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

[arjunadawn]

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.

This is fallacious on multiple points; it just is. It presumes the merit of such policies lies in its effectiveness; this is a false argument. Some assert it is not an effective plan for its stated purpose, but mostly people rail against it because it is fundamentally outrageous to concentrate such power (human data) in the hands of the few, especially when State has provided little reason to indicate it is a trusted steward of personal information. I am unaware of opponents to the Police State data collection (like me) asserting "internet and phone communications should be ruled out as part of police work." This is a strawman assertion. It is easy to ridicule such people who believe this. The problem is, few people believe this. Of course police work should go wherever the leads take them. However, in the case of metadata there is no threat, just blanket collection. Numerous mechanisms already exist to interrogate such data.

To further isolate sound opposition to a very bad policy you assign pejorative or dubious motive- "peacenik" crowd, "anti-state." Implicit in your post is that people who espouse peace oppose data collection, and "peaceniks" support lawlessness. Modern political correctness has so insinuated into our common discourse now that those who oppose the Leviathan [Police] State are now "anti-state," a pejorative it is assumed. How vacant. "Anti-state" debates, arguments, and finally consensus are who has enabled the western liberal democracies we have today. Had there been no "anti-state" positions Europe would still be, variously, a Holy Roman Empire, collected Monarchies, or tyrannies.

There is (state) software that analyses every place you visit, every search you do, every social site you visit, person you know, who they know, who they visit, what you wear, when you wear it, when you wake up, what appliances you have in the house, how often you shower by electrical peaks and ebbs, and form predictive personality profiles on each person that are substantially more accurate than most people know of themselves; moreover, each profile exists in a context of degrees of separation reflecting the family, tribe, politics, etc. One would have to be a vipassana master to have such detailed knowledge, at any given time, of every aspect of their being. Why on earth would a people want to surrender this information up to the State?

[ClutchClark]

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.

This is fallacious on multiple points; it just is. It presumes the merit of such policies lies in its effectiveness; this is a false argument. Some assert it is not an effective plan for its stated purpose, but mostly people rail against it because it is fundamentally outrageous to concentrate such power (human data) in the hands of the few, especially when State has provided little reason to indicate it is a trusted steward of personal information. I am unaware of opponents to the Police State data collection (like me) asserting "internet and phone communications should be ruled out as part of police work." This is a strawman assertion. It is easy to ridicule such people who believe this. The problem is, few people believe this. Of course police work should go wherever the leads take them. However, in the case of metadata there is no threat, just blanket collection. Numerous mechanisms already exist to interrogate such data.

To further isolate sound opposition to a very bad policy you assign pejorative or dubious motive- "peacenik" crowd, "anti-state." Implicit in your post is that people who espouse peace oppose data collection, and "peaceniks" support lawlessness. Modern political correctness has so insinuated into our common discourse now that those who oppose the Leviathan [Police] State are now "anti-state," a pejorative it is assumed. How vacant. "Anti-state" debates, arguments, and finally consensus are who has enabled the western liberal democracies we have today. Had there been no "anti-state" positions Europe would still be, variously, a Holy Roman Empire, collected Monarchies, or tyrannies.

There is (state) software that analyses every place you visit, every search you do, every social site you visit, person you know, who they know, who they visit, what you wear, when you wear it, when you wake up, what appliances you have in the house, how often you shower by electrical peaks and ebbs, and form predictive personality profiles on each person that are substantially more accurate than most people know of themselves; moreover, each profile exists in a context of degrees of separation reflecting the family, tribe, politics, etc. One would have to be a vipassana master to have such detailed knowledge, at any given time, of every aspect of their being. Why on earth would a people want to surrender this information up to the State?

If a person is that concerned about it then they can always opt to not use the internet, right?

[meltingpot2015]

This snoopers charter was not in their election manifesto.

[SheungWan]

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.

This is fallacious on multiple points; it just is. It presumes the merit of such policies lies in its effectiveness; this is a false argument. Some assert it is not an effective plan for its stated purpose, but mostly people rail against it because it is fundamentally outrageous to concentrate such power (human data) in the hands of the few, especially when State has provided little reason to indicate it is a trusted steward of personal information. I am unaware of opponents to the Police State data collection (like me) asserting "internet and phone communications should be ruled out as part of police work." This is a strawman assertion. It is easy to ridicule such people who believe this. The problem is, few people believe this. Of course police work should go wherever the leads take them. However, in the case of metadata there is no threat, just blanket collection. Numerous mechanisms already exist to interrogate such data.

To further isolate sound opposition to a very bad policy you assign pejorative or dubious motive- "peacenik" crowd, "anti-state." Implicit in your post is that people who espouse peace oppose data collection, and "peaceniks" support lawlessness. Modern political correctness has so insinuated into our common discourse now that those who oppose the Leviathan [Police] State are now "anti-state," a pejorative it is assumed. How vacant. "Anti-state" debates, arguments, and finally consensus are who has enabled the western liberal democracies we have today. Had there been no "anti-state" positions Europe would still be, variously, a Holy Roman Empire, collected Monarchies, or tyrannies.

