News Government under fire over Draft Communications Data Bill

[yougotkicked]

Originally Posted by CarlT2001

+1

Surely people who have any issue with this has something to hide?

Or they think the government shouldn't spend billions on something that is unlikely to actually help much at all, and sets a precedent for government snooping.

Look at the estimated cost of implementation, and then look at what is gained. If I understand correctly, this isn't actually information the police couldn't get before, the bill will just make it so they don't need a warrant to access the information, and ISP's will have to restructure their email systems in order to make this info readily available. This isn't a new crime fighting tool, it's a shortcut through some red tape. In exchange for £1.8 billion, police can dodge a little bureaucracy, and all the criminals and terrorists who apparently can be instantly caught by knowing who they exchanged emails with and when, will have to...

Oh wait, this whole thing still relies on the investigator's finding the criminal's (probably secret) email address?

[dark_avenger]

Billions of dollars to monitor Joe Blogs email? Seems a bit stupid, you'd have a to be a pretty useless criminal to be discussing things over email...

[Porkins' Wingman]

Originally Posted by VipersGratitude

Don't worry folks. They don't want to read the contents of your communications, they just want to record who you're in contact, and how often. The government are just like that soft, cuddly company who, earlier this year, launched the largest tech IPO in history.

Yes, there's obviously value in such a social graph, but this is the government we're talking about and they're paid to look after our interests, not theirs! It's not as if they want to identify political influencers (those who are politically active with a large network of contacts) along with the politically influenced (those who reciprocate that communication, but are otherwise politically inactive).

What would be the point in that? They certainly wouldn't use this data to spin otherwise unpopular policies to appeal to those influencers, giving them more precise control over the impact of the party line, rather than just hope it appeals to a blanket demographic.

And I'm sure they wouldn't attempt to manipulate an ignorant Electoral Borders Committee (afterall, why would they need access to 'security' data?) because that would be an absolute perversion of the democratic system.

This is a well-considered bill is about security, not about marketing, misinformation, manipulation and spin. They simply want to protect us from terrorists, and our children from pedophiles.

God save the Queen.

Originally Posted by CarlT2001

+1

Surely people who have any issue with this has something to hide?

Originally Posted by law99

+10

This is making my brain hurt. It's clear that VipersGratitude has got tongue firmly in cheek here, but it's less clear whether Carl, and therefore Law99, have as well. I have confuze.

[Aracos]

I always ignore everything that comes after "protect children". That is an excuse that is overused and almost appears to be an excuse you can't argue against otherwise you're a bad person. For a bill like this we need a lot more justification than simply to "protect children".

[VipersGratitude]

Holy thread resurrection!

Watched this on TED today, which totally validates my opinion on the topic