Re: Edward Snowden : Thu Jun 13, 2013 2:52 pm  

Saddened! wrote:

...All a load of nonsense. I personally don't care one bit if the authorities are watching every single thing I do like a hawk. I don't do anything that would interest them anyway, so what on earth is the fuss about?...

How do you know what interests them?
What safeguards are in place to ensure that only genuine security issues are of interest them?

[DaveO]

Re: Edward Snowden : Thu Jun 13, 2013 3:00 pm  

Saddened! wrote:

Wouldn't bother me one bit. If they want to watch me eating my tea, playing on the Xbox and scratching my nads, so be it.

I don't see what the authorities are doing wrong here that the likes of Facebook and in particular Google are doing.

Facebook and Google have to comply with data protection laws in the countries in which they operate.

When you use their systems despite agreeing to various bits of information about you being shared with other users as you allow or not that doesn't remove these companies obligations under data protection laws.

If they gave information out that breaks these laws they could be sued.

The allegation is the US security authorities are not complying with the data protection laws of varous countries including ours.

So despite the fact you are oblivious to the risks of all this you must surely agree our security agencies are subject to the the rule of law? That is we can't have any agency even those who say they are looking after us operating outside the legal framework that is what ultimately protects our freedom?

As an aside one of the suggestions being put forward is if Google and Facebook have given EU users data to the US they will have broken EU data protection laws and are liable to be sued.

Re: Edward Snowden : Thu Jun 13, 2013 3:05 pm  

Saddened! wrote:

Wouldn't bother me one bit. If they want to watch me eating my tea, playing on the Xbox and scratching my nads, so be it.

You have to be trolling now.

Re: Edward Snowden : Thu Jun 13, 2013 3:49 pm  

Saddened! wrote:

Wouldn't bother me one bit. If they want to watch me eating my tea, playing on the Xbox and scratching my nads, so be it.

I don't see what the authorities are doing wrong here that the likes of Facebook and in particular Google are doing.

You are quite clearly either trolling or staggering naive.

For the sake of the discussion, let's assume the latter.

If you cannot tell the difference between information that is revealed freely by and individual and snooping, then you have a problem.

Re: Edward Snowden : Thu Jun 13, 2013 7:39 pm  

Mintball wrote:

You are quite clearly either trolling or staggering naive.

For the sake of the discussion, let's assume the latter.

If you cannot tell the difference between information that is revealed freely by and individual and snooping, then you have a problem.

I can tell the difference, I just don't see what the harm is. I really don't what harm will come to me if they do snoop? Why would Big Brother have any interest in little old boring me? Perhaps if you can explain that to me? Them assassinating me on public transport is a bit silly, so keep it to sensible, but detrimental, things that might happen if the Government agencies had complete access to monitoring my life?

Re: Edward Snowden : Fri Jun 14, 2013 1:14 am  

Saddened! wrote:

I..but detrimental, things that might happen if the Government agencies had complete access to monitoring my life?

It could never happen. No operative could stand reading the shoite you post for any length of time, it's bad enough for us.

Re: Edward Snowden : Fri Jun 14, 2013 5:55 am  

A couple of things mentioned on Question Time last night, one being "Why can't a British company invent and host a search engine and a Facebook ?", well nice idea but its never going to happen so in the meantime the other thing makes more sense "Don't ever post anything on Facebook that you don't want others to read and don't believe that when it says "Private" then it means that".

Personally I posted a series of Spike Milligan poems on my Facebook page last night, I hope the various government agencies who will "Share" these around like them this morning.

Re: Edward Snowden : Fri Jun 14, 2013 8:59 am  

Saddened! wrote:

I can tell the difference, I just don't see what the harm is. I really don't what harm will come to me if they do snoop? Why would Big Brother have any interest in little old boring me? Perhaps if you can explain that to me? Them assassinating me on public transport is a bit silly, so keep it to sensible, but detrimental, things that might happen if the Government agencies had complete access to monitoring my life?

I didn't mention anyone assassinating you on public transport.

But it is an entirely reasonable illustration of what can go wrong with entirely innocent people when the security forces cock up. After all, what could possibly happen to an electrician going about their life perfectly normally and legally?

There are plenty of other illustrations of incidences where the police have monumentally cocked up – "monumentally" as in mortal errors. The Harry Stanley case is just that springs to mind, since it happened very near where I live.

So to start with, if you cannot comprehend that the security forces and police are far from infallible, then you're staggeringly naive.

If you comprehend the above – and still think that giving the security forces even more scope for error (it has been acknowledged that, for instance, no amount of additional snooping powers would have prevented the murder of Lee Rigby), then you're plain daft.

If you do not understand and value the concept of privacy, you're also daft on that score too.

That you're apparently happy to sacrifice your own privacy is one thing: that you're apparently quite happy for everyone else to sacrifice theirs too, and daft enough to fall for the cretinous line about 'if you've nothing to hide', is yet another illustration of the parlous state of public discourse in this country.

Re: Edward Snowden : Fri Jun 14, 2013 10:02 am  

and now four former Home Secretaries are urging Clegg to drop his opposition to the snoopers' charter Why is it whenever something bad happens, or is even hinted at, all politicians want to do is exercise greater control over the lives of the population? The vast majority of whom are no threat to anyone at all.

and now four former Home Secretaries are urging Clegg to drop his opposition to the snoopers' charter Why is it whenever something bad happens, or is even hinted at, all politicians want to do is exercise greater control over the lives of the population? The vast majority of whom are no threat to anyone at all.

[DaveO]

Re: Edward Snowden : Fri Jun 14, 2013 10:13 am  

cod'ead wrote: and now four former Home Secretaries are urging Clegg to drop his opposition to the snoopers' charter Why is it whenever something bad happens, or is even hinted at, all politicians want to do is exercise greater control over the lives of the population? The vast majority of whom are no threat to anyone at all. All four of 'em, need locking up based on a case of mistaken identity. They would soon change their tunes. In any case just how would the "snoopers charter" have prevented the Woolwich Incident? No one is daft enough to post their intentions to commit such a crime on Facebook. So just what would they be looking for? Someone posting they converted to Islam and because they did which is of course perfectly legal suddenly start treating them as a potential criminal? Hopefully Clegg will have the balls not to cave in though his past record of working out how to support stuff he claims to be against is not good.

cod'ead wrote: and now four former Home Secretaries are urging Clegg to drop his opposition to the snoopers' charter Why is it whenever something bad happens, or is even hinted at, all politicians want to do is exercise greater control over the lives of the population? The vast majority of whom are no threat to anyone at all. All four of 'em, need locking up based on a case of mistaken identity. They would soon change their tunes. In any case just how would the "snoopers charter" have prevented the Woolwich Incident? No one is daft enough to post their intentions to commit such a crime on Facebook. So just what would they be looking for? Someone posting they converted to Islam and because they did which is of course perfectly legal suddenly start treating them as a potential criminal? Hopefully Clegg will have the balls not to cave in though his past record of working out how to support stuff he claims to be against is not good.