Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta

What do you think about the new law where police can view our internet history? watch

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Blue Axolotl)
    What if I told you it was for your own safety?
    I'd say you were a mad man.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Souljer)
    I'd say you were a mad man.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    So you'd rather the police/secret services not "spy" on our internet histories and watch as hundreds of terrorist gain access to the fields they need?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mojojojo101)
    So if I came to your house, went through your draws, read your personal correspondence, checked your bank statements and just generally went through absolutely everything you have done you'd be okay with that would you? You've got nothing to hide...

    Are you a police officer or a member of the Law? If not, I'd chase you out with a cricket bat.

    If you're a police officer, you would have to have a warrant to search my house and belongings.

    But then again, I've got nothing to hide.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Blue Axolotl)
    If you've got nothing to hide, you've got nothing to worry about - Axo.
    That's like saying you don't care about free speech because you have nothing to say.

    (inb4 "I don't care about free speech")
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    What I'm thinking is, do they seriously think terrorists will use a SEARCH ENGINE of all things? I'm sure, with the amount of technology which is being developed in countries, there is something else they're using to communicate. Whether it be the Deep Web, or anything else, they are definitely not using public websites for sure. That would be crazy of them.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DiddyDec)
    I'm pretty sure that if the police want to access the records they must first get authority from the home Secretary (or one of those types of people).

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    With this law, it would be a judge. But judges approve 99% of all warrants anyway, so it's hardly an obstruction.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Blue Axolotl)
    If you've got nothing to hide, you've got nothing to worry about - Axo.
    "Arguing that you don't care about the right to privacy because you have nothing to hide is no different than saying you don't care about free speech because you have nothing to say" - Edward Snowden
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Alba2013)
    That's like saying you don't care about free speech because you have nothing to say.

    (inb4 "I don't care about free speech"
    How is it like saying "I don't care about free speech"?? You absolute crackpot!!

    If a policeman searches my internet history, all he/she is going to find is a regular adolescent's searches - no terrorism, no thoughts of murder, no weapon-seeking... So why on Earth should I be worried.


    Another example would be if I get pulled over by a police car, or stopped by a police officer... I've got nothing to hide, so it wouldn't bother me.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by batman1308)
    What I'm thinking is, do they seriously think terrorists will use a SEARCH ENGINE of all things? I'm sure, with the amount of technology which is being developed in countries, there is something else they're using to communicate. Whether it be the Deep Web, or anything else, they are definitely not using public websites for sure. That would be crazy of them.
    Police can still track it, and there's obviously social media.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by triggerhappy420)
    "Arguing that you don't care about the right to privacy because you have nothing to hide is no different than saying you don't care about free speech because you have nothing to say" - Edward Snowden

    But I do care about freedom of speech... but I, personally, don't care if the police look at my internet history.

    If you're worried about it, than stand up and complain... be my guest.


    That quote is a fallacy any.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Blue Axolotl)
    How is it like saying "I don't care about free speech"?? You absolute crackpot!!

    If a policeman searches my internet history, all he/she is going to find is a regular adolescent's searches - no terrorism, no thoughts of murder, no weapon-seeking... So why on Earth should I be worried.


    Another example would be if I get pulled over by a police car, or stopped by a police officer... I've got nothing to hide, so it wouldn't bother me.
    You should be worried in case they change what nothing to hide means, right now it means terrorist related activities ect. but who knows what won't be allowed years down the line.

    Its a slippery slope
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Blue Axolotl)
    Police can still track it, and there's obviously social media.
    Fair enough, but there is other things too. Think about the amount of young kids who are obsessed with bombs and nuclear weapons, and them searching the internet (this does happen), this could mean that innocent peoples privacy are being invaded, and is unnecessary in many contexts. There IS other ways, and of course we have to be sure, but there's much better alternatives to this.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Can we not all spam Teressa May with our history all at once or something?
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Generally, the only reason a government like ours passes laws nowadays is to favour big corporations. This one seems unusual, in that the major digital firms are against it. So it must be designed to favour another group or issue. The reality is that it is very unlikely that genuine organised terrorism or major crime is behind it. Those kinds of people will be well used to coping with monitoring and using the dark web and other nefarious means.

    The most likely explanation is that the security forces are being engaged by the government more and more to stifle dissent. The government are currently signing up to international trade treaties (like TISA and TPIP) that will finally abolish both sovereignty and democracy, handing over law making to unelected officials working in secret with global multinationals and supranational bodies. This is bound to be very unpopular when news of it finally reaches ordinary citizens via deeply unpopular changes. For example, the abolition of public services.
    http://www.theguardian.com/commentis...george-monbiot

    The true purpose of all this monitoring is that the government are getting ready to carry out fascist-style suppression of dissent on a mass scale.

    I think that's also why they are so keen to get close to China - the desire to learn from the experts in mass surveillance and total censorship, detention without charge and zero rights for the citizen.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by triggerhappy420)
    You should be worried in case they change what nothing to hide means, right now it means terrorist related activities ect. but who knows what won't be allowed years down the line.

    Its a slippery slope

    Like I said, I have a very common adolescent internet history.

    What they going to ban me from search? Kitchen pots and fruit juices?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Star Light)
    This law doesn't allow them to see your precise browsing history, just some information about the kind of internet usage that may contribute to warrants being given for actually looking at people's data.

    Also, it's not like anyone is ever going to use this power on you unless you are involved in shady dealings or somehow associated with something the police are investigating. How could they be checking 'EVERYONE'? There are tens of millions of internet users in this country, and not tens of millions of online government privacy-invading agents. If they put filters through people's internet data for illegal sites, e.g. viewing child pornography, buying illegal substances, then people who aren't breaking the law are fine.

    Honestly, what is wrong with this law? It allows the dangerous minority to be caught to preserve the safety of the law-abiding majority.

    It also has great potential for missing person cases - if a 13 y/o disappears, and you find out that they were talking on Facebook right before they vanished, you could then get a warrant to see their messages and see if that was anything to do with it.
    Monitoring systems are automated so you don't need millions of staff. You only need someone who can interpret the data. It's kinda like an email filtering system. So yes, you can monitor everyone without having an employee for each internet userr.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    Generally, the only reason a government like ours passes laws nowadays is to favour big corporations. This one seems unusual, in that the major digital firms are against it. So it must be designed to favour another group or issue. The reality is that it is very unlikely that genuine organised terrorism or major crime is behind it. Those kinds of people will be well used to coping with monitoring and using the dark web and other nefarious means.

    The most likely explanation is that the security forces are being engaged by the government more and more to stifle dissent. The government are currently signing up to international trade treaties (like TISA and TPIP) that will finally abolish both sovereignty and democracy, handing over law making to unelected officials working in secret with global multinationals and supranational bodies. This is bound to be very unpopular when news of it finally reaches ordinary citizens via deeply unpopular changes. For example, the abolition of public services.
    http://www.theguardian.com/commentis...george-monbiot

    The true purpose of all this monitoring is that the government are getting ready to carry out fascist-style suppression of dissent on a mass scale.

    I think that's also why they are so keen to get close to China - the desire to learn from the experts in mass surveillance and total censorship, detention without charge and zero rights for the citizen.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Star Light)
    This law doesn't allow them to see your precise browsing history, just some information about the kind of internet usage that may contribute to warrants being given for actually looking at people's data.

    Also, it's not like anyone is ever going to use this power on you unless you are involved in shady dealings or somehow associated with something the police are investigating. How could they be checking 'EVERYONE'? There are tens of millions of internet users in this country, and not tens of millions of online government privacy-invading agents. If they put filters through people's internet data for illegal sites, e.g. viewing child pornography, buying illegal substances, then people who aren't breaking the law are fine.

    Honestly, what is wrong with this law? It allows the dangerous minority to be caught to preserve the safety of the law-abiding majority.

    It also has great potential for missing person cases - if a 13 y/o disappears, and you find out that they were talking on Facebook right before they vanished, you could then get a warrant to see their messages and see if that was anything to do with it.
    They are not going to monitor everyone, but they can monitor everyone they want. That's the difference.

    What guarantee do you have that one employee working with this engine (that even Hitler or Stalin would have never even dreamt of) will never use it for his personal use, such as spying on his neighbour, on his ex's new boyfriend, or simply on the cell phone of random schoolgirls?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Blue Axolotl)
    Like I said, I have a very common adolescent internet history.

    What they going to ban me from search? Kitchen pots and fruit juices?
    You don't understand... It's the principle.

    Can I assume that you would have no issue with the government installing CCTV all around your house because that's the non digital equivalent. I'm sure you will be fine with it as you don't have anything to hide right?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by batman1308)
    Fair enough, but there is other things too. Think about the amount of young kids who are obsessed with bombs and nuclear weapons, and them searching the internet (this does happen), this could mean that innocent peoples privacy are being invaded, and is unnecessary in many contexts. There IS other ways, and of course we have to be sure, but there's much better alternatives to this.

    I can't recall the amount of times I've looked up guns I've seen in Battlefield or CoD, or the names of serial killers, etc... I've never been visited by the Law!

    A lot of kids do the same thing, and yes, it's purely innocent curiosity.

    What the secret services are worried about is people (kids and adults) purchasing bomb-making equipment, guns and what have you to carry out mass killings.

    If the police weren't keeping an eye on us, we would have had dozens of attacks this year alone.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the proposed ban on plastic straws and cotton buds?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.