stay away from. Not so much lately!
If you've read Asimov's later "Robots" stories, you can see his re-raising the question, and asking how it applies to a new technology.
Re: (Score:3)
We had to get involved in a war 1/2 way across the world to keep us safe from the nazis. and in the next 40 years we had to keep us safe from the evil communists.
I know everyone loves to bash bush, myself included. but if you honestly think that the government only started "keeping us safe" after 9/11 you need to open a book.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
There's "keeping the nation safe from a foreign invasion," and then there's "keeping individuals safe from an individual or small group of wackjobs."
The first is the job of the government. The second one isn't. They're trying to conflate the two, and take over the second, as well as the first.
Re: (Score:2)
Wait, blaming Bush, Ashcroft, (and presumably Cheney) for the actions of the UK government?
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure. When did we invent the military?
Re: (Score:2)
When did "keeping us safe" become the primary function of government? Oh, that's right, George Bush and John Ashcroft used that as an excuse to make us live in a police state right after 9/11. Now it has spread to the whole democratic West. Good thing the terrorists didn't win.
I'll just keep saying this and you all can just keep modding me down: for more than half a decade one Barack H Obama has been 100% in charge of the federal "security" apparatus.
As long as you keep pretending that isn't true, this is all just useless bellyaching.
americans would fall for this too (Score:2)
The worst part (Score:2)
1984 was fiction too (Score:5, Interesting)
Not to defend him by any means, but in this instance his statement is no more stupid than invoking 1984 or other dystopian works of fiction as the reason the Snooper's Charter is to be avoided. Fiction they may be, but these works portray possibilities that inform how things might turn out in reality given a course of action, even if the actual outcome resembles the fictional scenario only in kind, not in actual detail. The ability to gain insight into ourselves is one of the many reasons we find works of art valuable in the first place. The key is not to confuse fiction with reality which admittedly many do.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It actually is stupid. His logic apparently suggests that all it takes for criminals to succeed in their endeavours is to not use mobile communication devices (because without them, the authorities are screwed!). So the outcome would be that everyone would get snooped except for the criminals who won't get caught.
That's not stupid at all, because it's absolutely true. If you leave all your RF behind, wear a ghillie suit or CV dazzle makeup, or at least a cap with camera-blinding IR LEDs pointed out from around the brim, and use a vehicle not-your-own for travel, you'll be highly successful. However, most thieves are not that smart, and won't leave their phones behind. So they get caught.
What does this say about Cameron? (Score:3)
Firstly, Cameron didn't say it was necessary. He merely used that example to illustrate what he was saying.
Cameron's first act as PM was to repeal Labour's ID Cards Act (which was compulsory fingerprinting, numbering and recording on a national database to hook up all govt databases) and destroy the hard disks Guardian-style. Maybe this is where he got the idea.
He also attended the inception meeting of NO2ID, the immensely successful campaign that Labour's Home Minister Secretary at the time, David Blunke
Re: (Score:2)
Whilst the Tories are 6 points behind in the polls, what it really means is that they're 12 points behind in terms of seats.
We saw a 7.1 point lead by the Tories turn into an ungovernable minority. In 2005, Labour's 2.8% lead gave them an almost unaccountable majority. There's both an electoral system bias against the Tories and a pool of potential Labour voters who don't usually bother voting. I'd estimate the actual bias to be 3-4%, but in polling terms it's about 6% ie, if the Tories win by 6, they'll
Re: (Score:2)
And that is precisely the problem TFA highlights. Cameron confuses fiction with reality. To prevent prime ministers from acting on incorrect assumptions and faulty logic, it makes sense to oppose them doing things which lead them into confusing fiction with reality, such as watching cop dramas and discussing them publicly as justifications for draconian spying powers.
In other words, he deserves the crap he gets for allowing TV dr
Re: (Score:2)
But we praise the leaders when they use a piece of fiction to decide science policy.
Perhaps we should judge the leaders on the actual policies they produce, rather than the source of them.
Re: (Score:2)
But we praise the leaders when they use a piece of fiction to decide science policy.
Who is this "we"?
Imagine What Might Happen! (Score:2)
"...over time we will have the communications data to solve these horrible crimes on a shrinking proportion of the total use of devices and that is a real problem for keeping people safe."
Ahh, yes, the spectre of bad things that could happen in the future. We can't show any actual evidence of the value of these kinds of programs right now, because it is fictional, but think of what might happen tomorrow! As Wimpy would say, "I will gladly protect you Tuesday for your liberty today."
He is a masterful politician (Score:4, Insightful)
Let's face it, 90% of people are fucking stupid, and believe everything they see on TV, including "crime dramas" where unbelievable feats of forensic science are achieved in every episode. People eat this shit up, and most of this stupid underclass believes it is necessary to prevent or solve crimes.
This is why the revelations that these ubiquitous, omniscient surveillance systems exists generated nothing more than enthusiastic yawns among the populace.
People... just... don't... care...
Honestly, the people who do care, even being as vocal as they can be, make an almost imperceptible noise against the drums of big tyrannical government - like an annoying mosquito in the ear of the underinformed, low-information majority who just wants to know when the next episode of the Kardashians or Property Brothers or CSI or other mindless drivel will be on.
"keeping people safe" (Score:3)
keeping people safe.
This is the big problem. You can't keep people safe and there's on need to strive to do so to the absolute. You can keep them safer, and the trick is to strike the right balance between their security and their freedom.
If only there was some apposite quote from an elder statesmen of a bygone age...
Drawing on british crime dramas (Score:2)
What Britain really needs is a real Sherlock Holmes. He can only invade your privacy if you're within his sight.
Re: (Score:2)
How about a real Detective Mudoch? (Admittedly, Canadian) (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1091909/?ref_=nv_sr_4)
Leprechauns (Score:2)
"It's all because of the invisible leprechauns. It's true, because I saw it in a film [wikipedia.org]. We have to be much tougher on everything and everybody in order to eradicate this terrible pest. The Snooper's Charter is just the beginning; I'm now working on the draft Wear Your Underpants On The Outside For Hygiene Law (WYUOTOFH law).
Most of my cabinet ministers have agreed with me, and those who haven't (because the leprechauns subverted t
While we're at it, (Score:2)
we need to triple funding for creating GUI interfaces in Visual Basic! Hurry!!!
Where's The Doctor When You Need Him (Score:2)
He could bring David Cameron's administration down with two words... Ok, not two. Six.
"Don't you think he looks tired?"
Worked for Harriet Jones.
illustrates, not proves (Score:2)
I think he's wrong and his policies are misguided. But it doesn't look to me like he said the fictional stories proved that these methods were useful, just that they illustrated how they were useful.
Re:Terrorists (Score:5, Funny)
We won't be able to catch the suicide bombers either if we can't analyse their mobile communications after the bomb goes off!
Re:Terrorists (Score:5, Funny)
And we really need to catch them and lock them up to make sure they'll never do it again!
Re:On the subject of integrity (Score:5, Insightful)
Techdirt is honest reporting at its finest, rivaling even Slashdot's journalistic integrity. They're both very upfront and clear about their biases.
...his reasoning is as stupid as it is unbelievable.
Sometimes that isn't bias, as much as an accurate and objective assessment. It is a bad idea to seriously consider every ridiculous statement instead of dismissing it outright.
That's why politicians start from ridiculous propositions -- so that any "compromise" is well in their favor.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
And while we're at it...
Whenever a controversial law is proposed, and its supporters, when confronted with an egregious abuse it would permit, use a phrase along the lines of 'Perhaps in theory, but the law would never be applied in that way' - they're lying. They intend to use the law that way as early and as often as possible.
Meringuoid's Law [slashdot.org], 2005, Slashdot.
Re:On the subject of integrity (Score:4, Insightful)
Whenever a controversial law is proposed, and its supporters, when confronted with an egregious abuse it would permit, use a phrase along the lines of 'Perhaps in theory, but the law would never be applied in that way' - they're lying.
just like the patriot act. we have the author of the bill running around now stating that he never intended for it to be used in the way its being used. Well if you didnt intend for it to be used in this way, why did you write it in a way that it COULD be used in this way???
Re: (Score:3)
Well if you didnt intend for it to be used in this way, why did you write it in a way that it COULD be used in this way?
Law of unintended consequences. You'll see it any country where laws and lawyers exist. A law is written as X,Y,Z; a lawyer will see it as X,A,C,Y,Z and exploit any and all loopholes that previous precedents or case law will allow. Let's be realistic, some politicians have been lawyers, but your average politician isn't, and they have no idea that "and" is explicit, and "or" can be taken in 12 different ways within a legal framework. Even lawyers who specialize in particular areas get messed up on that.
Re:On the subject of integrity (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
True in some cases. Though you'll probably remember that the base draft of most laws are written by politicians, in turn the faults in those law will transfer over because the one doing the draft or final draft listen to the one who wants it written as such. I've seen this in action up here in Canada both in federal and provincial politics, it's very easy to make a non-threatening phrase turn into something that twists the entire meaning and not make it so.
An example from the US: The passing of the restri
Re: (Score:3)
The current situation is EXACTLY what American "liberals" were predicting would be the result, before it was passed. They passed it anyways, if it was "unintended" then they were total idiots who should listen more.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You must be from the right, because I actually said "liberals." I did NOT say "Democracts." Most Democrats are not liberals. There are only about 2 liberals in the Senate, and 50 or so in the House. So it is pretty clear that the liberals did vote with their warning, and the Dems didn't listen.
Re: (Score:2)
It's only fiction because the snooper's charter was stopped. If they did have access to all data everywhere, solving crimes would be a lot more like the fiction.
Calling this stupid and unbelievable is an unforgivable journalistic error, as it speaks directly to a large part of the population, being those who enjoy the crime dramas. It is classic understanding of the intended audience, and gives a lot of information concisely.
Modernizing the law will give access to more data and solve more crimes, and that i
Re: (Score:2)
It's used in fiction because the writers are on a tight schedule and so aren't above a bit of deus ex machina to get over a sticky plot point. Of course, fiction writers need not concern themselves with the human rights of fictional characters.
Here in the real world, people have rights that must be respected and reality rarely alters itself to drop key evidence in a detective's lap at the 50 minute mark so he can solve the case before the show ends, even with mobile data. Fortunately, criminal masterminds t
Re: (Score:2)
It's used in fiction because the writers are on a tight schedule and so aren't above a bit of deus ex machina to get over a sticky plot point. Of course, fiction writers need not concern themselves with the human rights of fictional characters.
Actually, I think it's more used because they like to pander to the large subset of the population that _loves_ to see fictional heroes violate the rights of the "bad guys". It works in real life politics, after all. Just look at the ridiculous populatic of Sherrif Joe Arpaio. TV crime dramas are full of "good guys" who lie, cheat, steal, torture, murder, and otherwise violate pretty much every principle they're supposed to uphold, but it's ok because they have virtually a 100% success rate (except for the
Re: (Score:2)
At what point is a bias no longer a bias but a measurable fact?
Being unable to distinguish between reality and TV seems a rather clear indication of mental retardation.
Re:On the subject of integrity (Score:4, Insightful)
He's a politician. You can tell he's lying if you see his lips move.
P.S.: I don't follow British politics. If that's an overstatement in British politics, I appologize. I'm assuming that in it's broad aspects it resembles US politics.
Re:On the subject of integrity (Score:4, Insightful)
British politics differs hugely from American politics. However, yes, in the moving lips = lies point, politicians are the same worldwide.
Re: (Score:2)
British politics differs hugely from American politics. However, yes, in the moving lips = lies point, politicians are the same worldwide.
British politicians lie using bigger words.
Unfortunately Australian politicians went the other way, our current prime minister cant stop saying boats for some strange reason.
Re: (Score:2)
only the police used historical mobile data to find some suspects in the Madeleine Mcann disappearance case (to the shame of the Portugese police who no doubt didn't have access to such, if they weren't incompetent as described in the media :) )
So there's a real-life case of what he's saying being true, while those TV crime dramas do exaggerate the possibilities (think CSI using the reflection in a car body as evidence, or 24 using satellite tracking video data, or Bladerunner zooming into a picture to see
Re: (Score:2)
That's if you think "enshrine it clearly in law" will act as a protection against misuse. Unfortunately, recent history casts derision upon that point of view. (I was going to be more "polite" and say "casts doubts", but reviewing recent history, I couldn't justify that more moderate statement.)
Re: (Score:2)
What suspects? They have 3 guys who were doing a little burglary at the time talking on their cellphones. Do they REALLY think those guys were out and about stealing the silver and wondered to themselves how much their fence would give them for a kid? Or is it more likely they were calling back and fourth talking about how the cops were out in force and perhaps they should go somewhere else to steal the silver?
So all that mobile data and they're still clutching at straws and have no idea where the kid is. T
Re: (Score:2)
Identifying suspects who turn out to be exonerated is the same as not having identified them in the first place.
No. It is worse, unless the process leads to eventual success.
Re:On the subject of integrity (Score:4)
Indeed, he's merely providing a context to which people might be familiar, if he had chosen to give real examples of policework, it would amount to the same dialogue.
Or do these same people chide those who mention Orwell, Rand, and other authors of fiction?
Well, when you look at how many times a reference to a tv show or a movie is made by posters here on Slashdot as justification or backup of their point of view or draw analogies. Just yesterday someone pointed to Bones as an example of a STEM educated woman.
It seems like every story has some posting from a juvenile living in his mom's basement referencing some TV show or movie. It happens every day in every thread.
Cameron was just playing to the audience most likely to buy his drivel.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, when you look at how many times a reference to a tv show or a movie is made by posters here on Slashdot as justification or backup of their point of view or draw analogies.
We expect more from national leasers than we do from the less than average slashdot reader.
Of course we are constantly disappointed.
Re: (Score:2)
Or do these same people chide those who mention Orwell, Rand, and other authors of fiction?
You know, there are different levels literary significance. Comparing a weekly crime drama meant solely to get ratings to a great literary work themed by the author to provide a message is kind of like the idiot in the post further down validating arguments used by a state leader to justify a surveillance state because random people in an Internet forum use the same type of argument. If people can't make that distinction we are lost already considering what's shown on TV.
Re: (Score:2)
No, I do think it's stupid and unbelievable. I'm just arrogant enough to want to come to that conclusion myself.
Re: (Score:2)
As Regan looked at the world through the fog of dementia and dirty windows at the White House he couldn't distinguish between movie scripts and reality. (Remember the refit of the New Jersey?) It seems that Cameron has lost more than a few brain cells too.
This is what happens when the GCHQ uses the neuralizer too much.
s/Regan/Reagan/g (Score:3)
Donald Regan [wikipedia.org] was Treasury Secretary and later Chief of Staff for Ronald Reagan [wikipedia.org], an actor who played the President of the United States.
The /g isn't strictly correct, because sometimes somebody might actually want to refer to Regan, but it's probably 99% correct.
Re: (Score:2)
You realize you're arguing, on SLASHDOT, about how people live in TV fantasy worlds?
TV Fantasy/SciFi encouraged a heck of a lot of technology development over the last few decades. TV Crime Drama's are only a few years ahead of us with their crazy non-sense. 5x enhance (i.e. zooming in) is the future when we can mount 100MP cameras at intersections, or on buildings. Modern consumer cameras take pictures you can't even view on a 1080p desktop at their actual resolution.. (41 MP = 7264 x 5440 ... you could 'e
Re: (Score:2)
That is the problem. The TV dramas are showing us that the cops are always right in whatever they do to catch the bad guy, and the the guy they're after is the bad guy, so it justifies everything. Including using his refusal to submit to a search or whatever being used as evidence that he must have something to hide.
I'm not sure there's a crime drama on TV today where the protagonists haven't, at one point in the series (often every single episode...) broken into a "suspect"'s house to peek around before c
Re: (Score:2)
You don't need to pretend to be a piece of trash; we already have many people like that in society, and I see them every single day.
Re: (Score:2)
Obvious bias is indeed obvious, but, to be fair, it only points out that the reason is stupid, and does not comment on the law itself. It doesn't really need to either, since the /. groupthink will tell 95% of us what to think about it anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
Ahhh, if it's all the same to you, I'm not quite done with my critical reasoning skills yet. But, I promise, the moment I'm done with them, I'll come chase shadows with you on your imaginary demon hunt.