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

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NYU2012)
    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.



    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.



    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.



    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.
    Look im not interested in the intricacies of the law, its incredibly dull and boring. I'am not discussing the ethics or morality of it. My statement was

    "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"

    I accept i cannot offer any empirical evidence to back this up. Can you offer me any empirical evidence to refute this statement other than crying about "some academics and lawyers much smarter than me don't even know the effects of the laws?" whom remain uncited may i add.

    The lack of actual coordinated terrorist acts carried domestically versus the number of convictions + a dose of common sense is more than enough for me. A little more common sense tells me the UK and USA are most terror groups ideal targets yet have seen few successful attacks compared to much lesser valued targets such as France, Tunisia, Denmark

    No surprise as to which of the two countries of the above five have the most invasive and effective intelligence agencies

    I would lay down significant hard cash that we would have carnage on the streets of the UK if we rolled back security and intelligence to pre 9/11. Feel free to keep pointing out the lack of evidence for this unrefuted assertion whilst myself and people with common sense and lack of fetish for human law scripture choose to live in reality.

    You are saying so much without actually saying anything. I feel like you are getting confused with my bolded statement above and your feelings on the new laws being introduced.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nulli tertius)
    No
    I mean in a week where its looking likely that a plane was brought down by an ISIS bomb due to flawed security killing 224 people, you think that without any security, the figure would not hit 1750?

    Seriously
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NYU2012)
    Statements like this and "If you have nothing to hide, then no reason to worry" are criminal/human rights lawyers worst nightmare.
    This post needs about a million reps. Concrete examples of more general concerns people have raised in this thread.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Betelgeuse-)
    I accept i cannot offer any empirical evidence to back this up. Can you offer me any empirical evidence to refute this statement other than crying about "some academics and lawyers much smarter than me don't even know the effects of the laws?" whom remain uncited may i add.
    I have already linked to David Luban's article, which rather than claiming "we don't know the effects" has positively stated "We do know the effects, and they're bad." It's not as though he's the only expert conducting this research either, nor the only one with these concerns or these conclusions.

    The lack of actual coordinated terrorist acts carried domestically versus the number of convictions + a dose of common sense is more than enough for me.
    This is a fallacious argument; and it's actually fallacious on two grounds.
    (1) Fallacy of argument from ignorance. See here. You've falsely assumed that because there haven't been attacks, that it must be true that the law is working, or that such a result is the product of the law.
    (2) Fallacy of the single cause. See here. The lack of coordinated terrorist acts could be due to the fact that no one has been near actually completing one.
    (3) 'Commonsense' is often wrong - see all of the research done by psychology and logicians about how wrong commonsense tends to be.

    You are saying so much without actually saying anything. I feel like you are getting confused with my bolded statement above and your feelings on the new laws being introduced.
    Your bolded statement was a statement made without any supporting evidence, and, in fact, research suggests very incorrectly. In a study done in the US by Homeland Security it was found that of 70 attempts to bring a weapon on board an aircraft, 67 succeeded. That means that all this added security post 9/11 has detected, on this study, only 4.3% of threats; whereas the other 95.7% would have been able to make it on a plane and commit acts of terrorism. If terrorists were really out to get you and hijack planes or blow them up, they would already be doing it. If terrorists wanted to commit acts of terrorism, it wouldn't be all that difficult; it's not as though increased privacy invasion is going to assist in any great percentage.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NYU2012)
    I have already linked to David Luban's article, which rather than claiming "we don't know the effects" has positively stated "We do know the effects, and they're bad." It's not as though he's the only expert conducting this research either, nor the only one with these concerns or these conclusions.


    This is a fallacious argument; and it's actually fallacious on two grounds.
    (1) Fallacy of argument from ignorance. See here. You've falsely assumed that because there haven't been attacks, that it must be true that the law is working, or that such a result is the product of the law.
    (2) Fallacy of the single cause. See here. The lack of coordinated terrorist acts could be due to the fact that no one has been near actually completing one.
    (3) 'Commonsense' is often wrong - see all of the research done by psychology and logicians about how wrong commonsense tends to be.



