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

    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    For most law-abiding people the issue isn't spooks being able to look at your online activities. Most rational people will have assumed that not only our but everyone's spooks have been doing it for years.

    The issue starts with mission creep. To some extent the government is seeking to head this off, but frankly in my view not well enough.

    The government doesn't only refer to terrorism but also to "ordinary" crime. They use the example of child sex crime because that gets MPs and the public onboard, but essentially every crime has its own lobby group. There are people bothered about rape; there are people bothered about drunk drivers; there are people bothered about hunting; there are people bothered about antiquities smuggling; there are people bothered about fly tipping; there are people bothered about fraudulent school admissions. In some cases those will be professional lobbies. You will be bothered about illegal egg collecting if you are an RSPB inspector, because it is your job to be bothered about that crime and not shoplifting or knife crime. Others will in some way be or empathise with the victims of that crime. The problem is that to the people with an obsession with a particular crime, no tool is improper in the fight against that crime.

    What is needed is for government to stand up and be counted and say that there are certain crimes where the public interest in prosecution does NOT outweigh the privacy issues in the use of certain surveillance techniques.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    I think that it's an invasion of privacy
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sharkbate633)
    I think that it's an invasion of privacy
    Of course it is an invasion of privacy. That of itself doesn't make it wrong. When the police get a warrant to search your sock drawer, that is an invasion of privacy, but few people would wish to deprive them of that power.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    Im hoping we are going to see enough people learn basic data encryption and web privacy once the policy goes live.

    This will not only make unwarranted monitoring neigh impossible to work with but it will also make the internet safer for everyone who uses it
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Blue Axolotl)
    If you've got nothing to hide, you've got nothing to worry about - Axo.
    This is an extremely concerning position. We have a right to a private life. If I don't break the law what I do is not the business of the government or the police. Cameron said: 'For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens: as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone.' These are actual words he used. If I obey the law, I should be left alone by the government and the police. How is it he thinks that people having their human rights is a BAD THING? People keep saying that if this stops terrorism it's a good thing. That's not how life works. We let terrorists win when we live in fear and so change our whole lifestyle to avoid the risk of attack. Also, if there are hundreds of plots at any one point then it seems that the current level of surveillance is stopping them and so increased powers designed to take away the human rights of the whole country aren't going to add anything.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    Things like the ones you mention have already been recorded in the US in relation to the massive NSA personal profile data trawling operations. We also know from past admissions that US security services have passed along information they gathered in Europe to US corporate interests where it was commercially to their advantage. There is no reason to think that spooks wouldn't continue to do that if they or their friends or relations can make serious money out of it.

    The whole thing is wildly open to abuse and where things are open to abuse, history shows that they will be abused.
    I remembered that Snowden gave one of these examples.

    The main problem is that we have no way to control what they do. The warrant thing is absolutely not a protection: they could spy on everyone, find who/what they want, then just ask for a warrant for that person.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Josb)
    I remembered that Snowden gave one of these examples.

    The main problem is that we have no way to control what they do. The warrant thing is absolutely not a protection: they could spy on everyone, find who/what they want, then just ask for a warrant for that person.
    All true. What concerns me even more is that we will be putting the likes of Talk Talk and other assorted ****wit companies in charge of all this data, which people like the Chinese will find so hard to hack it might take them as much as 4.2 seconds to break in. :rolleyes:
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nulli tertius)
    British deaths caused by IRA circa 1750
    British deaths caused by Islamic terrorism <100
    It appears you cannot read or you have selective reading to suit your narrative

    "Let me give you a clue as to why there has only been a handful of terrorist incidents domestically in the UK... Further and further restrictions on peoples liberty and more powers to intelligence services at the expense of every single person. They are thwarting attacks by the month"

    For those pushing the silly IRA worse than Islamic terrorism agenda, if the UK's security was the same as it was in the time of the IRA, do you think the deaths to islamic terrorism would be greater than the IRA deaths?
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Blue Axolotl)
    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?
    Statements like this and "If you have nothing to hide, then no reason to worry" are criminal/human rights lawyers worst nightmare.

