Another rushed law, another death knell for privacy

[Disease]

ITT: rolling over and showing your tummy to the government, because what's the point in fighting, eh? Governments have never been forced into u-turns on any policy, ever. They always get their way.

 

I don't think it's a case of not fighting I think the problem is that even if they u-turned on the visible policy it would still carry on regardless, I for one do not care what they snoop on as I have nothing really to hide.

[SYNACK]

I don't think it's a case of not fighting I think the problem is that even if they u-turned on the visible policy it would still carry on regardless, I for one do not care what they snoop on as I have nothing really to hide.

 

But what they are after is not the means to do it as they already do, what they are after is the acceptance of the public in law so they can't be hung out to dry if the populace ever does manage to get a little control back over their governments. They want us people to say by default and lack of careing or voices that are heard to pat them on the back and say 'yea, go to it'.

[X-13]

even if they u-turned on the visible policy it would still carry on regardless

 

At which point, when it's found out they'd be in deep AS IT'S ILLEGAL.

 

The reason it's been going on so long is that while we may suspect it's happening, we can't prove it.

 

"Innocent until proven guilty" is still a thing and spying on everyone is treating the population like criminals for no damn reason.

 

Why are people finding this so hard to understand?

[localzuk]

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?!

[sonofsanta]

The other point to bear in mind is that privacy is a concept that is eroded piece by piece, step by reasonable-sounding step. You can't wait for the Complete Bumholes Bill to come along and be debated about whether it's ok for the government to declare curtains illegal so their man across the street can keep an eye on you, because they'll never take a step that sounds so shocking and obvious. The only way such a thing would ever be suggested would be after a long build up of piecemeal legislation coming to a crescendo.

 

So if you enjoy privacy on any level - and what person doesn't? Who would want to be tailed all day every day by someone shouting out all your thoughts and actions? - you have to fight every point, not just the ones that come across as immediately unreasonable. The slippery slope only ever gets steeper.

[Disease]

At which point, when it's found out they'd be in deep AS IT'S ILLEGAL.

 

The reason it's been going on so long is that while we may suspect it's happening, we can't prove it.

 

 

Seriously? Have you not read any of the revelations by Snowdon? And who do you think is going to prosecute the government, there is a great quote from the film a few good men and having served in the Army I can say that it is a true perception:

 

Son, we live in a world that has walls, and those walls have to be guarded by men with guns. Who's gonna do it? I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom that I provide, and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather you just said thank you, and went on your way, Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon, and stand a post. Either way, I don't give a damn what you think you are entitled to.

 

 

Great film as well.

Edited July 16, 2014 by Disease

[Disease]

T

 

So if you enjoy privacy on any level - and what person doesn't? Who would want to be tailed all day every day by someone shouting out all your thoughts and actions? - you have to fight every point, not just the ones that come across as immediately unreasonable. The slippery slope only ever gets steeper.

 

Because I believe that on this issue net and phones, it is't going to make any difference if it's law or not it's still going to happen.

[X-13]

Seriously? Have you not read any of the revelations by Snowdon? And who do you think is going to prosecute the government

 

So basically, "put up and shut up".

 

This is how we got into this mess in the first place.

 

And the NSA stuff has been deemed unconstitutional by their [supreme?] court.

 

http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2014-06/17/nsa-not-legally-justified

 

 

We can't question it because of legal precidents brought in before this. [ideas on secret courts and sealed records] This wasn't all done at once.

[JJonas]

Why are politicians exempt from this law? Especially as they have lost a dossier full of alleged evidence of historical child abuse carried out by their members!

[Disease]

Politicians are not exempt Governments are, people can fall but the foundation of government can't, happens all the time.

[localzuk]

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.

[Disease]

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

[Disease]

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.

Edited July 16, 2014 by Disease

[SYNACK]

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.

[Disease]

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.

[Disease]

The good thing is though at least this thread has remained rep civil without people throwing around negative rep

[localzuk]

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...

[SYNACK]

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

[mthomas08]

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.

[X-13]

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.

[DPrince]

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?

[localzuk]

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.

[DPrince]

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.

[sparkeh]

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'.

[X-13]

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.

Edited July 16, 2014 by X-13