If anyone actually thinks a vote for Labour is a good vote, look here

[nero120]

Right, this has been posted in SC but I think needs to be posted here in GD for you plebs () that don't look in SC or read the news so you can understand just how downright dangerous Labour political philosophy is:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7409593.stm

Lets just break this down shall we? Labour ministers want to introduce a database that will store details of every phone call and e-mail sent in the UK. They justify this by arguing that it is essential for counter-terrorism and investigation of crime purposes.

Now, considering their track record of managing IT projects of this scale, not to mention their attitudes towards data security one might think they would have realised that even if this kind of measure was warranted, they are simply not capable of delivering it. However, it seems that Labour will stop at nothing to abuse it's powers and curtail our liberties with pathetic excuses that clearly do not add up. Since when was it essential for police to have access to every phone call or email in order to solve crimes? Did the world of policing not function adequately before we had access to this kind of technology? Labour clearly would prefer the old centralised authoritarian approach of control, with the use of CCTV tracking peoples movements and databases storing even word they say and type in order to use against them at a later date.

Okay, let's just take a breath and assume that this Labour government genuinely has the UK's best interests at heart, and they feel that these measures will improve the country. Can they not see how dangerous it would be to grant a government this kind of power and control over it's citizens? Whilst you have a benevolent government who would not think of abusing these powers all is well and good, but it is only a matter of time before individuals get into power who could not resist wielding such powers for their own benefit. Imagine if the Nazis had this kind of infrastructure setup and available to them when they rose to power, god they did well enough without it! It is foolish to think that these powers would never be abused and once they are in place it is only a matter of time before every citizen becomes a suspect and their every action is observed and used against them in order to weed out the "bad seeds". Just read the book 1984 by George Orwell if you want to understand a very real future that would be made possible by this legislation.

So, if any of you actually walk around with the idea that you have to vote Labour and would never vote Tory (either because you are northern, a student, an idiot or a combination of the above), understand the ramifications of your simpleton ideology. Labour have already made the UK the most monitored country in the world thanks to a frighteningly vast amount of CCTV cameras out there. It is a very real possibility if these Labour ministers have thier way, that your children will inherit a nightmarish police state society, and the liberties that your ancestors fought for and that you so take for granted will be nothing more than a faded memory.

 

[nero120]

Labour voters may be all of the above, but you demonstrate a fairly high level of naivety in your post.

I have a pot of coffee, freshly made for you, or if you'd rather - a chilled glass of orange juice. I could, at a squeeze, allow you to sup some of my ice cold Mars Energy drink from the sweaty teat of reality.

Is it naive to think that these measures are neither warranted nor wise, and that such centralised, authoritarian plans would only ever see the light of day in a Labour government?

 

[nero120]

We have no idea what the Tories will do if they gain power.

Remember that Labour have been in power since 1997. email and the internet only became widespread AFTER they came to power.

There is nothing in the Tories' mandate that says they won't try and do the very same thing.

I am a Tory voter by the way. Always have been, always will be because I share their philosphy that the individual has the right to choose, rather than the Labour philosophy of choosing for me.

Point taken, but the tories have never proposed anything amounting this kind of centralisation. Tory philosophy is traditionally opposed to centralisation of powers.

All I'm saying is that if certain people are of the mind that they would only ever vote Labour, they should bear this news very highly in mind and reassess their way of thinking.

 

[nero120]

I think you're being naive in your bias against labour.

Not biased, just pointing out what this government is very capable of given half a chance. I don't argue that the Tories are the shining solution to us all, only that individuals should think very carefully if they plan to only ever vote Labour.

And given that certainly all mobile conversations, and text messages, are logged and recorded anyway, truly what difference does it make if all phone conversations are too?

Whilst this is true, never would the government so readily be able to access this information. It brings us one step closer to police state heaven.

 

[nero120]

Wow, I'm Northern, a student and I've heard idiot been thrown around in the past, and I vote Tory. Has you head exploded due to the large amount of FAIL in your statement?

I realise what I said may have come across insulting, if so I apologise. It's only that in my experience, the type of people who say they would only ever vote labour and say the word "tory" with utter revulsion, fall into those groups I mentioned.

 

[nero120]

I don't think that the Tories are a shining solution either. I just think you displayed some naivety in your original post so said so.

I think we're pretty much already in a covert police state. Whether we head down the totalitarian route or not is a different matter.

Were we in a covert police state before 1997?

