The Guardian on Email Surveillance
November 15, 2009
I think this article “Email Surveillance: Ditch It for Good” is an opinion piece. The Guardian is not exactly number one with a bullet in the online world, but it does have a penchant for writing articles that catch my attention. The idea is that the UK government should not “snoop on all our communication and Internet activity.” I disagree. My view is that governments have little choice but to move toward surveillance and increasingly proactive actions with regard to information. There are lots of bad folks out there, and the legal and political consequences of not taking appropriate actions are significant. Islands are pretty good for surveillance too. The UK and Australian enforcement entities are case examples of how electronic nets can be used to catch some interesting fish. The Guardian does not agree with me. So here’s a hypothetical: the UK government does not perform surveillance and a bad event occurs. Many are killed and injured in London. Subsequent investigation reveals that the event was described in emails and other common information channels. What are the legal and political consequences of this turn of events. Surveillance cannot be “ditched for good.” Surveillance is a fact of today’s information world in my opinion. Autonomy and i2.co.uk are two outfits with useful monitoring technology. These companies’ tools were developed to meet a need, even though the Guardian finds the need difficult to accept. An information reality is just like the financial reality many firms face in today’s business climate–Unpleasant to some but a fact nevertheless.
Stephen Arnold, November 16, 2009
I want to report to the Institute of Peace that I was not paid to point out that the Guardian is complaining about an information shift that says, “You can’t go home again.” There’s not enough cash in the goose’s coffers for that journey.
Comments
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
