[Typhus]

QUOTE (Butters 2011 @ Tuesday, Apr 10 2012, 11:41)

About the riots subject, do you think it's a matter of when it will happen again, or if? If this Government keeps going the way they are, then it won't be too long before the 'Lost Generation' bring the country to chaos again.

But those riots were not about a 'lost generation'. They were about opportunists hijacking a legitimate protest.
But in the future could we see similar things? Possibly. But unless future riots have a decidedly political bent and do not attack public buildings, they will accomplish nothing.

But it must also be remembered that many in this country are ignorant, pig ignorant. And would not act against the established system even if their lives depended on it, as long as they have their football and pornography, they're willing to grumble through any laws, no matter how unreasonable they may be.

[lil weasel]

A Law doesn't mean anything to anybody, unless it is applied 'unfairly' to yourself.
Most people don't even know when a law is enacted, let alone discussed/debated.

[Butters 2011]

QUOTE (Typhus @ Tuesday, Apr 10 2012, 19:46)

QUOTE (Butters 2011 @ Tuesday, Apr 10 2012, 11:41) About the riots subject, do you think it's a matter of when it will happen again, or if? If this Government keeps going the way they are, then it won't be too long before the 'Lost Generation' bring the country to chaos again. But those riots were not about a 'lost generation'. They were about opportunists hijacking a legitimate protest. But in the future could we see similar things? Possibly. But unless future riots have a decidedly political bent and do not attack public buildings, they will accomplish nothing. But it must also be remembered that many in this country are ignorant, pig ignorant.

As I mentioned in a seperate topic though, I think it's fair to say it was 50/50, and all depends on who you are and the way you want to look at it. Yes, many of them were scummy little bastards who wanted a new pair of trainers, but it's also down to the society that they live within. I can't see a political riot happening within the UK for some time now, simply because no-one seems to give a f*ck about the politics anymore.

And yes, 90% of this population are pig-ignorant, rather sitting there and complaining about something, yet not been arsed to deal with all the little details...as we have seen from the English people in this topic who have been spurting out all these sensationalist comments.

[Kent Traffic Cop]

QUOTE (sivispacem @ Tuesday, Apr 10 2012, 08:17)

QUOTE (Kent Traffic Cop @ Tuesday, Apr 10 2012, 02:22) Unless you are a super-geek, you would never be able to tell if someone has hacked into your e-mails, etc. Either way, it's not difficult to get a warrant nowadays. The police have been cracking into Facebook accounts for years without anyone knowing it - and before anyone asks, they can do it without that "Someone tried to log into your account" bullsh*t appearing when you log in. People are so damn naive... The warrant system for obtaining communications data under RIPA is rather different to that for obtaining warrants for search/seizure of property. It's the Home Office who grant the warrants, and reasonable grounds need to be established. But as your ex-Plod, I imagine you knew that anyway.

Your missing the point - I'm not talking about different legislation, etc.

What I'm trying to explain is this:

Property warrant = you will KNOW police have been there. You can see it with your eyes.
Digital warrant = how will you know whether you e-mails have been hacked? What physical thing will you see?

Unless they leave you a note with "police woz 'ere 2012" you will be none the wiser.

QUOTE (Butters 2011 @ Tuesday, Apr 10 2012, 11:41)

@Kent Traffic Cop...you really being serious about them censoring TV networks? How did we go from talking about them monitoring web conversations to them shutting down TV networks...and even to the conversation about 1984?

Because this whole thing reeks of "1984" - can't you see that?



This "terrorism" thing is a joke - just more scaremongering crap so you'll give up your freedom without questioning it.

"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both."

[Butters 2011]

QUOTE (Kent Traffic Cop @ Wednesday, Apr 11 2012, 00:11)

QUOTE (Butters 2011 @ Tuesday, Apr 10 2012, 11:41) @Kent Traffic Cop...you really being serious about them censoring TV networks? How did we go from talking about them monitoring web conversations to them shutting down TV networks...and even to the conversation about 1984? Because this whole thing reeks of "1984" - can't you see that?

Nope, I must have missed that part of the book where everything they did on the internet was monitored.

You mention scaremongering a nation, then come in here and rant on about them censoring TV networks and much more.

[GTA_stu]

QUOTE (Kent Traffic Cop @ Wednesday, Apr 11 2012, 00:11)

Because this whole thing reeks of "1984" - can't you see that?

When the only way you can get some is by dogging in the woods or humping in the upstairs of an old mans shop, then you might have a point. When someone threatens to let rats use your face as a buffet table, then you might have a point. But goddamn, it's not comparible to 1984 so stop being so dramatic and getting carried away.

[Kent Traffic Cop]

How am I being dramatic and getting carried away... or even ranting? All I've done is state a few things. I wasn't aware I had been writing "OMGZ we iz all gonna dies!!!1!!" or anything to that effect.

I am simply "putting it out there" - if you decide to ignore everything I say then that is up to you, but don't effectively call me a c*nt just because I don't like something.


Also, I'm referring to "1984" as a concept of control, not as in word-for-word from the book.

People are using "V" from "V for Vendetta" as a symbol - doesn't mean they have to follow it to exacting standards... or are you going to complain that "Occupying St. Paul's Cathedral" is not in the comics?

Being pedantic doesn't make you clever...

[GTA_stu]

I wasn't trying to be pedantic, just humurous

I'm just saying using hyperbole doesn't help. "We didn't avoid 1984 we just delayed it" Does sound a bit dramatic to me. If you're against it fine, I'm not bothered about that. But if you're going to say things like that you're painting a target on your head and you're going to be open to ridicule.

[oysterbarron]

What happened in 1984 apart from pc's wernt mainstream yet?

[nightwalker83]

QUOTE (OnePiece @ Sunday, Apr 8 2012, 21:21)

The UK seems like more of a nanny state than Australia is. Damn shame.

Well, given that Julia Gillard (spelling) is Welsh I hope the same doesn't happen to us.

[sivispacem]

QUOTE (Kent Traffic Cop @ Wednesday, Apr 11 2012, 01:11)

Your missing the point - I'm not talking about different legislation, etc. What I'm trying to explain is this: Property warrant = you will KNOW police have been there. You can see it with your eyes. Digital warrant = how will you know whether you e-mails have been hacked? What physical thing will you see? Unless they leave you a note with "police woz 'ere 2012" you will be none the wiser.

Sorry but I just don't agree with your analogy. Firstly, you're not obtaining anything tangible. If someone executes a property warrant on your house, they're going to remove your possessions. Removing them means they cease to be in your ownership. The same is just not true of data- it's not being removed, it's being replicated, and in order to replicate it it needs to be transmitted voluntarily, or must be held externally. RIPA makes it quite clear that data privacy only applies inside the four walls of one's home- if you start hosting data externally, or transmitting it publicly (through the phone lines or wifi, for example) it ceases to become private as the ultimate owner of the medium through which the data is transmitted is the government. When you sign up with your ISP, or with Hotmail, or Facebook, you're not signing a non-disclosure form- they own your data and can do whatever they damn well please with it. It's not actually your data, it's theirs. You are just subject to the illusion that it's your own because, more often than not, you've not actually read the terms and conditions of whatever you signed up for.

Now, if you're talking using malware, or active attacks to break into computer systems of individuals for the purposes of obtaining data without the owner's permission, that's far closer to your example. But the vast majority of electronic intelligence is gathered at the point of transmission or prior to reception, rather than before transmission as this would imply. And as much as you may try and invoke images of an Orwellian future, the simple fact of the matter is once that data has been transmitted, be it a web click or an email, it ceases to become your property. The data carrier is the legal owner, not the sender. And they're already holding all this information- so exactly what difference does it make to allow the security services to access it actively rather than passively? Why should you even care seen as, as far as they law is concerned, it's no longer your data or even private?

The issue isn't the law, it's a lack of understanding of the law. If more people actually understood that, aside from that which is on their hard drive and not transmitted in any way, they don't "own" any of the electronic information that they've sent, hosted or received, then the entire thing would become a non-issue.

[Butters 2011]

QUOTE (Kent Traffic Cop @ Wednesday, Apr 11 2012, 02:13)

I am simply "putting it out there" - if you decide to ignore everything I say then that is up to you, but don't effectively call me a c*nt just because I don't like something. Also, I'm referring to "1984" as a concept of control, not as in word-for-word from the book.

If we were ignoring you then how come we are arguing against the points you are making? You said something, and we debated against it, and now you're getting all worked up about it.

I understood that you were using 1984 just as the basic concept, but it's still too farfetched to be brought up in this topic. This law would only allow a group to see who talks to who, when, and for how long the conversation lasted, and I just can't see the slightest resemblance to a nation that has everything censored/monitored.

[jackass2009]

QUOTE (Pat @ Saturday, Apr 7 2012, 13:46)

QUOTE (Waddy @ Saturday, Apr 7 2012, 16:25) If you have nothing to hide then whats the issue? it makes the country a safer place to be. I have no problem. Its funny how you think the government will be checking your email every day! Why don't you go ahead and post the full contents of your hard drive, Waddy? If you have nothing to hide then what's the issue?

So I take it you masturbate a lot?

OT: I'm going to Mayfair in a week or so to visit my brother that travels a lot. (He's almost like a hermit with a U-haul truck and an airplane.) From what I hear, the porn magazines cover all the good stuff with blue dots. That being said, no fapping, no murder, and no piracy on the other side of the ocean are on my don't do list.