There is (state) software that analyses every place you visit, every search you do, every social site you visit, person you know, who they know, who they visit, what you wear, when you wear it, when you wake up, what appliances you have in the house, how often you shower by electrical peaks and ebbs, and form predictive personality profiles on each person that are substantially more accurate than most people know of themselves; moreover, each profile exists in a context of degrees of separation reflecting the family, tribe, politics, etc. One would have to be a vipassana master to have such detailed knowledge, at any given time, of every aspect of their being. Why on earth would a people want to surrender this information up to the State?

I should frame the above contribution up on the wall as a perfect example of the rambling nonsense used by the pseudo-left to kick into the long grass the use of internet data to detect patterns of terrorist organisation. The Corbynistas so like to get up on their high horses going nowhere.

[TheKnave]

Large Sibling observes.

[TheKnave]

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.

This is fallacious on multiple points; it just is. It presumes the merit of such policies lies in its effectiveness; this is a false argument. Some assert it is not an effective plan for its stated purpose, but mostly people rail against it because it is fundamentally outrageous to concentrate such power (human data) in the hands of the few, especially when State has provided little reason to indicate it is a trusted steward of personal information. I am unaware of opponents to the Police State data collection (like me) asserting "internet and phone communications should be ruled out as part of police work." This is a strawman assertion. It is easy to ridicule such people who believe this. The problem is, few people believe this. Of course police work should go wherever the leads take them. However, in the case of metadata there is no threat, just blanket collection. Numerous mechanisms already exist to interrogate such data.

To further isolate sound opposition to a very bad policy you assign pejorative or dubious motive- "peacenik" crowd, "anti-state." Implicit in your post is that people who espouse peace oppose data collection, and "peaceniks" support lawlessness. Modern political correctness has so insinuated into our common discourse now that those who oppose the Leviathan [Police] State are now "anti-state," a pejorative it is assumed. How vacant. "Anti-state" debates, arguments, and finally consensus are who has enabled the western liberal democracies we have today. Had there been no "anti-state" positions Europe would still be, variously, a Holy Roman Empire, collected Monarchies, or tyrannies.

There is (state) software that analyses every place you visit, every search you do, every social site you visit, person you know, who they know, who they visit, what you wear, when you wear it, when you wake up, what appliances you have in the house, how often you shower by electrical peaks and ebbs, and form predictive personality profiles on each person that are substantially more accurate than most people know of themselves; moreover, each profile exists in a context of degrees of separation reflecting the family, tribe, politics, etc. One would have to be a vipassana master to have such detailed knowledge, at any given time, of every aspect of their being. Why on earth would a people want to surrender this information up to the State?

If a person is that concerned about it then they can always opt to not use the internet, right?

Not right, Clarkie.

If someone is concerned about free speech, does that mean they should opt to refrain from speaking?

Further, access to the accumulated knowledge on the internet is arguably one of the most important resources for productivity and learning.

Really, expected better than this from you, based on previous posts...

[arjunadawn]

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.

This is fallacious on multiple points; it just is. It presumes the merit of such policies lies in its effectiveness; this is a false argument. Some assert it is not an effective plan for its stated purpose, but mostly people rail against it because it is fundamentally outrageous to concentrate such power (human data) in the hands of the few, especially when State has provided little reason to indicate it is a trusted steward of personal information. I am unaware of opponents to the Police State data collection (like me) asserting "internet and phone communications should be ruled out as part of police work." This is a strawman assertion. It is easy to ridicule such people who believe this. The problem is, few people believe this. Of course police work should go wherever the leads take them. However, in the case of metadata there is no threat, just blanket collection. Numerous mechanisms already exist to interrogate such data.

To further isolate sound opposition to a very bad policy you assign pejorative or dubious motive- "peacenik" crowd, "anti-state." Implicit in your post is that people who espouse peace oppose data collection, and "peaceniks" support lawlessness. Modern political correctness has so insinuated into our common discourse now that those who oppose the Leviathan [Police] State are now "anti-state," a pejorative it is assumed. How vacant. "Anti-state" debates, arguments, and finally consensus are who has enabled the western liberal democracies we have today. Had there been no "anti-state" positions Europe would still be, variously, a Holy Roman Empire, collected Monarchies, or tyrannies.

There is (state) software that analyses every place you visit, every search you do, every social site you visit, person you know, who they know, who they visit, what you wear, when you wear it, when you wake up, what appliances you have in the house, how often you shower by electrical peaks and ebbs, and form predictive personality profiles on each person that are substantially more accurate than most people know of themselves; moreover, each profile exists in a context of degrees of separation reflecting the family, tribe, politics, etc. One would have to be a vipassana master to have such detailed knowledge, at any given time, of every aspect of their being. Why on earth would a people want to surrender this information up to the State?

If a person is that concerned about it then they can always opt to not use the internet, right?

Yes, you are correct. Put your money where your mouth is type of thing. However, various government programs from school age through old age benefits assistance and access now strongly encourage or require internet use. Much cannot even be done without internet, certainly participating in numerous private sector things like looking up a hotel on a map, booking a hotel, private email, etc. Governments push broadband/net access so strongly that for years in the US, for example, a surcharge has been levied as a hidden tax to expand the net everywhere. its virtually impossible to avoid it any longer. If you dont like it dont use it is less a solution then a surrender. If remains fundamentally immoral to spy on innocent people.

