sense of proportion

sungod

there's a lot of hoohah, faux outrage, manipulation, lies and rabble rousing in the press over the supreme court's hearing on the matter of whether it's theresa may or parliament that runs this country

but deafening silence over the state's new powers for wholesale interception and hoovering up of all our communications, ffs even the food standards agency can do it, together with the provisions to prevent the courts doing anything about it if (i.e. when) it is abused, http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/12/06 ... sh_courts/

overall it's pretty much how the stasi etc. operated

has the press been fixed?

rick_chasey

It'll come out once someone hacks them and releases a bunch of people's internet history.

Sciencemike

Title the thread "sense of proportion", then use the phrase "overall it's pretty much how the stasi etc. operated "!!

ballysmate

Sciencemike wrote:

Title the thread "sense of proportion", then use the phrase "overall it's pretty much how the stasi etc. operated "!!

Perhaps he should have posted in "The irony thread"

sungod

Sciencemike wrote:

Title the thread "sense of proportion", then use the phrase "overall it's pretty much how the stasi etc. operated "!!

Unfettered monitoring of the people with no legal redress is exactly how they operated

kingstongraham

sungod wrote:

Sciencemike wrote:

Title the thread "sense of proportion", then use the phrase "overall it's pretty much how the stasi etc. operated "!!

Unfettered monitoring of the people with no legal redress is exactly how they operated

And you think that the food standards agency operate with the same aims as the Stasi?

I agree that it's overall a bad thing, and another example of the internet not being treated as if it is a part of life... but it isn't the Stasi.

veronese68

KingstonGraham wrote:

And you think that the food standards agency operate with the same aims as the Stasi?

I thought that was more aimed at government monitoring rather than just the FSA.

sungod

KingstonGraham wrote:

sungod wrote:

Sciencemike wrote:

Title the thread "sense of proportion", then use the phrase "overall it's pretty much how the stasi etc. operated "!!

Unfettered monitoring of the people with no legal redress is exactly how they operated

And you think that the food standards agency operate with the same aims as the Stasi?

I agree that it's overall a bad thing, and another example of the internet not being treated as if it is a part of life... but it isn't the Stasi.

you're clearly more concerned about getting picky over a simple and clear analogy of state behaviour, than you are about losing your rights

perhaps that's the general mood of the population, they'd rather whine about the supreme court determining parliament's rights than shout about having their own rights stripped

bendertherobot

sungod wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

sungod wrote:

Sciencemike wrote:

Title the thread "sense of proportion", then use the phrase "overall it's pretty much how the stasi etc. operated "!!

Unfettered monitoring of the people with no legal redress is exactly how they operated

And you think that the food standards agency operate with the same aims as the Stasi?

I agree that it's overall a bad thing, and another example of the internet not being treated as if it is a part of life... but it isn't the Stasi.

you're clearly more concerned about getting picky over a simple and clear analogy of state behaviour, than you are about losing your rights

perhaps that's the general mood of the population, they'd rather whine about the supreme court determining parliament's rights than shout about having their own rights stripped

The great irony is that the will of the people is rarely represented in Parliament and in our laws. Take any Act and you'll be met with disinterest or, if properly explained, real outrage. But they pass because of the mandate we give and because our system.

If we did straw polling referendums for this sort of subject then it would be very interesting to see the results.....(which could then be ignored).

kingstongraham

sungod wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

sungod wrote:

Sciencemike wrote:

Title the thread "sense of proportion", then use the phrase "overall it's pretty much how the stasi etc. operated "!!

Unfettered monitoring of the people with no legal redress is exactly how they operated

And you think that the food standards agency operate with the same aims as the Stasi?

I agree that it's overall a bad thing, and another example of the internet not being treated as if it is a part of life... but it isn't the Stasi.

you're clearly more concerned about getting picky over a simple and clear analogy of state behaviour, than you are about losing your rights

I can do both. What do you want me to do to stop this law?

Sciencemike

you're clearly more concerned about getting picky over a simple and clear analogy of state behaviour, than you are about losing your rights

Pointing out the difference between the food standard agency and the Stasi isn't getting picky. I'm not expecting FSA to go in for kidnapping, torture and psychological harassment as in the GDR.

TheBigBean

Would it be legal to set up a fund that would reward the hacking and publishing of the browsing history of MPs who voted for this? I'm guessing it probably isn't.

A good bit of ethical hacking is what is required.

ballysmate

I would think that the impact on people on here of the State gathering all this data will be nil.
I certainly won't be giving it a second thought.
Already regretting the time spent on the first thought tbh.

rick_chasey

Ballysmate wrote:

I would think that the impact on people on here of the State gathering all this data will be nil.
I certainly won't be giving it a second thought.
Already regretting the time spent on the first thought tbh.

Care to share your unadulterated internet history in which case?

Because the end game of all this is that, only for everyone.

pblakeney

This comes over as people being more worried about their browsing history than any Big Brother theory.

haydenm

I had sort of assumed people could look at my browsing history anyway

rick_chasey

PBlakeney wrote:

This comes over as people being more worried about their browsing history than any Big Brother theory.

People treat the Internet as if it's private because they use it in their own privacy.

Therefore there will absolutely be people who don't want their browser history to be made public.

I fear the ruling puts too much faith in these firms being able to keep hackers out.

rick_chasey

I also don't see anything wrong with wanting to keep that private.

ballysmate

Rick Chasey wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

I would think that the impact on people on here of the State gathering all this data will be nil.
I certainly won't be giving it a second thought.
Already regretting the time spent on the first thought tbh.

Care to share your unadulterated internet history in which case?

Because the end game of all this is that, only for everyone.

As I said, will make no difference to my browsing habits and communications at all.
Are you saying you will feel the need to change yours?

rick_chasey

Ballysmate wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

I would think that the impact on people on here of the State gathering all this data will be nil.
I certainly won't be giving it a second thought.
Already regretting the time spent on the first thought tbh.

Care to share your unadulterated internet history in which case?

Because the end game of all this is that, only for everyone.

As I said, will make no difference to my browsing habits and communications at all.
Are you saying you will feel the need to change yours?

Of course.

I think you're lying anyway. Otherwise, let's hear it.

TheBigBean

Ballysmate wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

I would think that the impact on people on here of the State gathering all this data will be nil.
I certainly won't be giving it a second thought.
Already regretting the time spent on the first thought tbh.

Care to share your unadulterated internet history in which case?

Because the end game of all this is that, only for everyone.

As I said, will make no difference to my browsing habits and communications at all.
Are you saying you will feel the need to change yours?

Are you using the if you've got nothing to hide argument?

TheBigBean

It's always worth remembering that the government is elected by the people to serve the people. The government should be accountable to the people, not the other way around.

finchy

Ballysmate wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

I would think that the impact on people on here of the State gathering all this data will be nil.
I certainly won't be giving it a second thought.
Already regretting the time spent on the first thought tbh.

Care to share your unadulterated internet history in which case?

Because the end game of all this is that, only for everyone.

As I said, will make no difference to my browsing habits and communications at all.
Are you saying you will feel the need to change yours?

You might not, but what if you were, say, a homosexual from a religiously conservative community, for example Muslim or African Christian? You might want to use the Internet to get in contact with other homosexuals, and not want that made public. Or you might have political beliefs that you don't want made public, or (as I do), visit websites that espouse politics I violently disagree with and wouldn't want my name publicly associated with them.

Besides, people shouldn't need to justify their right to privacy. Would you be happy to have your house or your telephone bugged?

bompington

finchy wrote:

Besides, people shouldn't need to justify their right to privacy. Would you be happy to have your house or your telephone bugged?

This is the crux of the matter. The fact is, the government can already do a lot of privacy-invading things in the real world - search your house, for instance: but only with a warrant, which has to be apllied for and justified in advance.
If the new laws applied the same principles to the virtual world then I personally could accept it. The trouble is that it looks a bit too close to being able to wander into your house any time they want.

As for the "reveal your internet history" thing, well, vtech can access it anyway, can't he? ;-)

pblakeney

Rick Chasey wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

This comes over as people being more worried about their browsing history than any Big Brother theory.

People treat the Internet as if it's private because they use it in their own privacy.

Therefore there will absolutely be people who don't want their browser history to be made public.

I fear the ruling puts too much faith in these firms being able to keep hackers out.

Those people are stupid. Assume everything done on the internet is public.
Anyone with the intelligence and inclination could make it so.