Jump to content
  • Sign up now

    Registration is quick and easy 

What the fuq?


mealexme
 Share

Recommended Posts

In reality, they probably already can.. 8-)

 

I agree!


I would imagine it wouldn't be very difficult to get this sort of information, should they so require it :roll: :evil:


So it's ok for the Govt to do so but not the newspapers..... :evil:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So it's ok for the Govt to do so but not the newspapers..... :evil:

 

I don't actually have a problem with the Government having the ability to do it, as there is no reason for them to be watching me personally. The sort of people they will be tracking are those with links to terrorism, child porn, organised crime etc etc.


The problem I have with newspapers doing it is that they are doing it for financial gain, not the protection of the masses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unfortunately having read about this sort of thing many times lately on days apart from April 1, i feel the article is very genuine. I'm sure the irony of the date of publication didn't fail to escape the editor's notice though. I was actually under the impression that all phone calls, emails, texts, web requests, etc already had to be collected and retained for 2 years. The whole thing gets me more than a little bit riled, i don't feel they have the moral high ground on this at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If it got leaked, they'll know everything as you google everything, your name/age questions about sex positions and stuff like that

Google already collects a frightening amount of stuff about you.


Remember a couple of months ago they were pushing "our terms will be changing, read this, it's important"?

That was them changing their privacy and personal data terms so they now collect a frightening amount of stuff on you...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think this is a good idea, it could help save lives and stop some serious crime. I understand why people worry about stuff like this but if you're doing nothing wrong then you've got nothing to worry about, if you are doing something wrong then you dont deserve human rights anyway!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think this is a good idea, it could help save lives and stop some serious crime. I understand why people worry about stuff like this but if you're doing nothing wrong then you've got nothing to worry about, if you are doing something wrong then you dont deserve human rights anyway!

 

Totally agree, I have better things to worry about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think this is a good idea, it could help save lives and stop some serious crime. I understand why people worry about stuff like this but if you're doing nothing wrong then you've got nothing to worry about, if you are doing something wrong then you dont deserve human rights anyway!

I'm sorry, I'm going to take great umbrage with that statement. Laziness like that leads to a steady erosion of our privacy and our own rights, whether we're doing anything wrong in our own eyes or not. Look up the photographer who got arrested under terrorism laws, by no one standing up to the ridiculous powers it gave the police it went too far and is only now being challenged. If it gives the government themselves powers how will it ever be challengeable if it goes too far? How will we know it's gone too far?


They have powers to get your information and contacts now but they have to get a warrant and justify why they want it. These powers they're trying to introduce now allow them greater access with less regulation and I think it's unacceptable.


The terrorists don't need to do anything to lessen our quality of life, our government are doing it for them in the interests of stopping them doing it in the first place!


To the government I say:

1984 was a warning, not a manual

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sorry, I'm going to take great umbrage with that statement. Laziness like that leads to a steady erosion of our privacy and our own rights, whether we're doing anything wrong in our own eyes or not. Look up the photographer who got arrested under terrorism laws, by no one standing up to the ridiculous powers it gave the police it went too far and is only now being challenged. If it gives the government themselves powers how will it ever be challengeable if it goes too far? How will we know it's gone too far?


They have powers to get your information and contacts now but they have to get a warrant and justify why they want it. These powers they're trying to introduce now allow them greater access with less regulation and I think it's unacceptable.


The terrorists don't need to do anything to lessen our quality of life, our government are doing it for them in the interests of stopping them doing it in the first place!


To the government I say:

1984 was a warning, not a manual

 


Do you have the same opinion on CCTV cameras in town centres/shops/banks etc?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sorry, I'm going to take great umbrage with that statement. Laziness like that leads to a steady erosion of our privacy and our own rights, whether we're doing anything wrong in our own eyes or not. Look up the photographer who got arrested under terrorism laws, by no one standing up to the ridiculous powers it gave the police it went too far and is only now being challenged. If it gives the government themselves powers how will it ever be challengeable if it goes too far? How will we know it's gone too far?


They have powers to get your information and contacts now but they have to get a warrant and justify why they want it. These powers they're trying to introduce now allow them greater access with less regulation and I think it's unacceptable.


The terrorists don't need to do anything to lessen our quality of life, our government are doing it for them in the interests of stopping them doing it in the first place!


To the government I say:

1984 was a warning, not a manual

 


Do you have the same opinion on CCTV cameras in town centres/shops/banks etc?

 

Privately controlled CCTV is great, it means that if the authorities want to see, they need a warrant. Mass government-controlled CCTV, not so.


I too strongly disagree with the erosion of due process, as it's about the only thing that can put the brakes on abuse of power.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am quite sure that with limited time and reosurces the police and MI5 etc will concentrate their efforts on those where there is evidence and case to be made for monitoring e-mails etc.


In the same way I can look at the Halfords site and then go onto a hifi forum I frequent and find lots of Halfords adverts have appeared, certain words and messages will automatically flag up. If they keep doing so then interest will spike with that user. So if you go into Al Qued.com once for a nosey, big deal. But if you vist all the time and join their forum, you may be monitored.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sorry, I'm going to take great umbrage with that statement. Laziness like that leads to a steady erosion of our privacy and our own rights, whether we're doing anything wrong in our own eyes or not. Look up the photographer who got arrested under terrorism laws, by no one standing up to the ridiculous powers it gave the police it went too far and is only now being challenged. If it gives the government themselves powers how will it ever be challengeable if it goes too far? How will we know it's gone too far?


They have powers to get your information and contacts now but they have to get a warrant and justify why they want it. These powers they're trying to introduce now allow them greater access with less regulation and I think it's unacceptable.


The terrorists don't need to do anything to lessen our quality of life, our government are doing it for them in the interests of stopping them doing it in the first place!


To the government I say:

1984 was a warning, not a manual

 


Do you have the same opinion on CCTV cameras in town centres/shops/banks etc?

 

Privately controlled CCTV is great, it means that if the authorities want to see, they need a warrant. Mass government-controlled CCTV, not so.


I too strongly disagree with the erosion of due process, as it's about the only thing that can put the brakes on abuse of power.

 

You dont need a warrant to view private CCTV

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Privately controlled CCTV is great, it means that if the authorities want to see, they need a warrant. Mass government-controlled CCTV, not so.


I too strongly disagree with the erosion of due process, as it's about the only thing that can put the brakes on abuse of power.

 

You dont need a warrant to view private CCTV

You mean they can just walk in and ask for it and it has to be provided? (if so, that sucks). I'm well aware that some people will give it over without any persuasion whatsoever, but that's not the same as being legally obligated.

Oh well, still takes a more significant investment of time and manpower (i.e. an actual visit to somewhere), to discourage it being done lightly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Use Privacy Policy Guidelines We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.