Danizen Posted 12 July 2015 Share Posted 12 July 2015 This is unnecessary. There's much easier and safer ways for terrorists to communicate than sending a message that will be logged and stored on a company's servers. Even the old fashioned method of sharing an email address and leaving messages in the draft folder is preferable to this. Cameron just has a hard on for censoring the Internet. To do that he needs more control and he will just play the terrorist card every time someone opposes him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nnfox Posted 12 July 2015 Share Posted 12 July 2015 But even sharing messages in the draft folder for emails leave communication data that the government need to be able to access - ip addresses and stuff. Out of interest, is it the prospect of your conversations being listened to and messages being read that is the issue? Or is it the disclosure of who you were communicating with, when and where that's the problem? Do people think that everyone should have a right to anonymity when it comes to all of this? Just interested. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Doctor Posted 12 July 2015 Share Posted 12 July 2015 The government don't need to access our communications at all. Shouting about terrorists and paedophiles is absolute nonsense, as if email and whatsapp are the preferred sites of brokering illegal activity The entirety of it is what is the issue - if I am having a private conversation, it's because the details of that conversation are private - that includes the content, when, where, who with - we have a right to a private life, and that includes the right to hold conversations without them being snooped on (Article 8 of the ECHR, right to correspondence, which includes uncensored and untapped conversations). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nnfox Posted 12 July 2015 Share Posted 12 July 2015 Article 8 is not an absolute right. There is no legal issue here unless the use of the data is not proportionate or justified. Your arguement about terrorists and paedophiles holds no weight as although there are work arounds, the majority simply cannot live their whole life "off grid". What about drug dealers? Murderers? Vulnerable missing people? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Doctor Posted 12 July 2015 Share Posted 12 July 2015 Article 8 is not an absolute right. There is no legal issue here unless the use of the data is not proportionate or justified. Your arguement about terrorists and paedophiles holds no weight as although there are work arounds, the majority simply cannot live their whole life "off grid". What about drug dealers? Murderers? Vulnerable missing people? I'm not talking about living their whole lives off-grid, but do you really think that they'll do their plotting and info-sharing above board in the same networks as the ones they use to call in to work in the morning due to a traffic jam and to organise going to see Marvel: Watch us Bank Your Money with their mates that weekend? As for drug dealers - while listening in would likely help catch them, is the erosion of our liberties worth ensuring that some student has to listen to Pink Floyd without a spliff this Friday? Murderers, tie that back in to the terrorists and paedophiles point, are they really texting their mate "Just killed some hooker, fancy going to the pub after work tomorrow?"... Vulnerable missing people - how is listening into conversations going to help find them? It shocks me how ready you are to give up your rights for anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nnfox Posted 12 July 2015 Share Posted 12 July 2015 Taking actually listening in to one side because that happens hardly ever and certainly wouldn't be used to prevent a street dealer selling a spliff to a student on Friday night. Most of what is talked about in the snooper's charter is about the meta-data and not the content of the communication. Listening in to a missing person's phonecall might not help find them, but knowing that they are making the call and from where might just. Murderers are not normally big time criminals before they commit murder. Being able to find out who they called before and after and from where could be crucial. I'm reluctant to state the old "i've got nothing to worry about blah blah blah" argument but i'm not at all concerned in the slightest that my mobile phone provider can hand my call data over to the authorities. I am however reassured that should I become the victim of a serious crime or a member of my family goes missing, the companies that hold this information are compelled to hand it over. And so should you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Doctor Posted 12 July 2015 Share Posted 12 July 2015 Taking actually listening in to one side because that happens hardly ever and certainly wouldn't be used to prevent a street dealer selling a spliff to a student on Friday night. Most of what is talked about in the snooper's charter is about the meta-data and not the content of the communication. Listening in to a missing person's phonecall might not help find them, but knowing that they are making the call and from where might just. Murderers are not normally big time criminals before they commit murder. Being able to find out who they called before and after and from where could be crucial. I'm reluctant to state the old "i've got nothing to worry about blah blah blah" argument but i'm not at all concerned in the slightest that my mobile phone provider can hand my call data over to the authorities. I am however reassured that should I become the victim of a serious crime or a member of my family goes missing, the companies that hold this information are compelled to hand it over. And so should you. You assume they're making a phone call with what justification? You'd need to know they were a murderer first, otherwise that data is white noise. I should feel reassured that the government want to track my every move and refuse me the right to a private life? What utter tosh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nnfox Posted 12 July 2015 Share Posted 12 July 2015 If there was a murder at place X and nobody knew who it was then of course, you can't just get a blanket "who was in the area up to an hour either side". But if someone comes forward and says Person A did it and then A says they were in place Y at the time. Why shouldn't the records already held by his phone company be used to establish if he was in X or Y at the time? Nobody is saying that if there was a murder then all the data held on everyone will be handed over auromatically. It would have to be targeted, justified and proportionate otherwise, as you point out, there would be a breach of Article 8. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leicsmac Posted 15 July 2015 Share Posted 15 July 2015 If there was a murder at place X and nobody knew who it was then of course, you can't just get a blanket "who was in the area up to an hour either side". But if someone comes forward and says Person A did it and then A says they were in place Y at the time. Why shouldn't the records already held by his phone company be used to establish if he was in X or Y at the time? Nobody is saying that if there was a murder then all the data held on everyone will be handed over auromatically. It would have to be targeted, justified and proportionate otherwise, as you point out, there would be a breach of Article 8. I think this is the key issue. You trust the relevant authorities to always act within that legal framework with every accessing of private data being justified and accounted for to avoid violations of Article 8.Snowdens findings, amongst others, categorically prove this is not the case. And at that point, you have to ask the question regarding whether those authorities really have your best interests at heart 100% of the time, or just some of it? Power corrupts, and trust is a massive issue on this one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.