UK passes "most extreme surveillance law ever passed in a democracy"

In that case would you be so kind as to upload all your text messages, phone calls, letters, medical records, any legal documents, your internet history, voting record, etc, etc so we can all have a good look through them.

I mean, if you have nothing to hide...

In that case would you be so kind as to upload all your text messages, phone calls, letters, medical records, any legal documents, your internet history, voting record, etc, etc so we can all have a good look through them.

I mean, if you have nothing to hide...

As I've said before - if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to be worried about.

yall just get VPNs init

In that case would you be so kind as to upload all your text messages, phone calls, letters, medical records, any legal documents, your internet history, voting record, etc, etc so we can all have a good look through them.

I mean, if you have nothing to hide...

I can tell you my voting record - UKIP across the board.

Thats personal and private information, I am sure confidentiality still applies. As for voting records i took a picture of my leave vote and made it my facebook profile picture- but i agree that intelligence services should know everything about you. If our authorities do not know your browsing history there would be hundreds of terror attacks a month in Britain.

A shame we don't have guns to defend ourselves from excessive government.

Considering GCHQ staff were using the data to look up freinds, family and potential business associates its not that confidential. Also, the amount of stuff they know about you, there is no realistic concept of remaining confidential.

The only people who say what the inteligence services do is useful, is the inteligence services, they then keep refusing to allow any oversight, if that doesnt make you suspicious, you're a fool.

I'm not going to comment on that- its borderline corrupt- do you have any evidence to back up your allegations Please explain to me why we have foiled at least 6 islamist terror attacks this year? I am not at all suspicious about our intelligence services, we have to trust our intelligence services to keep us safe so far generally they have done a good job considering the amount of terror threats we have let in the UK since the 1960's the amount of muslims has increased from about 40,000 to around 4,000,000 which has significantly increased our chances of a terror attack RE:7/7.

http://uk.businessinsider.com/privacy-international-british-spies-databases-documents-birthday-cards-abuse-of-power-2016-4?r=DE&IR=T

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/oct/17/uk-security-agencies-unlawfully-collected-data-for-decade

Abusing their powers come as 2nd nature to the inteligence services, whenever they are given boundriess, the same ones they help set, they break them and there is never any consequences because 'muh, terrorizm!!!!!!!'

As much as Id like to know that the state arent spying on us 24/7, I'll be realistic, that isnt going to happen, I'd be more than happy to settle for an intlligence service with clear boundries that theu respect with clear, democratic oversight, thats not too much to ask for i dont think.

Your comment about Muslims is just silly.

No it isn't. They are a threat to national security I have seen an american panel debate a room full of muslims and win- the woman said that various intelligence services say that between 15-25% of muslims are radicals, obviously this number is low compared to the amount of radicals which we have- but i have it on good authority from a high ranking intelligence source (I can not tell you who my source is- they will be sacked) has said their has been 3 foiled major terror attacks in the West Midlands in the last 12 months, all which would have been carried out by ISIS/ homegrown radicals who are devoted to the destruction of the west. We had none of this in the 1960's and 1970's when there was less than 100,000 muslims in this country. By having a very open immigration system for years we have imported terror threats. We have a security threat of Substantial meaning an attack is more likely than not , our terror threat system has only been in place since 2010(https://www.mi5.gov.uk/threat-levels) if it was ranked in the 1960's and 1970's it would be low to moderate based on the IRA attacking us in the early 1970's.

Look if you glimpse across Europe in the relatively short term past we have had the following attacks

7/7
The Madrid Train Bombings
Paris Attacks
The Cologne rape victims of Muslim refugees
The Munich shooter
The Brussels bombings

and in America we have had 911. The question i would like to ask is what religion was these terror attacks done in the name of?

I will ask this question would you rather have GCHQ break their own rules or a terror attack on our turf?, I will now read your sources, I think if you did a national poll across all demographics you will find that the majority will approve of losing some civil freedoms to minimise the risk of a terror attack. Why do you think that immigration was the second biggest issue in the 2015 General election- maybe because at the time there was a major risk to a terror attack

I knew challenging the Muslim thing was going to be a mistake... the motivation of any terrorist does not and will not justify the gross abuse of power the intelligence services we are currently living with.

The bit in bold is convenient isn't it? A source only you know, that no one else can check because it's too risky. Do you expect me to take that seriously? This whole debate has always been filled with that crap though, which is a good deal of the problem.

So we have had those terror attacks all under the watchful gaze of mass surveillance and that is supposed to be an argument in favor of said surveilence programs? Take the Boston bombings for example, the NSA knew who the perpetrators were, they had been tracking them for months, that didn't stop that attack. Or the attacks in Paris, where the perpetrators were known to security services but were not followed closely because of the sheer amount of people being followed sucking resources away from where they would actually be useful.

We are constantly told we live in a free, fair, law-abiding democracy. What does that mean if the government can, on a whim, choose not to obey the law for spurious reasons no one is ever allowed to know about? How much freedom do we need to give up to counter a particular threat, a
threat we are bot allowed to assess for ourselves? The real question here is, nothing less than 'what does it mean to be free?'

The MI5 has openly admitted they have foiled 6, this is available from a very quick google search- I can assure you the number is higher than that but I'm not risking my contact the sack, are you really suggesting that you would rather live in a free democracy which does not protect you from Islamist terror threats then a more authoritarian democracy where the people are kept safe? The americans are stupid and let attacks happen- there i have said it! If we had the terror threats france had they would have been arrested within the same day even if they are only suspected of it. But from reading your comments because you seem anti GCHQ you would rather have us attacked on a weekly basis or surveillance. Above anything else it is the governments liability to keep the people who reside in their country safe Obama's adminisration failed at doing that aswell as the Western European nations- they have failed their people we have had very minor attacks with Lee Rigby compared to the Paris attacks. If you ask everyone in the country they would be in favour of stronger restrictions

As usual, there are a number of safeguards and the Investigatory Powers Commission is a welcome development. There always seems to be the underlying suspicion that intelligence agencies and others will access or use data unlawfully when this sort of legislation arises. If so, why bother protesting the legislation? They could, from a technical perspective, access your communications data unlawfully anyway.

That said, I made a thread about this what, 3 or 4 weeks ago, barely any responses and consensus is that no one in Britain cares.