PuressenceUK Posted April 2, 2012 Share Posted April 2, 2012 Give an example of something currently legal, that if a government agency happened upon whilst monitoring a phone call or intercepting an email, could wrongly/unfairly become illegal. Say a protest group trying to co-ordinate something like anti-war protests for example? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andygardener Posted April 2, 2012 Share Posted April 2, 2012 Say a protest group trying to co-ordinate something like anti-war protests for example? How would that be made illegal be realtime monitoring of criminal suspects communications? If this distopian future government that everyone seems so concerned about had made protest illegal then it would surely be easier for them to let people organise protests, then turn up and arrest everyone present? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aleksandr Posted April 2, 2012 Share Posted April 2, 2012 How would that be made illegal be realtime monitoring of criminal suspects communications? If this distopian future government that everyone seems so concerned about had made protest illegal then it would surely be easier for them to let people organise protests, then turn up and arrest everyone present?That's very likely what they will do, just as 'Basher' al-Assad is doing as we speak: intercept plans for a gathering, wait for them to turn up, and then gun 'em down like vermin. Or failing that, a spot of imprisonment, interrogation, torture, and re-education by the Thought Police in the Ministry of Love. Nice! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andygardener Posted April 2, 2012 Share Posted April 2, 2012 That's very likely what they will do, just as 'Basher' al-Assad is doing as we speak: intercept plans for a gathering, wait for them to turn up, and then gun 'em down like vermin. Or failing that, a spot of imprisonment, interrogation, torture, and re-education by the Thought Police in the Ministry of Love. Nice! You seem to have missed one tiny point. If the demonstration is inherently secret and the authorities would only know about it by covert realtime access to secret communications then the general public would be even more in the dark so the demonstration would in fact be a secret meeting, rather defeating the point of a demonstration. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
libuse Posted April 2, 2012 Share Posted April 2, 2012 The Conservative manifesto in 2010 said; We will scale back Labour’s database state and protect the privacy of the public’s information. We will introduce a balanced approach to the retention of people’s DNA and reform the criminal records system so it protects children without destroying trust. Labour have subjected Britain’s historic freedoms to unprecedented attack. They have trampled on liberties and, in their place, compiled huge databases to track the activities of millions of perfectly innocent people, giving public bodies extraordinary powers to intervene in the way we live our lives. The impact of this has been profound and far reaching. Trust has been replaced by suspicion. The database state is a poor substitute for the human judgement essential to the delivery of public services. Worse than that, it gives people false comfort that an infallible central state is looking after their best interests. But the many scandals of lost data, leaked documents and database failures have put millions at risk. It is time for a new approach to protecting our liberty. Another manifesto promise backtracked upon? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aleksandr Posted April 2, 2012 Share Posted April 2, 2012 You seem to have missed one tiny point. If the demonstration is inherently secret and the authorities would only know about it by covert realtime access to secret communications then the general public would be even more in the dark so the demonstration would in fact be a secret meeting, rather defeating the point of a demonstration.I'm not sure what you're getting at. The authorities would know who organised the protest and the chain of command/communication. They could ensure that it didn't happen again. Without that intel, they'd have to deal with the entire group. Not that minor details like that get in the way of Basher al-Assad! Advance warning of a protest allows the authorities to contain it, to 'kettle' the protestors in a way that would be very difficult on the spur of the moment. I don't think I missed even a 'tiny' point there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aleksandr Posted April 2, 2012 Share Posted April 2, 2012 The Conservative manifesto in 2010 said; We will scale back Labour’s database state and protect the privacy of the public’s information. We will introduce a balanced approach to the retention of people’s DNA and reform the criminal records system so it protects children without destroying trust. Labour have subjected Britain’s historic freedoms to unprecedented attack. They have trampled on liberties and, in their place, compiled huge databases to track the activities of millions of perfectly innocent people, giving public bodies extraordinary powers to intervene in the way we live our lives. The impact of this has been profound and far reaching. Trust has been replaced by suspicion. The database state is a poor substitute for the human judgement essential to the delivery of public services. Worse than that, it gives people false comfort that an infallible central state is looking after their best interests. But the many scandals of lost data, leaked documents and database failures have put millions at risk. It is time for a new approach to protecting our liberty. Another manifesto promise backtracked upon? Did anyone really believe them though? Really? Even those who voted for them must have painful memories of previous lies and deceit. It could be of course, to give them the benefit of the doubt, that the USA are making them do this against their free will and better judgement. I guess we'll never know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andygardener Posted April 2, 2012 Share Posted April 2, 2012 I'm not sure what you're getting at. The authorities would know who organised the protest and the chain of command/communication. They could ensure that it didn't happen again. Without that intel, they'd have to deal with the entire group. Not that minor details like that get in the way of Basher al-Assad! Advance warning of a protest allows the authorities to contain it, to 'kettle' the protestors in a way that would be very difficult on the spur of the moment. I don't think I missed even a 'tiny' point there. Do you understand what a protest is? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aleksandr Posted April 2, 2012 Share Posted April 2, 2012 Do you understand what a protest is?Yes. Your point is? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andygardener Posted April 2, 2012 Share Posted April 2, 2012 Yes. Your point is? Would a secret demonstration that nobody knew about be any use whatsoever? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.