A star for you this morning.

A Home Office spokesman said: "Changes to the way we communicate, due particularly to the internet revolution, will increasingly undermine our current capabilities to obtain communications data - essential for counter-terrorism and the investigation of crime - and use it to protect the public.

I have always believed that the coming of the NWO's more draconian measures would be blamed on 'the war of terror' and 'intelligence' and 'public safety'. While the measures do what they say, they do them too well. They make the public so safe it removes all of their freedom.

I agree that this is a terrible idea. Not to mention a breach in various governmental acts, such as the Data Protection Act of 1998.

The idea would have to be enforced, as such a thing would never be voted for by anyone in their right mind.

What! they don't do this already?

Originally posted by logicalview
What! they don't do this already?

they can do but need to request the information from the provider..this new legislation would allow them to gain the information without any request.

they will be able to do whatever they want.

While its supposedly to trace communications between terrorist groups initially, it will slowly grow in stature until you will have to watch everything you say when your on the phone, even talking to family members. (Perhaps about that little plumbing job you did for your friend down the road for a little extra (untaxed) cash.) Or the flirty phonecall you had with the receptionist from work that one evening.

The thing is, the UK government has such a lax attitude to personal data -they loose millions of peoples private data almost every week. They will use private companies to sort this "database" out like they always do. I'd be more worried about some smalltime blackmailing-type getting hold of my name, number and a copy of the "flirty" phonecall, than the government.

Well i don't want to come across as niave but if these powers are not abused, isn't it a good thing? Especially considering it could be used to prevent any future terrorist attacks, Fraud, Criminal activities, Peodophile rings.................... There's probably a long list.

I'm starting to REALLY hate Jacqui Smith.

This had got to be stopped. The b**** wants to strip all of our liberties before she is thrown in the garbage with the rest of the Labour party.

God, another 2 years of this and we'll have security cameras in our homes.

Originally posted by dodgygeeza

God, another 2 years of this and we'll have security cameras in our homes.

I think your a little over the top with that comment.

The sad fact is that our society has come to a point where measures like this database and more cctv cameras etc need to be put in place.

We are already the most watched nation on earth, despite the fact that cctv cameras are proven ineffective.
Another 2 more years of this and we won't need cameras in the home - good citizens that we are we'll be brain-washed to inform on each other.

Originally posted by logicalview

I think your a little over the top with that comment.

It's only "a little over the top" if you make a direct leap between now and then. However, this is not how these things work. To say this database would exist maybe 15 or 20 years ago would have prompted raised eyebrows of disbelief and comments on the lines of "I think your a little over the top with that" - despite terrorism being a threat back then too; I was in Manchester city centre during the IRA bombing of 1996 - and yet, here we are with such a proposal.

These things rarely happen in great leaps. What happens is 'drip, drip, drip' incremental process. A few more terrorist threats, paedophile scares and people will have no problem with this.

The sad fact is that our society has come to a point where measures like this database and more cctv cameras etc need to be put in place.

This illustrates what I'm pointing out. Hype or manufacture an envronment enough and people will say 'well, if it stops terrorists or paedophiles, I can't see the problem with it' or even more ridiculously the old 'failsafe': 'well, if you've nothing to hide, what's the problem?'

Governments love the fact that people like you exist: you're like those people with little brushes in curling, smoothing the ice so the curling stone moves quicker and further.

[edit on 15-10-2008 by Merriman Weir]

How many terror attacks have happened in london, or the rest of the uk, since the tube bombings. NONE.
Why do they feel the need to take away more liberties when it would seem they already have the situation under control.
My own opinion is that the terror threat is very much overhyped. It doesnt take great planning to cause devastation. They seem to think that the only way the terrorists can do it is by blowing up a building or public land mark, however it is about killing people who are against their ideals, which would be most of us, and not about destroying buildings.

As has been stated the running of the database would be passed onto private companies.
Also how many videos of cctv operators, police officers etc show them abusing the power that they have.
As people have been saying for years, the problem with these systems is the human factor. If you really needed the information stored on these databases you could get it quite easily, its called social engeniring.

[edit on 15/10/2008 by neo2012]

Thanks for the comments.

Originally posted by alienesque

you shouldnt try to stop crime by taking peoples freedoms away.

Can you give me examples of preventing crime without, (at some point down the line), taking away peoples freedoms

Originally posted by alienesque

The thing is...terror attacks and supposed plots (which more often than not get thrown out of court) are being used to take our liberties away.

If the supposed plots are being thrown out of court, could this be due to the fact there is not enough evidence to continue with a case?

Originally posted by logicalview
Thanks for the comments.

Originally posted by alienesque

you shouldnt try to stop crime by taking peoples freedoms away.

Can you give me examples of preventing crime without, (at some point down the line), taking away peoples freedoms

that doesnt make sense..sorry..

Originally posted by logicalview
Thanks for the comments.

Originally posted by alienesque

you shouldnt try to stop crime by taking peoples freedoms away.

Can you give me examples of preventing crime without, (at some point down the line), taking away peoples freedoms

It's about balance and whether the steps taken to prevent crime are actually genuine in the first place (I'm going to be very interested where Auntie Jacqui and her friends go to work after they've had enough of the House of Commons) and whether the steps taken are actually appropriate.

Whatever governments actually do, one thing they're not very good at is giving freedoms back. Once they are gone, bit by bit, they don't come back. That's it, gone forever.

Again, governments love people like you.