Caporegime
Are they really snooping on everyone? or just maintaining a capability to snoop on those who would behave naughtily, by which I mean plot to kill as many people as possible or subject children to the most appalling abuse?
'Snooper's Charter' law being rushed through.
- Thread starter DailyGeek
- Start date
Are they really snooping on everyone? or just maintaining a capability to snoop on those who would behave naughtily, by which I mean plot to kill as many people as possible or subject children to the most appalling abuse?
This is severely overrated and hyped.
You won't get profiled as they cannot 100% attribute an IP address to an individual, and also they won't have certain key data about that person to guarantee their presence at the digital device at that time. You would need the actual physical device for this as well as direct surveillance.
The amount of data being collected is only going to be processed by automated computer systems and until certain flags are raised, it will not get viewed by a human.
...and they aren't going to sell your liking for My Little Pony to a company either.
You won't get profiled as they cannot 100% attribute an IP address to an individual, and also they won't have certain key data about that person to guarantee their presence at the digital device at that time. You would need the actual physical device for this as well as direct surveillance.
The amount of data being collected is only going to be processed by automated computer systems and until certain flags are raised, it will not get viewed by a human.
...and they aren't going to sell your liking for My Little Pony to a company either.
Could you please point me in the direction of a situation that has been resolved through the use of mass surveillance in terrorist and child abuse issues?
Just out of interest how do you know? Why do you believe it to be any different to the porn blocking program?
Also why is everyone focused on the Internet side? Doesn't the mobile data matter?
You don't think that these powers will be abused? Will it just be terrorists and pedophiles that they're used against?
Historical evidence suggests these powers will be used for the most trivial of reasons. David Cameroon used the most emotive crimes he could find to justify laws with far wider reach.
For me, i don't own a mobile.
Caporegime
I'm also fairly relaxed about them snooping on other criminals but the priority will be paedos and terrorists. Predictions of them using it to identify and weed out legitimate dissenting views are fanciful paranoia imo.
Caporegime
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...d-terror-offence-syria-jihadist-training-camp
I think it's important to remember that maintaining records of peoples online activity is only part of the story in securing a conviction, and rightly so.
It could end up like some kind of remedial minority report. Send text to mate about annoying girlfriend(if I had one
) "oo I hate that cow. I'm going to kill her" *delivered message appears* *swat comes smashing through window*Text is used as a guilty plea for plotting a murder.
You heard it here first!
Caporegime
So maybe we shouldn't have a police force in case they violate the right to legitimate protest?
You know, the police in this country are pretty ineffective and generally inept, so it's no surprise that they don't always comply with the law. In one of those articles we have the Home Secretary holding the police to account, and in the other it's Parliament holding them to account. There's clearly a problem here but the system is working to identify it and eventually resolve it. I'll worry if I get pulled over by the police on my way home tonight and sent for an intimate body cavity search for making the ineffective and inept comments above
Caporegime
It could end up like some kind of remedial minority report. Send text to mate about annoying girlfriend(if I had one
Text is used as a guilty plea for plotting a murder.
You heard it here first!
Why would someone plead guilty to conspriacy to commit murder if they were innocent?
The scenario you describe will not happen, 100% guaranteed.
![[TW]Fox](/data/man-of-honor/2009.png){kind=avatar}
That appears to be evidence of parliamentary oversight working to ensure that abuses of information don't happen and when they do, that it's made clear it's unacceptable, rather than evidence that the nasty government is going to one day lock you up for voting for somebody else and emailing your mate about it.
Soldato
Do you want to get into a debate on Syria?
As i would place a bet on i know more than you do.
While the official line is we are supporting the FSA which are in effect terrorists the same as Al-Nusra Front, who are sponsored by Qatar and ISIS who are sponsored by many affluent people in Saudi Arabia plus many other smaller factions over there.
The terrorist swap and change sides all the time so it's not a simple case of choosing one and sticking with it, the latest word is that parts of the Al-Nusra Front who were battling ISIS have now swapped sides and are fighting with ISIS.
So all the money equipment that maybe sent over can change hand at the drop of a hat.
And as for the paedophile cover-up. Do you not think they would do the same now as they did 30 years ago? As I certainly do if they could save their own backs.
Last edited:
Would you rather be shot or have your internet records kept? Whilst preferring not to have either I know which one I would say is worse!
The law does need to change to keep up with the changes in technology, however a rushed law, agreed without debate is not the right way of doing it.
But I'm not likely to be shot, much more likely to die on the stairs or of a bee sting, yet every call or search I've ever made is in my file should "they" ever want to use it against me or those I contact.
I bet it's not.
[TW]Fox;26590806 said:
And yet it's continuing to happen. Whether it's through incompetence or malice, anti-terrorism laws are abused on a wide-scale.
Concentrated power is not rendered harmless by the good intentions of those who create it. - Milton Friedman
Caporegime
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.
Caporegime
Aren't Friedman's ultra-liberal views now widely discredited and identified as a principle cause for the global economic crisis of 2007-2014?