Communications and Data Bill New Powers

Moses said:
I know what the critique of this view will be, but I honestly don't care... as I don't do anything wrong :o.
Click to expand...

Might as well put CCTV cameras in you house and set up a live stream at your local police station then, if you're not doing anything wrong there's no problem right?
 
Moses said:
I know what the critique of this view will be, but I honestly don't care... as I don't do anything wrong :o.

I know it could be abused, by some evil future government... but if we had an evil government, they'd do it anyway! :p
Click to expand...

An evil government doesn't just pop up out of nowhere and start running the country, it develops over time and starts with the populace handing the government excessive powers to monitor and control them.

They claim this will help with crime and terrorism, but you have to wonder how. Unless you are actively monitoring or fishing in this data you will still need to know who physically you are investigating. And if you already know that you can already apply for a warrant to monitor their communications.

Also the implementation, suppose you use gmail. Connection is automatically encrypted via https, the servers are likely not in the UK (and if they are just imagine a different service where they aren't), they aren't going to know who you're talking to unless, oh yes, they apply appropriately for the data.

As David Davis points out anyone who wants to bypass this system will be able to fairly trivially as it does not require much technical knowledge or skill.
 
I lot of it will depend on the details, the technical issues and the safeguards put in place. The fact that police can already get phone records doesn't seem to be considered a big invasion of privacy.
 
RDM said:
The fact that police can already get phone records doesn't seem to be considered a big invasion of privacy.
Click to expand...

There's a difference. Phone companies have kept records of calls made since day dot, because they charge you per phone call (and type) so it is a necessity for their business model. The records are being taken primarily for billing purposes but can also be used by the police.

This proposal is asking for ISPs to start doing something they aren't already doing which provides no benefit to their business for the sole purpose of helping the police.
 
estebanrey said:
There's a difference. Phone companies have kept records of calls made since day dot, because they charge you per phone call (and type) so it is a necessity for their business model. The records are being taken primarily for billing purposes but can also be used by the police.

This proposal is asking for ISPs to start doing something they aren't already doing which provides no benefit to their business for the sole purpose of helping the police.
Click to expand...

Which is a technical issue rather than a civil liberties issue surely?
 
Moses said:
That's different, and you know it. There's a difference between watching me 24/7 via CCTV and seeing I watch romcoms on iPlayer.
Click to expand...

The situation is different, but the logic behind what you said isn't.

Your justification was "I don't do anything wrong" (therefore why should I worry about being spied on) which taken to it's logical conclusion would allow all manner of invasive techniques.

Whether you are doing something wrong, or likely to is irrelevant when it comes to the question as to whether the authorities should have open access to personal material.
 
Moses said:
That's different, and you know it. There's a difference between watching me 24/7 via CCTV and seeing I watch romcoms on iPlayer.
Click to expand...
Not really, no one's actually sitting there watching it 24/7, but it's always on, always recording and you'll never know if they've decided you're worthy of being watched or not.

Moses said:
Except that has never happened, of course.
Click to expand...
No, it hasn't. So? Why give up powers that can be abused when they wont achieve the outcomes being claimed?
 
RDM said:
Which is a technical issue rather than a civil liberties issue surely?
Click to expand...

No it's a civil liberties issue.

Asking telephone companies to provide data they are recording for their own billing purposes is clearly contextually different to asking ISPs to set up new systems whose only focus is to record internet activity for the police.

It's not the handing over of the data that is the issue, it's the rhyme and reason behind why the data that is being sent is being recorded. In the phone example it's so the telecoms company can charge you the right amount, in this proposal it's so you can be monitored by the authorities.
 
estebanrey said:
No it's a civil liberties issue.

Asking telephone companies to provide data they are recording for their own billing purposes is clearly contextually different to asking ISPs to set up new systems whose only focus is to record internet activity for the police.

It's not the handing over of the data that is the issue, it's the rhyme and reason behind why the data that is being sent is being recorded. In the phone example it's so the telecoms company can charge you the right amount, in this proposal it's so you can be monitored by the authorities.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Moses said:
But there's a massive difference between being physically watched/filmed and the authorities being able to check what websites you've been on.

And no, that 'logical conclusion' you draw is just a stupid straw man, because of the massive difference between the two things! :o
Click to expand...

Again, I was basing my CCTV in the home example on your original statement that implied if you aren't breaking the law, you shouldn't mind being spied on.

That train of thought should still hold true (if correct ideology) in both cases despite the obvious chasm in scale of invasion. But why shouldn't everyone have CCTV in their homes if they are law abiding citizens?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom