[nightwalker83]

Welcome to the legalized form of fascism/communism we call democracy. Bits and pieces of both all rolled into one. I'm getting flash backs to the book/movie 1984.

[OnePiece]

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

[Sanjeem]

QUOTE (Robinski @ Sunday, Apr 8 2012, 09:55)

QUOTE (Pat @ Saturday, Apr 7 2012, 22:19) 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. Nah I don't think it's that. I'm with you. I have nothing to hide, but does that mean I'm happy to have someone I don't know, and will never know, rifle through my personal stuff? F*ck no. I was saying to a mate the other day about this, it seems we're still living in this atmosphere of fear. People are willing to give up those little freedoms and personal liberties, just to feel a little bit safer. But y'know what? I'd rather live in a more dangerous world where my private communications can't be snooped on. Not to mention the fact that the people these measures are intended to catch are already going to know how to get around them.

Exactly, it's like criminals talking on the phone and using code. Now I know things like wire taps and all these other things to make it easier to catch criminals or make it harder for the criminals themselves but I'm also with you about that fact that somebody can just know what I'm doing/saying.

Really, I have nothing to hide, but it's one of those things that people just don't feel comfortable with.

[lil weasel]

Boiling the Frog moves to the U.K.. I thought the U.S. was already monitoring your internet conversations. Now the U. S. wants the U.K. to do some of the work?

Power wants more Power, it’s addictive.

[sivispacem]

I find it very amusing to see all the Brits on the forum discussing this sensibly and in context, and then all the overseas nationals come storming in to invoke Godwin's law and poorly conceived misinterpretations of something that is, in essence a very simple idea. It rather re-affirms the idea that sensationalism is just as live and well in other parts of the Western world as it is in the UK. And it's always great to see the occasional deluded individual name-dropping Fascism and Communism in relation to the same political administration and idea. It's a lovely demonstration of how absurdist rhetoric has shaped the opinions of whole generations of individuals who really should be better educated.

[EverBlazin]

Damn, now they'll know that I go on porn. f*ck. sh*t.

[Mike Tequeli]

QUOTE (sivispacem @ Sunday, Apr 8 2012, 11:41)

I find it very amusing to see all the Brits on the forum discussing this sensibly and in context, and then all the overseas nationals come storming in to invoke Godwin's law and poorly conceived misinterpretations of something that is, in essence a very simple idea. It rather re-affirms the idea that sensationalism is just as live and well in other parts of the Western world as it is in the UK. And it's always great to see the occasional deluded individual name-dropping Fascism and Communism in relation to the same political administration and idea. It's a lovely demonstration of how absurdist rhetoric has shaped the opinions of whole generations of individuals who really should be better educated.

I guess screaming fascism resonates with more people than trying to attack the plan on an intellectual level. I don't mind really what they base their outrage on, only that there is outrage. If there was no outrage the Government would push their monitoring as far as they think they could get away with.

I kind of get the impression that there are diminishing returns from increases in intelligence funding and screening and most other anti-terrorist tactics. I doubt there would be bombing every day if you guys relaxed the intelligence, I don't think there is a rational reason to be afraid of terrorism. I suppose I'm immensely unimpressed with the pro argument here which seems to be 'if you have nothing to hide why worry about it', 'yes I'd let the police search my things without a warrant' and so on. Just in terms of not getting f*cked over by the government you should err on the side of caution, don't let them look through your sh*t, don't talk with them, don't cooperate beyond your legal obligations, and that's pretty much what lawyers would recommend. The same principle applies here, I'm not a terrorist but I'm not that comfortable with any communications history being monitored in real time by the government. If the process of contacting ISPs for communications records is slower, so be it, they'll only get that data when they really need it. What this system proposes is just raising the efficiency of process, allowing records of more people to be monitored, and that seems like a problem.

[Gareth Croke]

QUOTE (EverBlazin @ Sunday, Apr 8 2012, 12:51)

Damn, now they'll know that I go on porn. f*ck. sh*t.

You're on the internet, if they took all the p0rn off the internet there would be just one site left called bring back the p0rn.

[El Zilcho]

QUOTE (Gareth Croke @ Sunday, Apr 8 2012, 19:43)

QUOTE (EverBlazin @ Sunday, Apr 8 2012, 12:51) Damn, now they'll know that I go on porn.  f*ck. sh*t. You're on the internet, if they took all the p0rn off the internet there would be just one site left called bring back the p0rn.

The 0 makes it extra illegal.

[lil weasel]

If they removed the porn the worlds economy would collapse.
Look how bad it is now that so many Video stores have closed.

[Typhus]

QUOTE (sivispacem @ Sunday, Apr 8 2012, 11:41)

I find it very amusing to see all the Brits on the forum discussing this sensibly and in context, and then all the overseas nationals come storming in to invoke Godwin's law and poorly conceived misinterpretations of something that is, in essence a very simple idea. It rather re-affirms the idea that sensationalism is just as live and well in other parts of the Western world as it is in the UK. And it's always great to see the occasional deluded individual name-dropping Fascism and Communism in relation to the same political administration and idea. It's a lovely demonstration of how absurdist rhetoric has shaped the opinions of whole generations of individuals who really should be better educated.

True, the comparisons to fascism are indeed rather premature and irresponsible. But I can't help but think that the sensationalism is a result of the governments own capacity for sleaze and corruption. They're not fascists, but the fact people are willing to believe that they are shows a deep level of mistrust.
I am still uneasy about this measures and maintain that they could be dangerous. But I would feel better if the government had proven itself as being more in touch with the concerns of the people.

Do you think that public relations are an important part of anti-terror legislation? For instance, if Bush was seen as being more humane, I don't know if so many people would have been afraid of the PATRIOT Act.
And if Cameron had not proven himself a man with somewhat autocratic tendancies, I think the response to this would have been more measured.

We can only accept limits on our liberty when we are assured of the good character of those in charge. Like the Roman model, giving a citizen dictatorial powers on the common understanding that he would voluntarily step down once the people demanded it.
It's an issue of trust, and unless we trust our leaders, we will continue to see scare-mongering about laws such as this.

[sivispacem]

QUOTE (Typhus @ Sunday, Apr 8 2012, 20:30)

Do you think that public relations are an important part of anti-terror legislation? For instance, if Bush was seen as being more humane, I don't know if so many people would have been afraid of the PATRIOT Act.

The dichotomy is that individuals cannot stand the idea of increased surveillance and other measures, right up until an attack occurs or is foiled at the very last minute (or by the attackers own ineptitude). Personally, I see absolutely no harm in proactive positive reinforcement of counter-terror legislation and the use of social engineering to dissuade radicalisation in the first place. There's no reason that individuals susceptible to radicalisation cannot be counter-indoctrinated with more moderate but nonetheless religiously appealing ideologies; it was done to great effect in Norther Ireland to counteract violent Republicanism.

@Mike- I'll add to this in response to your comments.

[oysterbarron]

What ever the uses. The first premise is always to get the laws in place, it wont be long until they are being used against the general public. We saw this with the new terror laws a leopard doesnt change its spots you have been warned!

[sivispacem]

QUOTE (oysterbarron @ Sunday, Apr 8 2012, 21:36)

What ever the uses. The first premise is always to get the laws in place, it wont be long until they are being used against the general public. We saw this with the new terror laws a leopard doesnt change its spots you have been warned!

Are you referring to RIPA (Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act)? Because the clauses that essentially permitted the misuse of that by local authorities for purposes not related to national security were largely re-written last year, and now it's only legally applicable to cases involving serious criminal activity, violence and terrorism. And it's also interesting and worthwhile to point out that RIPA predates most of the terrorist legislation, having been introduced to the statute books in 2000. And the powers that RIPA permitted government organisations to use weren't forbidden before RIPA was introduced; far from it, before the introduction of the act many of those organisations could conduct unwarranted electronic surveillance without any oversight. RIPA was designed to prevent abuses of the system, not to legalise them.

But, of course, political rhetoric always gets in the way of reality.

[finn4life]

QUOTE (Gareth Croke @ Sunday, Apr 8 2012, 10:19)

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

The government would already need to suspect someone to have any chance of finding any suspicious people talking to anyone, even then its probably a bit of a long shot.
what a waste of time.

[grope_4_that_date]

QUOTE (Waddy @ Saturday, Apr 7 2012, 21:58)

QUOTE (Pat @ Saturday, Apr 7 2012, 21:50) QUOTE (Waddy @ Saturday, Apr 7 2012, 16:50) Oh so you think I have stuff on my HD that would interest the governments of the world? Seriously? I'm asking you a question. If there is no issue, why are you not comfortable enough to post the the full contents of your hard drive for all of us to see? 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. @Butters - You are correct. these days everything is dont on the internet, they days of brief case swapping in the park are long gone, now its encrypted messages in cyber space, it is the new threat and with every new problem/crime then the authorities have to come up with a solution. There will be ways to get round it, then they have to come up with new ways...and it goes on and on.

What if the US starts an 'Online Police' force, which would protect the internet from online criminal activity. Imagine all the Donut shops with wireless access.

[Jeeebuuus]

The Onion has covered this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=playe...e&v=cqggW08BWO0

[oysterbarron]

I think so sivis its hard work for the government to get laws introduced but even harder for us to get them out. Like you said they were recently re written to suit. Just because the current government doesnt want what labor originally envisioned once the right for them to record internet communications comes in and if labour gets in then theres nothing stopping them from re writting those powers. Im not being funny but even without these powers they have been able to foil terrorism plots so its pretty obvious they really want this in just for the average person. I dont think the government truly realises how much our economy has shifted towards the internet these days if i was them then i would leave well alone. Any loss in consumer confidence could be the beggining of the end.

[Viperman]

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!

Only got 5 posts in, but this sums it up.

[lil weasel]

If you have nothing to hide then whats the issue? it makes the government officials a little safer.
You've never heard of a government 'employee' who had trouble with a 'civilian'. And later the 'civilian' is suddenly being audited by the Treasury? Well, what's to hide?
People forget Government's aren't a Building. Government are the Hired Help of the citizenary. The trouble is the People in the Government are like many citizens. When they get Power they want more.
If perchance said Government Employee has a 'thing' for a Political Party, PETA, Religious Creed, or other urge they may want to be sure you are towing their line.