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

[Robert Ewing]

Ahhh, god old British invasion of privacy again. I remember when we were considered a free country.

Now there is CCTV on every corner, you can get jailed for even THINKING about murder or rape (Seriously, look that shit up.) and now you can't send an email without Mr. Cameron reading through all your shit.

Time to a more free country, somewhere like Iran.

 

[MetalMagpie]

Aaaaaaand dead. It's been taken out of the Queen's Speech, so looks like it's not going ahead after all!

Panic over. As you were, people.

Does that necessarily mean it's not going to pass, though?

They could just forgo warning the public and pass the motion discreetly under the "hey, these are the politicians you put into office!" excuse. That said, I don't know too much about politics, but I'm fairly certain other Governments have pulled shit like that.

It represents a massive climb-down for the government. Yes, it could still go through. But I'm going to be optimistic for the time being. If it does eventually go through, the suggestion is that it may be "de-fanged" quite a bit.

 

[MammothBlade]

More evidence that the UK is under American pressure to introduce totalitarian police state powers:


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/terrorism-in-the-uk/9185208/Ken-Clarke-US-intelligence-agencies-are-holding-back-evidence-from-Britain-over-fears-of-open-courts.html

I don't like it. Not one bit. I dread to say it but I think the UK is more "free" than the US as far as police powers go. And our government is being nudged towards introduction of secret courts, detention without trial, and unlimited surveillance. Spooky.

 

[Lord Kloo]

This country is turning into a bloody police state, first monitering all forms of communication, CCTV everywhere, plan for secret court hearings for 'terrorists'..

I hope y'all excuse me whilst I grab my cape, knives and V mask..

EDIT: At this rate, I feel our only survival will be to get the chavs to overthrow parliament.. as their 'motto' goes: Fuck da police

 

[Warped_Ghost]

I don't know if I should post anything right now. My government (Canada) is currently telling me I am a sexual predator if I don't support their ideas on how to control the internet. How can I argue with them because if I do I support child pornography.

But in all seriousness the commonwealth countries need to pull our governments heads out their asses. Most of our government officials are too outdated that most of them don't truly know the internet community. Its like telling the Biologist to create an airplane. He doesn't have the training or experience to appropriately deal with the issue.

 

[Rastien]

Hm how can we subdue people up in disgust about a law...

I know lets use a grotesque and extreme example of what COULD not WILL be prevented by this law...

On a side note as i said in a previous post which i lost so ill try and keep it trimmed down...

The law has been passed the physical capability to carry this out speaking as someone who works in a large business ISP is neigh on impossible without a huge amount of money invested into new kit and hardware.

Currently you are not able to go down to a granular level to inspect what people are looking at you can check searches sure you can check connection times of active sessions but without the man power and time not to mention hardware to monitor EVERYONE in the UK and there goings on is impossible currently.

Its easy enough to inspect an individual users emails, date recieved, sent and often not always the content. But to automate this process (which i pray doesn't happen) and then to act upon findings is just outside the realms of physical capability.

With this said i agree with everyone its a fucking joke this law passed and lib dems should have fought tooth and nail to oppose this shit, but like everything else that the lib dems used to claim to believe in its gone under the bridge. To say i feel betrayed and let down by nick clegg and the lib dems is an understatement but thats for another thread...

 

[SenseOfTumour]

Firstly, I believe the competence of those involved with this law makes it almost irrelevant immediately.

However, what I'd personally demand, is that every politician in favour of this law has their year's financial records and internet history made public.

If you want freedom of information, we'll start with you.

I'm also finding it very tiresome the argument that 'If you don't let us strip you of all your rights, the terrorists win and the paedophiles get to rape more children!'

It's either worth doing or not, stop trying to swing this shit based on potentially raped kids who are irrelevant to the argument. It's all very emotionally charged, but it's not actually helpful to rational decisions.

On a side note of legality, this current government can fuck right off with supporting extra hard sentencing for those involved in crimes that make the newspapers.

As much as they'd like it, it's still not Murdoch or Dacre's decision whether someone goes to jail for rioting or making offensive twitter messages. I agree that the rioters who ruined the protests in London should have been punished, but eight fucking years?? That's rape and murder sentencing, not 'smashed a window and nicked a telly' sentencing, yet the tories have stated they support stronger sentencing to send a 'wider message to those who would do it again'.

I'm guilty of typing the most awful things online, there having been times in chatrooms where we've tried to 'out-offend each other' for laughs. Of course, it's all just jokes between a small group of friends, but it's scary to think that could have been monitored, then used to take us all to court, then jail.

 

[Oirish_Martin]

Er....wasn't it made pretty apparent at the time of the Soham murders that if there had a been a proper vetting procedure for school employees they could have been avoided?

(I.e. pick up on the fact that this guy seems to keep getting accused of underage sex and rape, oh well let's employ him at the school anyway)

Ok, so maybe it would have happened even then, but at least that objection was vaguely sensible to the facts of the case. I'm really struggling to see what the Internet had to do with any aspect of this particular case, but as usual the level of political discourse in this country has been reduced to BUT BUT PEDOS!!!!!111

(Did you know that paedophiles are currently using an area of Internet the size of Ireland?)

