Guess who can NOW view your browsing history?

esuhl

Stoke wrote: »

Wow that's a pretty salty response. Pretty sure the origin of 'nothing to hide, nothing to fear' was in the book 1984 and that Nazi link has been debunked a few times. Although I must admit, that's the fastest example of Godwin's law I've ever seen

Of course I stand for freedom of speech, but I think you're a bit paranoid if you think Theresa May is going to have everyone marching in single file lines into concentration camps. You might as well go and put a frying pan on your head and talk about how "satellites are tracking you're every move bro" while listening to Come As You Are.

You wouldn't be saying any of this, if your own mother/sister/brother/father had been on a train on 7/7, or a plane on 9/11 (oh wait, you'll be telling me those are government conspiracies ). I'm not keen on it, but I can see why they've pushed it through. Everyone has the right to privacy, I also have the right to go to a gig, or a shopping centre, or ride a bus, without fear of being blown to pieces.

Thanks mate..... and whatever you've got to hide, I'd get rid of it quick :cool:

Wow. You've got some serious issues! :rotfl: Where does all that passive aggression come from?

Stoke wrote: »

There are also those who are for it, but......... oh wait, they're trolls.

You're not a feminist are you ?

You're not a bigot, are you?

Code

Stoke wrote: »

Wow that's a pretty salty response. Pretty sure the origin of 'nothing to hide, nothing to fear' was in the book 1984 and that Nazi link has been debunked a few times. Although I must admit, that's the fastest example of Godwin's law I've ever seen

Of course I stand for freedom of speech, but I think you're a bit paranoid if you think Theresa May is going to have everyone marching in single file lines into concentration camps. You might as well go and put a frying pan on your head and talk about how "satellites are tracking you're every move bro" while listening to Come As You Are.

You wouldn't be saying any of this, if your own mother/sister/brother/father had been on a train on 7/7, or a plane on 9/11 (oh wait, you'll be telling me those are government conspiracies ). I'm not keen on it, but I can see why they've pushed it through. Everyone has the right to privacy, I also have the right to go to a gig, or a shopping centre, or ride a bus, without fear of being blown to pieces.

Thanks mate..... and whatever you've got to hide, I'd get rid of it quick :cool:

I think you've misunderstood my post - if you have a read back of my previous posts on this topic, you'll probably better understand my position on this. I can summarize it thus: the retention of browsing data now required by the Act will prevent absolutely no acts of terrorism, it is trivial to bypass, and the only people it will affect are law abiding citizens. The Act has absolutely no actual impact on me, but I still disagree with it.

I am all for proportionate laws and powers to protect us from those that do us harm, but this change to the Act does not achieve that in any way.

I of course don't believe that this Act is a slippery slope to Nazi Germany. I never even suggested that.

I was pointing out that your justification was a weak argument. Also, you may wish to review some of the previous abuses of the RIPA powers, such as councils abusing their power to illegally (as determined by the courts) spy on citizens. For that reason, you'll note that councils are not allowed to access the data.

And as posted elsewhere in this thread, the data will be stored by private companies who have proven themselves vulnerable to hacking.

The Nazi link has not been wholly debunked, and the quote is regularly attributed to Goebbels as well as 1984. Either way, considering the meaning of "Orwellian", I think my point stands - it's not the kind of quote you want to use when referring to a free, Western society.

I'm sure North Korea doesn't have much of a terrorism issue, but I doubt you'd want to adopt their model.

Strider590

Code wrote: »

I am all for proportionate laws and powers to protect us from those that do us harm, but this change to the Act does not achieve that in any way.

Exactly, it doesn't protect us at all. It drives criminals and terrorists even further underground where they're harder to catch.

Given this fact, this whole thing can only be about the control and censorship of our freedom to information.

Lambyr

Exactly what code says - this law won't affect the people it is claimed to be targeting. VPNs, Tor, anonymous proxies etc. provide the means around it. It doesn't mean that those people can't still be nabbed but it won't be due to the IPA.

And when added to the censorship enforcing Digital Economy Bill, I think people have genuine reason to be concerned at what's happening. Even if you do trust this government and do believe that any fears about data security and misuse are unfounded, are you certain you'll trust the next one, or the one after that?

We're building a foundation where invasive measures and state-censorship is normalised. It doesn't take much once you establish that for an authoritarian-leaning government to move the goalposts and to expand the reach of the IPA to increase the number of years, or to log pages visited as well, or for the DEB to be expanded to include other potentially "harmful" material or subjects.

Stoke

Lambyr wrote: »

Exactly what code says - this law won't affect the people it is claimed to be targeting. VPNs, Tor, anonymous proxies etc. provide the means around it. It doesn't mean that those people can't still be nabbed but it won't be due to the IPA.

And when added to the censorship enforcing Digital Economy Bill, I think people have genuine reason to be concerned at what's happening. Even if you do trust this government and do believe that any fears about data security and misuse are unfounded, are you certain you'll trust the next one, or the one after that?

We're building a foundation where invasive measures and state-censorship is normalised. It doesn't take much once you establish that for an authoritarian-leaning government to move the goalposts and to expand the reach of the IPA to increase the number of years, or to log pages visited as well, or for the DEB to be expanded to include other potentially "harmful" material or subjects.

Be keen to know whether it'd be the left or right who are authoritarian

Fightsback

Be afraid, very afraid:

RumRat

Stoke wrote: »

Be keen to know whether it'd be the left or right who are authoritarian

Extremes of either leaning are dangerous....Nice try, but no coconut....;)

Stoke

Lambyr wrote: »

Exactly what code says - this law won't affect the people it is claimed to be targeting. VPNs, Tor, anonymous proxies etc. provide the means around it. It doesn't mean that those people can't still be nabbed but it won't be due to the IPA.

And when added to the censorship enforcing Digital Economy Bill, I think people have genuine reason to be concerned at what's happening. Even if you do trust this government and do believe that any fears about data security and misuse are unfounded, are you certain you'll trust the next one, or the one after that?

We're building a foundation where invasive measures and state-censorship is normalised. It doesn't take much once you establish that for an authoritarian-leaning government to move the goalposts and to expand the reach of the IPA to increase the number of years, or to log pages visited as well, or for the DEB to be expanded to include other potentially "harmful" material or subjects.

So we'll all start using Tor.... job done.

AndyPix

Stoke wrote: »

So we'll all start using Tor.... job done.

You sir, are an expert at missing the point

Stoke

AndyPix wrote: »

You sir, are an expert at missing the point

Not missed the point at all. Took the point on board. This won't supposedly prevent terrorists, it'll just hurt innocent people. Except it almost certainly will prevent some terrorists, because some terrorists are total morons who probably compiled their documentation from Google and BearShare.

I've got no doubt that this is justified as some extreme form of counter terrorism measures. I would also imagine it's so they can obtain data on people they've been surveilling so they don't commit any atrocities in the near future.

However, these measures do exist in Europe and supposedly have prevented terrorist attacks (at one point on a weekly basis).

I can't say I am in favour of it, from a liberal perspective, however it will at least, from a utilitarianism perspective have a functional effect in preventing some acts of terrorism..... supposedly.