DrJ. No just my femur. Head perfectly fine thanks, “mate”.

What happened to the Lawrence family is terrible but it isn’t anywhere near sufficient to require curtailing the proposed powers.

What happened to the Lawrence family (and countless other cases) is absolute proof that the state isn’t to be trusted with such powers. Because such powers are routinely being abused by ‘security’ agencies for political gain, and to undermine any potential opposition. The argument that we ‘need’ to give up certain liberties in order to catch bad people is a fallacy; we live in a society where the threat from ‘terrorism’ is increasing, not the other way round, and it’s been proven here and elsewhere that such draconian erosion of liberties is actually contrary to helping produce a safer society. These proposals have bugger all to do with helping protect society, but all to do with the state wanting more control over the individual, to crack down on any potential deviancy, dissent and opposition to the status quo. The logical conclusion of what you’re willing to let happen, is a situation like that which exists in North Korea, where freedom of thought and expression is brutally stamped down. I’m mystified as to why you’d welcome that.

It’s all a bit “We have to become a totalitarian state to save ourselves from the people that would make us one”

It’s so odd that the Tories spend so much time talking about devolving power away from the state but in such a key area seem to want to clasp everyone to the heart of power and allow nothing to go unwatched.

I think we all know what we need to do to our mobiles…

you could do for most smart phones with a toffee hammer…

There are no ‘rights’. No one has a divine right to anything.
…
It’s a hypothetical construct that has no place in the natural world

Human Rights are not claimed to be “divine” – they are “agreed”.

They are rights that our combined societies have settled on as basic pillars of civilisation and law.

Yes they are a “hypothetical construct”, but so is almost every single aspect of being human and living together in a society.

Saying it has no place in a “natural world” is frankly bizarre, because last time I checked humans were natural too. And the ability to live together as a society through shared ideas, stories and constructs is an entirely natural part of that.

Okay.

So whatever metadata can be gathered on me, is of no consequence. Right. As said by absolutely nobody who NEEDS a CTC check for their work. Ever.

For the uninitiated:

A Counter Terrorist Check (CTC) is required for individuals who are employed in posts that:

Involve proximity to public figures assessed to be at particular risk from terrorist attack.

Give access to information or material assessed to be of value to terrorists. However it is not designed to manage access to sensitive information.

Involve unescorted access to certain military, civil, industrial or commercial establishments assessed to be at particular risk from terrorist attack.[6]:Annex B

The process for CTC clearance includes:

BPSS clearance;
Completion of a security clearance questionnaire by the candidate;
Checks against departmental/company records;
Checks against UK criminal records covering both spent and unspent convictions;
Checks against Security Service (MI5) records;
It may also include an interview.

A CTC clearance must be formally reviewed after 10 years (5 years for non-List X Contractors).

In the transport sector national security vetting, including the counter terrorist check, is regulated by the Department of Transport.

A CTC is required for police officers and many associated staff

So yeah, that metadata could be literally putting my job on the line. And not just my metadata but whoever else uses my internet, that I have contact with or uses the same or similar name or alias.

As for Jambalaya:

Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

That’s really the only answer you deserve, you’re an idiot and I make no apologies for saying so.

Andy Burnham in Parliament said “this is neither mass surveillance or a snoopers charter” – as noted on This Week just now. (Apologies if these has been posted before)

Call me selfish (is it concerns me) but I’m far more concerned about the police switching on the speed cameras 24/7 and giving tickets to all motorists going over 70 than I am by this bill. Bedfordshire are proposing this purely to raise money and no doubt others will follow.

So you are happy to have innocent folk not breaking the law be monitored but you are annoyed that folk breaking the law are held to account
THanks for that valuable insight into your personal moral code and ethical outlook.

Thanks for using a Labour party member , who you know doubt admire and share his outlook on life and politics eh , as your latest appeal to authority . At least use ones you think are an authority will you as you seem to be unable to even do a proper fallacy. 😆

Just watched the second half of This Week. Shami C pointed out the specific clauses in the bill to prove that either Andy B was deliberately talking bollocks or more likely doesn’t have the slightest clue what he’s talking about. The whole bill is designed to make total data slurping and specific targeting and intrusive surveillance legal, for the police, councils, HMRC, GCHQ and the spooks.

the Tories spend so much time talking about devolving power away from the state

That’s all it is, talk. There is constant centralisation by parties of any hue. Localisation, ha don’t make me laugh. This is in the same league as lets bomb the Arabs to bring peace. Absolute bollocks.

Andy B was deliberately talking bollocks or more likely doesn’t have the slightest clue what he’s talking about

I suspect that this is true of many occupying benches in either house and on the judiciary, they know less than is safe about the workings of the internet and encryption.

The whole bill fills me with horror at the erosion of privacy and the potential for abuse by low ranking bureaucrats.

Quite right GrahamS.

That’s the great thing about human life: freedom to choose. That’s what human rights are – a positive expression of what we want to be and what behaviour we should aspire to.

On surveillance and privacy, I wonder what the line in the sand is for “the nothing hide/nothing to fear” posters?

Also, for info, being against bulk data collection does not mean anti-surveillance or anti-security. Instead, what they/I argue is that these techniques are not proven and they are reactionary. Aimed at the needle in the social haystack, these are the people who know perfectly well how to avoid detection.

Effective surveillance means targeting suspects rather than populations or technologies. Interesting too that of recent attacks in Europe, those involved were already known to security services. Again, the utility of indiscriminate surveillance is questionable. And then there’s the financial cost of all this surveillance: do you think this comes cheap?

[edit] actually not that.

An admission that the abuse of state powers of surveillance was wrong:

http://news.met.police.uk/news/claimants-in-civil-cases-receive-mps-apology-138574