the world has changed, i personally don't have a problem with methods used. and how do you have good reason to suspect without some form of intelligence gathering. like the boot i am generally a bit of a lefty but quite hardline when it comes to terrorism.
Hey Fin. Theres a good reason us sweaties have been up the front of the thin red line for centuries. Nae fuckin bother pal, tap tap...
I'd be interested to know your reasons behind saying this? After all, Edward Snowden did nothing except expose the illegal methods of intelligence gathering being used by the US Government on US citizens. If he worked in an industry such as Banking, there are processes in place to protect whistle-blowers who report illegal activity, so why not in the Government?
Blowing the bank's whistle doesn't threaten the safety and well-being of the country's citizens and expose all the sources still live?
To answer you both on this Where I have a problem is the lack of judicial oversight on all of this. The West Midlands Serious Crime Squad was allowed to get away with riding roughshod over small issues like People's rights, rules of evidence and the truth in their endeavours to put criminals away, the result of which is the wrong people get convicted and the criminals get away with it or the right people get convicted but the conviction is dodgy due to corners being cut and the criminal gets away with it. If there's evidence to support a request to view someone's emails or listen to their phone calls put that evidence in front of a judge, if there isn't then go and get some.
I personally object to the view that seems to be taken by some government agencies that we, the public, are too stupid to make decisions for ourselves. Therefore they will act in our best interests despite our wishes and desires. The fact is that these agencies have to abide by our laws. Maybe they were made by stupid people with little or no understanding of the situation, but that's how democracy works. We, the electorate, elect people to represent us in parliament or congress. Those elected officials pass laws on our behalf. Government agents, whether they be police or security staff, then abide by those laws. They don't get to choose which ones to bend or ignore. I'm not stupid. If the people with better knowledge than me of these threats can come up with a decent reason for changing the law then I'm all for it being discussed in parliament and laws been amended or new opnes passed if need be. But don't let them just adopt the view that laws are archaic or no longer relevant, so they'll just go around them. I don't have a problem with anyone intercepting my email or web traffic if it helps reduce crime, but it must be done within the confines of the law.
Your 'whistle blowing' is my 'treason'. It may have escaped your attention but we are currently at war. Whether it be bullets or data. Do you think our opponents conform to societal scruples?
One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. Sorry, didn't realise we were at war! After all, I've done nothing wrong...
There is a history of governments using exceptional powers granted in one specific area to intrude into other areas. So the government can break it's own laws with impunity ?
Would you honestly rather innocent people were killed on the streets of London, when it could have been prevented if only we'd checked everyone's emails? That's the alternative to a bit of snooping.
OK guys, consider this: 1. The recent US legislation makes it permissible for their spy agencies to gather any data they deem fit, without a court order, on anyone but US citizens. Question: why? Why should US citizens be exempt, if indiscriminate data gathering is harmless and for the common good (thwarting terrorism)? 2. I think we will all agree that road fatalities and injuries far outweigh those caused by terrorism. Now consider this: if you have a smart phone on you, it has a GPS and a clock. Given access to this data, a government agency (that will be the police then, or an offshoot of it, or a private company they have engaged), can work out your speed for any journey you undertake and at any point in that journey. There is therefore no longer any need for speed traps or Gatso cameras. Your mobile phone can tell them if you have ever exceeded the speed limit, where it was and when. Your fine is in the post. Why not, as the laudable intention is to reduce traffic accidents? Would this make you feel uncomfortable, or would you welcome this little intrusion into your private life? It is easy to say that if the government needs access to all my data to thwart terrorism, then that's fine. But where do you want to draw the line, if indeed you do? The London Congestion Charge is administered entirely automatically. Computers are ever more powerful and can process ever-increasing amounts of data. This is only ever going in one direction and the genie is unlikely to ever be put back in the bottle. Perhaps, in order to reduce crime, instead of CCTV, the police should just have access to all our phone conversations and recordings of our lives, using our smart phones. As the link Antoneye posted shows, this is now possible (and even being used in some instances). I would suggest: The fight against terrorism is the trojan horse by which civil liberties are being eroded. Knowledge is power Absolute knowledge is absolute power All power corrupts Absolute power corrupts absolutely
They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety - Benjamin Franklin.
Your point suggests that you should be able to get away with breaking the law - speeding, but they shouldn't spy on you because they're breaking the law too?
