+ Post New Thread
Page 10 of 11 FirstFirst ... 67891011 LastLast
Results 136 to 150 of 159
General Chat Thread, Another rushed law, another death knell for privacy in General; Politicians are not exempt Governments are, people can fall but the foundation of government can't, happens all the time....
  1. #136
    Disease's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    1,108
    Thank Post
    120
    Thanked 70 Times in 48 Posts
    Rep Power
    57
    Politicians are not exempt Governments are, people can fall but the foundation of government can't, happens all the time.

  2. #137

    localzuk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Minehead
    Posts
    18,332
    Thank Post
    525
    Thanked 2,596 Times in 2,014 Posts
    Blog Entries
    24
    Rep Power
    888
    Quote Originally Posted by Disease View Post
    Politicians are not exempt Governments are, people can fall but the foundation of government can't, happens all the time.
    No, the government is not exempt either. The government are the "executive" arm of the legislative system. The judiciary is separate, and operates without government interference. It means that the government can and does get sued or is found to have acted illegally in courts. Happens quite regularly in fact.

  3. #138
    Disease's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    1,108
    Thank Post
    120
    Thanked 70 Times in 48 Posts
    Rep Power
    57
    Quote Originally Posted by localzuk View Post
    Whether or not they've been doing it illegally for any length of time, the law is an important change as it makes it legal. I've already shown that corruption is a thing, and the idea of "nothing to hide, nothing to fear" is demonstrably fallacious. How can you still be OK with it?!
    Because I really do not fear it, I am currently under the Official Secrets act, I am not allowed to travel to certain countries as are all people who leave the armed forces (well those who didn't read the small print may not be aware ) so maybe I am just a bit more conditioned to no privacy

  4. #139
    Disease's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    1,108
    Thank Post
    120
    Thanked 70 Times in 48 Posts
    Rep Power
    57
    Quote Originally Posted by localzuk View Post
    No, the government is not exempt either. The government are the "executive" arm of the legislative system. The judiciary is separate, and operates without government interference. It means that the government can and does get sued or is found to have acted illegally in courts. Happens quite regularly in fact.
    Do you honestly believe that on a major issue that could bring down the government it would happen or would laws just be forced through to protect it. Name one major thing that any government has been successfully prosecuted over?

    You see what is happening in Israel or the illegal rendition flights in UK, or Tony Blair taking the country to war under false pretense? What happened, nothing.
    Last edited by Disease; 16th July 2014 at 01:45 PM.

  5. #140

    SYNACK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    11,268
    Thank Post
    884
    Thanked 2,747 Times in 2,321 Posts
    Blog Entries
    11
    Rep Power
    785
    Quote Originally Posted by Disease View Post
    Because I really do not fear it, I am currently under the Official Secrets act, I am not allowed to travel to certain countries as are all people who leave the armed forces (well those who didn't read the small print may not be aware ) so maybe I am just a bit more conditioned to no privacy
    Straying into dangerous water maybe but your views are certainly coloured heavily by that, the training itself is designed to break down individual thinking, defer to those above you, have faith they are doing the right thing and to possibly put your life on the line with that assumption.

    While I am glad that there are people who can and will do that it can heavily alter your point of view in such matters which may be taken advantage of by certain far less honourable parties (political ones) for their own ends.

  6. #141
    Disease's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    1,108
    Thank Post
    120
    Thanked 70 Times in 48 Posts
    Rep Power
    57
    Quote Originally Posted by SYNACK View Post
    Straying into dangerous water maybe but your views are certainly coloured heavily by that, the training itself is designed to break down individual thinking, defer to those above you, have faith they are doing the right thing and to possibly put your life on the line with that assumption.

    While I am glad that there are people who can and will do that it can heavily alter your point of view in such matters which may be taken advantage of by certain far less honourable parties (political ones) for their own ends.
    See that's where you are wrong, the forces does not remove individual thinking, it hungers for it, what it does do is foster is working as a team. The old stereotype of blindly following order does not exist anymore.

  7. #142
    Disease's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    1,108
    Thank Post
    120
    Thanked 70 Times in 48 Posts
    Rep Power
    57
    The good thing is though at least this thread has remained rep civil without people throwing around negative rep

  8. #143

    localzuk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Minehead
    Posts
    18,332
    Thank Post
    525
    Thanked 2,596 Times in 2,014 Posts
    Blog Entries
    24
    Rep Power
    888
    Quote Originally Posted by Disease View Post
    The good thing is though at least this thread has remained rep civil without people throwing around negative rep
    No such thing as neg rep any more...

