News UK government plans emergency data retention law

No, just under them.

 

You know, I've found that the best way to persuade people is to insult them.

 

Did I jump... or did Google and Facebook push me?

 

No, I think like a lot of people you was told to just laid down and let it happen.

 

Let what happen? Let Google show me adverts for walking boots if I've been searching for tents? I can just about live with that.

 

lol let the bandwagon / government walk all over you, who needs free thinking just gives people a headache anyway

 

Lol yea, I've never seen such hardship. Someone make it stop.

 

I'm alright then, I got £15 credit on my phone when I bought it 3 years ago, and still have £10 left, it also doesn't have a front facing camera, more than half the time it just sits on my desk, so not much info being collected there, .

What do I want a TV with a webcam for, I don't even like talking to people on the phone so why do I want to do it over a webcam?

 

You don't want to be monitored on the grid? Go live in a forest in Washington State or something. To be part of a society is to live on the grid. Governments are always going to exploit that, and the Bilderberg lot are always going to do their shady dealings to stay at the top of the food chain, and politicians are always going to be co-opted in that. If that makes them happy, fine. In the next century they will all be dust and bones just like anyone else.

We never had any rights or power than what we took for ourselves. We never had any freedoms than those we grant ourselves. Rely on nobody to be your big daddy, and plant your own vegetables instead of believing in other people's promises of rose gardens. True power is the will to do what other people won't.

 

Yep, we can just go back to living in caves and with no means of transport no one but the next three neighbours will ever hear you scream when you get mauled by a bear and even those three neighbours can be stopped from interfering by simply building a wall and if that fails just remind them how much you hate them.

*disclaimer: Post so far may have been slightly less than 100% serious.

On a more serious note, there has to be some sort of sane middle path between cave dwelling and gchq analysing the contents of your toilet.

 

None that can be put in law, or set in stone.
The battle between civil liberties and the state is a battle as old as man himself, the state pushes for more control and society pushes back. Sometimes the state goes to far, other times civil liberties goes to far, ideally we try to find the right balance, IMHO the balance has swung to far in favor of the state in the last decade.

 

Problem is society is pushing back less and less now days.

 

And whose fault is that?

Politicians only say that the public wants to hear. That's how they win votes, no? Now listen to what politicians are saying, and keep in mind, all the time, that this is what the public wants to hear. This is what the public is thinking. The people not only get the government that they deserve; they get the government that they want.

GCHQ doesn't have to spy on my wallet; I'm an NHS employee. They know how much I earn, how much taxes I pay, and have a pretty good idea what I spend my money on. They even know about my beehive if they want, because I'm a registered beekeeper. Then again, my neighbours can find out the same just by looking over the garden fence and checking out on the Agenda For Change website what my going salary is likely to be.

Several supermarkets know what I buy (it's not only the loyalty cards, dude; it's the card you pay with, too), and my ISP, Google and Amazon have a pretty good idea about my browsing interests.

I'm not sure what use that information is to GCHQ or anybody else. It's not a matter of: "If you've got nothing to hide, you've got nothing to fear", but: "If you've got nothing to hide, they have no power over you" (It's why MI5 and MI6 have a policy that employees need to openly declare their homosexuality. It's not a barrier to employment --they just don't want it to be a vulnerability to blackmail). Don't play the game in the first place.

And sure, supermarkets can target advertising, but I decide whether I buy or not, don't I? Again: don't play the game in the first place.

At the same time, we live in a society that never has had as much opportunity for people at the lowest socio-econoic rank as it has now. Education in this country is actually pretty good, if you raise your children to value it and make use of it. Health care in this country is still free, and for the largest part pretty good, if you do what you can to look after your own health. Decent food in this country is actually pretty cheap if you know how to cook. Access to good, free information is plentiful if you can be arsed to visit your local library --and read.

Just like expecting a government to nanny you is infantile behaviour, "pushing back" is just teenage rebellion. An adult takes responsibility for their own lives, and recognises that life is compromise. Don't push back; stand on your own two feet. You're not a teenager; you're an adult.

 

Mine, it's all mine. Do i get a prize now ?

I know what you are trying to say, but what happens when the three main parties, such as with this emergency data retention law, all say exactly the same thing. It wasn't always a case of politicians acting as a mirror to society, there used to be a time that our elected representatives would do what was in our best interests not what we thought was best for us.

They don't have to look in anyone's wallet, the TAX man knows how much everyone earns. This isn't about how much people earn, if they keep bees, or anything else as trivial, it's about our private communications being monitored, when they are meant to be private.

And what if homosexuality was outlawed again ? Or bee keeping, or if they outlawed gathering in a group and listening to music with a succession of repetitive beats (AKA:Criminal Justice and Public Order Act of 1994) The point is what to hide tomorrow may well change.

I think supermarkets are the least of our worries.

It's not a matter of expecting a government to nanny us, or "pushing back" being just teenage rebellion, it's that politicians are meant to look out for our best interests. Just like a parent should be looking out for the best interests of their child as the child may not know that running out in the road is dangerous, or that playing with fire while it maybe fun, can lead to serious harm.

