Email and web use 'to be monitored' under new laws In the UK

 Pages 1 2 3 NEXT
 

No its not an April First.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-17576745

BBC just posted this now, The government will be able to monitor the calls, emails, texts and website visits of everyone in the UK under new legislation they are apparently going to announce in the next Queens speech.

In a statement, the Home Office said action was needed to "maintain the continued availability of communications data as technology changes"

"It is vital that police and security services are able to obtain communications data in certain circumstances to investigate serious crime and terrorism and to protect the public," a spokesman said.

"As set out in the Strategic Defence and Security Review we will legislate as soon as parliamentary time allows to ensure that the use of communications data is compatible with the government's approach to civil liberties."

As a note this is the same policy they use in the Hotbeds of human rights China and Iran.

TLDR, We be fucked.

More info on why this is awful (if you need a reason) here http://www.bigbrotherwatch.org.uk/

Edit: Cut the No Warrent stuff, it was a miss reading, but still, even if this may not get though, pointing out people are trying shit like this is still necessary.

If someone wants to take the time out of their day to sift through my spam mail then they can go ahead.

I'll just have to keep all communication on my dodgy activities through smoke signals.

In all honesty I couldn't care what they get up to in our beloved UK anymore.

We have more CCTV cameras around than we have bloody people. I live in Burnley, which is a complete shit pit, and it's full of CCTV cameras. Can't have a decent weekend fight without it being filmed.

Now to the amusing part.

The town center is full of working CCTV cameras yet the speed cameras from Burnley through to Padiham barely work. Only a handful of them are in use yet there is one every few yards.

So now they want people to sift through mail and online use.

Good luck with that.

People use email for something anymore other than for signing up for websites? The usefullness of email has been on the decline for several, several years. And has been practically killed by the so-called "web 2.0". Email is mostly still used by old folks who don't know how to use the internet.

It's a stupid immoral idea. And also a colossal waste of time.

Careful, you're going to be labelled a tinfoil hatter soon - governments are only working in our best interests you know! Everything is fine, no need to worry, go back to sleep.

loluk

I felt like I was living in an Orwellian nightmare when I was over there. CCTV EVERYWHERE. I literally could not step outside of my house without being monitored immediately. To get to a point were you werent being filmed you needed to drive for an hour. Ridiculous.

This is just the icing on the cake really. But hey, at least they are going through the trouble of making the whole thing legal. In Germany they just distribute government trojans to scan you computer, like criminals. ...Who am I kidding? "Like" criminals? They are criminals.

Have you noticed how in a lot of countries, like the United States and the UK and maybe Australia, there's been a huge number of privacy invading laws done under the excuse of "protecting the citizens from terrorists" or "protecting the citizens from paedophiles"?

I'm continually shocked at how continually, year after year, these excuses are drudged up for bad new legislation. Aren't people getting dulled from these excuses and waking up to recognize them for what they are, by now?

Please be a joke. I hope it's a joke. If not, 4 more years and I'm gone.

'The moment any mans freedom is restricted, controlled or put under question, then the links of oppression form, soon enough those links will be enough to chain us all.'

Why does Picard have more sense that most human beings?

If the Liberal Democrats don't oppose this then they may as well disband as a party, since they will have lost any kind of moral or political principle. I thought this was some kind of sick April Fools' Day joke, but apparently people seriously believe terrorists present this much of a threat to us all.

April Fools, come on guys we are not that bad, right?

I think someone owes Orwell a soda or something...

It's funny because George Orwell was English.

Tree man:
'The moment any mans freedom is restricted, controlled or put under question, then the links of oppression form, soon enough those links will be enough to chain us all.'

Why does Picard have more sense that most human beings?

Because it's Patrick fucking Stewart, that's why. That man chose to age backwards

LilithSlave:
Have you noticed how in a lot of countries, like the United States and the UK and maybe Australia, there's been a huge number of privacy invading laws done under the excuse of "protecting the citizens from terrorists" or "protecting the citizens from paedophiles"?

I'm continually shocked at how continually, year after year, these excuses are drudged up for bad new legislation. Aren't people getting dulled from these excuses and waking up to recognize them for what they are, by now?

It means two things. One: Al-Qaeda won. The tl;dr of it is that. They wanted to scare the west, and they've done that handily. Their mission couldn't have gone more to plan if they had cheat codes active. Two: People are fucking stupid and refuse to stand up for their privacy rights anytime someone mentions 'terrorists'.

The hilarious thing is you could use that stupidity to their benefit. All we have to do is mention how the tightening of security has made them win, and that we're their bitch, and they'll be begging for legislation to remove all the stupid bills we've enacted in the name of quelling a terror threat that just doesn't exist anymore.

LilithSlave:
Have you noticed how in a lot of countries, like the United States and the UK and maybe Australia, there's been a huge number of privacy invading laws done under the excuse of "protecting the citizens from terrorists" or "protecting the citizens from paedophiles"?

I'm continually shocked at how continually, year after year, these excuses are drudged up for bad new legislation. Aren't people getting dulled from these excuses and waking up to recognize them for what they are, by now?

most people don't know about them. It only seems to be tech-savvy individuals who give a crap.

But everyone SHOULD know. Gosh... we're waking up in a police state. This is ridiculous.

Though I'm hoping that this has some sort of provision like our Patriot Act and other related wire-tapping legislation - only suspected terrorists will be searched.

... yes lets give them all our information, its not like they could 'loose' it or anything

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/7104945.stm

its not like we have a past history of loosing data now do we.

i dont have to comment anymore on it, im sure everyone else is going to say the same exact things here anyway.

well... its seems that "terrorism" is the word of the year. again.
i dont know if "the terrorists" exist, but they sure did their job EXTREMELY well...
people are so scared they allow everything.

This sort of law has been defeated before and will probably be defeated again.

Tree man:
'The moment any mans freedom is restricted, controlled or put under question, then the links of oppression form, soon enough those links will be enough to chain us all.'

Why does Picard have more sense that most human beings?

Not such a great quote. By definition, society always restricts individual freedom. I'm not allowed to: drive a car at 100mph on a public road, have sex with a 14-year-old, kill my neighbour's annoying cat, lie to the government about how much I earn, or inject heroin. These are all ways my freedom is restricted.

The question is not whether a man's freedom should be restricted, but how much it should be restricted. A balance needs to be struck between protecting individual freedom and protecting society as a whole. Too far one way is anarchy, and too far the other is an Orwellian state.

LilithSlave:
Have you noticed how in a lot of countries, like the United States and the UK and maybe Australia, there's been a huge number of privacy invading laws done under the excuse of "protecting the citizens from terrorists" or "protecting the citizens from paedophiles"?

I'm continually shocked at how continually, year after year, these excuses are drudged up for bad new legislation. Aren't people getting dulled from these excuses and waking up to recognize them for what they are, by now?

I don't get it either. They're trying to pass stuff like that in Canada too, and while there IS uproar....It's mostly quiet. There are no protests about it (not that I've heard of, anyway)!

I mean...Gosh, do they realize that if they let the government spy on your online activity WITHOUT A WARRANT, then we are two steps away from having cameras in our own homes to spy on us at all times!

If the government want so peep into my hard drive, they are welcome to do so IF THEY HAVE A WARRANT. If they think I'm dangerous (not likely), and that they need to investigate me further, enough so to have probably cause to get a warrant, then by all means! That's how it works! You gather evidence, and if you have enough to suspect someone is dangerous you get a warrant and check! You don't just spy on anyone you feel like!

What if someone has an innocent secret (they're a furry or a cross dresser, or a tree humper, whatever) and some cop finds out while snooping on their activity without a warrant. He could blackmail the person. The person's secret could get leaked. Private companies could take over the system vie bribes and stuff and use it to spy on their employees and fire anyone that's remotely unusual in their private lives!

If legislation like this keeps going through, we WILL wind up in 1984. And it will SUCK.

Good luck reconciling this with the ECHR.

*deleted* theres no delete button here, so nyah what am i to do.

I've actually given up being bothered about stuff like this. All the petitions, all the opposition, every single time the people coming out in force, and still they keep trying.

Fuck 'em, they want to make me use proxys and VPN tunnels and anything else, then it's their own fucking fault.

zidine100:

aegix drakan:

What if someone has an innocent secret (they're a furry or a cross dresser, or a tree humper, whatever) and some cop finds out while snooping on their activity without a warrant. He could blackmail the person. The person's secret could get leaked. Private companies could take over the system vie bribes and stuff and use it to spy on their employees and fire anyone that's remotely unusual in their private lives

Or the government itself could (and probably would eventually) allow them to include this on background checks, theoretically making a near unemployable list... just sayin. But then again, thats a rather small problem in comparason to what it could be used for.

Oh, can you imagine... >_<

"sorry Mr Jimbob, but our records show that you visited a furry porn site one time when you were 18. We're afraid we can't hire you. Oh, and we have armed personnel outside this office waiting to arrest you for crimes against anima-Oh, you say you never ACTUALLY wanted to screw an animal for real? Well, I'm sorry but we can't take that risk, since you're OBVIOUSLY a deviant. Grab him!"

Or even: "Sorry, but your internet history shows you frequent a lot of non-conservative websites. So we're not going to hire you, and we're going to revoke your right to vote. Only one party is legit."

Or even: "What's this? Someone with a deviant sexuality? Arrest them immediately before they pose any kind of threat, and then chuck them in jail with the rest of the sexual deviant scum!"

>_< Not to mention how easy it would be to find and "disappear" people who don't like the current status quo.

This is a VERY VERY slippery slope that goes straight down.

The real April Fool is that a Tory said something sane:

Tory MP David Davis called it "an unnecessary extension of the ability of the state to snoop on ordinary people".

