Internet Monitoring Plans For The UK

Scroll to see replies

Original post by original_username

But does the written word on a social media platform really stir the same feelings as someone doing it in the real world with spoken word?

It can do. Some business rely on internet reputation and on some social network platforms like Facebook as opposed to TSR, they pretty much produce a similar outcome.

Reply 41

Smerdyakov

Original post by original_username

But does the written word on a social media platform really stir the same feelings as someone doing it in the real world with spoken word?

If it doesn't now it might one day come to. Who's going to decide the degree to which something is an invasion of privacy? The government certainly shouldn't.

Reply 42

original_username

Original post by Annoying-Mouse

It can do. Some business rely on internet reputation and on some social network platforms like Facebook as opposed to TSR, they pretty much produce a similar outcome.

I suppose.
But the very fact you mentioned these more 'minor' crimes backs up the opinion of many that they don't want to implement it for the reasons they are suggesting.

Reply 43

User414413

Original post by original_username

I suppose.
But the very fact you mentioned these more 'minor' crimes backs up the opinion of many that they don't want to implement it for the reasons they are suggesting.

What reasons do they have for implementing it? I believe them that they want to implement it for the reasons they mentioned. Do you have any idea how useful such data would be to intelligence services, Serious and Organised Crime Agency and the police? Or how much it would help HM Revenue and Customs? It would make their lives much easier hence a motive right there.

Reply 44

original_username

Original post by Annoying-Mouse

I'm sorry, but making the lives of police, HMRC and the intelligence services, easier is not a good enough reason for me to for an entire population to have their civil liberties encroached upon.

These organisations already have sufficient measures and practices in place to combat the crimes they're talking about.

Reply 45

User414413

Original post by original_username

I agree but you were suggesting that they lied about their reasons were you not("they don't want to implement it for the reasons they are suggesting.")? Hence, I was saying that they didn't and the reasons they listed do benefit them hence no need to try to establish some sort of exterior motives or question their reasons.

Reply 46

original_username

Original post by Annoying-Mouse

It's the government, you must always question their reasoning and suspect ulterior motives, especially when they are using fear tactics to win over the masses.

Reply 47

Chad_Bronson

You must be an absolute idiot if you search on the internet for terrorist activities like how to make a flour bomb :confused:

Everyone KNOWS all of this action takes place in person and unrecorded (and have known since the World War) so why the hell would they impose such a stupid and sweeping law?

Please, let us stop with this Orwellian Big Brother madness. We already have CCTV systems on buses to track where we are going, college dogtags for entry... we don't need this. How long will it be before we turn into a complete police state?

Reply 48

User414413

Original post by original_username

It's the government, you must always question their reasoning and suspect ulterior motives, especially when they are using fear tactics to win over the masses.

No, you shouldn't. Do you realize that the government aren't some sort of homogeneous group? As you can see by the article, David Davis who also belongs to "the government" opposes it. There reasoning for these measures makes sense when you look at the objectives of the organizations and how much easier and more effective it would make their organizations. The conspiratorial view that this is motivated by some sort of orwellian desire is unfounded.

Reply 49

Skip_Snip

It's being used to counter terrorists and other criminals, but they'll use codes, or send messages from public computers, or use foreign proxy sites, or a ton of ways I probably haven't heard of to cover their tracks, it will ONLY affect the average person

Reply 50

JacobW

Good. The internet is not some libertine paradise where ordinary rules of decency do not apply. The measure imposes no new restrictions and gives the police no powers that will have any impact on the lives of law-abiding citizens. All this fear-mongering about a police state is just hysterical.

Reply 51

kingsholmmad

Original post by Kiss

So you're happy to give up your human and civil rights to allow the police to snoop through your private life???

No, I'm not and there are two reasons why this bill isn't going to infringe those rights the way you think it will:
a) the police simply don't have the time or the facilities to go through everybody's internet history the way you think they have, especially with all the cuts the government have made.
b) this bill doesn't give the police any more access than they've already got to the content of your e-mails or the sites you've visited. It just gives them the right to check on where you've been, not what you did while you were there.

Original post by Neimad

The Bad Guys?
Do you live in a comic book? Not everything is as black and white as cops and robbers, and not everything should be taken at face value

Of course it isn't that black and white, I was trying (unsuccessfully, apparently) to keep it simple for the people on here who are convinced that the police are the enemy who are out to get them and who should be hindered as much as possible.

Original post by n00

What utter utter *******s. The police already have access to this information for suspects, they simply want to make everyone a suspect and theres nothing limited about it.

Well, if they've already got this access, what are you complaining about? You're not losing anything if this changes nothing. But why would they want to make everyone a suspect? That just makes more work for themselves which has to result in making it harder to get any given case to court.

Reply 52

User414413

Original post by JacobW

The problem with these measures is they violate privacy laws. They're pretty much akin to putting a recording device on every UK home and form of communication and storing these data. Would you agree to such a proposal? If not, what's the difference?

Reply 53

james22

Original post by Annoying-Mouse

While I am against this, this is a bad comparrison. It's more like recording who you speak to at what time, but not what you speak about.

Reply 54

User414413

Original post by james22

While I am against this, this is a bad comparrison. It's more like recording who you speak to at what time, but not what you speak about.

I thought it recorded what you speak about as well but unlike who you speak to, you need a warrant to access it?

Reply 55

JacobW

Original post by Annoying-Mouse

I'm not sure what you mean there. Our country is governed in accordance with the principle of parliamentary sovereignity, which means that no Act of Parliament can violate the law. New law may conflict with existing law, but if so that's a problem with the implementation not the principle of the measures.

The difference is that in your scenario the police would have access to the content of the communications. The analogy would be closer if the police merely recieved an alert every time someone sent a message or made a phone call, telling them who they were contacting and for how long. Frankly I wouldn't have a problem with such a system, so long as access were restricted to cases were the police had good reason to believe I had committed a crime and the alerting system were in no way intrusive so that I didn't feel as though I were being observed.

Reply 56

Kiss

Original post by kingsholmmad

Yes it will, the simple fact that its there allow police enough power to invade privacy. They may not have the time but if they have the laws to do so then it becomes a problem. I can't see how you don't realise the rammifications this can bring in the future. Are you really sure you're happy with the state nosing into everything you do?

Original post by JacobW

You are obviously new to the internet then, and judging from your lack of a care about your civil rights or those of others then you don't know what its like to live in Iran or China.

Reply 57

JacobW

Original post by Kiss

You are obviously new to the internet then, and judging from your lack of a care about your civil rights or those of others then you don't know what its like to live in Iran or China.

Nope. I spend far too much time online, though admittedly I avoid the areas that to conform to the description I negated. Either way, it oughtn't to be.

Frankly I think the victims of despotic regimes in Iran, China, or other authoritarian states would be deeply offended by your comparison. The rule of law is so firmly enshrined in British society and our constitution that there is no way this relatively minor extension of the police's powers to enforce the law can threaten it. The measure does not restrict you from acting precisely as you do and the monitoring is not intrusive. It doesn't limit your freedom in any way, unless you only consider an action free if the police have no way of knowing you have performed it, which is frankly an absurd principle. The vast majority of the data collected will probably never be looked at.

Reply 58

Mad Vlad

No, I don't support this. The problem is, "well meaning" laws like this achieve absolutely nothing. As soon as this level of monitoring is made legal, those that have things to hide will just use methods to subvert these data collection techniques. It's a huge white elephant. It is more difficult and costly to implement the monitoring and the changes required collect this information, than it is to use free tools to obfuscate your activity. It just drives the activity underground, making it harder to detect and disrupt illegal activity.

Reply 59

kingsholmmad

Original post by Kiss

Of course I don't want the state "nosing into everything I do." The trouble is that the information referred to in this bill is already out there, accessible to anyone with the right knowledge, ability and equipment. The internet is not the idyllic haven of anonymous sanctity that you think it is. It is, in itself, an invasion of your privacy and an erosion of your rights because of the personal information that is already kept by faceless servers in nameless countries.

And since it is already out there, I would rather it were seen by the forces of law and order trying to do some good than by someone I will never know whose only motive is to in some way harm me.
I KNOW that is a simplistic way of explaining it.
I KNOW this bill isn't designed to stop criminals from getting at my information.
I KNOW that, as technology advances, so does criminal use of it.
The point is, I would like the police to be given at least a chance to keep up with the technology that criminals use. You, however, seem to want to handicap them as much as possible. So why don't you just admit to that or explain what you think should be done to let the police fight criminal use of technology?