Forum menu
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.
Because after looking at the facts it was the right decision ?
* puts house on Jambalaya using the phrase 'if you've nothing to hide, then you've nothing to fear' in his next post*
Please don't do that ! I recommend Lives of Others as its a great film and as it shows what true intrusive state surveillance is, and keeping phone/email records is very far away IMO. The civil liberties fellows try and scaremonger and imply it's the same thing. As I posted I think they should do much more, I think we should have a super aggressive anti-paedophile unit tracking all the unpleasant stuff which is going on online, in many cases actually creating abuse. I would very happily sacrifice a lot of "civil liberty" for that.
problem is it goes beyond a stop gap that deals with the EU ruling.
it actually expands what the government can do in terms of interception of traffic.
and private chats amongst the parties does not count as 'scrutiny'. They could have published the bill 3 months ago and had proper scrutiny of it. The process they are using appears to be deliberatly trying to avoid it being looked at too closely by either the Commons or the Lords.
Indeed, strategic manoeuvring, not accountable politics.
"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."
Right - and the proposed law makes it mandatory to retain data for a certain period. That's in contrast to the present position where telcos should not retain the data for longer than is necessary (as I understand it). It's a reversal of the principle, in other words.
It's ironic isn't it? You could level the phrase at the political establishment, and the security services, that they're so fond of trotting out when defending this kind of nonsense:
If you've nothing to hide, you've nothing to fear
... Erm... Ok then... In that case why is this being rushed through, with no time for any scrutiny, and without being debated then? Whatever happened to democratic accountability?
Frankly, it stinks! If this is so necessary then take the time to tell us why then. One minute it's terrorism, then it's organised crime, then it's to stop the next Jimmy Saville...
They tell us what it's supposed to stop, but there's very little forthcoming about how exactly it's meant to stop any of this. Seems to me that they're making up the justifications as they go along. It needs to be debated, and scrutinised so that it can be assessed whether the sacrifice of our democratic rights are justified by any alleged threat, and then a decision taken
One thing that the police and security services constantly demonstrate is that when given sweeping new powers, usually under anti-terrorism guises, they immediately start abusing those powers, twisting them to cover all manner of things for which they were never intended. This will be the same.
The claim 'your data is safe with us' also sounds a bit false when they can't even keep flight records to Guantanamo safe and lose records of child abuse allegations.
Does anybody think the government hasn't been doing this for god knows how long anyway? I's only now they're "justifying" it.
@iolo, yep, and documentation from the Snowden leaks confirm activities that have taken place without oversight, scrutiny and the absolute flimsiest of legal justification. This shouldn't detract from public expression about what passes into legislation and how this happens.
I find it concerning that if the authorities want a warrant to increase surveillance on any individual then this will be given by a politician rather than a member of the judiciary
They've been doing it, the EU have told them to pack it in, as it's illegal, so they're changing the law to make it legal.
It does seem particularly laughable when the political establishment has been wringing it's hands for years, telling us mournfully that whatever Europe says, goes! And they simply have no power to challenge it.
Though in this case, when it threatens to actually curtail the powers they've illegally accumulated, apparently they can simply turn round and tell them to **** off!
lose records of child abuse allegations.
@wasawas - IMO they didn't lose those, they where destroyed. Had the records/files been electronic there is much better chance we'd still have them
@iolo - no the government haven't been keeping a record of every email/phone call/sms - the Telco's do though and so do the internet companies. The new law just mandates what they must keep and for how long. The use of phone records is highly valuable in general police, in road accident cases they can check whether you where using your phone at the time for example. Had you been sending SMS when driving etc.
I find it concerning that if the authorities want a warrant to increase surveillance on any individual then this will be given by a politician rather than a member of the judiciary
I think when they mention "Secretary of State" in this sort of legislation it usually means an authorised official. So in practice a memeber of the judiciary will authorise the warrant.
I'm sure we're all prepared to have all our communications monitored if it means we're saved from the tyranny of people texting while driving. We can all sleep safe in our beds tonight eh?
@Had the records/files been electronic there is much better chance we'd still have them
Stunningly naive.