Sorry, can't see it being used against me, but then again I'm just a normal law abiding citizen.
Then you are blind. Do you know what will happen in the future? Where you will be, what you will get caught up in? You can be carrying out law abiding activity and still get stung by these things.
Sadly people misuse powers. Which is why you have to be careful what powers you grant.
That's what everyone says but ultimately you don't decide if what you do is legal or not. Many on here will remember living in a time when homosexuality was illegal. You were deemed a criminal simply for engaging in consensual sex with another adult. What if a future government felt the same as the government back then did. It's a wake up call to people who think that "I haven't done anything wrong I have nothing to worry about" you might not think you're doing anything wrong but the government may have different ideas and they ultimately decide if you're "wrong" or not.
Then you are blind. Do you know what will happen in the future? Where you will be, what you will get caught up in? You can be carrying out law abiding activity and still get stung by these things.
Sadly people misuse powers. Which is why you have to be careful what powers you grant.
Go on then, give me an example of what I might get caught up in?
I think there is no way you could predict who takes power in future years/decades and only a fool would quietly allow the safeguards on their liberty to be eroded because of tribal loyalty to the government of the day.
Go on then, give me an example of what I might get caught up in?
David Miranda?
Jean Charles De Menezes?
Quite a lot of peaceful protests? (such as the one against China several years ago)
You do not know what legal activity you could be undertaking because the terrorism laws allow them to override that because of paranoia and/or blatant misuse to break up a legal activity.
Good idea in theory but wide open to abuse by future governments.
No. They can easily draw up a set of words/guidance so it is only targetted towards clever dicks who support terrorism but get round being prosecuted by being careful with their words. Its not just those who support terrorism who need to be targetted, it is those who actively influence people into becoming terrorists but where the proof is lacking.
It should/have to go through a court too with an appeal process but it can and should be done with all the threats we and the wider world are facing.
It's a very good analogy. People talk about how these measures only impact criminals who therefore deserve it but we don't have the final say on what will one day become criminal. We all recognize homosexuality as normal in society but believe it or not only a few decades ago you were a "guilty criminal" for if you had sex with a consenting adult who was the same sex as you. If the internet had been around then and mass surveillance used to catch people who were engaging in homosexual relations would those "guilty criminals" deserve it?
As I already said there has to be a balance between protecting people from terrorism, and protecting people from the government, a balance between security and liberty. Mass surveillance goes beyond what could be considered a reasonable balance. I've still not heard one good reason why the government should have a right to spy on me seeing as how I'm a law abiding person. I want a proper reason not the "how do they know you aren't a terrorist" paranoid nonsense. If we go down that road then how do I know the government aren't all terrorists and why don't we just lock everyone up at birth because we don't know for sure they won't grow up to become terrorists.
No. They can easily draw up a set of words/guidance so it is only targetted towards clever dicks who support terrorism but get round being prosecuted by being careful with their words. Its not just those who support terrorism who need to be targetted, it is those who actively influence people into becoming terrorists but where the proof is lacking.
It should/have to go through a court too with an appeal process but it can and should be done with all the threats we and the wider world are facing.
They could but they wont, They (Both parties) have never shown much interest in preventing "mission creep" with these laws before.
Best way to tackle extremism and British people joining Islamic extremist groups is to first establish what being "British" actually is. The British people don't even know. Only two weeks ago, 1.4 million of them wanted to leave. The reason people turn to Islamic extremism is because it offers a stronger identity than being "British" can, and that's caused by right AND left wing influences.
I don't think right wing influences can be blamed for much.
Comments
Sadly people misuse powers. Which is why you have to be careful what powers you grant.
What a daft analogy
Go on then, give me an example of what I might get caught up in?
Speaking out against a government that doesn't tolerate dissent.
So you think Labour will get in next year?
I think there is no way you could predict who takes power in future years/decades and only a fool would quietly allow the safeguards on their liberty to be eroded because of tribal loyalty to the government of the day.
Labour? Conservative? Irrelevant.
Jean Charles De Menezes?
Quite a lot of peaceful protests? (such as the one against China several years ago)
You do not know what legal activity you could be undertaking because the terrorism laws allow them to override that because of paranoia and/or blatant misuse to break up a legal activity.
not much.but most of the people going to fight in syria come from london, so really bad there
Please dear god say this is not true?
No. They can easily draw up a set of words/guidance so it is only targetted towards clever dicks who support terrorism but get round being prosecuted by being careful with their words. Its not just those who support terrorism who need to be targetted, it is those who actively influence people into becoming terrorists but where the proof is lacking.
It should/have to go through a court too with an appeal process but it can and should be done with all the threats we and the wider world are facing.
It's a very good analogy. People talk about how these measures only impact criminals who therefore deserve it but we don't have the final say on what will one day become criminal. We all recognize homosexuality as normal in society but believe it or not only a few decades ago you were a "guilty criminal" for if you had sex with a consenting adult who was the same sex as you. If the internet had been around then and mass surveillance used to catch people who were engaging in homosexual relations would those "guilty criminals" deserve it?
As I already said there has to be a balance between protecting people from terrorism, and protecting people from the government, a balance between security and liberty. Mass surveillance goes beyond what could be considered a reasonable balance. I've still not heard one good reason why the government should have a right to spy on me seeing as how I'm a law abiding person. I want a proper reason not the "how do they know you aren't a terrorist" paranoid nonsense. If we go down that road then how do I know the government aren't all terrorists and why don't we just lock everyone up at birth because we don't know for sure they won't grow up to become terrorists.
They could but they wont, They (Both parties) have never shown much interest in preventing "mission creep" with these laws before.
Why should we trust them now?
I don't think right wing influences can be blamed for much.
Success and failure in business I suppose.