News Snooper's Charter back on the table, says May

If it wasn't useful then they wouldn't be awarding contracts with names like "Novel Techniques for Public Sentiment and Perception Elicitation" to BAE Systems.

 

I think the only way to get people to care is to take the John Oliver method



(got the video for only that bit, the whole interview is pretty good)

realised that none of the videos have public response in them

 

I think it's unfortunate that some aren't bothered by this. Maybe is a generational thing given the things people are willing to share via social media that I wouldn't dream of doing. For perspective I'm 49 so didn't grow up with social media.

The system currently works as shown by Yaddas post so it has to be asked why they need additional powers? Even with these new powers there's no guarantee that we'll be any safer - as the IRA quote says they only need to succeed once so why are we giving up freedoms that previous generations have fought and, in some cases died for, for the perception of safety?

 

Exactly what the last post said. FFS people, they've already said this is a revenue exercise.

 

They have?

I would be very interested in any source or link about that, from my understanding it has already cost the UK tax payers £400m, and other figures suggest around £2.5b over ten years.

 

They can take as much money as they like from criminals and tax fraudsters as far as I'm concerned. The more the merrier.

 

@Gareth, Sorry my fault, it never occurred to me to re-read your original article.

One thing that almost always turns out to be true from government quotes is that they under estimate costs, and over estimate income.

EDIT: I also wonder how their going to identify the people committing tax fraud and other criminal activity purely from the metadata, do tax fraudsters visit taxfraud.com? Do criminals visit sites selling bags label swag or organised-crime-are-us.com?

 

...and don't forget paedophiles and illegal immigrants!

But don't you think we should probably also consider the long-term social implications of abandoning the cornerstone of our justice system and a principle common to most human rights treaties, namely the presumption of innocence?

 

So are they "making money" or not?

This is "damned if they do, damned if they don't" again isn't it?

 

By your interpretation, it has already been abandoned - the moment CCTV was deployed in public areas.

 

And you could say the same of police work, but the public and private areas have been demarcated in law for a reason...Many actually.

 

Yup. By your interpretation, CCTV means we are already not "presumed innocent" yet we still go about our day just fine. Forgive me for not giving a hoot.

 

In public areas there is, a priori, no expectation of privacy. That's why it's legal to take pictures on the streets, but illegal to take pictures looking in someone's bedroom window. Dismissing the distinction doesn't make it go away.

 

Gareth - Am I the only one thinking those expense/income numbers are reversed?

ie. It'll cost north of £5B to bring in £1B. Or even £1.00

 

Ian, I think you misread it.

Cost: £1.8bn

Money recouped: £5bn - £6.2bn

 

They are not making any money from it yet as it has not been implemented yet.

If you want to trust the politician that's fighting to impose the draft communications data bill, that they will be able to recoup the cost from criminal activity then fine, many people probably wouldn't as like i said before politicians have a tendency to underestimate costs and overestimate income.

CCTV in public places is very different than the draft communications data bill, for a start CCTV must always be for a specified purpose, take into account its effect on individuals and their privacy.

BTW I'm still waiting for you thoughts on the video VipersGratitude posted.
How about those email account passwords and you internet history for the last year, after all if you've done nothing wrong you've got nothing to worry about, right?

EDIT: That £1.8bn cost doesn't account for inflation, VAT and depreciation , that same 2012 report also states "However this figure must be highly suspect, because it was calculated with little or no input from the CSPs

 

CCTV in public places is not "very different" to the draft comm's bill. They monitor and record everything we do, regardless of who we are, and if we commit a crime, the data they have captured is used as evidence against us. Yet most of us still manage to live our lives completely unaffected, and dare I say it, reassured that if some scumbag mugs us in the street, there's a better chance of them being found and prosecuted.

In fact, it could be argued that CCTV is MORE intrusive because it captures and records the FULL extent of what we do, not just metadata as proposed by the draft comm's bill.

(I won't be watching the video, thanks, so you can stop banging on about it. )

 

It's very different.

For starters CCTV doesn't identify every person no matter where they go, it doesn't link persona A with person B, it doesn't keep a record of what person entered what shop for a whole year.

Heaven forbid that you maybe exposed to both sides of the argument.

That just leaves those email passwords and that internet history, like i said if you've done nothing wrong, if privacy doesn't matter it shouldn't be a problem, right?

On the subject of costs in the same 2012 report they state..