Communications and Data Bill New Powers

thing is it wont help with crime or terrorism (ok some super thick person might get caught but now they know the government are doing it they take steps to bypass it)

what it will help with is when china (or one of the other new powers) come knocking on the government door and say " we just place a multi million pound deal with you, can you give us a list who those Chinese dissidents where talking to" and the goverement can pust a few buttons for the info and no one need to know


and anyway it not as if the government is going to use laws that are for anti terrorist for some other reason, as if the pm would use laws made to seize assets of a terrorist, against a bank or a country because his mates might loose some money, opps it all ready has
 
RDM said:
Sorry I disagree. If having who you contact being passed to the police is a civil liberties issue then it is a civil liberties issue regardless of the medium in which that contact took place.
Click to expand...

But as I said it isn't.

It isn't the handing over of the data that is the issue, it is the motivation behind the recording of the data which is the issue.

No one would think it was a civil liberties issue if the police were to read the personal diary of suspect they found during a search of his home. It would be a civil liberties issue if the police demanded a system whereby everyone has to do a personal diary which are uploaded and made available to them to read at any time. That's contextually is similar to the difference between the police asking for phone records from people who are keeping them anyway to them requiring ISPs to set up dedicated monitoring equipment which they can access at any time.
 
Last edited:
estebanrey said:
But as I said it isn't.

It isn't the handing over of the data that is the issue, it is the motivation behind the recording of the data which is the issue.

No one would think it was a civil liberties issue if the police were to read the personal diary of suspect they found during a search of his home. It would be a civil liberties issue if the police demanded a system whereby everyone has to no do a personal diary which are uploaded and made available to them to read at any time. That's contextually is similar to the difference between the police asking for phone records from people who are keeping them anyway to them requiring ISPs to set up dedicated monitoring equipment which they can access at any time.
Click to expand...

As I said, I disagree. It seems to be an argument in semantics. Consider for example phone companies offering all inclusive call packages. They no longer need to record what calls you make unless they are international as they will not be charging you for them.

I do however feel there are significant technical hurdles that need to be overcome before we even know if it is feasible. I would also be interested in what sort of safeguards will be put in place too.

It seems to be, once again, a case of special pleading for the internet. People seem to want it to be immune to laws for some reason.
 
Moses said:
It was exaggeration, for effect... hyperbole... but you were saying it was fair to follow the train of thought ;). I presume you concede you were wrong to accuse me as you did, then? :cool:
Click to expand...

I merely pointed out the flaw in the "you've got not nothing to worry about if you're not doing anything wrong" argument which you hear trotted out whenever an internet monitoring, CCTV, speed camera topic comes up.

If you'd have just said "I don't care if my internet activity is monitored" that would have been a different story (a probably more truthful given your backtracking since the first comment).
 
RDM said:
As I said, I disagree. It seems to be an argument in semantics. Consider for example phone companies offering all inclusive call packages. They no longer need to record what calls you make unless they are international as they will not be charging you for them.
Click to expand...

It's not semantics, they are two entirely different situations. One is retrieving data from a system that already exists and exists for a different primary purpose, the other is a dedicated system for monitoring data.

It's like saying the difference between borrowing and stealing is purely one of semantics.

All inclusive packages are never really 'all' inclusive. There will be a myriad of 'exemptions' to what you get free (premium rate numbers, freephone numbers, international numbers etc) so they still have to record the details of each call you make to ensure they are charging you correctly.

If a new company was to set up tomorrow offering a deal like broadband whereby you pay for the connection and that's it I'd agree but no company is going to offer that as it'd go out of business.

RDM said:
It seems to be, once again, a case of special pleading for the internet.
Click to expand...

Only because you are being wilfully ignorant of the difference between obtaining records that are already being kept for charging purposes and setting up a system with the sole intention of monitoring people.

To prove I'm not special pleading for the internet and am consistent with my argument, I have no problem with the police asking facebook for the details of suspects (as this is contextually similar to the phone company example). However should Facebook be asked to store back ups of every communication through it's site for 10 years which the police could access at any time I would have an issue.
 
Last edited:
estebanrey said:
Only because you are being wilfully ignorant of the difference between obtaining records that are already being kept for charging purposes and setting up a system with the sole intention of monitoring people.
Click to expand...

So by disagreeing I am now being wilfully ignorant? Right, carry on with your righteous indignation then. :D
 
OldCoals said:
For sale, 100Kg of Columbian pure.

Come on, it is ridiculous to suggest that this will help with the fight against crime.
Click to expand...

there are some websites where people openly deal. i was amazed at the stupidity. whats wrong with meeting in dark alleys? :)

sheesh, kids these days! at least we used to talk in code on phones! :)
 
Are we saying that the courts would be by-passed for warrants and the police would not have prove why and how they wanted to monitor suspects ?
 
Btone said:
thing is it wont help with crime or terrorism (ok some super thick person might get caught but now they know the government are doing it they take steps to bypass it)

what it will help with is when china (or one of the other new powers) come knocking on the government door and say " we just place a multi million pound deal with you, can you give us a list who those Chinese dissidents where talking to" and the goverement can pust a few buttons for the info and no one need to know


and anyway it not as if the government is going to use laws that are for anti terrorist for some other reason, as if the pm would use laws made to seize assets of a terrorist, against a bank or a country because his mates might loose some money, opps it all ready has
Click to expand...

and the police are so trustworthy. i mean they never look up people's records and stuff and sell them to journalists or for their own actions do they? and they are always sacked when the do? (900 reported 'incidents' last year and no actions to any officers - this will be different now after the phone tapping scandals)
 
OldCoals said:
For sale, 100Kg of Columbian pure.

Come on, it is ridiculous to suggest that this will help with the fight against crime.
Click to expand...

The danger will be in the details. It will be used for tracking copyright infringement.

If they can get a warrant for this they will be able to get a warrant for your house. I don't see what they are aiming to gain by using one over the other.
 
RDM said:
So by disagreeing I am now being wilfully ignorant? Right, carry on with your righteous indignation then. :D
Click to expand...

You are disagreeing with something that is self evident so yes.

Do you agree or disagree with the following statement...

"The primary use and invention of telephone records is so that telecoms companies can charge their customers for making phone calls"
 
estebanrey said:
You are disagreeing with something that is self evident so yes.

Do you agree or disagree with the following statement...

"The primary use and invention of telephone records is so that telecoms companies can charge their customers for making phone calls"
Click to expand...

I agree with that statement, what I disagree with is the assertion that keeping records is the problem rather than handing said records over to the police.

Are you saying that it would not be a civil rights issue if the ISPs were already keeping browsing history?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom