1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

News UK Gov plans snoop database

Discussion in 'Article Discussion' started by CardJoe, 23 May 2008.

  1. Phil Rhodes

    Phil Rhodes Hypernobber

    Joined:
    27 Jul 2006
    Posts:
    1,415
    Likes Received:
    10
    There's a few great lines about ID cards on the home office website. Quite apart from the appalling privacy concerns and proven incompetence of central government in matters of information security, consider this:

    "Other than some of the initial setup costs, the scheme will be funded, as with passports, mainly through fees charged to those applying."

    Which will be more or less everyone.

    Which makes that a very straightforward tax.

    They can't even figure out what the damn things will cost. One part of the website says £30, another £93.

    Fricken ID cards...
     
  2. Toka

    Toka Member

    Joined:
    19 Nov 2006
    Posts:
    316
    Likes Received:
    6
    Whats more worrying for me is the govenment storing all of the (gentelmen specific....) websites that I surf, all my sms messages, aim stuff? emails etc, and then doing a piss poor job of building / maintaining the database and either corrupting the information or allowing it to fall into undesirable peoples hands.

    Is it technically possible to build a system as large as this, with the appropriate level of security?
     
  3. DeSean

    DeSean New Member

    Joined:
    22 Oct 2006
    Posts:
    12
    Likes Received:
    0
    Not quite. I think it is the Civil Contingencies Act which gives huge powers in a serious emergency, but this can only be used in fairly extreme circumstances. They can get away with lots if we don't find out about it though, and just push the boundaries of what is already legal. This crap the papers are talking about would require an Act of Parliament.

    The big idea is that any coalition government would have to include the Lib Dems, and that a condition of them joining would be some sort of Proportional Representation. However:

    At least in our system a government can implement their vision for the country once we have chosen them. However, this nonsense will certainly not get through parliament. It would be too expensive and too worrying for the vast majority of MPs. A free society should not choose its laws based on what the police and security services think is best.:grr:
     
  4. Phil Rhodes

    Phil Rhodes Hypernobber

    Joined:
    27 Jul 2006
    Posts:
    1,415
    Likes Received:
    10
    > This crap the papers are talking about would require an Act of Parliament.

    Which they are entirely free to do.

    In other, not necessarily better-run but certainly more carefully set-up countries, this would also require a constitutional amendment, which is a useful additional blocker. The constitutional monarchy that is the United Kingdom has been operating far too long on the basis of a gentlemen's agreement about constitutionality.

    Unfortunately we are no longer governed by anyone worthy of even a gender-unspecific alternative to the term "gentleman".
     
  5. DXR_13KE

    DXR_13KE BananaModder

    Joined:
    14 Sep 2005
    Posts:
    9,119
    Likes Received:
    364
    and you guys voted on this gov? SHAME ON YOU!!!!!
     
  6. steveo_mcg

    steveo_mcg New Member

    Joined:
    26 May 2005
    Posts:
    5,841
    Likes Received:
    80
    Not entirely sure what your getting at by that post? Virtually anything serious needs a act of parliament and then an ok by the lords. It is the lords who act as a counter balance to the power of parliament not the queen.


    /looks at toes and shuffles feet uncomfortably..
    In our defence it was that or another 4 years of the torries!
     
  7. Ninja_182

    Ninja_182 Enginerd!

    Joined:
    2 Apr 2002
    Posts:
    460
    Likes Received:
    0
    Theres only two things with 100% chance of happening if the government wins at monitoring much more everything.

    One is, I will be leaving.
    Two is, they will post the information on an unencrypted disk at the hands of the Royal Mail.
     
  8. Ryu_ookami

    Ryu_ookami I write therefore I suffer.

    Joined:
    11 Mar 2004
    Posts:
    3,323
    Likes Received:
    128
    hopefully this joke of a goverment will get voted out next time round anything has to be better than this one.
     
  9. Phil Rhodes

    Phil Rhodes Hypernobber

    Joined:
    27 Jul 2006
    Posts:
    1,415
    Likes Received:
    10
    > Not entirely sure what your getting at by that post?

    I'm getting at the point that the actions of government are practically unfettered; with this ridiculous bipolar party system we have a straightforward choice between "bad" and "worse" who, once they're in, can do more or less as they like.

    I would be the last person to hold up the US as a paragon of political virtue but at least there's -some- form of statutory limitations on government power. It wouldn't stop politicians being in it solely for themselves and it wouldn't solve the problems created by the complete *******isation of democracy we call "party politics", but it would at least be another barrier to overcome in their evermore energetic attempts to turn us into a parody of Starship Troopers.
     
  10. steveo_mcg

    steveo_mcg New Member

    Joined:
    26 May 2005
    Posts:
    5,841
    Likes Received:
    80
    As i said the Lords is the "fettering" your looking for unfortunately fud over the last 20 years has allowed the powers of the lords to be curtailed by various governments. And before any one goes rambling about them being unelected, thats the point, by not being at the whims of the very fickle populous they can make decisions for the long term benefit of the country. The best example i can think of at the moment is the continued rejection of the extended uncharged period "terrorists" can be confined, this may be a vote winner with the daily mail reading electorate but its definitely a bad thing for the country. TBH i'd be very surprised if this got through the lords even if it did some how get through the commons.
     
  11. cliffski

    cliffski Game Designer

    Joined:
    19 May 2008
    Posts:
    18
    Likes Received:
    0
    In some ways the lords not being elected is good, as you say, but the problem is WHO they are. For one, there are a bunch of bishops there for some reason, and a lot of them 'inherited' their position from daddy. So it has a lot of 'landed gentry' sitting in parliament on the basis of accidents of birth, rather than interest in the issues, let alone actual ability.
     
  12. Faulk_Wulf

    Faulk_Wulf Internet Addict

    Joined:
    28 Mar 2006
    Posts:
    402
    Likes Received:
    6
    What should be noted is not whether or not this will succeed, but the fact that the Government doesn't see anything wrong with this.
    And sadly, you won't read this in the daily paper I bet, nor on your local TV News. So the only ones that know about it are those who
    browse tech-sites or things like Slashdot or Digg or whatever those "trendy hip kids" are using these days. And unfortunately, I bet that
    means that that is a minority. A minority of typically 16-34 year olds. Which usually aren't listened to seriously by politicians ANYWAY.
     
  13. cpemma

    cpemma Ecky thump

    Joined:
    27 Nov 2001
    Posts:
    12,328
    Likes Received:
    55
    You really need to broaden your media information base. :rolleyes:

    If you read the HoL transcripts (or watch business on TV) you'll find the general quality of debate in the Lords is far, far higher than the petty point-scoring in the Commons. Being born to the 'landed gentry' doesn't guarantee high intelligence, but it buys you a superior level of education.
     
  14. steveo_mcg

    steveo_mcg New Member

    Joined:
    26 May 2005
    Posts:
    5,841
    Likes Received:
    80
    I was just thinking about this and you relies that the US is the worst example you could think off? The president is effectively the queen and has the power to veto any bill that comes before him, the difference is that the queen doesn't and really can't, and at least in GWB case, the US president does and very much can!

    The US president has very little statutory limits pretty much only those imposed by their constitution (US types feel free to correct me). Your probably thinking the UK doesn't have a constitution well you'd quite quite wrong and in some ways correct. The UK does have a constitution but its not a single piece of legislation with amendments but it is just as difficult to get round, just look at the Lords they're still there after a decade of TB trying to get rid of them, if it was that easy for a government to pass what ever it liked with out "fettering" do you not think a Labour government with an unprecedented margin would have got rid of the very symbol of the class system in general and the upper classes in particular.
     
  15. johnmustrule

    johnmustrule New Member

    Joined:
    12 Jan 2006
    Posts:
    345
    Likes Received:
    3
    sorry encryption is totally broken, it's called quantum computing and the US government already has several computers that'll do it. And they'll break any encryption like it wasn't even there to begin with, hiding data is now pushed back to safes and -real- locks.
     
  16. Cptn-Inafinus

    Cptn-Inafinus Member

    Joined:
    3 Mar 2007
    Posts:
    601
    Likes Received:
    12
    Tin Foil Hats.
     
  17. Veles

    Veles DUR HUR

    Joined:
    18 Nov 2005
    Posts:
    6,188
    Likes Received:
    34
    Are they gonna start steaming open peoples letters next?
     
  18. leexgx

    leexgx CPC hang out zone (i Fix pcs i do )

    Joined:
    28 Jun 2006
    Posts:
    1,352
    Likes Received:
    8
    theres an bbc program called (The Last Enemy 5 parter) you got to watch it, very real way ot could happen, Problery is going to happen
     
  19. StephenK

    StephenK Sneak 'em Upper

    Joined:
    21 Dec 2006
    Posts:
    291
    Likes Received:
    2
    John,
    Quantum computing is 50 years away, at least. That's if we can ever design a proper Quantum gate. At the moment we're playing with things like ultra cold quantum gases, seeing if we can use the superposition state of quantum vortices (flows clockwise and anticlockwise at the same time) in Bose Einstein Condensates to make quantum bits. We're only scratching at the surface of Q Comps, quantum encryption is something we can already do, sort of... the best we have at the moment is classical encryption combined with quantum key distribution. You need the key to break the code and as you cannot measure a quantum key without destroying it, the key provides the security, not the actual classical encryption.
     
  20. cjmUK

    cjmUK Old git.

    Joined:
    9 Feb 2004
    Posts:
    2,551
    Likes Received:
    84
    I'm afraid I also disagree with you. You've got to assume that everyone is tech-aware on this site so links to Google Apps are superfluous, and even if not, if your article is overloaded with links, you need to separate the wheat from the chaff. Just because you can think of an appropriate link, doesn't mean you *have* to use it.

    But my biggest gripe (and it's not just with your article) is that, periodically, a subject is discussed in the forums, that BT eventually picks up on for an article. Fair enough that it takes time to write the article and to schedule it, but either the discussions ought to redirect to the forum thread, or at least provide a link at the very start. The regulars in General>Serious aren't going to repeat their comments here....

    Great drama, and food for thought.
     
    Last edited: 25 May 2008
Tags: Add Tags

Share This Page