There should be no "means of communication" which "we cannot read" - David Camer

[Dr Tim Muff]

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

[Dublinblue]

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.

[Mrs Steve R]

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.

[Optimistic Nick]

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.

[Dr Tim Muff]

Cameron promises "comprehensive piece of legislation" to allow access to online data.

Sounds very scary to me.

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/jan/09/do-spy-agenci es-need-more-surveillance-powers

[Mrs Steve R]

Cameron promises "comprehensive piece of legislation" to allow access to online data.

Sounds very scary to me.

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.

[Dr Tim Muff]

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.

[neilw65]

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

[Sheik Yerbouti]

jail time for whispering imo

[The Penguin]

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.

[GRUMPYS DEN]

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!!!

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.

[Elysium]

It's almost as if some people have got something to hide.

It's almost as if some people have got something to hide.

If it gets to the bottom of all your Internet usernames it can only be viewed as a good thing.

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.

depends if you're buying c4 and a rifle with telescopic sights.

Feedy "smash the state"

[welshyoot]

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)?

[Elysium]

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.

[TruBlue]

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.

I think BT installations department use the same method as well.

[GRUMPYS DEN]

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???

[The Penguin]

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.

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

[Philb]

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.

[1touchfootball]

Cameron promises "comprehensive piece of legislation" to allow access to online data.

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.

[Harry Flashman]

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?

[Mrs Steve R]

Cameron promises "comprehensive piece of legislation" to allow access to online data.

Sounds very scary to me.

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.

[welshyoot]

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???

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.