  9. #144

    SYNACK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    11,268
    Thank Post
    884
    Thanked 2,747 Times in 2,321 Posts
    Blog Entries
    11
    Rep Power
    785
    Quote Originally Posted by Disease View Post
    See that's where you are wrong, the forces does not remove individual thinking, it hungers for it, what it does do is foster is working as a team. The old stereotype of blindly following order does not exist anymore.
    Good to hear

  10. #145
    mthomas08's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    1,635
    Thank Post
    142
    Thanked 175 Times in 150 Posts
    Rep Power
    65
    Quote Originally Posted by localzuk View Post
    Attacking people for *wanting* privacy on the internet is Ad Hominem and rather odd to say the least.
    That works both ways, attacking people for not *reacting the same* at this whole thing isn't any better.

    The strange thing is, if they used this information to prevent an actual plot we either A) won't believe them or B) Wont care. If something did happen like 9/11 I am sure everyone will be on the band wagon on how can we prevent it.

    Here's a serious question though; If an incident like 9/11 did occur and your families, those close to you, your friends perished but you knew for certain that this "non privacy" law could of prevented it - how would you feel?

    And no I'm not actually agreeing with the Gov on this one, I have made it clear how I feel but I am just not reacting the same way

    Oh and god forbid something like that does happen again in any Country.

  11. #146

    X-13's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    /dev/null
    Posts
    9,638
    Thank Post
    640
    Thanked 2,155 Times in 1,474 Posts
    Blog Entries
    19
    Rep Power
    894
    Quote Originally Posted by mthomas08 View Post
    Here's a serious question though; If an incident like 9/11 did occur and your families, those close to you, your friends perished but you knew for certain that this "non privacy" law could of prevented it - how would you feel?
    Well, considering there are already laws in place that would let them gather the information without having to spy on everyone else...


    Like wasshisface who killed Lee Rigby. [IIRC]They already knew about him. They were already watching him. They let it happen by doing nothing.[/IIRC]

    There's been a few cases like that, where criminals are known and being watched, but are allowed to do [thing] and are then used as a reason we should give up rights.

  12. #147

    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    116
    Thank Post
    11
    Thanked 31 Times in 24 Posts
    Rep Power
    28
    Quote Originally Posted by X-13 View Post
    Like wasshisface who killed Lee Rigby. [IIRC]They already knew about him. They were already watching him. They let it happen by doing nothing.[/IIRC]

    There's been a few cases like that, where criminals are known and being watched, but are allowed to do [thing] and are then used as a reason we should give up rights.
    This is a slippery slope. They LET it happen? How? By not locking them up as soon as they knew they were 'bad guys'?
    Or are you arguing that because they didn't prevent it, they therefore must have LET it happen?

  13. #148

    localzuk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Minehead
    Posts
    18,332
    Thank Post
    525
    Thanked 2,596 Times in 2,014 Posts
    Blog Entries
    24
    Rep Power
    888
    Quote Originally Posted by mthomas08 View Post
    Here's a serious question though; If an incident like 9/11 did occur and your families, those close to you, your friends perished but you knew for certain that this "non privacy" law could of prevented it - how would you feel?
    Here's a serious question though; If an incident like a car crash did occur and your family, those close to you, your friends, perished but you knew for certain that a "car ban" law could have prevented it - how would you feel?

    See, I can create false dilemmas also.

  14. 2 Thanks to localzuk:

    sparkeh (16th July 2014), Theblacksheep (16th July 2014)

  15. #149

    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    116
    Thank Post
    11
    Thanked 31 Times in 24 Posts
    Rep Power
    28
    Quote Originally Posted by localzuk View Post
    Here's a serious question though; If an incident like a car crash did occur and your family, those close to you, your friends, perished but you knew for certain that a "car ban" law could have prevented it - how would you feel?

    See, I can create false dilemmas also.
    Technically it's not a false dilemma. The words "knew for certain" were added.
    However, yours is not technically relevant because there isn't a car ban law being proposed.

  16. #150

    sparkeh's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    7,107
    Thank Post
    1,398
    Thanked 1,817 Times in 1,224 Posts
    Blog Entries
    22
    Rep Power
    552
    Quote Originally Posted by DPrince View Post
    Technically it's not a false dilemma. The words "knew for certain" were added.
    However, yours is not technically relevant because there isn't a car ban law being proposed.
    Totally relevant, it shows how the 'what if it was your family' dilemma has no place in sensible debate.

    Luckily Hopefully laws are not made on the basis on 'what if it happened to the family of the person drafting the law'.



SHARE:
+ Post New Thread
Page 10 of 11 FirstFirst ... 67891011 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Facebook 'to seek consent for privacy changes'
    By elsiegee40 in forum e-Safety
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 14th November 2011, 05:40 PM
  2. Replies: 9
    Last Post: 6th July 2011, 06:28 PM
  3. Replies: 14
    Last Post: 29th April 2010, 11:45 PM
  4. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 20th December 2009, 03:16 PM
  5. Compiling for another machine
    By Ric_ in forum *nix
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 13th March 2007, 04:34 PM

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •