Snoopers' Charter passed by Parliament and will become law within weeks
- Thread starter Stephen!
- Start date
Those who have nothing to hide have nothing to fear.
Disgraceful of Corbyn to cave in completely on this, but I guess that his sort of Marxism is exactly the sort of politics that Orwell's 1984 was warning us of.
You mean this ironically, right? It's so hard to tell online.
Nothing the Americans haven't already been doing to us for years, as per the revelations of a certain Mr. Snowden.
Which does not mean that we should just get over it, though.
Did I make the case that you should?
My point is that in reality it's been going on for ages anyway so I think the protesting this legislation would be symbolic but likely wouldn't result in practical change. This just puts an official seal of approval on it from Parliament. The Americans were harvesting our info from GCHQ for years and distributing key intelligence to allies before Snowden dropped them in it (and are probably still doing it now).
No, you didn't. Did I accuse you of it?
That is the likelihood, but I still think this, and any other legalization of these practices, should be fought. Even if protest would be only of symbolic value, that is still showing that people are not okay with this.
Bit heavy handed don't you think, but then we have similar laws here in Australia. I think they got passed last year or something. In our case the govt. wants to keep all your metadata ie: cellphone calls, emails, text messages, for a period of 2 years.
I do find it funny that thing much of this, if ever is made mention of in mainstream media as in TV news and such. Not that people would react on it but you do wonder why it's not in the press everywhere.
I do find it funny that thing much of this, if ever is made mention of in mainstream media as in TV news and such. Not that people would react on it but you do wonder why it's not in the press everywhere.
The police still need a court order to access the records, yes? The police can't just go fishing freely in the database whenever they want without a valid reason to look for something on a specific person. All this law does is set a standard minimum time the record-holder must keep said records on file.
Hope they like cat butts.
Police require a court order for interception of communications, and the obtaining of message content, and certain other data which is quite complexly defined as 'excluded' such as legally privileged material isn't available at all. General access to metadata is via an authorisation process in house which is audited by the Information Commissioner. That's been the case for years, it's largely American TV that makes people talk about 'warrants' for things. Court issued warrants are fairly rare in our system and generally comprise of bench warrants for people who don't appear in court when they should, premises search warrants where no specific power already exists, and the cases i mentioned above.
Phone companies have already been required to keep metadata for a year so that's not new - in fact the only part of this that's totally novel is the requirement to keep internet metadata. The inherent issue with that is that while there's no way to reconstruct a phone call from knowing what number i phoned, if you have a web address you can reconstruct most of the viewed content by copy pasting into a browser. The bill essentially ignored the blurred lines between data and metadata where web browsing is concerned, and pretended it was no different to a list of phone numbers. The fact it clearly is notwithstanding.
Last edited:
And they cannot lie.
Yes, but it's a fine balance between acceptable security measures and invasive overreach. That's where some have a problem. Where is the line?
He's quoting Umbridge from Harry Potter, the takeover of the entire Ministry by the badguys.
^I like it when Harry Potter defeated the Axis powers with his little magic wand.
It goes in cycles, as the public outrage rises against both invasions: Privacy vs Security.
Here is the question: Where do YOU (or I) draw the line?
Specifically, you have to choose. Policy hasn't the benefit of armchair hindsight. Are you prepared for the consequences? Where most of us have the luxury of second guessing, actually we do influence that line. But someone's got to set it. What if it were you?
It goes in cycles, as the public outrage rises against both invasions: Privacy vs Security.
Here is the question: Where do YOU (or I) draw the line?
Specifically, you have to choose. Policy hasn't the benefit of armchair hindsight. Are you prepared for the consequences? Where most of us have the luxury of second guessing, actually we do influence that line. But someone's got to set it. What if it were you?
Last edited:
That phrase is far older than Harry Potter. It's been mis-attributed to George Orwell, as well as Joseph Göbbels, among others. The oldest use of the phrase I could find was by Upton Sinclair in "The Profits of Religion: An Essay in Economic Interpretation" from 1918:
Upton Sinclair said:
I think this is pretty much business as usual. I have no doubt that a lot of agencies have been doing this for years, and probably also only been keeping the data for a certain amount of time before disposing of it unless actually crucial. This probably simply let's the public know what guidelines these agencies been operating under already.
OK but why should the onus be on the telco or ISP to do this, if the government wants this so badly why can't they do it themselves?
Similar threads
