| Author | Message | ||
     Hubert (Hubert) Username: Hubert Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 178.116.54.135 |
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-17576745 | ||
| Des (Des) Username: Des Registered: 09-2010 Posted From: 81.154.251.231 |
Yesterday, I assumed that was an April Fools joke. Today, I find it's real. | ||
| Des (Des) Username: Des Registered: 09-2010 Posted From: 81.154.251.231 |
At least with paper material, they can't climb into those on your bookshelf or desk.  | ||
| Weber (Weber_gregston) Username: Weber_gregston Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 82.145.209.175 |
But if you bought your books online, they'll know what you own anyway. I wonder if anyone here subscribes to the 'if you've got nothing to hide you've got nothing to fear' school of thought. | ||
| Des (Des) Username: Des Registered: 09-2010 Posted From: 81.154.251.231 |
'if you've got nothing to hide you've got nothing to fear' Tell that to some of the victims of History. | ||
| Carolinec (Carolinec) Username: Carolinec Registered: 06-2009 Posted From: 92.232.199.129 |
>>I wonder if anyone here subscribes to the 'if you've got nothing to hide you've got nothing to fear' school of thought.<< Well, in a way I do - though not entirely. It depends on what, exactly, they *are* going to be able to see of what we do online, etc. If it is *solely* monitoring of, let's say, suspected/previously convicted paedophiles or suspected terrorists then that actually makes me feel a little better that these folk won't find it as easy to get away with things. But if they are monitoring *exactly* what *anyone* does online, emails, etc, then it's clearly a step too far. But they're not likely to be doing the latter, surely, as that would be a HUGE workload for whoever was doing the monitoring? So, I'm not certain about this, to be honest - I don't know how I feel one way or the other. I do know I've got nothing to fear as I've got nothing to hide though!  | ||
| Carolinec (Carolinec) Username: Carolinec Registered: 06-2009 Posted From: 92.232.199.129 |
By the way, isn't it the same argument as CCTV? I'm not one of these people who complain about CCTV in city/town centres as I know they're there to help catch the muggers, etc (having been robbed at knifepoint once I only wish there had been CCTV around there at the time). If I happen to get spotted on CCTV it doesn't bother me in the slightest because I know its purpose is to catch the wrongdoers, not snoop on what I'm doing walking down the street. OK, I'll sit back and wait for you all to have a go at me ... (in the nicest possible way, I know  ) | ||
| Tony (Tony) Username: Tony Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 81.154.169.2 |
I'm dismayed by this 'cloud' you have to use with ipad. You can't use a memory stick, you have to store everything you do in cyberspace. Hence Apple folk can keep tabs on every move we make. If you believe in that sort of thing. Only folk who have nothing to do with the net in future will be 'safe', so to speak. Albeit it ignored by much of society. A question; if you left facebook or the net would you keep in touch with many online people using paper or your landline? | ||
| Tony (Tony) Username: Tony Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 81.154.169.2 |
I agree Caroline. We were having bother recently with locals and the cctv stuff was a big help. | ||
| Mick Curtis (Mick) Username: Mick Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 195.59.115.60 |
I'm dismayed by this 'cloud' you have to use with ipad. You can't use a memory stick, you have to store everything you do in cyberspace. Hence Apple folk can keep tabs on every move we make. You don't have to use the 'cloud' at all, Tony - it's only a secondary backup. | ||
| Carolinec (Carolinec) Username: Carolinec Registered: 06-2009 Posted From: 92.232.199.129 |
Yes, I was looking at this "cloud" thing when I came across it the other day and wondered what it was. My first thought when I read about it - security! Surely whoever administers this "cloud" can then access all your data? Seems a bit odd to me. And of course there's Facebook and other social networking thingies - aren't we all (apart from me as I'm not on them!) already giving away lots of personal data on those too? As to your question Tony, no I don't think I'd write letters much again. I find email too easy and too convenient a way of keeping in touch - and message boards too, of course. | ||
| Seanmcd (Seanmcd) Username: Seanmcd Registered: 03-2009 Posted From: 193.113.57.161 |
There are a lot of new technologies just around the corner that have the potential to be hijacked by the invisible powers that be to control the population. All in the name of crime prevention of course. Here's another. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-17489729 | ||
| Weber (Weber_gregston) Username: Weber_gregston Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 194.66.23.11 |
The only people who give away all their information on facebook are stupid people. I don't even use my real last name on there. The difference here is taht people who do plaster their entire lives on FB do so by choice. What's being pushed for by our oh so trustworthy government who can really be trusted not to do anything seedy with our information, honest guvnor, is the forced retaining of all our details and keeping tabs on all of us regardless... 1984 approaches quickly. | ||
| Weber (Weber_gregston) Username: Weber_gregston Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 194.66.23.11 |
Lets not forget the plans which keep being touted to place tracking devices in all our cars so they can tax us for our road use. Charge more for using congested roads at peak times etc... Hold on, isn't there an easy way of doing that that doesn't involve tracking all our cars? Oh yes, put a tax on the fuel we use, say 85p in every pound. Why don't they do that instead? What do you mean they already do? Why do they need to put trackers in all our cars then? | ||
| Ramsey Campbell (Ramsey) Username: Ramsey Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 92.9.249.205 |
You've surely answered your own question, Marc - to charge more in specific traffic conditions. That isn't to say I agree with it. | ||
| Weber (Weber_gregston) Username: Weber_gregston Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 194.66.23.11 |
But you use more fuel when driving in those specific traffic conditions so you pay more in fuel tax already... Everything they claim the trackers are needed for is already covered by charging £1.15 in tax on every litre of petrol we buy. | ||
| Christopher Overend (Chris_overend) Username: Chris_overend Registered: 03-2012 Posted From: 217.33.165.66 |
It surely is an expensive way to shaft folk for more cash though. There would be more merit in doing it for truck drivers; make it cheaper to drive through the night, and more expensive to drive at rush hour by giving them the tax rates they are screaming for - they already have equipment that could be used to monitor their driving hours. That would take the HGV traffic off the roads during the day, too. You could spread road usage out during the 24 hour period; now it is heavily day-based. I'm halfway through an email to my MP about that (I started it a couple of weeks ago and I haven't got round to finishing it). | ||
| Weber (Weber_gregston) Username: Weber_gregston Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 194.66.23.11 |
h expense of the system is another indicator that there's more going on behind the idea. Lets face it, the trackers would be worth more than a good proportion of the cars they'd be fitted to. And how quickly will people start stealing/cloning other trackers so their road usage is shunted onto someone else. It's so open to abuse you have to wonder why the idea keeps coming round. | ||
| Barbara Roden (Nebuly) Username: Nebuly Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 216.232.188.106 |
In February there was a huge outcry here in Canada when Public Safety Minister Vic Toews announced that the majority Conservative party was going to be pushing through Bill C-30, which would require telecommunication providers to turn over client information to police. This information identifying internet users would have to be disclosed, upon demand and without a warrant, by internet service providers, or ISPs. Those facts include the user's name, address, phone number, email address and IP address, and potentially which websites people visit, how much money they make, and how they vote. Toews didn't help his cause much when he claimed, in front of an open mike, that anyone who opposed the government on this bill would be standing with the child pornographers. Turns out ordinary Canucks don't much like being told that if they object to the police - and by extension the government - being able to find out this sort of information about anyone, for any reason, without just cause or a warrant, then they're obviously sympatico with child pornographers. And then Toews compounded the problem by revealing that he was kind of fuzzy on just what the bill allowed the police to do. He thought that police could only request information from the ISPs where they are conducting "a specific criminal investigation." Turns out, though, that Section 17 of the 'Protecting Children from Internet Predators Act' (aka Bill C-30) outlines "exceptional circumstances" under which "any police officer" can ask an ISP to turn over personal client information. So the whole thing blew into a huge firestorm, as Canadians made it plain that we weren't willing to live in Orwell's 1984 just yet. Poll after poll showed that Canadians of all ages and political persuasions from coast to coast opposed the bill; petitions were circulated; and someone set up @vikileaks30 on Twitter and began posting personal (but accessible) information about Toews. After several days of backlash, the Conservatives sent Bill C-30 to a special committee for amendment, where it's widely expected to be allowed to die quietly. Prime Minister Harper and the Conservatives will likely try to revive it in some fashion at some point, but they've been firmly disabused of any idea that they can impose something like that on Canadians without a nasty fight. | ||
| David_lees (David_lees) Username: David_lees Registered: 12-2011 Posted From: 92.22.41.70 |
Funnily enough Labour tried to pass this through parliament a few years back and the Tories shot it down. Though I did hear a news report tonight that there was still a lot of opposition to it from backbenchers. Heather Brooke was on the BBC the other night discussing it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=sOGA3yOXKXk - she's the journalist who did most of the work exposing the MP's expenses scandal and has written a couple of excellent books on things of this nature. | ||
| Christopher Overend (Chris_overend) Username: Chris_overend Registered: 03-2012 Posted From: 217.33.165.66 |
Heather Brooke? I might be saying too much here, but I thought she had a different profession entirely. It might be someone else I'm thinking of... | ||
| David_lees (David_lees) Username: David_lees Registered: 12-2011 Posted From: 92.22.41.70 |
"Heather Rose Brooke (born 1970) is an American journalist and freedom of information campaigner. Resident since the 1990s in the UK, she is best known for her role in helping to expose the 2009 United Kingdom parliamentary expenses scandal, which culminated in the resignation of House of Commons Speaker Michael Martin.[1] Brooke is a visiting professor at City University's Department of Journalism in London. She is the author of Your Right to Know (2006), The Silent State (2010), and The Revolution Will Be Digitised (2011)." I think it must be | ||
| Christopher Overend (Chris_overend) Username: Chris_overend Registered: 03-2012 Posted From: 2.100.140.232 |
Perhaps she moonlights |