UK 'must log' phone and web use

[WJA96]

Is that a good thing if the law doesn't provide a benefit?

I'm sorry to go against the general concensus that speed limits are a bit limp-wristed.

Speed in itself doesn't cause accidents, but it does massively exascerbate the effects of accidents. On the derestricted areas of Autobahnen in Germany there are very few accidents, but the few they do are generally catastrophic and fatal for all involved. Likewise on motorways in the UK. Would you rather have the road closed because the police are investigating a fatality or drive a bit slower and keep a lane open?

 

[Dolph]

I'm sorry to go against the general concensus that speed limits are a bit limp-wristed.

It's more the point that the government's own research shows that 'excessive speed' (which includes driving within the limit but too fast for the conditions, and ignores whether the speed was part of criminal activity such as car theft) is only an attributable cause in about 5% of accidents.

As someone who cares about road safety, I want them to be targetting the other 95%.

Speed in itself doesn't cause accidents, but it does massively exascerbate the effects of accidents. On the derestricted areas of Autobahnen in Germany there are very few accidents, but the few they do are generally catastrophic and fatal for all involved. Likewise on motorways in the UK. Would you rather have the road closed because the police are investigating a fatality or drive a bit slower and keep a lane open?

Treating the causes of accidents is the key here though. Cutting speed while doing nothing else to address the actual causes (or indeed making them worse) is not a road safety plan, it's like giving someone a blunt knife because they keep cutting themselves because they have no training in how to use it safely, so the cut isn't as bad. it's false economy, especially when the enforcement is so draconian with regards to license loss etc.

 

[AGD]

For me, the privacy of everyone in the country is more important than the *possible* few lives that may be lost from recording all web usage and calls. Saving lives is not the be all and end all.

 

[mattheman]

You can't have free trade without free movement of people.

Now I'm not saying that we should allow absolutely everyone in from everywhere, but if free trade is desirable, then immigration is necessary as part of that.

we never had freedom of movement of people.

 

[Dolph]

we never had freedom of movement of people.

We do within the EU...

 

[spitzoid]

Seriously, if you've got nothing to hide then why be so secretive/protective about what you do and whether it is recorded or not? I couldn't give 2 hoots to be perfectly honest and if it helps stop/solve acts of terrorism, isn't it a good thing? All this "Civil Liberties" nonsense is laughable.

 

[Burnsy2023]

For me, the privacy of everyone in the country is more important than the *possible* few lives that may be lost from recording all web usage and calls. Saving lives is not the be all and end all.

As funny as it sounds, I totally agree with you. I seems that the government are wanting to prevent terror attacks at all costs; in reality the terrorists have a small victory by us being continually scared of attack.

 

[Over Clocker]

BBC

Another step towards 1984 and another reason why we have to slam the door shut on Immegration

Interesting that you cannot spell even basic English words, at the same time as making a comment that does not have any correlation to the subject you have started!

 

[Darg]

Kind of crazy isn't it.
Hundreds of people are killed every day via other means such as car accidents, drink driving, murder, drug abuse but nowt is done.
Kill a few people in a terrorist attack & the Whole country changes for the bad Forever.
I still cannot understand why this country suddenly needs to take such measures as I am pretty damn sure we didn't when the IRA were attacking the capital & they were far more effective than the looneys we get nowadays.

Oddly enough I made this post in the WWIIOL OT forum yesterday, it's 90% neocons in there so the response was predictable:

Number of deaths for leading causes of death

* Heart disease: 631,636
* Cancer: 559,888
* Stroke (cerebrovascular diseases): 137,119
* Chronic lower respiratory diseases: 124,583
* Accidents (unintentional injuries): 121,599
* Diabetes: 72,449
* Alzheimer's disease: 72,432
* Influenza and Pneumonia: 56,326
* Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome, and nephrosis: 45,344
* Septicemia: 34,234

Terrorism: 2726 eight years ago.


Why do you fear something that has 0.006 the death rate of the flu??

Why are you willing to tear up your constitution to protect america from this "threat". When you bring it into perspective your childish fears are ridiculous.

EDIT: Maybe I'm going to have to add this to my sig here too:

"Those who would give up essential Liberty to purchase a little temporary Safety deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

 

[Dolph]

Seriously, if you've got nothing to hide then why be so secretive/protective about what you do? I couldn't give 2 hoots to be perfectly honest and if it helps stop/solve acts of terrorism isn't it a good thing? All this "Civil Liberties" nonsense is laughable.

Even ignoring the civil liberties aspect (I suggest going to somewhere like Iran if you think civil liberties are overrated incidentally), there is a massive cost implication in proposals such as this, which has to be considered against the very low hit rate of this sort of operation.

 

[Burnsy2023]

snip

Can do drop me an email Mal?

 

[spitzoid]

Even ignoring the civil liberties aspect (I suggest going to somewhere like Iran if you think civil liberties are overrated incidentally), there is a massive cost implication in proposals such as this, which has to be considered against the very low hit rate of this sort of operation.

You cannot compare us to Iran just because there is a proposal to monitor phone & internet traffic, that is ridiculous quite frankly.

And in response to your cost argument - If it saved just one life then wouldn't the money be worth it?

 

[GSDog]

The terrorists are effectively winning by taking away our privacy and freedoms.

I don't have anything to hide but I don't like the thought of literally every detail of my life being stored by the government.

I don't mind CCTV but this is taking it one step too far. What next?

 

[Dolph]

You cannot compare us to Iran just because there is a proposal to monitor phone & internet traffic, that is ridiculous quite frankly.

You claimed civil liberties were nonsense, civil liberties are a fundamental part of the British way of life.

And in response to your cost argument - If it saved just one life then wouldn't the money be worth it?

No. Sounds harsh I know, but the chances are very high that there would be much better ways to spend the money if saving lives was the priority. There is also the point that government spending such as this does not have a positive economic contribution, and as such is likely to have a much greater negative impact on people's lives.

 

[Psycho Sonny]

to the people saying the borders should be shut and illegal's sent away.

everyone has the right to go to any country they so wish, its not as if you actually own this land. chances are if you go back far enough your not even from this island. so they have as much right as you do.

talking about acts of terrorism, have you even looked at britains past? they commited many acts of terrorism on many different people from all over the world. they killed innocent men, woman and children who beared no arms. therefore should we ban all british people from visiting any other country in the world? or moving to it? should all britains be outcast and persecuted? in fact i think more caucasians have commited acts of terrorism than any other colour. the nazi's for example. should all white people be killed? no because thats a stupid way of thinking that any one race is to blame.

terrorism is virtually dead now anyway thanks to george bush. i dont think anyone from Iran or any other country wants to attack America now due to the consequences of what would happen to their country.

as for asylum seekers, they should be allowed to work and stay here freely, after all you dont own this island your merely here for a few years whilst many different people stay and pass through.

 

[ShaolinDreams]

all this terrorism is a load of claptrap in my eyes. Like said above so called terrorism kills a miniscule amount of people. If the government really cared about "saving lives" how about spending less of this terrorism rubbish and more on major causes of death that occur in this country. Its simply a power word to induce fear and introduce policies that normally we wouldnt agree to. I do not wish to live in a totalitarian state.

George Orwell was on to something.

 

[spitzoid]

You claimed civil liberties were nonsense, civil liberties are a fundamental part of the British way of life.

I would have thought that being able to walk around without fear of being blown up was a greater civil liberty than having some useless data (assuming innocence) being stored in some hard drive for a few years.

No. Sounds harsh I know, but the chances are very high that there would be much better ways to spend the money if saving lives was the priority. There is also the point that government spending such as this does not have a positive economic contribution, and as such is likely to have a much greater negative impact on people's lives.

Perhaps you can float one of these "better ways to spend the money"? It is all very well nay-saying but I do not hear any better alternatives to tracking these people.

I think this just shows that the almighty dollar has gained far too much credence in peoples lives. Other, more important things, seem to be swept under the carpet of greed.

 

[Dolph]

I would have thought that being able to walk around without fear of being blown up was a greater civil liberty than having some useless data (assuming innocence) being stored in some hard drive for a few years.

The actual chance of being injured or killed by a terrorist is so small it is almost non-existant. By letting terrorists impact our rights, they are winning.

Perhaps you can float one of these "better ways to spend the money"? It is all very well nay-saying but I do not hear any better alternatives to tracking these people.

I think this just shows that the almighty dollar has gained far too much credence in peoples lives. Other, more important things, seem to be swept under the carpet of greed.

Tackle one of the many other causes of death instead? More people die in accidents with home swimming pools, and far more on motorbikes, than are killed by terrorists

 

[spitzoid]

The actual chance of being injured or killed by a terrorist is so small it is almost non-existant. By letting terrorists impact our rights, they are winning.

That may be the case now but as you know these events are increasing. It might be wise to do all we can to negate the threat before it gets out of control.

Tackle one of the many other causes of death instead? More people die in accidents with home swimming pools, and far more on motorbikes, than are killed by terrorists

Yes, more money could be put into solving one area of saving lives but as a result another ultimately suffers. It needs to be balanced and we need to tackle all threats, rising and constant.

Look, it seems that we don't agree which is fair enough. I don't think we are going to change each other's minds so I'm going to go and eat some eggs.

 

[Dolph]

That may be the case now but as you know these events are increasing.

No they aren't, we currently have far less regular terrorist activity then we did at the peak of IRA activity.

I don't know what your point is here. The proposed measures to store data are specific to terrorism. I'm sure there are other government departments that tackle "accidents". Yes, more money could be put into solving one area of saving lives but as a result another ultimately suffers. It needs to be balanced and we need to tackle all threats, rising and constant.

Look, it seems that we don't agree which is fair enough. I don't think we are going to change each other's minds so I'm going to go and eat some eggs.

I agree that we're not going to change each other's minds, but my stance will cost you nothing, whereas your stance incurs me (via taxation) significant fiancial costs as well as an unnecessary reduction in civil liberties, therefore I'm still going to highlight the flaws in your position because ultimately it's not about changing your mind, but making sure that those reading who may not have made up their minds have good counter represetantion to evaluate.