Every phone call, email or website visit 'to be monitored'

Originally posted by kid_of_3NKi

Originally posted by logician magician

Originally posted by kid_of_3NKi
reply to post by logician magician

 

Dude,

in your, second list, take out the child porn and replace it with conspiracy theories / info.
Do you believe those fashist governments, who want to take away our rights and privacy, who killed 3000 of THEIR OWN citizens on 9-11 realy care about our children and child porn?? NO, all they care for is to keep and maintain their power and control upon us, only that is what they worry about

Ko3

Sorry to burst your bubble, but the government could care less about unprovable conspiracy theories. They are NOT important. They are nothing more than rumors. ATS is a rumor mill.

How many people have been arrested for conspiracy theory?

How many have been arrested for child porn?

Now you can tell me, which one does the government think is more important?

May i ask you whats your business on a conspiracy forum, if for you conspiracy theories are unprovable, NOT important, just rumors?

Ko3

As I said before, how many people have the government arrested, kidnapped, tortured, put in secret CIA prisons, etc... because of talking about conspiracy theories or spreading "truth?

The only conspiracies that the government is concerned with is actual conspiracy - not theory. We don't give a rats ass what you think happened with holographic planes on 9/11 or how you think the gunman that killed JFK was a shape-shifting reptilian.

They only care about what is about to happen.

As for why I am here, you can just create your own conspiracy theory about it. I assure you that I, nor anyone else, will care.

Thanks News&History for this info. Sorrowful.

From your link:

The proposed powers will allow police and security services to monitor communication "traffic", which is who calls, texts, emails who, when and where but not what is said

Yeah, right. No governmental entity would EVER want to intrude into what is actually said, having already secured the legal right to do so.

I've always considered the internet sacred, along with basic freedoms. Guess it won't be the last thing to fall after all.

Originally posted by Desert Dawg
Over 300 million Americans, right?

Which 150 million are going to watch the other 150 million?


Maybe they can outsource the jobs to Mexico and India....

Stupid Americans .. this is a UK story, about Britain. It has nothing to do with us... Yet anyways.

Originally posted by logician magician
reply to post by logician magician

 

The only conspiracies that the government is concerned with is actual conspiracy - not theory. We don't give a rats ass what you think happened with...

Did you just say "We"?? We, TPTB, huh? Gotcha!

Ko3

Some of you are confusing law enforcement with government...

The government doesn't care about child pornographers, law enforcement does.
Law enforcement doesn't care about intimidating the populace through excessive monitoring, the government does.


The government's interest into monitoring is completely self driven.

You'd have to be incredibly naive to think that people who thirst for power enough to acquire it wouldn't be interested in having total spying privileges over the populace.




If you give me your personal information, you become my personal slave. To do with however I see fit.

If I know everything there is to know about you, I can intimidate, lure, and trick you into doing ANYTHING I want you to. At any time.

I could build you up to be almost anything, or utterly destroy your life and you. I could make you my fall guy, you'd take the blame for anything I had done wrong, you'd never know my name, but you'd belong to me all the same.

... why don't I?

Because I don't have an uncontrollable thirst for power... if I did... I'd be a politician.


[edit on 26-4-2009 by johnsky]

Let's be honest. Most people are not going to care.

How many millions now tell the whole world what they are doing every second of the day on Twitter and Facebook?

'Oh, I'm just at the shops buying bla bla bla'...

How will it affect them to know that the government is monitoring them? They practically advertise their lives online anyway.

Sadly, the privacy and rights advocates are a minority in this digital age and will continue to have trouble getting awareness about these issues.

Originally posted by logician magician
What's so bad about that?

Do you really think anyone cares that you visit Disney.com, read the news, or use google to search for information about how to change a tire?

... or maybe you're more worried about the child pornography you download, the terrorist organizations you are a part of, and the software you pirate?

The logic you are using is flawed. This is similar to "you have nothing to fear as long as you aren't doing anything wrong."


This is like saying that you don't mind the police coming to search your home without a warrant anytime they like with no probable cause given.

Sounds like two different situations, but I can assure you it is the same.

