Comments:Listening to you at last: EU plans to tap cell phones

Back to article

This page is for commentary on the news. If you wish to point out a problem in the article (e.g. factual error, etc), please use its regular collaboration page instead. Comments on this page do not need to adhere to the Neutral Point of View policy. You should sign your comments by adding ~~~~ to the end of your message. Please remain on topic. Though there are very few rules governing what can be said here, civil discussion and polite sparring make our comments pages a fun and friendly place. Please think of this when posting.

Quick hints for new commentators:

• Use colons to indent a response to someone else's remarks
• Always sign your comments by putting --~~~~ at the end
• You can edit a section by using the edit link to the right of the section heading

Click here to add a new comment · Add onto existing comments

Should the EU carry out this research without a wider public debate?

• Orwell's prediction, though a bit off, proves accurate again.

131.104.10.63 (talk)Host

Eh....

This is why I don't trust government. Inferno, Lord of Penguins (talk) 21:48, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

The overwhelming sentiment evident in all governments seems to be that people should know as little as possible. Why, just think of how 'democracy' would work if you let people decide anything! You'd think with such an antithetical abomination as this being leaked it would be the equivalent of a political death sentence for anyone linked to it.

Nah, our brave leaders don't think this is hypocritical or otherwise worrying at all. —174.92.33.37 (talk) 22:00, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

This is the kind of shit that people start revolutions over. Inferno, Lord of Penguins (talk) 22:05, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Two conclusions: 1) Always lock the office doors, when you leave 2) The developers clearly never heard of the Faraday cage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.98.50.77 (talk) 22:19, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

• Where's the Faraday cage to wrap round the whole Internet? --Brian McNeil / ^talk 02:20, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Eyes on the prize, please

It's certainly regrettable that in the face of what may be a serious threat to liberty, the authors choose to use it to push an anti-capitalist agenda in the latter half of the article. Standing up to a government surveillance system is a matter of personal freedom, and should be treated as such. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.3.63.153 (talk) 02:08, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

• If you can't see the prospect of particularly negative repercussions through commercial usage, then you're not cognizant of the full spectrum of threats to "personal freedom". As the Leeds Uni. researcher says, "... the scientific methods are much more general and has wider applications. The project will most likely have lot of commercial potential.". This 'leaked' video? That's the presentation for governments; I'm cynical enough to joke that Tom Cruise starred in the Hollywood-made presentation for the commercial sector. But they'd probably say, "ignore all the scary police-state implications, Minority Report shows you the future of advertising." --Brian McNeil / ^talk 02:19, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
• I don't see any positive situations where a company, that makes profit, had access and authority over a system such as this. Much less the government. 131.104.251.46 (talk) Host

Fascism ahoy!

How come I am not surprised? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.241.64.42 (talk) 07:33, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Privacy?, what privacy?

This research is only the non-classified aspect of what many national governments are already doing. The main difference seems to be that states are cooperating on the research rather than going it alone. We already have to contend with Echelon monitoring communications and CCTV cameras appearing almost everywhere. If it radiates they can listen to it, if you can buy commercial crypto they can break it. You can brute force encrypted comms but the time is takes usually makes it not worthwhile (most comms are time-sensitive, recovering a conversation 6 months afterwards is not really useful except as a forensic tool). The reality is that the resources to actually make use of this on a large scale are extremely limited; very few agencies have enough people with the right skills.

All of this is being done in the name of what they call security, we live in the so called "state-of-fear", promulgated by politicians as an excuse to intrude on your lives and justify ever more draconian civil rights infringements. Much of the "security" you experience is nothing more than theatre, to make it look like something is being done to protect you. Mostly it has little deterrent effect, sure it raises the bar but against dedicated attackers is questionable whether it is worth the cost both technically and on the loss of civil rights.

Facial/plate recognition is already used in places like London and washington to track people.

Your expectation of privacy in modern society is almost nil. What you can do is try and minimise the digital footprints you leave and carry on normally.

--Cr0tal (talk) 09:22, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Should the EU carry out this research without a wider public debate?

Hell no. Stop the eavesdropping on private conversations Right Now. Eavesdropping on private citizens is total Unwarranted Invasion of Individual Privacy and must stop. To continue risks serious damage to trust between European Governments and the EU. Damage so severe that it could trigger the breakup of the EU and land those engaged in such draconian tactics in Jail or facing stiff fines. This crap reminds me of the movies where spies knelt down by the keyhole in doors to listen to private conversations. It smelled of a RAT then and it Smells of a RAT now.

Hell NO! Stop the Eavesdropping/spying upon private citizens.

Xratti

Should the EU carry out this research without a wider public debate?

God Bless America; if this happened here, there would be no chance that we would ever accept such a ridiculous plan to violate our freedoms. The Europeans have a right to defend their land by limiting their peoples' rights because of their smaller land mass and more people to occupy such a small area. But at the same time, and as a former person said as well, Orwell was correct; just 25 years off. But in general, this course of action by the EU is inane; it truly does violate people's privacy. We are stepping into a dark age where we, as individuals, are slowly fading away to a world of control and conformance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.238.84.237 (talk) 12:21, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

• Are you for real? Did you sleep through the tyrannical reign of King Nixon the last? Did you miss 'misunderestimated' Bush and his warrantless wiretapping? For-Fuck's-Sake! America is, most definitely, not better off. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 14:14, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

This system will not prevent any crime nor will it help to make the European Union more secure. All the CCTVs in the UK? They are doing nothing to prevent crime. All this will do is to rob citicens of their privacy.

—77.59.216.10 (talk) 13:32, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I still find it more fundamentally objectionable that these plans go ahead without any debate at all rather than the fact that they go ahead. People can be scared into doing stupid things, and they can be lazy. In this case, the entire illusion of democracy is ignored. It won't matter, and the same governments will do the same things they've always done. Certainly governments have tended to be more accountable over time, but now they have a monopoly on surveillance. I would imagine that what ACTUALLY goes on in the government would warrant wiretaps and cameras more than what someone chooses to masturbate to. ... and remember advances that more accurately than ever give us the ability to read what people actually think? Criminals, who after being convicted are punished out of spite (rehabilitation was never the reason, only an occasional coincidence), are more worthy of lie detection than the people with the most power and supposed accountability of all. God damn, I hate it. I shouldn't let myself rant. —74.14.13.63 (talk) 21:36, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

• Rant? That's what this page is for! Go on... It's cathartic. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 00:28, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

We should clear up one thing...

• All of the opinions so far harp on one thing: privacy, privacy, privacy. In the interest of clarity I'd like to know, why are so many opinion-writers concerned about the loss of their privacy? Explaining why something is bad, or why something should be feared, would be far more productive than simple rhetoric. --67.174.131.145 (talk) 01:14, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
• This sort of system is bad for the following reasons:
  • It allows the targeting of dissenting voices. It allows political elite to target it's opponents. Thus re-enforcing their own power. It has a chilling effect on public discourse.
  • There is no independent oversight. No one outside the system will know how this system is being used or abused. There is no accountability. The lack of accountability always leads to corruption and abuses.
  • No publicity. Gathering of information is one thing. To do it covertly is quite another. This will make the abuses even easier to commit.
  • No reciprocity. If the public loses privacy because this then why does not the governments that are funding this open access for the citizens. This kind of one-sided approach is stacking the deck in favour of the power elite. Concentrating power further. Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

-- 192.18.1.36 (talk) 10:32, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

No more 1984,please

I really think those guys who are even thinking about tapping cell phones should really either start talking to other people or get sent to an asylum. 1984 is already scary enough to hear from a classmate doing a book report. If what's happening now doesn't get stopped, people will panic. Stop the mayhem!!!! --AquaTeen13 (talk) 15:09, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

• I told all my European friends this was going to happen. I guessed all of this was going to happen when we were invading Iraq. So when we're all toiling away in work camps, I want everyone to know that I fucking called it. --64.90.84.103 (talk) 11:37, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Somebody wash 64.90.84.103's mouth out! I agree with his opinion, but his language leaves a lot to be desired. --AquaTeen13 (talk) 18:03, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

• Fuck fuckety fuck fuck. I have more important things to be upset around than thre consonents mating with a vowel. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 07:25, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

• It is childish to fear "naughty" words. 64.90 expressed himself effectively and I applaud him for his triumph of fucking calling it.

Grrrrrrrr...... I have preferences too, you know -AquaTeen13 (talk) 20:40, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Profanity can, in no fucking way, be considered an indicator of limited vocabulary; sometimes you just need to use the most appropriate word. They are just words, they can't hurt you. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 21:33, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Take my clothes too...

More and more the government creeps towards the revocation of simple personal liberties. Soon enough, we'll be asked to walk around nude or wear transparent clothing in order to prove that we aren't up to no good. Though it sounds ridiculous, this example is equally as invasive. It can be summed up into one word. Should ANYONE be authorized to poke their head in your private space? NO.

Should the EU carry out this research without a wider public debate?

Invasion of privacy, pure and simple. THe second this gets implemnted, we are well on the raod to Airstrip one —Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.116.47.179 (talk) 15:34, 13 November 2009‎

Comments from feedback form - "Well written article but has t..."

Well written article but has two small issues. First, there should have been more wiki-links to EC law, and second "to" is redundant in "The E.U. report Katz refers to was ratified just six days before" Gulmammad (talk) 14:12, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

• Your alleged error is no such thing. "to" is required where it is in this circumstance. --84.13.118.107 (talk) 10:22, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Stupid EU

In my opinion EU should make some public debate, doing something like that without social agreement is a real threat on our rights! I don't want to be under control 24 hours, with whole system tracking my every step. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.33.80.179 (talk) 10:44, 8 March 2012‎

That's a shame...

I have always been a supporter of the EU and so reading a story like this is very disappointing to me... If used correctly the EU could be a great tool of progress and union although, as it appears at the moment, is merely another government body being utilised to harvest the private data of it citizens. I for one have make many private calls that I am not happy to be heard by anyone but me! More and more I hear of world governments spewing out eloquent excuses to attack the privacy of ordinary people and I see no pardon for this kind of conduct! I want my privacy to remain intact and will happily challenge anyone who would have it otherwise! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tmaester (talk • contribs) 19:06, 23 June 2013‎ (UTC)