    Your bolded statement was a statement made without any supporting evidence, and, in fact, research suggests very incorrectly. In a study done in the US by Homeland Security it was found that of 70 attempts to bring a weapon on board an aircraft, 67 succeeded. That means that all this added security post 9/11 has detected, on this study, only 4.3% of threats; whereas the other 95.7% would have been able to make it on a plane and commit acts of terrorism. If terrorists were really out to get you and hijack planes or blow them up, they would already be doing it. If terrorists wanted to commit acts of terrorism, it wouldn't be all that difficult; it's not as though increased privacy invasion is going to assist in any great percentage.
    We are not going to see eye to eye here. What were the weapons pen knives? :rolleyes:

    The bolded part astounds me, particuarly the first bit. Lost for words
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RainbowKiwi)
    *deletes history*

    *burns laptop*

    :ninja:
    your ISP still has your last 5 years of internet records.

    (at the BT building down the road)
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Who needs terrorism when we have the Conservative Party?
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Betelgeuse-)
    I mean in a week where its looking likely that a plane was brought down by an ISIS bomb due to flawed security killing 224 people, you think that without any security, the figure would not hit 1750?

    Seriously
    That wasn't the question you asked.

    You didn't ask about "no security" you asked about "if the UK's security was the same as it was in the time of the IRA".

    I lived through those times. I can remember when people went through security fences to get into Belfast City Centre to do their shopping. I remember when there were armed police checkpoints guarding every entrance to the City of London. I remember a population that was a lot more vigilant about unattended bags. You could be wandering around a shop in a provincial city and there would be a bomb scare and you would be all out on the pavement. I remember when virtually everyone with a public position in Britain had a police security briefing and would be checking under their cars for bombs every morning.

    The security today is different because the threat is different. However the threat to Brits from the IRA was far greater than the threats to Britons from Islamic terrorists.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nulli tertius)
    That wasn't the question you asked.

    You didn't ask about "no security" you asked about "if the UK's security was the same as it was in the time of the IRA".

    I lived through those times. I can remember when people went through security fences to get into Belfast City Centre to do their shopping. I remember when there were armed police checkpoints guarding every entrance to the City of London. I remember a population that was a lot more vigilant about unattended bags. You could be wandering around a shop in a provincial city and there would be a bomb scare and you would be all out on the pavement. I remember when virtually everyone with a public position in Britain had a police security briefing and would be checking under their cars for bombs every morning.

    The security today is different because the threat is different. However the threat to Brits from the IRA was far greater than the threats to Britons from Islamic terrorists.
    Monitoring digital communications is todays road blocks. If security lost this, terrorist acts would be far harder to intercept and shut down. Its no good having security on the ground or wire tapping a suspects house when the activity is taking place on encrypted networks online
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Betelgeuse-)
    Monitoring digital communications is todays road blocks. If security lost this, terrorist acts would be far harder to intercept and shut down. Its no good having security on the ground or wire tapping a suspects house when the activity is taking place on encrypted networks online
    And it's no good having ICRs if activity is taking place on encrypted networks online either lol.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    lol sure.. bad choice of words to illustrate my point
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Betelgeuse-)
    We are not going to see eye to eye here. What were the weapons pen knives? :rolleyes:
    Try things like a bomb.

    The bolded part astounds me, particuarly the first bit. Lost for words
    As the study by Homeland Security proved, if terrorists wanted to get bombs onto airplanes, they could. 95% of attempts to bring a weapon on board an aircraft were successful. Monitoring internet activity via an invasion of privacy isn't going to decrease how easy it is to bring an illegal weapon onto a plane. As I have repeatedly stated, and as the article I posted have pointed out, the idea that these trade-offs are going to protect your security by sacrificing your privacy aren't really 'trade-offs'; you will likely never be personally protected from terrorism by these laws.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Everyone calm down!!!

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    I fail to see how we can be perfectly content with the state being able to obtain search warrants for property, intercept mail and tap phones - and yet we have problems with them looking at things on the internet. It's not some great expansion of powers, it's just moving the existing powers to take account of changes in technology.

    (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...
    To be fair, with appropriate warrants the state could do all of those things. Obviously the information discovered cannot be made public and is for a legitimate purpose.