Labour wants to put us in some Orwellian nanny state.
Conservatives are privatising fucking EVERYTHING.
And the Lib Dems are just the Tories' bitch.

Come 2015 I don't know who the fuck I'll vote for.
Maybe that George Galloway party that's already gaining some ground?

Right, I see a slight technical issue - unless they're going to monitor that passes through the modems (I'm sure there's a technical term for this, but I can't think of it right now), how are they going to do this? Considering a lot of people use browser based email, like GMail, Hotmail and whatnot, and these sites are owned by US based companies, so...

I mean, sure, if this was a US law, it might affect US citizens using British services, but, come on, seriously, if the CPS went to google and said "Hi, we're a foreign government agency and we want your records to spy on our citizens", I think we'd get the same cold shoulder as the... chinese... did..... oh.

Yeah, I can see how this is a problem.

The Plunk:
Come 2015 I don't know who the fuck I'll vote for.

Move to Wales and vote for Plaid, the only way you can get away from these people is independence! XD

Danial:
All of this can be checked and listened too etc without the need for a warrant.

No, it's a double-negative, see:

The Beeb:
A new law - which may be announced in the forthcoming Queen's Speech in May - would not allow GCHQ to access the content of emails, calls or messages without a warrant.

Yay Conservative government! >_>

I hope to god this is an April Fools....

Macemaster:

Tree man:
'The moment any mans freedom is restricted, controlled or put under question, then the links of oppression form, soon enough those links will be enough to chain us all.'

Why does Picard have more sense that most human beings?

Because it's Patrick fucking Stewart, that's why. That man chose to age backwards

I don't know, I've seen him about the village. Seems pretty old to me.

He's a nice guy though. Probably smarter than anyone in the house of commons, I'll say...

You guys do know this thing already exists right? It's called Echelon and it's been monitering radio transmissions,telephone,faxes and internet traffic since each of those things was invented.

If the government wants to spy on you, well, it can, quite simply, and probably has been for a very long time.

xXxJessicaxXx:
Yay Conservative government! >_>

I hope to god this is an April Fools....

Eh...Labour wanted to do something similar a few years back. I think it should be 'Yay nosey arseholes!'

but yeah..me too.

Binnsyboy:

Macemaster:

Tree man:
'The moment any mans freedom is restricted, controlled or put under question, then the links of oppression form, soon enough those links will be enough to chain us all.'

Why does Picard have more sense that most human beings?

Because it's Patrick fucking Stewart, that's why. That man chose to age backwards

I don't know, I've seen him about the village. Seems pretty old to me.

He's a nice guy though. Probably smarter than anyone in the house of commons, I'll say...

It's a carpool episode with him lol.

Danial:
-snip-

A similar law was attempted, and subsequently abandoned, in 2006 by the Labour party under fierce opposition. Here's to hoping history repeats itself this time.

Macemaster:

Binnsyboy:

Macemaster:

Because it's Patrick fucking Stewart, that's why. That man chose to age backwards

I don't know, I've seen him about the village. Seems pretty old to me.

He's a nice guy though. Probably smarter than anyone in the house of commons, I'll say...

It's a carpool episode with him lol.

What, that show done by the guy who played Kryten in Red Dwarf?

Ah well, I should clarify, Patrick Stewart keeps a house on the moor kept by my uncle.

Binnsyboy:

Macemaster:

Binnsyboy:

I don't know, I've seen him about the village. Seems pretty old to me.

He's a nice guy though. Probably smarter than anyone in the house of commons, I'll say...

It's a carpool episode with him lol.

What, that show done by the guy who played Kryten in Red Dwarf?

Ah well, I should clarify, Patrick Stewart keeps a house on the moor kept by my uncle.

Yep, same show, and Oo. wow. nice.

I think it's quite easy to underestimate the number of people who will be in favour of these measures.

All this virtual hand-wringing over new, invasive laws and the like is only stemming the flow, it's going to take direct and possibly harsh action to halt or reverse the process.

Danial:
BBC just posted this now, The government will be able to monitor the calls, emails, texts and website visits of everyone in the UK under new legislation they are apparently going to announce in the next Queens speech. All of this can be checked and listened too etc without the need for a warrant.

Not quite. They can look up phone numbers, call duration and time without a warrant, accessing the content will still require one. Basically they can see who you are calling, when and for how long but not what you are saying.

Or at least they will if this goes through. This is a proposed piece of legislation, it still has to be passed by the Commons and the Lords. Labour proposed something similar when they were in power and it was opposed very strongly by the conservatives and Lib Dems and got shut down.

Now the conservatives are in power they are trying the same trick, only they are being sneaky about it and since most of the furore over terrorism and related govt. invasion of privacy under the guise of combating it has quietened down people aren't on the lookout for it as much so I guess they are trying get it through before anyone realises. Typical slimy fucks.

Anyway, write to or email your MP and voice your displeasure and make sure you ask them to vote against it.

 Pages 1 2 3 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked