Chelle-82 Posted July 11, 2014 Share Posted July 11, 2014 I sleep very well at night good sir, knowing that I have nothing to hide from Cam and Crew ~Or I hope I don't~ They would have to apply for a warrant I believe, before anything could be snooped upon so I hear so I'm not worried about the lack of privacy in any way, shape or form. Our data is misused all over the shop already in the UK, from councils selling our data on disc format and to companies who we sign up for services conveniently forgetting we've ticked the X box to say NO more contact from partner services. Me too Placebo, I love a good kip Mind you, I say I having nothing to hide!! if my other half saw the credit card statements.... Eeeeeeeek Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SportsTrophy Posted July 11, 2014 Share Posted July 11, 2014 It is not what the authorities know it is what they do with that information. My experience is that although there is every intention of doing good there are those who seek to exploit the information for their own means. The collection and collation of data is one thing, interpretation is another. Some past events combined with some circumstantial here say will be enough to misdirect services by making the facts fit the theory instead of making the theory fit the facts, ask Blair! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tzijlstra Posted July 11, 2014 Author Share Posted July 11, 2014 Me too Placebo, I love a good kip Mind you, I say I having nothing to hide!! if my other half saw the credit card statements.... Eeeeeeeek You have nothing to hide, so what happens if you are a journalist taking pictures of what potentially is police brutality at Sheffield station? He had nothing to hide, yet the policeman threatened to take his camera under anti-terror laws. You have nothing to hide, but when you are in a group of people innocently having dinner in town, one of which happens to be a potential terrorist (without your knowledge) and the secret service uses that as a reason to arrest the whole group and detain you under anti-terror laws for a number of days? What if you are of Pakistani descend and you've been to visit Pakistan for a wedding where there were also elements of Al-Qaeda, again, without your knowledge, and you come home and are immediately arrested at the airport? What about a black friend I have (again, nothing to hide) who has been stopped and searched (again under terror laws) an astonishing 14 times whilst walking to work, in Sheffield, in one month last year? How do we draw a line? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted July 11, 2014 Share Posted July 11, 2014 I sleep very well at night good sir, knowing that I have nothing to hide from Cam and Crew ~Or I hope I don't~ It's not about ministers, it's about government employee's. You fall out with your neighbour, they're brother in law works for the council, they gain access to lots of private information you wouldn't want them to have. They would have to apply for a warrant I believe, before anything could be snooped upon so I hear so I'm not worried about the lack of privacy in any way, shape or form. No, they wouldn't. That's kind of the point of the "emergency legislation". If it were overseen by the courts then there would be a balance, but the entire point of this discussion is nationwide distribution with no oversight or checks and balances. Our data is misused all over the shop already in the UK, from councils selling our data on disc format and to companies who we sign up for services conveniently forgetting we've ticked the X box to say NO more contact from partner services. And so you want to make it easier for more misuse to occur? I don't understand this logic. ---------- Post added 11-07-2014 at 13:12 ---------- I believe we have a right to privacy, absolutely I do - but how can you say that our information cannot be looked at when we live in a digital age, as I said before.. If you want privacy then don't plaster your entire life stories on the internet, or if you do, then don't be surprised or outraged if your information is used. Also, see my bold. I'm not referring to you personally by the way when I say plastering your life story on the internet, I just mean in general... If you believe we're only talking about publicly broadcast information on social media then you've completely failed to grasp the topic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grenoside123 Posted July 11, 2014 Share Posted July 11, 2014 You have nothing to hide, so what happens if you are a journalist taking pictures of what potentially is police brutality at Sheffield station? He had nothing to hide, yet the policeman threatened to take his camera under anti-terror laws. You have nothing to hide, but when you are in a group of people innocently having dinner in town, one of which happens to be a potential terrorist (without your knowledge) and the secret service uses that as a reason to arrest the whole group and detain you under anti-terror laws for a number of days? What if you are of Pakistani descend and you've been to visit Pakistan for a wedding where there were also elements of Al-Qaeda, again, without your knowledge, and you come home and are immediately arrested at the airport? What about a black friend I have (again, nothing to hide) who has been stopped and searched (again under terror laws) an astonishing 14 times whilst walking to work, in Sheffield, in one month last year? How do we draw a line? My god, stopped 14 times in a month? By chance, does your friend look anything like this guy? http://i1.ytimg.com/vi/gmwh5df9gFk/0.jpg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
esme Posted July 11, 2014 Share Posted July 11, 2014 Finally found a link to the draft on a government site, it's a PDF. https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/328939/draft-drip-bill.pdf It doesn't just restore the powers taken away by the ECHR 1(3) The Secretary of State may by regulations make further provision about the retention of relevant communications data. 1(4) Such provision may, in particular, include provision about- 1(4)(a) requirements before giving a retention notice, 1(4)(b) the maximum period for which data is to be retained under a retention notice, 1(4)© the content, giving, coming into force, review, variation or revocation of a retention notice, 1(4)(d) the integrity, security or protection of, access to, or the disclosure or destruction of, data retained by virtue of this section, 1(4)(e) the enforcement of, or auditing compliance with, relevant requirements or restrictions, 1(4)(f) a code of practice in relation to relevant requirements or restrictions or relevant powers, 1(4)(g) the reimbursement by the Secretary of State (with or without conditions) of expenses incurred by public telecommunications operators in complying with relevant requirements or restrictions, 1(4)(h) the 2009 Regulations ceasing to have effect and the transition to the retention of data by virtue of this section. "Make further provision" means without having to ask parliament for approval, or even inform parliament and more specifically without telling us so we can't object. According to that clause the Home Secretary can change the details of who they need to tell about a change, how long data is held for, what is retained, who gets told about any data they happen across, whether or not any accidents are dealt with, whether or not the treasury pays ISP's for the expense or whether it's passed on to us and 1(4)(h) looks like RIPA becomes whatever the Home secretary says it is. In short it gives the Home Secretary carte blanche to do what they like with phone calls and internet traffic and parliament and the public don't need to be bothered with any further details. It's woolly, badly written and gives too many powers to one person. This is all being passed on the premise of a promise of a substantial security review next year. Governments don't have a very good track record with promises, we've been promised referendums that never materialised, the Lib Dems were promised a referendum on proportional representation by their coalition partners which was reneged on, so forgive me for not trusting government promises. We may get a security and oversight committee out of it, but I guarantee they will meet in secret and have no civilian members. And finally all this is supposed to disappear in 2016 Why ? Will the emergency have passed in 2016 ? Colour me cynical but if this gets passed, it's staying forever, it's much too useful, blanket surveillance of the entire population paid for by the people being surveilled. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tzijlstra Posted July 11, 2014 Author Share Posted July 11, 2014 My god, stopped 14 times in a month? By chance, does your friend look anything like this guy? http://i1.ytimg.com/vi/gmwh5df9gFk/0.jpg No, he was unlucky because there was a police operation targeting gang members apparently. The fact that he was black was enough to pull him out of a crowd repeatedly. ---------- Post added 11-07-2014 at 14:25 ---------- Finally found a link to the draft on a government site, it's a PDF. https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/328939/draft-drip-bill.pdf It doesn't just restore the powers taken away by the ECHR "Make further provision" means without having to ask parliament for approval, or even inform parliament and more specifically without telling us so we can't object. According to that clause the Home Secretary can change the details of who they need to tell about a change, how long data is held for, what is retained, who gets told about any data they happen across, whether or not any accidents are dealt with, whether or not the treasury pays ISP's for the expense or whether it's passed on to us and 1(4)(h) looks like RIPA becomes whatever the Home secretary says it is. In short it gives the Home Secretary carte blanche to do what they like with phone calls and internet traffic and parliament and the public don't need to be bothered with any further details. It's woolly, badly written and gives too many powers to one person. This is all being passed on the premise of a promise of a substantial security review next year. Governments don't have a very good track record with promises, we've been promised referendums that never materialised, the Lib Dems were promised a referendum on proportional representation by their coalition partners which was reneged on, so forgive me for not trusting government promises. We may get a security and oversight committee out of it, but I guarantee they will meet in secret and have no civilian members. And finally all this is supposed to disappear in 2016 Why ? Will the emergency have passed in 2016 ? Colour me cynical but if this gets passed, it's staying forever, it's much too useful, blanket surveillance of the entire population paid for by the people being surveilled. Thanks for finding it, I hadn't actually tried yet. It indeed looks rather diabolical and I agree entirely, they may review it but it doesn't go anywhere "because terror". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjw47 Posted July 11, 2014 Share Posted July 11, 2014 This whole thing is unconvincing as a piece of well thought out genuinely needed legislation. A normal bill takes months of scrutiny before being debated, this bill is being produced today for a decision on Monday! When someone like David Davis a Conservative MP and former member of the Territorial Army's 21 SAS Regiment expresses concerns about the bill you know there's a problem. Amongst other concerns he wants to know why, when the European directive which caused the demand for this bill happened three months ago it is being rushed through in this manner. There is supposed to be a 'sunset clause' which ends the legislation in 2016, which in my opinion has been included as a sop to try and persuade those with reservations to vote for it on a 'well it's only temporary' basis. As esme says, once it's in, it's staying, politicians have an obsession with acquiring power and control and a pathological objection to relinquishing it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
esme Posted July 11, 2014 Share Posted July 11, 2014 ...Amongst other concerns he wants to know why, when the European directive which caused the demand for this bill happened three months ago it is being rushed through in this manner...That's because there's a court case, I believe in the London High Court, that may cause ISP's to stop retaining further information and delete any such data they've already collected, as this is currently illegal under the European Court of Justice ruling a few people have taken their ISP's to court to force them to comply. Apparently some ISP's have still been collecting and retaining this data despite the ECJ ruling. So our lords & masters, instead of complying with the EU legislation they agreed to be bound by, are frantically trying to legalise their activity retrospectively. Because 'Terrorism' and 'Paedophile' and 'Criminal' ... they seem to have forgotten 'Money laundering' this time In other words reasons they can't tell us, which may or may not exist outside their heads, we'll never know either way because they can't tell us. The full extent of the emergency seems to be that the court case won't give the answer the government wants it to so they're going to change the law so it does. Funny how they act with speed against EU legislation they don't like but don't do a damn thing about EU legislation the electorate don't like. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjw47 Posted July 11, 2014 Share Posted July 11, 2014 Funny how they act with speed against EU legislation they don't like but don't do a damn thing about EU legislation the electorate don't like. It is almost as if our politicians are more concerned about their own requirements than those of the people who form the electorate. An MEP told me years ago at a meeting of Sheffield Chamber of Commerce that it was commonplace for the government to 'add on' additional bits of legislation to EU directives when they received them for perusal. That way they could direct any negative reaction onto the EU. It wouldn't surprise me if it was true, politicians love a scapegoat, 'It's all the fault of the foreigners, the Jews, the EU. If we leave I wonder who'll take the place of the EU in the blame game? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.