-
There should be no "means of communication" which "we cannot read" - David Camer
Cameron promises "comprehensive piece of legislation" to allow access to online data.
Sounds very scary to me.
Wotcha reckon?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-30778424
-
Re: There should be no "means of communication" which "we cannot read" - David C
I'd be very against it, I must say. Terrorists will always find a secure way to communicate, and meantime we can't trust the govt to use the new powers sparingly.
-
Re: There should be no "means of communication" which "we cannot read" - David C
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Tim Muff wrote on Tue, 13 January 2015 12:19
Cameron promises "comprehensive piece of legislation" to allow access to online data.
I was only saying yesterday that new legislations are probably on the way due to all the news stories lately, these ****s never let me down.
-
Re: There should be no "means of communication" which "we cannot read" - David C
If the security guys want it because they think it's vital to stopping someone from shooting me, I'm OK with it. If it is prompted by the Govt, I'm less keen. Although 90% of my internet communications are either posting smileys on this board, or emails to my wife about stuff like shopping. If they want to read that stuff, they are mad.
-
Re: There should be no "means of communication" which "we cannot read" - David C
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mrs Steve R wrote on Tue, 13 January 2015 12:56
Cameron promises "comprehensive piece of legislation" to allow access to online data.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Tim Muff wrote on Tue, 13 January 2015 12:19
Sounds very scary to me.
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/jan/09/do-spy-agenci es-need-more-surveillance-powers
-
Re: There should be no "means of communication" which "we cannot read" - David C
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Tim Muff wrote on Tue, 13 January 2015 13:02
Cameron promises "comprehensive piece of legislation" to allow access to online data.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mrs Steve R wrote on Tue, 13 January 2015 12:56
Sounds very scary to me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Tim Muff wrote on Tue, 13 January 2015 12:19
Wotcha reckon?
Shocker, I have noticed comments like that elsewhere too, they just want to get the idea in to our heads before they announce it so it's not so much of a shock. http://www.ccmb.co.uk/images/smiley_icons/hehe.gif
-
Re: There should be no "means of communication" which "we cannot read" - David C
Quote:
Originally Posted by Optimistic Nick wrote on Tue, 13 January 2015 13:00
If the security guys want it because they think it's vital to stopping someone from shooting me, I'm OK with it. If it is prompted by the Govt, I'm less keen. Although 90% of my internet communications are either posting smileys on this board, or emails to my wife about stuff like shopping. If they want to read that stuff, they are mad.
It claims that half of councils used the anti-terror laws to spy on 'bin crimes'- amongst other surprising implementations.
-
Re: There should be no "means of communication" which "we cannot read" - David C
Quote:
Originally Posted by Optimistic Nick wrote on Tue, 13 January 2015 13:00
If the security guys want it because they think it's vital to stopping someone from shooting me, I'm OK with it. If it is prompted by the Govt, I'm less keen. Although 90% of my internet communications are either posting smileys on this board, or emails to my wife about stuff like shopping. If they want to read that stuff, they are mad.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jan/13/cameron -ban-encryption-digital-britain-online-shopping-banking-mess aging-terror
-
Re: There should be no "means of communication" which "we cannot read" - David C
jail time for whispering imo
-
Re: There should be no "means of communication" which "we cannot read" - David C
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dublinblue wrote on Tue, 13 January 2015 12:49
I'd be very against it, I must say. Terrorists will always find a secure way to communicate, and meantime we can't trust the govt to use the new powers sparingly.
The CCTV cameras would be great for showing people getting killed, but they wont stop it happening.
-
Re: There should be no "means of communication" which "we cannot read" - David C
Doesn't bother me one iota.If they want to read my stuff on the internet they are most welcome.Always had the very simplistic outlook if you have nothing to hide why worry.Plenty of things to worry about other than that!!! http://www.ccmb.co.uk/images/smiley_icons/smiley.gif
-
Re: There should be no "means of communication" which "we cannot read" - David C
Quote:
Originally Posted by Optimistic Nick wrote on Tue, 13 January 2015 13:00
If the security guys want it because they think it's vital to stopping someone from shooting me, I'm OK with it. If it is prompted by the Govt, I'm less keen. Although 90% of my internet communications are either posting smileys on this board, or emails to my wife about stuff like shopping. If they want to read that stuff, they are mad.
I'm in two minds over this. on one hand I'm not really in favour of the concept of the state and any power it has over the people it is there to support is worrying. However on the other hand they can read what they like from me as they'll not find anything of interest that concerns national security. if it is used for its intended purpose i.e. to save lives then I think it is probably a good thing.
-
Re: There should be no "means of communication" which "we cannot read" - David C
It's almost as if some people have got something to hide. http://www.ccmb.co.uk/images/smiley_icons/sherlock.gif
-
Re: There should be no "means of communication" which "we cannot read" - David C
Quote:
Originally Posted by Croesy Blue wrote on Tue, 13 January 2015 16:30
If it gets to the bottom of all your Internet usernames it can only be viewed as a good thing.
-
Re: There should be no "means of communication" which "we cannot read" - David C
Quote:
Originally Posted by Feedback2blue wrote on Tue, 13 January 2015 16:06
If the security guys want it because they think it's vital to stopping someone from shooting me, I'm OK with it. If it is prompted by the Govt, I'm less keen. Although 90% of my internet communications are either posting smileys on this board, or emails to my wife about stuff like shopping. If they want to read that stuff, they are mad.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Optimistic Nick wrote on Tue, 13 January 2015 13:00
depends if you're buying c4 and a rifle with telescopic sights.
Feedy "smash the state" http://www.ccmb.co.uk/images/smiley_icons/hehe.gif
-
Re: There should be no "means of communication" which "we cannot read" - David C
Nothing to hide - all very well unless you're part of a group who are disproportionately surveyed (as we've seen with stop and search powers), or if the government (who act less than honourably - expense claims for example) decide that they want to go after you for whatever reason - Aaron Schwartz is a good (sad) example. There are many more arguments against this and in my opinion it's a very naive stance to take. Surely it should also be a two way thing - if we're subjected to total transparency then shouldn't the government, police, companies (like oil companies for example) also be examined with the same degree of scrutiny - given their actions often have far-reaching and tremendously influential outcomes - in my opinion, far more dangerous than individual extremists (without taking away how horrendous their actions also are)?
-
Re: There should be no "means of communication" which "we cannot read" - David C
Quote:
Originally Posted by welshyoot wrote on Tue, 13 January 2015 16:54
Nothing to hide - all very well unless you're part of a group who are disproportionately surveyed (as we've seen with stop and search powers), or if the government (who act less than honourably - expense claims for example) decide that they want to go after you for whatever reason - Aaron Schwartz is a good (sad) example. There are many more arguments against this and in my opinion it's a very naive stance to take. Surely it should also be a two way thing - if we're subjected to total transparency then shouldn't the government, police, companies (like oil companies for example) also be examined with the same degree of scrutiny - given their actions often have far-reaching and tremendously influential outcomes - in my opinion, far more dangerous than individual extremists (without taking away how horrendous their actions also are)?
The families of the 17 recently killed in France may beg to differ.
-
Re: There should be no "means of communication" which "we cannot read" - David C
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Penguin wrote on Tue, 13 January 2015 14:46
I'd be very against it, I must say.
Terrorists will always find a secure way to communicate, and meantime we can't trust the govt to use the new powers sparingly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dublinblue wrote on Tue, 13 January 2015 12:49
<b>
I think BT installations department use the same method as well.
-
Re: There should be no "means of communication" which "we cannot read" - David C
Quote:
Originally Posted by welshyoot wrote on Tue, 13 January 2015 16:54
Nothing to hide - all very well unless you're part of a group who are disproportionately surveyed (as we've seen with stop and search powers), or if the government (who act less than honourably - expense claims for example) decide that they want to go after you for whatever reason - Aaron Schwartz is a good (sad) example. There are many more arguments against this and in my opinion it's a very naive stance to take. Surely it should also be a two way thing - if we're subjected to total transparency then shouldn't the government, police, companies (like oil companies for example) also be examined with the same degree of scrutiny - given their actions often have far-reaching and tremendously influential outcomes - in my opinion, far more dangerous than individual extremists (without taking away how horrendous their actions also are)?
Far more dangerous than individual extremists-isn't that naive???
-
Re: There should be no "means of communication" which "we cannot read" - David C
Quote:
Originally Posted by TruBlue wrote on Tue, 13 January 2015 16:58
I'd be very against it, I must say.
Terrorists will always find a secure way to communicate, and meantime we can't trust the govt to use the new powers sparingly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Penguin wrote on Tue, 13 January 2015 14:46
<b>
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dublinblue wrote on Tue, 13 January 2015 12:49
They already have. Al Qaeda and other organizations have been using paper for years. Single piece of paper gets couriered around the world from staging post to staging post. Its how arabs have transferred money for centuries and it is virtually impregnable as a system.
Shame it's true lol
-
Re: There should be no "means of communication" which "we cannot read" - David C
makes sense, the government could then simply look at the emails sent between these murderers and the company who sold them the AK47s and bring both to justice.
-
Re: There should be no "means of communication" which "we cannot read" - David C
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mrs Steve R wrote on Tue, 13 January 2015 12:56
Cameron promises "comprehensive piece of legislation" to allow access to online data.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Tim Muff wrote on Tue, 13 January 2015 12:19
Sounds very scary to me.
You beat me to it...I honestly cannot understand how when shown the facts of how this kind of thing works, that people cannot see these events are used to take away our freedom. Beggers belief. http://www.ccmb.co.uk/images/smiley_icons/hehe.gif http://www.ccmb.co.uk/images/smiley_icons/hehe.gif http://www.ccmb.co.uk/images/smiley_icons/hehe.gif
-
Re: There should be no "means of communication" which "we cannot read" - David C
The government is also about to restrict powers of entry that existing bodies have to ensure they get a court warrant in order to exercise them. If govt bodies were so concerned with abusing their powers to pray on society why would they do this?
-
Re: There should be no "means of communication" which "we cannot read" - David C
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1touchfootball wrote on Tue, 13 January 2015 21:59
Cameron promises "comprehensive piece of legislation" to allow access to online data.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mrs Steve R wrote on Tue, 13 January 2015 12:56
Sounds very scary to me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Tim Muff wrote on Tue, 13 January 2015 12:19
Wotcha reckon?
Don't get me started, it winds me up so much, Steve said I was even moaning about David Cameron in my sleep last night. http://www.ccmb.co.uk/images/smiley_icons/hehe.gif
-
Re: There should be no "means of communication" which "we cannot read" - David C
Quote:
Originally Posted by GRUMPYS DEN wrote on Tue, 13 January 2015 17:01
Nothing to hide - all very well unless you're part of a group who are disproportionately surveyed (as we've seen with stop and search powers), or if the government (who act less than honourably - expense claims for example) decide that they want to go after you for whatever reason - Aaron Schwartz is a good (sad) example. There are many more arguments against this and in my opinion it's a very naive stance to take. Surely it should also be a two way thing - if we're subjected to total transparency then shouldn't the government, police, companies (like oil companies for example) also be examined with the same degree of scrutiny - given their actions often have far-reaching and tremendously influential outcomes - in my opinion, far more dangerous than individual extremists (without taking away how horrendous their actions also are)?
Quote:
Originally Posted by welshyoot wrote on Tue, 13 January 2015 16:54
Far more dangerous than individual extremists-isn't that naive???
Not if you think that many of these extremists may be reacting to the policies of these governments. Take the illegal invasion of Iraq for an example.
