Your Information in the Govt's Hands

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

there is a logical argument [ie right wing] against this idea ... it is part of big government and intervention of the state into the affairs of citizens and it costs too ... they can read mine all they want ..... it will drive them to deep state of boredom at the txpayers expense .... it is also a very European thing to do and we are just aping the foreigners over the channel ... nothing like a state security initiative for inflating government expenditures .... i mean just look at the staasi the kgb etc ....... and why did we fight the cold war if we are just going to copy the commies eh?

[teamsaint]

I am sure that most Liberals are aware that there are "nasty people out there". Just who these nasty people are though, might be a matter of debate.

If I find a liberal (or a Liberal, or even, though its not likely, a LibDemcon) , i will ask them.

[teamsaint]

there is a logical argument [ie right wing] against this idea ... it is part of big government and intervention of the state into the affairs of citizens and it costs too ... they can read mine all they want ..... it will drive them to deep state of boredom at the txpayers expense .... it is also a very European thing to do and we are just aping the foreigners over the channel ... nothing like a state security initiative for inflating government expenditures .... i mean just look at the staasi the kgb etc ....... and why did we fight the cold war if we are just going to copy the commies eh?

because we want to be better at it than the foreigners, maybe?

[eighthobstruction]

I think it is just an attempt by the government to give happiness and credibility to all those bloggers and posters who sometimes think that cyber space might be a futile place of ephemera and bad-grammar of no real meaning....

....if the govt can find my early poems (1970-79) thrown out by a maddened ex-girlfriend , I'd be abliged too [they were in a blue loose-leaf folder]....

....we have a couple of hours while Simon is at church to ramp up this debate fast-breeder level....

[MrGongGong]

What is dangerous about all of this is the "with us or against us" way in which it is promoted. It's a bit like those (not mentioning any names of course ) who instantly suggest that because you are uneasy with the police shooting innocent people on the tube that you are in favour or terrorism <doh>. I have seen this lazy way of thinking spread in recent years. These things are always "for our own good" BUT will result in genuinely innocent people being criminalised for their views........very dangerous stuff indeed and experience shows that we simply can't trust those in charge at all. So much for the Libdems then ..........

[teamsaint]

Don't listen to what they say, watch what they do.

We are already a society with an unhealthy level of surveillance. Some of the laws passed in America are very scary, and where they go, we follow.
I wish the government, our government, the one WE pay for, would spend as much effort on other real issues such as unemployment, pollution, energy needs, etc, as it does on the terrorism threat(much of which is most likely state sponsored from here, or Washington or Jerusalem anyway).

[gradus]

I haven't read the proposals yet but I have some instinctive reservations about them, although there is so much personal information freely given by Tweeters, Facebookers, Messageboarders etc that it is quite difficult to mount a coherent argument against the idea of controlled government access to personal communications in certain specified circumstances - the horse having bolted some time ago.

[amateur51]

The predictable reactions from the predictable left. Who clearly haven't bothered to study the proposals, but whose knees have jerked, as usual, against any form of authority or regulation.

Contents of such traffic will NOT be allowed to be read without a warrant. What will be available are statistics about what sites people are visiting and to which addresses their emails are going.

Similar opportunities will occur with regards to more general internet crime - and will be particularly useful in the fight against people-trafficking and those perverts who prey on little boys and girls.

Now, I don't know about anyone else, but for me almost anything that prevents such abuse would be a very worthy strategy to support. Not to do so would be to give de facto encouragement to those with things to hide.

I don't think Simon can have been watching any of the Leveson Inquiry - plenty of liberty being taken there, mostly by hacks & peelers in the pay of NI, apparently.

As to perverts etc, why waste money on scruting everyone's phone messages, e-mails etc., when we all know that most of them are family members or priests or vicars (ok scotty?)

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

The predictable reactions from the predictable left. Who clearly haven't bothered to study the proposals, but whose knees have jerked, as usual, against any form of authority or regulation.

David Davis, for example?

[amateur51]

David Davis, for example?

Well spotted, fhg

[MrGongGong]

David Davis, for example?

Exactly
Pinko lefty commie traitor

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

Well spotted, fhg

Yes; and I keep applying the ointment!

[aeolium]

Also, it was the last Labour government that wanted to set up a database monitoring emails and phone calls but widespread opposition forced the plan to be dropped. That opposition came from both Tories and Libdems who now appear to be supporting an even more intrusive system, monitoring website access.

Why is it so rare to find people in parliament who will stand up for civil liberties? How can we criticise the surveillance controls in authoritarian regimes if we put something just as bad in our own society?

[Flosshilde]

Also, it was the last Labour government that wanted to set up a database monitoring emails and phone calls but widespread opposition forced the plan to be dropped. That opposition came from both Tories and Libdems who now appear to be supporting an even more intrusive system, monitoring website access.

Obviously they opposed Labour's proposals because they didn't go far enough.

Of course, it could be an April Fool, or it could be a way of distracting attention from the multiple feet they managed to fit into their collective mouth recently, what with Granny Tax, Pasty Tax, a petrol shortage that wasn't until they created it, etc etc.

(Perhaps News International will bid for the contract - well, it's bound to be privatised)

[MrGongGong]

Also, it was the last Labour government that wanted to set up a database monitoring emails and phone calls but widespread opposition forced the plan to be dropped. That opposition came from both Tories and Libdems who now appear to be supporting an even more intrusive system, monitoring website access.

Why is it so rare to find people in parliament who will stand up for civil liberties? How can we criticise the surveillance controls in authoritarian regimes if we put something just as bad in our own society?

They really ALL are a bunch of tossers who can't be trusted , I wouldn't make them scissor monitors let alone be in charge of anything important. The only good that might (and i'm not holding my breath) come out of this is that Cleggers might actually remember a bit of what his party used to stand for and call a halt but I doubt it as he seems to have bought the whole thing and would rather be Camerons toast fag.......... sad , sad , sad