sonofsanta (14th July 2014)
sonofsanta (14th July 2014)
Playing Devil's advocate here... when bees develop the capacity to develop nuclear arms, I'm sure our spending on the War on Bees will increase significantly.
You're in a union right? Why if issues their petty issues don't affect you? (guessing for your own protection)
Unions have power, people have power, until they take up the apathetic selfish attitude of 'if it doesn't affect me'. One day something you care about will affect you and no one will stand with you. Thatcher was annoyingly right, there are only individuals.
Their ILLEGAL exploits of systems have been exposed, companies have reacted and closed loopholes. These loop holes that could be exploited by anyone, not just GHCQ/NSA. They have been pushing and creating illegal malware, infecting anything from DELL FIRMWARE to client browsers, both intercepting hardware en-route or post setup.
Even infecting Slashdot for the purposes of targeting people like us because we hold the keys to many users.
This is about capturing ALL DATA and wont stop at META.
Last edited by Theblacksheep; 14th July 2014 at 02:22 PM.
You're looking at these laws as if they're individuals when they aren't. Each one is the precursor to the next.
You don't have to answer those questions. You only have to pull over when ordered to by the police. You can say "I don't wish to answer those questions" and you'll be sent on your way.I got stopped a couple of months bike driving home. Was asked where my journey started and where I was heading to. All drivers on that stretch of road where stopped and asked the same to questions. Did I think invasion of privacy? Or did I think traffic planning?
That's what I've said multiple times. The law says the police, councils, DEFRA, dept of education, etc... can access the information without a warrant. That's exactly what these laws, when put together, do.If the law says - "police officer must apply to a judge for a warrant to access ISP held data", no problem. If the law says - "rent officer can randomly access database to see what times I'm at home", I have a problem. I don't have a problem with the data retention, just the data application.
Think your hitting it better on the nail then I am.
As always my posts being ripped apart now wonder why some don't discuss properly any more these days.
State your argument, clearly, and people will respond. If your argument is flawed, people will pull it apart. That's a discussion. That's just how it happens on a forum.
I have my arguments ripped apart all the time. I'm used to it. Its one of the reasons I'm so blunt.
I can't help but feel that other traitors might have used much the same argument, however.
Already stated my argument, my points have been made clear. It's more like I am hitting nerves that people don't like. As I stated before people cried during the whole torrent and internet filtering - short time later it got forgotten and no one complains any more. If the Gov want to pick apart my internet history they will do so regardless. If they want to get a warrant to search that or my PC at home what can I do if they get one? Nothing.
I can continue to raise up the issue that If you have nothing to hide. At the end of the day if we are talking about something illegal today that yesterday was legal after that it's the Gov can interpret something different. What's the result? the same.
Sorry to say but I don't see a single part of my argument that was flawed, if I say I couldn't care less if the Gov monitor my internet access or not what's flawed about that. That's not arguing half lies, fact is half of me won't care at all. That's not your not place to pull apart, that's not your place to accuse of being flawed. That's not just my view that's my feeling behind it. My feelings isn't something that someone can question because its fact. The information I argued was very little because I wasn't arguing information. I am not arguing if the Gov should or should not do it.
I am simply stating how I feel about it - sorry but don't see how that can be torn apart. If your view differs on that well, tough luck really because my view on it all and my feelings wont change. No one here has presented any information that has changed it except Tmd who seems to think more along the lines of my self but he seems to be arguing facts too not just his view.
I have nothing to hide, but that didn't stop a politically motivated prosecution against me with police lying about me and my friends, or with police following us around or stopping us every time we went anywhere in a car. It didn't stop the police placing bugs in our meeting place, or stop the police and council doing "sting" operations against us for holding information stalls in public. No laws broken, yet my life was turned upside down by them.I can continue to raise up the issue that If you have nothing to hide. At the end of the day if we are talking about something illegal today that yesterday was legal after that it's the Gov can interpret something different. What's the result? the same.
All the arguments I've read so far against data retention appear resolve around it's potential use/misuse. Maybe the law should be tightened it that regard? As you say it's petabytes of data. Even GCHQ have better things to do with their time than to fish through the amount of data that is generated each second.
You can't complain that no-one is discussing your points properly when, by your own admission, you're not discussing any points, you are "simply stating how [you] feel about it". You're not engaging in the conversation - you've just loudly declared "I DON'T CARE!" and then got upset when the people who do care think that it's a rather short-sighted and shallow approach to take to what often devolves into abuse of power.
You say no-one discusses the torrent filtering anymore, which is funny, as I was discussing the topic not half an hour ago with our head of curriculum IT in relation to all this. The appropriation of the CleanFeed system to block torrent sites is as fine an example of the slippery slope as I can ever remember seeing - no-one could complain about CleanFeed's original purpose, but within a decade it was being used to block sites without proof on the say so of vested interests with the money & influence to have their voices heard. It's one of the key reasons why I'm so against legislation like the current bill - because no matter how carefully it is presented and limited at the time, if it opens a door that has been closed before, something else will be along before too long to drive the door open.
You seem to falsely equate privacy with secrecy, with the idea that people must have an ulterior motive for privacy, and can't seem to comprehend that it can be its own end and we can seek privacy for privacy's sake.
And you know what? It's your opinion, and you are wholly entitled to keep it, as I am entitled to voice my opposition to such apathy. We're all entitled to be offended here. That's good. But don't complain that you're offended when you march into a thread of people who obviously care and start shouting about how you don't care and then get pulled apart by that first group. I'd have thought it a fairly obvious outcome. We were hardly going to say "you know what, you're right, not caring about the rules and laws that govern my existence is the right approach!", were we?
Theblacksheep (14th July 2014)
@SYNACK - I liked the article linked from that forum post, Why Privacy Matters Even if You Have 'Nothing to Hide' - The Chronicle Review - The Chronicle of Higher Education - lots of interesting theory there.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)