[arjunadawn]

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.

This is fallacious on multiple points; it just is. It presumes the merit of such policies lies in its effectiveness; this is a false argument. Some assert it is not an effective plan for its stated purpose, but mostly people rail against it because it is fundamentally outrageous to concentrate such power (human data) in the hands of the few, especially when State has provided little reason to indicate it is a trusted steward of personal information. I am unaware of opponents to the Police State data collection (like me) asserting "internet and phone communications should be ruled out as part of police work." This is a strawman assertion. It is easy to ridicule such people who believe this. The problem is, few people believe this. Of course police work should go wherever the leads take them. However, in the case of metadata there is no threat, just blanket collection. Numerous mechanisms already exist to interrogate such data.

To further isolate sound opposition to a very bad policy you assign pejorative or dubious motive- "peacenik" crowd, "anti-state." Implicit in your post is that people who espouse peace oppose data collection, and "peaceniks" support lawlessness. Modern political correctness has so insinuated into our common discourse now that those who oppose the Leviathan [Police] State are now "anti-state," a pejorative it is assumed. How vacant. "Anti-state" debates, arguments, and finally consensus are who has enabled the western liberal democracies we have today. Had there been no "anti-state" positions Europe would still be, variously, a Holy Roman Empire, collected Monarchies, or tyrannies.

There is (state) software that analyses every place you visit, every search you do, every social site you visit, person you know, who they know, who they visit, what you wear, when you wear it, when you wake up, what appliances you have in the house, how often you shower by electrical peaks and ebbs, and form predictive personality profiles on each person that are substantially more accurate than most people know of themselves; moreover, each profile exists in a context of degrees of separation reflecting the family, tribe, politics, etc. One would have to be a vipassana master to have such detailed knowledge, at any given time, of every aspect of their being. Why on earth would a people want to surrender this information up to the State?

I should frame the above contribution up on the wall as a perfect example of the rambling nonsense used by the pseudo-left to kick into the long grass the use of internet data to detect patterns of terrorist organisation. The Corbynistas so like to get up on their high horses going nowhere.

If you think I am even close to the left you further demonstrate your lack of essentially grasping the issue you post to. There is hardly a poster on TV that would say I was on the left. But you, failing to remotely support an assertion, revert to type casting and drivel out cliches. Because my post eviscerates your assertion does not make me left. You should frame it. It occurs to me also this would be a highlight for you.

[jacko45k]

Anyone who trusts a politician is delusional. I hope Anonymous hacks Theresa May's email and posts every one of them on the net.

They seem to have taken over where the priests left off.

[RuamRudy]

I should frame the above contribution up on the wall as a perfect example of the rambling nonsense used by the pseudo-left to kick into the long grass the use of internet data to detect patterns of terrorist organisation. The Corbynistas so like to get up on their high horses going nowhere.

At no point in this discussion have you provided a single shred of evidence to show that mass data collection has been effective in preventing terrorism.

When you are presented with FACT which demonstrates that your position is baseless, you simply decry it as opinion. So please, stop with the Corbynistas, the Peaceniks, the Pseudo-Left comments - give us something of substance to back up your position, instead of solely relying on cheap little jibes.

[Wombat6]

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.

Do you really think the Security Services are going to search through millions of records of Internet history just for the hell of it. This Bill will legalise the Authorities to search Suspects of Crime and Terror activities. to prevent any of these people escaping Justice from a loophole. I would willingly forego my privacy if it helped a terrorist cell be caught before innocent people are bombed and killed

[RuamRudy]

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.

Do you really think the Security Services are going to search through millions of records of Internet history just for the hell of it. This Bill will legalise the Authorities to search Suspects of Crime and Terror activities. to prevent any of these people escaping Justice from a loophole. I would willingly forego my privacy if it helped a terrorist cell be caught before innocent people are bombed and killed

No it won't - it will allow them to search each and every piece of data they scoop up, today, tomorrow and forever long they decide to keep it. Searches will not be restricted to those who give cause for concern; they will be arbitrarily applied. It is not a manual process of people listening to phone calls and reading emails; it is a hugely sophisticated process whereby massively powerful computers analyse yours, my and everyone else's communications for whichever keyword the operator chooses at the time.

I have posted elsewhere in this thread a link to a US government instigated report that reviewed the results of years of mass surveillance activities - this report concluded that no terrorist operations were identified through the use of mass surveillance. So the privacy you are so nobley giving up will not prevent innocent lives from being lost; it will merely provide our government with further means to undermine freedom of speech, attack civil liberties and further cement their grip on power through the crushing of opposition voices.

[meltingpot2015]

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.

Do you really think the Security Services are going to search through millions of records of Internet history just for the hell of it. This Bill will legalise the Authorities to search Suspects of Crime and Terror activities. to prevent any of these people escaping Justice from a loophole. I would willingly forego my privacy if it helped a terrorist cell be caught before innocent people are bombed and killed

Carrot detected. Don't take the bait....He doesn't mean any of it.