UK Home Secretary - New web monitoring laws will stop killers like Ian Huntley

[Rawne1980]

I'm waiting for the day when the pass the law to have some git follow you around recording everything you do.

It's not that far off how it is now.

Can't step out of my house without 6 CCTV cameras watching me.

see this is the part of the anti-cctv thing i don't get.

You know who's watching you, nobody, the most the average person will be seen on a cctv is glimpses, unless your doing something massively noticeable your not important.

To think that anyone has the ego that they are more interesting than not only all the information that camera gets, but usually six or more others, that is just staggeringly big headed.

Heres the big secret, they don't care about you.

12 houses on the street, 6 CCTV cameras.

I'm not saying i'm interesting enough to watch but the camera to people ratio is a tad excessive.

And I AM incredibly big headed. I have a large ego and i'm incredibly vain .... problem with that?

 

[Elementary - Dear Watson]

Finally: Googled that stuff from earlier: Turns out the CID are our Gestapo [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_Investigation_Department], without quite as much evil though.

Hardly... they are completely reactive, not proactive... they investigate crimes allready committed, not ones that are going to be committed...

You are confusing them with BSS. (Security Services- the B stands for British, but is only used in the acronym, for obvious reasons...)

 

[Racecarlock]

It's like Arizona, the US, Tennessee, and the UK are all locked up in a stupidest law race.

 

[MammothBlade]

Signed it.

GMHQ has no place tapping a private citizen's communications without a court-issued warrant. Yes the government should be able to spy on the internet communications of people suspected of serious crime but only under due process.

As for the suggestion that unlimited web surveillance would have stopped Ian Huntley, that's utter tabloid bullshit. He committed previous sexual offences but was never charged for them. He did not perpetrate his crimes using the internet.

 

[Dogstile]

I'm waiting for the day when the pass the law to have some git follow you around recording everything you do.

It's not that far off how it is now.

Can't step out of my house without 6 CCTV cameras watching me.

see this is the part of the anti-cctv thing i don't get.

You know who's watching you, nobody, the most the average person will be seen on a cctv is glimpses, unless your doing something massively noticeable your not important.

To think that anyone has the ego that they are more interesting than not only all the information that camera gets, but usually six or more others, that is just staggeringly big headed.

Heres the big secret, they don't care about you.

What makes it ok for you? Is it that it's a camera and not a person? If a person was watching me all the time, i'd feel a little creeped out. A camera still gives me the same feeling.

 

[Daystar Clarion]

Signed.

I won't resort to using a slippry slope fallacy, so I'll just say that it's an idea that I doubt will be implemented correctly.

 

[Spongebobdickpants]

Well not to sound like a douche but i made a thread about this...

OT: They are using the classic "Think of the children" and "If you have nothing to fear you have nothing to hide" argument to bludgeon anyone who criticises it as a paedophile or terrorist. And don't worry if it doesn't get passed today or tomorrow it will eventually.

 

[DirtyJunkieScum]

I dunno, as many cameras I have been hearing about in the UK, makes you wish you had a long range rifle so they can be taken out with ease without leaving a direct trace. Enough of em go down they stop putting them back up.

It really depends where you go, there's absolutely fuck all cameras where I live. Even in the big cities where you get lots of them it's mostly in the town centres, high streets etc not residential areas, unless they are particularly high crime areas. They don't just stick them up everywhere, only places they expect trouble.

Also, if you go round firing off something like that where you aren't meant to (read about 95% of the UK)they will make a very special effort to track you down and put you away for a long time. Also a long range rifle would be fairly redundant for it anyway, it's not like you could really get to use the range, too many buildings in the way. Only way for the direct action approach to work is the way the French do for speed cameras, half the population sneak out and smash them up in the middle of the night, some sort of mask/hood would be helpful seeing as it's CCTV but the principle is the same.

 

[ph0b0s123]

Well not to sound like a douche but i made a thread about this...

OT: They are using the classic "Think of the children" and "If you have nothing to fear you have nothing to hide" argument to bludgeon anyone who criticises it as a paedophile or terrorist. And don't worry if it doesn't get passed today or tomorrow it will eventually.

I know a few people have made threads about this. I just wanted to attack it from the predictable 'think of the children' argument being used. I did not want to duplicate, just to ridicule the Home Sec's stupid comments.

I despise the 'let us pass this law or it will be peadoggedon!' argument. It is the go to when you have no legitimate reasons to argue with.

 

[Spongebobdickpants]

Well not to sound like a douche but i made a thread about this...

OT: They are using the classic "Think of the children" and "If you have nothing to fear you have nothing to hide" argument to bludgeon anyone who criticises it as a paedophile or terrorist. And don't worry if it doesn't get passed today or tomorrow it will eventually.

I know a few people have made threads about this. I just wanted to attack it from the predictable 'think of the children' argument being used. I did not want to duplicate, just to ridicule the Home Sec's stupid comments.

I despise the 'let us pass this law or it will be peadoggedon!' argument. It is the go to when you have no legitimate reasons to argue with.

Yes and i completely agree. Tbh i shouldn't have made an issue of it seeing as we completely agree. George Carlin does an amazing rant about how society is ruining children and childhood.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jo2Y4PzTCOc

 

[cookyy2k]

Well that's it then. They used the 'think of the children' argument........we're all fucked!

QFT.

Seriously though, I don't have a problem with these laws in their current form - I generally don't use the internet for illegal activities, and have no real issues with the government knowing about how fucked up the porn I watch is.(Really, Really fucked up).

How about when one item of porn you looked at turns out to be illegal and you end up on the sex offender's register? There is a lot of porn in this country that is illegal, much of which you would think is fine.

I for one do not want the government having that sort of power.

 

[gigastar]

Ok think of it like this.

If you dont want this, get into politics, get some like-minded political allies, get elected, then have theese laws revoked.

Its a democracy, not an empire. People only get to do this because people gave them the power to do so, and they can give you the power to undo it too.

And while youre at it do something about political correctness and health and safety laws.

 

[Spongebobdickpants]

Ok think of it like this.

If you dont want this, get into politics, get some like-minded political allies, get elected, then have theese laws revoked.

Its a democracy, not an empire. People only get to do this because people gave them the power to do so, and they can give you the power to undo it too.

And while youre at it do something about political correctness and health and safety laws.

You think any independant parties have ANY chance of gaining momentum.

I feel this is very relevant

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hYIC0eZYEtI

Getting into politics is a waste of time for those who actually want to change anything. The only parties that survive are those supported by corporations.

 

[gigastar]

Ok think of it like this.

If you dont want this, get into politics, get some like-minded political allies, get elected, then have theese laws revoked.

Its a democracy, not an empire. People only get to do this because people gave them the power to do so, and they can give you the power to undo it too.

And while youre at it do something about political correctness and health and safety laws.

You think any independant parties have ANY chance of gaining momentum.

I feel this is very relevant

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hYIC0eZYEtI

Getting into politics is a waste of time for those who actually want to change anything. The only parties that survive are those supported by corporations.

Basically, society is sick. Tell me something i didnt know already.

So how would you fix it? If what you say here is true then nothing we can do (in political terms) will matter in the end.

 

[cookyy2k]

They'll hit a huge problem in certain email accounts that'll have to be exempt from such legislation and it will become a mess. An email between a solicitor and client or doctor and patient for example are confidential AND privileged information, meaning it cannot be used in court.

 

[Spongebobdickpants]

Ok think of it like this.

If you dont want this, get into politics, get some like-minded political allies, get elected, then have theese laws revoked.

Its a democracy, not an empire. People only get to do this because people gave them the power to do so, and they can give you the power to undo it too.

And while youre at it do something about political correctness and health and safety laws.

You think any independant parties have ANY chance of gaining momentum.

I feel this is very relevant

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hYIC0eZYEtI

Getting into politics is a waste of time for those who actually want to change anything. The only parties that survive are those supported by corporations.

Basically, society is sick. Tell me something i didnt know already.

So how would you fix it? If what you say here is true then nothing we can do (in political terms) will matter in the end.

