UK: Police to be granted powers to view your internet history

[RuamRudy]

All they are doing is making it legal to track the internet sites I frequent....note i said make legal.....this has been going on for a very long time but previously needed an easily obtained warrant to do so.

All they are doing??? It is none of their business what websites I peruse!

Polticians are liars; our government in inherently self interested and will use every means possible to squash dissent and protect itself, whether it be by slashing the wrists of doctors on quiet hillsides or administering fatal doses of insulin to troublesome brothel madams. Now that they have another means of checking up on you, you are further exposed.

Glad I don't come from your country.

Tell me where that is so that I never go there by mistake.

No wonder you have such an outlook on life.

I come from the UK - but our government is no worse than any other so best not to feel to secure in your ivory tower. They are coming for you.

[Mudcrab]

Have you all lost the power of speech?

Is the internet the only form of communication available to you?

Have you really become that lazy?

For a lot people the internet in the form of social media didn't exist 20 years ago.

What "freedoms" have been lost, in reality.

Does this stop you chatting with friends....having a few beers with a few mates?

Or are you so inextricably immersed in digital communication you simply cannot see anything else?

I doubt the police are going to be interested in people visiting the odd porn site, with the exception of child exploitation sites, then they would be very interested.

The average punter checking out Ashley Maddison won't have Scotland Yard knocking on your door.

Planning a beheading might spark their interest though.

And that is the threat the UK and many other countries have to deal with.

The great thing about this "attack on freedom" is that it never delivers results as some posters have said.

Often the threat is eliminated before anything bad happens and the average Joe is never even aware it happened in the first place.

Yeah I know...the purists will always argue that any loss of freedom, perceived or otherwise is not good and will drag poor old Benny Franklin out of his grave to make him spruik his words yet again.

All a matter of opinion and the particular reality you live in.

I am confused - unless I misread your post, you acknowledge that mass surveillance as a tool against terrorism has yielded nothing helpful, yet you are happy for your personal and private communications to be collected and stored without cause or justification, possibly to be used against you in the future? Your faith in government is somewhat naive, if you don't mind me saying so.

Seems you are easily confused.

What I was alluding to is that covert operations, with successful outcomes, are rarely publicised for good reason.

I'll put it simply for you.

When the good guys get the bad guys, they don't tell us as it might spook the other bad guys and make them harder to catch next time.

I don't believe I mentioned faith in Government anywhere in my post.

Yet i am condemned as being naive.

Seems you are using the very tools you abhor against me.

Remember...if you hate the police so much.....next time something bad happens...call a criminal.

[RuamRudy]

I am confused - unless I misread your post, you acknowledge that mass surveillance as a tool against terrorism has yielded nothing helpful, yet you are happy for your personal and private communications to be collected and stored without cause or justification, possibly to be used against you in the future? Your faith in government is somewhat naive, if you don't mind me saying so.

Seems you are easily confused.

What I was alluding to is that covert operations, with successful outcomes, are rarely publicised for good reason.

I'll put it simply for you.

When the good guys get the bad guys, they don't tell us as it might spook the other bad guys and make them harder to catch next time.

I don't believe I mentioned faith in Government anywhere in my post.

Yet i am condemned as being naive.

Seems you are using the very tools you abhor against me.

Remember...if you hate the police so much.....next time something bad happens...call a criminal.

I provided a link to expert analysis of the NSA mass surveilance campaign having been utterly ineffective in identifying and stopping terrorist campaigns. If you can show me something to the contrary, I am certainly prepared to have my eyes opened, but I do not accept the 'just because you can't see it doesn't mean it doesn't exist' justification.

Nowhere did I say that I hated the police, however I hate the prospect of my private life being available for collection, analysis and review by some unknown, faceless entity working at the behest of the government. Maybe I am a product of my upbringing, but I was once proud of the fact that in the UK we are not obliged to carry identification with us; I am not sure how much longer that will be allowed to go on for.

[uptheos]

Theresa is welcome to look at my computer when I'm there.

She might learn some new techniques and positions.

[Saradoc1972]

Theresa is welcome to look at my computer when I'm there.

She might learn some new techniques and positions.

That is just... yucky. Not because of anything you might have on your PC.

[RuamRudy]

Theresa is welcome to look at my computer when I'm there.

She might learn some new techniques and positions.

Each to their own, I suppose.

[Mudcrab]

All they are doing is making it legal to track the internet sites I frequent....note i said make legal.....this has been going on for a very long time but previously needed an easily obtained warrant to do so.

All they are doing??? It is none of their business what websites I peruse!

Polticians are liars; our government in inherently self interested and will use every means possible to squash dissent and protect itself, whether it be by slashing the wrists of doctors on quiet hillsides or administering fatal doses of insulin to troublesome brothel madams. Now that they have another means of checking up on you, you are further exposed.

Glad I don't come from your country.

Tell me where that is so that I never go there by mistake.

No wonder you have such an outlook on life.

I come from the UK - but our government is no worse than any other so best not to feel to secure in your ivory tower. They are coming for you.

slashing the wrists of doctors on quiet hillsides or administering fatal doses of insulin to troublesome brothel madams.

They really do that in the UK.

I can understand your paranoia.

[RuamRudy]

slashing the wrists of doctors on quiet hillsides or administering fatal doses of insulin to troublesome brothel madams.

They really do that in the UK.

I can understand your paranoia.

This may not be accessible from Thailand because I think they ban access to the Mail

This should be accessible

[arjunadawn]

Imagine any age where the state knew how much time you spent in confessional, what was said, if you missed church, where you drank, how much, what ale, who you spoke to, who you flirted with, who you cheated on your wife with, where she came from, who she knows, how you met, where you had sex. Imagine the state followed you and knew the libraries you went to, what you read, what pages you paused on, how long, how many words or ideas from the page sent you into another book, down another path of inquiry, what words you looked up, when you left the library, when you got home, what you said to your wife, read to your kids.

Imagine anything you will because only the medium is different. Because the above described are now taking place through or with the aid (GPS) of the internet nothing subtantially changes. Since the 13th century there is no state system in the western world (except the church) where this would not be considered oppressive and coercive. It is simply not possible, here or across the pond, to have access to such information and the degrees of separation that bind all the actors without sliding into despotism. The point is missed: depostism is not simply what is done with such power, it is the amassing of the power first. Decorate the State in libera democracy or constitutional monarchy, representative republic or democracy, when this information is amassed on the populace there is tyranny!

Edited October 30, 2015 by arjunadawn

[SheungWan]

In this case, desperate times are a cynical opportunity to sneak in the snooper's charter under the guise that it is about saving lives. The NSA in the US has been hoovering up people's private data for years, and with all that information, they have cracked precisely zero terrorism plots using it.

This is not about preventing terrorism, but about preventing dissent amongst the population. We might look to Turkey and Erdogan today and shake our heads, but the UK is not so far behind.

Who says that they have cracked zero terrorist plots?

There is a link in my post - click it if you dare, but be aware that doing so will cause someone to whisper 'SheungWan' into Theresa May's ear.

One claim from one minor website. No sale. Got anything else apart from the usual crowd?

[dcutman]

Theresa is welcome to look at my computer when I'm there.

She might learn some new techniques and positions.

This is where the problem lies.

You have nothing to hide, you do nothing wrong, in your mind. So its no big deal giving up these constitutional liberties.

Until one day you get arrested at work and find out you have been chatting in a contrived terrorist chat room. You finally get released from prison after six months, of never being charged with anything or being allowed a lawyer. You have lost your job, home and your family and every thing else because the govt saw you as a threat.

You see how this could get problematic?

Sound like unlikely event for an honest upstanding citizen such as yourself? Do a search for some of those so called terrorists that have been released from Guantanamo Bay.

