LiveWire Network Peer Answers Peer Support Teen Forums Tech Forums College Forums 217 users online 273189 members 118 active today Advertise Here Sign In
TeenCollegeTechPhotos | Quizzes | LiveSecret | Memberlist | Dictionary | FAQ
You have 1 new message.
Emergency Help
Until you sign up you can't do much. Yes, it's free.

Sign Up Now
Membername:
Password:
Already have an account?
Invite Friends
Active Members
Groups
Contests
Moderators
2 online / 8 MPM
Fresh Topics
  LiveWire / Teen Forums / Politics & Government / Viewing Topic

Internet activity 'to be monitored' under new laws
Replies: 36Last Post April 5, 2012 2:48am by biflexible
Welcome to LiveWire!
We're Stronger Together.
Join the Community
Pages: 1 2 3 Email Print Favorite
biflexible


Guru

Patron
Reply
One of the most recent comments from this article:

"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.


3:36 pm on April 1, 2012 | Joined: Mar. 2008 | Days Active: 1,120
Join to learn more about biflexible England, United Kingdom | Bisexual Male | Posts: 1,997 | Points: 24,000
LiveWire Humor
The New World Order


Hold your Orgasms

Patron
Reply
Lol at people saying libdems are pro liberty(not in this topic but it was said before).

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!


4:38 pm on April 1, 2012 | Joined: April 2006 | Days Active: 1,333
Join to learn more about The New World Order Australia | Straight Male | Posts: 22,191 | Points: 35,529
allsmiles


nodnoL 871 selim

Patron
Reply
Oh joy. Pass legislation for anti-terrorism, use it to extradite copyright infringers. I'd best stop visiting childlove sites lest I find myself on the SOR, the rate we're going.

-------
When they leave me, they're all smiles.
When they leave you, they're in tears.

2:36 am on April 2, 2012 | Joined: Aug. 2007 | Days Active: 1,566
Join to learn more about allsmiles England, United Kingdom | Male | Posts: 19,950 | Points: 36,749
RandomThought


Omnipotent One
Reply
Quote: from Savior at 7:20 pm on April 1, 2012

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.


9:52 am on April 3, 2012 | Joined: Nov. 2010 | Days Active: 1,013
Join to learn more about RandomThought England, United Kingdom | Straight Male | Posts: 7,685 | Points: 18,455
biflexible


Guru

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

5:48 am on April 4, 2012 | Joined: Mar. 2008 | Days Active: 1,120
Join to learn more about biflexible England, United Kingdom | Bisexual Male | Posts: 1,997 | Points: 24,000
RandomThought


Omnipotent One
Reply
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.


2:52 pm on April 4, 2012 | Joined: Nov. 2010 | Days Active: 1,013
Join to learn more about RandomThought England, United Kingdom | Straight Male | Posts: 7,685 | Points: 18,455
biflexible


Guru

Patron
Reply
Quote: from RandomThought at 10:52 pm on April 4, 2012

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.



Isn't the history of what you say/do on the internet only stored for 1 year because the law currently requires internet providers to store that information for one year? As I understand it one aspect of the new legislation would extend what is stored and for how long it is stored. How does forcing internet providers to store the information not constitute an active effort by the government?

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


2:48 am on April 5, 2012 | Joined: Mar. 2008 | Days Active: 1,120
Join to learn more about biflexible England, United Kingdom | Bisexual Male | Posts: 1,997 | Points: 24,000
Pages: 1 2 3 Email Print Favorite

Quick Reply

You are signed in as our guest.

Looking for something else?
 

  LiveWire / Teen Forums / Politics & Government / Viewing Topic