Talk:Mass surveillance

message: Dan Brown's Digital Fortress praises mass surveillance?! I feel pretty sure that whoever added that either didn't actually read the book, or some how grossly misunderstood the very obvious anti-mass surveillance message! The "happy ending" is when the NSA's supercomputer used for unwarranted surveillance overheats and explodes killing the pro-surveillance antagonist. Digital Fortress should be in the section listing literature and movies critical of mass surveillance. This needs a major rethink!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.107.138.182 (talk) 11:13, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the sentence itself is POV, and should be removed. Still, the UK does have a lot of cameras. It sounds like London is literally covered in them. When I think surveillance, I think cameras, not ID cards. And they are trying to implement the ID cards anyway. Rhobite 16:39, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
The whole article is quite POV, and frankly doesn't do the privacy lobby any favours, by not mentioning any of the many specific examples of abuse that have been detected.  Trying to work on Closed-circuit television to fix similar issues there.  Morwen - Talk 14:35, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

text: Good one, Adolf.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.104.79.110 (talk) 07:54, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: The "United States" section seems to be sorely lacking facts and/or sources and seems mostly filled with conspiracy-theory-sounding rumors ("The National Security Agency has been alleged as a major figure in this type of activity because of ECHELON, although this was never solidly proven to be surveillance directed against American citizens.").  This is an interesting subject, but this is an encyclopedia and it should sound like a reliable source and not be littered with this kind of nonsense. —Cleared as filed. 15:45, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, is the Multistate Anti-Terrorism Information Exchange really "surveillance" as this article seems to be talking about it?  Just having a huge database of facts doesn't necessarily equal surveillance.  I'm going to make a stab and clearing some of the nonsense out of this section. —Cleared as filed. 15:47, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

text: "Just having a huge database of facts doesn't necessarily equal surveillance." You seem to be one of those who has sentiments like "just because the government proposed to do ______ and Congress requested and approved funding for ______ doesn't mean the government is actually doing ______" 
Should the gov't keep a secret file on all of us that we don't know the contents of or what they'll use it for, simply because they can? Does that bother you?Batvette (talk) 08:56, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Does anyone have a citation for British telephone boxes including recording equipment? It sounds unlikely to me, surely someone would have to collect all the tapes regularly? Jameskeates 16:29, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Facts 

message: "Amongst the western democracies, the United Kingdom is perhaps the country subject to the most surveillance."  
Why does wikipedia keep referring to Britain as a democracy?  
The House of Lords is the Government of Britain, excepting the very limited and constrained powers the House of Commons has through the obsolete Salisbury convention and the token use of the Parliament Act.  The Liberal Democrats and Conservatives in the House of Lords do not even respect the Salisbury convention and the Parliament Act's use is limited, it can only be used once in the period of a government i.e. about once every four years!
The House of Lords makes law in Britain through the amending of legislation passed from the House of Commons.  The House of Commons is nothing more, in practicality, than a glorified advising chamber to the unelected House of Lords.  The House of Lords is the government of Britain and it is not democratically elected.  Therefore, Britain cannot be objectively described as a democracy!
:Wrong, the House of Lords is a watchdog mainly for civil liberties, it can block legislation but this has only been use 6 times in the last 30 odd years (last time was 3 month detentions.) Any amendments made (not many are) means the Bill goes back into the commons to be re-reviewed. Britain is a democracy, albeit with noticeable flaws (first past the post..)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.135.213.205 (talk) 23:41, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: UK operates as a democracy as the House of Lords very rarely opposes the House of Commons and so legislation is (de facto) decided by the House of Commons. Similarly, the monarch appoints the Prime Minister, who can legally be any member of parliament who can obtain/retain a majority in the House of Commons. In practice the monarch always invites the leader of the majority party. Essentially the checks and balance son the unelected authorities are by way of tradition more than law. But surely this is more of a democracy: chosing to respect parliament despite not being directed to by law rather than many countries where the head of state ignores parliament despite not being directed to ignore it by law! Babakathy (talk) 16:24, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Um, what has this got to do with thise arycile anyway? Babakathy (talk) 16:25, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Let 'em go at it, wiki can't be that starved for server space and we across the pond need the edumacation as well as reminder that we aren't the only imperfect nation. Batvette (talk) 08:59, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: United Kingdom

