Re: National security v freedom? : Tue Apr 03, 2012 10:03 am  

Saddened! wrote:

As ever, the only people who will lose out over this are people with something to hide.

I personally don't care if they have access to everything I do. If it saves one life, it's worth it IMO.

I'm sometimes pleased that my old man is no longer around. I dread to think what him and his mates would think of an imbecilic attitude like yours, after they'd spent 6 years fighting on three continents to oppose pervasive regimes. Then you come along and would happily sign away any hard-fought freedoms, in the name of the mythical war on terror.

Re: National security v freedom? : Tue Apr 03, 2012 10:04 am  

I wondered how long before someone would emerge with the cretinous old 'if you've nothing to hide' excuse for an argument.

But at least this was only a trolling use of it ...

Re: National security v freedom? : Tue Apr 03, 2012 10:21 am  

Saddened! wrote:

As ever, the only people who will lose out over this are people with something to hide.

I personally don't care if they have access to everything I do. If it saves one life, it's worth it IMO.

Cut out the middleman and just hand everything over to the local police, with a copy to GCHQ in Cheltenham and MI5 in London. Then you can relax and not worry about anything at all. Ever.

Re: National security v freedom? : Tue Apr 03, 2012 10:57 am  

Mintball wrote:

I wondered how long before someone would emerge with the cretinous old 'if you've nothing to hide' excuse for an argument.

But at least this was only a trolling use of it ...

Why is it cretinous just because you don't agree with it? You are very predictable when it comes to politics, basically adopting an anti-Government approach to just about everything.

These powers do not mean they will be snooping on the average person's Facebook account or reading their emails. All it means is that they could, should they need to. There is a difference there.

Why do you object to it? If it gives them more power to deal with potential serious criminality, what is the downside?

Re: National security v freedom? : Tue Apr 03, 2012 11:09 am  

Ignore Saddened. He's in one of his "I need to be noticed" moods.

Re: National security v freedom? : Tue Apr 03, 2012 11:23 am  

Saddened! wrote:

Why is it cretinous just because you don't agree with it? You are very predictable when it comes to politics, basically adopting an anti-Government approach to just about everything.

These powers do not mean they will be snooping on the average person's Facebook account or reading their emails. All it means is that they could, should they need to. There is a difference there.

Why do you object to it? If it gives them more power to deal with potential serious criminality, what is the downside?

Let's install cameras in every room of every house: that'll cut domestic violence, sexual abuse, rape and goodness knows what else.

Re: National security v freedom? : Tue Apr 03, 2012 11:25 am  

Saddened! wrote:

These powers do not mean they will be snooping on the average person's Facebook account or reading their emails. All it means is that they could, should they need to. There is a difference there.

There is already an established, legal procedure if they need to, that has been in existence for years, so why does it need altering? Scaremongering politics, I'm afraid

Re: National security v freedom? : Tue Apr 03, 2012 11:29 am  

Saddened! wrote:

As ever, the only people who will lose out over this are people with something to hide.

I personally don't care if they have access to everything I do. If it saves one life, it's worth it IMO.

Everyone has something to hide or something that could be used to incriminate them. If you have and express any political or religious view that then could be used to execute you under a future, authoritarian government. Your complacency is astonishing.

Re: National security v freedom? : Tue Apr 03, 2012 11:37 am  

cod'ead wrote: I'm sometimes pleased that my old man is no longer around. I dread to think what him and his mates would think of an imbecilic attitude like yours, after they'd spent 6 years fighting on three continents to oppose pervasive regimes. Then you come along and would happily sign away any hard-fought freedoms, in the name of the mythical war on terror. This is completely OT, but I saw this article this morning and thought fondly of you. Saville or Savile?? Just thought I'd mention it.

cod'ead wrote: I'm sometimes pleased that my old man is no longer around. I dread to think what him and his mates would think of an imbecilic attitude like yours, after they'd spent 6 years fighting on three continents to oppose pervasive regimes. Then you come along and would happily sign away any hard-fought freedoms, in the name of the mythical war on terror. This is completely OT, but I saw this article this morning and thought fondly of you. Saville or Savile?? Just thought I'd mention it.

Re: National security v freedom? : Tue Apr 03, 2012 11:37 am  

Anyway, I am not convinced the proposal is just (or even) about terrorism. It's about maintaining the status quo, which is under threat from modern communications. The latter permit instant organisation, instant campaigning and instant dissemination of information. In other words, they are a potential threat to the established State by providing a vehicle for real democracy (but also evil in anarchy, etc). It's about keeping the genie in the bottle before it emerges rather more strongly than in the recent riots. There are lots of IT literate young people without proper jobs and in debt, the seeds of a Britannic Spring are sown and the goverment / establishment will wish to stamp on any germinating shoots before they can establish themselves.