    Firstly, from what we can gather, the amount of protection you're receiving from these invasions of rights to privacy is virtually de minimis. There is a trade-off implicitly occurring where you are surrendering your right to privacy (perhaps involuntarily if you disagree with the law) for some amount of protection that probably will never actually end up protecting you personally. Not only that, laws such as these empower police to prosecute well beyond actual threats. http://ebooks.cambridge.org/chapter....abName=Chapter

    Secondly, criminal defense lawyers/theorists and human rights lawyers are extremely concerned with something called 'seepage'. One of the primary and best examples of seepage of terrorism law into criminal law comes from Northern Ireland, and it's also one of the first examples of seepage to occur. In Northern Ireland there used to be a right to remain silent, as there currently is in the United States. However, due to the prevalence of terrorism law, the right to remain silent was suspended. The idea was that this would compel people to speak, as remaining silent was an implicit evidentiary presumption of guilt. (If you're innocent, why not talk?). It was effective, and it was thought that is a minimal trade-off to be made. So, the right to remain silent was removed from all criminal law in England and Wales under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984.

    The regulation of terrorism law in Northern Ireland stripped everyone in England and Wales of their rights in criminal trials. Terrorism law can and does strip individuals of their rights, even if they aren't terrorists. And you have famously claimed "Well, I'm not a terrorist, so it doesn't matter." This is one of the most concerning and ignorant statements that rights lawyers see people make. You may not be a terrorist, but this law can affect you in ways you aren't even aware of; just as the removal of a right to silence affects every accused criminal in Northern Ireland, England and Wales.

    There is also 'parallel construction', whereby Agency 1 has a warrant to search for X. However, they find criminal activity in relation to Y - suppose you've accidentally viewed violent/rape pornography accidentally on Tumblr because someone else shared it and it popped up in your feed; or you were browsing for legal porn and stumbled upon porn made illegal by Section 63 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008. Now, Agency 1's warrant doesn't permit them to bring charges for this discovery, this is 'fruit of the poisonous tree.' So, not only it is beyond Agency 1's warrant power, but it's also beyond their institutional power to bring prosecutions of this type. However, Agency 1 may tell Agency 2, which does regulate Y about this information. Agency 2 can set up the equivalent of sting operation to 'discover' this information. They already know what and where to look, but they need to gain a way to 'introduce' this knowledge as legal so that it cannot be excluded from evidence at trial.

    But wait, you might object, they can't do this! This goes beyond their statutory power and violates rights of criminal procedure and evidence! You are correct, but it doesn't matter. The State gets to claim 'State Secrets' regarding the warrant from Agency 1 and how Agency 1 informed Agency 2 of the relevant information that led to the 'sting operation'.

    So, now, non-terrorists are being subjected and deprived of countless procedural rules of trial and evidence because "I'm not a terrorist, so it doesn't matter."
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    Police state
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Betelgeuse-)
    Let me give you a clue as to why there has only been a handful of terrorist incidents domestically in the UK... Further and further restrictions on peoples liberty and more powers to intelligence services at the expense of every single person. They are thwarting attacks by the month
    There is no independent evidence of this. This is a statement with no supporting facts. It's pure speculation. Policy cannot be based on unsubstantiated speculation.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NYU2012)
    There is no independent evidence of this. This is a statement with no supporting facts. It's pure speculation. Policy cannot be based on unsubstantiated speculation.
    - 3000 arrested in the UK for terrorism charges in 14 years - FACHT
    - The number of people arrested for terrorism offences is at an all time high - FACHT
    - Suspects now being held at more than 1 a day FACHT

    Nothing unsubstantiated about that my little naive friend - FACHT

    We can thank these increasingly intrusive laws and loss of civil liberties for the low number of actual terrorist attacks and high number of terrorism arrests

