Theresa May confirms with Dimbleby that a Conservative majority will vote in the Snoopers' Charter
- Thread starter LateX'Dog
- Start date
Soldato
- Joined
- 31 May 2009
- Posts
- 21,468
Yep they are all so authoritarian, even LD in 2015 have moved significantly into the authoritarian part.
No on in the purple square
How was that generated?
I am rather surprised to see Sinn Fein where there are placed, as their policies would seem to be significantly more communistic than the graph suggests.
Also would have expected the DUP to be further right.
Not really the same thing, is it though? And nobody will actually look at any content of these messages, it's just the record of the communication. And only if you're already on the 'at risk' list are you even going to have these records checked. For average Joe it makes literally no difference. Telephone calls are already monitored in this fashion; why monitor only one type of communication? All or nothing, and if it means one less nutter on the streets with a machette looking to behead someone, then I'm all for it!
I really can't see why people are getting so upset about this. Remove your panties so they're not wedged so far up your backsides, you might relax a little more.
Last edited:
Suspended
- Joined
- 17 Oct 2011
- Posts
- 5,707
- Location
- Buckingamshire
I suspect it's arbitrarily picked to suit someones own agenda to be honest.
Soldato
- Joined
- 22 Nov 2007
- Posts
- 4,360
If it makes it easier for terrorists and criminals to be caught then i am all for it.
Soldato
- Joined
- 14 Dec 2010
- Posts
- 3,030
- Location
- Nottingham
Poor attitude to have, because those who didn't vote for them would also suffer.
I don't think that's how this will actually work, fundamentally it looks like the police will be able to make the decision to look at stuff themselves with only the autherisation from a senior officer, without the requirement for a judge or the Home Office to grant them access.
the "highly sophisticated techniques" has usually been speaking to each other face to face usually in the back room of the local mosque.
As far as I'm aware it's taken from manifesto and other policies announced in run up to election. That's why LD is significantly mire authoritarian than 2010.
They say will use it to fight crime and terrorism but also "economic wellbeing" and any other purpose the secretary of state prescribes".
So send that text "want to watch something ?" or " fancy a smoke?" and wait for the knock on the door.
Welcome to the Orwellian future.
So send that text "want to watch something ?" or " fancy a smoke?" and wait for the knock on the door.
Welcome to the Orwellian future.
I think people will realise this next 5 years how good the lib dems actually were and how actually they didn't betray their promises and they really did reign in the tories.
I don't mind the tories when it comes to the economy and ultimately that's the most important thing. Laws such as these can be changes in future governments however if the economy gets ****ed then it's very very hard to reverse that. The tories are a bit too right leaning when it comes to social issues though. Unfortunately a party that has right win economics and left wing socials doesn't exist.
I don't mind the tories when it comes to the economy and ultimately that's the most important thing. Laws such as these can be changes in future governments however if the economy gets ****ed then it's very very hard to reverse that. The tories are a bit too right leaning when it comes to social issues though. Unfortunately a party that has right win economics and left wing socials doesn't exist.
Here's an article I saved about this which explains why it's utterly pointless to pass legislation to make encryption harder / break how the Internet works in an effort to find the bad guys:
http://www.badscience.net/2009/02/datamining-would-be-lovely-if-it-worked/
http://www.badscience.net/2009/02/datamining-would-be-lovely-if-it-worked/
Its stupid because as soon as you go down that road (via legislation) those who are hiding behind such will by and large just recede further into the shadows making the whole thing pointless at best and potentially actually make it harder to catch them.
(The whole thing is much more about the Tories stance towards personal freedoms than any terrorist/criminal concerns anyhow).
There is already a system in place for monitoring the conversations of suspects, it's called having evidence and obtaining a warrant. Trying to replace investigative work with hoovering up huge amounts of information and looking for patterns/keywords in the name of national security not only won't work - as explained above - it has the potential to cause problems at a technical level, as well as requiring us to blindly trust whoever has access to this information. Not to mention this grand idea of the digital economy that the Tories love to pay lip service to is dead in the water if they pass legislation to intercept everything without exception. Nobody is going to want to have anything to do with services hosted out of here.
Let's chat again in five years when this is entirely not the case
Do you have a hat you can eat?
My post with the article wasn't in response to anything you wrote, so I'm not sure where you think I've accused you of being in favour of profiling/algorithms. There's not much point collecting huge amount of data if you aren't feeding it though some sort of system to analyse it though. They aren't doing it because they want to keep the storage industry in healthy profits.
I am aware that legislation hasn't kept up with technology - end to end encryption is computationally cheap, key exchange has been solved for a while, and we're at the point where messages can be sent between two iPhones with no possibility of anyone other than the people in the conversation having any idea of what the contents of that message were. Trying to get rid of encryption is not the answer to that problem - assuming you agree that it is a problem. It will cause far more issues than it solves.
Last edited:
No, the codeword was "sausage" and the two men were caught after being pulled over for a traffic violation/routine stop. The police found Tony Blairs address in the car and planted a bug after getting suspicious. They were overheard talking about buying a gun and "plotting" a terrorist attack and arrested.
No need for a snoopers charter type law here, it was all done using the mk1 eyeball, standard warrants and good policing.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...l-Incedal-used-code-word-sausage-to-buy-a-gun.
Incidentally one of the guys was cleared of the charge of preparing an act of terrorism last week in a retrial (although was jailed for possessing bomb making information).
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-30...-42-months-possessing-bomb-making-manual.html
Edit: just to answer the first point, collecting more information on everyone's activities would help little in the prevention of terrorism, even if occasionally someone did make a slipup. As I mentioned before all the recent terrorist incidents have been perpetrated by people known to the police, unfortunately they didn't have the resources to keep track of them all, even when they have the option of warrants and current law behind them.
Breaking the Internet and collecting huge amounts of information "just in case" is just pointless for the arguments they are using to push it through and is pretty damn draconian. You may expect someone like Putin or Mugabe to do something like that but not a western powers.
Besides, why should the law be there to be broken by those in power? On another point the bulk collection of phone data by the NSA has just been found to be illegal, it seems the UK is one of the few countries after Snowdon to actually be introducing MORE draconian laws, rather than increase the protection of peoples privacy.
Last edited:
lol! If I had a penny for every time I heard someone say "I'll leave the country if x wins"...Funnily enough they are all still here...
You worry about the Tories running the country in to the ground, just be thankful Labour didn't get in
