Thoughts?
Posted: Wed Oct 15, 2008 11:43 am
Page 1 of 2
Posted: Wed Oct 15, 2008 12:30 pm
Thanks 4 ur input
Posted: Wed Oct 15, 2008 12:45 pm
Hope they make it big enough so that someone doesn't forget it on the seat of a bus or a train.The government is considering creating a giant database to store details of every UK phone call and e-mail sent.
Posted: Wed Oct 15, 2008 3:45 pm
Capacity Management will be a real headache.
Also, this country is becoming more and more draconian by the minute; thought crime LOL.
Also, this country is becoming more and more draconian by the minute; thought crime LOL.
Posted: Wed Oct 15, 2008 3:54 pm
What's funny is they try and pretend it has something to do with terrorism.
Gordon Brown is a fucking idiot and the biggest control freak on the planet. He wants to know what we do, how much money we have, what countries and where it is kept, do we have stashes of cash under our beds and when we shit is it a floater, sinker or pebble dasher.
Gordon Brown is a fucking idiot and the biggest control freak on the planet. He wants to know what we do, how much money we have, what countries and where it is kept, do we have stashes of cash under our beds and when we shit is it a floater, sinker or pebble dasher.
Posted: Wed Oct 15, 2008 4:26 pm
Yeah I linked this in irc the othernight. Scary, but we just seem to let it happen.
Posted: Wed Oct 15, 2008 4:27 pm
Pre 9/11 this would have beggared belief. Although they state 'content' won't be monitored, this is another step towards enveloping us in a dystopic Orwellian nightmare.
I presume that this database will record who has called whom & at what time, which i.p has sent an email to which i.p and so on, without revealing a great deal of information regarding the relevant exchange.
The next step will be to keep transcripts of phone conversations & a record of e-mails, the motives of which will be hidden in a moral trojan-horse of legislation that promises to protect us from terrorists and paedophiles and short-sellers, and which promises that only complete governmental omnipotence can prevent us from waking up in horror to find we're being spitroasted by Osama bin Laden and Ian Huntley.
After that they'll start picking up buzz-words like 'bomb' or 'anarchy' or 'al jazeera' and appearing on the door-step to ask a few quick questions designed to protect you.
Exaggerative, obviously, but no longer strictly fantastical; no longer a distant dream in the mind of politicians who dream of suzerainty. I would say it's exponentially more likely that we will pursue voyeuristic tyranny than take a reflective step back.
The notion of giving up freedom for our own protection is staggeringly ridiculous. What is that they think the people of this country want - to live in a giant womb where we are fed and constantly looked after and never have to think anything or do anything and it's all warm and fuzzy and an easy ride to the graveyard. That's what we seem to be moving towards - and I'm neither surprised nor appalled that there exist contingents that want to bomb us into the fucking ground.
I presume that this database will record who has called whom & at what time, which i.p has sent an email to which i.p and so on, without revealing a great deal of information regarding the relevant exchange.
The next step will be to keep transcripts of phone conversations & a record of e-mails, the motives of which will be hidden in a moral trojan-horse of legislation that promises to protect us from terrorists and paedophiles and short-sellers, and which promises that only complete governmental omnipotence can prevent us from waking up in horror to find we're being spitroasted by Osama bin Laden and Ian Huntley.
After that they'll start picking up buzz-words like 'bomb' or 'anarchy' or 'al jazeera' and appearing on the door-step to ask a few quick questions designed to protect you.
Exaggerative, obviously, but no longer strictly fantastical; no longer a distant dream in the mind of politicians who dream of suzerainty. I would say it's exponentially more likely that we will pursue voyeuristic tyranny than take a reflective step back.
The notion of giving up freedom for our own protection is staggeringly ridiculous. What is that they think the people of this country want - to live in a giant womb where we are fed and constantly looked after and never have to think anything or do anything and it's all warm and fuzzy and an easy ride to the graveyard. That's what we seem to be moving towards - and I'm neither surprised nor appalled that there exist contingents that want to bomb us into the fucking ground.
Posted: Wed Oct 15, 2008 4:27 pm
Pre 9/11 this would have beggared belief. Although they state 'content' won't be monitored, this is another step towards enveloping us in a dystopic Orwellian nightmare.
I presume that this database will record who has called whom & at what time, which i.p has sent an email to which i.p and so on, without revealing a great deal of information regarding the relevant exchange.
The next step will be to keep transcripts of phone conversations & a record of e-mails, the motives of which will be hidden in a moral trojan-horse of legislation that promises to protect us from terrorists and paedophiles and short-sellers, and which promises that only complete governmental omnipotence can prevent us from waking up in horror to find we're being spitroasted by Osama bin Laden and Ian Huntley.
After that they'll start picking up buzz-words like 'bomb' or 'anarchy' or 'al jazeera' and appearing on the door-step to ask a few quick questions designed to protect you.
Exaggerative, obviously, but no longer strictly fantastical; no longer a distant dream in the mind of politicians who dream of suzerainty. I would say it's exponentially more likely that we will pursue voyeuristic tyranny than take a reflective step back.
The notion of giving up freedom for our own protection is staggeringly ridiculous. What is that they think the people of this country want - to live in a giant womb where we are fed and constantly looked after and never have to think anything or do anything and it's all warm and fuzzy and an easy ride to the graveyard. That's what we seem to be moving towards - and I'm neither surprised nor appalled that there exist contingents that want to bomb us into the fucking ground.
I presume that this database will record who has called whom & at what time, which i.p has sent an email to which i.p and so on, without revealing a great deal of information regarding the relevant exchange.
The next step will be to keep transcripts of phone conversations & a record of e-mails, the motives of which will be hidden in a moral trojan-horse of legislation that promises to protect us from terrorists and paedophiles and short-sellers, and which promises that only complete governmental omnipotence can prevent us from waking up in horror to find we're being spitroasted by Osama bin Laden and Ian Huntley.
After that they'll start picking up buzz-words like 'bomb' or 'anarchy' or 'al jazeera' and appearing on the door-step to ask a few quick questions designed to protect you.
Exaggerative, obviously, but no longer strictly fantastical; no longer a distant dream in the mind of politicians who dream of suzerainty. I would say it's exponentially more likely that we will pursue voyeuristic tyranny than take a reflective step back.
The notion of giving up freedom for our own protection is staggeringly ridiculous. What is that they think the people of this country want - to live in a giant womb where we are fed and constantly looked after and never have to think anything or do anything and it's all warm and fuzzy and an easy ride to the graveyard. That's what we seem to be moving towards - and I'm neither surprised nor appalled that there exist contingents that want to bomb us into the fucking ground.
Posted: Wed Oct 15, 2008 4:27 pm
**edit** double post
Posted: Wed Oct 15, 2008 4:30 pm
This. I fail to see how anyone can support or even attempt to justify this kind of government 'policy'Sonez wrote:
The notion of giving up freedom for our own protection is staggeringly ridiculous.
Once they've got these powers there's no going back, and they'll use the next 'terror' attack to tighten/increase them even more.
Posted: Wed Oct 15, 2008 5:58 pm
Gordon Bown used the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 in order to seize Icelandic assets in the UK the other day.
Either Iceland is full of secret terrorists that we knew nothing about, or our Government is getting more and more insane every week.
Either Iceland is full of secret terrorists that we knew nothing about, or our Government is getting more and more insane every week.
Posted: Wed Oct 15, 2008 6:20 pm
He used those laws as part of them means you can freeze the assets of said company/people/country. he wasnt accusing them of terrorism it was a legal way of holding there money. even if it was morally wrong!Villa wrote:Gordon Bown used the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 in order to seize Icelandic assets in the UK the other day.
Either Iceland is full of secret terrorists that we knew nothing about, or our Government is getting more and more insane every week.
Posted: Wed Oct 15, 2008 7:18 pm
If you can use an anti-terrorism law in a non-terrorism scenario like this, it should make you wonder what other ridiculous scenario the government might use it in.Padaxus wrote:He used those laws as part of them means you can freeze the assets of said company/people/country. he wasnt accusing them of terrorism it was a legal way of holding there money. even if it was morally wrong!Villa wrote:Gordon Bown used the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 in order to seize Icelandic assets in the UK the other day.
Either Iceland is full of secret terrorists that we knew nothing about, or our Government is getting more and more insane every week.
It's pathetic and scary at the same time.
Posted: Wed Oct 15, 2008 7:40 pm
it's the "Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001"
not the "Anti-terrorismAct 2001"
not the "Anti-terrorismAct 2001"
Posted: Wed Oct 15, 2008 7:56 pm
I believe this 'act' was introduced with curbing terrorism in mind, regardless of the full name of the bill.Benn wrote:it's the "Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001"
not the "Anti-terrorismAct 2001"
Feel free to verify.