Viewing 40 posts - 1 through 40 (of 59 total)
  • European Courts 1: UK gov O
  • teamhurtmore
    Free Member

    On privacy laws. Hope that the UK gov doesn’t score an equaliser on this one. C’mon backbenchers show your worth.

    liberty is too important

    chewkw
    Free Member

    The EU bureaucratic machine will be on the move soon …

    Big is not always beautiful.

    😆

    Junkyard
    Free Member

    all party support for passing the emergency legislation 🙁

    Not a good day for freedom IMHO and the party system means they are unlikely to face down their leaders/party.

    Ignoring what you think of the law rushed laws are rarely good ones.

    “The only reason this is an emergency that has to be dealt with in a single day in the House of Commons is because the government has spent three months making its mind up and has decided that we’re going on holiday in 10 days’ time. Would it not make far more sense to enable proper consideration, so that we do not have unintended consequences from this legislation, if this was considered in this House on two separate days, so that we can table amendments after second reading?”
    Chris Bryant

    whatnobeer
    Free Member

    And people wonder why Scots might want to vote Yes. **** travesty, the EU courts do something useful and it get swatted down immediately in this stitch up.

    binners
    Full Member

    Is their anything more pathetic than the supposedly pro-EU liberal* deputy prime minister, stood at Dave’s side, in true lap dog style, offering his mealy-mouthed explaination why he needed to over-rule the EU to allow the government to monitor all it’s citizens communications.

    * the word liberal is used figuratively in this instance. And in no way infurs any actual connection with the dictionary definition of the word

    Swelper
    Free Member

    Does that mean Andy Coulson can go free?

    chewkw
    Free Member

    binners – Member

    Is their anything more pathetic than the supposedly pro-EU liberal* deputy prime minister, …

    He got a career as deputy PM with the pension to go with it until his life expires so better to be a lap dog than a salaried man, in reality he is laughing at you. 😆

    konabunny
    Free Member

    The title to this thread is misleading. The European Court of Justice didn’t win or lose anything, it just made a decision.

    If I have understood it correctly, the case was brought by an Irish civil rights group against the EU. (I might not have understood it correctly). http://edri.org/ecj-data-retention-directive-contravenes-european-law/

    somafunk
    Full Member

    And people wonder why Scots might want to vote Yes. **** travesty

    I’m scots and whilst i want to vote yes i also wish to vote a big fat no (preferably with a slap to the face) to being ruled by Alex Salmond, some of his policies along with his sycophantic dribbling of big money donors turns me inside out, here’s an example of one of his planned polices here – the guy is a **** tin-pot dictator and the more i research and find out about him the less i like him, which at the moment is putting him on level pegging with Cameron, Blair, Hilary Clinton (curveball) and many others but if i listed them all i’d break the forum.

    ohnohesback
    Free Member

    I wonder what extra powers have been hidden away in the bill?

    munrobiker
    Free Member

    I suspect there will be a lot of this in the coming years- I believe the latest visa requirements for spouses from 2012 will be going through the EU courts soon under appeal. UK judges have deemed them to be unlawful under EU law as they deny the right to family life, however Theresa May, the most evil woman alive in Britain today, has appealed this all the way up to the Supreme Court with rejection each time.

    The issue is that crackpot laws like this and the spouse visa rules get deemed to be illegal by the EU and then the conservatives can play the “They won’t even let us rule our own country, look at all them nasty immigrants/paedophiles etc. etc.” card and win over the bigoted and ignorant.

    Very glad Clegg isn’t my local MP now that I’ve moved- the man is a disgrace to the idea of being a Liberal Democrat.

    mikewsmith
    Free Member

    the man is a disgrace to the idea of being a Liberal Democrat.

    Yep, I always thought of them as woolly jumpers and nice ideas but no real clue what to down with them, sort of like the greens with a more comprehensive policy list. Making policy that sounds nice but no idea how to implement any of it because no mug is going to vote for them.

    saxabar
    Free Member

    Don’t forget to email your MP if you’re concerned about this. The Open Rights Group have sensible sample text and list of MP addresses here.

    wwaswas
    Full Member

    The worst thing is that this legislation is only making legal something that’s already happening now.

    The security services won’t be capturing any more of our data as a result, they just won’t be able to be prosecuted for it.

    Shameful all round, yet again Labour prove that they don’t understand what the role of the ‘opposition’ is and LibDemstake the ‘liberal’ out of their name.

    wwaswas
    Full Member

    For discussion on the legislation read;

    https://twitter.com/JackofKent

    who’s making it clear how far beyond European ruling this legislation goes in terms of allowing access to private data.

    Junkyard
    Free Member

    They won’t even let us rule our own country, look at all them nasty immigrants/paedophiles etc. etc.” card and win over the bigoted and ignorant

    Indeed and of course we all know the human rights are separate from the EU anyway. It would not be a good day for the UK if we had no constitution

    We have a scottish devolution thread if you wish to discuss the issue there.

    Much as I would love to criticise Cameron and his “only the bad guys amongst us need worry” attitude I’m struggling to get offended at this.

    However, I’m only reading about it on the BBC website and knowing them, they will have omitted something really vital.

    The proposed law seems to clarify the requiement for telecoms companies to retain their call data records. All telecoms companies retain this for a certain period anyway, as this is how they work out how much to bill you.

    It doesn’t give the security services the right to access all this data as a matter of routine does it? Or is that the bit the BEEB have omitted?

    ohnohesback
    Free Member

    Our Stasi aren’t too bothered about the rule of law; they just spy anyway.

    jambalaya
    Free Member

    I think the government should be much more aggressive on internet/communication surveillance. This legislation doesn’t go far enough. I am amused when people talk of privacy given all the stuff posted on facebook / twitter which is public domain and the fact that google/facebook etc data mine everything we type in order to sell advertising.

    Off topic slightly but I highly recommend the movie “The Lives of Others”

    molgrips
    Free Member

    Or is that the bit the BEEB have omitted?

    Censored!

    Seriously though – the fact that all three main parties agreed to this tells me there is a lot going on that we just don’t know about, which is what I’ve always suspected. This is hugely unpopular, and any party could get a serious credibility boost by opposing it. But they haven’t. When do they all agree on anything?

    whatnobeer
    Free Member

    also wish to vote a big fat no (preferably with a slap to the face) to being ruled by Alex Salmond

    Fair enough, but he wouldn’t be in charge forever…. But this isn’t that place for that discussion.

    I think the government should be much more aggressive on internet/communication surveillance. This legislation doesn’t go far enough.

    You think the Government should have the right to snoop on all of your electronic personal data and communications when ever they like with no justification whatsoever? Emails, phone calls, texts, private messages, all of it? With no proof or even a hint of wrong doing?

    The police aren’t allowed to randomly stop you in the street and search you, why on earth should they be allowed to do it online?

    jambalaya
    Free Member

    The police aren’t allowed to randomly stop you in the street and search you, why on earth should they be allowed to do it online?


    @whatnobeer
    , they have to have a reason to stop you in the street and they have to have a reason to look at your online records. They have to have a warrant.

    ohnohesback
    Free Member

    Why do all the main parties agree with the bill? Because when all is said and done any differences between them are largely cosmetic. They are all part of the same political class.

    binners
    Full Member

    Dave made a point, in his pre-electoral schmoozing/lies, of pointing out labours authoritarian streak, and saying that the more draconian aspects of it would be repealed. Anyone seen any signs of that? No, me neither.

    The only politician worth listening too on matters like this is David Davis, and he reckons it’s all deeply suspect.

    wwaswas
    Full Member

    they have to have a reason to look at your online records. They have to have a warrant.

    they don’t now.

    And this law means that it’s legal for them to do it without a warrant.

    Flaperon
    Full Member

    The police aren’t allowed to randomly stop you in the street and search you

    They are, aren’t they?

    molgrips
    Free Member

    Why do all the main parties agree with the bill? Because when all is said and done any differences between them are largely cosmetic. They are all part of the same political class.

    But they point-score and argue on everything.. except this.. hmm..

    binners
    Full Member

    Jambalaya – you recommend watching ‘The Lives of Others’ then advocate more aggressive government surveillance? Looks like the writer and director really hit the spot with communicating their message to you. Ringing endorsement of intruding in people’s private lives that it is. 😯

    * puts house on Jambalaya using the phrase ‘if you’ve nothing to hide, then you’ve nothing to fear’ in his next post*

    saxabar
    Free Member

    It’s the tendency that underpins retention we have to be very careful of.

    Gus Hunt, an ex-CIA Chief Technology Officer, highlighted in a presentation while still in post that, ‘It is really very nearly within our grasp to be able to compute on all human generated information’… ‘The value of any piece of information is only known when you can connect it with something else that arrives at a future point in time’ and ‘Since you can’t connect dots you don’t have, it drives us into a mode of, we fundamentally try to collect everything and hang on to it forever’.

    This isn’t because everyone is a suspect, but because we are the context against which unusual activity is measured. The bottom line is that they want it all. This isn’t just social media and phones, but the next wave of biometric and wearable technologies too. This makes The Lives of Others (a great film) seem innocuous. Please email your MP if you’re not keen on this (sample text and your MP here). Even if you’re OK with this, at the very least the bill needs proper scrutiny and not to be rushed thorugh.

    sadmadalan
    Full Member

    The problem we have is that we sit here and complain when the security services fail to stop a bombing or other outrage and then complain bitterly that they monitor our electronic conversations because they are private.

    If you want your internet use/email to be private, then encode it and use other means to make it nor possible to see. The internet is open. Security is an add on, it was not built into the original system. We are all happy to use social media, which are supplied by companies who need to make money and make use of your profile – this is not private. We send email in plain text which can be read by anyone – this is not private. We amble around the internet – this is not private.

    (Sorry – I’ll get off my high horse)

    The bill does have a sunset clause of 2016 – which means it will have to come back to the commons and be discussed. From what all the media outlets are saying, DRIP replaces the existing powers, not extends it. The existing powers are huge anyway. And just remember that the bill will have to be published anyway

    And just remember that the US, Russia, China, other EU allies, etc will all be monitoring the net/email anyway

    patriotpro
    Free Member

    The irony of the do-gooders spitting feathers at this when they were the very ones in favour of ‘Europe’ and everything it will bring,

    Bed, made, lie on. Ahhhhh. 8)

    wwaswas
    Full Member

    then encode it

    *hollow laughter*

    everyone knows the NSA (and thus GCHQ) have back doors on all the encryption tools and if you use Tor they target you precisely because you’re trying to not be open.

    The difference with a commercial company is I can sue them/it’s illegal for them to inspect my internet traffic (much like Royal Mail delivering mail but not reading it in transit).

    The ‘well if you’ve got nothing to hide’ faction will no doubt be along shortly…

    [edit]

    Bed, made, lie on. Ahhhhh

    you know this act is because ‘Europe’ declared what the security services were doing is illegal and the UK government is trying to find a workaround to it? So at the moment it’s Europe on the side of those opposign this law. Just saying.

    saxabar
    Free Member

    And therein lies the issue: organised terrorists tend to be pretty clued-up when it comes to tech’ and encryption. It’s the rest of us regular folk who get hoovered up.

    And this law means that it’s legal for them to do it without a warrant.

    They’ll still need a warrant for a “live intercept” (i.e. a phone tap). I can’t see where it makes provision for routine trawls of all telecoms call data. Can someone point this out?

    Lifer
    Free Member

    patriotpro – Member

    The irony of the do-gooders spitting feathers at this when they were the very ones in favour of ‘Europe’ and everything it will bring,

    Bed, made, lie on. Ahhhhh.

    Yeah you’ve got that the wrong way round.

    thestabiliser
    Free Member

    Don’t forget to email your MP if you’re concerned about this. The Open Rights Group have sensible sample text and list of MP addresses here.

    I wouldn’t – then they will know.

    **dons tin foil hat**

    Northwind
    Full Member

    wwaswas – Member

    everyone knows the NSA (and thus GCHQ) have back doors on all the encryption tools and if you use Tor they target you precisely because you’re trying to not be open.

    But it’s alright because if you use strong encryption or Tor or similiar you’re definitely a paedophile

    binners
    Full Member

    Oh dear. Someone’s a bit confuddled.

    We should know from experience that the phrases ‘rushed through parliament’ and ‘all-party consensus’ are the perfect combination for the very worst type of legislation. And this looks like exactly that!

    wwaswas
    Full Member
    saxabar
    Free Member

    I wouldn’t – then they will know.

    **dons tin foil hat**
    🙂
    (Of course, the point is we want those in power to know citizens are not happy!)

Viewing 40 posts - 1 through 40 (of 59 total)

The topic ‘European Courts 1: UK gov O’ is closed to new replies.