    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    With this law, it would be a judge. But judges approve 99% of all warrants anyway, so it's hardly an obstruction.
    And this wouldn't just be some random magistrate, it'd be a senior judge working as part of a specific intelligence commission.

    (Original post by SmallTownGirl)
    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.
    If you're reasonably suspected of breaking the law then it certainly becomes the state's business. And these measures only come into effect if that is the case.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nyu2012)
    try things like a bomb.



    As the study by homeland security proved, if terrorists wanted to get bombs onto airplanes, they could. 95% of attempts to bring a weapon on board an aircraft were successful. Monitoring internet activity via an invasion of privacy isn't going to decrease how easy it is to bring an illegal weapon onto a plane. As i have repeatedly stated, and as the article i posted have pointed out, the idea that these trade-offs are going to protect your security by sacrificing your privacy aren't really 'trade-offs'; you will likely never be personally protected from terrorism by these laws.
    b-but i'm still scared of the tewwowists they're going to kill me (((
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by L i b)
    If you're reasonably suspected of breaking the law then it certainly becomes the state's business. And these measures only come into effect if that is the case.
    No they don't. They come into effect BEFORE you are ever suspected of committing a crime because they store the data on what sites you visit before there are ever any grounds to suspect you of committing a crime. If it was the same as warrants apply to real life, they would only begin monitoring the sites you visit after you have done something to make them suspicious.

    Thanks but no thanks. I'll stick to using TOR to make sure that those perverted like creeps at GCHQ can't see what I'm doing. The government and the police force has no business seeing what I do online, because there are no grounds to suspect me of criminal activity. Therefore I will continue to take measures to ensure they are incapable of watching me. I don't subscribe to "if you have nothing to hide you dont need to worry". I subscribe to "If I'm not doing anything wrong then I'm going to make SURE you can't watch me, because you have no reason to".
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by L i b)
    To be fair, with appropriate warrants the state could do all of those things. Obviously the information discovered cannot be made public and is for a legitimate purpose.
    When the issue you with a warrant, you are being told that you are under suspicion. I think it's safe to assume that most people targeted by this legislation will never know that they have been targeted.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    I think what people are missing is this isn't just about the government using browsing history to convict someone of a crime. The government are using massive amounts of data on everyone in the country to see exactly what everyone is planning. Any anti-government protests are made useless as the government knows exactly what to expect. It's basically the 21st century's version of fascism.

    The "I've got nothing to hide" argument is bull****. Everyone has something to hide.
    "If one would give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest man, I would find something in them to have him hanged"
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KvasirVanir)
    No they don't. They come into effect BEFORE you are ever suspected of committing a crime because they store the data on what sites you visit before there are ever any grounds to suspect you of committing a crime. If it was the same as warrants apply to real life, they would only begin monitoring the sites you visit after you have done something to make them suspicious.

    Thanks but no thanks. I'll stick to using TOR to make sure that those perverted like creeps at GCHQ can't see what I'm doing. The government and the police force has no business seeing what I do online, because there are no grounds to suspect me of criminal activity. Therefore I will continue to take measures to ensure they are incapable of watching me. I don't subscribe to "if you have nothing to hide you dont need to worry". I subscribe to "If I'm not doing anything wrong then I'm going to make SURE you can't watch me, because you have no reason to".
    Whilst I 100% agree, do you really honestly hand on heart care that much to go and try to avoid the privacy invasion? Unless you are upto no good? It bugs me (no pun intended) but can't say I'm that fussed. What bothers me is what they will do if someone were to say download a song of the net illegally... it would be a waste of taxpayers money if the police were to actually invest time into this person.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Betelgeuse-)
    Monitoring digital communications is todays road blocks. If security lost this, terrorist acts would be far harder to intercept and shut down. Its no good having security on the ground or wire tapping a suspects house when the activity is taking place on encrypted networks online
    Not true at all. Any serious terrorist would at least use basic encryption and proxy networks, making this browsing history monitoring useless against them.

    The monitoring of browsing history is going to be used on a mass scale, to show trends in the population. It won't be used to target individual terrorists. When was the last time there was a major terrorist attack anyway? It's protests and riots that the government are trying to stop.
 
 
 
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.