Striking the Balance

[Ian G Batten]

On Wed, 30 Oct 2002, Watkin Simon wrote:
> The fact that a mechanism exists does not mean that mechanism is used
> arbitrarily or unfairly or to facilitate "mass surveillance".

Proof by vigorous assertion.

>  The fact that
> lawful interception of communications takes place doesn't stopping all of us
> (bar a few paranoiacs) using communications services.

No.  It does, however, cause every bank in the country to insist on the
use of https, typically at 128 bit encryption, to protect its internet
traffic.

> us (bar a few paranoiacs) don't think we're being listened to or read.  The
> fact that all communications could be listened to or read, if there were
> enough people to do it or processors to process it, doesn't mean they are. 

Scanning all email for keywords would be perfectly practical given
mundance amounts of computing power.

> Isn't the issue here not one of mass surveillance but, as we've been
> discussing, more openness about what does go on, the accountability of who
> does it and transparency of punishment for those who act outside the law?

If something is technically practical, it is putting a lot of faith in
future governments to pass legislation permitting something which even
if the current lot don't abuse, another lot might.

ian