[DemolitionRed]

http://www.theguardian.com/world/201...illance-powers

I smell another assault on privacy on its way. The pet poodle of the government has spoken

[user104658]

This + ridiculous propaganda "tweets" with the prime ministers name all over them.

I'm seriously worried about the world my daughters are going to be growing up in.

[arista]

But its in order to stop
Terrorists killing us in the UK

[user104658]

Originally Posted by arista

But its in order to stop
Terrorists killing us in the UK

Partially, and that's the justification, but it'll be used for other things too.

[kirklancaster]

I'm all for them having as much power as they need to defeat the very real threat to the continuation of our democratic way of life. Those of us not planning on beheading anyone or blowing up innocent people have nothing to fear.

[Livia]

They don't want more powers so they can read your emails or listen in to your boring phone calls. They barely have enough time and resources to handle all the real intelligence they get and snooping on innocent citizens isn't part of the plan. They want more powers because we live in a very dangerous time and we're fighting a ruthless enemy and if you think that's propaganda, then you really are burying your head in the sand.

Furthermore, I think that referring to the security services as the 'government's pet poodle' is really quite insulting, considering the amount of crap they've stopped in the past and, hopefully, will be able to continue to stop in the future.

[DemolitionRed]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Partially, and that's the justification, but it'll be used for other things too.

Yes of course it will.

This is about taking away yet more of a civil liberties and at this rate us UK citizens are going to have the same sort of blanket surveillance that Iran and China have. This about putting focus on everyone and not just suspected terrorists and criminals.

Of course we need a surveillance system in place which can root out dangerous criminals but we already have that. This new law is about snooping on everyone and feels disturbingly close to George Orwell's novel "1984"

Do you really want to live in a control state? I know I don't and neither did Cameron back in 2009 when he said, "Today we are in danger of living in a control state. Every month over 1,000 surveillance operations are carried out. The tentacles of the state can even rifle through your bins for juicy information."

[Crimson Dynamo]

they need all the help they can get

[arista]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Partially, and that's the justification, but it'll be used for other things too.

No it will not


All data about a Bomb or Machine Gun attack
in the UK
and already MI5 has stopped some.

[kirklancaster]

I've never been bothered by the 'CCTV' cameras some people complain about, and I've never been bothered by MI5, MI6, or Special Branch or any other of our security Services, so I really do not understand the objections.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by kirklancaster

I've never been bothered by the 'CCTV' cameras some people complain about, and I've never been bothered by MI5, MI6, or Special Branch or any other of our security Services, so I really do not understand the objections.

This is entirely unsurprising, Kirk.

[DemolitionRed]

Originally Posted by kirklancaster

WHAT?????

If these are not 'very dangerous times' then what are?

Dangerous times for who Kirk? Why are they dangerous times?

All those people fleeing Syria are living in dangerous times.
All the none IS supporters living in Syria are living in dangerous times.

I live in London. I don't step out of my door with a weapon in my bag just in case. I don't pass a Muslim on the street and hold my breath and I don't do anything differently now than I did a year ago or the year before that.

Should I feel in danger of suffocation every time I jump onto the crowded tube? or should I be cautious about eating in a middle eastern restaurant just in case they decide to poison me? Should I walk the long way home because the short cut down the alleyway could get me mugged by the local thugs, or should I be watching out for that woman who may be hiding a knife under her hijab with the intention of decapitating me?

I don't ever read right wing papers and so I don't know what am I supposed to be frightened of?

[user104658]

Muslims. And Corbyn. OR ARE THEY ONE AND THE SAME. omg omg omg

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

This is entirely unsurprising, Kirk.

No - I KNOW the reasons which people cite for their objections to every form of increased security our services implement, I just do not understand them because they are nonsense.

As Livia said; Do you REALLY all believe that they have nothing better to do with their overstretched resourcees than poke and pry into the mundane 'doings' of Fred and Hilda Nobody?

And it would pay to remember that our Security Services are not requesting any extra powers because they DESIRE them - they are being compelled to do so by NEED, thanks to IS and other terrorists.

[user104658]

That's not the point kirk, it's not about whether or not they'll use them, it's a out the fact that they HAVE them and the precedent it sets.

If they truly are needed then that's still depressing... It's not "fine".

[Crimson Dynamo]

TS you need to up your surveillance powers to find out who Mrs TS is texting the dead of night

[bots]

its not a simple 1 dimensional issue. Civil liberties will be eroded by extending surveillance measures and at some point (different for everyone) the boundaries of acceptability will be exceeded. If we live in a truly free society which is what our powers that be are supposed to aspire to, then they have already sacrificed liberties in the name of security.

Does security infringe on how we carry out our day to day lives, no not yet. Does living in fear that a madman will shoot up a theatre or bomb public places infringe on or freedom, no not yet. The latter is probably still true because the security measures we have are successful, we know many threats have been thwarted before terrorists got a chance to go wild. What would have happened without those surveillance measures?

So, we have a balance at the moment that seems to be quite effective. If terrorists start beating the current measures, and they start to become successful, then we should up our game and increase surveillance, but at the moment, as terrorists have had very little success here, I personally don't see a need for any further measures.

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

its not a simple 1 dimensional issue. Civil liberties will be eroded by extending surveillance measures and at some point (different for everyone) the boundaries of acceptability will be exceeded. If we live in a truly free society which is what our powers that be are supposed to aspire to, then they have already sacrificed liberties in the name of security.

Does security infringe on how we carry out our day to day lives, no not yet. Does living in fear that a madman will shoot up a theatre or bomb public places infringe on or freedom, no not yet. The latter is probably still true because the security measures we have are successful, we know many threats have been thwarted before terrorists got a chance to go wild. What would have happened without those surveillance measures?

So, we have a balance at the moment that seems to be quite effective. If terrorists start beating the current measures, and they start to become successful, then we should up our game and increase surveillance, but at the moment, as terrorists have had very little success here, I personally don't see a need for any further measures.

Once again BitOnTheSlide, an excellent post which I agree with. However, as to the NEED to increase the Security Services powers, I am prone to trust that they know a lot more than we do as to any reasons which renders such extra powers necessary.

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Muslims. And Corbyn. OR ARE THEY ONE AND THE SAME. omg omg omg

Who said this? Especially on this thread?

[user104658]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

TS you need to up your surveillance powers to find out who Mrs TS is texting the dead of night

I've got it narrowed down to 2 people. It's either Kirk, or Abu Hamza.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by kirklancaster

Who said this? Especially on this thread?

Me. It's a genuine concern that I have.

[Kizzy]

Hang on...
'The investigatory powers legislation is expected to include powers to require internet and phone companies to collect and store for 12 months the browsing histories of customers along with detailed records of voice calls, messaging and text services.'

That's not 'suspects' that's everyone

[Tom4784]

Nobody should endorse Security firms getting even more authority to invade our privacy. It annoys me how people are so willing to throw away their rights at the mention of terrorists or peadophiles and how naive they are to think that's all it would be used for.

[Kizzy]

Civil liberties, privacy, workers rights...owt else for this tory vortex?

[Ninastar]

Originally Posted by Livia

They don't want more powers so they can read your emails or listen in to your boring phone calls. They barely have enough time and resources to handle all the real intelligence they get and snooping on innocent citizens isn't part of the plan. They want more powers because we live in a very dangerous time and we're fighting a ruthless enemy and if you think that's propaganda, then you really are burying your head in the sand.

Furthermore, I think that referring to the security services as the 'government's pet poodle' is really quite insulting, considering the amount of crap they've stopped in the past and, hopefully, will be able to continue to stop in the future.

Beautifully well said. As always