If I have a camera system that, say, records an image of a boundary fence, with some electronics attached that sounds an alarm when anything bigger than a cat enters the region of interest, then that's a surveillance system and similar systems have been referred to as such for decades.
It's still a surveillance system even if the alarm never goes off and I never have to look at the recording.
If I have a system that records every entry and exit to a building, then that is also a surveillance system, it tells me who has entered and exited so I know who should be in the building at any given time.
It is still a surveillance system even if I never have cause to look at the records it keeps.
Logging every access to a website with the time and location of the accessor, the time, location and target of every phone call made, the time, location and target of every email sent or received, is surveillance.
It is still surveillance even if no one has cause to look at the data.
The fact that this surveillance is applied to everyone in bulk makes it mass surveillance.
Denying it is surveillance because 'no one looks at the data' is sophistry at best and an outright lie at worst.
This is mass surveillance of the largely innocent population of the UK by any definition except perhaps those very selective definitions used by GCHQ and the Home Office.
I can see no reason or benefit for the bulk collection of this data, except perhaps in a few years some enterprising MP may attempt to pass laws to allow selling it to a third party like they are trying to do with our NHS records.
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by staringatclouds.
Re: But isn't it actually true?
It's still a surveillance system even if the alarm never goes off and I never have to look at the recording.
If I have a system that records every entry and exit to a building, then that is also a surveillance system, it tells me who has entered and exited so I know who should be in the building at any given time.
It is still a surveillance system even if I never have cause to look at the records it keeps.
Logging every access to a website with the time and location of the accessor, the time, location and target of every phone call made, the time, location and target of every email sent or received, is surveillance.
It is still surveillance even if no one has cause to look at the data.
The fact that this surveillance is applied to everyone in bulk makes it mass surveillance.
Denying it is surveillance because 'no one looks at the data' is sophistry at best and an outright lie at worst.
This is mass surveillance of the largely innocent population of the UK by any definition except perhaps those very selective definitions used by GCHQ and the Home Office.
I can see no reason or benefit for the bulk collection of this data, except perhaps in a few years some enterprising MP may attempt to pass laws to allow selling it to a third party like they are trying to do with our NHS records.
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by staringatclouds.
Submit a story now.