8 ms·

UK spy boss warns of technology terror risk

24 points by jackgavigan 11y ago

if_you_see_sid 11y ago
I am sure I have just read an article which basically says: bo ho we can't decrypt all the security used. Switch the target from paedophiles back to terrorists, so that we can remove the liberties of the nation.
mtgx 11y ago
I wonder if he's referring to the fact that they can't hack into tech companies as easily as they did pre-Snowden revelations. > But Mr Parker, in the first live interview by a serving MI5 boss, said what should be included in new legislation was a matter "for parliament to decide". Yes, I'm sure the MI5 or GCHQ will offer no input whatsoever to the Parliament and will just let them come up with the legislation on their own.
- laumars 11y ago
  The fact that he refused to answer the question about whether he agreed with judicial oversight speaks volumes.
NickHaflinger 11y ago
What a load of technology terror BS ..
kevcampb 11y ago
You'd wonder how we all survived in the days before the internet, when they had none of this data.
- arethuza 11y ago
  Easy - place bugs in 10 Downing Street: http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2010/apr/18/mi5-bugged-10-downing-street http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2010/apr/18/mi5-bugged-10-down... Poor Harold Wilson - 'Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't after you.' - he was paranoid about being bugged and it eventually turned out that they were.
  - spacecowboy_lon 11y ago
    Yes but Wilson was actually going mad, early onset Altzimers - its tragic and was hushed up for years out of respect for the Man. Wilson also had his own in house dirty tricks dept who fed his apatite for conspiracy theory's which did not help.
- jgrahamc 11y ago
  Prior to the Internet where people and spies communicated using radio, telephones, Telex, telegrams, ... those technologies were intercepted by the security services. For example, in 1967 it was revealed that in Britain all private cables into and out of the UK were being intercepted and given to the security services. There is nothing new in GCHQ's desire to have access to signals intelligence and to sift through it looking for both metadata patterns (who is talking to who) and actual contents.
  - thomasrossi 11y ago
    All internet communication in and out the transatlantic communication cable is stored and recorded, exactly like telephones were:) The amount of data is so huge that unencrypting it is quite boring. They are getting lazy dis days;P have it plain text would be nicer.. lol?
venomsnake 11y ago
> He said internet companies had an "ethical responsibility" to alert agencies to potential threats. As long as keeps it just ethical and not legal responsibility ... oh wait, we are pushing in that direction.
nota_bene 11y ago
This seems to eternally remain relevant: http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2011/06/fear-of-terror-makes-people-stupid.html http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2011/06/fear-of-terror-makes-...
fredley 11y ago
> "It's in nobody's interests that terrorists should be able to [...] communicate out of the reach of authorities." Since you can't distinguish between 'terrorists', and anybody else, this effectively reduces to our old favourite: > "It's in nobody's interests that people should be able to [...] communicate out of the reach of authorities."
- x5n1 11y ago
  Ultimately that's their biggest fear. That certain elements that are not friendly to their interests organize either themselves, or organize at the behest of a foreign government to undermine their control over the system. And it's a valid concern. Governments want to maintain their control. It doesn't take much to destabilize a State, they have done it many times they know this to be the case.
  - balabaster 11y ago
    I think that largely depends on the State and Government. Growing up in England, I'd largely say that people have a sense of freedom [how true that is vs. media tainted perspectives is anyone's guess], that despite (allegedly) one of the most extensive surveillance networks in the world, people there don't generally sense a fear of being watched or oppressed... and it's not that people don't know they're on camera somewhere, we're all well aware that someone could be [albeit after the fact] watching our every [public] move, it's just that they don't tend to give it a second thought or care. I can't say this doesn't affect anyone's behaviour, but I don't feel that my feelings are atypical and it doesn't affect mine. It's only once there's a tipping point in the volume of people feeling of oppressed that revolutions arise and States destabilized... ...or bad actors use dirty politics to throw countries into financial turmoil, inject a sense of panic into the population and overthrow regimes that are not friendly to their agenda... or back the wrong frenemies and leave a pile of rubble and a want for revenge where there was once [reasonable] stability; even if that stability didn't look like they thought it should or didn't align with their own economic/political agenda. On another note, pencil & paper never got a virus that tunneled its way around the internet taking over thousands of computers to be used as a bot network for cyber attacks on industry... and when the power went out, I could still use my credit card to pay for things. Most stores appear to have forgotten that ability.
badger404 11y ago
MI5, CIA, et al. are the terrorists.
- x5n1 11y ago
  You can't make such a bold claim. However, this does happen from time to time https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Gladio https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Gladio https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Years_of_Lead_%28Italy%29 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Years_of_Lead_%28Italy%29
  - if_you_see_sid 11y ago
    Sure you can: "Terrorist: a person who uses terrorism in the pursuit of political aims."
dharma1 11y ago
How would they realistically prevent people from using encryption?
- cbpy 11y ago
  They could make it illegal and require a backdoor on all electronics?
  - dharma1 11y ago
    good luck requiring a backdoor on chinese made chips, or trying to ban their import
- nota_bene 11y ago
  Mandatory hardware based backdoors, unlimited funding for CPU power to accelerate decryption of intercepted data, etc.
- richmarr 11y ago
  Ban encryption without back doors. Some companies would withraw products, others would comply, maybe some others would protest for a while. After a while the only option left would be steganography https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steganography https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steganography At which point it seems unlikely they'd be able to do anything other than work on techniques to detect steganography (which they no doubt already do)... which leaves us with a steganographic arms race (which has probably already been the case for some time behind the scenes).
  - rvnt 11y ago
    What are some valid alternatives/compromises we could work towards in order to prevent such drastic ideas from being incorporated into law?
  - andy_ppp 11y ago
    I love the idea of using Facebook, Email, Youtube, Instagram etc. to tunnel Tor. Wonder how difficult it would be? It's probably already happening just look for slightly different duplicates of the same videos.
agd 11y ago
It's worth pointing out that the government is about to try and push through new surveillance powers. Despite his protestations to the contrary, he very much is trying to shape UK policy and opinion.
- touristtam 11y ago
  He has the backing of a good part of the UK medias and the establishment: just look at the news surrounding the internal Labour election.
JustSomeNobody 11y ago
How much more secure would be using codes rather than encryption for "terrorists"? If I were a terrorist, I don't think I'd use encryption as it pretty much guarantees scrutiny. But, how secure is coming up with some sort of code? Like say, "Honey, can you pick up some milk on the way home." Means the truckload of fertilizer is ready to be delivered or something.
- tankenmate 11y ago
  Using a code words etc still leaves you vulnerable to analysis. MI5 here are asking for the ability to request records of individuals or individuals that match certain narrowly defined criteria. So at this point they would have a low level suspicion of you, something they can use to drive analysis. The only reasonable protection at the point of already being in the cross hairs is to use mathematically secure communications.
  - JustSomeNobody 11y ago
    I'm sure it would (leave someone vulnerable), but I think it would be interesting to see some analysis of how it stacks up to encryption. Governments have been breaking codes since forever, so I know they're good at it. And with computers, I'm sure it's gotten so much easier.
tomelders 11y ago
I'll only believe these "we stopped x number of attacks" quips when that number is given to us by an independent authority who doesn't have a vested interest in making numbers up. Call me cynical - but I think recent history backs up that position.
- chipgap98 11y ago
  I don't think asking for validation of what we're being told is cynical at all. I think that problem is that people think its a problem to ask for proof.
elcct 11y ago
Especially innovations in shower rooms where criminals can communicate without authorities interference. I think every shower room should have a backdoor in form of a chair for an agent to sit and listen.
satai 11y ago
He should stop spread fear, uncertainty, doubt and terror.
fukusa 11y ago
Would it harm national security if they published a list of former security agency employees who are now employed by the security industry? It think it's safe to assume that a very high percentage of former security agency employees end up working in this industry as it is in their area of expertise and the industry could use their connections to the agencies. With all of this in mind, would it not make sense to assume that the terrorism threat could be highly exaggerated or even fabricated?
PuffinBlue 11y ago
I heard Admiral Lord West[0] today giving an interview on the BBC radio station '5 live'. In it he sated words to the effect: "Nobody cares about your emails or if your having 30 affairs". This is just a variation on the 'if you have nothing to hide' argument which as ever forgets that bothersome dimension - time. Perhaps I have nothing to hide 'now', but who's to say I won't later? Even in very recent history I'm pretty certain that if I was gay I'd be very much regretting making any previous public declaration of my sexuality in Russia say 5 years ago, much less the age numerous examples over the last century where people have been persecuted as government positions changed. This is a very difficult subject. I value privacy but I suppose I also value honesty. Knowing that what I put online (like this statement) is being surveilled en mass somehow feels better than finding out after the fact. The flip side to that is then, what's the point of more security powers? Surely if everyone knows they're listening no one will say much of that particular interest? It's common knowledge that the security services have broken 'everything' save for cleanly and properly implemented encryption on a clean system (even then the hardware is breached so air gap it). The 'Bad Guys' know this so the likelihood of obtaining quality intelligence from such mass surveillance seems counter-intuitive to put it kindly. Those who do use common online services will be the 'low-hanging fruit' and likely so stupid the'd have been caught anyway (maybe we should still pick that fruit, I guess). The truth is, attacking a soft target like a western country is easy and requires no use of encryption. Just go and get a couple containers of fuel, go on a tube at rush hour with them in a backpack, pull the emergency stop, dump the fuel and light a match. You could probably rig up something custom made to get the job done simply and effectively (with no end of variation to counter your initial 'that wouldn't work'). That sort of thing would probably rival the 7/7 London bombings with just a one man attack (and talking about it will no doubt get me on a list now - wow look at me worrying about self-censoring). In fact, I'd put £1000 on fire being the next weapon of choice because done properly it's incredibly effective. Could we defend against that sort of attack? No. We can't. That's the truth. We can't really stop anything (or most things) done quickly and where the attackers are themselves prepared to die. So do we pull down all the (illusions of) freedom we have built up for ourselves in the hope of catching some low hanging fruit? I don't think that's a good idea. After all, the security services must remember that their job is in fact _supposed_ to be difficult (impossible even) and they must struggle to do it whilst maintaining those pesky freedoms the populace deserve that keep getting in the way all the time. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_West,_Baron_West_of_Spithead https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_West,_Baron_West_of_Spith...
peterwwillis 11y ago
At some point isn't there an argument to be made that they're being lazy? For example, say they gained the ability to inspect every single digital communication and read every message sent, as if that were actually feasible. So people stop sending the messages via the internet. What's the next thing they're going to do? Install listening devices around the country to listen into private conversations in private homes all around major cities (assuming they already don't do that with mobile phone microphones on standby) ? Once they have that, will they begin exploring how to effectively 'read minds', or do pattern analysis on behaviors of different people as they walk around or sit in cafes or something to look for 'malicious intent behavior' ? Terrorists will always continue to look for new ways to avoid detection, and these agencies are always going to push for more invasive means of circumventing them. It will always get worse, until we start saying, no thanks, i'd rather risk it. And, hey call me crazy, but maybe even working to stop the root causes of extremism rather than simply waiting for them to boil over could be a good idea.
JupiterMoon 11y ago
If you live in the UK and care get ready to start writing to your MP.
danlindley 11y ago
You are 8 times more likely to be killed by a police officer than by a terrorist. Is anyone talking about that?
- richmarr 11y ago
  I agree, more people should be talking about that, but... (a) MI5's budget isn't based on how well it supervises the police, because it doesn't, and (b) MI5 is based in a country where that "8 times more likely" statistic is completely reversed. "According to data collected by the UK advocacy group Inquest, there have been 55 fatal police shootings – total – in England and Wales from 1990 to 2014." http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jun/09/the-counted-police-killings-us-vs-other-countries http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jun/09/the-counted-p... And this list broadly supports that figure (adding deaths from Scotland and Northern Ireland): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_killings_by_law_enforcement_officers_in_the_United_Kingdom https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_killings_by_law_enforc...
  - JupiterMoon 11y ago
    Multiple problems with that statistic. (1) you quote England and Wales, what about Scotland and Northern Ireland? (2) The police in the UK do not generally carry firearms and most people that die in/at the hands of the police do not get shot in the UK.
    - richmarr 11y ago
      Uh huh. (1) I already made that point, and linked to data on the UK including Scotland and Northern Ireland. But, it broadly matches up. If you have better data please share it. (2) The full-UK list I linked to is "people who died directly or indirectly because of the actions of law enforcement officers, regardless of the manner of death". Again, if you have better data feel free to share it. I have to wonder what point you're trying to make. The relevant point I made to the parent comment was that the "police kill 8 times more than terrorists" statistic quoted doesn't apply in the context of the UK. Even if manage to quibble the "55 people" stat up to 100 it's still an order of magnitude short of "8x". Are you saying that UK police do kill 8x more than terrorists?
JupiterMoon 11y ago
I was 'surprised' how weak the bbc interview was he lied several times during this interview and they did not pick him up on these lies once.
- touristtam 11y ago
  I stop listening to what the BBC had to say the day they were just "reporting" the project fear during the Scottish Independence referendum. The most notable fact was the report of new oil field discovered in North Sea early 2014, that suddenly couldn't outlive the current decade during the referendum period. Only to be completely resurrected the day after the referendum and the No victory. All reported by the same BBC.
  - JupiterMoon 11y ago
    This is familiar it happens to most people eventually when the BBC discusses an issue that one actually knows something about. Their independence since the Iraq war fallout has been seriously weakened.

