"Some wise words from when England was a constitutional monarchy as opposed to a socialist gulag.

"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." Rt Hon. William Pitt the younger (UK Prime Minister in the Napoleonic Wars era).

What a messed up piece of legislation. 90% likely to pass into law this time (Labour tried to pass it before, LibDems broadly support it), 99% likely to pass later if it doesn't this time.

Its like our green party who appeal to the far left even though they are more authoritarian socially then the mainstream.

-------
BAM and the dirt is gone!

---

Hang on here. The article does say that they're not allowed to read any of this without a warrant. Is this really that different from them having the power to search your house if they get a warrant for it?

---

This is the bit of the legislation that most people choose to ignore. Whether you like it or not the technology to open and monitor emails already exists, the only question is concerning the transparency/legality of it. So no, I am not totally opposed to this piece of legislation since, as Saviour pointed out, there is little difference in police practice between searching someones house and looking at their email.

---

Is that not comparable to the police/government storing the DNA of all it's citizens and then requiring a warrent to retrieve it?

---

I dont think so, because to be able to store DNA would take an active effort by the government to collect samples. However, the history of what you say/do on the internet is already there regardless of the government wanting it or not.

A more comparable situation imo is the power of the police to search a house. The information is there in the house whether the police can access it or not, and there is no physical constraint on a government operative kicking down your door and searching your house when you're not around, the only question is under what circumstances, if any, should the government be able to access said information.

---

Quote: from biflexible at 1:48 pm on April 4, 2012

---

Is that not comparable to the police/government storing the DNA of all it's citizens and then requiring a warrent to retrieve it?

---

 

I dont think so, because to be able to store DNA would take an active effort by the government to collect samples. However, the history of what you say/do on the internet is already there regardless of the government wanting it or not.  

A more comparable situation imo is the power of the police to search a house. The information is there in the house whether the police can access it or not, and there is no physical constraint on a government operative kicking down your door and searching your house when you're not around, the only question is under what circumstances, if any, should the government be able to access said information.

---

Searches of private property and physical surveillance is surrounded by a wealth of case law whereas the internet and online date storage isn't and so there is a far greater need to protect online privacy rights in law.

Oh and more fun coming out of the still unknown proposed legislation: David Cameron defends secret courts and web monitoring plans

All of this is despite:

"In their report into the proposals, published on Wednesday, MPs and peers on the Joint Committee on Human Rights said the government had not made the case for allowing more court hearings and inquests to be held in secret.

The committee said the "inherently unfair" plan was based on "spurious assertions" about the risk of material being made public and was a "radical departure from long-standing traditions of open justice".

Post edited at 4:01 am on April 5, 2012 by biflexible