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

[ph0b0s123]

Reading some of the above comments, I think people are forgetting something. The concern is that under RIPA organisations, who are not the police or the intelligence services, have access to the current level of information. The concern it that even minor bureaucrats will be able to access the information in scope of this new legislation without a warrant and therefore over-site.

Next time you go to the job centre, how would you like your case worker, or whatever they are called to mention that maybe if you spent lees time looking at roxy on 'bustybabes.com' or playing WOW, you would have more luck finding for a job. And that he is going to send you to manage your time better.... This is not fancy-full, just reading up how much the powers given by RIPA were abused by petty bureaucrats.

People don't get that if this is allowed through, it is the whole civil service who can access this not just the police.

 

[Chairman Miaow]

People are making a huge deal over nothing. This is no different than them having a stake-out on a suspect. You really think they are gonna sift through millions of people's e-mail without reason?

How is this like a stake out? Please explain how watching someone from a public place is the same as having warrant less access to every interaction you have on the internet. I am finding that analogy hard to grasp.

Fine, that was a poor analogy. This is no different to getting a warrant and then searching a suspect's place.

 

[ph0b0s123]

People are making a huge deal over nothing. This is no different than them having a stake-out on a suspect. You really think they are gonna sift through millions of people's e-mail without reason?

How is this like a stake out? Please explain how watching someone from a public place is the same as having warrant less access to every interaction you have on the internet. I am finding that analogy hard to grasp.

Fine, that was a poor analogy. This is no different to getting a warrant and then searching a suspect's place.

And that's the problem. The stated aim of this new law is to remove the need to get a warrant to look at things like your browsing history. No-one is arguing against the police being able to do their jobs, if they have shown probable cause to a judge as to, why they want to go after someone.

 

[Chairman Miaow]

People are making a huge deal over nothing. This is no different than them having a stake-out on a suspect. You really think they are gonna sift through millions of people's e-mail without reason?

How is this like a stake out? Please explain how watching someone from a public place is the same as having warrant less access to every interaction you have on the internet. I am finding that analogy hard to grasp.

Fine, that was a poor analogy. This is no different to getting a warrant and then searching a suspect's place.

And that's the problem. The stated aim of this new law is to remove the need to get a warrant to look at things like your browsing history. No-one is arguing against the police being able to do their jobs, if they have shown probable cause to a judge as to, why they want to go after someone.

The only source I have read (I) said they still required a warrant. Where have you read that they don't?

 

[ph0b0s123]

People are making a huge deal over nothing. This is no different than them having a stake-out on a suspect. You really think they are gonna sift through millions of people's e-mail without reason?

How is this like a stake out? Please explain how watching someone from a public place is the same as having warrant less access to every interaction you have on the internet. I am finding that analogy hard to grasp.

Fine, that was a poor analogy. This is no different to getting a warrant and then searching a suspect's place.

And that's the problem. The stated aim of this new law is to remove the need to get a warrant to look at things like your browsing history. No-one is arguing against the police being able to do their jobs, if they have shown probable cause to a judge as to, why they want to go after someone.

The only source I have read (I) said they still required a warrant. Where have you read that they don't?

Justice Secretary Ken Clarke told the Today programme:
"The hoo-hah at the moment is based on rather alarming descriptions of what we are supposed to be doing. With communications, at the moment, records of all phone calls are kept and can be accessed.

"You can't listen to the phone call, if you are an intelligence man, but you can get a list of all the phone calls in the last year. If you want to listen to any of it, if you want to snoop, then you've got to get a warrant signed by the Home Secretary.

"Technology has moved on... so what is proposed is the rules nobody was complaining about when it was telephone calls should now be extended to others, with the same safeguards."

From here:http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/reaction-to-government-monitoring-plan-bizarre-7618061.html

"The Home Office minister James Brokenshire says "absolutely not" and he insists that the content of the calls/emails will not be monitored - just where and when they were made/sent, and to whom. He says it's about updating the existing rules: "It is not about some new super-database or spying on the contents of everybody's communications." "
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-17590363

These two most from the horses mouth quotes (rather than what the media theorise is going to happen) are what make me conclude that they will not need warrants to access all the your on-line communications history (including browsing history), just the content of the communication will not be accessible without a warrant.

Clark is arguing that internet surfing history is the same as peoples call history, so if one is accessible why do people have a problem with the other being accessible. I think anyone with an once of sense will realise that surfing history is a lot more personal that a phone call history.

Now this does not mean 100% that this will be in the bill put before parliament. Nothing is cast in stone and considering the backlash things may get watered down a lot, hopefully...

 

[ph0b0s123]

Since I started this thread about the govenment playing the 'paedo card' to support their web monitoring plans, I found the following Sun story interesting in this light.

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/4237695/Child-sex-offence-every-20-minutes.html

"The 43 police forces in England and Wales recorded 23,097 child sex offences last year. That included rape, incest, child prostitution and pornography.

The annual figure is equivalent to 444 attacks a week ? or one kiddie abused every 20 minutes.

Just as worryingly, only 2,135 of offences reported ? ten per cent ? led to someone actually being convicted and sentenced. Thousands of paedos escape scot-free.

Mr Brown, head of the NSPCC?s Sexual Abuse programme, said: ?When you have a situation where more than 60 children are being sexually abused every day, something is very wrong. ""

Now I don't want to make light of this, and my heart goes out to any kid who is abused, but the article could just have been headlined with 'It's Paedogeddon'.

And I'm sorry Sun but an allegation of child abuse /= a crime happened. Accoring to the logic of this story an allegation or 'report' = guilt. So much for due process. So the true headline is 'child abuse allegations are at a rate of 1 every 20 mintues'. This story is very irresponsible. Also the NSPCC who are obviously on a donation drive and should know better. It's interesting this story comes so close on the heels of the government announcing web monitoring proposals.....

Also if only 10% of allegations results in a conviction, could that not also mean 90% of allegations, result in innocent people having their names dragged through the mud. To me that is more worrying.

Captcha: topsy turvy

Edit:
My favourite part:

"London?s Metropolitan Police dealt with the most abuse cases, a total of 3,420. The Leveson Inquiry into Press standards has heard Scotland Yard has 150 cops working on its phone hacking investigation ? and just 27 devoted to nailing paedophiles.

London?s Deputy Mayor Kit Malthouse also told the inquiry the Met?s bill for probing phone hacking is forecast to hit £40million.

In contrast, £36million is spent annually on investigating child abuse in the capital."

Yeah, police stop investigation our sister papers hacking and get back after those paedos.

 

[Jamieson 90]

I'll take freedom and the right to privacy over safety any day, and it's not even safety but more the fear for our safety, the use of emotive language regarding child molesters/rapest/murders to help pass the legislation is just disgusting, and people actually fall for it. The fact is these crimes are rare and don't need such a heavy handed approach. You're more likely to die in a car crash so why not loads of legislation to improve car safety or fix the god awful roads here (UK).

 

[Rastien]

Spoiler

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."

AHHH of course! i have seen brass eye thats why it was irritating me so much i knew i had heard it before. The launch a pedofile into space etc etc

 

[mirage202]

Whole point of this (IMO) is to just legalise what they are already doing. After MPs comments about it being used in public trials, it just screamed the whole "secret evidence" crap that keeps cropping up.

Not that it matters anyway, they will do what they want, and there isn't a damned thing we can do about it, the only difference between any of them are in the colours of their parties.

That said though, maybe Cherie's Human Rights Act, could be made to work in Joe citizens favour for a change, its likely a blatant breach. Wonder how quick they'd scramble to rectify that if it started working against them.

 

[ICantBelieveItGoesBoom]

Surely the very fact that we HAVE caught people like Ian Huntley mean we don't need these laws?

 

[Flames66]

People seem to be rather confused about this monitoring legislation. Here's the thing:

1) The police won't be able to read your emails, all they can do is see what websites you go on and who you are contacting via email and things like that.

None of those are acceptable.

2) This isn't the dawn of a new Orwellian regime, we already have laws that allow the police to do these things, only with regards to phones. The police can find out who you've been phoning without a warrant, but they need a warrant to know what you are saying.

This is also unacceptable, people are working to remove their ability to do this. There are also ways around it.

3) This is legislation i.e. a proposed law. It is by no means definite that it will pass.

So no, I'm not signing that petition, because this legislation is doing is bringing our current laws up to date with new technology.

Current laws are wrong already (my opinion) as they are the result of gradual erosion of rights and personal freedom.

Edit: Oh, and with regards to CCTV cameras, which always come up when people talk about privacy in Britain. CCTV cameras monitor you on public streets (or at least, the government ones do). Don't claim that your privacy is being invaded by them, because you don't have privacy on a public street. If you're doing something that you don't want people to know about, you shouldn't be doing it on a public street anyway.

I disagree as I am of the opinion that no one should be recorded in any way without their express permission.