21st Century Fox Posted 14 June 2012 Posted 14 June 2012 The powers that be will create any excuse to pass through measures for surveillance to fool the masses. Cyber Bullying happens to be en vogue, terrorism was soooooooooo noughties. If you came downstairs in the morning to find your mail open on your mat, you'd do something about it.
Guest MattP Posted 14 June 2012 Posted 14 June 2012 If you don't then you better enjoy conflict. I don't enjoy conflict at all, I don't intend to allow people to insult me because of it though.
Webbo Posted 14 June 2012 Posted 14 June 2012 There was a woman on breakfast news this morning who was affected by this. Someone she knew was being trolled on Facebook so she stuck up for them. Because of this they started trolling her. They set up a spoof account in her name with her picture on it and went on childrens facebook accounts and talked pervy to them. In effect framing her as a peado. She couldn't block that. These people are the most pathetic scum alive. I have more respect for thieves, at least they have some purpose in their crime. Anything that makes life harder for these cvnts is okay in my book.
brockmyster Posted 14 June 2012 Posted 14 June 2012 The problem is when it starts getting used to shut down freedom of speech, I am not saying it is, but it can give governments the legal power to silence/expose critics. The thing I take away most from visiting places with an oppressive past is how when laws were passed and data collected it was all done under the guise of protecting the innocent, but then they changed the laws, so the previous innocent became the guilty for nothing more than their opinions. The data was already collected, the evidence gathered and the means and power to convict was already in place so there was nothing that could be done. I am not sure if I am explaining myself well, so for example on the census you are required to state your sexuality or beliefs, then they illegalise homosexuality or Judaism and they already have a nice list of people to go round and convict. My point is, just because you can't see anything wrong with it now, being used in the way it is being explained (to convict internet criminals) doesn't mean it can't be abused in the future. Fortunately it is so easy to get round, even I could do it. Good point but there is a massive difference to publishing the names of interne trolls and the restriction of free speech. Im sure the law states that you hav ethe right to freedom of speech but one of the catches is it cant be publicly indecent, which some of the stuff put is
MooseBreath Posted 14 June 2012 Posted 14 June 2012 At the moment the front page of the BBC news website is carrying the snooping charter right alongside a story about police arresting nearly 100 suspected online paedophiles. But we need the snooping charter to catch criminals, of course.
Guest MattP Posted 14 June 2012 Posted 14 June 2012 There was a woman on breakfast news this morning who was affected by this. Someone she knew was being trolled on Facebook so she stuck up for them. Because of this they started trolling her. They set up a spoof account in her name with her picture on it and went on childrens facebook accounts and talked pervy to them. In effect framing her as a peado. She couldn't block that. These people are the most pathetic scum alive. I have more respect for thieves, at least they have some purpose in their crime. Anything that makes life harder for these cvnts is okay in my book. This, this and this. Rare case of course, but anything that stops things like this is a good thing.
MooseBreath Posted 14 June 2012 Posted 14 June 2012 Anything that makes life harder for these cvnts is okay in my book. Anything? Just ban the internet then. And while we're allowing the extreme minority ruin everything for everyone else, ban procreation because some people rape kids. Anything that makes it harder for them cvnts, right?
Webbo Posted 14 June 2012 Posted 14 June 2012 Anything? Just ban the internet then. And while we're allowing the extreme minority ruin everything for the everyone else, ban procreation because some people rape kids. Anything that makes it harder for them cvnts, right? Now you're being silly.
MooseBreath Posted 14 June 2012 Posted 14 June 2012 Now you're being silly. I think silly is suggesting that the authorities should be allowed to do absolutely anything to prevent extremely obscure and not particularly important crimes.
Daggers Posted 14 June 2012 Posted 14 June 2012 Now you're being silly. He really isn't, he is pointing out (as has been pointed out numerous times in this thread) THAT IT WON'T FVCKING WORK AND YOUR LOGIC IS FLAWED.
Webbo Posted 14 June 2012 Posted 14 June 2012 I think silly is suggesting that the authorities should be allowed to do absolutely anything to prevent extremely obscure and not particularly important crimes. Framing someone as a paedophile is not particularly important??
Webbo Posted 14 June 2012 Posted 14 June 2012 He really isn't, he is pointing out (as has been pointed out numerous times in this thread) THAT IT WON'T FVCKING WORK AND YOUR LOGIC IS FLAWED. Any need for the big red letters? The police don't catch every criminal, does that mean they shouldn't try?
Daggers Posted 14 June 2012 Posted 14 June 2012 Any need for the big red letters? The police don't catch every criminal, does that mean they shouldn't try? Because you and Matt seem to have problem reading the small black ones. Your second question makes no sense.
Daggers Posted 14 June 2012 Posted 14 June 2012 My son trod in dog shit today - we should ban all dogs. Someone died in a car crash - we must ban cars from being able to go over 10mph and fix sponges to the bonnet. Why is it that it's the Tories wanting to extend the nanny state here? I thought you believed in free markets and less rules.
Webbo Posted 14 June 2012 Posted 14 June 2012 My son trod in dog shit today - we should ban all dogs. Someone died in a car crash - we must ban cars from being able to go over 10mph and fix sponges to the bonnet. Why is it that it's the Tories wanting to extend the nanny state here? I thought you believed in free markets and less rules. Lets remove the number plates from cars then, they're an infringement on our privacy. We should be allowed to run people over without the police being able to trace us. Edit; I'll return to this argument tomorrow as I'm off out now.
Zingari Posted 14 June 2012 Posted 14 June 2012 The Coalition: our programme for government CIVIL LIBERTIES We will be strong in defence of freedom. The Government believes that the British state has become too authoritarian, and that over the past decade it has abused and eroded fundamental human freedoms and historic civil liberties. We need to restore the rights of individuals in the face of encroaching state power, in keeping with Britain’s tradition of freedom and fairness. We will implement a full programme of measures to reverse the substantial erosion of civil liberties and roll back state intrusion. We will introduce a Freedom Bill. We will scrap the ID card scheme, the National Identity register and the ContactPoint database, and halt the next generation of biometric passports. We will outlaw the finger-printing of children at school without parental permission. We will extend the scope of the Freedom of Information Act to provide greater transparency. We will adopt the protections of the Scottish model for the DNA database. We will protect historic freedoms through the defence of trial by jury. We will restore rights to non-violent protest. We will review libel laws to protect freedom of speech. We will introduce safeguards against the misuse of anti-terrorism legislation. We will further regulate CCTV. We will end the storage of internet and email records without good reason. We will introduce a new mechanism to prevent the proliferation of unnecessary new criminal offences. We will establish a Commission to investigate the creation of a British Bill of Rights that incorporates and builds on all our obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights, ensures that these rights continue to be enshrined in British law, and protects and extends British liberties. We will seek to promote a better understanding of the true scope of these obligations and liberties. http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20100919110641/http://programmeforgovernment.hmg.gov.uk/civil-liberties/index.html
Daggers Posted 14 June 2012 Posted 14 June 2012 Lets remove the number plates from cars then, they're an infringement on our privacy. We should be allowed to run people over without the police being able to trace us. Edit; I'll return to this argument tomorrow as I'm off out now. Try doing what neither Matt or 1964 have managed - try posting HOW this law will make a difference given that as has been proved it is unenforceable and circumventable. Stop wibbling with your generalised nonsense and answer the simple question...
1964FOX Posted 14 June 2012 Posted 14 June 2012 Try doing what neither Matt or 1964 have managed - try posting HOW this law will make a difference given that as has been proved it is unenforceable and circumventable. Stop wibbling with your generalised nonsense and answer the simple question... It makes it easier to get info off Internet service providers, phone company and similar. They can already do this and trace people but this makes it easier and more accessible. I'm hoping to get a job at the new office set up to snoop in on the average jo's Internet usage. It should be fun infringing people's civil liberties because they will e really concerned about what the average internet user is doing every day.
ADK Posted 14 June 2012 Posted 14 June 2012 Ah yes don't worry unless you are a dirty terrorist or a paedo you have nothing to fear...
Daggers Posted 14 June 2012 Posted 14 June 2012 It makes it easier to get info off Internet service providers, phone company and similar. 1. I have a PAYG phone topped up by cash and not linked to any account, I use Tors and proxies - this law doesn't make it any easier at all to get my data. Any person can do this at which point your hopeful new job will mainly involve you making coffee and being touched up while filing by the manager. 2. An IP address is not linked to a person Your information will be a sack of crap. The law does not work, it will not catch people who don't want to be caught which is the entire point of the law. It will mine data from the general public only. You have still not explained how it will be useful by giving a detailed reply. You have still not highlighted how it will be useful - you are still talking in terms of bullshit generalities.
AoWW Posted 14 June 2012 Posted 14 June 2012 The powers that be will create any excuse to pass through measures for surveillance to fool the masses. Cyber Bullying happens to be en vogue, terrorism was soooooooooo noughties. If you came downstairs in the morning to find your mail open on your mat, you'd do something about it. You get stuff through snail mail that's remotely interesting? I wish I did. To be honest if someone opened all my junk mail, I wouldn't complain. *yes, I'm being facetious*
Rincewind Posted 14 June 2012 Posted 14 June 2012 It's when your mail does not arrive you have to worry. Most of what comes my letter box does not use envelopes.
21st Century Fox Posted 15 June 2012 Posted 15 June 2012 1 in 9,999,999,999 letters may be malicious hate mail, let's have the government open everything we physically post so they can find the culprit.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.