+ Post New Thread
Page 11 of 11 FirstFirst ... 7891011
Results 151 to 159 of 159
General Chat Thread, Another rushed law, another death knell for privacy in General; Originally Posted by DPrince This is a slippery slope. They LET it happen? How? By not locking them up as ...
  1. #151

    X-13's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    /dev/null
    Posts
    9,141
    Thank Post
    596
    Thanked 1,960 Times in 1,358 Posts
    Blog Entries
    19
    Rep Power
    818
    Quote Originally Posted by DPrince View Post
    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?
    Yes and also yes.

    We have laws in place that allow the detainment of suspects.

    They suspected something was wrong but chose to do nothing, then tried to use it as a reason they needed more surveillance.
    Last edited by X-13; 16th July 2014 at 02:02 PM.

  2. #152

    tmcd35's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Norfolk
    Posts
    5,682
    Thank Post
    850
    Thanked 898 Times in 743 Posts
    Blog Entries
    9
    Rep Power
    329
    Quote Originally Posted by DPrince View Post
    However, yours is not technically relevant because there isn't a car ban law being proposed.
    Also, a car ban actively prevents an individual from engaging in an activity, driving a car. Data retention doesn't in or of itself enable or prevent anything as far as the users of the service are concerned. What it does do is provide a mechanism for relevant authorities to gain additional information that may make or break a case along side more traditional methods of investigation.

    That said, I think I might need to go and glance over the proposed bill again as I feel I might have missed something in relation to surveillance powers.

  3. #153

    localzuk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Minehead
    Posts
    17,791
    Thank Post
    517
    Thanked 2,468 Times in 1,912 Posts
    Blog Entries
    24
    Rep Power
    835
    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.
    It is a false dilemma, as the "knew for certain" is nonsensical (the dilemma being "sign this bill into law or your family would die"). Nothing in life is "certain", except death. Its relevant, because its a hypothetical situation that has no place in this discussion, just like the one I replied to.

    Quote Originally Posted by tmcd35 View Post
    Also, a car ban actively prevents an individual from engaging in an activity, driving a car. Data retention doesn't in or of itself enable or prevent anything as far as the users of the service are concerned.
    It does prevent something - the ability to go about your life without people analysing it. Ie. It prevents you having a private life, which is one of the few rights enshrined into international law.
    Last edited by localzuk; 16th July 2014 at 02:17 PM.

  4. #154

    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    107
    Thank Post
    11
    Thanked 29 Times in 22 Posts
    Rep Power
    28
    Quote Originally Posted by sparkeh View Post
    Totally relevant, it shows how the 'what if it was your family' dilemma has no place in sensible debate.
    No - it was technically an absurd proposition, because he's argued against a proposition (which may or may not have been a good one) with one which was not relevant.

    The original hypothetical question (no, I didn't like it either) related to a law that exists. You can't bounce the same question back using an absurd law that isn't being proposed in order to show that the first question is similarly absurd.
    You should note that I'm speaking technically... obviously you can actually do whatever you like, but some people will go "tsk" and shake their heads.

  5. #155

    localzuk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Minehead
    Posts
    17,791
    Thank Post
    517
    Thanked 2,468 Times in 1,912 Posts
    Blog Entries
    24
    Rep Power
    835
    Quote Originally Posted by DPrince View Post
    No - it was technically an absurd proposition, because he's argued against a proposition (which may or may not have been a good one) with one which was not relevant.

    The original hypothetical question (no, I didn't like it either) related to a law that exists. You can't bounce the same question back using an absurd law that isn't being proposed in order to show that the first question is similarly absurd.
    You should note that I'm speaking technically... obviously you can actually do whatever you like, but some people will go "tsk" and shake their heads.
    The law doesn't exist... It hasn't passed the Lords yet.

