Surveillance

So basically you're proposing with your current proposal is that government should not take any action in certain circumstances? And that is all?

Yup, I could totally agree with that!

@strypey Don't get me wrong here, where you say "What I object to is that constant mass surveillance is becoming normalized." I 100% agree with you.

I agree with what you are saying here, in crimes where physical evidence abounds, such as: robberies; murders; arson; car crash etc... then traditional policing methods should be enough.

However there are plenty of crimes where physical evidence is minimal, these are generally what are classed as "white collar crimes", these types of crimes are where I see that surveillance; properly administered and under strict guidelines; can make a massive difference.

@adambullen
"surveillance; properly administered and under strict guidelines"

Let's say I accept this for the sake of argument. Can you describe what sort of strict guidelines would be adequate to protects our rights and freedoms? This is the sort of detail we need in a proper policy statement.

@strypey
I don't have a clear picture of what would be required.

I have some basic concepts, such as:
1/ part of an active criminal investigation;
2/ a "surveillance warrant" issues by a judge (I'm not sure if this would be a blanket for the entire investigation (unlikely), suspect, or for each individual instance of surveillance);
3/ strict guidelines for how long the data can be kept for.
4/ an information audit, as a requirement of any warrant issues to ensure the data is destroyed as appropriate.
5/ harsh penalties if it is found that data wasn't destroyed, as the officers involved would be effectively breaking the law.

There are probably many more requirements, but I can't think of them right now. But if this were to be a serious discussion that would be moved to a policy vote. I would like to "sit down" and flesh out exactly what restrictions and limitations would be in place.

Overall I think the police and the judiciary do a good job in very difficult circumstances. However don't read in to that as "always", mistakes are made all to often. I also think the police have interpret the law in some situations where they should only have to enforce the law.

But it needs to be codified in law that any surveillance of ordinary citizens not part of an active criminal investigation is illegal and punishable by some harsh penalties.

One other thing I would like to mention.

I find it deplorable that governments around the world have a nice little system where they spy on each others citizens and give the information to each other just so they can say "we don't spy on our own citizens"

Having someone else do your dirty work should be seen as doing it yourself.

@adambullen

if this were to be a serious discussion that would be moved to a policy vote. I would like to “sit down” and flesh out exactly what restrictions and limitations would be in place.

It is. That’s what we’re here for.

I also think the police have interpret the law in some situations where they should only have to enforce the law.

In practice, you can’t do one without the other.

When it is moved to a policy vote we should take a lead from the European Union which is rolling back repressive legislation in this area both in the European Parliament and the European Court.

Meta data must be protected from mass surveillance as we all have something to hide:
http://webpolicy.org/2014/03/12/metaphone-the-sensitivity-of-telephone-metadata/