Well yeah duh, but I don't think these things are the end of the world. It would be nice to pay less for petrol, or pay less income tax, but then I'd also have to compromise on the services I use, health, transport, police, etc. But what would I do differently if there was no big evil government? Marry my sister? Watch bestiality porn? I think those are things I can live without for now. Honestly, what would you have done differently today but the government stopped you? Name one reasonable thing. Give some, take some. People have different ideas of how much to take and give. Just because I'm not living in fear doesn't make me a slave.
QFT. OP: While I hate to paraphrase 2; You're not interesting enough to make us want to read your email - Why would the government want to? That goes for everyone shouting conspiracy theories. Hell, I don't even want to read my own email, why anyone else would, I don't know.
the biggest problem here is not the government, it is the idiots in the gov that loose the database with sensitive information and then it is picked up by someone that wants to do something bad with it...
Without delving too deeply in to my personal affairs I can tell you, hand on heart, that almost every aspect of my life would be entirely different had it not been for government intervention in my personal life late last year....which also left me £800 out of pocket. Just because it hasn't happened to you yet, doesn't mean it doesn't happen to others.
Spot-on. Personally I started my business in UK, but at the time I was already fed up with your country's "i can see you" policy so I moved away as soon as I could. CCTV isn't as effective as you'd think, most idiots that attack you during the night are so drunk or high that they just don't care about cameras, and people watching the screens usally have too much to watch at a time so they usually miss such situations. 2.5 million cameras would require 2.5 million people watching the screens which is just about impossible. At the time I moved my business out of UK I couldn't believe that you people agree to such levels of surveillance. But it gets worse every month and British people still ignore it, so I think that you deserve to lose your freedom piece by piece. Maybe you'll learn in time. You never had Gestapo or communist political police watching your every move, listening to phonecalls, convincing your friends to spy on you and denounce you, so I don't think you know the value of freedom and are able to appreciate it.
As long as they dont show my facebook to potential employers I don't care. In principle im opposed to it, but frankly it doesn't infringe on what I do in day to day life until they start selling the information - thats when they have a problem!
The problem with this "anti-terrorism" thing that keeps croping up is that the people we call terrorists wouldnt be "That!" stupid to put things on emails, they would do things oldskool style, talking face to face, not use electronical transfer of data. That's why its so hard to find these terrorists. We are looking in the wrong place. And if this goes ahead the costs or enforcing and running this would go through the roof and the Tax Payers would suffer.
To be honest I think people need to wake up and take a look at what's going on around them and at the type of world that they live in. There's an old saying, 'Those who are willing to sacrifice freedom for security deserve neither freedom nor security.' And some people may think it's a good idea to give up these freedoms for a potentially safer world, but it's not just us we are deciding for, it's our children and our children's children because these laws are a damn sight easier to put into place today than they will be to remove tomorrow.
Sorry, it takes more then para phrasing Benjamin Franklin. You have to do something about it. Until, it's just wishful thinking and online whining. Seriously, you can mutter all you want about how they shouldn't do it. About how it's wrong and anti-what ever it is we believe in. But they are doing it and will continue to do so. At least until there is massive shift in the political landscape. But, honestly, once a government has a power they are very reluctant to give it up. In fact, I have in my time, never seen a government grant itself powers and then give them up with out an extremely powerful reason. Encrypt what is personal and important, and be aware that everything else is monitored.
wasn't that what I said also it doesn't matter what anyone now does the fear of terrorism has gained enough momentum that its going to continue no matter what.
Fear mongering has been sucessful in the US and over here. It then allows the government to bring in costly new measures that have dubious effects on "terrorism" but allow them to have greater control over the population. Not to mention they were probably doing it anyway. Nothing you can do about it really, expect move abroad.
fear mongering and gay mongering... it seems that every bit of news i see from the USA is diluted in recession and homosexual marriage...
"Diluted by . . . homosexual marriage": Now there's a cocktail mixer that could prove problematic. Personally, I prefer single malt with a polygamous nurses chaser. On a related topic, suicide by plastic fork seems rather an arduous way to die. I'm thinking of the indentured desk clerk with an undefeatable webcam who can't take being observed any more and wants to make his exit really tedious for whoever's editing the next Faces of Death.
Topically, the G20 riots in London have not been viciously suppressed by a totalitarian regime; long way to go before the UK government starts sending dissidents to the Gulag. Too much FUD on the UK CCTV level, it does far more good than Clarkson thinks.
How in the name of Spartacus Dugsthunker can you possibly justify bringing rationality into this discussion? Where's the bristling invective? Where's the noir-tinged paranoia? Where are the unconscious references to Jim Thompson, Gilliam's Brazil and the collected works of Philip K. Dick? Nothing wrong with encrypting your personal files, if the point is to avoid what *might* happen as opposed to what you're convinced absolutely *will*. Preventative medicine doesn't necessarily imply that disease is inevitable. Irrational certainty is the gateway to the joys of schizophrenia. Another nice distinction: Cynicism versus solipsism. Yes, people are probably watching me, but my files aren't necessarily important to the watchers unless they can make money or I've stumbled loudly onto the grid. I am not a modern Napoleon, nor am I the sleeping catalyst of world events. I have a friend who, at the apex of his tenure as an English professor, found himself denounced hourly on CSPAN by Jesse Helms. Why? Because (i) my friend's publisher used grant money from the NEA and (ii) his novel began with the sentence, "I am c*nt." Surreal, to turn on the television one weekend and hear Helms frothing, "This degenerate, [insert friend's name], has no business teaching the hopeful youth of America! I don't know what his book's about, and I don't *want* to know!" My friend was strangely offended that Helms thought himself in a position to criticize a book he refused to understand. "Don't worry," I reassured said friend. "Helms's refusal to understand you is the reason you're still safe." I agree that surveillance is pernicious, aggressive and ever more pervasive. But fear of surveillance is worse if the result is to fear being honest. Fame is for solipsists; let the rest of us celebrate our obscurity. We are seen but not deciphered, observed, but not by the obsessed. We are minor gamblers visiting Vegas who win precious little and leave gloriously unannounced.
I have risen from my flu-ridden hell of mucas-encrusted tissues to resurrect this thread A public consultation on the communication data bill is running from today until the 20th of July. There is a .pdf availalble for download here and the public are invited to respond to the questions at the end of the document, namely: Q1 On the basis of this evidence and subject to current safeguards and oversight arrangements, do you agree that communications data is vital for law enforcement, security and intelligence agencies and emergency services in tackling serious crime, preventing terrorism and protecting the public? Q2 Is it right for Government to maintain this capability by responding to the new communications environment? Q3 Do you support the Government’s approach to maintaining our capabilities? Which of the solutions should it adopt? Q4 Do you believe that the safeguards outlined are sufficient for communications data in the future? If you are going to participate may I suggest that you point out in question one that it is impossible to give an informed answer to it, as the only "evidence" provided was anecdotal evidence where the use of communications data was successful. Only a statistical analysis of when communications data was requested, along with the positive or negative outcome of that request would give a sufficient overview on which to form an opinion.
