Re: Edward Snowden : Fri Jun 14, 2013 11:02 am  

DaveO wrote:

... In any case just how would the "snoopers charter" have prevented the Woolwich Incident? ...

As far as I am aware, in the days immediately after that murder, it was acknowledged that no such measures would have stopped it.

It's the bloody security services that get each new government as it enters office, and tries to convince it that ever more surveillance measures are required.

Cameron and the Conservatives were (rightly) opposed to these sort of measures in opposition. It only took until they got in office, and GCHQ to have a little word, to change their minds.

Re: Edward Snowden : Fri Jun 14, 2013 11:59 am  

Saddened! wrote:

I can tell the difference, I just don't see what the harm is. I really don't what harm will come to me if they do snoop? Why would Big Brother have any interest in little old boring me? Perhaps if you can explain that to me? Them assassinating me on public transport is a bit silly, so keep it to sensible, but detrimental, things that might happen if the Government agencies had complete access to monitoring my life?

Boring old you? No. It's very unlikely that anyone would ever find you interesting enough to watch.

But if they have the capacity to monitor boring old you, for no reason whatsoever, then they have the capacity to monitor ANYONE for ANY REASON.

This still might not be an issue for you, because you seem to be very stupid, but it would worry anyone with any sense.

Re: Edward Snowden : Fri Jun 14, 2013 12:00 pm  

Lord God Jose Mourinho wrote:

Boring old you? No. It's very unlikely that anyone would ever find you interesting enough to watch.

But if they have the capacity to monitor boring old you, for no reason whatsoever, then they have the capacity to monitor ANYONE for ANY REASON.

This still might not be an issue for you, because you seem to be very stupid, but it would worry anyone with any sense.

Excellently put.

Re: Edward Snowden : Fri Jun 14, 2013 12:13 pm  

Lord God Jose Mourinho wrote:

Boring old you? No. It's very unlikely that anyone would ever find you interesting enough to watch.

But if they have the capacity to monitor boring old you, for no reason whatsoever, then they have the capacity to monitor ANYONE for ANY REASON.

This still might not be an issue for you, because you seem to be very stupid, but it would worry anyone with any sense.

Why though? Other than the childish insults, none of you have come up with any reasons at all why that should bother me or anyone else.

Re: Edward Snowden : Fri Jun 14, 2013 12:33 pm  

cod'ead wrote:

Why is it whenever something bad happens, or is even hinted at, all politicians want to do is exercise greater control over the lives of the population? The vast majority of whom are no threat to anyone at all.

Nothing gets votes like looking good in a crisis.

Even if sometimes, you have to create a crisis to begin with.

See Bush the Lesser's second election victory, secured amidst a climate of fear in post 9/11 America.

Re: Edward Snowden : Fri Jun 14, 2013 12:35 pm  

Saddened! wrote:

Why though? Other than the childish insults, none of you have come up with any reasons at all why that should bother me or anyone else.

I haven't insulted you.

So perhaps you can provide something like a half-way thought-out response to some of the points that have been raised.

As it happens, your response to TLGJM suggests that you simply don't care a fig about anyone else other than yourself. So you're admitting, in essence, that you're just an entirely selfish and self-centred individual. Which at least will be consolation to you if you ever do need anyone else to care about you.

Re: Edward Snowden : Fri Jun 14, 2013 12:45 pm  

Saddened! wrote:

All a load of nonsense. I personally don't care one bit if the authorities are watching every single thing I do like a hawk. I don't do anything that would interest them anyway, so what on earth is the fuss about?

If doing this saves one life, let alone a few hundred thousand, why not go for it.

Taking some well deserved flak again I see.

What's wrong with the authorities having to convince a judge that the need to monitor someone is in the national interest?

Or let's say in the future, a very left wing government gets in power and decides they want to eradicate anyone who is even slightly right wing. They need only turn to GCHQ to get their targets.