    FACHT
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Betelgeuse-)
    It appears you cannot read or you have selective reading to suit your narrative

    "Let me give you a clue as to why there has only been a handful of terrorist incidents domestically in the UK... Further and further restrictions on peoples liberty and more powers to intelligence services at the expense of every single person. They are thwarting attacks by the month"

    For those pushing the silly IRA worse than Islamic terrorism agenda, if the UK's security was the same as it was in the time of the IRA, do you think the deaths to islamic terrorism would be greater than the IRA deaths?
    No
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Maybe they can learn something you know like what the Jews did to Germany and the rest of Europe with their anti-Christian atheistic Communism.

    The real Holocaust was never of Jewish people. If anyone suffered a Holocaust it was Slavic people. But even the Germans suffered more than these parasitic scheming swindler Jews.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Betelgeuse-)
    - 3000 arrested in the UK for terrorism charges in 14 years - FACHT
    - The number of people arrested for terrorism offences is at an all time high - FACHT
    - Suspects now being held at more than 1 a day FACHT
    Nothing unsubstantiated about that my little naive friend - FACHT
    I realize that your use of 'FACHT' is supposed to demonstrate your superiority and the prima facie truth of your claims; but, in fact, all you've demonstrated here is: (1) inability to understand and contextualize statistics; (2) total ignorance of the legal procedures; (3) complete ignorance of the current legal discourse happening between real lawyers who specialize in terrorist law and academics who also so specialize.. For claiming that I'm 'naive', you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. And, I will be so kind as to demonstrate why (1)-(3) are true.

    Of those 3,000 arrested, how many were actually convicted? An arrest rate tells me absolutely nothing about guilt. Of those convicted, how many had secret evidence used against them so that could not mount a proper defense? Of those arrested or convicted, how many were no where close to being an actual threat to public safety (see Luban's article which I posted for research into the fact that governments are prosecuting defendants for terrorism that is nowhere close to being a realistic possibility or threat to the public).

    We can thank these increasingly intrusive laws and loss of civil liberties for the low number of actual terrorist attacks and high number of terrorism arrests

    FACHT
    Again, this is a demonstration of total lack of familiarity with any of the relevant literature or research that has been conducted by experts in the area. We have no idea if these laws are effective or not, contrary to your ignorant assertions. From your statistics, we don't know how many convictions there have been; how many have been improper; how many have been beyond the intended scope of legal authorization; how many would have actually constituted actual threats to public safety; and so on and so forth.

    Leave the lawyering and legal discourse to those who are actually lawyers, and refrain from ignorantly speculating on subjects it is patently evident you lack any familiarity with.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    ...nt cul
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    It's already happening, they're just making it official now.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NYU2012)
    I realize that your use of 'FACHT' is supposed to demonstrate your superiority and the prima facie truth of your claims; but, in fact, all you've demonstrated here is: (1) inability to understand and contextualize statistics; (2) total ignorance of the legal procedures; (3) complete ignorance of the current legal discourse happening between real lawyers who specialize in terrorist law and academics who also so specialize.. For claiming that I'm 'naive', you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. And, I will be so kind as to demonstrate why (1)-(3) are true.Of those 3,000 arrested, how many were actually convicted? An arrest rate tells me absolutely nothing about guilt. Of those convicted, how many had secret evidence used against them so that could not mount a proper defense? Of those arrested or convicted, how many were no where close to being an actual threat to public safety (see Luban's article which I posted for research into the fact that governments are prosecuting defendants for terrorism that is nowhere close to being a realistic possibility or threat to the public).
    Cannot find the number of convictions for the past 14 years but If we extrapolate of the 2014 figures.. 289 arrests / 38 went to court / 31 convicted - 289 divided by 31 = 1 in 9 convicted 1 in 9 of 3000 = 333

    A very generous figure given 55 were still waiting to be prosecuted

    Secret evidence? aww boo hooo poor terrorist wasn't warned of the evidence against him. I bet you cried and objected to the droning of Reyaad khan. Human rights lawyer by any chance? :rolleyes:

    I dont know how many of those arrested were nowhere near close to being convicted, neither do you

    (Original post by NYU2012)
    Again, this is a demonstration of total lack of familiarity with any of the relevant literature or research that has been conducted by experts in the area. We have no idea if these laws are effective or not, contrary to your ignorant assertions. From your statistics, we don't know how many convictions there have been; how many have been improper; how many have been beyond the intended scope of legal authorization; how many would have actually constituted actual threats to public safety; and so on and so forth.Leave the lawyering and legal discourse to those who are actually lawyers, and refrain from ignorantly speculating on subjects it is patently evident you lack any familiarity with.
    I don't need to be a lawyer to know whether giving the government increasing amounts of freedom to invade and intercept mass ammount of data on anyone will lead to them more effectively uncovering incriminating evidence and thus preventing terrorist activity
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    This is what may happen..

    Any Muslim with radical views will be investigated as an Islamist and potential terrorist

    Any White person with radical views will be investigated far-right White supremacist


    They could be locking me up for hate speech because hate speech is very hard to define. I recall a British man who compared German camps to Butlins holiday camp was arrested I believe...

    Well Auschwitz did have a swimming pool and a brothel. FACT not hate.



    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Betelgeuse-)
    Cannot find the number of convictions for the past 14 years but If we extrapolate of the 2014 figures.. 289 arrests / 38 went to court / 31 convicted - 289 divided by 31 = 1 in 9 convicted 1 in 9 of 3000 = 333

    A very generous figure given 55 were still waiting to be prosecuted
    Such an extrapolation is an unsupported methodology. Over the past 14 years terrorism law changed drastically, making it ever easier to convict defendants. As such, it's far more likely that the 2014 figures are not able to be taken as standards for previous years.

    Even assuming that this were true, that means every 8 in 9 had their privacy violated for no good reason. That's 2,700 people who have had to defend themselves in court against charges that would otherwise be illegal to bring; 2,700 people who had to defend themselves against secret evidence; pay for legal fees; etc.

    Yet again, your arguments fail to address the actual efficacy of the law - unsurprising since you're wholly unfamiliar with the literature.

    Secret evidence? aww boo hooo poor terrorist wasn't warned of the evidence against him. I bet you cried and objected to the droning of Reyaad khan. Human rights lawyer by any chance? :rolleyes:
    This is evidence of a complete lack of disregard for the criminal justice system and a demonstration of extraordinary privilege. No lawyer would ever take your immaturity seriously.

    Secret evidence is perfectly fine, so long as it isn't used against you. Were it used against you, it wouldn't be so 'boo hoo' then would it? After you ended up with a sentence you couldn't contest because you weren't aware of why you were being convicted. If you cannot form arguments that pass legal standards, then this isn't the place for you to be trying to proffer a defense of the law - more specifically, if you can't argue law on its own merits, then this debate has surpassed your intellectual abilities.

    I dont know how many of those arrested were nowhere near close to being convicted, neither do you
    If you actually read the literature, you might know. As I've stated, experts, who are far more knowledgeable than yourself, have conducted research on terrorism law and its effects, including trials of suspects who were nowhere close to being able to carry out an act of terrorism.

    I don't need to be a lawyer to know whether giving the government increasing amounts of freedom to invade and intercept mass ammount of data on anyone will lead to them more effectively uncovering incriminating evidence and thus preventing terrorist activity
    This isn't relevant. Nowhere has such an argument been made that it wouldn't be effective. The relevant argument, which you haven't rebutted, is that the trade-off occurring in rights deprivation isn't being reciprocally paid off by increasing your (or anyone else's) personal security.
 
 
 
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.