Login/Sign Up




Should all forms of communication be monitored to prevent terrorism?
Politics


Plan to monitor all internet use
Communications firms are being asked to record all internet contacts between people as part of a modernisation in UK police surveillance tactics.

The home secretary scrapped plans for a database but wants details to be held and organised for...
vancam
Apr 27, 2009
16 votes
20 debaters
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1


+ Add Argument

4
Yes


msw67
Apr 27, 2009
1 convinced
Rebuttal
yes, but only to a point, if a person is monitered it should be based on crimanal history. not the general public. the government must respect privacy

 
xanthippa
Apr 27, 2009
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: blackkodiak Show

The UK HAS the PERFECT solution: the government can simply pass a law that REQUIRES each and every internet service provider to retain ALL of this information for them!!!

So, IF you want to be an ISP in the UK, you HAVE TO store all this data - and taxpayer money will compensate you for it.

AND, not only do you have to STORE it, you ALSO have to collate it by 'user' (as in, phone and email and 'surfing history' have to be searchable by 'person'), so that it is easy for government bureaucrats to access!

I WISH I were kidding, but I'm not...

http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9595_22-292295.html

http://www.pcw.co.uk/information-world-review/analysis/2241185/isp-extended-retention-sparks

http://www.mondaq.com/article.asp?articleid=77728

And that does not even mention the fact that UK is pushing the EU to implement a law that EVERY NEW CAR has a GPS locator, which will be tracked by 'the government' and its movements kept on record - and co-related with its owner's internet/telephony activity!

People like I have been ranting on and on about this for quite a while now...

Welcome to Big Brother's EU!



 
thoughtprocess
Apr 28, 2009
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: blackkodiak Show

I don't think it would be as difficult as you'd think. Most ISP's hold a great deal of this kind of information for months at a time already. I am not a technology expert but it seems quite feasible.

 
accipiter
Apr 27, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Every single form of communication should be monitored to prevent not only terrorism but also all manner of criminal activity. This should not be a national initiative this should be instituted worldwide. The way in which I envision this being done also instantly solves world wide unemployment concerns.
Every single person as a counter part working for the government and their counter part’s full responsibility is to monitor every conversation, text message, email and written correspondent. In order to prevent collusion on the part of the person being monitored and the monitor; the monitors would be changed on a random basis.
There would have to be a way in which match language differences but if this is going to be done, I want to suggest the new international language be Swahili. This puts most people on a level playing field of having to wait for translations to be done for total clarity.
Every single person on the planet would therefore be prevented from making any plans that might do something that might, in some way, cause discomfort for those in charge.


 
frankiej4189
Apr 27, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: blackkodiak Show

We can always count on you to bring any debate topic down to earth. Convince

 
brivapor
Apr 27, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: blackkodiak Show

theyv got some amazing computer technology these days
peta flop speeds and peta byte storage
just give the job to a monitering program and the problem of execution is solved
but the problem of should we do this is the other question

 
frankiej4189
Apr 27, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: blackkodiak Show

Trick question. There is no way to crack down on velociraptor terrorists. We. Are. All. Doomed.

 
proudaryan
Apr 27, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
How will we keep our children safe WITHOUT this???
Won't the muslims attack us if we're not even secure in our own countries? We should monitor people's thoughts, if that's what it takes.

 
proudaryan
Apr 28, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: muzzerfooka Show

You're right, I'm so sorry for believes in muslims stereotype.

Learn your singular and plural forms, first. You're killing the English language, slowly.

 
unlabled00
Apr 28, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: vancam Show

The UK's latest "be safe, report anyone suspicious" campaign is so bizarre coming from the same nation that issued the "Keep Calm, Carry On" campaign during the German Blitzkrieg

 
robee
Aug 31, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
I agree with the fact that monitoring communication modes is a great help in preventing terrorist attacks.But the idea of imposing some regulations on common people and making their lives miserable is unacceptable.
As posted earlier the communication tracking should be based on criminal history. Entering into people's personal lives under the name of security concern is wrong!

 
Elliot Porter
Jul 14, 2012
0 convinced
Rebuttal
The monotoring of communication only gathers masses of data, and is thus mostly harmless. There is little intrusion into people's privacy as most of the data is disrelated and meaningless to those listening in. Occasionally something is flagged as a danger-word, and then that data is analysed and we get information out of it, and that information can be used to stop attrocities.
It is a slow and difficult process, but there is infact very little intrusion to privacy involved, as an anegdote is attatched to a file number read by an analysit who is only paid to care whether or not its encoding some other meaning.

(I mean, obv no one should be properly convinced by this, but the prop was looking a little understated)

 
+ Add Argument

12
No


blackkodiak
Apr 27, 2009
3 convinced
Rebuttal
How is this possible? I mean, from a technical perspective. Consider how much data you'd be recording and storing...spam alone would be overwhelming...then you'd have to have a cataloguing system, then archiving, then a process for retrieval. This is all looking to be a massive undertaking that would require an insane amount of infrastructure. An answer to a question never asked, perhaps?

 
emericaman11412
Apr 27, 2009
1 convinced
Rebuttal
this is bull crap. everyone has the right to some privacy in there life. this is called invasion of privacy and shouldn't be allowed. the government just needs to get ahold of themselves and filter out there frauded people and maybe the united states would be a little bit safer. most of these attacks require certain info only high up epople can get ahold of. which brings me back to the frauded government.

 
thales
Apr 28, 2009
1 convinced
Rebuttal
If technical feasibility is the only hold-up here, we're all doomed.

 
ktasda
Apr 29, 2009
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Getting back to the actual debate....


No look I think a yes if there is probable cause.

But to monitor is not only a breach of our privacy not to mention irrational.

My first point

What is defined Illegal we could risk getting redicuouse like some nations (won't name names) that get rid of anything that denotes there nation or is agaisnt the image there seeking for the world liek certain military movents agasint another nation for exsample if we should disagree then it "could" be considerd Illegal.


Second point

Fine lets say for a minute that we were to do this think of internet. Goodbye nice internet speeds to monitor that sought of traffic would lag your internet worse then treacle going up hill on a cold day.


Third Point

Money, o yes money who is gonna pay for this it's certainly not cheap to monitor that amount of data. I'm sure all he tax payers would definutly like the idea to pay a fabulous amount to have Uncle Sam spy on there every move.


I think you can see it's a bit irrational

 
theaccusative
May 02, 2009
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Last time I checked, there were over 6 billion people on this planet. If the information content of a single message can be said to be represented by "X", the the information content of all messages relayed by 6 billion people would be equal to

X * !6,000,000,000.

In case you don't know what a factorial is, it is all the numbers leading up to the factorial multiplied by each other. So, !6billion is like multiplying 1 * 2 * 3 * 4 * 5...*6billion.

Then multiply that by the "Variable" of the information content X.

And get this: There is no limit to the size of X, as the information content of a message can increase indefinitely.

The idea that even 6 billion people working around the clock to monitor messages would come even close to filling .01% of the material... is completely laughable.

Maybe in Medieval england it was possible. But the more people there are, the WAY more information to monitor. There's absolutely no way a government could pull this off adequately without instigating the exhaustion of it's resources.

Then again, messages of importance have a way of circulating faster and gaining more notoriety. Google uses this phenomenon to make internet search relatively easy.

But anyone with a firm grasp of information theory could easily make their message stay under the radar for a very long time...

 
aljam93
Aug 15, 2011
1 convinced
Rebuttal
By doing this we would be allowing Al Qaeda to fundamentally alter our way of life which is the very reason they blow up buildings and planes in the first place. This would be another victory for a tiny group of fundamentalist anti-islamic terrorists, a lot like S.44 of the Terrorism Act 2000.

 
vancam
Apr 27, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
This is a living nightmare. Not only is the current UK government bent on making Britain the leading surveillance state in the world, but the leading opposition party is willing to go along with it.

Essentially, the UK is f**ked. Stay away.

 
blackkodiak
Apr 27, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: frankiej4189 Show

Next up: Are hovercar cops the best way to crack down on velociraptor terrorists?

 
blackkodiak
Apr 27, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: brivapor Show

A shame that throwing expressions around doesn't make what they refer to any cheaper, practical nor does it remove their infrastructure requirements.

 
3pointer
Apr 27, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Observe my avatar

 
muzzerfooka
Apr 27, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: proudaryan Show

Before blaming this on the entire muslim community which christians clearly stereotypes and condemns, we must first consider how the action of the few muslims have caused problems for ALL muslims. Monitoring them is not the solution, correcting them is; and although it's hard, it's possible. Reformation anyone?

 
vancam
Apr 28, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Interestingly relevant is this article released today:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7507842.stm

Specifically this breakdown:

"90,000 phone calls examined
4,700 phone numbers probed
13,000 exhibits
7,000 forensically examined
18,450 statements taken
19,400 documents created"

Which led to the conviction of exactly zero terrorists.

 
vancam
Apr 28, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Yet more UK surveillance state news.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/8022791.stm

 
unlabled00
Apr 28, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: proudaryan Show

OK now I'm dead certain you're a troll.

 
unlabled00
Apr 28, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: proudaryan Show

If you want to attempt to insult the guy for killing the English language you might want to take a look at your own grammar.

 
ajdedajmi5
Aug 20, 2010
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Come on guys, Orwell wrote 1984 to warn us about this stuff, and you just go along with it. Terrorism is one of the branches of Fascism, for which we believe is dead. Ironic thing is that this idea fits perfectly into the ideology of Fascism, and was strongly hated for all these years. Dear Americans, if you get a plane hitting a building in NYC Downtown, and you allow another one to do the same 20 MINUTES AFTER, then something is wrong. Either it was an inside job, or you are quite unreliable.

 


Use these tags to find similiar debates

britain death government politics uk 2008 2009 9/11 abortion Afghanistan america Arizona AU bad Baha BBC bias Biden boycott Britain bush canada capitalism Censorship cheney children China Christianity church cia Clinton Cold War commonwealth communism Communist congress conservative conservatives conspiracy Constitution Corruption country crime death debate defeat Democracy democrat Democrats detention discrimination drugs economics economy education election elections Ethics EU Europe Euthanasia evil Fascism feminism Fight France Frankie freedom Freedom of speech freedoms french gay Gaza george bush Georgia global global warming goverment government Great Britain Guantanamo Bay guns Health Health Care Healthcare Hillary hillary clinton History Hitler homosexual human rights illegal illegal immigration immigration india iran Iranian presidential election iraq islam Israel japan Jewish juggernaut justice Karl law laws legal legislation liberal lies marijuana marriage mccain media Medicine mexico middle east military monarchy money moral morals Mugabe Muslim Muslims news North Korea nuclear nukes Obama objective Oil opression Osama pakistan Palestine Palin Panda paradox parliament peace petition philosophy policy politicians Politics polygamy power president Prime Minister prisoners protest Public Affairs punishment queen race racism religion republican Republicans revolution right rights Rove russia Saddam Sarkozy Security sex socialism Society South Korea sovereignty Supreme court tax taxes terror terrorism terrorist terrorists Tibet torture Troop U.S. uk un united nations united states us usa vancam vote Votes voting war washington weapons wmd women world wrong