 

[Flames66]

I'm guilty of typing the most awful things online, there having been times in chatrooms where we've tried to 'out-offend each other' for laughs. Of course, it's all just jokes between a small group of friends, but it's scary to think that could have been monitored, then used to take us all to court, then jail.

That is the point. Talk between a small group on friends is none of their business. If they read it and get offended, that is their problem. They are morally wrong to have read it and should be in prison themselves.

 

[Oirish_Martin]

As much as they'd like it, it's still not Murdoch or Dacre's decision whether someone goes to jail for rioting or making offensive twitter messages. I agree that the rioters who ruined the protests in London should have been punished, but eight fucking years?? That's rape and murder sentencing, not 'smashed a window and nicked a telly' sentencing, yet the tories have stated they support stronger sentencing to send a 'wider message to those who would do it again'.

Isn't there a range of possible sentences for these crimes though?

I'm not condoning the sudden ramping up to maximum possible sentencing that this latest shower seem to be doing, but some of this was surely in place already and at a judge's disposal. The sentencing over the riots was a very clear case of sending a message, it would seem.

(As for the twitter case, the popular press coverage of it has been monumentally shit)

 

[FamoFunk]

Weird that Ian Huntley is used as an example, he never used the internet and stuff to kill those two Girls.

Anyway, signed.

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?

Damn, do you live in a really crap area or something? The only cameras I see are in the town, at the ATM and outside someone's corner shop/business. All which are understandable.

 

[SenseOfTumour]

Isn't there a range of possible sentences for these crimes though?

I'm not condoning the sudden ramping up to maximum possible sentencing that this latest shower seem to be doing, but some of this was surely in place already and at a judge's disposal.

(As for the twitter case, the popular press coverage of it has been monumentally shit)

There is, and at least from my POV, it looks like the absolute maximum sentences are being handed out when the newspapers deem it to be 'an outrage' and rile up the public. IF being offensive online or offline is worth a jail term, best get building a big fucking wall around Earth.

I also feel they were being punished on behalf of the hundreds of people involved that didn't get arrested, which is on a level with fining someone half a million bucks for downloading 3 songs, because they can't catch everyone.

To me, there's a big difference between 'I hope he fucking dies' which is hateful, and 'I hope someone fucking stabs him the neck' which I'd say is incitement to murder. I think it also has to be examined in context, is this regular, or a one off outburst? We've all said terrible things while angry/tired/drunk/etc. 'Sorry' should cover it, not a jail sentence.

Having said that, I've wished horrible, drawn out torture to the point of expiry on Simon Cowell for his crimes against music alone, so I'd be getting fitted for an orange jumpsuit and a face sized towel fairly soon.

 

[Rastien]

Er....wasn't it made pretty apparent at the time of the Soham murders that if there had a been a proper vetting procedure for school employees they could have been avoided?

(I.e. pick up on the fact that this guy seems to keep getting accused of underage sex and rape, oh well let's employ him at the school anyway)

Ok, so maybe it would have happened even then, but at least that objection was vaguely sensible to the facts of the case. I'm really struggling to see what the Internet had to do with any aspect of this particular case, but as usual the level of political discourse in this country has been reduced to BUT BUT PEDOS!!!!!111

(Did you know that paedophiles are currently using an area of Internet the size of Ireland?)

Very true about the first statement of the schools.

But i can't work out what you mean by the size of ireland for pedofile islans x), are you saying its tiny in the grand scale of things or... as im not sure the internet can't really be measured in size or are you talking if all internet pedos were put in one place /confused sorry for being anal about it but i want to understand what you mean x)

 

[SenseOfTumour]

(To the above, I think it's line from the Brass Eye 'Pedophilia' episode, where they satirised media reaction to pedos, and reliably then got accused of being pro child rape by the very papers they mocked. Check youtube for more info. The Mail in particular printed their outrage in the same day as some lingering photos of 11 and 13 year old girls in bikinis, newsworthy of course because they were minor royals.)

Also, just as a minor point of common sense, and I know that any is too much...

But exactly how much murder and child rape do we have? Can we compare that to the FEAR of those two crimes among the general tabloid reading population, who seem to believe there's a Gary Glitter in every park bush and lurking outside every set of school gates.

I realise we're supposed to think that any child murdered is one too many. Of course, that's right.

However, how many rights do we give away under the pretence of stopping the unstoppable.

You could take away my internet, my phone, and my legs, and I could still crawl down the stairs, break into the flat below and murder all the kids living there. You can't stop psychopaths and the mentally ill from doing what they do. You can lower the risks, but at some point you have to balance the tiny chance of a tragic event against the freedoms of millions.

Here's where the Daily Mail picks up on this thread and runs headline'Gaming site supports child rape'. Which is exactly what I'm talking about, using emotive issues to sway common sense decisions. This 'will stop terrorists and pedos' line is one step away from 'Give me your money or I'll shoot this kitten'.

