Surveillance Bill

[Hope]

If the BBC's website is correct, this will include every website that we visit being recorded.  That could be fun.  We could start to multi-visit charities' websites, this site, etc.  What would GCHQ make of that?   

[floo]

If the BBC's website is correct, this will include every website that we visit being recorded.  That could be fun.  We could start to multi-visit charities' websites, this site, etc.  What would GCHQ make of that?   

If people have nothing to hide then what is the problem?

[Shaker]

If the BBC's website is correct, this will include every website that we visit being recorded.  That could be fun.  We could start to multi-visit charities' websites, this site, etc.  What would GCHQ make of that?   

If people have nothing to hide then what is the problem?

Lock the thread, we have a winner in only one reply!

[Outrider]

If the BBC's website is correct, this will include every website that we visit being recorded.  That could be fun.  We could start to multi-visit charities' websites, this site, etc.  What would GCHQ make of that?   

If people have nothing to hide then what is the problem?

Everyone has things to hide. Whether that's their penchant for Rick Astley's back-catalogue or a fetish for cats draped in fish, we all have things that we don't want at least some people to know, that's fundamental to the concept of privacy.

The authorities already have the capacity to identify potential risks and have their activity traced, they do not need these powers to conduct their activities, this is just a way to blanket sweep everyone at the expense of actually conducting investigations properly.

If the authorities need to know what I'm up to, they need to justify that need to the judiciary - that's the system that's in place at the moment, and it's perfectly sufficient.

You ask 'what do people have to hide'; I ask 'why should I need to wonder what I've got to hide?'

O.

[ekim]

If the BBC's website is correct, this will include every website that we visit being recorded.  That could be fun.  We could start to multi-visit charities' websites, this site, etc.  What would GCHQ make of that?   

If people have nothing to hide then what is the problem?

I suppose in this age where hackers can take over your bank account, web site etc., a malicious person could post things in your name which presented you as a terrorist sympathiser or paedophile.

[Shaker]

Rather than thinking in terms of something to hide, how about we start thinking in terms of something to protect? Namely our rights to privacy and to a private life not to be pried into by anyone.

[Rhiannon]

I agree very much with Shaker. Privacy is a fundamental right.

Today it is terrorism and paedophikia that are being targeted. Tomorrow it could be membership of the 'wrong' political party, campaigning group or religion that flags a person up as 'suspect.

[ekim]

Rather than thinking in terms of something to hide, how about we start thinking in terms of something to protect? Namely our rights to privacy and to a private life not to be pried into by anyone.

Unfortunately there are people who use that privacy to wreak havoc on the lives of others.  As usual the many often suffer because of the actions of the few.  Cyber warfare is now a fact  of life and I suppose a compromise is about the best we can expect.

[Rhiannon]

I don't think anyone is saying that we shouldn't have any surveillance. But neither should everything be recorded. Apart from anything else the amount of data collected will be impossible to track accurately.

If you want to hide a needle hide it among lots of other needles.

[wigginhall]

The argument about having nothing to hide is rather weird.  I have nothing to hide in my wardrobe, but I'm not too keen on the government sending people round to check it out.   Reminds me of Reagan, and one of his gags, 'the most frightening words in English are 'I'm from the government, and I'm here to help you''. 

Another point is that people who do want to hide, will access the dark web, or similar.    For example, these are used in countries where censorship is very harsh, and you can be imprisoned for non-patriotic comments. 

[floo]

If the BBC's website is correct, this will include every website that we visit being recorded.  That could be fun.  We could start to multi-visit charities' websites, this site, etc.  What would GCHQ make of that?   

If people have nothing to hide then what is the problem?

Everyone has things to hide. Whether that's their penchant for Rick Astley's back-catalogue or a fetish for cats draped in fish, we all have things that we don't want at least some people to know, that's fundamental to the concept of privacy.

The authorities already have the capacity to identify potential risks and have their activity traced, they do not need these powers to conduct their activities, this is just a way to blanket sweep everyone at the expense of actually conducting investigations properly.

If the authorities need to know what I'm up to, they need to justify that need to the judiciary - that's the system that's in place at the moment, and it's perfectly sufficient.

You ask 'what do people have to hide'; I ask 'why should I need to wonder what I've got to hide?'

O.

I can't think I have anything to hide where my internet browsing is concerned.

[Rhiannon]

I don't have anything 'to hide' but I dont have anything to hide in my home either - I still don't want anyone checking on it.

[wigginhall]

Well, the argument that I have nothing to hide could justify governments looking into everything, for example, opening my mail, or listening to phone calls, or searching my home.    Well, I don't trust governments.

[Shaker]

When people fear the government, there is tyranny.

When the government fears the people ...

[jeremyp]

If the BBC's website is correct, this will include every website that we visit being recorded.  That could be fun.  We could start to multi-visit charities' websites, this site, etc.  What would GCHQ make of that?   

If people have nothing to hide then what is the problem?

The government should be allowed to have a security camera in every bedroom in the land. If you've got nothing to hide, what's the problem?

[wigginhall]

Another point is that hacking of various 'secure' websites is now commonplace.  Talktalk is only the latest of a long line of them -  I think that the NHS and Inland Revenue have also been hacked, in the last case, hackers stole income tax rebates and diverted them into their own banks!  So not only are we faced with government scrutiny of phone and internet data, but possible interception of this stuff by various nutters and criminals.   Just relax, you know everything will be alright.

[BashfulAnthony]

When people fear the government, there is tyranny.

When the government fears the people ...

...there are concentration camps, prisons, brutality, suppression of human rights, etc.

[Shaker]

When people fear the government, there is tyranny.

When the government fears the people ...

...there are concentration camps, prisons, brutality, suppression of human rights, etc.

No - there is liberty.

Death camps and gulags weren't inherently built out of fear, but hatred of The Other.

Incidentally, prisons are a regrettable necessity for the good of a whole society - I don't know of any nation which has managed to do without them in some form or other.

[Rhiannon]

I feel disliked more than feared.

[BashfulAnthony]

When people fear the government, there is tyranny.

When the government fears the people ...

...there are concentration camps, prisons, brutality, suppression of human rights, etc.

No - there is liberty.

Death camps and gulags weren't inherently built out of fear, but hatred of The Other.

Incidentally, prisons are a regrettable necessity for the good of a whole society - I don't know of any nation which has managed to do without them in some form or other.

I don't agree:  when the Government fears the people there is a curtailment of liberty.

[Shaker]

When people fear the government, there is tyranny.

When the government fears the people ...

...there are concentration camps, prisons, brutality, suppression of human rights, etc.

No - there is liberty.

Death camps and gulags weren't inherently built out of fear, but hatred of The Other.

Incidentally, prisons are a regrettable necessity for the good of a whole society - I don't know of any nation which has managed to do without them in some form or other.

I don't agree:  when the Government fears the people there is a curtailment of liberty.

But the government are curtailing the liberties of the people, and have been for a long long time, not out of fear of those people whose liberties are being infringed. They use the excuse of fear of a major terrorist attack of the 9/11 or 7/7 kind, but this is just a pretext to spy on the activities of private citizens.

[BashfulAnthony]

When people fear the government, there is tyranny.

When the government fears the people ...

...there are concentration camps, prisons, brutality, suppression of human rights, etc.

No - there is liberty.

Death camps and gulags weren't inherently built out of fear, but hatred of The Other.

Incidentally, prisons are a regrettable necessity for the good of a whole society - I don't know of any nation which has managed to do without them in some form or other.

I don't agree:  when the Government fears the people there is a curtailment of liberty.

But the government are curtailing the liberties of the people, and have been for a long long time, not out of fear of those people whose liberties are being infringed. They use the excuse of fear of a major terrorist attack of the 9/11 or 7/7 kind, but this is just a pretext to spy on the activities of private citizens.

I think with these new measures to be introduced we are beginning to learn the full extent of what the Government, any Government, has been doing in terms of spying on us over a long period, and it is unnerving, scary.