 

[nero120]

Anyway, what your talking about is inevitable, eventually the government (or whatever ruling body it will be at the time) will know everything about you, and keep vast databases on everyone living within its boarders. You can fight it, but frankly your just delaying it, and not by much because one government is as bad as the others.

That is a very naive attitude and demonstrates why political power should not be given to every individual as they clearly do not understand what it is for. Modern democracy has failed because it's citizens have no idea what their vote means, beyond making them financially better off.

 

[nero120]

I think it's perhaps being a little unfair on the current government to point this out. Given the age, and the availability of surveillance technology.

Would the government of say 1939-45 have employed as much spying technology had it been available? I'd hazard a guess that they would.

Seems you are the one with the bias now. You cannot argue what has never been, or excuse what the current government have done by saying "but if that government had access..."

 

[nero120]

Why can't you? Governments, much like any body employ what resources they have to do what they see fit.

This government has access to an awful lot more sophisticated technology, and so make use of it.

That's a cop out. There is no way you can justify assuming everyone would commit the same action given specific circumstances. How ridiculous.

 

[nero120]

How patronising.

Perhaps, but I am not interested in sparing people's feelings right now.

 

[nero120]

Its not about sparing peoples feelings, but disregarding opposing POV on the basis that you think them to be naive simply because you disagree isnt going to persaude anyone.

You are incorrect. Makunouchi posted stated that every government would pursue surveillance over it's citizens and a police state is inevitable. This is clearly not true and displays an attitude that goes against why democracy was first implemented. I don't see what I said as unreasonable, it obviously wasn't meant to be taken personally.

 

[nero120]

It is not ridiculous to assume that a governing body would employ whatever technology it has to hand to supervise it's people. It may be immoral, but to assume otherwise is to be simplistic.

Yes it is, different political philosophies will manifest themselves in different ways, as you have already seen with what numerous different governments have done in the "democratic" UK's history. Clearly some are more in favour of surveillance than others.

 

[nero120]

His statement is pretty much true though, whether you think it's naive or not. Banding together under a banner of Democracy does not mean you do not want to control your subjects.

So let me get this right. You are attempting to argue that a government that has no history of authoritarian control is as bad as one that does?

 

[nero120]

Indeed, some are clearly more in favour of surveillance then others. That does not mean to say that because we claim to be democratic that we do not 'spy' on our people. America, that great wanton bastion of democracy, is one of the most fascist governments of our era.

Yes I agree with you here. There is always a limited amount of surveillance. Obviously we are talking in degrees here, not black and white. I am just trying to say that this government has been far too ready to abandon caution and commit the UK to an authoritarian future with no reason whatsoever. I mean, at least in 1984 they had a credible war and desperate situation in order to enforce these measures. What do we have? Apathy.

May I ask what field are you in?

Not in a field, an office

 

[nero120]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/dorset/7341179.stm

Just to add proof to the fears...

 

[nero120]

+1 for the sweaty teat of reality.

It's a pipe dream. The logistics would be insane, the costs would be astronomical, and the entire thing would be hopelessly unmanageable.

Doesn't stop them trying though

 

[nero120]

I would estimate that a 12 month retention cycle of this data would result in a storage system in the 2 petabyte range which will need to be replicated to another site for disaster recovery.
This is by no means impossible (arrays of this size exist in the private sector) but it's highly unlikely that the government could deploy and manage such a solution because of the way it has to procure equipment from the GCAT catalogue of suppliers.

However, that is just the storage which is of no use unless there is a reliable method of data retieval. We would be talking a very large array of machines arranged in an active active relationship. Then we have the problem of whose resposibility it is to collect this data. Are the ISPs going to be required to forward all comms traffic to a central location for collection? Or maybe we're talking a central network infrastructure that all comms traffic must pass through. Either way, the logistics would be vastly complicated and the costs astronomical.
I would estimate the hardware procurement alone would run in to the 100s of millions.

There is of course the other issue that large financial institutions would not allow their network traffic to reside on the same system as other companies.

I think whoever dreamed up this idea really has no clue about how such a system could be implemented or has vastly underestimated the prevelance of email and other digital forms of communication.

I also guessing that such legislation would have a pre-requisite for other legislation making it illegal to encript any data traffic as the ability to monitor communications relies upon the ability to be able to comprehend the information.

Some very good points raised there, especially in terms of encryption which I must admit I overlooked in my haste to post.

The logistics of such an endeavour really are mind boggling.

 

[nero120]

Perhaps you are the reason people don't go into SC .

I'll take that as a compliment.