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

Announcements
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Just like Thatcher, these children of Thatcher have no comprehension of the libertarian part of neoliberalism...
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Blue Axolotl)
    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.
    Theoretically speaking, if the technology was there, should the government monitor every form of communication carried out between citezens?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by triggerhappy420)
    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?

    We already have thousands and thousands of cameras "spying" on us each day.

    I live in West London, and down Earl's Court road I have counted 80 visible cameras (!!) 6 of which are grouped together on one pole. Why do you think they need that many? Because of have populous the area is and how much crime goes on there.

    Why would they need to install them around my house :lol: ? Am I plotting something I don't know about??
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    Theoretically speaking, if the technology was there, should the government monitor every form of communication carried out between citezens?
    The technology is already here. GCHQ are already monitoring us.

    Cyber crime and Cyber terrorism are both on the up, so...

    I don't think the government are going to be bothered about two girls speaking about their next shopping trips :lol:
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Blue Axolotl)
    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.
    The way the secret services can combat this is to find these sites that are providing the opportunity for people to buy and sell these weapons, track the people down and stop them. Not invade everybody's privacy. The amount of controversy this would create would be ridiculous, there are alternatives.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Josb)
    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?

    We have no guarantee that wouldn't happen - if there are enough employees, it'd become statistically likely that this could happen. However, as stated, this system allows for limited access to browsing data, such as the generic website and times used, not specific details or messages without a warrant. I'm not too worried about a random employee knowing what time someone or other went on Google; I'm rather more worried about the people who want to cause harm and spread terror, which this will help against.

    (Original post by Juichiro)
    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.
    Yes, everyone will be 'monitored', but only a tiny proportion of the population's data will actually be looked at by a conscious person's eyes. I did mention filters in the post you are replying to by the way, they're what makes the system work to catch people who should be caught.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by batman1308)
    The way the secret services can combat this is to find these sites that are providing the opportunity for people to buy and sell these weapons, track the people down and stop them. Not invade everybody's privacy. The amount of controversy this would create would be ridiculous, there are alternatives.

    You have no idea how the Deep Web or Mariana's Web work, in fact barely anyone does.

    Sites are taken down and immediately set up again under new IPs... they're virtually unstoppable.

    GCHQ are already focusing on specific types of people, but the only reasonable way to find them is by having the power to read internet history and searches...

    Are they going to be bothered about someone buying a stuffed toy from Toys R Us or a bloke boying fertilisers and other bomb-making equipment?


    Have you heard of web chatter?
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Blue Axolotl)
    The technology is already here. GCHQ are already monitoring us.

    Cyber crime and Cyber terrorism are both on the up, so...

    I don't think the government are going to be bothered about two girls speaking about their next shopping trips :lol:
    I mean whenever you talk to someone face to face.

    But what if those two girls are two Muslim teenagers talking about ISIS?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    I mean whenever you talk to someone face to face.

    But what if those two girls are two Muslim teenagers talking about ISIS?

    Rhetorical question, what do you think?


    I personally think tracking face-to-face chatter is harder than "spying" on internet chatter - actually, it's pretty obvious as to why this is the case.

    I don't think I fully understand what you're getting to, but I'll assume this...

    If you aren't speaking/plotting an attack on the UK/US/Australia, etc... You have nothing to worry about. We're not living under Big Brother.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Blue Axolotl)
    Rhetorical question, what do you think?


    I personally think tracking face-to-face chatter is harder than "spying" on internet chatter - actually, it's pretty obvious as to why this is the case.

    I don't think I fully understand what you're getting to, but I'll assume this...

    If you aren't speaking/plotting an attack on the UK/US/Australia, etc... You have nothing to worry about. We're not living under Big Brother.
    It's the slippery slope argument. Small changes over time lead to big changes that if they had happening over short amount of time people wouldn't have accepted. Technology changes. What if we have google glass type things that can pick up sound. The new Xbox records sound. What we have now seems very implausible and sci-fi for a Victorian who would feel uncomfortable with all the letters they send being read by the government, copies made of and storied away. That is what is happening now, more and more of our life is being made digital which means the scope for "spying" is getting larger and larger.


    Monitoring everyone in real life conversations with other people would be a step to far now, but in maybe a few decades....

    The question is whether the governments should have the means of doing this. The government may not abuse those powers, but if the spying infrastructure is in place that government is capable of going down the China route if the circumstances aloud it to. We are in a very privileged part of the world and time in history. There is no reason why that has to last.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    all the law will do is to bring IT in line with other methods like phone taps and intercepting mail.
    Most of what is being added wasn'tt in existence when the legislation was last looked at, so isn't covered by existing laws.

    oddly, many of the conspiracy theorists are paranoid about the "Govmernt" yet post all sorts of crap all over Facebook
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Star Light)
    We have no guarantee that wouldn't happen - if there are enough employees, it'd become statistically likely that this could happen. However, as stated, this system allows for limited access to browsing data, such as the generic website and times used, not specific details or messages without a warrant. I'm not too worried about a random employee knowing what time someone or other went on Google; I'm rather more worried about the people who want to cause harm and spread terror, which this will help against.



    Yes, everyone will be 'monitored', but only a tiny proportion of the population's data will actually be looked at by a conscious person's eyes. I did mention filters in the post you are replying to by the way, they're what makes the system work to catch people who should be caught.
    That's irrelevant. The fact still stands that everyone's data is being monitored. It does not matter who or what does it but the fact that the action of monitoring is happening. This is the topic of this thread.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    It's never too late for Orwell to be right.

    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Juichiro)
    That's irrelevant. The fact still stands that everyone's data is being monitored. It does not matter who or what does it but the fact that the action of monitoring is happening. This is the topic of this thread.
    I totally get that, but nonetheless, the day I found out, I sent an email to myself saying, "I know you can read this, out there" etc. Serves them right
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    It's never too late for Orwell to be right.

    I think Wall-E dystopia is more likely at our current trajectory



    I guess whilst we get fat of crap food and TV we are stamping our boots on Chinese sweatshop workers. :holmes:
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    I think Wall-E dystopia is more likely at our current trajectory



    I guess whilst we get fat of crap food and TV we are stamping our boots on Chinese sweatshop workers. :holmes:
    I just read that. Oh My God. I am guilty of a THOUGHT CRIME.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Its the unforeseeable price the average person pays dearly for the wholly selfish, myopic and irresponsible unlimited and unabated mass immigration of third world people and cultures to this country that of which the average person paying for now has opposed and opposed

    Its absolutely disgusting
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Juichiro)
    That's irrelevant. The fact still stands that everyone's data is being monitored. It does not matter who or what does it but the fact that the action of monitoring is happening. This is the topic of this thread.
    Well, that's the question, isn't it? Some people claim it's irrelevant that very few people's data will be looked at by a human, and that it's the principle of monitoring and surveillance that matters. I don't feel too uncomforted by the notion that my browsing data runs through a filter. There are different levels and types of monitoring, and the extent to which this new legislation would permit it is not troubling. I'd personally feel a lot more invaded if a human read through my browsing data than it being fed through software checking for flags - so I see relevance in whether a machine or person is doing the looking. As it's only machines (apart from the flagged people who have a high probability of being involved in criminal activity) for now, I think the pseudo-invasion of privacy is more than made up by the potential to catch criminals and defend national security.

    These are the same types of powers that the government has had for phone calls for a long time, didn't see many complaints. I appreciate that the breadth of activity online goes beyond phone calls, but a large part of the use of this monitoring is to find out who's been in contact with dangerous individuals, or certain groups... not so different.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    *Anon please

    I have a very embarrassing porn fetish for chunky women. I look at some really dirty stuff. Afaik my filthy habit is not illegal, but even so I think its too embarrassing to get arrested for. I find it very creepy that there could be coppers checkin out my stuff.

    I once admitted to doing several hundred mph along the M5 a few weeks ago on a motoring forum. I havent been arrested for this yet so I figured the cops aint on my cyber trail yet...............
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Blue Axolotl)
    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.


    Which would be relevant if the security services had any desire or obligation to tell you they were monitoring your activity.
 
 
 
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.