1984 Arrives

DAnDan said:
Good lord I hate the "what next" brigade. :mad:
Click to expand...

Whilst some do bring silly levels of conjecture they all have one valid point. These kind of laws are nearly always the thin edge of the wedge. If people don't rise up against it they'll just push for tighter laws.

It's the people who cannot see the danger in laws like this, those who spout the tied diatribe of "if you have done nothing wrong" that are the bigger problem here. Governments are always going to try the push the legislatory boundaries, often in the name of safety or security, but if they are allowed to get away with it and we sleepwalk ourselves into a police state who is ultimately to lame?

So I'd rather have more "what next" types than have more "nothing to hide" types.
 
Darg said:
Well I do, and it should be my choice who knows that information. By your inaction you are allowing your government to take that information from me without my consent. Congratulations on your country turning into a police state.
Click to expand...

But what actually about that makes your life any worse? You don't want them knowing which websites you visit, great, I get that, but does it actually affect your day to day life in any way?

The government knowing what websites you visit isn't a "police state", it's not even going to affect you.
 
DAnDan said:
The government knowing what websites you visit isn't a "police state", it's not even going to affect you.
Click to expand...
The "police state" part of this is that they can access your data without a warrant. If they just fancy a random dip into what I'm up to, they can. No reason required.

The thin end of the wedge argument gets overused. But not in this case.
 
They will be able to monitor every single electronic communication that a person makes. They will know the time, date, the medium of communication and the recipient.

The only thing they will need a warrant for is the content of that communication. However, more than likely they will look at the content anyway, then apply for a warrant later if there is anything of interest.
 
DAnDan said:
But what actually about that makes your life any worse? You don't want them knowing which websites you visit, great, I get that, but does it actually affect your day to day life in any way?

The government knowing what websites you visit isn't a "police state", it's not even going to affect you.
Click to expand...

Chances are it will never affect me, that makes no difference though. Just because they are the government that gives them absolutely no right to information about my personal life which I don't choose to give them. People see the government as this all powerful organisation which you must let do whatever they want. You're forgetting that the government are just administrators for your country. You hire them, you fire them, they work for you, not the other way round.
 
Darg said:
Chances are it will never affect me, that makes no difference though. Just because they are the government that gives them absolutely no right to information about my personal life which I don't choose to give them. People see the government as this all powerful organisation which you must let do whatever they want. You're forgetting that the government are just administrators for your country. You hire them, you fire them, they work for you, not the other way round.
Click to expand...

That's fair enough. I can't argue against you if you simply don't want for them to have access to this information, that's your choice :). I just don't see it as that much of an issue; when there's anything serious that they want to see about any of us, I'm sure that there is little difficulty in obtaining a warrant anyway.
 
DAnDan said:
The government knowing what websites you visit isn't a "police state", it's not even going to affect you.
Click to expand...

Actually I think it is.


DAnDan said:
That's fair enough. I can't argue against you if you simply don't want for them to have access to this information, that's your choice :). I just don't see it as that much of an issue; when there's anything serious that they want to see about any of us, I'm sure that there is little difficulty in obtaining a warrant anyway.
Click to expand...

exactly
 
DAnDan said:
That's fair enough. I can't argue against you if you simply don't want for them to have access to this information, that's your choice :). I just don't see it as that much of an issue; when there's anything serious that they want to see about any of us, I'm sure that there is little difficulty in obtaining a warrant anyway.
Click to expand...

And that's why we can't allow them to pass this law. They have the means already to get the information if it's needed in an active investigation through legitimate independent courts. Allowing them to take it without a warrant is removing my right of privacy over what I do in my own home. If anything this law should be only allowed on an opt-in basis. All the people who think it will help the security of the state (aka fools) can opt-in if they care about it that much. If this law passes I'll be doing everything in my power to hide my activities by using Tor or other means.

Someone on my facebook came up with the good idea of ccing GCHQs support desk with every single email you send. Get enough people to do it and they'll realise what a tonne of **** they'll be getting themselves into :D
 
See we knew this was only the first step. Now the conservatives want to hold secret trials, where matters of national security is involved. What's the bet if this goes through then we'll see many many more cases seemingly involving national security.

