ChrisJones 7,975 Posted January 12, 2015 Report Share Posted January 12, 2015 When you see the likes of what hackers did to sony I doubt any one would be to worried about the govs little messenger blocks. Don't get me me wrong good to see they want to act but they need to think it through I'm still not convinced that wasn't just a publicity stunt to get people to watch a film. I haven't read what Cameron has said he wants to do... I'm far more interested what the director or MI5 thinks we should do! A lot less election winning politics involved in that man's opinion. They've got access to anything they want anyway. Legitimizing it doesn't make a scrap of difference. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Born Hunter 17,751 Posted January 12, 2015 Report Share Posted January 12, 2015 When you see the likes of what hackers did to sony I doubt any one would be to worried about the govs little messenger blocks. Don't get me me wrong good to see they want to act but they need to think it through I'm still not convinced that wasn't just a publicity stunt to get people to watch a film. I haven't read what Cameron has said he wants to do... I'm far more interested what the director or MI5 thinks we should do! A lot less election winning politics involved in that man's opinion. They've got access to anything they want anyway. Legitimizing it doesn't make a scrap of difference. It does if it can then be used to gain search warrants and as evidence in a criminal trial. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ChrisJones 7,975 Posted January 12, 2015 Report Share Posted January 12, 2015 It does if it can then be used to gain search warrants and as evidence in a criminal trial. Do they need additional powers to bolster what they already have though? The War Against Terror (T.W.A.T) has been used for all kind of shenanigans, with the existing laws. This just seems like a lash out because they can't keep up with the makers of the technology. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Born Hunter 17,751 Posted January 12, 2015 Report Share Posted January 12, 2015 It does if it can then be used to gain search warrants and as evidence in a criminal trial. Do they need additional powers to bolster what they already have though? The War Against Terror (T.W.A.T) has been used for all kind of shenanigans, with the existing laws. This just seems like a lash out because they can't keep up with the makers of the technology. As I said mate, I'm not up to speed on Cameron's latest announcement. He's a politician with motives that are not purely security orientated. If the spooks can give me a good reason then I'm willing to let them encroach on my right to privacy to protect my right to live unterrorised. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ChrisJones 7,975 Posted January 12, 2015 Report Share Posted January 12, 2015 As I said mate, I'm not up to speed on Cameron's latest announcement. He's a politician with motives that are not purely security orientated. If the spooks can give me a good reason then I'm willing to let them encroach on my right to privacy to protect my right to live unterrorised. Fair comment but I personally don't feel that terrorised and that I have to just accept that someone is snooping around. Paying out more tax money, so they can do it, is a bit of a smack in the face, IMHO. Through the various aggro that's manifested, through the years, right up to the end of the Cold War we've always had that unity that we won't be terrorised and that we'll continue our daily routines as normal. What has happened in the last 15 years that's changed us to the point where we just hand our information over to someone that demands it? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Born Hunter 17,751 Posted January 12, 2015 Report Share Posted January 12, 2015 Technology has changed, comm's tech and signal processing have advanced massively. People that wish to do us harm now use this to their advantage as much as we use it for ours. The entire world of intelligence has gone through a paradigm change. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ChrisJones 7,975 Posted January 13, 2015 Report Share Posted January 13, 2015 I can agree with that. My concern is that additional laws aren't necessary. The ones we have had since 2000 are poorly enforced and abused as it is. More money, more taxes, yada yada yada... You know where I'm coming from! Half Of Councils Use Anti Terror Laws To Spy on Bin Crimes 3 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
bracken boy 584 Posted January 13, 2015 Report Share Posted January 13, 2015 who on this site has phoned the police since 911 that they think they have seen something not quite right? u know our dark enemy up to a weird act??? do you not think the yanks are more together than us?? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Born Hunter 17,751 Posted January 13, 2015 Report Share Posted January 13, 2015 I can agree with that. My concern is that additional laws aren't necessary. The ones we have had since 2000 are poorly enforced and abused as it is. More money, more taxes, yada yada yada... You know where I'm coming from! Half Of Councils Use Anti Terror Laws To Spy on Bin Crimes I completely understand and agree with your concerns there Chris. I find generally in terms of our civil liberties I am very much on the same wavelength as you. The only place I find my philosophy on this really questioned is in this very specific area of counter terrorism intelligence gathering. If MI5/GCHQ say "we need this capability legally available to us" then I'm very willing to give them it, but it has to come with very strict oversight and boundaries of use. As you have shown, we may give the intelligence agencies the tools they need only then for them to be used by agencies that they absolutely were not intended for. That, to me, doesn't mean that the intelligence agencies should have been denied them, it means that correct oversight during the legal implementation and following use of the laws was piss poor. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Born Hunter 17,751 Posted January 13, 2015 Report Share Posted January 13, 2015 who on this site has phoned the police since 911 that they think they have seen something not quite right? u know our dark enemy up to a weird act??? do you not think the yanks are more together than us?? In terms of public awareness or security services effectiveness?.... No, not imo. What they do have though is far greater control of what crosses their borders. They don't f**k about and they leave you very aware of that. LOL Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Lenmcharristar 9,721 Posted January 13, 2015 Report Share Posted January 13, 2015 I'm all for getting rid of the terrorists and getting gb back to a decent place, but to trust the police to protect us? Look at Northern Ireland and the corruption by the police? Trust? I think not. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Mr Wasp 187 Posted January 13, 2015 Report Share Posted January 13, 2015 What is needed more than anything is for the government to grow a backbone. There has been a serious amount of attacks intercepted already, far more than we are made aware of. What happens to these nutcases? A slap on the wrist and their sweeties taken away for a week. This country needs to get serious, openly state that anyone implicated in a terror attack against this country, we will come for you and you will die. Your family will be ejected from the country by the cheapest means possible. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Lenmcharristar 9,721 Posted January 13, 2015 Report Share Posted January 13, 2015 What is needed more than anything is for the government to grow a backbone. There has been a serious amount of attacks intercepted already, far more than we are made aware of. What happens to these nutcases? A slap on the wrist and their sweeties taken away for a week. This country needs to get serious, openly state that anyone implicated in a terror attack against this country, we will come for you and you will die. Your family will be ejected from the country by the cheapest means possible. a 9mm double tap Quote Link to post Share on other sites
WILF 46,549 Posted January 13, 2015 Report Share Posted January 13, 2015 There is no way, that i usually agree with Cameron, but he said today he wanted to bring in new laws to tighten up new ways that Terrorists can communicate, which i would agree with. Could not believe that Labour and the Libs blocked it. Are you seriously nieve enough to believe that would just get used for terror suspects !!!..........Jesus Christ, some folk will believe anything !! Not often I agree with Clegg but on this he is spot on !! 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ChrisJones 7,975 Posted January 13, 2015 Report Share Posted January 13, 2015 (edited) I completely understand and agree with your concerns there Chris. I find generally in terms of our civil liberties I am very much on the same wavelength as you. The only place I find my philosophy on this really questioned is in this very specific area of counter terrorism intelligence gathering. If MI5/GCHQ say "we need this capability legally available to us" then I'm very willing to give them it, but it has to come with very strict oversight and boundaries of use. As you have shown, we may give the intelligence agencies the tools they need only then for them to be used by agencies that they absolutely were not intended for. That, to me, doesn't mean that the intelligence agencies should have been denied them, it means that correct oversight during the legal implementation and following use of the laws was piss poor. Very true BH I hope you haven't found my comments antagonistic, as it wasn't intentional. Having had chance to digest more of the proposals I find myself shifting further away from a legal tighten. While I do sincerely believe that national security is important the broader implications of the proposed laws are something that would appease the people but could be catastrophic for technological innovation and civil liberties. At the risk of plaigerizing, a compelling article on the potential headache, I'll just link to it here. who on this site has phoned the police since 911 that they think they have seen something not quite right? u know our dark enemy up to a weird act??? do you not think the yanks are more together than us?? In terms of public awareness or security services effectiveness?.... No, not imo. What they do have though is far greater control of what crosses their borders. They don't f**k about and they leave you very aware of that. LOL The American POT powers are far more draconian than ours, at this point. They've also abused their mandate some of which has made major headlines in the last 12months. As I've said I don't personally fear for my life whenever these atrocities occur. I feel the antidote to terrorism is vigilance and continuation with everyday life. Our security forces have everything they need at their disposal, legally and otherwise, to deal with these situations. Any additional laws/controls on civil liberties need serious debate and ammendment before anything should be on the statute. I'll conclude with saying that money this will cost would be far more useful in education and healthcare than throwing even more into the security maelstrom. A healthy and well educated populace will far outlast the paranoid sheltered subjects we're well on our way to becoming. Edited January 13, 2015 by ChrisJones 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.