Your Information in the Govt's Hands

[mercia]

I didn't know that

you didn't know what ?

[MrGongGong]

That it's a simple updating of the rules and that there's nothing to worry about

[mercia]

That it's a simple updating of the rules and that there's nothing to worry about

very good, and are you happy that your local council (and many many other organisations) can currently ask your ISP for details of who you email and what you look at online?

[MrGongGong]

very good, and are you happy that your local council (and many many other organisations) can currently ask your ISP for details of who you email and what you look at online?

Of course, I'm not a criminal , i've done nothing wrong (well, OK I will own up to some dubious musical tastes ) and we have a society where no one is imprisoned for crimes they haven't committed so what is there to worry about ?

[french frank]

The personal data about members of this forum is/are protected by the Data Protection Act. This information is only used in connection with the running of the forum efficiently. But, as the law stands, if the police officially request information from me, I would have to supply it to them. However, it would presuppose that they had evidence against an individual of having committed a crime. Otherwise the information stays within this forum. That seems to me to be powers enough without having various authorities having routine access to everyone's data. I wouldn't trust the 'we're not allowed to read the contents of emails' assurance. If those emails can be widely accessed, at some point they will be, by someone.

Authorities have various reasons for wanting to know what individuals are up to - and it doesn't necessarily involve any crime.

[amateur51]

The personal data about members of this forum is/are protected by the Data Protection Act. This information is only used in connection with the running of the forum efficiently. But, as the law stands, if the police officially request information from me, I would have to supply it to them. However, it would presuppose that they had evidence against an individual of having committed a crime. Otherwise the information stays within this forum. That seems to me to be powers enough without having various authorities having routine access to everyone's data. I wouldn't trust the 'we're not allowed to read the contents of emails' assurance. If those emails can be widely accessed, at some point they will be, by someone.

Authorities have various reasons for wanting to know what individuals are up to - and it doesn't necessarily involve any crime.

- and we now know from Leveson that similar data is routinely accessed by police officers on behalf of media 'chums' (maybe 'routinely' is a bit strong?).

In life, power once granted is usually applied; and any official who asks to keep a list usually shouldn't be allowed to do so!

[salymap]

Of course all our rather dubious verses on the recent poetry thread would be analysed and anyway are probably in code. What fun

[amateur51]

Of course all our rather dubious verses on the recent poetry thread would be analysed and anyway are probably in code. What fun

[MrGongGong]

Might I suggest that as many people as possible visit this site

http://www.freeinfosociety.com/pdfs/misc/anarchistcookbook2000.pdf

and strike a blow for the unemployed of Gloucestershire as they are going to have to recruit thousands to keep track of us all

[amateur51]

Might I suggest that as many people as possible visit this site

http://www.freeinfosociety.com/pdfs/misc/anarchistcookbook2000.pdf

and strike a blow for the unemployed of Gloucestershire as they are going to have to recruit thousands to keep track of us all

I did enjoy the section on 'lock picking'! - shows you what sort of a danger to society I am

[MrGongGong]

I did enjoy the section on 'lock picking'! - shows you what sort of a danger to society I am

So do you fancy forming a choir when we are sent down ? Maybe we could get a slot on CE if we work hard enough ? There will be plenty of time to practice and in my experience some prison chapels have wonderful acoustics

[amateur51]

So do you fancy forming a choir when we are sent down ? Maybe we could get a slot on CE if we work hard enough ? There will be plenty of time to practice and in my experience some prison chapels have wonderful acoustics

Being Welsh, I have a natural tendency towards the 'loud & enthusiastic but not necessarily discriminating' school of vocal production, so beware what you wish for, MrGG

[Bryn]

Something for Simon, and others, to add their names to:

http://www.avaaz.org/en/stop_the_big_brother_law_a/?cl=1700009516&v=13490

[Simon]

Something for Simon, and others, to add their names to:

http://www.avaaz.org/en/stop_the_big...009516&v=13490

I have some time for the people who run avaaz. Whilst often naive, they are for the most part unbiased, to their credit.

But I couldn't support this one, I'm afraid. The sad thing is, the people who will suffer if this doesn't get through - and I'm beginning to think it may not, at the moment anyway - are some of the weakest and most vulnerable.

So, before anybody votes to protect their right to visit grubby websites or communicate with whatever weirdo they want, or even, if they don't do any of this, simply to protect what they see as your own "rights", think about responsibilities too - to others - and remember that by limiting the ability of security agencies to track criminals you are certainly going to cause harm to innocents.

As I said earlier, if by agreeing to this I can help stop one child being abused, I'd consider it a job well done. As I don't do anything online that is criminal, why should I not? Is a selfish "principle" worth a child's entrapment into vice? Not for me, it isn't! And that's without considering terrorists.

[ahinton]

remember that by limiting the ability of security agencies to track criminals you are certainly going to cause harm to innocents.

But what it is that prompts you (as I assume from what you write to be the case) to place your implicit trust in the various "security agencies" above other organisations and people? To your mind, what's so special, by definition, about these "security agencies"?

As I said earlier, if by agreeing to this I can help stop one child being abused, I'd consider it a job well done. As I don't do anything online that is criminal, why should I not? Is a selfish "principle" worth a child's entrapment into vice? Not for me, it isn't! And that's without considering terrorists.

All very noble in principle, I'm sure - but what's this about "terrorists"? There have been and continue to be far too many emotive references to "terrorists" as though all of those who are deemed to merit such a description possess some kind of divine right to be considered as somehow separate from other criminals whose activities are likewise designed deliberately to disaffect others. So much for the Bushy "war on terrrrr" (take as many "r"s as you care to). Rapidts are "terrorists". Murderers are "terrorists". Any criminal who terrorises a community or even just a handful of people is a "terrorist". "Terrorism" is a larger and more widescale phenomenon that one that can conveniently be covered merely by accounting for those who seek to undermine governmental régimes in countries other than those of their own origin.

That said, this proposed legislation is a "terrorists's" charter, to the extent that it encourages those of such bent to find other ways to do their work that cannot so easily be surveilled by those wonderfully trustworthy "security forces". Don't get complacent about this!