'Snooper's Charter' law being rushed through.

This entire case boils down to whether or not you trust the authorities and government with intimate details of your personal life. I do not and I see no reason why they require them.

If you believe that are no point in the future will this information ever be misused by someone in power then please go on supporting the law.

If however you don't want to look back in 20 years time after your rights have been eroded to '1984' levels and regret not fighting now when you still could then please take a moment to really evaluate the pros and cons of this law.

As ever Benjamin Franklin said it best:

Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
Click to expand...
 
scorza said:
Aren't Friedman's ultra-liberal views now widely discredited and identified as a principle cause for the global economic crisis of 2007-2014?
Click to expand...

Err no. Friedman wanted governments to stay well away from interfering with businesses and for good reason. Look at the banking crisis in the US why were banks lending so much? Community Reinvestment Act 1995 which made it hard for banks to refuse loans to poor people, granted the principle worked well while the economy was good but they were just building problems for the future (well until 2007).
 
Darg said:
This entire case boils down to whether or not you trust the authorities and government with intimate details of your personal life. I do not and I see no reason why they require them.

If you believe that are no point in the future will this information ever be misused by someone in power then please go on supporting the law.

If however you don't want to look back in 20 years time after your rights have been eroded to '1984' levels and regret not fighting now when you still could then please take a moment to really evaluate the pros and cons of this law.

As ever Benjamin Franklin said it best:
Click to expand...

But is not having your facebook posts stored on a DB accessible to the authorities really an essential liberty? I say it isn't.

Freddie1980 said:
Err no. Friedman wanted governments to stay well away from interfering with businesses and for good reason. Look at the banking crisis in the US why were banks lending so much? Community Reinvestment Act 1995 which made it hard for banks to refuse loans to poor people, granted the principle worked well while the economy was good but they were just building problems for the future (well until 2007).
Click to expand...

They were lending so much because they could charge a risk premium for sub-prime loans - all the law said was you couldn't refuse a loan purely because of the area a home was in. Plus no-one forced them to package up this sub-prime debt as AAA+ and sell it around the world, and no-one forced the mugs around the world (mainly British banks) to buy these gold-painted turds. It's now widely accepted that with hindsight, more and better regulation would have prevented this crisis.
 
scorza said:
But is not having your facebook posts stored on a DB accessible to the authorities really an essential liberty? I say it isn't.
Click to expand...

It is the basic right to privacy, and whilst you may chose to share things with your friends on Facebook that doesn't mean the state has a right to invade that privacy.

I'd class the right to privacy as an essential liberty.
 
scorza said:
But is not having your facebook posts stored on a DB accessible to the authorities really an essential liberty? I say it isn't.
Click to expand...

Facebook posts, phone calls, text messages, Internet history. Basically every private communication you have through the phone or Internet.

Imagine it's 1950 and the government announces a law to open and record the contents of every piece of mail sent in the country. That is exactly what they are saying they will do now, it's just a different format. How do you think people would have reacted back then? I bet there would be far more talk about it than there is now!
 
Darg said:
Facebook posts, phone calls, text messages, Internet history. Basically every private communication you have through the phone or Internet.

Imagine it's 1950 and the government announces a law to open and record the contents of every piece of mail sent in the country. That is exactly what they are saying they will do now, it's just a different format. How do you think people would have reacted back then? I bet there would be far more talk about it than there is now!
Click to expand...

Except it's much worse than that. People's whole lives are online now, people reveal their most intimate thoughts, activities, relationships, opinions, and whereabouts in a way that did not exist previously.
 
Darg said:
Imagine it's 1950 and the government announces a law to open and record the contents of every piece of mail sent in the country. That is exactly what they are saying they will do now, it's just a different format. How do you think people would have reacted back then? I bet there would be far more talk about it than there is now!
Click to expand...

It isn't. You would be more accurate if you said that they wanted to record the address of every letter you sent in the post rather than the contents. ISPs are not storing the contents (well, not for the government, they may be storing them for their own use).

Like it or not laws do need to be updated to keep up with changing technology.
 
It's the belief that the tax system is contractual and thus optional, and that everyone should have the option to pay for the services they use through various insurance policies, that kind of thing. There are several members of this forum that believe such a system would benefit the UK (and probably the world) and I could have sworn scorza was such a member. Nevermind. :)


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freemen_on_the_land
 
Dj_Jestar said:
It's the belief that the tax system is contractual and thus optional, and that everyone should have the option to pay for the services they use through various insurance policies, that kind of thing. There are several members of this forum that believe such a system would benefit the UK (and probably the world) and I could have sworn scorza was such a member. Nevermind. :)


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freemen_on_the_land
Click to expand...

Definitely not me guv :)
 
scorza said:
Not particularly in this thread as there's already a Syria thread. Generally speaking it's considered good form to provide sources for statements of fact made in online debates rather than just expect everyone to take your word for it.
Click to expand...


So where are your sources?

Poor psychology there by not answer anything and throwing another open ended question out.
 
RDM said:
It isn't. You would be more accurate if you said that they wanted to record the address of every letter you sent in the post rather than the contents. ISPs are not storing the contents (well, not for the government, they may be storing them for their own use).

Like it or not laws do need to be updated to keep up with changing technology.
Click to expand...

And since when has traditional mail had its recipients and senders recorded? :confused:

Why do we need to "update" laws that have never existed in the first place? That's just a useful excuse.

The content of every interaction we have online is being recorded, there is clear evidence for this that has come out since Snowden's revelations. Enacting laws like this one just gives those that abuse their power a greater sense that they can get away with it.

As I've said, targeted surveillance approved by a court order is an absolute must in today's world. Blanket surveillance of your populous is absolutely not required.
 
scorza said:
My sources for what? I didn't ask any questions in the post of mine you quoted.
Click to expand...

And i quote "They were lending so much because they could charge a risk premium for sub-prime loans - all the law said was you couldn't refuse a loan purely because of the area a home was in. Plus no-one forced them to package up this sub-prime debt as AAA+ and sell it around the world, and no-one forced the mugs around the world (mainly British banks) to buy these gold-painted turds. It's now widely accepted that with hindsight, more and better regulation would have prevented this crisis."

Do you want me to continue?

Nor did I as any questions in any of my posts, point being?
 
sven256 said:
And i quote "They were lending so much because they could charge a risk premium for sub-prime loans - all the law said was you couldn't refuse a loan purely because of the area a home was in. Plus no-one forced them to package up this sub-prime debt as AAA+ and sell it around the world, and no-one forced the mugs around the world (mainly British banks) to buy these gold-painted turds. It's now widely accepted that with hindsight, more and better regulation would have prevented this crisis."
Click to expand...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subprime_mortgage_crisis

sven256 said:
Do you want me to continue?
Click to expand...

Probably best to do that in another thread lest this one be derailed any further.

sven256 said:
Nor did I as any questions in any of my posts, point being?
Click to expand...

You quoted a post of mine, and accused me of "throwing another open ended question out".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom