'Snooper's Charter' law being rushed through.

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...


Many years ago there was a member who insisted on linking to some of the tosh they post on YouTube every 5 minutes.
It's a load of old donkey balls, they have never once won a case, and just waste the courts and police time with their nonsensical garbage.

The whole principle of the movement is flawed, in that we ARE free, to live where ever in the world that will take us, but where ever you go there are rules that the people who run and live in the country decide you must live by, that's the deal you have to enter into to live there.
The majority rule in this country however flawed the system we decide to live by is, is that we have an elected government and they decide what rules we live by.

People who believe in the freemen movement are totally free to go and live somewhere that is closer in line with their beliefs, if they want to live here, they pay taxes, present their driving license when asked, and get done for contempt of court when they waste the magistrates time when they haven't paid their council tax.
It's grown men who still operate under the impression that real life is just like the sixth form.
 
Darg said:
And since when has traditional mail had its recipients and senders recorded? :confused:
Click to expand...

I never said it was, I was just saying that your analogy was wrong.


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

Well no, as technology advances sometimes the law needs to change too. If it didn't then hacking wouldn't be illegal for example. The change from an exchange based communications network to an IP based communications necessitates a change in the law regarding intercepting communications for example.

Why should the internet and online communication be free from legal oversight?

Darg said:
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.
Click to expand...

The content isn't, the meta data is. Snowden revealed large scale intercepts, it didn't reveal that the content of every interaction we have online is being recorded. Frankly the government don't have the space to do that.

Darg said:
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.
Click to expand...

Which is why I am against this particular instance of legislation because it is rushed, has no solid oversight and is being done in an underhanded way. But that doesn't mean I would be against any laws, because I understand that as technology changes, laws will probably have to too.

Previously the security services could go to a telecoms company and request the communications records of any of their customers because calls went through an exchange and the contact details recorded. For this to work with modern communications you therefore need to record this information. Either that or you accept that you can no longer gain this information.
 
Nitefly said:
All law is fake and doesn't apply. Just imaginary nonsense, like bankers and numbers.
Click to expand...

So true and i wanted to say that myself. Basically anyone can make up a law i can make a law now and issue an arrest warrant for David Cameron and the Queen of England. I have the warrant in front of me, Now i just need enough people to enforce it. Which is why they have the police force and why the people who join up are the school bully types and control freaks looking for a grown up way to carry on like that. And if they refuse to carry out the work they find themselves on the bread line so the good cops do not get a choice either.


So it is a fallacy. Not even Gods law can apply to man because no one has ever seen the fella or proved his existance. The way i see it as long as no one is harming anyone else then no outside law should apply to that person that forces them against thier will. So snooping on them would be illegal, Stopping them from building a home would be illegal and taxing them would be illegal if they are denied public services. But has anyone ever been given this choice?


Basically what they did was enslave everyone into a world of numbers and documents and enforced it through an army that you pay for. So as laughable as it may sound they bill you for thier tyranny. I can imagine the laughter the blue bloods must have had at that one when they first wrote those laws. And the only reason people have accepted it is they are too busy to risk revolt and see the shop shelves run dry within a week and they would be stuck with no knowledge apart from how to send an email or wave a placard. Imagine if it went on for months and you had to find food elsewhere all those people would be roaming empty fields wondering how potatoes grow. So if the police force is the key in this world then the knowledge lost of how to feed or grow food is the lock that keeps everything tight and secure.
 
Last edited:
Well balls to it. I bet my searches on the phone bomb viability put me on the radar :D

I'm against it so much so I guess that makes me a pedofile/terrorist :(
 
I wrote to my my mp asking him to consider opposing the bill for all the good it will do.
 
To those from the "I've got nothing to hide" brigade... how does this news make you feel? And don't be so naive to think GCHQ or whoever are any different.

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/...outinely-pass-around-intercepted-nude-photos/

Snowden: NSA employees routinely pass around intercepted nude photos

"These are seen as the fringe benefits of surveillance positions," Snowden says.

...

In September 2013, in a letter from the NSA’s Inspector General Dr. George Ellard to Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA), the agency outlined a handful of instances during which NSA agents admitted that they had spied on their former love interests.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
What about the other bit? (Which I may have added before you'd started to reply)

e: Also, could you actually answer the question please?
 
Last edited:
Dj_Jestar said:
To those from the "I've got nothing to hide" brigade... how does this news make you feel? And don't be so naive to think GCHQ or whoever are any different.

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/...outinely-pass-around-intercepted-nude-photos/
Click to expand...

I'm skeptical only due to the fact that these intelligence analysts would be heavily monitored to avoid them 'working for the other side'. Data can be stored using steganographic methods in photographs and images, which are going to be monitored (i'd assume?!).
 
RedvGreen said:
I'm skeptical only due to the fact that these intelligence analysts would be heavily monitored to avoid them 'working for the other side'. Data can be stored using steganographic methods in photographs and images, which are going to be monitored (i'd assume?!).
Click to expand...

Not trying to be a dick here but if snowdon can walk out with so many damming files I'd wager they're not heavily monitored.
 
This must be sending the tin foil hat crack pots into a melt down. Bottled water and tinned food sales have gone through the roof. "Quick to the bat cave !, dem governments are watching us !"
 
Mynight said:
Not trying to be a dick here but if snowdon can walk out with so many damming files I'd wager they're not heavily monitored.
Click to expand...

He was an admin, not an operator. Obviously shouldn't have been allowed to take all that data, but a rogue administrator will always be difficult to protect against, which is why the NSA sacked all theirs after Snowden. Wonder if they've had to recruit some more since.
 
scorza said:
He was an admin, not an operator. Obviously shouldn't have been allowed to take all that data, but a rogue administrator will always be difficult to protect against, which is why the NSA sacked all theirs after Snowden. Wonder if they've had to recruit some more since.
Click to expand...

Very true wasn't he a contractor though? Regardless I'd of thought those with higher access would be the most scrutinised.
 
The whole NSA and GCHQ thing is a load of balls.

I'm sure they have the capability to monitor who they want, when they want, but storing ALL records of everything just isn't physically possible.

It's estimated that to store all the US's landline records it would be over 10 exabytes per year. Now add internet records, mobile phone records and the rest and we are looking at over 100 exabytes+ per year.

10 Exabytes alone per year would cost $10+billion a year just for the storage, forget power/maintenance costs and the costs to pay people to run it. Then the cost to pay for the processing power to process it/analyse it and some human agents to do the same. Now consider the NSA's budget per year, it just isn't possible. If you look at the NSA's data centre its power consumption comes no where near what they would need if they were storing at this level.

Think about it, if you were in government you would want all the Plebs to believe you were constantly monitoring all their activity would you? Heard of scaremongering. I'm pretty sure Snowdon is on the pay roll of the government to leak these 'leaks.

Take your tin foil hats of guys.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom