UK unveils 'Big Brother' plan: Now they want to snoop on every phone call, email and text message

[Sister Fracas 5]

Great so I suppose this information will go on offical lap tops and discs that get lost or stolen so that even more information about us can get into the wrong hands, well its not the first time.

That's the kind of "stuff you shouldn't be worried about if you have nothing to hide" that I'm talking about.

And what exactly will they think when they see this...?

HRU m8? IL mtU l8r @ pub.

[alienlovechild 75]

There is, as I've noted before - a British Bill of Rights (ancient and now forgotten) that is more or less equivalent to the US one, and which gave Brits the right to bear arms in similar language to the US Bill of Rights, but the crucial difference is that there was (and is) no domestic gun lobby in the UK for the simple reason that there was, by then, no displaced native population in England to put down/defend against at that time. With so few armed police and those few currently under review, we haven't really needed to defend ourselves against a power grabbing monarch or an authoritarian state.

Looks a little different than the U.S. 2nd Amendment. The Catholics back then must have been seen as pretty dangerous.

"That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law;"

http://www.constitution.org/eng/eng_bor.txt

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

There is, as I've noted before - a British Bill of Rights (ancient and now forgotten) that is more or less equivalent to the US one, and which gave Brits the right to bear arms in similar language to the US Bill of Rights, but the crucial difference is that there was (and is) no domestic gun lobby in the UK for the simple reason that there was, by then, no displaced native population in England to put down/defend against at that time. With so few armed police and those few currently under review, we haven't really needed to defend ourselves against a power grabbing monarch or an authoritarian state.

Looks a little different than the U.S. 2nd Amendment. The Catholics back then must have been seen as pretty dangerous.

"That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law;"

http://www.constitution.org/eng/eng_bor.txt

Well they did try to blow up the Houses of Parliament... And have Queen Elizabeth removed from the throne.

Edited October 16, 2008 by Paul Daniels

[Heracles 417]

It's sh!t like this that reminds me why we left the UK. Can't wait to show the hubster -- it'll start him off on 2-hour rant against the Labour government. Good times.

I am guessing he really liked the movie Children of Men.

No the government is not out to get you guys.. gezzz. They have better things to do. Like protect their people. As clichéd as it sounds, freedom does not come cheap or free.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

The debate is over how much power the gov't needs to do that. They haven't needed to keep such close tabs on people before - what's changed?

[Heracles 417]

The debate is over how much power the gov't needs to do that. They haven't needed to keep such close tabs on people before - what's changed?

It is called 2008 and legislating for the world we live in.

Then again I am not even going to answer that considering you are the guy who believes as a society nothing has changed over the past 40 years. That the crime rates are relative. Obviously in the 60's, for example, a child could walk somewhere alone and was just as likely to be kidnapped as they are today, right??

This sort of paranoia about government and our rights is fueled by propaganda from movies like Children of Men, which portray the government as the bad guy out to get us all.

Edited October 16, 2008 by Aficionado

[luckytxn 2,264]

No I think the alarm is coming from Orwell book predicting the very sort of thing we are seeing now.

When we have to be careful of what we say or type because the Government may be monitoring us is not a good thing.

[IAMX 3,055]

SVRT, what do you have to hide anyway. Why would you be so concerned about a system listening in on your calls. I know I don't have anything t hide so I couldn't care less.

Why does the government need to be listening to my calls all the time? We have a laid out system of dealing with people who are suspected of committing a crime. Unless 200+ million Americans are suspected of being terrorists and criminals, there's this pesky "privacy" thing we're entitled to while in our own homes.

Of course, it's a moronic rationale that never seems to go away that because someone doesn't want the government snooping in to their every call that they have something to hide. In the UK, their initial CCTV expansion rested upon the guise of terrorism, and now has cameras fitted with speakers and microphones to listen to conversations and yell at people who litter. I guess there wasn't much of a threat of terrorism, unless people who litter are terrorists.

There is no guarantee that this sort of thing keeps you safe. The only thing you've guaranteed is the government listens to your calls. I don't have a fetish of the government being involved in my every conversation. Maybe you do, and you can be entitled to that.

Edited October 16, 2008 by SRVT

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

The debate is over how much power the gov't needs to do that. They haven't needed to keep such close tabs on people before - what's changed?

It is called 2008 and legislating for the world we live in.

Then again I am not even going to answer that considering you are the guy who believes as a society nothing has changed over the past 40 years. That the crime rates are relative. Obviously in the 60's, for example, a child could walk somewhere alone and was just as likely to be kidnapped as they are today, right??

This sort of paranoia about government and our rights is fueled by propaganda from movies like Children of Men, which portray the government as the bad guy out to get us all.

You won't answer it because you can't. What is it about the world of 2008 that differs so radically from the recent past that suddenly requires this new level of surveillance?

You obviously agree with it - that seems clear, I'm just not sure I understand why. In fact it seems you'd agree with any radical law enforcement policy - even if it extended to putting people into camps.

Stories featuring repressive governments are not new (1984? Brave New World?) Children of Man was adapted from a PD James novel. Perhaps you should blame her. And no - those movies have nothing to do with the objections to this particular idea

On the kidnapped child stuff - this is just your colorful process of reasoning at work, as you can't/won't substantiate these things past sensationalist newspaper headlines (child abduction and rape isn't exactly new Boo).

[Heracles 417]

No I think the alarm is coming from Orwell book predicting the very sort of thing we are seeing now.

When we have to be careful of what we say or type because the Government may be monitoring us is not a good thing.

People get to paranoid. There is monitoring and then there is 'monitoring'. I have no problem with the government monitoring criminals or suspected criminals. Saving a life is more important than discovering somebody's bull ####### fetish.

Plus we are talking about computer system monitoring these lines. The government should be able to use it accordingly to prevent crime. Anyone caught abusing this privilege should be thrown into prison.

Edited October 16, 2008 by Aficionado

[luckytxn 2,264]

Why is this such an issue now when the Government has been allowed to listen in on us for many years?

[Heracles 417]

On the kidnapped child stuff - this is just your colorful process of reasoning at work, as you can't/won't substantiate these things past sensationalist newspaper headlines (child abduction and rape isn't exactly new Boo).

Past experiences is a good start. I would never let a child play outside in the US. Whereas when I grew up this was not an issue at all. Melbourne is not some walk in the park city either. Aussie's were convicts after all. Okay different countries but the same goes with people I have spoken to who are from the US, both black and whites. The number of sick fucks have increased over the years. I don't need any research to back that up. Like the African American lady who was recently caught having two kids she adopted in her freezer. This isn't some movie six. This is reality. I cannot even begin to comprehend what is running through this person mind.

You are discrediting the fact that we live in a each to their own / don't give a #### (whatever) era. Now that is truly a case of cause and effect. Where when you combine allowing anyone to do as they please with a don't give a #### about you attitude, you get the status quo. Of course these are all complicated issue and beyond the scope of a casual forum discussion.

Edited October 16, 2008 by Aficionado

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Why is this such an issue now when the Government has been allowed to listen in on us for many years?

I don't think that's under dispute as much as where the line should be drawn.

On the kidnapped child stuff - this is just your colorful process of reasoning at work, as you can't/won't substantiate these things past sensationalist newspaper headlines (child abduction and rape isn't exactly new Boo).

Past experiences is a good start. I would never let a child play outside in the US. Whereas when I grew up this was not an issue at all. Melbourne is not some walk in the park city either. Aussie's were convicts after all. Okay different countries but the same goes with people I have spoken to who are from the US, both black and whites. The number of sick fucks have increased over the years. I don't need any research to back that up. Like the African American lady who was recently caught having two kids she adopted in her freezer. This isn't some movie six. This is reality. I cannot even begin to comprehend what is running through this person mind.

You are discrediting the fact that we live in a each to their own / don't give a #### (whatever) era. Now that is truly a case of cause and effect. Where when you combine allowing anyone to do as they please with a don't give a #### about you attitude, you get the status quo. Of course these are all complicated issue and beyond the scope of a casual forum discussion.

Are you joking? Of course you do - you can't substantiate a claim like that with anecdotal evidence. This is the issue every time you bring this argument up - because your perception seems based almost exclusively on news headlines.

[Heracles 417]

Are you joking? Of course you do - you can't substantiate a claim like that with anecdotal evidence. This is the issue every time you bring this argument up - because your perception seems based almost exclusively on news headlines.

News headlines which indicate what is happening today.

[IAMX 3,055]

Are you joking? Of course you do - you can't substantiate a claim like that with anecdotal evidence. This is the issue every time you bring this argument up - because your perception seems based almost exclusively on news headlines.

News headlines which indicate what is happening today.

.. around every street corner.

Damn, look what the media dragged in. A paranoid sucker.