Snooping by the government
stuntmaster
Posts: 5,070 Forum Member
✭
So now it looks likely they will get the damn law passed what are your thoughts?
BBC Article - Click here
They say it is for terrorism, but I know it is for deeper measures. Time for TOR I think!
BBC Article - Click here
They say it is for terrorism, but I know it is for deeper measures. Time for TOR I think!
0
Comments
They are struggeling to find a needle in a haystack so are adding more hay... Seems logical.
I have no issue with people being monitored if it is for a good reason and if they obtain a warrant.
http://www.techtimes.com/articles/9779/20140708/nsa-might-tag-you-as-extremist-when-you-use-tor-other-privacy-online-services.htm
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/07/03/nsa_xkeyscore_stasi_scandal/
eg teenager in Mancs detected buying deadly toxin on the so-called dark web
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/pa/article-3030427/Boy-16-tried-buy-deadly-poison.html
also Tor didn't protect Silk Road's 'Dread Pirate Roberts', or the pedo Freedom Hosting
Nothing to hide here, but I am one of these people that don't want someone reading my emails, and seeing what I get upto during the day. I dunno, just invading personal space?
If the proposed powers are going to be used only in the fight for terrorism, then the government can/should put into the law that evidence gathered under the legislation can only be used in cases pertaining to terrorism and not otherwise (i.e. inadmissible).
The fact that they're not going to do that speaks for itself.
The powers are there already to monitor such things, but they have to get a court order. What is wrong with that?
We have to accept the world we live in, is a dangerous place, measures like this can hopefully stop future acts of terror. It is becoming harder and harder to monitor would be terrorists in this day and age, I think we need to give up some of our own privacy just to ensure that we are all secure. If the measures are misused for instance like detecting dog fouling, it will have to suffer scrutiny in the commons, lords, select committees and the media etc. Everyone has a right to privacy as long as you are not intending to hurt or harm people both at home and abroad. I suspect there will be checks and balances built in as it goes through the parliamentary process.
There are some civil liberties and freedoms we just have to accept can't always be honoured. I personally would rather have measured increased surveillance than risk another 7/7 or Lee Rigby instead.
The other thing to consider is the fact this bill could have cleared parliament easily, Labour were in clear support of the measures proposed, so to say it was down to the LibDems refusal is bollox. Tories could have had this all sorted by now, I suspect it wasn't just the Liberals who were against, David Davies has even gone on record questioning the benefits it would give.
Exactly. I have a suspicion that the current government will sneak in a spying law for illegal downloaders. The spying and arrests should only be used for suspected terrorists.
Q & A: The right to privacy
UK public must wake up to risks of CCTV
Surveillance-based manipulation: How Facebook or Google could tilt elections
UK surveillance 'lacks transparency'
Jesse Schell - When games invade real life
Here are the notes from our lecture. An interesting part is when it mentions the Panopticon jail and talks about how, when we are all being watched we self-censor ourselves and modify our own behaviour. People often say "if I've done nothing wrong I have nothing to fear" but when you are being watched everywhere you instead start to think 'am I doing everything right?'
Lecture notes on surveillance
The thing is, the government are never going to stop their surveillance programs no matter how much we protest. Why should they? they have too much of a good thing. If you want your privacy back, you will have to take it for yourself. A good place to start would be https://prism-break.org/en/
I am not sure whether to view your comments as horse shit or idealistic?
I don't need lecture notes or an exam question to alter my way of thinking, freedom and liberty comes at a price. If you think Britain is bad then try living in a society like Burma, Iran, Saudi Arabia where a police state is in full swing, never mind surveillance.
When is it too much surveillance? Is when you see someone on the telly being charged of terror offenses, or about the hundreds of situations where British security services have foiled attacks and you didn't even know about it? You're in Manchester I see? Do you know GMP have a siginificant counter intelligence unit? Whilst you don't know this as its not reported, they have foiled several plots in the last 12 months operating from a certain mosque.
Radicalism is already on these shores whether we like it or not, and frankly if government and it's agencies need access to the proposed information to help make us safer. I have every faith like there is presently that checks and balances would be put in place, little do you know but a certain parliamentary select committee sits in secret or closed hearings when dealing with matters of state security and secrets. The only abuses under the current RIPA laws was by stupid bloody councils going after people for dog fouling or parking on double yellows. Last I knew parliament sorted that issue out. The new proposed legislation is needed, every other country in the developed world already has these provisions as a result of the actions post 9/11. Why the hell are we the ones without them?
I fundamentally believe if we have to give up certain freedoms and liberty there has to be oversight on this. From what I could gather the goverment will widely consult on the bill from agencies, MPs, Lords, Judges, Lawyers and the public. I suspect there will at least be judicial oversight of this somewhere a long the line if it involves surveillance of a number of parties or groups. Yes those hearings will be held in secret but I trust our Judiciary to be impartial and unbiased enough to make an informed ruling. This is a big step but it should come with heavy restrictions. Under the current RIPA if a police officer wants to conduct an investigation on a suspect lets say, there are lots of forms to be filled which are then checked by sergeants, which is then referred to an inspector....do you get where I am going?
Even existing law enforcement agencies have to jump through so many hoops before it even gets to the person who can give the go ahead, and even that person has to consult outside legal opinion. I have no doubt these no proposals will be the same. I am not for a second suggesting that its perfect, its what they do with the information that matters. In terms of preventing future murders and radicalised terror then I think thats fair game, for trival petty crimes like song download or films no that would be too much.
I have to see first hand the decisions like this my husband makes as part of his job, and sometimes wish it was easier. If you know someone who works in the military, police or security services ask them how difficult it is to put in place surveillance for suspected criminals. There are things I know but can't share, and it really does frustrate me how naive people can be when it comes to matters like this. Simply put there is a choice between being a live and secure or not feeling secure and being at risk of terrorism.....guess which one I would pick?
At least you can print "stamps" online but I even heard ones you buy are sticky-backed now, no, more licking. Quite convenient.
Why should they have this power? who will ensure that they don't abuse it (who will watch the watchers) ? this is are privacy and we are entitled to it, as it is part of our human rights, no wonder the eton toff wants to scrap the human rights act , well i and millions of people like me have news for them ,we will not allow this, we live in a democratic society or do we?
We all know the government's record for losing stuff and leaving it on the back seats of taxis etc., as well as the general incompetence in IT matters in the public sector. Giving them the ability to undo encryption would be a very unsafe move! How long before it's in the public domain?
The government are clueless when it comes to the internet.