24 points by jackgavigan 11y ago

I am sure I have just read an article which basically says: bo ho we can't decrypt all the security used. Switch the target from paedophiles back to terrorists, so that we can remove the liberties of the nation.

mtgx 11y ago

I wonder if he's referring to the fact that they can't hack into tech companies as easily as they did pre-Snowden revelations. > But Mr Parker, in the first live interview by a serving MI5 boss, said what should be included in new legislation was a matter "for parliament to decide". Yes, I'm sure the MI5 or GCHQ will offer no input whatsoever to the Parliament and will just let them come up with the legislation on their own.

laumars 11y ago
The fact that he refused to answer the question about whether he agreed with judicial oversight speaks volumes.

NickHaflinger 11y ago

What a load of technology terror BS ..

kevcampb 11y ago

You'd wonder how we all survived in the days before the internet, when they had none of this data.

arethuza 11y ago
Easy - place bugs in 10 Downing Street: http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2010/apr/18/mi5-bugged-10-downing-street http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2010/apr/18/mi5-bugged-10-down... Poor Harold Wilson - 'Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't after you.' - he was paranoid about being bugged and it eventually turned out that they were.
- spacecowboy_lon 11y ago
  Yes but Wilson was actually going mad, early onset Altzimers - its tragic and was hushed up for years out of respect for the Man. Wilson also had his own in house dirty tricks dept who fed his apatite for conspiracy theory's which did not help.
jgrahamc 11y ago
Prior to the Internet where people and spies communicated using radio, telephones, Telex, telegrams, ... those technologies were intercepted by the security services. For example, in 1967 it was revealed that in Britain all private cables into and out of the UK were being intercepted and given to the security services. There is nothing new in GCHQ's desire to have access to signals intelligence and to sift through it looking for both metadata patterns (who is talking to who) and actual contents.
- thomasrossi 11y ago
  All internet communication in and out the transatlantic communication cable is stored and recorded, exactly like telephones were:) The amount of data is so huge that unencrypting it is quite boring. They are getting lazy dis days;P have it plain text would be nicer.. lol?

venomsnake 11y ago

> He said internet companies had an "ethical responsibility" to alert agencies to potential threats. As long as keeps it just ethical and not legal responsibility ... oh wait, we are pushing in that direction.

nota_bene 11y ago

This seems to eternally remain relevant: http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2011/06/fear-of-terror-makes-people-stupid.html http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2011/06/fear-of-terror-makes-...

fredley 11y ago

> "It's in nobody's interests that terrorists should be able to [...] communicate out of the reach of authorities." Since you can't distinguish between 'terrorists', and anybody else, this effectively reduces to our old favourite: > "It's in nobody's interests that people should be able to [...] communicate out of the reach of authorities."

x5n1 11y ago
Ultimately that's their biggest fear. That certain elements that are not friendly to their interests organize either themselves, or organize at the behest of a foreign government to undermine their control over the system. And it's a valid concern. Governments want to maintain their control. It doesn't take much to destabilize a State, they have done it many times they know this to be the case.
- balabaster 11y ago
  I think that largely depends on the State and Government. Growing up in England, I'd largely say that people have a sense of freedom [how true that is vs. media tainted perspectives is anyone's guess], that despite (allegedly) one of the most extensive surveillance networks in the world, people there don't generally sense a fear of being watched or oppressed... and it's not that people don't know they're on camera somewhere, we're all well aware that someone could be [albeit after the fact] watching our every [public] move, it's just that they don't tend to give it a second thought or care. I can't say this doesn't affect anyone's behaviour, but I don't feel that my feelings are atypical and it doesn't affect mine. It's only once there's a tipping point in the volume of people feeling of oppressed that revolutions arise and States destabilized... ...or bad actors use dirty politics to throw countries into financial turmoil, inject a sense of panic into the population and overthrow regimes that are not friendly to their agenda... or back the wrong frenemies and leave a pile of rubble and a want for revenge where there was once [reasonable] stability; even if that stability didn't look like they thought it should or didn't align with their own economic/political agenda. On another note, pencil & paper never got a virus that tunneled its way around the internet taking over thousands of computers to be used as a bot network for cyber attacks on industry... and when the power went out, I could still use my credit card to pay for things. Most stores appear to have forgotten that ability.

badger404 11y ago

MI5, CIA, et al. are the terrorists.

x5n1 11y ago
You can't make such a bold claim. However, this does happen from time to time https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Gladio https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Gladio https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Years_of_Lead_%28Italy%29 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Years_of_Lead_%28Italy%29
- if_you_see_sid 11y ago
  Sure you can: "Terrorist: a person who uses terrorism in the pursuit of political aims."

dharma1 11y ago

How would they realistically prevent people from using encryption?

cbpy 11y ago
They could make it illegal and require a backdoor on all electronics?
- dharma1 11y ago
  good luck requiring a backdoor on chinese made chips, or trying to ban their import
nota_bene 11y ago
Mandatory hardware based backdoors, unlimited funding for CPU power to accelerate decryption of intercepted data, etc.
richmarr 11y ago
Ban encryption without back doors. Some companies would withraw products, others would comply, maybe some others would protest for a while. After a while the only option left would be steganography https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steganography https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steganography At which point it seems unlikely they'd be able to do anything other than work on techniques to detect steganography (which they no doubt already do)... which leaves us with a steganographic arms race (which has probably already been the case for some time behind the scenes).
- rvnt 11y ago
  What are some valid alternatives/compromises we could work towards in order to prevent such drastic ideas from being incorporated into law?
- andy_ppp 11y ago
  I love the idea of using Facebook, Email, Youtube, Instagram etc. to tunnel Tor. Wonder how difficult it would be? It's probably already happening just look for slightly different duplicates of the same videos.

agd 11y ago

It's worth pointing out that the government is about to try and push through new surveillance powers. Despite his protestations to the contrary, he very much is trying to shape UK policy and opinion.

touristtam 11y ago
He has the backing of a good part of the UK medias and the establishment: just look at the news surrounding the internal Labour election.

JustSomeNobody 11y ago

How much more secure would be using codes rather than encryption for "terrorists"? If I were a terrorist, I don't think I'd use encryption as it pretty much guarantees scrutiny. But, how secure is coming up with some sort of code? Like say, "Honey, can you pick up some milk on the way home." Means the truckload of fertilizer is ready to be delivered or something.

tankenmate 11y ago
Using a code words etc still leaves you vulnerable to analysis. MI5 here are asking for the ability to request records of individuals or individuals that match certain narrowly defined criteria. So at this point they would have a low level suspicion of you, something they can use to drive analysis. The only reasonable protection at the point of already being in the cross hairs is to use mathematically secure communications.
- JustSomeNobody 11y ago
  I'm sure it would (leave someone vulnerable), but I think it would be interesting to see some analysis of how it stacks up to encryption. Governments have been breaking codes since forever, so I know they're good at it. And with computers, I'm sure it's gotten so much easier.

tomelders 11y ago

I'll only believe these "we stopped x number of attacks" quips when that number is given to us by an independent authority who doesn't have a vested interest in making numbers up. Call me cynical - but I think recent history backs up that position.

chipgap98 11y ago
I don't think asking for validation of what we're being told is cynical at all. I think that problem is that people think its a problem to ask for proof.

elcct 11y ago

Especially innovations in shower rooms where criminals can communicate without authorities interference. I think every shower room should have a backdoor in form of a chair for an agent to sit and listen.

satai 11y ago

He should stop spread fear, uncertainty, doubt and terror.

fukusa 11y ago

Would it harm national security if they published a list of former security agency employees who are now employed by the security industry? It think it's safe to assume that a very high percentage of former security agency employees end up working in this industry as it is in their area of expertise and the industry could use their connections to the agencies. With all of this in mind, would it not make sense to assume that the terrorism threat could be highly exaggerated or even fabricated?

PuffinBlue 11y ago

I heard Admiral Lord West[0] today giving an interview on the BBC radio station '5 live'. In it he sated words to the effect: "Nobody cares about your emails or if your having 30 affairs". This is just a variation on the 'if you have nothing to hide' argument which as ever forgets that bothersome dimension - time. Perhaps I have nothing to hide 'now', but who's to say I won't later? Even in very recent history I'm pretty certain that if I was gay I'd be very much regretting making any previous public declaration of my sexuality in Russia say 5 years ago, much less the age numerous examples over the last century where people have been persecuted as government positions changed. This is a very difficult subject. I value privacy but I suppose I also value honesty. Knowing that what I put online (like this statement) is being surveilled en mass somehow feels better than finding out after the fact. The flip side to that is then, what's the point of more security powers? Surely if everyone knows they're listening no one will say much of that particular interest? It's common knowledge that the security services have broken 'everything' save for cleanly and properly implemented encryption on a clean system (even then the hardware is breached so air gap it). The 'Bad Guys' know this so the likelihood of obtaining quality intelligence from such mass surveillance seems counter-intuitive to put it kindly. Those who do use common online services will be the 'low-hanging fruit' and likely so stupid the'd have been caught anyway (maybe we should still pick that fruit, I guess). The truth is, attacking a soft target like a western country is easy and requires no use of encryption. Just go and get a couple containers of fuel, go on a tube at rush hour with them in a backpack, pull the emergency stop, dump the fuel and light a match. You could probably rig up something custom made to get the job done simply and effectively (with no end of variation to counter your initial 'that wouldn't work'). That sort of thing would probably rival the 7/7 London bombings with just a one man attack (and talking about it will no doubt get me on a list now - wow look at me worrying about self-censoring). In fact, I'd put £1000 on fire being the next weapon of choice because done properly it's incredibly effective. Could we defend against that sort of attack? No. We can't. That's the truth. We can't really stop anything (or most things) done quickly and where the attackers are themselves prepared to die. So do we pull down all the (illusions of) freedom we have built up for ourselves in the hope of catching some low hanging fruit? I don't think that's a good idea. After all, the security services must remember that their job is in fact _supposed_ to be difficult (impossible even) and they must struggle to do it whilst maintaining those pesky freedoms the populace deserve that keep getting in the way all the time. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_West,_Baron_West_of_Spithead https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_West,_Baron_West_of_Spith...

peterwwillis 11y ago

At some point isn't there an argument to be made that they're being lazy? For example, say they gained the ability to inspect every single digital communication and read every message sent, as if that were actually feasible. So people stop sending the messages via the internet. What's the next thing they're going to do? Install listening devices around the country to listen into private conversations in private homes all around major cities (assuming they already don't do that with mobile phone microphones on standby) ? Once they have that, will they begin exploring how to effectively 'read minds', or do pattern analysis on behaviors of different people as they walk around or sit in cafes or something to look for 'malicious intent behavior' ? Terrorists will always continue to look for new ways to avoid detection, and these agencies are always going to push for more invasive means of circumventing them. It will always get worse, until we start saying, no thanks, i'd rather risk it. And, hey call me crazy, but maybe even working to stop the root causes of extremism rather than simply waiting for them to boil over could be a good idea.

JupiterMoon 11y ago

If you live in the UK and care get ready to start writing to your MP.

danlindley 11y ago

You are 8 times more likely to be killed by a police officer than by a terrorist. Is anyone talking about that?

richmarr 11y ago
I agree, more people should be talking about that, but... (a) MI5's budget isn't based on how well it supervises the police, because it doesn't, and (b) MI5 is based in a country where that "8 times more likely" statistic is completely reversed. "According to data collected by the UK advocacy group Inquest, there have been 55 fatal police shootings – total – in England and Wales from 1990 to 2014." http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jun/09/the-counted-police-killings-us-vs-other-countries http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jun/09/the-counted-p... And this list broadly supports that figure (adding deaths from Scotland and Northern Ireland): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_killings_by_law_enforcement_officers_in_the_United_Kingdom https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_killings_by_law_enforc...
- JupiterMoon 11y ago
  Multiple problems with that statistic. (1) you quote England and Wales, what about Scotland and Northern Ireland? (2) The police in the UK do not generally carry firearms and most people that die in/at the hands of the police do not get shot in the UK.
  - richmarr 11y ago
    Uh huh. (1) I already made that point, and linked to data on the UK including Scotland and Northern Ireland. But, it broadly matches up. If you have better data please share it. (2) The full-UK list I linked to is "people who died directly or indirectly because of the actions of law enforcement officers, regardless of the manner of death". Again, if you have better data feel free to share it. I have to wonder what point you're trying to make. The relevant point I made to the parent comment was that the "police kill 8 times more than terrorists" statistic quoted doesn't apply in the context of the UK. Even if manage to quibble the "55 people" stat up to 100 it's still an order of magnitude short of "8x". Are you saying that UK police do kill 8x more than terrorists?

JupiterMoon 11y ago

I was 'surprised' how weak the bbc interview was he lied several times during this interview and they did not pick him up on these lies once.

touristtam 11y ago
I stop listening to what the BBC had to say the day they were just "reporting" the project fear during the Scottish Independence referendum. The most notable fact was the report of new oil field discovered in North Sea early 2014, that suddenly couldn't outlive the current decade during the referendum period. Only to be completely resurrected the day after the referendum and the No victory. All reported by the same BBC.
- JupiterMoon 11y ago
  This is familiar it happens to most people eventually when the BBC discusses an issue that one actually knows something about. Their independence since the Iraq war fallout has been seriously weakened.