Teddybare Posted July 5, 2012 Share Posted July 5, 2012 The T&Cs won't mention it because it's to become a legal requirement, not a contractual thing. And as I've said multiple times and you keep ignoring, we live in a democracy and are free (obliged almost) to object to government behaviour that we dislike. I can change phone company, I can change forum, I cannot change government or what set of laws apply to me within this country. Then why protest them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
esme Posted July 5, 2012 Share Posted July 5, 2012 The government rules will be enforced upon private companies which do have Ts and Cs which would apply to users. So i am not correct in thinking that certain privileged members of forums have access to the personal details and private messages of others and that tracing cookies were placed on your computer when using in order to log your activity? OK after checking with the Admin team and obtaining permission to reply. The Admin team have access to the registration details of the users, they are bound by the Data Protection Act and are not allowed to disclose them unless compelled by a warrant. No one on this forum can access the private messages of another user unless a user reports a private message they have received. No one on this forum can see what password you log in with, not even the Admins. The remaining moderation team has no access to your registration details. Any questions regarding cookies should be answered by the Privacy & Cookie Policy. If that doesn't answer your forum related queries then I'm sorry but you need to speak to the Admin team via the helpdesk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted July 5, 2012 Share Posted July 5, 2012 Then why protest them? Because by making my objection known (and several other million people doing the same) the government should change it's intentions and not implement this policy. Are you not concerned about your data being intercepted? Do you not think that we have the right to object to government proposals? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teddybare Posted July 5, 2012 Share Posted July 5, 2012 Because by making my objection known (and several other million people doing the same) the government should change it's intentions and not implement this policy. Are you not concerned about your data being intercepted? Do you not think that we have the right to object to government proposals? You have the right to object to anything and everything. Especially before it comes into being when there is still a chance it could be prevented. Governments are taking the lead from private companies in respect to data collection and monitoring. Why am I not allowed to compare the two or object to the actions of private companies too? I agree that it will be abused and doubt that it will help to prevent any crimes. Why is one form of censorship and control ok and another isn't? If they were actively following you around and actively monitoring you that would be much more extreme IMO. Surely what the government enacts will have a number of protections included whereas private companies would not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erebus Posted July 5, 2012 Share Posted July 5, 2012 Having the wrong point of view, or commenting with people that have so called wrong views suggests that you could be questioned as to what you might know. Over a period of time, years, people express all sorts of views and opinions, which can from a certain perspective be regarded as POTENTIALLY dangerous. One does not have to commit crime, one just needs to have the POTENTIAL to be regarded as dangerous. Do not forget commenting on riots, as in making a big joke about it lands one automatically in prison. All jokes can be seen as abusive or threatening is one wants to interpret them from a particular perspective. People will be rounded up and put in detention/prison over the period of the games. These are not terrorists, or people of faith, but people who COULD cause trouble. That is enough these days for a custodial trip into her majesties hotel. Prior to the farcical wedding, where yet again the people forked out for the event, anyone with strong anti monarchy sentiments were raided at dawn and held till the event was over regardless that they were hundreds of miles from London. Our freedoms are now paper thin, we are all potentially a threat, as the majority are all in it together, finding degrees of poverty not expected in their lifetime. We all know that police PLANT people in groups, demonstrations, not just to monitor the group or event, but to encourage, if not supply them with the means for serious crime. This is what third world governments do, purposefully create an incident, people killed, which allows more draconian laws to be introduced to save the people from a POTENTIAL threat. Fear of crime allows governments to pretend to be hard on crime, thus getting the voles to do what they wish. The police have just placed an order for army issue assault rifles, professional kit, but not a dozen but 30, 000 of them. These are 1st class killing machines, for a militarised police force. Who might they be planning to shoot? 30,000 of these death dispatchers, crows, foxes, wild dogs? No they are being issued to kill you and me, if we dare demonstrate, complain en mass about jobs, price rises, and the rest. Learn to love lead suckers! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anywebsite Posted July 5, 2012 Share Posted July 5, 2012 You have the right to object to anything and everything. Especially before it comes into being when there is still a chance it could be prevented. Governments are taking the lead from private companies in respect to data collection and monitoring. Why am I not allowed to compare the two or object to the actions of private companies too? I agree that it will be abused and doubt that it will help to prevent any crimes. Why is one form of censorship and control ok and another isn't? If they were actively following you around and actively monitoring you that would be much more extreme IMO. Surely what the government enacts will have a number of protections included whereas private companies would not. Neither is OK, but usually with private companies we can choose not to use their products or services. Governments don't give us that choice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
esme Posted July 5, 2012 Share Posted July 5, 2012 ...The police have just placed an order for army issue assault rifles, professional kit, but not a dozen but 30, 000 of them... Do you have a reference for this ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teddybare Posted July 5, 2012 Share Posted July 5, 2012 Neither is OK, but usually with private companies we can choose not to use their products or services. Governments don't give us that choice. I was trying to make the point that every time you do anything it is at some company or other's convenience. You are right neither is ok, but is one really that much worse than the other? For example I would rather the home office could access my phone calls from last year than say Boots log my details and record that I bought condoms from them and proceed to spam me through the post and email and by telephone with offers of suggested similar products. I'm sure that has a greater effect on my life. And there is always a choice. You are welcome to join me in my nuclear bunker with satellite phone and optional tinfoil hat. I'm even considering keeping pigeons as an alternative form of communication to circumvent censorship. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anywebsite Posted July 5, 2012 Share Posted July 5, 2012 I was trying to make the point that every time you do anything it is at some company or other's convenience. You are right neither is ok, but is one really that much worse than the other? For example I would rather the home office could access my phone calls from last year than say Boots log my details and record that I bought condoms from them and proceed to spam me through the post and email and by telephone with offers of suggested similar products. I'm sure that has a greater effect on my life. And there is always a choice. You are welcome to join me in my nuclear bunker with satellite phone and optional tinfoil hat. I'm even considering keeping pigeons as an alternative form of communication to circumvent censorship. If the home office is logging everybody's emails & phone calls, you don't get any choice in that. If Boots is logging online purchases (pretty much guaranteed) then you're free to buy your condoms elsewhere if you object. You can (un)tick the boxes to say you don't want to be spammed by the private companies, they have to obey laws like the DPA, etc. Boots can't force your ISP to find out where else you're buying condoms from, or whatever. They can only see what you're doing on their website or in their shop. The government can do whatever they feel like. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted July 5, 2012 Share Posted July 5, 2012 You have the right to object to anything and everything. Especially before it comes into being when there is still a chance it could be prevented. Governments are taking the lead from private companies in respect to data collection and monitoring. Why am I not allowed to compare the two or object to the actions of private companies too? I agree that it will be abused and doubt that it will help to prevent any crimes. You are allowed to compare what you like. But a direct comparison with the implication that the behaviour is the same is erroneous. I have no choice about what government I use, I can vote, but the side I vote for may not win. I can choose not to use any specific private company if I don't like their policy on data capture. Why is one form of censorship and control ok and another isn't? Because one is a breach of privacy (not censorship) and the other isn't. It's quite simple really. If they were actively following you around and actively monitoring you that would be much more extreme IMO. Surely what the government enacts will have a number of protections included whereas private companies would not. I'm sure the government will tell you that it has numerous safe guards. And I'm sure I don't trust them. Again, I can walk away from a private company, I cannot choose an alternate government. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.