When this data is stored, it can be stored indefinitely. It also means that something you are doing is legal now, but may be illegal in the future. Depending on how the new laws are written, you may be held accountable for things you have done in the past, even though they were legal at the time.

You assume the those who do this have morals, ethics and values and will do the correct thing with the data gleaned. There is no such guarantee.

Originally posted by fooffstarr
Let's be honest. Most people are not going to care.

How many millions now tell the whole world what they are doing every second of the day on Twitter and Facebook?

'Oh, I'm just at the shops buying bla bla bla'...

Then they wonder how someone was able to use social engineering to steal their identity and hack their bank account.

No one cares about anything until their lives are affected by it. Well, a lot of people are being affected by it and will come around eventually and care a lot about what is going on.

Originally posted by kid_of_3NKi

Originally posted by logician magician
reply to post by logician magician

 

The only conspiracies that the government is concerned with is actual conspiracy - not theory. We don't give a rats ass what you think happened with...

Did you just say "We"?? We, TPTB, huh? Gotcha!

Ko3

Oh sure, I'm TPTB.

Simple typo. Don't get confused.

Originally posted by xman_in_blackx

The logic you are using is flawed. This is similar to "you have nothing to fear as long as you aren't doing anything wrong."

This is like saying that you don't mind the police coming to search your home without a warrant anytime they like with no probable cause given.

Sounds like two different situations, but I can assure you it is the same.

That is an extreme and ignorant generalization, I can assure you. Also, the logic is only flawed from the standpoint of a paranoid mind.

How many times do you find yourself worried that you will be pulled over for speeding when you are going 5 miles under the speed limit? On the contrary, how many times do you find yourself worried that you will be pulled over for speeding when you are going 20mph over?

How many times do you find yourself worried that you will be arrested for murder when you are jogging through the park? How about when you are actually murdering someone?

How often do you worry that your significant other will catch you cheating when you aren't even cheating?

Sorry man, but the majority of the time.. when you aren't doing anything wrong you don't have anything to worry about.

Your comparison of police searching a house and the monitoring of data that you send out all over the world is also not a very good one.

The Internet is not your house.

If you had a more realistic head on your shoulders, you might compare the search to police searching items that you've thrown out your window onto the public street.

Fact is, you do not own the packets traveling over the Internet. Every time you transmit a packet it's as if your throwing it out of your house, and onto the public/private infrastructure of the Internet. You don't own those lines. You don't own the repeaters, the hubs, the switches, the servers. None of it. It's not in your house.

When this data is stored, it can be stored indefinitely. It also means that something you are doing is legal now, but may be illegal in the future. Depending on how the new laws are written, you may be held accountable for things you have done in the past, even though they were legal at the time.

Hahhaah. You are literally grasping at hypothetical straws here. If you actually reason like that, you might want to stop riding your bike and wearing black socks on tuesdays. It could become illegal!!!

You assume the those who do this have morals, ethics and values and will do the correct thing with the data gleaned. There is no such guarantee.

... is there ever?

Originally posted by logician magician

What's so bad about that?

Do you really think anyone cares that you visit Disney.com, read the news, or use google to search for information about how to change a tire?

... or maybe you're more worried about the child pornography you download, the terrorist organizations you are a part of, and the software you pirate?

Hmm.. do you honestly think the person doing the second group of activities deserves his privacy as much as the first?

If so, shame on you.

1) Of course I don't think that pedophiles, terrorists or pirates deserve internet anonymity. But do we (or should we) screen everyone before we let them on the internet? No, of course we don't (nor shouldn't). We assume that everyone is good, and until they are caught doing something bad (like looking at child pornography, or terrorism), we continue thinking they are good. That's the best part of the innocent until proven guilty system.

2) Lets say I used to like looking at 3-legged antelopes on the internet. Nothing wrong with that eh? course not! Now a year or 2 later the government (in their infinite wisdom) decides that anyone who looks at 3-legged antelopes is a threat to them. Guess what?! Because I decided to let the government log all internet traffic they now come and arrest me for something that I did a couple of years ago (and which was not considered a threat at the time).

And thats my reasoning.

