16 2 mins 10 yrs

The less power the State has the better. That’s a good rule of thumb.  a So when I read this, I recoil in horror;

Under legislation expected in next month’s Queen’s Speech, internet companies will be instructed to install hardware enabling GCHQ – the Government’s electronic “listening” agency – to examine “on demand” any phone call made, text message and email sent, and website accessed in “real time”, The Sunday Times reported. A previous attempt to introduce a similar law was abandoned by the former Labour government in 2006 in the face of fierce opposition. However ministers believe it is essential that the police and security services have access to such communications data in order to tackle terrorism and protect the public.

Rubbish. This is a dangerous and thoroughly unwanted extension of the Police State and one wonders if this Coalition government has embarked on a strategy designed to alienate just about every possible voter! There is no one more anti-terrorist than me BUT we just cannot allow Government to use the alleged threat of terror to impose a vice like grip over our privacy. Trust me, I say nothing in private that I do not say publicly – Government snoopers will not have any surprises should they intercept my emails, texts or phone calls! But they should have no right, no power, to invade the privacy of the citizenry. The very fact that this Government is following in the same totalitarian footsteps of the previous one should tell you all you need to know about Big Government. It is a menace. I hope this legislation fails.

Click to rate this post!
[Total: 0 Average: 0]

16 thoughts on “SOMEBODY’S LOOKING AT YOU…

  1. Whoever you vote for the problem is the civil service mandarinate. They need expunging.

  2. The state is the biggest terrorist. That may sound misplaced on a Northern Irish site but it should be noted that the IRA was so heavily infiltrated by security forces that some murderous missions not only had embedded state personnel but some were undertaken entirely by such ’embeddees’ – all to protect their cover, of course.

    So, for those who failed elementary physics and who don’t understand that trains can’t explode if the bombers didn’t get on the train, keep on believing that the government is your friend and that the measures proposed are for ‘security’. But if terror is needed to persuade you, I’m sure that more terror will be found.

  3. Yep, it looks like another order from our real government.

    A week ago Cameron had a piece in The Telegraph, titled: “Brick by Brick, We’re Tearing Down the Big State”. Don’t bother, it’s complete drivel, and now this. So where can it be from?:

    Now this may be a coincidence, but don’t we have a Data Retention Directive, otherwise known as Directive 2006/24/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006?

    Isn’t this the directive which requires member states to oblige providers of publicly available electronic communications services or of public communications networks to retain traffic and location data for between six months and two years for the purpose of the investigation, detection and prosecution of serious crime?

    It’s a truly radical idea now, to suggest that we govern ourselves, for ourselves. The Telegraph today doesn’t suggest that the idea might come from somewhere else, the paper reviewers last night on Sky News didn’t suggest it either.

    The plain is though, hardly anything of any significance originates in Parliament anymore.

  4. Do you think that governments and security agencies should do any monitoring of terror threats at all? Should they all be closed down?

    Did the rise of the internet and the emergence of instant worldwide communication from any PC to any other PC worldwide ( including to and from UK to Pakistan ) change anything at all?

  5. Phantom –

    You’re stuck in a 9/12 world.

    It has nothing to do with terror, nothing at all, not one bit of it.

  6. Nice try.

    How do you propose that your government monitor terrorist threats to your country from inside it and or from abroad?

    Should they do any monitoring at all of internet and other communications?

  7. Phantom –

    You keep on taking this off topic. It has nothing to do with terror. Well, it has nothing to do with ‘non-State’ terror.

    But to answer your question: if potential threats are to be monitored they should be done so after some thinking, profiling and targeting. Then spooks can ask a judge for permission to monitor specific individuals, for specific reasons, in specific ways, for a specified period of time.

    This would likely ensure that those doing the monitoring are doing it efficient. Trawling the entire seas for one or two specific fish is a very inefficient way.

    What’s likely to happen is that the mega-trawler will turn up, say, racial comments and rude comments about politicians. The people can then be cowed when plane loads of perfectly innocent Britons are cuffed and carted off to a federal gulag for suggesting that The Kenyan is a commie jackal.

    Wakey wakey over there. In free countries we assume that people are innocent and that our private lives are private. The ‘War on Terror’ has demolished quite enough of our liberties, thank you, we do not want any more disappearing.

    It is the totalitarian regime that assumes our lives, all parts of it, are the business of the State. We’ve gone quite far enough down that road.

  8. Then spooks can ask a judge for permission to monitor specific individuals, for specific reasons, in specific ways, for a specified period of time.

    No.

    Too cumbersome, and cannot possibly work.

    If someone is sending emails to and from the terror infested areas of Pakistan, etc, I want to know about it. Sorry.

  9. That’s the typical, bovine Yank response to everything.

    There’s a sniper in a belltower so we’ll carpet bomb the city.

  10. “The IRA was so heavily infiltrated by security forces”

    I’ve often heard that claim but have never been presented with evidence to support it.

  11. According to an email sent out by Lynn Featherstone to Lib Dem members tonight,

    ” The proposals being considered would
    simply update the current rules – which
    allow the police in criminal investigations to
    find out who was contacted and when – to
    cover new forms of technology that didn’t
    even exist when the original laws were
    made, like Skype.

    What this will NOT do is allow the
    government, or the police, or any other
    agencies, to read your emails and Facebook
    messages (or any other social media for that
    matter) at will. The content of your
    communications is currently, and will always
    be, protected by tough rules that mean a
    warrant is needed before any interception
    could take place. ”

    It may therefore be just a scare story but people are right to be concerned.

  12. I see the Information Commissioner’s Office isn’t convinced.

    In previously unpublished briefing papers, the ICO said the move was a “step change in the relationship between the citizen and the state”.

    One restricted note for Christopher Graham, the Information Commissioner, said: “The case for the retention of this data still needs to be made.

    “The value of historic communications data in criminal investigations has not yet been elucidated.”

    I dunno.

    The ICO sound likes a vipers nest of terrorist-sympathising evil-doers to me.

Comments are closed.