As you can see from my earlier posts, I'm inclined to agree the sentiments of Paul and Steve here.

However Alex, I like your argument. Thing is though, why do we need the "lay of the land"? Also, what sort of information could be transferred to policy and for what greater good?

Well, partly, I like to think there are men and women worrying about situations so that I never have to.

Suppose we take something most of us would agree is a Bad Thing. Like a terrorist bomb plot to fly a plane into Canary Wharf, or Leicester Square. Or to set off a dirty bomb in a large residential area. I'd suggest that we stand a better chance of putting threats like that to bed before they occur with the intelligence gathered, than we would be were we to rely on what PC Smith sees on his daily beat, or by talking to the bloke in the pub.

Of course, the flip side of the coin is that we need to rely on the people who make policy to have wisdom on how they implement such information.
I personally feel, as an example, that banning the carrying of fluids over 100ml (or whatever it is) on passenger flights was nothing more than a response in order that they were seen to do something. Or maybe there was a genuine, legitimate reason for that policy. Either way, I'll never know.

At the moment the real threats are from the Real IRA and muslim extremists, with possible threats from Animal Liberation activists. Other than that there are few real threats to the UK. The issue is that decent foreign office intelligence will give hints of any potential problems which could then be followed up with more targeted surveillance. For the rest of us we should not really have much to worry about from them. Though I do not think that they have the resources to spy on everyone.

Ok, there's a remembrance day/WW2/stiff upper lip to this bit. I can appreciate the sentiment. However, (and this'll be the idealist in me) the ability to conduct electronic surveillance is insignificant, next to the power of love. If we loved our fellow man, maybe he wouldn't want to do us harm and then MAYBE, we wouldn't need to listen to his private conversations.



Of course, I'm probably living in a dream world if I think we can do without it. You're right that digital snooping would stand a better chance in your example. So perhaps a better question is not do we need it, but how can it be better regulated and more transparent?

Governments have to be seen to be doing something, because Joe Schmo doesn't like the thought of them doing nothing. But if Joe Schmo actually had a brain, he might realise that just like silence has a place in music, inaction and consideration has a place in leadership. We, the people, have allowed the rampant surveillance of our country. We have been scared into it and we deserve better. But until we realise that as a collective whole, we're [LIFTED]. Look at the battle for Conservative HQ. 50,000 of the people outnumbered Police and could've sacked the capital, Greco-Roman style, had they chosen to.

But hey, everything is ok.

Maybe everyone in the country should add a spoof signature to their emails with the words 'bomb' 'terrorism' 'explosives' and 'Downing Street'.
That would mess up their filters.

and #I am Sparticus