Soldato
How much security are you prepared to sacrifice for your freedom? 1 death? 10 deaths?
'Snooper's Charter' law being rushed through.
- Thread starter DailyGeek
- Start date
Caporegime
I wasn't aware "Death" is a unit of "Security".
Caporegime
Just saw this comment on the beeb and thought it was nice and succinct. Though the first line is hyperbole.
CyranoInTheShires said:
every hero who took part in ww2 is rolling around in their graves every time the government takes from us what they fought so hard for. especially the ones who gave their life for that security.
450k dead for the security we had after the war
Soldato
I am very much against this. What is the emergency? Is it that they need to divert attention away from the parliament paedophilia story? I would probably join a demonstration about our freedoms nowadays and I used to be, naively, quite pro establishment.
Had enough of this and all recent governments. None of them can be trusted to act in our interests.
Had enough of this and all recent governments. None of them can be trusted to act in our interests.
Soldato
Deficient security, in this context could equate to successful terrorist attacks and/or pedophiles operating freely. So a logical outcome would be persons killed and/or kiddies fiddled with. How many of each would you be happy with in order to preserve your freedoms?
Edit: I see what you mean, my syntax is rather lacking but you get the point.
Last edited:
The law does need to be updated to cover the changes in technology, I can accept that.
What I cant accept is the rush job they are doing, though the sunset clause gives me some small hope, yet they could probably just extend that with another rush job, so it isn't much hope.
What I cant accept is the rush job they are doing, though the sunset clause gives me some small hope, yet they could probably just extend that with another rush job, so it isn't much hope.
Millions have died for it in the past. Freedom is the biggest thing you won't value until you're faced with losing it. Like too many things in life, i guess.
they have a near perfect system, everyone is kept so busy no one has time to protest or put up a public opposition.
people can't afford to lose a days wages
The strikes today would seem to suggest otherwise...
That's a deliberately emotive way of moving responsibility for someone elses actions onto people who want to preserve our freedoms. So I will ask a similar question...
The ultimate outcome of stepping out of the house may result in children being accidentally run over. How many childrens deaths would you be happy with to preserve our rights to leave our houses or should we all be locked up for our own protection?
Which ones?
The reason this is being pushed through is because the EU legislation the government based the previous version of this law on was struck down as an invasion of privacy by EU judges. Even then the EU legislation mandated a minimum of 6 months retention, the UK government chose 18 months instead... Today's railroading is to get round the fact the law was declared a massive invasion of privacy in the first place...
Well, I don't know where I stand on this subject overall, but I know where I stand on this post.
Does it not seem slightly off to you that in one sentence, you are deriding him for 'letting other people tell him what his opinion is'. In the very next sentence you tell him that he is wrong to have that opinion, and you ... tell him what his opinion should be.
Soldato
That'd different though isn't it. That's dying to preserve or win freedom in the face of oppression, not being killed through lack of security.
If you were killed fighting the government because you resisted their actions I could see your point. But being murdered in a preventable terrorist attack is not a hero's death and the responsibility for such deaths lie partly with those who opposed the opportunity to prevent them.
Don't soil the good names of those who genuinely died in the name of freedom by using them to prop up your liberal (small L) agenda.
Last edited:
Man of Honour
Isn't a lot of our information scoured already anyway and they've stopped things happening already with the access they get already. Giving more access may dilute this, but also it may uncover things which just do not need to be uncovered which serves nothing other than causing personal problems for millions at the cost of not necessarily preventing anything.
The clever terrorists will be using secure networks anyway.
The clever terrorists will be using secure networks anyway.
Or not using the internet at all.
Except that those people are already using the deep web and encryption. All this does is violate the privacy of ordinary citizens for marginal, if any, gain.
No it doesn't. It lies with the terrorist who carries out the act.