I Don't Like Mondays

It seems like a highly pointless activity. Unless they literally employ 100,000s of civil servants just to look at the data they won't be able to make any analysis of it.

It will however lead to more headlines about how the government missed vital warning signs after a terrorist attack, and ironically will be used to justify more monitoring.

My biggest concern is the data will be used by ISPs, particularly those with other business interests.

I only assume whoever developed the technology to do this has done lots of 'lobbying'.
 
K.C. Leblanc said:
It seems like a highly pointless activity. Unless they literally employ 100,000s of civil servants just to look at the data they won't be able to make any analysis of it.
Click to expand...

"National unemployment down" says Brown.


K.C. Leblanc said:
It will however lead to more headlines about how the government missed vital warning signs after a terrorist attack, and ironically will be used to justify more monitoring.
Click to expand...

Terrorists? What terrorists? I've not seen of many terrorists.


K.C. Leblanc said:
My biggest concern is the data will be used by ISPs, particularly those with other business interests.
Click to expand...

Goverment makes extra income during a recession, you get more target adds, everyone wins...

K.C. Leblanc said:
I only assume whoever developed the technology to do this has done lots of 'lobbying'.
Click to expand...

It'd be more of a you scratch mine during an evening meal.
 
I used to work in a surveliance role with a government insitution a couple of years back.. and let me tell you, most of this **** is going to alert people after the event. This is pointless ****. If terrorists send emails and encrypted stuff between eachother it won't flag up. They will go ahead do their dastardly deeds then snoopy tech chaps will find out who did it.

The vastness of something like this requires a new industry of people who monitor all this ****.. we as a nation do not have the money to create jobs in this field when the costs outweigh the benefits of this silly endevour. I wonder how many shares this ****ers bought in the ISPS whose pockets they will be lining with more cash.
 
Dolph said:
It's Labour, they've been doing this ever since they are in power, the more information the state has, the easier it is to control and threaten the populace.

They keep doing it no matter how many people object, how many times they are told it's pointless, or how many times they are warned that it's probably illegal.

The only thing that surprises me these days is that some people still defend them. They've managed to condition most of the country that complaining is pointless and will just lead to arrests, or simply be blindly ignored (even when those complaints come from the house of lords, or the EHCHR). This sort of thing is further evidence of why we need strict constitutional control on government behaviour and strictly defined rights that cannot be overriden.
Click to expand...

I've been waiting for a chance to call you out on this. Your campagne for a written constitution holds no weight. The fact that the courts respect an Act of Parliament above everything else was a common law development. The courts took it upon themselves to act this way, and they have said they are prepared to rule against a Act on Parliament should then need to do so. The courts won't allow such blatent infringement of 'constitutional rights'. You seem to imply there is no protection from Government, when there is.

Read here:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200506/ldjudgmt/jd051013/jack-1.htm

Lord Steyn said:
In exceptional circumstances involving an attempt to abolish judicial review or the ordinary courts [the courts] may have to consider whether this is a constitutional fundamental which even a complaisant House of Commons cannot abolish.
Click to expand...

Lady Hale said:
The courts will treat with particular suspicion (and might even reject) any attempt to subvert the rule of law by removing governmental action affecting the rights of the individual from all judicial powers.
Click to expand...

Lord Hope said:
It is no longer right to say that [Parliament’s] freedom to legislate admits of no qualification.

...

The rule of law enforced by the courts is the controlling principle upon our constitution is based.
Click to expand...

The courts have quashed governmental decisions based on unquantified 'constitutional rights' before and they can do it again.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom