This kind of rhetoric has an alarming whiff of fascism about it. Teresa May on proposed new ‘snooping’ laws:

She told the Sun: “I just don’t understand why some people might criticise these proposals. I have no doubt conspiracy theorists will come up with some ridiculous claims about how these measures are an infringement of freedom. But without changing the law, the only freedom we would protect is that of criminals, terrorists and paedophiles.”

May’s comments were backed by the Metropolitan police commissioner, Bernard Hogan-Howe, who wrote in the Times that the powers could be “a matter of life and death”.

He said having greater powers to access data was essential to waging a “total war on crime”

The phrase ‘total war on crime’ could come straight out of 1984.

The usual “If you’ve nothing to hide…” boolocks.

History teaches us that if you’ve nothing to hide you do have something to fear…

I thought the same thing this am – she (or a junior stand in) was on R4 explaining the “potential” for greatly expanding tagging and curfews 😐

And pray tell, what has become of the Freedom Bill?

the only freedom we would protect is that of criminals, terrorists and paedophiles.

AKA “won’t somebody think of the children”.

Seems no one ever brings in such new powers and laws to target the “general public”, just those nasty criminal types.

How they actually get used once implemented is a rather different matter.

yes if you are aginst this Grum you must be a pro paedo criminalist terrorist ARE YOU ?

Total war on crime will be as effective and sensible as a war on drugs

Exactly JY – that evil terrorist paedo Chakrabati – can’t wait for them to round her up.

I just find it a very unpleasant and disturbing tone to the argument:

‘What do you mean you don’t support me without question, some kind of paedophile or terrorist, eh? Do you want people to die, do you? Well do what I say then’

Regardless what you think of the proposed measures I think it’s a really appalling way to make an argument.

was on R4 explaining the “potential” for greatly expanding tagging and curfews

Not sure why that is a bad thing though. If someone is tagged they have presumably been judged to have done something wrong. The tag is part of their punishment. Making it actually effective seems reasonable.

one of the concessions being made to get the bill through is to prevent a lot of people with existing snooping powers from keeping them

including the office of fair trading and hmrc

sounds like a golden opportunity for big business to screw people over and evade tax to me!

She needs a slap.

On another note, my Twitter feed & Blogger could do with an increase in following.

They came to power, as libertarians, on a promise to immediately scrap this type of thing. As soon as its you that has the power though, then we’ll have more please. Then more. Then more. What I can’t understand is why the lib dems are going along with this. The spineless bastards! If this isn’t what they should be opposing, then just what the **** are they actually for?

The biggest voice of opposition is David Davis, who has a fine record for kicking off about nonsense like this

May’s comments were backed by the Metropolitan police commissioner, Bernard Hogan-Howe, who wrote in the Times that the powers could be “a matter of life and death

Can anyone give me an example of a senior police officer who didn’t think that everything in the world would be resolved by allowing him personally, the power to do whatever the **** he likes? 🙄

Depends on how much “expanding” they want to do…

– Tagging for exceeding speed limit (criminal activity after all…)
– Or just for property crime??? Burglary, ok, what about vandalism?, or trespass? (ie on some landed gentry’s cheeky trail…)

OK – riduculous arguments, to a point…

but again, rather 1984 set of arguments.

Ahh the good old “The innocent have nothing to fear” line.

Its not like the existing anti-terror legislation hasn’t been misapproriated or anything is it.

I’m sure these new laws will be fine then 🙄

Does it bother you, being on CCTV when you go shopping?

Does it bother you, being on CCTV when you go shopping?

Yes

Why’s that, then?

Does it bother you, being on CCTV when you go shopping?

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes

Without getting all tinfoil hat. We are surveiled far too much in this country already. I also worry about the fact that the majority of this surveillance is actually carried out by private companies who the government have outsourced to. Private companies and lots of personal data on our movements is not a good combination.

I really amazed that the recent bills that allow the government to read every email, intercept calls etc hasn’t received more negative coverage.

We are sleep walking into a police state

We are sleep walking into a police state

Sounds like something a terrorist or paedo might say. I’ve reported this post to Teresa May.

Does it bother you, being on CCTV when you go shopping?

Do you like living in one of the most surveillance heavy societies in the world? Do you feel it has contributed significantly to our ‘safety’?

The report coincides with the publication by the human rights group Privacy International of figures that suggest Britain is the worst Western democracy at protecting individual privacy.

The two worst countries in the 36-nation survey are Malaysia and China, and Britain is one of the bottom five with “endemic surveillance”.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6108496.stm

Watch Gattaca. Then come back when and tell me you still like surveillance because that is where we are headed. A world in which anyone who is a genetic “degenerate” will never be able to achieve anything, where private health companies have access to your dna records and can refuse to give you health cover and where the state know exactly where you are at any point in the day. Where those who are deemed desirable by the state become more influential and rich through transhumanism. Where one small section of society live for hundreds of years, accumulate vast amounts of wealth and keep the rest of you as slaves.

It’s going to be a fun 200 years.

Cant the GOVT and Police not just ask Facebook for this kind of stuff?

Do you like living in one of the most surveillance heavy societies in the world?

Can’t say as I’m overly fussed TBH. Whenever I’ve had to rely on CCTV data because I’ve been a “victim of crime”, I’ve never yet been told “yep, we’ve got great footage of the perpetrator, the police are rounding him up now.” Most recently when my bikes were stolen from a a busy shopping centre in broad daylight, I was told they didn’t have any footage because it was the camera operator’s day off.

where the state know exactly where you are at any point in the day.

What impact would that have on your daily life?

Watch Gattaca.

You do realise that wasn’t actually a documentary yeah?

I’m slightly more concerned that we’ll blow ourselves up and that Apes will rise to take over the planet…

Personally Im terrified of the rise of Buy n Large and the impact that it might have on my waistband.

I have faith in Snake (Call me Snake) Pliskin to reset us back the dark ages. Watch Escape from L.A. it’s all there.

See I’ve got CCTV footage as evidence.

[video]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ed6Yr81jZ6g[/video]

😡

You do realise that wasn’t actually a documentary yeah?

You do realize where we are heading technologically?

*waffles something about moores law, cheaper DNA sequencing, personalized pharmaceuticals and tissue engineering*

What impact would that have on your daily life?

Well that depends on what government we have. Do you trust government? What happens if you ascribe to a political ideology they decide they do not like? Do you trust for example your DNA data not to fall into the hands of private industry? Slippery slope.

Really, you are a bunch of tools. If you think politicians and bent poliemen wont use the increasing amounts of data for nefarious means you are deluded. I mean, didn’t the media just spend the last 10 years hacking peoples data? Oh but now it’s a good idea keeping that data for even longer!

Do you like living in one of the most surveillance heavy societies in the world?

Can’t say it bothers me much one way or the other.

Do you feel it has contributed significantly to our ‘safety’?

Nope, but it helped me get rid of an intensely annoying “Saturday Market” religious shouty person and loud hymn-singer because the police could identify him from CCTV images when I phoned to complain…

What really scares me is the governments intentions. The ceaseless desire to gather more and more information on us, and monitor every aspect of our daily lives.

Then I remember that the people that will actually try and implement all this surveillance, are the same people who spunked £20 billion on an NHS computer system that never worked. And the CSA computer that never worked. the HMRC computer that never worked. The airport biometric passports system that never worked. The Immigration Iris scanners that never worked.

Wonder how much they’ll spend this time? On stuff that won’t work either

“They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety”

Benjamin Franklin, 1775

Nowt’s changed.

Nope, but it helped me get rid of an intensely annoying “Saturday Market” religious shouty person and loud hymn-singer because the police could identify him from CCTV images when I phoned to complain…

He has been sent for ‘Processing’

Though is religious shouty person Low GI?

Nope, but it helped me get rid of an intensely annoying “Saturday Market” religious shouty person and loud hymn-singer because the police could identify him from CCTV images when I phoned to complain…

Ah, you used the presence of excessive surveillance to inform on someone in order to curtail their religious freedom. Excellent. Great example of how CCTV is making things better. 😕

So singing hymns loudly is cause for being nicked? One day the shouty hymn singers may be in charge, and they may well use the same technology against you. It doesn’t matter that you think you’re not doing anything wrong, it’s what they think that matters…

Can’t say as I’m overly fussed TBH. Whenever I’ve had to rely on CCTV data because I’ve been a “victim of crime”, I’ve never yet been told “yep, we’ve got great footage of the perpetrator, the police are rounding him up now.”

They would if perpetrator had large breasts.
They also would if there were more cameras. They also would if the cameras were assisted by software and were linked to facial / object tracking. The latter two aren’t exactly far-fetch tin-foil-fat ideas, are they?
I can’t believe that you’re really banking on the incompetence of others to protect you from ANY of the myriad of pitfalls from plans (and the misuse of plans) such as these. Especially with technology and automation.

He has been sent for ‘Processing’

Hopefully.

Tories reverting back to type IMO. Passing legislation to enable them to chuck huge, valuable contracts at their mates to (not) deliver.

And what will Ed ‘no we’re not authoritarians now’ Milliband say about this?

No doubt, and based on his past record, he’ll approve.

Where’s Blakes’ 7 when you need them?

Do you trust for example your DNA data not to fall into the hands of private industry?

What “DNA data” and how did you get to here from the OP??

Incidentally, I take it you realise that DNA Profile databases (the sort used in forensics etc) do not contain full DNA sequences?

The likes of the UK’s NDNAD use a profile that is just 20 numbers per person.

So that isn’t particularly useful to this mythical illegal corporation that wants to analyse DNA to refuse insurance.

And why shouldn’t paedophiles be protected? Seeing as ‘being a paedophile’ (i.e. someone who finds children sexually attractive) isn’t a crime. Actually, as defined by law aren’t ‘they’ a ‘race’ and therefore illegal to discriminate against?

I absolutely expect the media not to not know it’s arse from it’s elbow, but it would if nice if those in charge knew WTF was going on.

Silly woman.