Government to monitor your emails, texts and web use

Scroll to see replies

Reply 120

Stiff Little Fingers

Original post by SloeJim

You won't be! The monitoring is only for suspects in criminal investigations. Not mundane paranoiacs like you! :tongue:

The only people affected by this would be those that are seen as threats.

Actually it'd be all of us.

From the Beeb article in the OP:

But Conservative MP and former shadow home secretary David Davis said it would make it easier for the government "to eavesdrop on vast numbers of people".

"What this is talking about doing is not focusing on terrorists or criminals, it's absolutely everybody's emails, phone calls, web access..." he told the BBC.

"All that's got to be recorded for two years and the government will be able to get at it with no by your leave from anybody."

He said that until now anyone wishing to monitor communications had been required to gain permission from a magistrate.

"You shouldn't go beyond that in a decent civilised society, but that's what's being proposed."

Even if they should focus on those suspected of criminal activity, they'll be monitoring us all, they'll have access to everything we do, bar e-mails and phone calls (legally at least).

It's excessive cuts into civil liberties and I can't comprehend how anyone could support this.

Reply 121

Rascacielos

Original post by Organ

They do not require a warrant to identify who an individual or group is in contact with, how often and for how long. They would also be able to see which websites someone had visited. A warrant would be required to access the content of emails, calls or messages. So you are incorrect, or being deliberately misleading.

Unintentionally misleading, I think. I wasn't aware of that but I wasn't wholly incorrect either.

Frankly, that doesn't really bother me. :dontknow:

Reply 122

Organ

Original post by Rascacielos

Unintentionally misleading, I think. I wasn't aware of that but I wasn't wholly incorrect either.

Frankly, that doesn't really bother me. :dontknow:

You were incorrect, this is handing huge new powers over to the state that previously had to be approved by the judicial system i.e. a system of checks and balances.

Why does it not bother you? When would you be bothered? When protests have to approved? When we are required to carry our own biometric ID cards?

These powers could very easily be used immorally, i.e. spying on journalists communications, on demonstrators communications and so on, why are you so happy to hand over more powers unchecked to this stalinist sounding GCHQ?

(edited 12 years ago)

Reply 123

marshymarsh

Original post by SloeJim

Firstly, the corporations that provide those online services to you can already look at your e-mails, messages, and all that other silly stuff you do online - this bill would not make "private" information any less available, it would only mean that the gov't could see it as well. Besides, only those suspected of doing wrong would be targeted for this kind of thing. Also, it's a myth that only China and Russia do this kind of thing - the US is very keen on it.

If you want private communication then throw away your keyboard and put pen to paper.

The difference is I highly doubt Facebook will come to power in 20 years time. The idea of 'government' however changes with time, whilst something may be 'legal' for me to do now, it may not be legal for me to do in the future.

Lets say for example I had recently been on the site Red Watch followed by looking at home made explosives. Chances are I may get picked up on by the government but nothing will come of it. I will however be noted down on a little file somewhere.

In 20 years lets say we suddenly have a very left wing totalitarian government (incredibly unlikely I know), that little 'blip' on my file can suddenly be turned into illegal activity against the state.

My example is extreme and should be ignored for the most part, but the childish argument of "if you are not doing something wrong what do you have to worry about" is a very short sighted argument.

(edited 12 years ago)

Reply 124

EKR93

Original post by Organ

Jeez you ask more questions than the government.

Reply 125

username564415

My Internet use consists of TSR, facebook and porn

Not that exciting tbh

Reply 126

Rascacielos

Original post by Organ

Because I doubt the government would be in the slightest bit interested in looking at my emails/texts/etc and, even if they did, I have nothing to hide. I don't see that it's such a huge thing to forfeit in the name of helping to tackle terrorism.

Reply 127

electriic_ink

Original post by Rascacielos

Terrorism is almost no threat to the safety of the people of this country. Terrorism attacks rarely kill any more than a few people. Since Jan 2002, less than 60 people (6 per year) have been killed as a result of terrorism.

Current legislation is working fine.

(edited 12 years ago)

Reply 128

Rascacielos

Original post by electriic_ink

That doesn't necessarily mean that terrorism is no threat at all, just that the threat hasn't manifested itself of late.

I am so glad you are fully aware of the state of our country's security and how effective current legislation is.

Reply 129

Ice Constricter

This is madness I tell you, mad ****ing ness!

Reply 130

electriic_ink

Original post by Rascacielos

I am so glad you are fully aware of the state of our country's security and how effective current legislation is.

Are you insinuating that a terrorist attack of unprecedented scale could be imminent and the only way for it to be stopped is for this legislation to be passed?

Reply 131

v-zero

If this goes through I will murder every member of the cabinet.

Reply 132

james22

Original post by marshymarsh

But if a government like this comes into power they will start monitering us anyway, regardless of what laws are in place at the time.

Reply 133

Rascacielos

Original post by electriic_ink

Are you insinuating that a terrorist attack of unprecedented scale could be imminent and the only way for it to be stopped is for this legislation to be passed?

I'm suggesting that the government is most likely more aware of the current terrorist threats and the measures needed to control them than you are.

Reply 134

username540512

Original post by ~Justin~

Agreed. If you've got nothing to hide than you shouldn't be worried.

Come to my house. Get naked.

Personally, if we're going to be open about web and email usage, let's make it open to the public, rather than a behind-doors organization.

(edited 12 years ago)

Reply 135

fluttershy

The trouble is that so often we see new laws brought in, supposedly for public safety, that end up going well beyond their scope. We've all heard of some of the silly things anti-terror laws have been used for. It wouldn't be so bad but so often when an incident occurs and new laws are brought in (often as a kneejerk reaction), in many cases it could have been prevented if existing laws had been used properly. The terrorists and other serious criminals are often if not one step ahead, at least not far behind, and will quickly come up with new ways to defeat the rules. There already is the option of encryption, and it doesn't have to be unbreakable, just difficult enough that the security services can't decode it in time. They aren't going to be able to analyse every message sent to look for hidden information or encryption, and even if they could discover it the chances are it would be too late. Remember if they already has suspition about the people communicating and were targetting them, they could work pretty well under existing laws.

Reply 136

Organ

Original post by Rascacielos

This argument makes absolutely no sense, I am sure that having CCTV cameras and microphones in every home also helps to combat this ever present bogeyman and existential threat of "terrorism". In reality, once governments gain expansive intelligence/search/seizure tools in times of crisis, they are frequently turned on ordinary citizens with disastrous results. Investigate "extraordinary rendition" for some excellent examples of this. Hell, read a history book and you'll see many parallels. When you start ignoring civil liberties, you get yourself on a slippery slope, and once you've given up two or three, it starts to seem like giving up another one isn't so bad. The problem is that one day you wake up, and you have no civil liberties, and you have no way of protecting yourself from your own government, a government to which you've just surrendered all your protections in the name of a vague thing called "safety."

Terrorism may be scary, but not nearly as scary as a government given free reign to do as it pleases.

Apparently too many people never heard about, or didn't understand, Benjamin Franklin's quote "Those who give up liberty for security receive, nor deserve, neither."

This is also obviously nothing to do with "tackling terrorism" given it can all be achieved with the approval of a magistrate conditional on sufficient evidence, this is a greedy power grab by our government, convinced that the public are apathetic morons.

(edited 12 years ago)

Reply 137

electriic_ink

Original post by Rascacielos

I'm suggesting that the government is most likely more aware of the current terrorist threats and the measures needed to control them than you are.

Well when the current legislation is proven to be ineffective, let me know and I may re-evaluate my position. But until then, I don't buy into the argument that this is necessary since the current laws work fine. Even if 60 people end up being killed annually due to terrorism, I'm still happy since this is still TINY (compared to, for example, the 200 people who die every year due to accidental drowning).

Perhaps if it passes it will stop terrorists - and that's great. But the government has a history of saying one thing but doing another and any sane person knows better than to trust everything they say. Almost 150,000 were stopped and searched without reasonable suspicion under the 'Terrorism' Act in one year and all 150,000 of them were potential terrorists I'm sure.

(edited 12 years ago)

Reply 138

Organ

I think it is clear this has nothing to do with the catch all phrase "terrorists".

Unless "terrorists" also means demonstrators, journalists or whoever else is decided to be described as a "security risk" or some other generic nametag.

Reply 139

Organ

Original post by electriic_ink

Well when the current legislation is proven to be ineffective, let me know and I may re-evaluate my position. But until then, I don't buy into the argument that this is necessary since the current laws work fine. Even if 60 people end up being killed due to terrorism, I'm still happy since this is still tiny (compared to, for example, the 200 people who die every year due to accidental drowning).

Perhaps if it passes it will stop terrorists - and that's great. But the government has a history of saying one thing but doing another and any sane person knows better than to trust everything they say. Almost 150,000 were stopped and searched without reasonable suspicion under the 'Terrorism' Act and all of them could have been terrorists I'm sure.

Indeed, the nation of Iceland was also declared a "terrorist state". The use of anti-terror legislation against Iceland was a far worse abuse of power than any of the bad but epiphenomenal expense scandals that our superficial and demagogic media decided to stoke into a frenzy. Brown/Darling managed to insult and abuse laws to attack Iceland - a tiny country largely well disposed toward Britain, they will undoubtedly do the same to their own people.