 You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
[i]The mobile operators keep a record of your calls for billing purposes. [b]If they have reason to do so[/b], the police can access these records.[/i]
The Metropolitan Police were [u](illegally)[/u] monitoring the Lawrence family,no doubt that included phone calls to and from supporters and so on. This legislation gives this sort of activity even greater powers to be invasive.
From that BBC article
The data involved the bulk records of phone calls - not what was said but the fact that there was contact - with companies required to hand over domestic phone records.
This sounds like the standard billing information that the companies keep anyway
"It wasn't illegal in the sense that it was outside the law, it was just that the law was so broad and the information was so slight that nobody knew it was happening".
So is a law clearly defining what can and cannot be done (like his one) a good idea?
[i]a law clearly defining what can and cannot be done (like his one) a good idea?[/i]
indeed I think it's the proposed 'what can be done' bit that's causing the concerns.
Basically, they did this for years, someone said 'hang on, that's not strictly legal' so they got a law drafted that lets them do what they already do plus extends the scope of the data they can go fishing for to every website anyone ever visits.
Is it really good that, when the police and security services are found to be doing something illegal, the government draft a law making what they were doing legal?
I have no problem with snooping, if they snooped on me they'd be bored within 4mins. I use few sites, this being the most used.
Bet none of them are remotely interested in Bikes or random chats we get upto here.
And No, I don't have a facebook account, isn't that where all the nasty planning happens?
"If you've nothing to hide, They have no reason to consider you a suspect." - Ohnohesback.
I have no problem with snooping, if they snooped on me they'd be bored within 4mins. I use few sites, this being the most used.Bet none of them are remotely interested in Bikes or random chats we get upto here.
Except now you're on record discussing the new security measures, in the same topic as people discussing how to get around them. Also in that topic are people who have bought books on how to make explosives, and people who have visited the websites of various protest groups and subversive organisations.
Congratulations, you're now under suspicion too.
Congratulations, you're now under suspicion too.
Great. And what difference does that make to me? I'll sleep just as well. And when 'they' look into me, they see how ridiculous that is. And if they are looking into millions like me, they'll realise that they need to redefine their suspicion parameters or they'll keep heading down dead ends.
"If you've nothing to hide, They have no reason to consider you a suspect." - Ohnohesback.
Yeah, right.
What are the charges ?
[img] 
[/img]
TRUMPED UP !
Great. And what difference does that make to me? I'll sleep just as well. And when 'they' look into me, they see how ridiculous that is.
Only ... suppose you, or somebody, IS doing something that is not illegal, but is frowned on by the authorities, or the neighbours? Suppose you are protesting about UK arms sales to Saudi, and at the same time on an adultery chat forum. Maybe then the good old plods would see an opportunity to use one item of information in the context of the other. You have broken no law, but you are now vulnerable to blackmail by the state.
Great. And what difference does that make to me? I'll sleep just as well. And when 'they' look into me, they see how ridiculous that is.
Am I misremembering or have you proudly boasted about your criminal past on here before? Drug charges have no limitations IIRC. A bit of data mining and maybe a a bit of [url= http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/oct/21/class-war-protestor-poor-doors-not-guilty ]creative use of joint enterprise[/url] to link you to something more serious and someone vindictive might be able to give you an pretty uncomfortable time of it.
Vintage Tory poster. lolz
[img] 
[/img]
Hardly boasting. Just stating a fact. Firstly, it was a good while ago now. Secondly, maybe I was just inventing on online persona as my regular life is so mundane? Thirdly, if I was breaking the law and it's something that I'd recognise/admit to, then that's my fault for doing something I should not have been involved in in the first place. Still can't see a problem with the law, you takes your own responsibility and comply with it if you so wish.
[i]Great. And what difference does that make to me?[/i]
Shaker Aamer had been in Gitmo for 13 years before he was released, not charged, not accused, cleared 3 years ago, and still not released, not allowed to see evidence, kept in solitary...
innocent man, in the wrong place at the wrong time.
For anyone who thinks this isn't a problem, Nickc makes some very good points:
My browser history has The Greens, CND, Wikileaks, Medialens, Socialist Workers, links to Hamas, and other Palestinian groups, Stephen Lawrence support groups, and anti Fascist groups I've given money to several of them, and been on countless parades and marches. A awful lot of those groups have been infiltrated by the State, and I'm in no doubt my photo exists on any number of databases. This is another way the State can and will monitor a citizen (me) who's done nothing illegal ever.
The Metropolitan Police were (illegally) monitoring the Lawrence family,no doubt that included phone calls to and from supporters and so on. This legislation gives this sort of activity even greater powers to be invasive.
I understand there is now going to be a public enquiry into historical infiltration and surveillance by police, of various political activists and groups. Some of the tactics included police agents actually having long term intimate relationships with several women linked to political/environmental groups.
http://policespiesoutoflives.org.uk/
I find this absolutely shocking, that in a so-called 'democracy', that the police were willing to be used in such an underhand political manner. So far, not one bit of usable evidence has surfaced which has been instrumental in bringing justice, where there was any wrong-doing. So why were the police being used in such a manner, against innocent citizens who have the legal and moral right to enjoy privacy and to not be under constant monitoring by the state? These weren't 'terrorists', these were simply ordinary people who campaigned for social/political/environmental change. As was their Human right under UK and international law. This tactic of deep immersion was used solely to undermine the political process, and to destabilise activists group the state decided were 'subversive'. There is no justifiable reason that such tactics were or are defensible or justifiable in law. These methods have even resulted in undercover agents fathering children by the women they were assigned to!
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/oct/23/police-compensation-payout-woman-undercover-officer
To anyone who questions why we would need to worry about surveilance, I ask this:
[b]Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?[/b]
Interesting comments in this article:
Almost certainly all fiction, just part of the huge PR push to get the legislation passed.
I have no problem with snooping, if they snooped on me they'd be bored within 4mins. I use few sites, this being the most used.
Main issue is when someone cocks up the lists and your name appears on a list of suspects, but as you don't know about this list or where it comes from, or have any right to challenge it, you're basically screwed when they charge you with some random terrorist threat.
My father had a similar experience with HMRC. A publisher incorrectly attributed some royalties to him (surname mix up) in a database they gave HMRC. HMRC then accused my father of tax evasion (as he hadn't declared the income) but wouldn't provide any details of what he had evaded. It took a long time to clear it all up and in the end my father had to do all the investigative work and eventually (through a process of elimination) found out about the duff data CD from the publisher. Years of grief, legal threads, court summons etc all over one wrong name in a database.....
I have no problem with snooping, if they snooped on me they'd be bored within 4mins. I use few sites, this being the most used.
There was an interesting article on 'This American Life' about the lawyers of guantanmo detainees who discovered that their calls to their clients were being tapped but also that their personal calls to friends and family were being listened in on too. In the former instance the listening-in pretty much negated the detainees having lawyers at all - so it was professionally disruptive- but what was really [i]personally [/i]upsetting was knowing that every silly thing, every loving sentiment, every bicker, every upset was being listened in to and it created a situation where they just couldn't bear to talk to anyone. Not because of the important things they had to talk about but because it became so difficult to say or hear anything that was unimportant.
I think its easy to dismiss what you do as uninteresting and therefore that theres an unlikelyhood of anyone giving it their attention but it would be a very different sensation to [i]know [/i]that someone was giving every uninteresting thing you do their full attention.
"If you've done nothing wrong , you've nothing to hide"- Joseph Goebbels ..
In the cases of the women involved in the police spies affair, the Stephen Lawrence family and many others, they were doing nothing wrong. State power was used to spy on innocent law-abiding citizens. So those Goebbels-esque pronouncements are frankly bollocks.
And it's the way the information can be used, and by whom, that is particularly of interest:
North Korea? Not yet, but it's not impossible. North Korea wasn't always run by tyrannical despots ruling over a surveillance society in which individual thought is being suppressed. Complacency can be a very dangerous thing.
Totally in favour of this legislation and I'd rather it went further. I'd extend it to capture all services offered in the UK so companies like Apple, Facebook, Twitter, WhatsAp cannot hide behind the defence "we are not subject to uk law" - if companies don't sign up to abide by uk law their services should not be permitted.
Not bothered. Think it's a good thing. They'd be bored witless looking at my stuff (bikes plus a bit of porn).
My son, however, constantly googles explosives, weapons etc etc. Makes me laugh as I'm sure it's triggering a good few keywords!!
jambalaya - all warrants for data and phone intercepts currently issued in UK courts are enforceable internationally.
The Police/GCHQ have just never bothered/needed to go to court in the US to try and execute one.
Totally in favour of this legislation
Wow.
Can you explain why you're not in favour of Human Rights, specifically the Right to Privacy and Family Life?
Totally in favour of this legislation and I'd rather it went further. I'd extend it to capture all services offered in the UK so companies like Apple, Facebook, Twitter, WhatsAp cannot hide behind the defence "we are not subject to uk law" - if companies don't sign up to abide by uk law their services should not be permitted.
Welcome to China. Is that really the model of democracy you want to imitate?
if companies don't sign up to abide by uk law their services should not be permitted.
This is basically the same line trotted out by places such as North Korea, China, Saudi Arabia etc. Do you not believe that the citizens of those nations should enjoy the same freedoms as us?
And do you think that current UK law is justifiable or even valid, given the numerous abuses of power by various authorities, many of which have been proven to be unlawful?
Its an interesting nuance perhaps that the onus is on the ISPs to keep the record. Its for the benefit of government and law enforcement and for the protection of the public but the responsibility, expense and liability of making, maintaining and securing that information falls on privately run ISPs - equally, no matter how large or small or competent that business is.
Would we view the legislation differently if its was the government responsible for gathering and holding the information? Would we trust them to manage it and keep it secure, would we be happy that [i]all[/i] that data is in one place?
Would we view the legislation differently if it was the indidiviual who was compelled to hold it? That we'd be required to keep and maintain a record of out internet and could be compelled to provide it? That you'd need to call upon it to refute an allegation?
In the latter case thats the position businesses and sole traders have with HMRC - its up to the individual not the HMRC to maintain the record and proof that the HMRC may then use to investigate or accuse you - and creates the situation Footflaps referred to of someone having to try and prove the absence of something. It was wasn't HMRC's error that lead to that allegation - it was a error in one private entity's record keeping and the responsibility of another private entity to prove that something hadn't happened. HMRC didn't create of hold any of the evidence the were just responding to an inference that was made by someone's error.
As an individual - given all the places you could access the internet and all the people who could access the same devises and internet accounts as you - can you prove that you didn't do something that an error in someone else's record keeping suggests you did. How could your own record of your own internet use be proven to be complete?
"Great. And what difference does that make to me? I'll sleep just as well. And when 'they' look into me, they see how ridiculous that is"
Looking in to some people on the basis of lose connection and conjecture took our authorities a number of years during which time those suspects were kept in some very dark places and had some very unfortunate things happen involving at best wet towels and at worst razor blades and genitals once our authorities realised how ridiculous it all was it took a few more years to get some of those innocents out of those dark places .
Loddrik the only way you can truly believe in the if you have done nothing wrong you have nothing to fear argument is if you simultaneously believe everything the government and security services have ever said and disbelieve every government and security services acknowledgement and apology for wrong doing.
I can from personal knowledge think of instances of police officers misusing the current material they have access to for their own non police ends which is an additional risk in increasing the data they have access to.
Wow. Someone's just rolled out the human rights concept. The right to a private life!
What a load of horse hoop. No human or animal has any 'right' to anything. That's not to say we can't be fair and reasonable to one another. Just this concept of 'rights' is so Keystage One and smacks of grabbing people assuming some sort of divine entitlement.
Sooner we get rid of that pile of manure the better.
No human or animal has any 'right' to anything.
Really? Seriously? You don't think you have a right to life? A right to fair trial?
Nope. Why should there be a right to life? A genuinely sincere question.
There are no 'rights'. No one has a divine right to anything. Its a very neat concept but assumes we have a greater power than nature.
That's not to say the law can't be complied with. And the law can be fair and reasonable.