[DaveO]

Re: Edward Snowden : Fri Jun 14, 2013 12:53 pm  

Saddened! wrote:

....none of you have come up with any reasons at all why that should bother me or anyone else.

You have got to be either joking, haven't actually read any of the reasons put forward including the articles in the links I posted earlier in the thread or you really are a bit thick! That isn't meant to be an insult by the way. More of a despairing comment that anyone could be so naive to think the information gathered will not be misused either accidentally or deliberately to the detriment of people in this country.

The fact you don't care they can see you in your bondage gear or whatever is not the problem. It's when that is published for the world to see your life is affected. Why don't you get this?

Re: Edward Snowden : Fri Jun 14, 2013 1:00 pm  

DaveO wrote: ... The fact you don't care they can see you in your bondage gear or whatever is not the problem. It's when that is published for the world to see your life is affected. Why don't you get this? Which is an interesting illustration, because we can see exactly the sort of impact that such a thing would have via the case of Max Mosely. He does something that is not illegal and does not contradict anything he's said or done in public life (so there's no hypocrisy argument). But the result of the NOTW splashing his private life all over the front page for the titilation of millions may quite possibly have been a factor in his son's subsequent suicide, while his employers seek to sack him on the basis of the revelations. And then there's the case of Simon Walsh – #PornTrial, as it became known – who has lost his career because (in all likelihood), for political reasons, his sexual preferences (again, nothing illegal) were used to prosecute him. He was subsequently cleared (summary of that case here: pic may not be considered work safe). In this particular case, an 'expert' for the police even claimed that wearing a gas mask (as featured in one photograph that Walsh had) was very bad, since it could cause serious harm to the wearer – even death by asphyxiation. That in itself is some illustration of how the police can behave with private information. I actually know of a similar case where the person involved was not famous, and was sacked because someone decided to reveal to their employer their predilection for a spot of consensual S&M in their own, personal time. But privacy is unimportant and only those with something to hide need be afraid – and the authorities would never, ever, ever do anything detrimental with or as a result of such information.

DaveO wrote: ... The fact you don't care they can see you in your bondage gear or whatever is not the problem. It's when that is published for the world to see your life is affected. Why don't you get this? Which is an interesting illustration, because we can see exactly the sort of impact that such a thing would have via the case of Max Mosely. He does something that is not illegal and does not contradict anything he's said or done in public life (so there's no hypocrisy argument). But the result of the NOTW splashing his private life all over the front page for the titilation of millions may quite possibly have been a factor in his son's subsequent suicide, while his employers seek to sack him on the basis of the revelations. And then there's the case of Simon Walsh – #PornTrial, as it became known – who has lost his career because (in all likelihood), for political reasons, his sexual preferences (again, nothing illegal) were used to prosecute him. He was subsequently cleared (summary of that case here: pic may not be considered work safe). In this particular case, an 'expert' for the police even claimed that wearing a gas mask (as featured in one photograph that Walsh had) was very bad, since it could cause serious harm to the wearer – even death by asphyxiation. That in itself is some illustration of how the police can behave with private information. I actually know of a similar case where the person involved was not famous, and was sacked because someone decided to reveal to their employer their predilection for a spot of consensual S&M in their own, personal time. But privacy is unimportant and only those with something to hide need be afraid – and the authorities would never, ever, ever do anything detrimental with or as a result of such information.

Re: Edward Snowden : Fri Jun 14, 2013 1:13 pm  

Saddened! wrote:

Why though? Other than the childish insults, none of you have come up with any reasons at all why that should bother me or anyone else.

So it would be okay for the ruling government to pry into every aspect of their political opponents?

The police officer who has decided you're not man enough for your wife and he wants her, you want him to have access to these snooping facilities?

The 8 year old girl who has just been murdered near your house. You were seen by CCTV cameras in the building at the approximate time of her death. Your DNA has supposedly been found at the crime scene. Your skin was found under the fingernails of the victim. Do you think that anyone will believe your protestations that you've been fitted up?