“Unfortunately, Cameron’s declaration that the ‘free flow of information’ can sometimes be a problem, then an aberration, seems to have turned into a pillar of the UK government’s 2012 agenda. Despite declaring early on in his term that internet freedom should be respected ‘in Tahrir Square as much as Trafalgar Square’, his government is now considering a series of laws that would dramatically restrict online privacy and freedom of speech.” The United Kingdom’s crippling nanny state culture reaches the web. A country in deep financial problems, facing pervasise social unrest, censors the web to prevent riots. Sure Cameron, make it so.
The Oceania government’s war on internet freedom
Aljazeera are fairly well known here in the UK for having a very strong bias when it comes to news. In this particular case, it was simply bad journalism.
A few points to consider that it appears to have glossed over.
1. Under the current proposals (they are still just that) these powers can only be used if there is a perceived threat from that individual against the state or the people
2. The intention of the bill is to update what the intelligence services have access to. Currently these powers exist already for phone calls. Clearly this is no longer the main means of communication used by those who wish to commit crimes.
3. Where a BIG argument is taking place is who decides on when these powers can be used. The Judiciary or Parliament.
4. (this is a personal one) I find it odd that we think its ok for for Google to read our emails for the purpose of adverts. But not the intelligence services to protect lives…
EVERYBODY (even criminals) should have the right for privacy.
Police states do not work(tm)
In a democracy you have to live with the fact that some criminals run free. That is the price of freedom. Everybody who thinks otherwise needs to get his brain checked.
The alternative is criminalizing innocent people, which must an _absolute_ no-go in a real democracy.
I in part agree with you, but surely you concede that there has to be a balance?
For example, if someone is going online and purchasing all the components needed to make a large amount of explosives, do you not think it is reasonable for the state (police) to be able to investigate them in order to establish their intentions/targets? They would of course then invade the persons privacy should they need to search the persons home if needed. I think this is a concession that is acceptable in Any democracy.
The person would then go through the courts as normal with the presumption of innocence until guilt is proven
“Balance” brings up ideas of 50/50 and of some kind of mediated compromise. The underlying argument here is “The government needs more powers to catch criminals”. In theory, if the government didn’t have to obey any law, they could catch every criminal but would of course catch every law abiding citizen. There are two problems with this: #1: The argument is wrong, the government doesn’t need any more powers to catch criminals. Evidence: They are catching plenty of criminals. The other problem is this: The government does not always use the powers given to it to catch criminals to actually catch criminals. So, to be clear, for me, (I am not the orignal poster), I do _NOT_ want balance! I want the electorate to be distinctly and definitely more powerful than the government that it elects, in the same way that I want to be more powerful than my dishwasher, a tool I use to wash my dishes.
Well, to me the balance is already there. The balance between “wanting to catch criminals” and “absolute privacy” is supervised access through court orders. It’s not like getting a warrant is impossible, to the contrary, but then there is an official paper trail and requesting a warrant requires just enough effort to prevent most misuse of power.
We’ve never seen a police state with the massive amount of surveillance and technology at the governments disposal before right now, we don’t know what the outcome will be.
Rest assured however, it’ll most likely suck.
The article is full of citations to other news sources.
Who defines what is a perceived threat and what not? That’s what the warrant is for. There is no reason to take that away other than wanting to cut corners at a huge cost for liberty and modern civilisation.
Those powers exist with court orders. They can legally get all the information they need in case of terrorism investigations. There is no need to throw judicial oversight out the window here. Read the article.
Ever heard of separation of powers? The executive branch does the investigation, the judicial branch does oversight by making sure the law is followed or the case gets thrown out. If you give all power to one branch, you might as well go for a totalitarian government. The three branches of government exist for a good reason, and it worked out fine during the IRA era when attacks on British soil were frequent and real, so why wouldn’t it now?
I signed up with Google, not the government. If I think the government should know something, I’ll let them know myself. Furthermore, Google can’t jail you and has a much cleaner track record than the government. Have you even read the part about the libel laws in the article? Have you even looked at the article or did you just self-censor once you noticed Al Jazeera in the URL?
Edited 2012-04-15 15:11 UTC
I did read the article, but I have also read the draft bill (its only 30 pages thus far) which is why I know it was reported upon badly.
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/about-us/legislation/etpi…
Of particular note, please read the section on the powers of the Secretary of State and the extension this bill will provide. And indeed on where the separation of powers actually occur under the UK’s parliamentary democracy as you seem to have confused where that line is.
Wrong bill. This is about the CCDP (and RIPA).
You can get the links to related files and websites here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications_Capabilities_Developmen…
Edited 2012-04-15 17:40 UTC
This means that when they want to use the power they can without any evidence.
Clarifying an old law could still be a good opportunity to change it for the better.
I don’t have the feeling parliament is held accountable ever.
Google gives you the choice. If the government also gives you this choice they should be treated equal. But criminals would opt-out of course so what is the point again?
In the US it’s the NDAA which Obama signed that turns even a casual mention of terrorism in an email or book as a flag for any one of its 16 national intelligence agencies to suspect you’re a sympathizer and thus be labeled an enemy combatant, subject to indefinite detention without trial. It’s sick. The Gulags are here and they’re never going away now.
No use complaining unless you are willing to forcefully protect your rights, get off that couch and do something.