Edited October 30, 2015 by dcutman

[SheungWan]

They still miss the terrorists , they dont really need this information as they cannot use it in real time situations that would save lives or property there is simply to much for authorities to act on. So what is it really for.not our benefit thats a certain.

Nonsense. You are not quite up with software developments are you?

[RuamRudy]

There is a link in my post - click it if you dare, but be aware that doing so will cause someone to whisper 'SheungWan' into Theresa May's ear.

One claim from one minor website. No sale. Got anything else apart from the usual crowd?

I am not sure that Vice is considered a minor news site but I suppose that is a subjective issue. How about the report they cited from New America? Is that sufficiently weighty for you, considering Eric Schmidt sits on its board?

Probably the best I can do is Obama? As it mentions in the article I linked to, his appointed advisers concluded that "...the information contributed to terrorist investigations by the use of section 215 telephony meta-data was not essential to preventing attacks..."

That link is to a document on www.whitehouse.gov - does it meet your credibility threshhold?

[TommyUK1960]

When the UK is cutting police funding to the bone I can't see how they are going to finance this invasion of privacy. I think more on the lines of trying to scare people than do anything.

[Saradoc1972]

When the UK is cutting police funding to the bone I can't see how they are going to finance this invasion of privacy. I think more on the lines of trying to scare people than do anything.

Would very much depend on whom they are looking for at a given time.

Dig that British bulldog on your profile.

[Baerboxer]

The UK does not have a written constitution. People, generally speaking, either don't always know their rights or misunderstand them. Law enforcement, knowing this, often act in ways which are contrary to constitutional rights. On some occasions people have challenged this and even though they are in the right courts have still supported law enforcement.

It was the developments in IS/IT which provided enhanced tools, the growth in perceived terrorism which provided a reason and the slow reductions in perceived rights and ability to defend themselves that have facilitated this.

Now people in the UK are the most watched through CCTV; can not carry any kind of weapon for self defense; can be stopped and searched; have their financial affairs closely scrutinized by officialdom and the banks acting as their agents; must be politically correct or risk being targeted and labelled fascist, racist, potential sex offender etc. The only recourse to violent assault, robbery, burglary etc is to call the police, who might eventually show up, if you're lucky. Your assault and robbery might be on CCTV but that doesn't mean a quick response, or capture of the perps, or successful prosecution. Especially if they are young Asians where you might find yourself accused of provoking them.

The whole direction is towards a heavily regulated state, where enforcement of those regulations on the population as a whole takes precedence over crime prevention and detection. The move is towards a scenario where the establishment government governs rather than serves the electorate who still think they are in control because the have votes.

You Americans are lucky, truly, that you have the original constitution to fall back on to safe guard your rights. Don't let your government erode those as the British government has over the last 30 or so years.

[Baerboxer]

When the UK is cutting police funding to the bone I can't see how they are going to finance this invasion of privacy. I think more on the lines of trying to scare people than do anything.

It's police on the ground, the bobbies on the beat, in regional forces that will keep being cut.

Those "policing" the internet, voice and text messaging, and intelligence gathering will be a different matter. And information about them will be kept secretive.

[Denim]

Oh dear ........ I guess xhamster will be filing a law suite for loss of traffic.

[arjunadawn]

Theresa is welcome to look at my computer when I'm there.

She might learn some new techniques and positions.

This is where the problem lies.

You have nothing to hide, you do nothing wrong, in your mind. So its no big deal giving up these constitutional liberties.

Until one day you get arrested at work and find out you have been chatting in a contrived terrorist chat room. You finally get released from prison after six months, of never being charged with anything or being allowed a lawyer. You have lost your job, home and your family and every thing else because the govt saw you as a threat.

You see how this could get problematic?

Sound like unlikely event for an honest upstanding citizen such as yourself? Do a search for some of those so called terrorists that have been released from Guantanamo Bay.

This is a great point, but I feel it is finally a false argument. All conversations about such Leviathan data collection revolve around "...if you've nothing to hide then..." The responses to this false assertion typically provide a sound example like you have above. IMO, this is a desirable public debate for State to have their citizens bickering over. However, the issue is not whether someone has something to hide or not, the issue is the mass collection of data in the first place. This slippery slope has people rationalizing their own abuse.

Had the evolution of the modern Stasi State not been so intimately connected with dubious "Emmanuel Goldstein" State declared boogeymen there might be room for real debate. However, the mechanics of how we moved from a post enlightenment liberal democracy western world to being wholly owned property of the governments we gave power to to represent us is deeply troubling. The timelines involved do not suggest beneficent stewardship, rather they reveal a "baby and the bathwater" blanket to categorize the innocent with the lawless, the natural rights of Man with the prerogatives of State. Its a matter of simple extrapolation; nothing benefiting all the gains since the Magna Carta can come from unlimited power to the State. Information is power. Data is power. Aggregate this power and an individual's degrees of separation from any other and you have removed all individual autonomy. Welcome to the evolution of Five Eyes and the modern Police State.

[Saradoc1972]

This is a great point, but I feel it is finally a false argument. All conversations about such Leviathan data collection revolve around "...if you've nothing to hide then..." The responses to this false assertion typically provide a sound example like you have above. IMO, this is a desirable public debate for State to have their citizens bickering over. However, the issue is not whether someone has something to hide or not, the issue is the mass collection of data in the first place. This slippery slope has people rationalizing their own abuse.

Had the evolution of the modern Stasi State not been so intimately connected with dubious "Emmanuel Goldstein" State declared boogeymen there might be room for real debate. However, the mechanics of how we moved from a post enlightenment liberal democracy western world to being wholly owned property of the governments we gave power to to represent us is deeply troubling. The timelines involved do not suggest beneficent stewardship, rather they reveal a "baby and the bathwater" blanket to categorize the innocent with the lawless, the natural rights of Man with the prerogatives of State. Its a matter of simple extrapolation; nothing benefiting all the gains since the Magna Carta can come from unlimited power to the State. Information is power. Data is power. Aggregate this power and an individual's degrees of separation from any other and you have removed all individual autonomy. Welcome to the evolution of Five Eyes and the modern Police State.

Exactly, another post of yours I won't fail to like.

The argument in Germany is exactly the same. "Wer nichts zu verbergen hat....", i.e "if you got nothing to hide..:" (or more literally "Who hasn't got anything to hide..."), but Germany has its constitution, called "Basic Law", firmly held aloof to guard against any nationalistic recurrences of history, Britain has got nothing to that effect, the Magna Carta doesn't cover half of what is presently at stake 800y after, apart from obligations as a founding member of he European Declaration of Basic Rights under the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg.

Cameron is trying to do away with this, on grounds of immigration. While he has a point saying that both EU law and that Strasbourg court have formed a "toxic relationship" barring Britain from chucking out people immigrating into the social security system, the EU to my mind having allowed Romania and Bulgaria to join in at least 5 years ahead of time, I'd be very, very wary of what he or his successors might come up with as a national constitution.

Screening the whole internet traffic of everybody no matter what and regardless of any founded suspicions is just not on.

[englishoak]

The UK does not have a written constitution. People, generally speaking, either don't always know their rights or misunderstand them. Law enforcement, knowing this, often act in ways which are contrary to constitutional rights. On some occasions people have challenged this and even though they are in the right courts have still supported law enforcement.

It was the developments in IS/IT which provided enhanced tools, the growth in perceived terrorism which provided a reason and the slow reductions in perceived rights and ability to defend themselves that have facilitated this.

Now people in the UK are the most watched through CCTV; can not carry any kind of weapon for self defense; can be stopped and searched; have their financial affairs closely scrutinized by officialdom and the banks acting as their agents; must be politically correct or risk being targeted and labelled fascist, racist, potential sex offender etc. The only recourse to violent assault, robbery, burglary etc is to call the police, who might eventually show up, if you're lucky. Your assault and robbery might be on CCTV but that doesn't mean a quick response, or capture of the perps, or successful prosecution. Especially if they are young Asians where you might find yourself accused of provoking them.

The whole direction is towards a heavily regulated state, where enforcement of those regulations on the population as a whole takes precedence over crime prevention and detection. The move is towards a scenario where the establishment government governs rather than serves the electorate who still think they are in control because the have votes.

You Americans are lucky, truly, that you have the original constitution to fall back on to safe guard your rights. Don't let your government erode those as the British government has over the last 30 or so years.

bit late for that. NSA, Patriot Act, incarceration without charge of a US citizen, termination of a US citizen without charge, drugging children mandatory to attend school etc etc... every nation has problems with rights for the people m8 stop pretending the US is land of the free, it never has been and its not any more true than Thailand translated meaning free land.

There is no such thing as a free country, less pervasive and suppressive govs maybe but all governments are a threat to the people, always have been, always will be.

Oh and your fantasy of the UK is a load of bunk as usual, crime in the UK along with violence is at an all time low and has been falling since your violent good old days.................... the days of being a racist, nonce and bully is thankfully no longer tolerated like here but challenged but dont let that stop a good whine and a moan.

Oh and there really is no need for weapons perse for self defence any item can become that and certainly not guns, a moron might want to carry a gun about in the UK but not the rest of us thanks, nor do we need to carry knives etc etc. Many items can become a weapon for defence if required, its stupid to suggest people are defenceless.

Regarding the topic, its not going to happen because it already does covert anyway... think the UK is any less likely to do an NSA ? are people that dumb to think it will ask for what it can already take ? yea probably they are ....

[rijit]

There will be a massive response to this, it could cost the government which implements it an election.

It would be nice but thinking what they've done in the past and no one s done jack shit unfortunatly can't.c.this being any different . Tories will get their truly stunningly scary spindocs onto it and bingo everyone will be singing its praises.

Sent from my GT-I9000 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[dcutman]

Theresa is welcome to look at my computer when I'm there.

She might learn some new techniques and positions.

This is where the problem lies.

You have nothing to hide, you do nothing wrong, in your mind. So its no big deal giving up these constitutional liberties.

Until one day you get arrested at work and find out you have been chatting in a contrived terrorist chat room. You finally get released from prison after six months, of never being charged with anything or being allowed a lawyer. You have lost your job, home and your family and every thing else because the govt saw you as a threat.

You see how this could get problematic?

Sound like unlikely event for an honest upstanding citizen such as yourself? Do a search for some of those so called terrorists that have been released from Guantanamo Bay.

This is a great point, but I feel it is finally a false argument. All conversations about such Leviathan data collection revolve around "...if you've nothing to hide then..." The responses to this false assertion typically provide a sound example like you have above. IMO, this is a desirable public debate for State to have their citizens bickering over. However, the issue is not whether someone has something to hide or not, the issue is the mass collection of data in the first place. This slippery slope has people rationalizing their own abuse.

Had the evolution of the modern Stasi State not been so intimately connected with dubious "Emmanuel Goldstein" State declared boogeymen there might be room for real debate. However, the mechanics of how we moved from a post enlightenment liberal democracy western world to being wholly owned property of the governments we gave power to to represent us is deeply troubling. The timelines involved do not suggest beneficent stewardship, rather they reveal a "baby and the bathwater" blanket to categorize the innocent with the lawless, the natural rights of Man with the prerogatives of State. Its a matter of simple extrapolation; nothing benefiting all the gains since the Magna Carta can come from unlimited power to the State. Information is power. Data is power. Aggregate this power and an individual's degrees of separation from any other and you have removed all individual autonomy. Welcome to the evolution of Five Eyes and the modern Police State.

Not at all trying to simplify, but making a real world example of what the possible outcomes can

come about with obedience to govt will, and the willingness to relinquish the most sacred civil liberties millions of our ancestors fought and died for.

It is scary, this "New World Order" and "Global Governance" is coming quickly.

[ggt]

Smacks of "Big Brother" getting too much personal information...

I can envision hiring hundreds of Computer Science grads to pour through people's internet history looking for some good porn sites...lol

[billd766]

People complaining about single gateway in Thailand (bad idea) should complain about this too. This is real bad too. Big invasion of privacy. If this was suggested in Thailand you should see the fallout about the dumb Thais ect. Wonder how much flack this will get here.

What on earth does this have to do with Thailand? Oh I see, it's an attempt by a groupy to justify the junta's single gateway plans.

Why did you not look at where it was posted? It is in the world news forum.

YOU are the one who is wrong as usual.

robblok did not make the original post anyway so I guess that makes you

You really ought to read things before you post.

[SheungWan]

There is a link in my post - click it if you dare, but be aware that doing so will cause someone to whisper 'SheungWan' into Theresa May's ear.

One claim from one minor website. No sale. Got anything else apart from the usual crowd?

I am not sure that Vice is considered a minor news site but I suppose that is a subjective issue. How about the report they cited from New America? Is that sufficiently weighty for you, considering Eric Schmidt sits on its board?

Probably the best I can do is Obama? As it mentions in the article I linked to, his appointed advisers concluded that "...the information contributed to terrorist investigations by the use of section 215 telephony meta-data was not essential to preventing attacks..."

That link is to a document on www.whitehouse.gov - does it meet your credibility threshhold?

No it certainly doesn't. Obama has his own constituency and fish to fry. Fundamentally these are opinion pieces. The very idea that internet and phone communication investigations should be ruled out as a part of police work is a nonsense. Not that the peacenik crowd cares if the investigations are effective or not. They are just anti-State and that's that.

Edited October 30, 2015 by SheungWan

[RuamRudy]

There is a link in my post - click it if you dare, but be aware that doing so will cause someone to whisper 'SheungWan' into Theresa May's ear.

One claim from one minor website. No sale. Got anything else apart from the usual crowd?

I am not sure that Vice is considered a minor news site but I suppose that is a subjective issue. How about the report they cited from New America? Is that sufficiently weighty for you, considering Eric Schmidt sits on its board?

Probably the best I can do is Obama? As it mentions in the article I linked to, his appointed advisers concluded that "...the information contributed to terrorist investigations by the use of section 215 telephony meta-data was not essential to preventing attacks..."

That link is to a document on www.whitehouse.gov - does it meet your credibility threshhold?

No it certainly doesn't. Obama has his own constituency and fish to fry. Fundamentally these are opinion pieces. The very idea that internet and phone communication investigations should be ruled out as a part of police work is a nonsense. Not that the peacenik crowd cares if the investigations are effective or not. They are just anti-State and that's that.

Did you read it or did you simply decide that because it didn't fit the narrative you choose to believe, it must be irrelevant? The second link was to an empirical, evidence based report based sponsored by the US government. It is as far from an opinion piece as is possible.

Your final statement is utterly disingenuous. Nowhere did I, or anyone else in this thread, suggest that the police should not make use of electronic means of communications to conduct investigations. What I object to is the wholesale and arbitrary collection and storage of personal and private data by an unaccountable and unelected body to do with as and when it sees fit.

Our government has a long and murky record of quasi legal and illegal actions against its own citizens. What you are supporting will make that oppression even easier.

[arjunadawn]

This is a great point, but I feel it is finally a false argument. All conversations about such Leviathan data collection revolve around "...if you've nothing to hide then..." The responses to this false assertion typically provide a sound example like you have above. IMO, this is a desirable public debate for State to have their citizens bickering over. However, the issue is not whether someone has something to hide or not, the issue is the mass collection of data in the first place. This slippery slope has people rationalizing their own abuse.

