Quantcast

Jump to content

» «
Photo

UK To Start Monitoring Web Activity

112 replies to this topic
Typhus
  • Typhus

    OG

  • $outh $ide Hoodz
  • Joined: 11 Sep 2007

#31

Posted 07 April 2012 - 10:24 PM

Eurgh, this just in. The Trotskyite parasites known as 'Anonymous' have hacked into the Home Office site, using criminality to make their point as usual:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-17648852

Waddy
  • Waddy

    Gods foster son.

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 02 Feb 2004
  • None

#32

Posted 07 April 2012 - 10:26 PM

QUOTE (Pat @ Saturday, Apr 7 2012, 22:19)
QUOTE (Butters 2011 @ Saturday, Apr 7 2012, 17:16)
Would you leave your doors open to your house and allow anyone to come in and snoop around as they please?

No, and I wouldn't let a government official do it either unless they had a warrant, which they could only achieve if they had sufficient evidence to prove that it was a matter of protection. The difference is that Waddy would open the door up, invite them in, and give them a cup of tea the minute they showed him their badge.


If the police knocked on my door, of course I would invite them in, I fully respect the law of the land. I have nothing at all to hide. I dont arrange bombings using encrypted emails or some other way of doing things online, so there is NO reason at all for them to even visit my house, so at the end of the day, I can say i would invite them in because I know I will never be put in that situation in the first place.


@Typhus, again, you have the tin foil hat on. I have faith in the police and the government to do the right thing, of course we dont all agree. I just happen to think this is a very good idea, I dont want to get into whatever it is you're talking about. The topic at hand is what i am interested in.

Crokey
  • Crokey

    Builders Like Erections

  • Zaibatsu
  • Joined: 05 Aug 2003
  • Belize

#33

Posted 07 April 2012 - 10:28 PM

QUOTE (Waddy @ Saturday, Apr 7 2012, 23:20)
QUOTE (Gareth Croke @ Saturday, Apr 7 2012, 22:17)
Who cares anyway this plan is dead in the water anyway, that is that the legislation would need to go to consultation, then draft, blue paper, white paper, then drafted again, taken the commons to get a time to debate, then get debated, then amended, then debated, then amended again, then sent to the lords, then sent back again, then debated, then amended, then sent back to lords again, then the lords reject it, then the commons vetos it into law, then Europe find out and throw it out of law for being against human rights laws, politicians spit the dummy out, the press say told you so and meanwhile we're left wondering what the hell that was all about as the whole issue has cost millions that could have been spent on proper intelligence gathering and proper security.

Fin.

Or until something happens where this law could have saved it all from happening, and it will. Then it will be brought in straight away.

Thing is we already have the laws in place, only difference is the time it takes to get a court order etc, but if it was really serious, we wouldn't see it anyway ph34r.gif

Besides there is no real immediate threat that should warrant this law as the geo-political situation is shifting away from the "situation foreign" era that we've been used to for the past 20 years or so. And what this law is suggesting is "domesticated" communications, if a terrorist group or individual was wanting to arrange something they have other means than posting on facebook.

Really what the government is doing is knee-jerking because they still haven't caught up with the rest of the digital world yet.

KilnerLUFC
  • KilnerLUFC

    M.O.T

  • Members
  • Joined: 17 Apr 2011

#34

Posted 07 April 2012 - 10:28 PM

QUOTE (Pat @ Saturday, Apr 7 2012, 22:19)
QUOTE (Butters 2011 @ Saturday, Apr 7 2012, 17:16)
Would you leave your doors open to your house and allow anyone to come in and snoop around as they please?

No, and I wouldn't let a government official do it either unless they had a warrant, which they could only achieve if they had sufficient evidence to prove that it was a matter of protection. The difference is that Waddy would open the door up, invite them in, and give them a cup of tea the minute they showed him their badge.

Maybe it's just a US vs. UK thing. I was raised to believe that no one has the right to infringe upon personal liberties no matter how much they're paid or what kind of desk they sit behind, but maybe it's different over there.

Yes, but that seems to be where you're completely missing the point. If police want to enter your property, they require a warrant, and this is the same exact thing in this scenario.

Typhus
  • Typhus

    OG

  • $outh $ide Hoodz
  • Joined: 11 Sep 2007

#35

Posted 07 April 2012 - 10:31 PM

QUOTE (Waddy @ Saturday, Apr 7 2012, 22:26)
@Typhus, again, you have the tin foil hat on. I have faith in the police and the government to do the right thing, of course we dont all agree. I just happen to think this is a very good idea, I dont want to get into whatever it is you're talking about. The topic at hand is what i am interested in.

Okay, I'll drop my point. But I will simply leave my discussion with you by saying that I feel the integrity of the police and government is crucial in discussing this.
But if you feel I have ventured off topic or insulted you, I readily apologise.

Waddy
  • Waddy

    Gods foster son.

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 02 Feb 2004
  • None

#36

Posted 07 April 2012 - 10:33 PM

QUOTE (Typhus @ Saturday, Apr 7 2012, 22:31)
QUOTE (Waddy @ Saturday, Apr 7 2012, 22:26)
@Typhus, again, you have the tin foil hat on. I have faith in the police and the government to do the right thing, of course we dont all agree. I just happen to think this is a very good idea, I dont want to get into whatever it is you're talking about. The topic at hand is what i am interested in.

Okay, I'll drop my point. But I will simply leave my discussion with you by saying that I feel the integrity of the police and government is crucial in discussing this.
But if you feel I have ventured off topic or insulted you, I readily apologise.

No, not at all. I just think that corruption in the police or government is a totally different can of worms, of course it happens but to the case in point. Should the police be able to check peoples cyber activity to help in the reduction of crime and killings, then I believe the answer is yes.

Irviding
  • Irviding

    No bed crew

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 06 Nov 2008
  • United-States

#37

Posted 07 April 2012 - 11:13 PM

What exactly can be done through this bill without a warrant?

Los Santos Pedestrian
  • Los Santos Pedestrian

    Then as it was, but again it will be

  • Members
  • Joined: 16 Jul 2011

#38

Posted 07 April 2012 - 11:14 PM

So the UK will/now monitors social media? Does that mean they'll monitor GTAForums?

Also, when will governments learn? The only places where you'll find forums full of terrorists posting diabolical plans about destroying every democracy in the world is in Iran and other parts of the Middle East.

Waddy
  • Waddy

    Gods foster son.

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 02 Feb 2004
  • None

#39

Posted 07 April 2012 - 11:18 PM

QUOTE (Irviding @ Saturday, Apr 7 2012, 23:13)
What exactly can be done through this bill without a warrant?

Not 100% but I believe they want to start recording everything that happens online. So they can go back at anytime to see what certain people have said.

Crokey
  • Crokey

    Builders Like Erections

  • Zaibatsu
  • Joined: 05 Aug 2003
  • Belize

#40

Posted 07 April 2012 - 11:19 PM

QUOTE (Los Santos Pedestrian @ Sunday, Apr 8 2012, 00:14)
So the UK will/now monitors social media? Does that mean they'll monitor GTAForums?

Also, when will governments learn? The only places where you'll find forums full of terrorists posting diabolical plans about destroying every democracy in the world is in Iran and other parts of the Middle East.

To address your first concern, they would need a whole lotta luck, my head nearly fried looking in the "V" Forum and that was for about 10 minutes, the government officials who would need to trail through the whole lot... their heads would explode.

As for your second concern, the governments already know this that's why we have the CIA and MI5 wink.gif

KilnerLUFC
  • KilnerLUFC

    M.O.T

  • Members
  • Joined: 17 Apr 2011

#41

Posted 07 April 2012 - 11:20 PM

QUOTE (Irviding @ Saturday, Apr 7 2012, 23:13)
What exactly can be done through this bill without a warrant?

Absolutely f*ck all apart from seeing that Mohammed spoke to Sanjid for 30 minutes at 11:30 on MSN.

Lochie
  • Lochie

    darkness washed over the dude

  • The Connection
  • Joined: 27 Feb 2011
  • None

#42

Posted 07 April 2012 - 11:41 PM

Good intentions with this idea, but I just feel it is an invasion of privacy. It'd be like someone reading every text message you sent and received.

Long_Haired_Boy
  • Long_Haired_Boy

    Whilst everyone's lost, the battle is won

  • Awaiting Authorisation
  • Joined: 30 Apr 2011

#43

Posted 07 April 2012 - 11:41 PM

To start?

Lol. Ok.

KilnerLUFC
  • KilnerLUFC

    M.O.T

  • Members
  • Joined: 17 Apr 2011

#44

Posted 07 April 2012 - 11:58 PM

QUOTE (methods @ Saturday, Apr 7 2012, 23:41)
Good intentions with this idea, but I just feel it is an invasion of privacy. It'd be like someone reading every text message you sent and received.

But if you had read the full topic, you'd see your comment makes no sense...

Lochie
  • Lochie

    darkness washed over the dude

  • The Connection
  • Joined: 27 Feb 2011
  • None

#45

Posted 08 April 2012 - 12:03 AM

QUOTE (Butters 2011 @ Saturday, Apr 7 2012, 23:58)
QUOTE (methods @ Saturday, Apr 7 2012, 23:41)
Good intentions with this idea, but I just feel it is an invasion of privacy. It'd be like someone reading every text message you sent and received.

But if you had read the full topic, you'd see your comment makes no sense...

Wow mister sassy, I read through the clusterf*ck of an argument. Got bored, flicked over to Tumblr, came back here and then left a comment. It does make sense considering they're trying to use this so they can monitor any potential threats to the country by seeing whom is talking to whom and any suspicious trends (you do realise that they're not just going to go 'oh wow this guy is talking to Jim again, they're going to use IP addresses and trace them back to see which region of the world the other half of the conversations are taking place). Of course though I personally wouldn't want someone knowing I'm talking to my friend Lurch who lives in Tennessee because that's just weird. I then compare it to someone reading your text messages because thats basically what it is, every conversation you have online they'll log it. Just like if someone read every text message you sent.

Mike Tequeli
  • Mike Tequeli

    American non-Voter at Heart

  • The Connection
  • Joined: 19 Jan 2004

#46

Posted 08 April 2012 - 12:15 AM

What a joke. I had heard before that Britain has tougher anti-terrorist legislation than even PATRIOT act America but I'd never seen what they could do. I think a good indication of how much worse it is over there is the idea that this is just a slippery slope that will lead to worse things. I think in North America this would be perceived more as having reached the bottom of the slope.

Irviding
  • Irviding

    No bed crew

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 06 Nov 2008
  • United-States

#47

Posted 08 April 2012 - 12:20 AM

QUOTE (Butters 2011 @ Saturday, Apr 7 2012, 18:20)
QUOTE (Irviding @ Saturday, Apr 7 2012, 23:13)
What exactly can be done through this bill without a warrant?

Absolutely f*ck all apart from seeing that Mohammed spoke to Sanjid for 30 minutes at 11:30 on MSN.

So basically it allows them to see communications but not the content of the communications?

KilnerLUFC
  • KilnerLUFC

    M.O.T

  • Members
  • Joined: 17 Apr 2011

#48

Posted 08 April 2012 - 12:22 AM

QUOTE (methods @ Sunday, Apr 8 2012, 00:03)
QUOTE (Butters 2011 @ Saturday, Apr 7 2012, 23:58)
QUOTE (methods @ Saturday, Apr 7 2012, 23:41)
Good intentions with this idea, but I just feel it is an invasion of privacy. It'd be like someone reading every text message you sent and received.

But if you had read the full topic, you'd see your comment makes no sense...

Wow mister sassy, I read through the clusterf*ck of an argument. Got bored, flicked over to Tumblr, came back here and then left a comment. It does make sense considering they're trying to use this so they can monitor any potential threats to the country by seeing whom is talking to whom and any suspicious trends (you do realise that they're not just going to go 'oh wow this guy is talking to Jim again, they're going to use IP addresses and trace them back to see which region of the world the other half of the conversations are taking place). Of course though I personally wouldn't want someone knowing I'm talking to my friend Lurch who lives in Tennessee because that's just weird. I then compare it to someone reading your text messages because thats basically what it is, every conversation you have online they'll log it. Just like if someone read every text message you sent.

The point is though, if you're comparing it to text messages, then surely it's what's already is in place, where the company monitors every text message that is sent? This is where this whole thing has been blown out of proportion, where people are being led to believe that everything that is typed within the message will be seen by some group, which is false. The group will still need a warrant to read the contents of the message in its entirity.

Even though this is the case, I still disagree with this law coming into place due to the fact that it's not needed, since there is already enough in place to see what terrorists are upto. As I said a few posts back, plenty of terrorist plots have been foiled due to the surveillance that has been placed upon them, and this is why I am against this law. If terrorists are already been tracked, then what will this improve upon?

Waddy agreed with me when I stated that there is enough out there to cover the tracks of said conversations, so in reality, please explain what this law will bring upon the country?

Only the other week did The SUn mention that potential terrorists were planning their attacks on MP games such as COD, so this law is pointless. Terrorists are not stupid individuals who live under rocks, and will find a way to get around such laws.

Typhus
  • Typhus

    OG

  • $outh $ide Hoodz
  • Joined: 11 Sep 2007

#49

Posted 08 April 2012 - 12:23 AM

QUOTE (Mike Tequeli @ Sunday, Apr 8 2012, 00:15)
What a joke. I had heard before that Britain has tougher anti-terrorist legislation than even PATRIOT act America but I'd never seen what they could do. I think a good indication of how much worse it is over there is the idea that this is just a slippery slope that will lead to worse things. I think in North America this would be perceived more as having reached the bottom of the slope.

Well, in this country there's a massive anti-intellectual slant. And politics is not talked about by most of the working class, unless it pertains to immigrants and then they're more than happy to express their backwards opinions.
No, the common man doesn't care about government encroachment on their civil liberties. They only care about two things, sex and football. That's it. That's the extent of their understanding of the world. Sex and football.

We simply don't give a sh*t about anything in this country, the government could tell people it routinely engages in human sacrifices and we'd just shrug our shoulders and go back to watching television. We're easy to distract and therefore easy to enslave.

Rusty Balls
  • Rusty Balls

    love spuds

  • The Precinct
  • Joined: 04 Feb 2010
  • Scotland

#50

Posted 08 April 2012 - 12:30 AM

They've upped our f*cking pasties?

The Yokel
  • The Yokel

    True Gentleman

  • Members
  • Joined: 30 Mar 2007
  • Jamaica

#51

Posted 08 April 2012 - 12:59 AM

QUOTE (Waddy @ Sunday, Apr 8 2012, 00:10)
QUOTE (Pat @ Saturday, Apr 7 2012, 22:06)


So, I say again - if you have nothing to hide, you should have no issue sharing with us. Yet, you do. So explain to me what gives you the right to criticize others for wishing not to share their personal information either.

As I have said, and what everyone one else understands.
I have no problem at all with the authorities monitoring my online activities or anything else. I am a law abiding citizen, and if they were monitoring my online activities I would not be a law abiding citizen, so they would catch me, which I believe is the entire point.
Your 'argument' about just because its ok for them to so everyone should is a bit of a damp squib.

Would you let the authorities search through your stuff at home occasionally? You know, if they had the right to just come by your house and go through your belongings to check if you're still a law abiding citizen? It makes the country safer doesn't it? And you've got nothing to hide. Would you mind if they followed you around occasionally to see what you're up to? The data on your HDD are your personal belongings. Your online activities are your own business. No one should have the right to go through any of that without a court issued warrant.

Lochie
  • Lochie

    darkness washed over the dude

  • The Connection
  • Joined: 27 Feb 2011
  • None

#52

Posted 08 April 2012 - 01:28 AM

QUOTE (Butters 2011 @ Sunday, Apr 8 2012, 00:22)
QUOTE (methods @ Sunday, Apr 8 2012, 00:03)
QUOTE (Butters 2011 @ Saturday, Apr 7 2012, 23:58)
QUOTE (methods @ Saturday, Apr 7 2012, 23:41)
Good intentions with this idea, but I just feel it is an invasion of privacy. It'd be like someone reading every text message you sent and received.

But if you had read the full topic, you'd see your comment makes no sense...

Wow mister sassy, I read through the clusterf*ck of an argument. Got bored, flicked over to Tumblr, came back here and then left a comment. It does make sense considering they're trying to use this so they can monitor any potential threats to the country by seeing whom is talking to whom and any suspicious trends (you do realise that they're not just going to go 'oh wow this guy is talking to Jim again, they're going to use IP addresses and trace them back to see which region of the world the other half of the conversations are taking place). Of course though I personally wouldn't want someone knowing I'm talking to my friend Lurch who lives in Tennessee because that's just weird. I then compare it to someone reading your text messages because thats basically what it is, every conversation you have online they'll log it. Just like if someone read every text message you sent.

The point is though, if you're comparing it to text messages, then surely it's what's already is in place, where the company monitors every text message that is sent? This is where this whole thing has been blown out of proportion, where people are being led to believe that everything that is typed within the message will be seen by some group, which is false. The group will still need a warrant to read the contents of the message in its entirity.

Even though this is the case, I still disagree with this law coming into place due to the fact that it's not needed, since there is already enough in place to see what terrorists are upto. As I said a few posts back, plenty of terrorist plots have been foiled due to the surveillance that has been placed upon them, and this is why I am against this law. If terrorists are already been tracked, then what will this improve upon?

Waddy agreed with me when I stated that there is enough out there to cover the tracks of said conversations, so in reality, please explain what this law will bring upon the country?

Only the other week did The SUn mention that potential terrorists were planning their attacks on MP games such as COD, so this law is pointless. Terrorists are not stupid individuals who live under rocks, and will find a way to get around such laws.

Okay cool, don't see what point you're trying to make? You're reading way too deep into this 'text message' thing. I was just using it as a similiar example where two parties send messages to each other. Maybe I could have worded it better but I didn't. Calm down fella.


Waddy
  • Waddy

    Gods foster son.

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 02 Feb 2004
  • None

#53

Posted 08 April 2012 - 09:44 AM

QUOTE (GTAvanja @ Sunday, Apr 8 2012, 00:59)
QUOTE (Waddy @ Sunday, Apr 8 2012, 00:10)
QUOTE (Pat @ Saturday, Apr 7 2012, 22:06)


So, I say again - if you have nothing to hide, you should have no issue sharing with us. Yet, you do. So explain to me what gives you the right to criticize others for wishing not to share their personal information either.

As I have said, and what everyone one else understands.
I have no problem at all with the authorities monitoring my online activities or anything else. I am a law abiding citizen, and if they were monitoring my online activities I would not be a law abiding citizen, so they would catch me, which I believe is the entire point.
Your 'argument' about just because its ok for them to so everyone should is a bit of a damp squib.

Would you let the authorities search through your stuff at home occasionally? You know, if they had the right to just come by your house and go through your belongings to check if you're still a law abiding citizen? It makes the country safer doesn't it? And you've got nothing to hide. Would you mind if they followed you around occasionally to see what you're up to? The data on your HDD are your personal belongings. Your online activities are your own business. No one should have the right to go through any of that without a court issued warrant.

Thats not whats at stake. You're just making stuff up which has nothing to do with the point in question.
If I had done something wrong, then I am sure the police would follow me, search my online sh*t, come to my house with warrants. If I am sending bombing requests via some kind of online method then its up to me to be smarter than the police, thats what criminals do. The problem being now is that the criminals are so far in front because of stupid red tape and people going "OMG I dont want them seeing an email I sent to a girl asking her out" Its pathetic.
If you are up to no good, then the police NEED to up their game to catch the criminals, making society a safer and better place. Where am I talking gibberish here? What is there not to understand?

I want to live in a better world, I dont want to wake up watching how a bomb has just killed a load of people or how criminals are ripping people off and getting away with it because the police cant do sh*t. If it catches more bad guys, then I am all for it.

Robinski
  • Robinski

    Under a fluorescent sky

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 26 Oct 2007

#54

Posted 08 April 2012 - 09:55 AM

QUOTE (Pat @ Saturday, Apr 7 2012, 22:19)
Maybe it's just a US vs. UK thing. I was raised to believe that no one has the right to infringe upon personal liberties no matter how much they're paid or what kind of desk they sit behind, but maybe it's different over there.

Nah I don't think it's that. I'm with you. I have nothing to hide, but does that mean I'm happy to have someone I don't know, and will never know, rifle through my personal stuff? F*ck no.

I was saying to a mate the other day about this, it seems we're still living in this atmosphere of fear. People are willing to give up those little freedoms and personal liberties, just to feel a little bit safer. But y'know what? I'd rather live in a more dangerous world where my private communications can't be snooped on.

Not to mention the fact that the people these measures are intended to catch are already going to know how to get around them.

Typhus
  • Typhus

    OG

  • $outh $ide Hoodz
  • Joined: 11 Sep 2007

#55

Posted 08 April 2012 - 09:57 AM

But are you really afraid of the terrorists? What have they done to inspire such horror? A few bombings. Nothing more. They have no imagination, no idea, no idea at all, about how to actually get inside peoples heads.
I maintain that they are so inept, trite and bumbling that no rational person should be afraid of them.

Waddy
  • Waddy

    Gods foster son.

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 02 Feb 2004
  • None

#56

Posted 08 April 2012 - 10:08 AM

QUOTE (Typhus @ Sunday, Apr 8 2012, 09:57)
But are you really afraid of the terrorists? What have they done to inspire such horror? A few bombings. Nothing more. They have no imagination, no idea, no idea at all, about how to actually get inside peoples heads.
I maintain that they are so inept, trite and bumbling that no rational person should be afraid of them.

The agencies around the world employ hundreds of thousands of people who work full time on averting such things, I truly believe that if it wasnt for these people there would be bombings every day.
I was in Manchester when the IRA bombed it many years ago, I was also close to Warrington when it happened, and there are so many targets where either myself or my family could be which would be perfect for a bombing. Do not under estimate the work that goes on behind the scenes which are keeping us as safe as possible.

I agree that they probably are inept, but ill tell you what, give me a rocket launcher and I could take a plane down in 5 minutes killing hundreds, dont you think they could do that too? Its people stopping them getting the rocket launchers who we need to thank. Causing a huge disaster would be pretty easy with the right tools.

@Robinski - They will never be able to snoop on you unless you are doing something wrong though. So whats the problem? If you decide to take a life of crime then you must expect them police to catch you be any means. Do you seriously think you will be snooped on? confused.gif

Robinski
  • Robinski

    Under a fluorescent sky

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 26 Oct 2007

#57

Posted 08 April 2012 - 10:11 AM Edited by Robinski, 08 April 2012 - 10:15 AM.

I don't live in fear of terrorism, no. In fact, I'd probably be okay to say that for most people I know the thought of terrorism never crosses their day-to-day mind. It's the climate of fear fed down by the government into the media that allows stuff like this to pass unopposed. When watching the news, you hear of some atrocity committed across the planet, then you hear about this and the words "to combat terrorism" and magically it's alright.

E:
QUOTE
@Robinski - They will never be able to snoop on you unless you are doing something wrong though. So what's the problem? If you decide to take a life of crime then you must expect them police to catch you be any means. Do you seriously think you will be snooped on?


It's not about whether I think I will be personally snooped on, it's the fact that I could legally be snooped on. And in the age of counter-terrorism being a banner you can do anything under, who's to say the criteria for being snooped won't change to include something I might fall under. Say for yourself, what if there was a rise in terrorists planning and practising attacks in violent video games, and as a result your private correspondence was invaded simply because you have authority on here? You wouldn't feel violated?

sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Empty Pleasures and Desperate Measures since 1994

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2013, 2012, 2011

#58

Posted 08 April 2012 - 10:12 AM

QUOTE (Waddy @ Sunday, Apr 8 2012, 00:18)
QUOTE (Irviding @ Saturday, Apr 7 2012, 23:13)
What exactly can be done through this bill without a warrant?

Not 100% but I believe they want to start recording everything that happens online. So they can go back at anytime to see what certain people have said.

It's already recorded. Basically, ISP's have to hold a years worth of contact data (not content but communications data) on their customers. If you read your ISP T&C it's all in there. Basically, GCHQ can request to access this info as it currently stands without a warrant, though you need a warrant for the data/content. Basically, under the current system, the principal is that, because the communication data isn't actually personally attributable (I.E it doesn't contain people's names, though it does contain info that allows you to identify people if you have the means and desire), it's not covered under "private information" and thus does not require a warrant.

The new proposals will basically mean that, rather than having to collect legacy data from ISPs, the security services can access this data in real time is they request to do so. Again, it doesn't cover actual content, but allows you to see who is communicating with who. Basically, it's an extension of the powers that already exist to cover telephone and mobile phone conversations, where patters of communication can be interrogated but the content cannot actually be recovered without a warrant to tap the phone line.

I'm glad to see that there are so many on here not blowing this absurdly out of proportion, like the media rather tragically has. Anyone with even the vaguest knowledge of the intelligence services or police in this country should know that neither has the manpower or the resource to simultaneously monitor millions of different communication patterns. It bears no similarity to the "packet sniffing" system which are used in China, Iran, Russia ect because it won't have access to content data.



Despite the hype, there's no actual infringement on civil liberties/rights from this plan. The information which is being made available is already stored and easily accessible by ISPs and BT/whoever you have your phone line contract with, and I'd much rather have the security services snooping though my data than some moron from Virgin. It's no different to insurance companies obtaining your medical data from hospitals, which they legally can.

Waddy
  • Waddy

    Gods foster son.

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 02 Feb 2004
  • None

#59

Posted 08 April 2012 - 10:18 AM

QUOTE (Robinski @ Sunday, Apr 8 2012, 10:11)
I don't live in fear of terrorism, no. In fact, I'd probably be okay to say that for most people I know the thought of terrorism never crosses their day-to-day mind. It's the climate of fear fed down by the government into the media that allows stuff like this to pass unopposed. When watching the news, you hear of some atrocity committed across the planet, then you hear about this and the words "to combat terrorism" and magically it's alright.

E:
QUOTE
@Robinski - They will never be able to snoop on you unless you are doing something wrong though. So what's the problem? If you decide to take a life of crime then you must expect them police to catch you be any means. Do you seriously think you will be snooped on?


It's not about whether I think I will be personally snooped on, it's the fact that I could legally be snooped on. And in the age of counter-terrorism being a banner you can do anything under, who's to say the criteria for being snooped won't change to include something I might fall under. Say for yourself, what if there was a rise in terrorists planning and practising attacks in violent video games, and as a result your private correspondence was invaded simply because you have authority on here? You wouldn't feel violated?

I dont live in fear of it. I just think the less it happens the better life people will have. Why wouldnt everyone want that? I believe the police should be given whatever power they need to catch the criminals, thats all.

@Sivis, thanks for the explanation. It looks like its already in place anyway, so it works for me! smile.gif

stu
  • stu

    Ya filthy animal.

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 22 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom
  • Funniest Member 2013
    Funniest Member 2012

#60

Posted 08 April 2012 - 10:29 AM

QUOTE (Typhus @ Sunday, Apr 8 2012, 09:57)
But are you really afraid of the terrorists? What have they done to inspire such horror? A few bombings. Nothing more. They have no imagination, no idea, no idea at all, about how to actually get inside peoples heads.
I maintain that they are so inept, trite and bumbling that no rational person should be afraid of them.

It's got nothing to do with fear. I don't think people actually are actually scared of terrorists, but I'm sure they are against their limbs being blown off all the same.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users