No human or animal has any 'right' to anything.
You have the right to say that, of course. Even if it is wrong.
I assume the right to conclude you're barking mad.
There are no 'rights'
You have the right to remain silent...
As do you....
There are no 'rights'.
There are, and they are enshrined in law. In every country on Earth, in varying degrees.
If someone beat you up and took your bike off you, you'd soon be bleating on about your rights. 😆
I think this is the point at which someone says 'don't feed the troll'. 😉
Seriously. It's a hypothetical construct that has no place in the natural world. We assume because we're human were above all that but we're not. Nature catches up with us in the end.
[i]No one has a divine right to anything[/i]
I don't think anyone here wants to have to invoke religious powers to intervene when they have been wronged, but to suggest that the rule of law is so much hogwash is quite a statement.
where do you live? I'd like to come round and help myself to your stuff
Barty,
Having spent several months in hospital as a direct result of human/car/bike interface the thought I had some special right not to be there never crossed my mind. Nor did the assumption that I had any right to have treatment.
and the law fairly and reasonably grants human rights so we do have human rights ! hurray !!
It's a hypothetical construct that has no place in the natural world.
What about the Social World? Is that a 'hypothetical construct' as well? Surely Human Socialisation is part of Nature?
I'm just off out to walk the dog. Be interesting to see how this debate unfolds.
As do you....
So we both have rights then.
Next!
mike would it be correct to assume you have stuck to your principals and not tried to claim any compensation for your accident.
Nick
The law takes over where religion left off I guess.
I'm genuinely not trying to be provocative. It's the assumption that people have automatic rights is completely barking. You earn your 'rights' or more correctly, priveleges.
Seriously. It's a hypothetical construct that has no place in the natural world.
The irony of writing this on the internet, not on a cave wall.
Crankboy
Yes you are correct. It was an accident. No ones fault. Accidents happen and I was lucky to live and walk again. It strengthened me as a person and for that I'm very grateful.
You earn your 'rights' or more correctly, priveleges.
How do I earn the right to life? How does a day-old baby earn that right? They haven't done anything to earn it yet.
[i]Seriously. It's a hypothetical construct that has no place in the natural world[/i]
poster needs to read up on Ethical Subjectivism...
[i]It's the assumption that people have automatic rights is completely barking[/i]
while I'm up for a debate, you're wrong. Go read up on the work of the ECHR if you want to know why you're wrong.
It's a hypothetical construct that has no place in the natural world.
What about the Social World? Is that a 'hypothetical construct' as well? Surely Human Socialisation is part of Nature?
I'm just off out to walk the dog. Be interesting to see how this debate unfolds.
they haven't done anything to earn it yet.
Bloody scroungers
Oh ****, there's a glitch in the Matrix.
Bloody scroungers
Coming over here, demanding our breast milk. Well, not mine, obviously.
Ben you're spot on as the child's parents will exercise their priveleges to keep him/her alive.
I am cognisant that my views differ from the norm. I am quite content with that. Who'd want to live in a homogenous society being told what you should believe in, such as human rights....!
Ben you're spot on as the child's parents will exercise their priveleges to keep he/she alive.
So orphans or children with bad parents don't have a right to life?
In the context of the big [s]bad[/s] chaotic universe no we don't have any rights. In the context of our society we do have a bunch of rights.
Sure enough they're getting whittled away, but we do have some.
So orphans or children with bad parents don't have a right to life?
That will be why abortion is allowable up to the 57th trimester.
[i]assumption that people have automatic rights[/i]
Isn't the main thing about a right that it doesn't have to be earned?
In fact it's kind of the whole point.
[i]I am cognisant that my views differ from the norm. I am quite content with that.[/i]
I take it you live in a cave away from society as a whole then? You don't for instance; phone the cops when you get assaulted?
No because there's......you get it......no 'rights'...
Doesn't mean it's not sad and tragic. But the natural world is sad and tragic.
But the natural world is sad and tragic.
Again, the irony of invoking the "natural world" on the internet. Why aren't you living in a cave eating insects? Because you live in a society and a civilisation. Which grants you rights.
"I am cognisant that my views differ from the norm. I am quite content with that"
Well your view is that "No human or animal has any 'right' to anything" that is not different to the norm it is keystage one comprehension of the meaning of words wrong . whether you understand it or not the law gives you inherent rights merely by virtue of being born if you are deprived of your rights whether you seek a sanction or not a wrong has been done.
[i]But the natural world is sad and tragic.[/i]
The whole 'sentience' thing's kind of passed you by then?
@ben it's a comprise, I am willing to give up certain rights to privacy in return for security and the ability of the police to catch criminals, eg child sex offenders. What happened to the Lawrence family is terrible but it isn't anywhere near sufficient to require curtailing the proposed powers.
Call me selfish (is it concerns me) but I'm far more concerned about the police switching on the speed cameras 24/7 and giving tickets to all motorists going over 70 than I am by this bill. Bedfordshire are proposing this purely to raise money and no doubt others will follow.
Crankboy, keep your knickers on. I get what your saying. I just don't agree with the principle. Keep up!
I don't agree with the principle of shite weather in winter but I still have to put up with it.I just don't agree with the principle.
except it's not going to do this.I am willing to give up certain rights to privacy in return for [b]security and the ability of the police to catch criminals[/b],
fortunately there is an easy way to prevent paying bedfordshire any of this potential money. It may even be a desired by product, who knows....?
Bedfordshire are proposing this purely to raise money and no doubt others will follow.
Call me selfish (is it concerns me) but I'm far more concerned about the police switching on the speed cameras 24/7 and giving tickets to all motorists going over 70 than I am by this bill.
So you're more concerned about the police catching lawbreakers then them fishing for people who aren't breaking the law?
[i]Bedfordshire are proposing this purely to raise money and no doubt others will follow. [/i]
I do like the idea of the Police threatening to enforce the law as a bargaining chip to get more money out of central government/LA's.
"I'm being mugged"
"Slip me a tenner sir and I might intervene"
Call me selfish (is it concerns me) but I'm far more concerned about the police switching on the speed cameras 24/7 and giving tickets to all motorists going over 70 than I am by this bill.
I can make a very simple suggestion so that you need not be concerned at all.
But we all know motoring offences aren't real offences because mumble mumble war on motorists mumble mumble.
[i]it's a comprise, I am willing to give up certain rights to privacy in return for security[/i]
Hobbes would be proud.
How much freedom are you willing to give up to live in "Security"? I understand the Stazi were particularly effective at keeping the peace..?
So you're more concerned about the police catching lawbreakers then them fishing for people who aren't breaking the law?
Basically the selfish looking after themselves or "I like speeding in the M1, but I couldn't give a frig about civil liberties or in fact anyone else.."
from the rest of your post I'm guessing you'd be against having a "black box" installed in your car?I am willing to give up certain rights to privacy
Did we find a bit of privacy you wouldn't want to give up? Well a few of us feel the same about t'interweb stuff.
Really sorry mike I read "No human or animal has any 'right' to anything" as no human or animal has any right to anything, rather than "Human Rights exist but I don't think they should," probably my lack of comprehension.
How much freedom are you willing to give up to live in "Security"? I understand the Stazi were particularly effective at keeping the peace..?
Yes, Indeed.
I find it odd that some people can trust Government, and future Governments for that matter, to not abuse these powers at some point, yet don't trust the government on so many other things. Its bizarre.
You'd have to be a bloody idiot to think this is ok.
[i]You'd have to be a bloody idiot to think this is ok. [/i]
Just saw this on twitter which seems appropriate
First they came for the idiots and I did nothing. Then they came back and said "You were supposed to go with them you bloody idiot!".
D0NK. Exactly!!
Crankboy-no worries.
yeah but <seemingly> you were arguing the first point while everyone else was arguing the second.D0NK. Exactly!!
Yes you are correct. It was an accident. No ones fault. Accidents happen and I was lucky to live and walk again. It strengthened me as a person and for that I'm very grateful.
Seems to have affected your brain, mate. I'd think again about that compensation thing.
Seems to have affected your brain, mate. I'd think again about that compensation thing.
You've no right to talk to him like that.