 

[Oirish_Martin]

Er....wasn't it made pretty apparent at the time of the Soham murders that if there had a been a proper vetting procedure for school employees they could have been avoided?

(I.e. pick up on the fact that this guy seems to keep getting accused of underage sex and rape, oh well let's employ him at the school anyway)

Ok, so maybe it would have happened even then, but at least that objection was vaguely sensible to the facts of the case. I'm really struggling to see what the Internet had to do with any aspect of this particular case, but as usual the level of political discourse in this country has been reduced to BUT BUT PEDOS!!!!!111

(Did you know that paedophiles are currently using an area of Internet the size of Ireland?)

Very true about the first statement of the schools.

But i can't work out what you mean by the size of ireland for pedofile islans x), are you saying its tiny in the grand scale of things or... as im not sure the internet can't really be measured in size or are you talking if all internet pedos were put in one place /confused sorry for being anal about it but i want to understand what you mean x)

Ooh, I was hoping someone would ask.

It wasn't a serious statement at all, it's a quote from a program called Brass Eye. It's a satire of TV news documentaries, and they released a paedophilia special a while after the Soham murders, sending up some of the media hysteria.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brass_Eye#Paedophilia_special_.282001.29

Think it can be found on google videos. I personally think it's bloody amazing, and the reaction from some of the tabloids ("ban this sick filth now" style of thing printed opposite from photos of underage celebrities complete with comments on the size of their boobs) was hilariously oblivious.

Anyway, they got various celebs to say incredibly stupid made-up "facts" as part of a fictitious anti-paedophilia campaign, the crack about the area of internet the size of Ireland was one of them.

"Paedophiles have more genes in common with crabs than they do with you and me. Now that is scientific fact ? there's no real evidence for it ? but it is scientific fact."

 

[Oirish_Martin]

Isn't there a range of possible sentences for these crimes though?

I'm not condoning the sudden ramping up to maximum possible sentencing that this latest shower seem to be doing, but some of this was surely in place already and at a judge's disposal.

(As for the twitter case, the popular press coverage of it has been monumentally shit)

There is, and at least from my POV, it looks like the absolute maximum sentences are being handed out when the newspapers deem it to be 'an outrage' and rile up the public. IF being offensive online or offline is worth a jail term, best get building a big fucking wall around Earth.

I also feel they were being punished on behalf of the hundreds of people involved that didn't get arrested, which is on a level with fining someone half a million bucks for downloading 3 songs, because they can't catch everyone.

I don't think public reaction factored into the conviction of the rioters so much as it did this case of the malicious tweets. As I said, I think the sentencing was upped to send a message from the government, whereas in the tweet case, the judge specifically said his sentence reflected public outrage.

And quite frankly, fuck that. Public are as unreliable as the state when it comes to reasonable behaviour, IMO, that's not a road we want to go down.

To me, there's a big difference between 'I hope he fucking dies' which is hateful, and 'I hope someone fucking stabs him the neck' which I'd say is incitement to murder. I think it also has to be examined in context, is this regular, or a one off outburst? We've all said terrible things while angry/tired/drunk/etc. 'Sorry' should cover it, not a jail sentence.

Sure. As I said, the popular press arsed the reporting of this one. As far as I can gather, the initial remarks about the footballer weren't the problem, it was his threatening and racist responses to people who criticised his tweets that did it for him, but very few press reports referred to this. Some even got his charge incorrect (threatening behaviour, not incitement to racial hatred) and the CPS had to issue a correction.

Having said that, I've wished horrible, drawn out torture to the point of expiry on Simon Cowell for his crimes against music alone, so I'd be getting fitted for an orange jumpsuit and a face sized towel fairly soon.

Shhh, they'll hear you.

(urgh, that's not even funny, that's just depressing.)

 

[newwiseman]

I so don't care about the unethical wiretapping at this point, the Supreme Count of the United States (our highest court) just ruled that the police are allowed to strip and cavity search you no matter the reason for arrest (you can arrested for jaywalking and be cavity searched now).

With one of the judges pointing out that The Unibomber, Ted Kizinski, had been arrested for driving without a license plate on his truck, somehow implying a strip search would have found the explosives he left in a van...

The case that brought it to trial was a man had been cavity searched 3 times at 2 different police stations and the county jail; he had been arrested wrongfully (basically for being black in the wrong place) and had his rights violated so he sued, with the courts decision he lost his case.

 

[SenseOfTumour]

Anyone else get the urge to go out and commit a string of murders using Bibles, wedding rings, bound volumes of Shakespeare, zimmer frames, and other signs of morality and old times, just to stop headlines blaming everything on young people and the internet?

 

[Stu35]

snip.

You know with these laws cops could take your banking and credit card numbers and info right?

You mean information already readily available to them(I work for the government, so they already have access to my bank account - its how they pay me)?

 

[aba1]

snip.

You know with these laws cops could take your banking and credit card numbers and info right?

You mean information already readily available to them(I work for the government, so they already have access to my bank account - its how they pay me)?

While that may be true for you it most certainly isn't true for most people which is more or less my point