Originally posted by GobbledokTChipeater

1) Of course I don't think that pedophiles, terrorists or pirates deserve internet anonymity. But do we (or should we) screen everyone before we let them on the internet? No, of course we don't (nor shouldn't). We assume that everyone is good, and until they are caught doing something bad (like looking at child pornography, or terrorism), we continue thinking they are good. That's the best part of the innocent until proven guilty system.

... The simple fact that you are monitoring does not mean you are guilty. Compare monitoring of the Internet to... monitoring a bank.

A bank has many, many cameras. They are at the ATM, at the teller lines, at the drive through. Just imagine what the bank could do with all the information they have on you if they wanted. Imagine what they could do with all the footage they have on people.

Does this mean that you are guilty when you walk in the bank? When you use the ATM, or go through the drive through? Of course it doesn't!

People don't have a problem with all the bank cameras. They know that banks need the security. It's easy to say, "Oh, well the cameras are there in case the bank gets robbed!" The normal customers have nothing to worry about as far as the cameras go.

Nobody wants to say, "Oh, well the CCTV cameras in the UK are there in case someone get's robbed!

No, they just spout ideological BS about privacy and anonymity. The same goes for the Internet.

The Internet is a different story - people don't understand that the Internet also needs security. They don't understand, and they don't want to understand. They want to live in the illusion that the Internet is some sort of bastion of freedom that shouldn't be touched.

Well guess what? The Internet is going to be monitored, just like the bank. It's going to be monitored in case someone attempts to use it for nefarious purposes. The normal Internet users have nothing to worry about as far as the monitoring goes because, like the average bank goer, nobody is going to be paying attention to you unless you are doing something suspicious like... handing a letter to the bank teller - or talking to terrorist groups in chat rooms.

I hate to burst your bubble: It's going to be touched, and for good reason.

2) Lets say I used to like looking at 3-legged antelopes on the internet. Nothing wrong with that eh? course not! Now a year or 2 later the government (in their infinite wisdom) decides that anyone who looks at 3-legged antelopes is a threat to them. Guess what?! Because I decided to let the government log all internet traffic they now come and arrest me for something that I did a couple of years ago (and which was not considered a threat at the time).

And thats my reasoning.

No. Don't even try using a completely innocuous example like that. I can't take you seriously if you aren't even taking yourself seriously... 3-legged antelopes? Really, man? Is that the best you can come up with?

If you were serious, you'd give a more realistic example... maybe something like this:

"Let's say I used to like looking at methods to build explosive devices and home made weapons on the Internet. Nothing wrong with that eh? course not! Now a year or 2 later the government (in their infinite wisdom) decides that anyone who looks at instructions to make home made explosives and weapons is a threat to them. Guess what?! Because I decided to let the government log all internet traffic they now come and arrest me for something that I did a couple of years ago (and which was not considered a threat at the time).

Sorry to open your eyes, but threats change and so do the laws concerning them. Researching how to make home-made weapons could become illegal if there was a large increase in home-made weapons being used to blow up buildings - AND FOR GOOD REASON.

Like I told the other guy: If you want to use examples about possible future illegal activities: You better quit buying wooden pencils, and drinking from Styrofoam cups - they might become illegal soon!

Then again, if you think that looking at 3-legged antelopes is going to be illegal and put people in jail, then you are too far off the deep end to ever return to safe waters.

Originally posted by logician magician
No. Don't even try using a completely innocuous example like that.

Why not? Is everything the government does in our best interests? Would they never treat something as a threat that is considered innocuous to everyone else? What is stopping them from considering everyone who looks at 3-legged antelopes a threat? Not a damn thing my friend. Whether you are talking about home-made explosives or 3-legged antelopes the point is exactly the same. Same dog different smell.

Originally posted by logician magician
Then again, if you think that looking at 3-legged antelopes is going to be illegal and put people in jail, then you are too far off the deep end to ever return to safe waters.

Of course I don't think that, but you already knew that didn't you.

Originally posted by GobbledokTChipeater

Originally posted by logician magician
No. Don't even try using a completely innocuous example like that.

Why not? Is everything the government does in our best interests? Would they never treat something as a threat that is considered innocuous to everyone else? What is stopping them from considering everyone who looks at 3-legged antelopes a threat? Not a damn thing my friend. Whether you are talking about home-made explosives or 3-legged antelopes the point is exactly the same. Same dog different smell.

Is everything the government does in our worst interests? Would they always treat something as a threat that is considered innocuous to everyone else?

You aren't making a point by asking rhetorical questions. You're just showing that you enjoy putting up straw man arguments.

What is stopping them from considering everyone who looks at 3-legged antelopes a threat? Not a damn thing my friend.

Good sense and reason is stopping them. The fact that it isn't a threat is stopping them from classifying it as a threat. It isn't a threat right now. Something is obviously stopping the government.

... Since you like to use absurd examples, answer this one:

Say the 13 colonies had their own Internet during the revolutionary war and they found out it was being used by the loyalist spies (colonial supporters of England) to feed information to England and it's Army about colonial plans, positions, intelligence, etc...

Should the 13 colonies restrict Internet usage then? Even though it means that Ye Olde Taxidermist can't search up information about stuffing a 3-legged antelope?

Or should they let the spies use the Internet in the name of FREEDOM of taxidermical knowledge even though it could spell the inevitable doom of the Patriots winning the revolutionary war?

Answer the question: To restrict or not to restrict?




[edit on 27-4-2009 by logician magician]

Originally posted by logician magician
You aren't making a point by asking rhetorical questions. You're just showing that you enjoy putting up straw man arguments.

Well then please feel free to ignore me and please stop responding to my 'straw-man' arguments. I do apologise for you wasting your time.

Originally posted by logician magician
Answer the question: To restrict or not to restrict?

As it is, that same spy can still filter the secrets back to england. The only difference is they would be monitoring that spy and catch him after the fact. Therefore I don't think your question is applicable.

However, ignoring the above, NO WE SHOULDN'T! The internet is a part of society's critical infrastructure these days and therefore it is very important that it remains free and open. Just like telephones. And roads.
It is important (for the people, not the government) that it remains free and open for all and not just another government-regulated cockup. It is the last bastion of free speech. I don't know how any citizen in their right mind can defend the loss of that. Even if they believe in the internet boogeyman.

[edit on 27/4/09 by GobbledokTChipeater]

Originally posted by logician magician

Originally posted by GobbledokTChipeater

2) Lets say I used to like looking at 3-legged antelopes on the internet. Nothing wrong with that eh? course not! Now a year or 2 later the government (in their infinite wisdom) decides that anyone who looks at 3-legged antelopes is a threat to them. Guess what?! Because I decided to let the government log all internet traffic they now come and arrest me for something that I did a couple of years ago (and which was not considered a threat at the time).

And thats my reasoning.

No. Don't even try using a completely innocuous example like that.

And if you are still having trouble with my 'absurd example', replace '3-legged antelope' with 'abovetopsecret'. The point remains exactly the same (but less absurd).

[edit on 27/4/09 by GobbledokTChipeater] Structure

[edit on 27/4/09 by GobbledokTChipeater]

Welcome to Communism people.

I wish someone had the granolas, to shoot these bastards we have in power.

[edit on 27-4-2009 by MR BOB]

Urr... Echelon has had the capacity to do this for a very long time. Phone, fax, data, internet, you name it.

In New Zealand the govt states that it is not used for national traffic. Yeah right... much of the national traffic on the internet is peered out internationally now because the telcos here often won't transport each others data nationally for free.

We've been living under Echelon, as with Britain, Canada, Usa and the rest for a very long time. This has already been happening, just not publically. Mostly filtered for keywords and a flag assigned for human viewing. most of the time the flags are nothing of importance. Hence why it's always good to say things like 'bomb' or 'anthrax' or 'truck bomb' just to do your bit to overload the bastard.

I know of a few people who have been nabbed using keywords on cellphones too much. Like 50 bag hehe. Too many triggers of the same word run through a filter and it stands out quite readily.

Here's a big 'up yours' to the 'watchers', if they look at this thread now thanks to me

Originally posted by logician magician

That is an extreme and ignorant generalization, I can assure you. Also, the logic is only flawed from the standpoint of a paranoid mind.

Ignorant? Hmmm. I sincerely hope you are not in a position to be a guardian of our rights and liberties, because if so we are all screwed. If you think that the framers of the US Constitution were paranoid, then I sincerely feel sorry for you.

Your comparison of police searching a house and the monitoring of data that you send out all over the world is also not a very good one.

The Internet is not your house.

If you had a more realistic head on your shoulders, you might compare the search to police searching items that you've thrown out your window onto the public street.

Fact is, you do not own the packets traveling over the Internet. Every time you transmit a packet it's as if your throwing it out of your house, and onto the public/private infrastructure of the Internet. You don't own those lines. You don't own the repeaters, the hubs, the switches, the servers. None of it. It's not in your house.

Yours is the weak analogy. Telephone conversations are just data that travels over switches and routers which are not owned by the individual, but warrants are still required before anyone can legally install a wiretap.

I would suggest that if you are a US citizen, you take some time to review the US Constitution. Realize that these rights were placed there by your so-called "paranoid minds" to protect individual rights from those who would try to overstep their authority.

I find that in your posting on this forum, you tend to use the flawed logic and emotional response phrases from the talking heads. I would suggest that you try to think for yourself instead of having someone do it for you.

For example, any time legislation is written to restrict the rights of individuals, they must make them sounds justified or invoke an emotional response to get you to go along with the restriction. The "Patriot" Act is one example. Restrictive laws could also be restrictive in order to "save the children" when the law really has nothing to do with children at all. It seems that they would also stoop to new lows to include "child predators" or "child pornograpgy" to invoke these emotional responses and make parents go along completely when it is actually their children's rights which will be taken away.

Take a vacation away from your hubris once in a while. It may do you some good and open your eyes to a new world of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

In the future, you may also want to stay away from ad-homs. They only weaken your argument.

An old saying comes to mind. "It is better to be thought a fool than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt."

Originally posted by logician magician

Do you really think anyone cares that you visit Disney.com, read the news, or use google to search for information about how to change a tire?

Perhaps not but I'm sure your insurance company would be interested in your searches for "heart murmur".

The fact is that within the government there are two undesirable elements, namely the unscrupulous (McBride) who will use any means to attack their political opponents; and the incompetent (Bob Quick) who will leave confidential data on the train, the bus or just show it to the worlds press outside of number 10. The UK has had no shortage of stories about how the government, the police and local authorities have abused powers to do everything from arrest opposition MPs to spying on people who put their bins out at the wrong time.

So long as these elements exist then these sorts of powers must be limited.

The current plan is to have service providers maintain their own databases, which is not that much different today. Most already retain this information for around a year anyway, the only difference will be that the government will compel them to do it whether they want to or not.

The thing that worries me however is that to access this data, according to the Telegraph, authorities will need only a ministerial warrant not a judicial warrant. Effectively if someone in government (the unscrupulous) doesn’t like you opposing his policies in his constituency and being a general nuisance he or she has the power to have your personal information turned over looking for anything embarrassing without needing a judge’s legal approval. That kind of behaviour is unfortunately not unheard of with our current government.

I used to take your position until the government lost a lot of my personal data including everything from my address to my NI number to bank details. I’m not paranoid about these database, they’ve already fecked me over once already along with countless others.

Originally posted by logician magician

Fact is, you do not own the packets traveling over the Internet. Every time you transmit a packet it's as if your throwing it out of your house, and onto the public/private infrastructure of the Internet. You don't own those lines. You don't own the repeaters, the hubs, the switches, the servers. None of it. It's not in your house.

That is a complete contradiction of our data protection laws.

I don’t think you would disagree that if I send money through snail mail that the money is my property not the property of the service provider. Similarly if I make a purchase online for example the details I enter are mine and only mine. Not all data is protected but a large chunk of it is and that is certainly enough to make the wholesale monitoring of it without consent illegal.

Please see the Privacy and Electronic Communications (EC Directive) Regulations 2003

Here is a good summary of the law;

www.adlexsolicitors.co.uk...