Nick Clegg has signalled opposition to parts of the government's plans for secret trials in some civil cases involving national security.
Click to expand...

If that isn't bad enough, you wouldn't even get a right to properly defend yourself.

Under the plans, special advocates would be able to examine secret documents but would not be able to discuss them with defendants or claimants to get their side of the case.
Click to expand...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-17601594
 
Last edited:
Christ, before you know it we'll be like America, arresting people and holding them for years without a hearing. Don't let the train crash that is American justice occur in this country too.
 
I don't see an issue really.....unless you're a terrorist and planning to bomb somewhere then what does it matter if the government see's your "hi mom, gonna be late home, put my tea in the oven" text message or whatever.

Or am I missing something here..
 
MooMoo444 said:
I don't see an issue really.....unless you're a terrorist and planning to bomb somewhere then what does it matter if the government see's your "hi mom, gonna be late home, put my tea in the oven" text message or whatever.

Or am I missing something here..
Click to expand...
Yes you are.

A few things.

Firstly, what right does the government have to pry into the lives of citizens who have committed no crime?.

Secondly, at what point do we say "Enough is enough?" - this gradual erosion of our civil liberties has been continuing from quite some time.

Thirdly, are you aware of the plans to introduce secret courts?.

Finally - Do you really trust our government with that kind of power? - it's undemocratic & fly's against our basic rights for privacy & is a massive over-step of the state.

Do you honestly think that adapting a China/North Korea/Iran style attitude is a step forward for social progress.

You are taking the "well I have nothing to hide" attitude but are ignoring that you have something to lose - to right to privacy.

With the internet spying/secret trials, cash for access scandle, fuel hike, min price for alcohol - it's like the Tory's are desperate to lose the next election with unpopular policy after unpopular policy.
 
Last edited:
Genuine question.

If you are on that believes that there is no problem with the proposed bill, do you also believe that China, Iran, Egypt, North Korea etc.. are doing the right thing in monitoring their citizens?

I fear this debate might now be overshadowed the goverment proposing secret trials, behind closed doors, without judges, where the defendent's advocate won't be able to discuss aspects of the case with the defendent.
 
Even if you use SSL, wouldn't the ISP be able to see what site you connected to first? They just won't see the content downloaded?
 
MooMoo444 said:
I don't see an issue really.....unless you're a terrorist and planning to bomb somewhere then what does it matter if the government see's your "hi mom, gonna be late home, put my tea in the oven" text message or whatever.

Or am I missing something here..
Click to expand...

The key here is the 'without warrant' clause. Let us imagine you are home one day, and there is a nock on your door. Its the police. 'Hello' they say, can we come in please, we suspect you of nefarious illegal activity'. 'Gosh, whats this about, do you have a warrant'. 'Errrrrr, no' they say. 'Well then, i kindly bid you good day' *close door*.

THAT is how the legal system works - You have to be SUSPECTED of a crime with EVIDENCE before the police can execute a search. What is being proposed is no different to the police knocking on your door, and demanding a snoop around all the intimate areas of your house, from under the kitchen sink to at the back of your underwear draw, without warrant and just because 'they feel like it': all in the name of 'national security'.

Or how about the police enacting a search of your rectal cavity, because 'you were looking a bit dodgy' - is that ok?

And you are ok with this, because you have 'nothing to hide'? Just because there are no condoms full of snuff up your backside doesn't make it ok for the police to go snooping up there without cause :p
 
Last edited:
englishpremier said:
See we knew this was only the first step. Now the conservatives want to hold secret trials, where matters of national security is involved. What's the bet if this goes through then we'll see many many more cases seemingly involving national security.



If that isn't bad enough, you wouldn't even get a right to properly defend yourself.



http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-17601594
Click to expand...

So like, "you're guilty, and you have no opportunity to prove that you are are innocent?" Nice.
 
I liked this comment from the bbc site:
Fascism

An English lady who lived in Nazi Germany talked about it on the World at War series

"It didn't all happen at once.
It happened slowly, in a drip drip drip manner over many years until eventually you found yourself being directly affected by Nazi policies"

Most folk in the UK are too busy either blindy obeying their masters or watching BGTalent to care what happens

Bye bye Britain
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom