Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 56

Thread: PM's Snoopers' Charter

  1. #16

    Default

    Originally Posted by Itsonlyagame
    So someone accessing child #### and sharing it with their twisted counterparts has a right to privacy because they are a human.
    No, of course not. That much is obvious and what most sane rational people would agree on. However there is, as always, a balance to be struck, and as things stand if our PM got her way then the pendulum would swing massively in the direction of totalitarian surveillance of Orwellian proportions. And of course that isn't paranoia, it's just common sense.

    As I say, this is about the most basic and fundamental human right to privacy. The point that someone has nothing to hide is a total side issue.

  2. #17

    Default

    Originally Posted by Stanley
    No, of course not. That much is obvious and what most sane rational people would agree on. However there is, as always, a balance to be struck, and as things stand if our PM got her way then the pendulum would swing massively in the direction of totalitarian surveillance of Orwellian proportions. And of course that isn't paranoia, it's just common sense.

    As I say, this is about the most basic and fundamental human right to privacy. The point that someone has nothing to hide is a total side issue.
    But Stan, as an example you could apply that to the searching of bags at airports. I'm sure most people don't like some stranger rifling through their undies but we accept it for the greater good.
    If you're worried about someone reading something that you feel is that private, dont send it in an email !
    Let's face it, emails have only appeared relatively recently so it's not like we've never managed to communicate sensitive information before without them.
    The internet and social media is being abused by some particularly vile people.
    Shouldn't we be ditching the whole " it's my basic human right" lecture and accept that in order to help stop some of the shite that goes on just say, " you know what, it's not ideal but I'll work around it for the greater good"
    He'll regret it till his dying day, if ever he lives that long

  3. #18

    Default

    Originally Posted by Itsonlyagame
    If you're worried about someone reading something that you feel is that private, dont send it in an email
    Itsonly, you keep mentioning email, but as has been said, it definitely does not apply JUST to your emails. To believe that would be very naive. If these laws are passed, we're talking grand scale surveillance i.e. phone calls, social media accounts, instant messaging, sms, pc/laptop/tablet webcams, camera phone and smart tv camera hacking, cctv (the uk has more than any other country), car / phone GPS tracking etc ...the list goes on. This would give them powers to surveil/hack into ALL of those things - some of which they already do with or without people's consent/knowledge.

  4. #19

    Default

    Warrants would need to be obtained for most of the examples you've given Stan.
    So in the same time way police can't just bowl into your house, people won't be peeping through your web cam for their amusement, or at least shouldn't be, without giving a valid reason to an independent body first.
    He'll regret it till his dying day, if ever he lives that long

  5. #20

    Default

    Your trust in the 'authorities' is endearing Itso. I simply do not share it. I do not trust them, I do not trust their motives, and I believe there is ample evidence to show that is a reasonable position to take. It seems to me you have avoided the totalitarian aspect of this that both Stan and I have mentioned.

  6. #21

    Default

    Originally Posted by Itsonlyagame
    Warrants would need to be obtained for most of the examples you've given Stan.
    They absolutely would not Itso - this is the whole point. Google the Investigatory Powers Act. Read the hyperlinks in the OP.

  7. #22

    Default

    Originally Posted by Stanley
    They absolutely would not Itso - this is the whole point. Google the Investigatory Powers Act. Read the hyperlinks in the OP.
    Sorry Stan, but nowhere in that link does it say that someone would be able to legally spy on you through your webcam, smart phone or tv without a warrant, should that law be passed.
    He'll regret it till his dying day, if ever he lives that long

  8. #23

    Default

    Originally Posted by Itsonlyagame
    Sorry Stan, but nowhere in that link does it say that someone would be able to legally spy on you through your webcam, smart phone or tv without a warrant, should that law be passed.
    Have a quick read through: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invest...owers_Act_2016

    And you don't think they'd do what they want anyway? Surely the Ed Snowden case alone showed us that govt. agencies do what the hell they like with our data under the flimsiest of 'legal' excuses. We need every protection possible against these invasive practices.

    What's happening here, really, is the battle between the idea of government and a free internet. Bottom line, governments can't live with a free internet because it undermines their ability to rule, AKA control, dominate. This, in many ways, is about how we evolve as a society. Do we progress to a freer, more open society, based on shared and open sourced information, or do we go down the totalitarian, top-down governance route? That's what's happening right now, that's why this is so important.

  9. #24

    Default

    Originally Posted by Hubble
    Your trust in the 'authorities' is endearing Itso. I simply do not share it. I do not trust them, I do not trust their motives, and I believe there is ample evidence to show that is a reasonable position to take. It seems to me you have avoided the totalitarian aspect of this that both Stan and I have mentioned.
    Slightly patronising Hubs. I'd prefer to think that I just don't buy into the belief that our security services, or small groups of them, are deliberately allowing would be terrorists to bomb us, for some hidden agenda, something you've suggested on here time and time again.
    You mentioned in another post that if the authorities had the power to see what people were looking at on the web it wouldn't make a blind bit of difference to their ability to prevent terrorism. The reason you cited was how sophisticated these terrorist organisations are at covering their tracks online.
    Nearly all, if not all of the bombings in this country over the last 12 years have been carried out by very basic minded terrorists.
    It came to light that at least one of them had been looking at YouTube on how to make a bomb, not exactly sophisticated.
    Now obviously that's not a crime in itself and I'm sure that plenty of innocent people have looked themselves, just out of curiosity, but when building a profile of a would be bomber information like that helps.
    Let's face it, if a white Guardian reading teacher from Islington were found to be looking at that sort of thing, it wouldn't raise too many eyebrows. But if a Muslim who suddenly stops attending his mosque after a falling out with his Iman is known to be looking that up, don't you think it would help the police to know about it. As said, on its own it's not a crime and despite your fear, it never will be. But, if it's one of many pieces of circumstantial evidence it helps build a picture of someone which may just be enough to do something.

    You've made it clear you think the authorities don't do enough to catch terrorists, going as far to say they may be actively allowing terrorism, to control the masses with fear.
    I know someone whose recently retired from the police force. If I remember rightly you've said you know someone in the force too, he may or may not concur. I asked the fella I know the other day whether he missed his job and he said absolutely not. According to him the police force is in disarray. Senior management backing savage financial cuts to help their own agenda, promotion.
    Officers no longer on the beat, civilians now able to enter the force at detective level, with absolutely no experience of basic policing or even common sense. Continually coming up against a brick wall or CPS as it's otherwise known.
    Unable to remove known criminals, or people who they know are almost certainly about to commit a crime because of the lack of powers, or the time taken filing reports and applications to gain such power. Therefore having to watch these €unts going about their business until enough evidence is available to make it worthwhile arresting them. Pulling someone without enough evidence just forces them to be more careful about what they are up to and harder to follow.
    In his words, that's why the horse has often bolted and a major crime is committed before the authorities can do anything.
    On the one hand and only in my opinion of course, you're strongly criticising the authorities for not doing enough to stop crime, whilst happily joining the ranks of people who want to restrict their powers.
    All about opinions though, so please don't take offence at anything I've said
    He'll regret it till his dying day, if ever he lives that long

  10. #25

    Default

    Originally Posted by Hubble
    Have a quick read through: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invest...owers_Act_2016

    And you don't think they'd do what they want anyway? Surely the Ed Snowden case alone showed us that govt. agencies do what the hell they like with our data under the flimsiest of 'legal' excuses. We need every protection possible against these invasive practices.

    What's happening here, really, is the battle between the idea of government and a free internet. Bottom line, governments can't live with a free internet because it undermines their ability to rule, AKA control, dominate. This, in many ways, is about how we evolve as a society. Do we progress to a freer, more open society, based on shared and open sourced information, or do we go down the totalitarian, top-down governance route? That's what's happening right now, that's why this is so important.
    If they do what they want already and I'm referring to things such as spying on us through our televisions amongst other things, what difference will it make whether it's law or not.
    They'll either be doing it legally or illegally, the result is surely the same ?
    He'll regret it till his dying day, if ever he lives that long

  11. #26

    Default

    And I'm probably not as naive as you think mate.
    I appreciate the authorities do things they shouldn't, that's the way of the world.
    What would be naive is to think that overall, the way we live is almost certainly not better for it.
    He'll regret it till his dying day, if ever he lives that long

  12. #27

    Default

    Originally Posted by Hubble
    Have a quick read through: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invest...owers_Act_2016

    And you don't think they'd do what they want anyway? Surely the Ed Snowden case alone showed us that govt. agencies do what the hell they like with our data under the flimsiest of 'legal' excuses. We need every protection possible against these invasive practices.

    What's happening here, really, is the battle between the idea of government and a free internet. Bottom line, governments can't live with a free internet because it undermines their ability to rule, AKA control, dominate. This, in many ways, is about how we evolve as a society. Do we progress to a freer, more open society, based on shared and open sourced information, or do we go down the totalitarian, top-down governance route? That's what's happening right now, that's why this is so important.
    The internet has a lot to answer for mate, it really does.
    From child bullies to worldwide terrorist organisations and plenty in between.
    It does need to be policed, plain and simple and if that offends some of the "what about my basic rights" brigade, well, at the risk off offending some people, I find that quite selfish.
    He'll regret it till his dying day, if ever he lives that long

  13. #28

    Default

    You'll still be free to use the internet mate. You just might need to tone down all that treasonous propaganda
    He'll regret it till his dying day, if ever he lives that long

  14. #29

    Default

    Originally Posted by Itsonlyagame
    Sorry Stan, but nowhere in that link does it say that someone would be able to legally spy on you through your webcam, smart phone or tv without a warrant, should that law be passed.
    Sorry, I meant the hyperlinks within the article I posted in the OP, plus the Wiki entry Hubs posted above, plus a Google search of the Act. Anyway never mind, it's pretty clear what your position is which is fair enough. I am a patriot but also a libertarian (of no particular political persuasion), which is probably why I hold a fundamentally different position on principle. We can argue about the details all day long here, but for me this is a massive step towards a totalitarian police state (i.e. Orwell's forecast becoming a reality), and over people's lives overall, not just their online one - but as we know, the two are now inextricably linked in these modern times. Plenty more examples of this in the video in the OP too.

  15. Default

    You can bet your life this would be used for things other than the security of the nation.

    Things like illegal streaming as an example. Fines would be flying out left, right and center.

    The net is something the authorities cant control, but this would go a long way to giving them a bit of power over it.

    Not to be trusted.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •