[Pat]

QUOTE (Waddy @ Saturday, Apr 7 2012, 16:58)

What the hell are you on about? If people in the government want to see the contents of my HD or anyones HD they should be able too. In many crimes nowadays its the first thing they look at. I didnt say I would feel okay with showing some ginger kid who likes to post pictures of his cock on the internet.

You do realize that your government officials are people too, yes? They should be no different in your eyes from anyone else when it comes to matters of personal liberties. The fact that you're willing to give up your privacy to them so willingly (as well as resort to ad hominem attacks; at least try to show a little maturity for your age, please) is, quite frankly, disturbing. There is no reason you should find it acceptable to allow a balding middle aged man to search through your personal files but then reject anyone else who asks to do the same, and then go on to criticize anyone who rejects the request of the aforementioned middle aged man. That is extremely hypocritical.

So, I say again - if you have nothing to hide, you should have no issue sharing with us. Yet, you do. So explain to me what gives you the right to criticize others for wishing not to share their personal information either.

[Waddy]

QUOTE (Pat @ Saturday, Apr 7 2012, 22:06)

So, I say again - if you have nothing to hide, you should have no issue sharing with us. Yet, you do. So explain to me what gives you the right to criticize others for wishing not to share their personal information either.

As I have said, and what everyone one else understands.
I have no problem at all with the authorities monitoring my online activities or anything else. I am a law abiding citizen, and if they were monitoring my online activities I would not be a law abiding citizen, so they would catch me, which I believe is the entire point.
Your 'argument' about just because its ok for them to so everyone should is a bit of a damp squib.

[Typhus]

QUOTE (Waddy @ Saturday, Apr 7 2012, 22:03)

QUOTE (Typhus @ Saturday, Apr 7 2012, 21:55) QUOTE (Waddy @ Saturday, Apr 7 2012, 21:41) QUOTE (Typhus @ Saturday, Apr 7 2012, 21:32) QUOTE (Waddy @ Saturday, Apr 7 2012, 21:25) 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! It's a level of power and control that I feel very uncomfortable handing over to people who no longer feel accountable to the masses. The government has lost touch with the public, they have grown detached from reality and willingly whore themselves out to lobbyists. Why, even the leader of the opposition is a half-witted dupe controlled by Union gangsters. Politics has become filled with avaricious control freaks and debauched headcases, this level of power should never be surrendered to such a rabble as that. Dont make the issue into something its not. Its simply a way of catching the bad guys, thats it. There is nothing else to go into with it. It is what it is. It could stop people being blown up in subways, or building being blown to bits. It is not about your self importance or the fact that you think in some way it will possibly affect you. I think it's an issue of liberty. Is it right to infringe on our freedoms to stop a bunch of people who have consistently proven themselves to be choke-artists and failiures? The terrorists are nothing, less than nothing, they aren't going to destabilise the government, they aren't going to kill thousands of people, some have even been caught thanks to tip offs from members of their own religious community. They are doomed, nothing but a dying beast. The government is giving these idiots too much credit, 7/7 was a gnat bite, and every attack since then has been an utter farce. Are they really so scary that we should hide behind The Queen's skirts and cower like children? I think not. The only possible way this could ever affect you is that if you became known to the police/authorities. They just cant go snooping on anybody, a warrant must be applied for to see the data. The UK is already the most CCTV'd place in Europe I believe, theres not many places you can go without them knowing (If they wanted to know) This is just a natural progression in in the fight against crime.

But may I ask you a question? Do you still believe that the courts will be free from corruption in the future? From what I understand, Cameron wants to hold some trials in secret.
My point is, obtaining a warrant could be easier if the legal system is freed from public scrutiny, which is an outcome some appear to be working towards.

Doesn't this idea only work if you can trust your elected officials to be incorruptable? What if they use the records of phone conversations for political leverage?
A tad melodramatic perhaps, but it's one of the possible outcomes of this.

[Pat]

QUOTE (Waddy @ Saturday, Apr 7 2012, 17:10)

As I have said, and what everyone one else understands. I have no problem at all with the authorities monitoring my online activities or anything else. I am a law abiding citizen, and if they were monitoring my online activities I would not be a law abiding citizen, so they would catch me, which I believe is the entire point. Your 'argument' about just because its ok for them to so everyone should is a bit of a damp squib.

You're missing the point. This is about personal liberties, and the fact that a government body does not have any more of a right to infringe upon them than anyone else does. As I mentioned before, your government officials are people too, just like everyone else. They should only have authority when it comes to matters of protection, and searching through your C:\ drive should not be a factor in a matter of protection.

You seem to be of the opinion that 1984 should have been a documentary, not science fiction.

[Waddy]

QUOTE (Typhus @ Saturday, Apr 7 2012, 22:11)

QUOTE (Waddy @ Saturday, Apr 7 2012, 22:03) QUOTE (Typhus @ Saturday, Apr 7 2012, 21:55) QUOTE (Waddy @ Saturday, Apr 7 2012, 21:41) QUOTE (Typhus @ Saturday, Apr 7 2012, 21:32) QUOTE (Waddy @ Saturday, Apr 7 2012, 21:25) 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! It's a level of power and control that I feel very uncomfortable handing over to people who no longer feel accountable to the masses. The government has lost touch with the public, they have grown detached from reality and willingly whore themselves out to lobbyists. Why, even the leader of the opposition is a half-witted dupe controlled by Union gangsters. Politics has become filled with avaricious control freaks and debauched headcases, this level of power should never be surrendered to such a rabble as that. Dont make the issue into something its not. Its simply a way of catching the bad guys, thats it. There is nothing else to go into with it. It is what it is. It could stop people being blown up in subways, or building being blown to bits. It is not about your self importance or the fact that you think in some way it will possibly affect you. I think it's an issue of liberty. Is it right to infringe on our freedoms to stop a bunch of people who have consistently proven themselves to be choke-artists and failiures? The terrorists are nothing, less than nothing, they aren't going to destabilise the government, they aren't going to kill thousands of people, some have even been caught thanks to tip offs from members of their own religious community. They are doomed, nothing but a dying beast. The government is giving these idiots too much credit, 7/7 was a gnat bite, and every attack since then has been an utter farce. Are they really so scary that we should hide behind The Queen's skirts and cower like children? I think not. The only possible way this could ever affect you is that if you became known to the police/authorities. They just cant go snooping on anybody, a warrant must be applied for to see the data. The UK is already the most CCTV'd place in Europe I believe, theres not many places you can go without them knowing (If they wanted to know) This is just a natural progression in in the fight against crime. But may I ask you a question? Do you still believe that the courts will be free from corruption in the future? From what I understand, Cameron wants to hold some trials in secret. My point is, obtaining a warrant could be easier if the legal system is freed from public scrutiny, which is an outcome some appear to be working towards. Doesn't this idea only work if you can trust your elected officials to be incorruptable? What if they use the records of phone conversations for political leverage? A tad melodramatic perhaps, but it's one of the possible outcomes of this.

Again, you are making it something it isnt.
I dont care how corrupt a court is or whatever else. I care about the safety of people who live in the UK and other countries.

What you're saying is that its ok for crime to run rampant in cyber space and I would have thought a huge chunk of crime is run on cyber space, but you dont want the police to have the power to stop them.
I would think terrorism is the prime reason, but it will trickle down to all crimes no matter how petty, and the more evidence the police have the better to make it stop.

Corruption is an entirely different subject.

[Butters 2011]

Pat, what's with the constant derailment of the topic in hand? This is in no way a personal attack against you, but you seem to think that this new law would allow this group access to personal data, whereas in reality the only thing they have access to is the length/time of who spoke to who, and nothing else.

Would you leave your doors open to your house and allow anyone to come in and snoop around as they please?

[Gareth Croke]

Who cares anyway this plan is dead in the water anyway, that is that the legislation would need to go to consultation, then draft, blue paper, white paper, then drafted again, taken the commons to get a time to debate, then get debated, then amended, then debated, then amended again, then sent to the lords, then sent back again, then debated, then amended, then sent back to lords again, then the lords reject it, then the commons vetos it into law, then Europe find out and throw it out of law for being against human rights laws, politicians spit the dummy out, the press say told you so and meanwhile we're left wondering what the hell that was all about as the whole issue has cost millions that could have been spent on proper intelligence gathering and proper security.

Fin.

[Pat]

QUOTE (Butters 2011 @ Saturday, Apr 7 2012, 17:16)

Would you leave your doors open to your house and allow anyone to come in and snoop around as they please?

No, and I wouldn't let a government official do it either unless they had a warrant, which they could only achieve if they had sufficient evidence to prove that it was a matter of protection. The difference is that Waddy would open the door up, invite them in, and give them a cup of tea the minute they showed him their badge.

Maybe it's just a US vs. UK thing. I was raised to believe that no one has the right to infringe upon personal liberties no matter how much they're paid or what kind of desk they sit behind, but maybe it's different over there.

[Typhus]

QUOTE (Waddy @ Saturday, Apr 7 2012, 22:15)

Again, you are making it something it isnt. I dont care how corrupt a court is or whatever else. I care about the safety of people who live in the UK and other countries. What you're saying is that its ok for crime to run rampant in cyber space and I would have thought a huge chunk of crime is run on cyber space, but you dont want the police to have the power to stop them. I would think terrorism is the prime reason, but it will trickle down to all crimes no matter how petty, and the more evidence the police have the better to make it stop. Corruption is an entirely different subject.

But what if the definition of a 'terrorist' or a 'criminal' eventually becomes judged based on political expedience rather than public safety?
We trust the law to judge who it is that means us harm, but if the integrity of the law is compromised, what's to stop them switching their surveillance from legitimate targets - the type you have mentioned - and on to non-violent political dissidents and critics?

I maintain that this could only work if we could be absolutely sure that it would not be abused, but the net of 'national security' can be cast very far and very wide.

[Waddy]

QUOTE (Gareth Croke @ Saturday, Apr 7 2012, 22:17)

Who cares anyway this plan is dead in the water anyway, that is that the legislation would need to go to consultation, then draft, blue paper, white paper, then drafted again, taken the commons to get a time to debate, then get debated, then amended, then debated, then amended again, then sent to the lords, then sent back again, then debated, then amended, then sent back to lords again, then the lords reject it, then the commons vetos it into law, then Europe find out and throw it out of law for being against human rights laws, politicians spit the dummy out, the press say told you so and meanwhile we're left wondering what the hell that was all about as the whole issue has cost millions that could have been spent on proper intelligence gathering and proper security. Fin.

Or until something happens where this law could have saved it all from happening, and it will. Then it will be brought in straight away.

[Typhus]

Eurgh, this just in. The Trotskyite parasites known as 'Anonymous' have hacked into the Home Office site, using criminality to make their point as usual:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-17648852

[Waddy]

QUOTE (Pat @ Saturday, Apr 7 2012, 22:19)

QUOTE (Butters 2011 @ Saturday, Apr 7 2012, 17:16) Would you leave your doors open to your house and allow anyone to come in and snoop around as they please? No, and I wouldn't let a government official do it either unless they had a warrant, which they could only achieve if they had sufficient evidence to prove that it was a matter of protection. The difference is that Waddy would open the door up, invite them in, and give them a cup of tea the minute they showed him their badge.

If the police knocked on my door, of course I would invite them in, I fully respect the law of the land. I have nothing at all to hide. I dont arrange bombings using encrypted emails or some other way of doing things online, so there is NO reason at all for them to even visit my house, so at the end of the day, I can say i would invite them in because I know I will never be put in that situation in the first place.


@Typhus, again, you have the tin foil hat on. I have faith in the police and the government to do the right thing, of course we dont all agree. I just happen to think this is a very good idea, I dont want to get into whatever it is you're talking about. The topic at hand is what i am interested in.

[Gareth Croke]

QUOTE (Waddy @ Saturday, Apr 7 2012, 23:20)

QUOTE (Gareth Croke @ Saturday, Apr 7 2012, 22:17) Who cares anyway this plan is dead in the water anyway, that is that the legislation would need to go to consultation, then draft, blue paper, white paper, then drafted again, taken the commons to get a time to debate, then get debated, then amended, then debated, then amended again, then sent to the lords, then sent back again, then debated, then amended, then sent back to lords again, then the lords reject it, then the commons vetos it into law, then Europe find out and throw it out of law for being against human rights laws, politicians spit the dummy out, the press say told you so and meanwhile we're left wondering what the hell that was all about as the whole issue has cost millions that could have been spent on proper intelligence gathering and proper security. Fin. Or until something happens where this law could have saved it all from happening, and it will. Then it will be brought in straight away.

Thing is we already have the laws in place, only difference is the time it takes to get a court order etc, but if it was really serious, we wouldn't see it anyway

Besides there is no real immediate threat that should warrant this law as the geo-political situation is shifting away from the "situation foreign" era that we've been used to for the past 20 years or so. And what this law is suggesting is "domesticated" communications, if a terrorist group or individual was wanting to arrange something they have other means than posting on facebook.

Really what the government is doing is knee-jerking because they still haven't caught up with the rest of the digital world yet.

[Butters 2011]

QUOTE (Pat @ Saturday, Apr 7 2012, 22:19)

QUOTE (Butters 2011 @ Saturday, Apr 7 2012, 17:16) Would you leave your doors open to your house and allow anyone to come in and snoop around as they please? No, and I wouldn't let a government official do it either unless they had a warrant, which they could only achieve if they had sufficient evidence to prove that it was a matter of protection. The difference is that Waddy would open the door up, invite them in, and give them a cup of tea the minute they showed him their badge. Maybe it's just a US vs. UK thing. I was raised to believe that no one has the right to infringe upon personal liberties no matter how much they're paid or what kind of desk they sit behind, but maybe it's different over there.

Yes, but that seems to be where you're completely missing the point. If police want to enter your property, they require a warrant, and this is the same exact thing in this scenario.

[Typhus]

QUOTE (Waddy @ Saturday, Apr 7 2012, 22:26)

@Typhus, again, you have the tin foil hat on. I have faith in the police and the government to do the right thing, of course we dont all agree. I just happen to think this is a very good idea, I dont want to get into whatever it is you're talking about. The topic at hand is what i am interested in.

Okay, I'll drop my point. But I will simply leave my discussion with you by saying that I feel the integrity of the police and government is crucial in discussing this.
But if you feel I have ventured off topic or insulted you, I readily apologise.

[Waddy]

QUOTE (Typhus @ Saturday, Apr 7 2012, 22:31)

QUOTE (Waddy @ Saturday, Apr 7 2012, 22:26) @Typhus, again, you have the tin foil hat on. I have faith in the police and the government to do the right thing, of course we dont all agree. I just happen to think this is a very good idea, I dont want to get into whatever it is you're talking about. The topic at hand is what i am interested in. Okay, I'll drop my point. But I will simply leave my discussion with you by saying that I feel the integrity of the police and government is crucial in discussing this. But if you feel I have ventured off topic or insulted you, I readily apologise.

No, not at all. I just think that corruption in the police or government is a totally different can of worms, of course it happens but to the case in point. Should the police be able to check peoples cyber activity to help in the reduction of crime and killings, then I believe the answer is yes.

[Irviding]

What exactly can be done through this bill without a warrant?

[Los Santos Pedestrian]

So the UK will/now monitors social media? Does that mean they'll monitor GTAForums?

Also, when will governments learn? The only places where you'll find forums full of terrorists posting diabolical plans about destroying every democracy in the world is in Iran and other parts of the Middle East.

[Waddy]

QUOTE (Irviding @ Saturday, Apr 7 2012, 23:13)

What exactly can be done through this bill without a warrant?

Not 100% but I believe they want to start recording everything that happens online. So they can go back at anytime to see what certain people have said.

[Gareth Croke]

QUOTE (Los Santos Pedestrian @ Sunday, Apr 8 2012, 00:14)

So the UK will/now monitors social media? Does that mean they'll monitor GTAForums? Also, when will governments learn? The only places where you'll find forums full of terrorists posting diabolical plans about destroying every democracy in the world is in Iran and other parts of the Middle East.

To address your first concern, they would need a whole lotta luck, my head nearly fried looking in the "V" Forum and that was for about 10 minutes, the government officials who would need to trail through the whole lot... their heads would explode.

As for your second concern, the governments already know this that's why we have the CIA and MI5