UK surveillance more than any other democracy

[seeder]

Quote

 

UK surveillance powers have gone ‘further than any other Western democracy’ - MP

 Britain has gone “further than any other Western democracy” in its expansion of surveillance powers and its ability to collect bulk data without justifiable reason, a British MP has said.

Joanna Cherry, a Scottish National Party (SNP) MP, made the comments in reference to the Investigatory Powers (IP) Bill, which has been introduced to extend surveillance and data-gathering laws. It will allow UK intelligence agencies to collect, store and access information about internet users.

The government says such a move is necessary to combat terrorism. Critics of the bill have branded it a “snoopers’ charter” on the grounds it infringes privacy and undermines basic human rights.

Cherry says: “At least the IP Bill is honest about the fact that it permits the collection of bulk data. However, we shouldn’t be too congratulatory of the bill as we have now gone further than any other Western democracy.”

https://www.rt.com/uk/356494-surveillance-powers-security-democracy/

 

 

 

[stevewinn]

Im in favour of the Government collecting the Data. its internet communications, How they can cite Human Rights for the internet is beyond me, don't get me wrong i do like the internet but we have to keep it real, and in perspective. far to many people are to trusting of the internet, in my view its totally acceptable the Government can collect this data, the "snoopers charter" is justified alone in tackling paedophilia/child abuse. then we have terrorism, organised crime etc... 

I guess the bottom line for me is, if the internet was totally censored would it infringe on my life or freedoms. I have to say no, but then i don't live my life through social media etc...

 

 

[Space Commander Travis]

But fortunately the UK Government is equalled in incompetence, probably, only by the U.S. Govt. among "First World" nations, so they don't have the ability to do anything with all this data they acquire, for good or bad. 

[Parsec]

4 hours ago, stevewinn said:

I guess the bottom line for me is, if the internet was totally censored would it infringe on my life or freedoms. I have to say no, but then i don't live my life through social media etc...

 

 

Well, I don't know about your life, but your freedoms for sure, since if it was totally censored you wouldn't have internet at all.

And if you meant totally "regulated", well, again, you'd be able to access only the sites someone else decided are good for you.

What if everything you follow now would not pass the censorship?

If that's not a loss of freedom, what else?

 

 

[Grey Area]

They can do it legally with the IP bill or illegally behind closed doors.

Either way it will happen, it wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if at least one of the intelligence agencies already do this.

to be honest though, it would probably be cheaper and a lot more illuminating if they just paid several of the numerous data whore companies that keep your online records, browsing and shopping habits purely to sell on.

[LV-426]

Spying on Joe Public will do little to nothing to tackle online crime. If anything, it will push average internet users toward VPN's and other services to protect their information, making it even harder to separate the wheat from the chaff. Any semi-competent cybercriminal is going to be way beyond the measures being pushed in the IP bill. I wouldn't be surprised to see a hike in ISP fees too, as this data isn't going to be stored without cost, and the government aren't planning to foot the bill.

There's also a serious question as to how private and secure data will be from third parties should it become mandatory for ISP's to store it.

I think people are a sometimes a little naive when it comes to digital information in this day and age. Yes, there's a degree of separation when it comes to using a PC, smartphone, etc. and visualizing that information being in someone elses' hands. Effectively though, it's like having someone have free access to your home, to poke around in your drawers as they see fit. It's not just about legality. Do the government have the right to know about your dating habits, medical problems, etc. without specific consent?

 

[stevewinn]

19 hours ago, Parsec said:

Well, I don't know about your life, but your freedoms for sure, since if it was totally censored you wouldn't have internet at all.

And if you meant totally "regulated", well, again, you'd be able to access only the sites someone else decided are good for you.

What if everything you follow now would not pass the censorship?

If that's not a loss of freedom, what else?

 

 

Before the Internet i had fundamental freedom, the advent of Internet for me as a citizen of the UK did not increase that freedom. I see the Internet for what it is as just another form of communication, a medium. - that definition or opinion might come down to a matter of perspective. think of it like this, If Person A has the internet and Person B doesn't does that mean person A has more freedoms?

At the end of the Day if people don't like the idea of the Government keeping retrospective e-mail data. don't send e-mails, revert back to pen and paper, envelope, postage stamp and send a letter. we could all re-learn the art of writing a letter. or better still, meet up with the person and have a face to face conversation. like the good old days.

Edited August 22, 2016 by stevewinn

[Parsec]

I respect you point of view, although I don't agree. 

For me internet is another (powerful)  way to obtain information and increase my knowledge. 

I still remember when I had to search for information about specific matters and the only way was going to the library (and you had to be lucky enough to live in a place with a decent library) or even worse,  when you were looking for a music album and you had only anecdotal accounts on the group or the (unsure)  title. 

And after you found out what you were looking for, the only way to have the album was either order it by post magazines (if you were lucky enough to find there your album)  or wait to go in a big city an try there your luck. 

I know,  I didn't grow up in a big city! 

 

I don't deny that those experiences were amazing,  rich of emotions and rewarding on different levels (you were basically always on the hunt for a holy grail),  but the access to information and data we have today in unmatchable. 

Now (for better or for worst)  we have everything one click away. 

 

Can we live without internet?  Sure. 

We can even live without electricity for what it matters. 

Does it mean our lives would be unaffected if we'd live in a world without electricity? 

I don't think so. 

 

And let's don't forget that information is changing as well, leaning everyday more towards the net. 

What you could find once on tv or in magazines today you can find it almost exclusively on internet,  since the other channels have been cannibalized by it and are basically dead or dying. 

 

Answering your question "if Person A has the internet and Person B doesn't does that mean person A has more freedoms?" 

Not necessarily, no. 

But for sure has more opportunities. 

[Professor Buzzkill]

Is it the governments duty to monitor its citizens? or is it the citizens duty to monitor the  government? 

I don't think the government should be monitoring everyone, and law enforcement already monitors cyber crime. The dangers of this system far outweigh any perceived benefits.  The term "turn key tyranny" is applicable.  all it takes is someone with a tyrannical mindset and a believable narrative and there is nothing you could do to stop them.

[Space Commander Travis]

12 hours ago, stevewinn said:

At the end of the Day if people don't like the idea of the Government keeping retrospective e-mail data. don't send e-mails, revert back to pen and paper, envelope, postage stamp and send a letter. we could all re-learn the art of writing a letter. or better still, meet up with the person and have a face to face conversation. like the good old days

You wouldn't expect, in what likes to call itself a "free society", that your phone calls would be monitored or your mail opened without a police warrant, would you. So why if you send someone electronic mail should you have to accept that it might be?

[stevewinn]

20 hours ago, Parsec said:

I respect you point of view, although I don't agree. 

For me internet is another (powerful)  way to obtain information and increase my knowledge. 

I still remember when I had to search for information about specific matters and the only way was going to the library (and you had to be lucky enough to live in a place with a decent library) or even worse,  when you were looking for a music album and you had only anecdotal accounts on the group or the (unsure)  title. 

And after you found out what you were looking for, the only way to have the album was either order it by post magazines (if you were lucky enough to find there your album)  or wait to go in a big city an try there your luck. 

I know,  I didn't grow up in a big city! 

 

I don't deny that those experiences were amazing,  rich of emotions and rewarding on different levels (you were basically always on the hunt for a holy grail),  but the access to information and data we have today in unmatchable. 

Now (for better or for worst)  we have everything one click away. 

 

Can we live without internet?  Sure. 

We can even live without electricity for what it matters. 

Does it mean our lives would be unaffected if we'd live in a world without electricity? 

I don't think so. 

 

And let's don't forget that information is changing as well, leaning everyday more towards the net. 

What you could find once on tv or in magazines today you can find it almost exclusively on internet,  since the other channels have been cannibalized by it and are basically dead or dying. 

 

Answering your question "if Person A has the internet and Person B doesn't does that mean person A has more freedoms?" 

Not necessarily, no. 

But for sure has more opportunities. 

I agree the internet is great but the point im trying to make is internet use doesn't come under fundamental freedoms, surely it can never be classed under the Human Rights banner. but in this crazy age it wouldn't surprise me as the place goes bonkers as the freedoms society treasure change to more materialistic and in that process we lose sight of our absolute fundamental freedoms. - But back to the Government storing E-mail Data, it wouldn't worry me, because if i didnt want the government to know something, i would avoid e-mail. 

The Internet is funny, funny in the sense of how we view it, i'd say most of us on these forums are law abiding citizens, yet how many of us at one time or another have download or streamed movies, music, computer games etc.. illegally, yet somehow we consider it not breaking the law, well not in the same way as walking into a shop and shop lifting a CD, Bluray etc... it is strange and where law abiding citizens. see how it effects our mentality.

[LV-426]

1 hour ago, stevewinn said:

But back to the Government storing E-mail Data, it wouldn't worry me, because if i didnt want the government to know something, i would avoid e-mail.

It isn't that simple these days. Of course, snail mail is still available, but many companies are heading to online only services, as it's expected that the vast majority of people have Internet access. It's only going to get better/worse too, depending on your point of view.

I'm of an age that I can look back nostalgically to pre-Internet days, but it's highly unrealistic to imagine them ever being practical again. Who would want to wait several days for letters to be sent and received, when E-mail can arrive instantly, or people can chat in real time with little to no cost. You know the rest of the deal... a world of shopping that will likely develop further in the coming years with VR, online banking, streaming entertainment, even these forums where we're in a much bigger world than some of us ever imagined within our lifetime.

Could we live without these things? Sure. It's like comparing travel to pre-rail/pre-flight though. We'd still have the capacity to get from A to B, but it would be severely limiting.

Remember too, the IP bill isn't specifically about E-mails. The Government will have the ability to track every page you visit online. It isn't just about whether you've downloaded the odd bit of music or a movie. They'll be able to track your political tendencies, that bit of awkward information you had to research on an embarrassing medical complaint, whether your teenage daughter has been looking up methods of birth control, or whether your teeange son has been regularly visiting bouncy-boobs.com  - I haven't tested that to see if it's a genuine website by the way

The point is, what right does a Government have to know this information about you? And perhaps more importantly, how will it be used? One thing I do know, from my old school motto, "Knowledge is power." And Governments granting themselves more power over a somnambulant population is never a good thing, however they try to paint it as "for our own good."

[Essan]

I believe that the UK has more privately owned CCTVs than any other country. 

"They" may be watching us.   But We are watching them even more .....   

[EBE Hybrid]

My greatest concern would be that eventually this personnal data concerning a citizens internet browsing could be sold on. Insurance companies would no doubt love the data and modify insurance premiums based on your likelihood of being a thrill-seeker, which would, no doubt, be influenced by how much heavy metal you listen too, how many action packed/violent video games you play, what genres of 'adult entertainment' you get your kicks from. Scammers and fraudsters could choose who that feel would be most susceptible to target. And though you might think a government wouldn't sell the data to unscrupulous organisations, if the precedent of selling data becomes set by the sale of data to a private healthcare provider (as a hypothetical example) who has requested the data so that they might better target resources of healthcare provision, then the precedent of selling data has been set. If the data can be sold to one organisation, then why not another? And what happens if an 'accredited' organisation (or an individual placed within an accredited organisation) should become motivated by money and sell the data on to those who may use the information for nefarious purpose?

[aztek]

On 8/27/2016 at 10:03 AM, EBE Hybrid said:

My greatest concern would be that ..............

your greatest concern should be that tomorrow they will pass a law making things that you were doing before illegal, not only they wont tell you that (thus they will turn you into a criminal overnight, without you doing anything),  nyc did that to rifle and shotgun owners, by changing laws without informing anyone, they can also pass that law so it works backwards as well., like us did for imported cigarettes,  they made laws so they can collect tax for all cigarettes sold overseas va internet, , and they also send people bills for taxes they owe for those cigarettes bought before the law was passed.

 

if you think "i'm not doing anything illegal, so it does not concern me, is stupid and shortsighted. they will just twist some laws, and you will end up doing something they can get you for.

this is not made against hackers, or someone who knows how to do things the "right way" they'll never catch them, but you is a different story,

Edited August 29, 2016 by aztek