message: China, Russia and Cuba may be running mass surveilance schemes. Anybody has evidence? Human rights, political rights etc are strongly suppressed--HiddenIP (talk) 15:24, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: China in particular is a glaring omission. (I know less about Russia, though I am pretty sure it no longer describes itself as communist.) In general, this article needs a lot of cleanup. Indeed, I wonder if it's really possible to do sections on different types of surveillance in all the different countries. Maybe it would make more sense to split off some of the currently bigger sections (US & UK) and use this article to focus on different surveillance technologies? groupuscule (talk) 19:43, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Communist countries 

message: I noticed that the mass surveillance and electronic police state articles refer to each other.
Except in the list of "key factors," the latter de-emphasizes (see Electronic_Police_State#Definition) collection by commercial entities of data which is then turned over to the state, for example when requested in a National Security Letter.
I suspect that the term "electronic police state" has little currency: of the two publications using it which are listed in Electronic_Police_State#History, one was explicitly underground, and the other ceased publication after three issues, citing a lack of interest (https://secure.cryptohippie.com/pubs/EPS-2011.pdf). Most results from a search engine were about the Cryptohippie reports.
24.24.214.15 (talk) 14:15, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: My suggestion at this point is that we add a short "Electronic police state" section to this article, use it to preserve anything from the Electronic police state article that isn't WP:OR and that is reasonably sourced (I said it would be a short section), and make Electronic police state into a #REDIRECT that redirects here. --Jeff Ogden (W163) (talk) 00:34, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: . I went ahead and did the merge. --Jeff Ogden (W163) (talk) 05:28, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger proposal 

message: There is a second merge proposal that calls for merging Surveillance state into this article. I didn't initiate the proposal, but want to create a place where it can be discussed. This is that place. --Jeff Ogden (W163) (talk) 00:26, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Since this merge proposal has been pending since June 2012, my suggestion is that we resolve this by adding a short "Surveillance state" section to this article, use it to preserve anything from the Surveillance state article that isn't WP:OR and that is reasonably sourced, and make Surveillance state into a #REDIRECT that redirects here. --Jeff Ogden (W163) (talk) 00:38, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: . I went ahead and did the merge. Surveillance state now #REDIRECTs here. --Jeff Ogden (W163) (talk) 15:38, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger proposal 2 (Surveillance state) 

message: Impact of iPhone 5S fingerprint reader and the US-VISIT fingerprint gathering program and the possible resultant privacy/security issues.
<U>Does the NSA (and GCHQ) already have the ‘key’ to your iPhone?</U>
If you have visited the USA in about the last 10 years, on clearing immigration you will have to have given the US a (digital) copy of your fingerprints. 
So, if your fingerprints are to be the new ‘key’ to the iPhone (and other future gadgets to follow), who exactly has a copy of that ‘key’? 
If the NSA already has the ‘key’ to your iPhone, it is not a great leap to imagine that software could be made so that that ‘key’ could be used remotely to access your data. 
It has already been shown that these Governmental agencies have an unquenchable thirst to spy on their own citizens (let alone people outside of their country). 
Likewise, if you obtained a UK biometric passport (or an UK ID card) then GCHQ will have a digital copy of your fingerprints. Also, in the UK, if you were arrested (but were never convicted of an offense), then the police have the right to take and keep your fingerprints. 
If finger print technology becomes the gold standard means of authenticating your identity (e.g. to access email, banking as well as phone data), then your fingerprints could become the ultimate ‘skeleton key’ for all your data. 
Again, the question remains, who already has that data and who could get a hold of it? 
<U>Unlike passwords, a fingerprint cannot be ‘reset’</U> 
What happens if your fingerprint data becomes compromised? 
In traditional security systems, when a password has been cracked, it is a small matter to reset your password (or passwords). However, you can never ‘reset’ a fingerprint. If compromised, your finger prints will remain a permanent open backdoor to your personal security. 
It seems that some people are happy for the UK Government (and successive Governments) to have such data, and to be spied on by them. However, what happens if someone else gets a copy of your fingerprints? 
High-tech criminal fraud is already big business worldwide and criminal gangs are particularly adept at hacking, and so might actively seek to get your finger print data. With the advent of iPhone5S and iTunes allowing purchases using fingerprint data (and further business models no doubt set to follow) criminal gangs will be incentivized like never before to get your fingerprint data. 
In the future, there may be more value in stealing your phone for its fingerprint data than stealing the phone itself. As for the phone re-sale market, you will have to be pretty sure that your fingerprint data is gone, or you may lose considerably more than you made selling your phone. 
If your fingerprint data became compromised, perhaps you could try to block the use of your fingerprints as a means of authentication, but you would need to notify every person, business, and governmental organ that your fingerprints have been compromised. Good luck with that! 
In the future, if fingerprints become the standard means of authenticating your identity, then you should take great care who you give that data to now, if stolen your life could become very difficult in the future. 
iSpy an iPhone?
Also: Senator Al Franken, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Privacy, Technology and the Law, has written to Apple boss Tim Cook explaining his security concerns:  
122.150.200.116 (talk) 11:24, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  iPhone fingerprint scanner - privacy/security issues 

message: I have no objection to a prose section, properly sourced, but this list is ridiculous.  For example, it is claimed that the 2006 film Déjà Vu praises mass surveillance.  I think that's going way too far.  The film does not praise anything. Viriditas (talk) 10:40, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Literature and movies 

message: Buenos-Ding-Dong-Didily-Dias:
I'm always suspicious when social problems fail to appear on Canadian soil in Wikipedia entries. It makes me think that perhaps a group of people are doing their very best to make Canada appear like a paradise.
I would accordingly suggest someone to start a section on Canada and surveillance. If you live here, it's pretty easily observable that mass surveillance is an issue, especially on the Internet.
Saludos,
70.72.45.131 (talk) 20:00, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bias 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 7 external links on Mass surveillance. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added  tag to http://www.regeringen.se/download/2ee1ba0a.pdf?major=1&minor=78367&cn=attachmentPublDuplicator_0_attachment
*Added  tag to http://www.regeringen.se/download/2ee1ba0a.pdf?major=1&minor=78367&cn=attachmentPublDuplicator_0_attachment
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140310123656/http://rod.se/alliansen-enig-om-stora-%C3%A4ndringar-i-fra-lag/ to http://rod.se/alliansen-enig-om-stora-%C3%A4ndringar-i-fra-lag/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140310123055/http://www.regeringen.se/sb/d/10911/a/112332 to http://www.regeringen.se/sb/d/10911/a/112332
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150206232713/http://www.gchq.gov.uk/press_and_media/news_and_features/Pages/IPT-rejects-assertions-of-mass-surveillance.aspx to http://www.gchq.gov.uk/press_and_media/news_and_features/Pages/IPT-rejects-assertions-of-mass-surveillance.aspx
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150206211011/http://www.ipt-uk.com/section.aspx?pageid=8 to http://www.ipt-uk.com/section.aspx?pageid=8
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150206205536/http://www.gchq.gov.uk/press_and_media/news_and_features/Pages/IPT-Ruling-on-Interception-Feb-2014.aspx to http://www.gchq.gov.uk/press_and_media/news_and_features/Pages/IPT-Ruling-on-Interception-Feb-2014.aspx
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://news.com.com/2061-10789_3-6082047.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111108000538/http://cle.ens-lyon.fr/08111026/0/fiche___pagelibre/%26RH%3DCDL_ANG100100 to http://cle.ens-lyon.fr/08111026/0/fiche___pagelibre/%26RH%3DCDL_ANG100100
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:37, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Mass surveillance. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120905052217/http://www.igovernment.in/site/india-to-prepare-npr-with-2011-census/ to http://www.igovernment.in/site/india-to-prepare-npr-with-2011-census/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090503035053/http://w2.eff.org/Privacy/Surveillance/CALEA/?f=archive.html to http://w2.eff.org/Privacy/Surveillance/CALEA/?f=archive.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111108000538/http://cle.ens-lyon.fr/08111026/0/fiche___pagelibre/%26RH%3DCDL_ANG100100 to http://cle.ens-lyon.fr/08111026/0/fiche___pagelibre/%26RH%3DCDL_ANG100100
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:42, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Mass surveillance. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150206141103/http://www.ipt-uk.com/section.aspx?pageid=27 to http://www.ipt-uk.com/section.aspx?pageid=27
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:45, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: I'd agree mass surveillance is an indicative trait, but is it a "distinguishing" trait if western democracies also practice it (USA, Australia, UK, etc)? The only way to unpack this contradiction is to say that those democracies are totalitarian, which has a degree of truth to some perhaps but it can't be justified as fact. 203.5.6.57 (talk) 00:58, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: "single most indicative distinguishing trait of totalitarian regimes"

message: In this article there is remarkably little overview of the legality of mass surveillance.  I can not find any link to an article that gives a broad overview of it.  Does something like that exist in Wikipedia?  
The country by country list has a lot of good but miscellaneous information in it, but it doesn't make for a very readable article about the fundamental issues and philosophy that could guide decision making. 
If any of the country-specific content is really exemplary of applied philosophy, then it should probably be pulled out to a featured section above the big list of countries. 
In a higher level summary, what are the various traditions and the legal philosophy (and analysis of 'true' strategic necessity) that guides decisions about what parts of a government may do (especially in a Liberal democracy) either in complete secrecy, or under various tiers of oversight, with what degree of independent auditing and what degree of public reporting on what timescales, etc. etc. 
Surely this is an issue in philosophy of government.  In a democracy, surely the supposedly responsible citizen rulers should be expected to understand where they should maintain oversight on the bureaucrats doing things in their name, and what things have undeniable rock-solid necessity for being 'covert'.  
What are the most influential books etc. discussing this at a national security vs. philosophy of government level (non-partisan, and not just reacting to contemporary issues). 
Where is there a summary of, for example, the oversight structure of all US covert activities (such as the intelligence commitees in congress)?  How does it connect to the Constitution and what are the influential legal cases and law changes?  
How (in general categories, not long lists) do other responsible countries structure their oversight and public disclosure of mass surveillance? 
Right now the article is a bit too much of a gigantic list of random facts, and it lacks a structured overview of subtopics (or more structured cross-references to other articles). DKEdwards (talk) 23:40, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Legality & oversight (& philosophy) -- additions or cross references requested  

message: EMPACT according to its own words as quoted from here: https://www.eurojust.europa.eu/empact
 The EU policy cycle EMPACT (European Multidisciplinary Platform Against Criminal ThreatsEuropean Multidisciplinary Platform Against Criminal Threat) is a security initiative driven by EU Member States to identify, prioritise and address threats posed by organised and serious international crime. EMPACT brings together a broad range of multidisciplinary professionals from Member States and third countries to take concrete actions against criminal networks. Participants include law enforcement authorities, the judiciary, EU agencies, customs and tax offices and private partners. With EMPACT, every year over 200 operational actions are carried out in targeted key crime areas. 
EMPACT is a big player in the game of mass surveillance, but there is no en.wikipedia article "European Multidisciplinary Platform Against Criminal Threat". Where would I put the addition to this article in? I presume best would be to add a multi-states topic / area since it makes more sense than adding it under every and each country that participates in EMPACT. 
For now I add just one source that mentions EMPACT in an article about mass surveillance - by netzpolitik.org (in German) - https://netzpolitik.org/2021/migration-nach-grossbritannien-eu-polizeien-wollen-versteckte-kameras-an-straenden-installieren/
There are more sources on EMPACT and mass surveillance, but first I need to know where and how to include it on this entry. Rava77 (talk) 08:59, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where to put EMPACT ?