Had the evolution of the modern Stasi State not been so intimately connected with dubious "Emmanuel Goldstein" State declared boogeymen there might be room for real debate. However, the mechanics of how we moved from a post enlightenment liberal democracy western world to being wholly owned property of the governments we gave power to to represent us is deeply troubling. The timelines involved do not suggest beneficent stewardship, rather they reveal a "baby and the bathwater" blanket to categorize the innocent with the lawless, the natural rights of Man with the prerogatives of State. Its a matter of simple extrapolation; nothing benefiting all the gains since the Magna Carta can come from unlimited power to the State. Information is power. Data is power. Aggregate this power and an individual's degrees of separation from any other and you have removed all individual autonomy. Welcome to the evolution of Five Eyes and the modern Police State.

Exactly, another post of yours I won't fail to like.

The argument in Germany is exactly the same. "Wer nichts zu verbergen hat....", i.e "if you got nothing to hide..:" (or more literally "Who hasn't got anything to hide..."), but Germany has its constitution, called "Basic Law", firmly held aloof to guard against any nationalistic recurrences of history, Britain has got nothing to that effect, the Magna Carta doesn't cover half of what is presently at stake 800y after, apart from obligations as a founding member of he European Declaration of Basic Rights under the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg.

Cameron is trying to do away with this, on grounds of immigration. While he has a point saying that both EU law and that Strasbourg court have formed a "toxic relationship" barring Britain from chucking out people immigrating into the social security system, the EU to my mind having allowed Romania and Bulgaria to join in at least 5 years ahead of time, I'd be very, very wary of what he or his successors might come up with as a national constitution.

Screening the whole internet traffic of everybody no matter what and regardless of any founded suspicions is just not on.

We are simpatico, but then so are millions more like us. Where are they're voices? It is the ones who are the parasites on the ass of society who have nothing but time to social engineer, demand, protest, insinuate, and subordinate existing mores and culture and who have the time to act out their infliction of good upon the rest of us. Most people exist in silent desperation, aghast and incredulous at the expansion of the western police state, the subsuming of their nations to the lawless, invaders, and/or the permanent welfare class. The majority are those who keep the machine functioning while the tinkerers are socially redesigning the contraption of state. Sadly, once a critical gravity of power is amassed it can no longer be reigned in; Pandora's Box.

One does not have to be John Locke or a "sovereign citizen" to protest the unhealthy outcome of amassing all social data. There is simply no single example in the history of the world that suggests anything wholesome or safe about this power concentration. Finally, all arguments regarding security as the stalking horse should rightfully be measured against Franklin's observation (Or alternately, Jefferson below):

"Freedom of speech is a principal pillar of free government; when this support is taken away, the constitution of a free society is dissolved and tyranny is erected on its ruins." The collection of all aspects of an individual's life necessarily provokes the citizen to guard himself, a direct affront to free speech. It does not matter whether he or she has something to say, when once they do desire to express themselves or have freedom of association it can only be farcical, freedom permitted by the state, or not.

“They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” This is hardly a philosophical exposition. This statement can actually be observed and tested presently. Indeed, the statement is a prophetic warning. It is hardly hyperbole.

[arjunadawn]

Not at all trying to simplify, but making a real world example of what the possible outcomes can

come about with obedience to govt will, and the willingness to relinquish the most sacred civil liberties millions of our ancestors fought and died for.

It is scary, this "New World Order" and "Global Governance" is coming quickly.

Sorry I implied that. I agree with you totally. Clearly you are awake!

[ClutchClark]

The U.K. gave up its civil liberties a long time ago (think of the hundred of thousands of cctv cameras clocking your every move), this should be of no surprise to anyone.

And almost all streaming video sources are blocked from the UK now.

Oppressive police state, much worse than Thailand.

So you can't get HULU+ ?

Tsking away civil liberties is one thing but not being allowed to watch the Wallander series on HULU ... Now thats just going too far.