Privacy and the State

[amateur51]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technolog...s-charter.html

In this article Keir Starmer, the Director of Public Prosecutions told BBC Radio Four's World At One: "We, the prosecution, rely on communications data heavily, particularly in big cases - organised crime cases, terrorism cases.

"As the way in which people communicate changes I would be concerned if there was any diminution in our ability to rely on that data in cases in the future.
"

Is anyone proposing any such diminution? :erm:

[french frank]

Another article in the Daily Telegraph [sic]

"Sir Chris Fox [former president of ACPO]: Britain should not give up privacy too easily because of Woolwich terror
Britain should not leap to the conclusion that a "snoopers' charter" is needed in the aftermath of the Woolwich terror attack. "

[...]

"Sadly, but not surprisingly, some have leapt to the conclusion that reinstating the Communication Bill will prevent further attacks. In short the argument runs that by keeping every single person’s communication history the security services and police will be better placed to prevent such outrages.

That case is not proven..."

This view is apparently supported by MI5.

Keir Starmer's outfit only comes into it once people have been caught.

[MrGongGong]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technolog...s-charter.html

Oh I didn't know that
well he looks totally trustworthy doesn't he ?
So it must be ok then
after all they are the government and they couldn't ever be wrong could they ?
Just look at our history .......:ela:

I will sleep well tonight knowing that he is in charge :whistle:

[Richard Barrett]

I will sleep well tonight knowing that he is in charge :whistle:

It does seem strange that there are some participants in this discussion who are prepared to put their trust what politicians and government officials have to say about "counter-terrorism", when so many of those politicians and officials have shown how easy they find it to lie about so many other things (expenses, corruption, the causes and objectives of wars, to name a few).

[MrGongGong]

Come on Richard
just look at him
he has an honest face , don't you think ? :yikes:

[ahinton]

Another article in the Daily Telegraph [sic]

"Sir Chris Fox [former president of ACPO]: Britain should not give up privacy too easily because of Woolwich terror
Britain should not leap to the conclusion that a "snoopers' charter" is needed in the aftermath of the Woolwich terror attack. "

[...]

"Sadly, but not surprisingly, some have leapt to the conclusion that reinstating the Communication Bill will prevent further attacks. In short the argument runs that by keeping every single person’s communication history the security services and police will be better placed to prevent such outrages.

That case is not proven..."

This view is apparently supported by MI5.

Keir Starmer's outfit only comes into it once people have been caught.

Thank you for this, FF. And "not proven" - a Scottish judicial phenomenon, look you...

[scottycelt]

It does seem strange that there are some participants in this discussion who are prepared to put their trust what politicians and government officials have to say about "counter-terrorism", when so many of those politicians and officials have shown how easy they find it to lie about so many other things (expenses, corruption, the causes and objectives of wars, to name a few).

So, if not the Government and Security Services, where then would Mr Barrett seek information regarding the likelihood of another terrorist atrocity in the UK?

Doctors, for example, can be secret alcoholics, drug addicts and even serial murderers but that does not mean that they are not best-placed to advise on medical matters.

[amateur51]

So, if not the Government and Security Services, where then would Mr Barrett seek information regarding the likelihood of another terrorist atrocity in the UK?

Doctors, for example, can be secret alcoholics, drug addicts and even serial murderers but that does not mean that they are not best-placed to advise on medical matters.

That's setting rather a low bar even for you, scotty :yikes:

[french frank]

Doctors, for example, can be secret alcoholics, drug addicts and even serial murderers but that does not mean that they are not best-placed to advise on medical matters.

I'm not sure that that holds. I wouldn't want to be advised, unbeknown to me, by an inebriated or stoned doctor, nor one distracted by his murderous activities. And I don't think that 'politicians and government officials' is the exact equivalent of 'the Government and Secret Services'.

[Beef Oven]

It does seem strange that there are some participants in this discussion who are prepared to put their trust what politicians and government officials have to say about "counter-terrorism", when so many of those politicians and officials have shown how easy they find it to lie about so many other things (expenses, corruption, the causes and objectives of wars, to name a few).

That begs the question 'what can we put our trust in politicians about?' And the logical corollary of your observation is that the answer is 'nothing'.

If so, what is to be done? How is the body politic to be governed then?

What is the solution? Identifying the problem is the easy bit - you've done that. What is your view on the solution?

[Richard Barrett]

Doctors, for example, can be secret alcoholics, drug addicts and even serial murderers but that does not mean that they are not best-placed to advise on medical matters.

I put it to you that if you had a strong suspicion that your doctor was any of those things you would probably decide to transfer to a different practice. Or am I wrong? All I'm saying is that it seems strange that some here choose to believe what they're told about the "terrorist threat" by people and organisations with a proven track record of deception. As to where I would go to "seek information regarding the likelihood of another terrorist atrocity in the UK", I think that's already answered: the likelihood of such a thing is proportional to the extent to which the UK government is complicit in state terrorism elsewhere in the world.

[Beef Oven]

I put it to you that if you had a strong suspicion that your doctor was any of those things you would probably decide to transfer to a different practice. Or am I wrong? All I'm saying is that it seems strange that some here choose to believe what they're told about the "terrorist threat" by people and organisations with a proven track record of deception. As to where I would go to "seek information regarding the likelihood of another terrorist atrocity in the UK", I think that's already answered: the likelihood of such a thing is proportional to the extent to which the UK government is complicit in state terrorism elsewhere in the world.

but you can't limit it to choosing your GP.

If you can't trust the gvt, you can't trust them full stop. So given that, what is to be done? What do we do instead?

[Nick Armstrong]

Doctors, for example, can be secret alcoholics, drug addicts and even serial murderers but that does not mean that they are not best-placed to advise on medical matters.

These political threads get more and more bizarre...

:laugh: :laugh:

Time for bed :yikes:

[Beef Oven]

These political threads get more and more bizarre...

:laugh: :laugh:

Time for bed :yikes:

You know what he means Cali. :winkeye:

[Nick Armstrong]

You know what he means Cali. :winkeye:

I salute your optimism! :smiley: