View previous topic | View next topic

Monitoring communications

Page 3 of 3
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3

Spud McLaren
899174.  Thu Apr 05, 2012 9:35 am Reply with quote

suze wrote:
...Coalition Agreement ...
I youlgreaved that as Coalition Argument , and I think with increasingly good reason.

899539.  Fri Apr 06, 2012 10:20 pm Reply with quote

CB27 wrote:
bobwilson wrote:
There's a fundamental flaw in legislating that a faceless beaureaucrat, who isn't answerable to anyone, can decide, purely on his own authority, to monitor the communications of any person that takes his fancy.

This is the bit I'm struggling with, but you'll have to forgive my obviously addled mind :)

Is there such a thing as a bureaucrat who is unanswerable to anyone?

What's the point of information gathered by someone unanswerable to anyone, that misses the whole point of "intelligence gathering" ***

What happens when said bureaucrat takes a fancy to you (which would suggest they know you, or of you, first)?

*** When we see failures in "intelligence gathering" they usually fall into two categories, either someone missed a piece of information, or they reported it and it was ignored at a higher level.

You've answered your own questions there haven't you CB?


Page 3 of 3
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3

All times are GMT - 5 Hours

Display posts from previous:   

Search Search Forums

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group