I dont know how to fix it. Great minds are at odds trying to solve this problem from your friedmans/ron paul(trying to be fair here although i dont think much of him) to your chomskys. Everyone is coming to vastly different conclusions. And those differences in conclusions are what everyone is focusing on. At the end of the day they are ALL theroetical goals and are all hypothetical societies.

Whilst i PERSONALLY may be more inclined to support one over the other i feel this is conflict in end goals, is distracting from the point. Our society is broken. Corporations control every aspect of society and give us just enough freedom and wealth so the majority don't question it. If those at both the left and right could reconcile their differences and actually just do something. Then we could maybe "fix" society. From most right libertarians i talk to agree that state welfare and socialised medicine arent a major issue. Just as those on the left agree that free market capitalism is not inherently "evil" and that it has been the ways regulation and corporatism have monopolised the economy destroying all competition is really the problem.

From Anarcho-capitalism to Anarcho-syndicalism. Both have genuine greivences with how society is operating at current and to a degree both agree on the solution to the problems. Im with penn jillette on this one.

"Can we argue about bridges after we are out Afghanistan, Can we just stop big government doing the stuff we know is REALLY bad"

But i am far to cynical to believe this is possible, maybe it is i would like to be proved wrong. But people (as in groups of people) i think are inherently to stupid, greedy and self interested to see the woods for the trees.

On an unrelated note this is why i believe true free market libertarian capitalism is also impossible, people are to selfish to provide enough charity to support the unemployed and down trodden. To stupid to not be manipulated by unscrupulous buisness people and to greedy to be trusted to hold vast quantities of money and use it responsibly.

 

[renegade7]

Good luck monitoring every internet enabled device in the UK, mates

 

[gigastar]

Ok think of it like this.

If you dont want this, get into politics, get some like-minded political allies, get elected, then have theese laws revoked.

Its a democracy, not an empire. People only get to do this because people gave them the power to do so, and they can give you the power to undo it too.

And while youre at it do something about political correctness and health and safety laws.

You think any independant parties have ANY chance of gaining momentum.

I feel this is very relevant

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hYIC0eZYEtI

Getting into politics is a waste of time for those who actually want to change anything. The only parties that survive are those supported by corporations.

Basically, society is sick. Tell me something i didnt know already.

So how would you fix it? If what you say here is true then nothing we can do (in political terms) will matter in the end.

I dont know how to fix it. Great minds are at odds trying to solve this problem from your friedmans/ron paul(trying to be fair here although i dont think much of him) to your chomskys. Everyone is coming to vastly different conclusions. And those differences in conclusions are what everyone is focusing on. At the end of the day they are ALL theroetical goals and are all hypothetical societies.

Whilst i PERSONALLY may be more inclined to support one over the other i feel this is conflict in end goals, is distracting from the point. Our society is broken. Corporations control every aspect of society and give us just enough freedom and wealth so the majority don't question it. If those at both the left and right could reconcile their differences and actually just do something. Then we could maybe "fix" society. From most right libertarians i talk to agree that state welfare and socialised medicine arent a major issue. Just as those on the left agree that free market capitalism is not inherently "evil" and that it has been the ways regulation and corporatism have monopolised the economy destroying all competition is really the problem.

From Anarcho-capitalism to Anarcho-syndicalism. Both have genuine greivences with how society is operating at current and to a degree both agree on the solution to the problems. Im with penn jillette on this one.

"Can we argue about bridges after we are out Afghanistan, Can we just stop big government doing the stuff we know is REALLY bad"

But i am far to cynical to believe this is possible, maybe it is i would like to be proved wrong. But people (as in groups of people) i think are inherently to stupid, greedy and self interested to see the woods for the trees.

On an unrelated note this is why i believe true free market libertarian capitalism is also impossible, people are to selfish to provide enough charity to support the unemployed and down trodden. To stupid to not be manipulated by unscrupulous buisness people and to greedy to be trusted to hold vast quantities of money and use it responsibly.

Yeah, realistic and reasonable fixes are hard to come by nowadays. Might be why the terrorists do what they do, because they see no reasonable solution they abandon reason to try and change things.

If we were to abandon the reasonable approach, all sorts of doors would open.