Zamo Posted July 9, 2013 Share Posted July 9, 2013 There are also the freelancers such as the Russian brothers in the US on student visas who carried out the Boston bombings. Another one was major Hassan US Army who gunned down 13 of his fellow soldiers at Fort Hood and later admitted that he had become radicalized through Jihadist websites. I believe there will be other attacks in the future carried out by individuals or very small groups some on the same level or greater such as the murder of the soldier in Woolwich by another person who became radicalized through a website. This is just the tip of the iceberg Why is it whever an atrocity of any kind is carried out, including school shootings that the first thing ivestigators do is seize that person's computer? There's a wealth of knowledge that can be gleaned from computer history which quite often is not deleted by the owner. This applies to phone records. If it does anything to save lives then it's justified. Harleyman - Security services can legally monitor the internet because it is an open forum. When they discover content that encourages, promotes or aids illegal activity like terrorism then they can legally request information from ISP's about who is visiting the site. Armed with this information they can legally conduct further investigations and if necessary make a request to the courts to legally access private emails, phone calls etc. All of this is perfectly legitimate, happens all the time and is not a problem. What is a problem is when governments and their various agencies ignore constitutional principles and laws designed to prevent abuse of power. It is a step down the path towards totalitarianism and oppression and that is not a price worth paying for security... especially when it will not deliver security. The irony is that you think you are hardline and strong in the face of adversity but the opposite is true. You surrender freedoms for a false security at the slightest sniff of a threat. Frankly, it's embarrassing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rupert_Baehr Posted July 9, 2013 Share Posted July 9, 2013 ... What is a problem is when governments and their various agencies ignore constitutional principles and laws designed to prevent abuse of power. It is a step down the path towards totalitarianism and oppression and that is not a price worth paying for security... especially when it will not deliver security. ... Phew! - It's just as well there aren't any 'constitutional principles' prohibiting the UK from doing that, isn't it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingjimmy Posted July 9, 2013 Share Posted July 9, 2013 Phew! - It's just as well there aren't any 'constitutional principles' prohibiting the UK from doing that, isn't it? No, it's bloody stupid. If only we had a proper constitution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Obelix Posted July 9, 2013 Share Posted July 9, 2013 Phew! - It's just as well there aren't any 'constitutional principles' prohibiting the UK from doing that, isn't it? Apart from clause 29 you mean? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeffrey Shaw Posted July 9, 2013 Share Posted July 9, 2013 Apart from clause 29 you mean? "Clause 29" is a meaningless phrase unless you tell us to which Deed or Bill you're referring. It cannot be an Act of Parliament, as Acts don't have 'clause numbering'- only sections, subsections, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingjimmy Posted July 9, 2013 Share Posted July 9, 2013 "Clause 29" is a meaningless phrase unless you tell us to which Deed or Bill you're referring. It cannot be an Act of Parliament, as Acts don't have 'clause numbering'- only sections, subsections, etc. It's the magna carta: "No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or exiled, or deprived of his standing in any other way, nor will we proceed with force against him, or send others to do so, except by the lawful judgment of his equals or by the law of the land." Doesn't really say anything about privacy, or 'searches', like the US constitution does. It's a good start though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeffrey Shaw Posted July 9, 2013 Share Posted July 9, 2013 Thank you. So none of those things have happened to him and nor will they. He'll have a fair trial if he cares to alight somewhere that has 'em (so maybe not Ecuador or Venezuela, for instance). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zamo Posted July 9, 2013 Share Posted July 9, 2013 Phew! - It's just as well there aren't any 'constitutional principles' prohibiting the UK from doing that, isn't it? Plenty of laws to stop it though. Of course, we too have people who scare easy and would willingly surrender legally enshrined freedoms for false promises of security. Eternal vigilance is required to protect ourselves from those wanting to take, and those willing to surrender, our freedoms. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Obelix Posted July 9, 2013 Share Posted July 9, 2013 It's the magna carta: "No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or exiled, or deprived of his standing in any other way, nor will we proceed with force against him, or send others to do so, except by the lawful judgment of his equals or by the law of the land." Doesn't really say anything about privacy, or 'searches', like the US constitution does. It's a good start though. Neither does the US constitution. It's in the Bill of rights - an important difference. Essentially privacy was considered to be inalienable (see the declaration of independance) and didn't need specific protection as everyone had it - it was only when some people thought that it may be a good idea to make specifically sure that it was added into the list of the first twelve amendements (of which ten passed). Privacy is an explicit right that the state cannot remove except by statue. Otherwise we wouldnt need such things as RIPA and wiretap laws etc... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingjimmy Posted July 9, 2013 Share Posted July 9, 2013 Neither does the US constitution. It's in the Bill of rights - an important difference. I thought that the Bill of Rights was technically part of the constitution, being a set of amendments? Essentially privacy was considered to be inalienable (see the declaration of independance) and didn't need specific protection as everyone had it I guess that depends on how you interpret the word liberty, I certainly believe that it includes a right to privacy, many people apparently do not, as recent events have shown. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.