While "stand on your own two feet" may work for an individual in their own personal life, when it comes to living in a society you are force to depend on some type of body to look after the best interests of the group as a whole.

 

I always suspected.

Really? When was that?

There was a time when only your post was private (telephone calls had to go through human operated switchboards, so could always be overheard). The internet is not private. Mobile communications are not private. Never were.

Yup, but if enough people disobey those laws, they mean nothing. You can't lock up a whole country.

The best way to control those bodies is to limit their power. The best way to limit their power is to take that power to yourself and minimise your dependence on them.

 

When not all our politicians came from Oxbridge and got taught debating, how to answer questions without actually giving an answer, and had training in how to deal with the media.
Way back when you and I were little kids

Very true, but intercepting private communications is still wrong. A better man than myself pretty much sums it up..

Fair enough he is talking about actually reading the content of private communications, but is there much difference between reading the contents and recording who, when, where and for how long someone communicated with another person, or what web sites they look at.

They don't need to lock up a whole country for those laws to effect peoples lives.

And become the very thing you are fighting against.

You can't take the power to decide what our nuclear deterrent should be, our tax laws, or the law of the land. Part of living in a society from the very small of the single house, to the very large of the whole world comes with rules that everyone agrees to abide by (most of the time), if we didn't there would be anarchy.

Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed...

 

So how about all our information being sifted through and then dumped on the internet for the world to see?
Is this fair and balanced for everyone?
What about the rich and powerful people who can afford to have their "really bad ****" taken off the web and start with a fresh slate, as if nothing happened?
LIke the shmuck who was widely quoted as initiating the giant credit crash paying for all his attached bad news to be deleted?
Is that fair and balanced for society?
Would the same privilege be granted to somebody not rich or influential?...absolutely not.
The police no longer uphold the law, they are just here to protect the investment or tow the political party line.The police are whores of the highest order.
When was stoving a miners/protestors/ecologists/students/strikers head in with a truncheon a function of protecting the public?

Governments are instituted from Men who (largely) attended an elite private school, with the benefit of a private education, who are themselves the product of nepotism, and see themselves as a separate social and economic species from the general electorate.

Until that changes, nothing will ever change.

 

No, seriously, when was that?

Again: only your written letters are reasonably secure. Nobody ever said that the internet was, or phones. Even encryption does not come with absolute guarantees. Then again, neither do locks or safes. It's all relative, you know?

Homosexuality was illegal before. Why did that change? Because people stopped playing along. If enough people challenge a law through simply ignoring it, the law changes. It has to, lest the government is revealed as powerless as it really is.

I don't see how that follows. If I look after my own health as much as possible, I do not have to depend so much on the NHS. If I raise my kids to value education and involve myself in their school, they are more likely to get a good education, a high-status job with money and power, and they will be less dependent on the vagaries of the benefit system.

That sink estate? If the locals banded together and looked after each other and each other's homes, they would be a harder target for criminals --especially if they ditched that ridiculous notion that talking to the police makes you a "grass" (it's like sheep buying into the wolf's propaganda that talking to the hunter makes you disloyal to the wolf that wants to eat you). They could raise their kids not to vandalise the place, and treat it a bit better themselves --they wouldn't live in such a dump then.

There is a lot that people can do themselves to take control of their lives. But sitting on your arse complaining about the government is admittedly easier.

Yeah, it's that compromise thing again. But governments could not go to war if its citizens simply refused to sign up and fight, no?

@LocknLoad: you really have to let go of the idea that life is fair. It isn't. Live righteously, but watch your back.

 

Secure and private are very different things.

So we should be a society that sets laws based on how the majority feels ? Passing laws against a minority that happens to be annoying, or thought to be dangerous.

What has someones personal health, or how they raise their kids, got to do with limiting the power of a governing body ?

Still not following how this would limit the power that a governing body has over them.

Then how would you go about effecting change in the governing body that is meant to be looking after your best interests ? Let's not forget your hypothetical sink estate can't go about setting up their own police force, or dictate what their taxes are spent on, or effect any change outside of their own sphere of influence without "complaining" to those that do.

Tell that to the guys that were conscripted during WWI & WWII.
And by compromise, do you mean like "government to nanny you is infantile behaviour, "pushing back" is just teenage rebellion." thing ?

 

Only to the pedant. For the purposes of this conversation I mean the same thing.

That is a totally different debate. A society that governs itself wisely does not need a government to do so. Thus it can limit the powers it bestows upon such a government. Moreover because in a democracy, politicians get into office by promising what the people want to hear, they have to make wise-sounding promises. Then they have to follow through to stay in power.

The power of a governing body is determined by our dependence on it. The more you empower yourself, the less you need to rely on a governing body.

Of course they can: neighbourhood watch. Police will have to do the heavy lifting, but my neighbourhood for instance has close liaison with the neighbourhood constable. By being educated and informed, you can access legal advice, and your local MP is more likely to take you seriously. I would make sure that I make use of the services that my taxes pay for in the first place.

You know, if people had not got swept up in the jingoism of WWI, and simply not signed up en masse, there would have been very little war. If the Germans hadn't followed Hitler like sheep (and the Japanese Hirohito as if he was a god), there wouldn't have been a WWII.

Not following you, sorry.