  6. Thanks to localzuk from:

    sparkeh (16th July 2014)

  7. #156

    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    107
    Thank Post
    11
    Thanked 29 Times in 22 Posts
    Rep Power
    28
    Quote Originally Posted by localzuk View Post
    It is a false dilemma, as the "knew for certain" is nonsensical. Nothing in life is "certain", except death. Its relevant, because its a hypothetical situation that has no place in this discussion, just like the one I replied to.
    Then you can't argue against it on the basis of it being a false dilemma. You argue against it on the basis that it is nonsensical. Besides which, it wasn't a false dilemma anyway, although the words "knew for certain" (given that it's a hypothetical) were perfectly valid.

    Quote Originally Posted by localzuk View Post
    It does prevent something - the ability to go about your life without people analysing it. Ie. It prevents you having a private life, which is one of the few rights enshrined into international law.
    Data retention, in and of itself, does not prevent this. Given that data about individuals is retained ALL the time, and thousands of organisations will hold and scrutinise data about you, most of which you have given up willingly, this is a difficult argument to make.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by localzuk View Post
    The law doesn't exist... It hasn't passed the Lords yet.
    LOL. Pedant.

  8. #157

    GREED's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Portsmouth
    Posts
    3,057
    Thank Post
    375
    Thanked 375 Times in 306 Posts
    Blog Entries
    8
    Rep Power
    177
    Annoyed I have joined this party so late, most of my best antagonistic lines have already been mentioned.

    I had a rather interesting article through the post (yes, post!) From the OU talking about the dichotomy between Security and Privacy, and how traditionally there needs to be compromise between one to improve the other... its a piece of crap both in the way it is written as well as the conclusions that actually one does not oppose the other... I will dig it out and post it... somewhat relevant.

  9. #158

    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    107
    Thank Post
    11
    Thanked 29 Times in 22 Posts
    Rep Power
    28
    Quote Originally Posted by X-13 View Post
    Yes and also yes.

    We have laws in place that allow the detainment of suspects.

    They suspected something was wrong but chose to do nothing, then tried to use it as a reason they needed more surveillance.
    Without knowing the full circumstances, you are making a lot of assumptions. And then tied all those assumptions up to come to a conclusion.

    Lee Rigby killed by persons known to authorities = conspiracy to increase surveillance.

    It's possible that they were known to the authorities (I'm saying 'authorities' because I don't know who they were known to), but the authorities didn't know they were intending to murder someone, on that street, on that day. Possibly, with more surveillance, they might have done.
    Of course, detaining suspects who haven't actually committed a crime is a different argument - seems odd to argue against increased surveillance, but be ok with detaining suspects willy-nilly. And certainly some of those laws which you're relying on were controversial when they came in (and still are).

    My view? Sh*t happens, and sometimes people learn from it. Sometimes we don't like the lessons. Sometimes, we find the lessons so unpalatable that we decide we'd rather take the risk of more sh*t happening. Sometimes we don't. But it's generally not an conspiracy, and it's not always incompetence. Sometimes these things just happen.

  10. #159

    X-13's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    /dev/null
    Posts
    9,141
    Thank Post
    596
    Thanked 1,960 Times in 1,358 Posts
    Blog Entries
    19
    Rep Power
    818
    Quote Originally Posted by DPrince View Post
    Lee Rigby killed by persons known to authorities = conspiracy to increase surveillance.
    Nope. I'm saying 2 separate things.

    1. The killers were known and left to their own devices.

    2. After the fact, the authorities claimed they could have stopped it if they had more surveillance powers. Without mentioning that they were aware of the killers already with the powers they had.
    Last edited by X-13; 16th July 2014 at 02:45 PM.

SHARE:
+ Post New Thread
Page 11 of 11 FirstFirst ... 7891011

Similar Threads

  1. Facebook 'to seek consent for privacy changes'
    By elsiegee40 in forum e-Safety
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 14th November 2011, 04:40 PM
  2. Replies: 9
    Last Post: 6th July 2011, 05:28 PM
  3. Replies: 14
    Last Post: 29th April 2010, 10:45 PM
  4. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 20th December 2009, 02:16 PM
  5. Compiling for another machine
    By Ric_ in forum *nix
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 13th March 2007, 03:34 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
  •