Thoughts on Andrew Parker's speech
Andrew Parker's speech of the 8th of October is riddled with contradictions. In it, he tries to persuade us that the work of GCHQ is necessary due to terrorism, and not in the least bit alarming because of adequate oversight. He also talks about the need to protect our freedoms, more on that later.
To distill his argument, we are facing a terrorist threat which is so great, that if we were to stop mass surveillance, there would result in nothing short of a bloodbath. In short, we need to trust government's judgement on this.
The main problem is that getting blown up is clearly an infringement on my liberty, but so is mass surveillance. Make no mistake, intercepting and scanning all my private data and communications is a really big fricking deal. The probability that my communications are scanned and stored by the government is about 100%, and the probability that I will be harmed by a terrorist is about 0%. So I ask again, which is really the biggest threat to my freedom?
Andrew Parker is right on two things. Expecting to stop all terrorists is unreasonable, and we need to defend our liberties. Andrew Parker is however not giving us our liberties, but taking them away. He has infringed my fundamental human rights, but has given little in return. In attempting to defend my freedoms, he has taken them away.
The real question becomes how much of a bloodbath can we tolerate before I submit to mass surveillance? I would put the number into the tens of thousands (of deaths), before I would be agree to the Data Communications Bill. Make no mistake, there would definitely be a point, perhaps more than a 9/11, and definitely more than a 22/7, where I would gladly submit to this level of intrusion. This is not an invitation to the security services to stage another 9/11 either.
The real figures Andrew Parker suggests are far fewer. 330 convictions, most of them probably angry young men with legitimate grievances. Most of them would probably never follow through, or would get caught by other means. The moral backlash against such acts would in itself reduce them. Yes MI5 has saved lives, and thank you. But if the real aim here is to protect our freedom, then we just bit off our nose to spite our face.
I'm still mulling this speech over, but I am not happy with it at all.
To distill his argument, we are facing a terrorist threat which is so great, that if we were to stop mass surveillance, there would result in nothing short of a bloodbath. In short, we need to trust government's judgement on this.
The main problem is that getting blown up is clearly an infringement on my liberty, but so is mass surveillance. Make no mistake, intercepting and scanning all my private data and communications is a really big fricking deal. The probability that my communications are scanned and stored by the government is about 100%, and the probability that I will be harmed by a terrorist is about 0%. So I ask again, which is really the biggest threat to my freedom?
Andrew Parker is right on two things. Expecting to stop all terrorists is unreasonable, and we need to defend our liberties. Andrew Parker is however not giving us our liberties, but taking them away. He has infringed my fundamental human rights, but has given little in return. In attempting to defend my freedoms, he has taken them away.
The real question becomes how much of a bloodbath can we tolerate before I submit to mass surveillance? I would put the number into the tens of thousands (of deaths), before I would be agree to the Data Communications Bill. Make no mistake, there would definitely be a point, perhaps more than a 9/11, and definitely more than a 22/7, where I would gladly submit to this level of intrusion. This is not an invitation to the security services to stage another 9/11 either.
The real figures Andrew Parker suggests are far fewer. 330 convictions, most of them probably angry young men with legitimate grievances. Most of them would probably never follow through, or would get caught by other means. The moral backlash against such acts would in itself reduce them. Yes MI5 has saved lives, and thank you. But if the real aim here is to protect our freedom, then we just bit off our nose to spite our face.
I'm still mulling this speech over, but I am not happy with it at all.
posted by Calum Grant at
8:04 pm
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home