Turn on thread page Beta

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

    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    I'm not normally worried about these things, but letting local councils have access to this is a joke. Have you seen your local council employee? I wouldn't trust them with my rubbish!
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by billydisco)
    I'm not normally worried about these things, but letting local councils have access to this is a joke. Have you seen your local council employee? I wouldn't trust them with my rubbish!
    Local councils wont have this info, where did you hear that?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Souljer)
    Local councils wont have this info, where did you hear that?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    They will have access to it. Council snooping etc.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    VPN is the way forward .
    Tor too.

    Damn these tories!
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mojojojo101)
    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.
    Not really. You don't get told that there's a search warrant against you. You only find up when they turn up at your house.

    I do suppose there is a difference, but does it particularly matter?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by york_wbu)
    Not true at all. Any serious terrorist would at least use basic encryption and proxy networks, making this browsing history monitoring useless against them.
    Connection data is not a browsing history. As for the other point, you're wrong: terrorists that can cause a great deal of harm are out there merrily using WhatsApp. Just because you can blow up a bus doesn't mean you're particularly technologically au fait.

    The monitoring of browsing history is going to be used on a mass scale, to show trends in the population.
    It can't be. Look at the bill, it requires permission from both the Home Secretary and the judges on the Investigatory Powers Commission to approve it on a case by case basis.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by billydisco)
    They will have access to it. Council snooping etc.
    Christ, at least keep up with the news. The Home Secretary specifically said in introducing the Bill that it would "we will ban local authorities from accessing such data".
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by A5ko)
    You're kidding yourself if you don't think this is already happening.


    This. Call me cynical, but I'm pretty sure the police already do something similar to this.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Surely they already have some of these kind of powers otherwise how to they bust people for viewing indecent images of children etc.

    I think it's a fair power.

    I might be a bit embarrassed if my family or friends could see all my browsing history but if an anonymous police person went through it I'd be like "meh", it's not like I've looked at anything terrorist or paedoish.
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Would like clarity on what exactly they can arrest us for - (googling how to avoid your TV licence, live streaming, other dodgy and technically illegal stuff)

    But in general, nothing to hide, nothing to fear.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Study Helper
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Study Helper
    (Original post by billydisco)
    They will have access to it. Council snooping etc.
    No they won't. Access to the data will first need an 'interception warrant' in which the applicant is required to state explicitly the compelling case for the request.

    That must first be approved by the Home Secretary. Then it will need the independent approval of a senior panel of judges (commission) before the data can be accessed.

    Councils are outright banned from accessing internet connection records.

    A new criminal offence (carrying jail terms) of unlawfully accessing internet data will be created - and it will also be a criminal offence for someone who works for a communications firm or public services authority etc. to reveal data has been sought.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Yes I do. I don't rigidly stick 100% to it but I'm almost always obscuring my tracks online, fully encrypted my computer to prevent anyone taking it and examining it. My belief is that because I'm not doing anything wrong, there is no reason why anyone including the government would need to see what I do.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by L i b)
    terrorists that can cause a great deal of harm are out there merrily using WhatsApp. Just because you can blow up a bus doesn't mean you're particularly technologically au fait.
    Your point is? Just because terrorists can safely communicate away from the eyes of the security services that's not a reason to ban such services. In any democracy there is a clear need for people to have some means of communication which the government can't infringe on, warrant or not. Almost every bit of progress we've made to our political system has began as hushed tones and whispering in secret, because the government of the day would have stamped it out if they knew.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    I really don't think they'll be reading our history in person, rather running it through filters and looking for specifics. I'm not worried about that because they won't find much of interest in anything I've been doing, I don't like it but I'm not convinced it's for the reason they say it is. One thing for sure is that we don't have any choice in the matter.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KvasirVanir)
    Your point is? Just because terrorists can safely communicate away from the eyes of the security services that's not a reason to ban such services
    No-one is suggesting banning such services, they're suggesting that the state should be able to review data from them - with approval of a judge and the Home Secretary. We can do it with telephones, we can do it with some electronic communications data - I fail to see why this should be any different.

    In any democracy there is a clear need for people to have some means of communication which the government can't infringe on, warrant or not.
    Why? Barring things like communication with a solicitor, this has never been the case before. The state has always had the right to intercept mail, phonecalls and other means of communication if a person is suspected of a serious offence.

    Almost every bit of progress we've made to our political system has began as hushed tones and whispering in secret, because the government of the day would have stamped it out if they knew.
    Talking about policies is not a criminal offence.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by L i b)
    Christ, at least keep up with the news. The Home Secretary specifically said in introducing the Bill that it would "we will ban local authorities from accessing such data".
    The only data that will be closed to local authorities will be internet connection records.

    Local authority acquisition of communications data requires the approval of a magistrate and local authorities will not be able to acquire Iinternet connection records for any purpose.
    Effectively your local district council will remain able to get hold of mobile phone records to ascertain if a takeaway has contravened a planning condition limiting its opening hours provided a middle aged middle class woman with too much time on her hands now her children have grown up, agrees.
    Offline

    19
    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.
    Link us to the report please
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Betelgeuse-)
    Link us to the report please
    I already linked you to a news article about the report. I've provided the academic commentary to you that I've 'cited', I've provided this to you. You have a habit of asking for sources that have already been provided.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NYU2012)
    I already linked you to a news article about the report. I've provided the academic commentary to you that I've 'cited', I've provided this to you. You have a habit of asking for sources that have already been provided.
    lmao Ok bro
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Betelgeuse-)
    lmao Ok bro
    Excellent response. After demanding sources that have already been provided to you, that's the best rebuttal you could muster in response to the arguments leveled against you?
 
 
 

1,086

students online now

800,000+

Exam discussions

Find your exam discussion here

Poll
Should universities take a stronger line on drugs?
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.