Surveillance state, check - secret trials, check

[Ozzie Osmond]

Welcome to a Conservative Britain; the respector of individual privacy; the birthplace of parliamentary democracy; 900 years of trial by jury with justice both done and seen to be done

• Round the clock monitoring of all your communications? Oh yes.
• Secret trials in case the governmemt gets embarrassed? Oh yes.

The only crime today is dissent.

[mondeoman]

V - come on out, your time is now!

[chris.mapey]

Ozzie Osmond said:

Welcome to a Conservative Britain; the respector of individual privacy; the birthplace of parliamentary democracy; 900 years of trial by jury with justice both done and seen to be done

• Round the clock monitoring of all your communications? Oh yes.
• Secret trials in case the governmemt gets embarrassed? Oh yes.

The only crime today is dissent.

Thought all of those had been started under Noo Labia?

Echelon was running pre 2000 wasn't it?

I thought Labour were the ones trying to extend the period a "terror suspect" could be held without trial?

Old news, move along, nothing to see here

[MX7]

This thread could probably benefit from some sort of news article.

Is is a different story from the "Privacy? What Privacy?" thread?

[thinfourth2]

All this secert squirrel st will end when we have an election and we kick this new labour scum out of office

[MX7]

thinfourth2 said:

All this secert squirrel st will end when we have an election and we kick this new labour scum out of office

How many times do you think you'll use that line before the next election?

[thinfourth2]

MX7 said:

thinfourth2 said:

All this secert squirrel st will end when we have an election and we kick this new labour scum out of office

How many times do you think you'll use that line before the next election?

has there been an election?


I never noticed any changes

[SystemParanoia]

i encrypt everything i can.

yeah they can crack it.. but that extra effort for no results so costs them a bit more in man hours. nosey bds

[mcdjl]

I have several email accounts. Would it be very wrong of me to set up some auto-spamming thing where i send myself dozens of emails a day which i never read containing words like bomb, threat, etc just to keep them as busy as possible?

[ExChrispy Porker]

Paddy_N_Murphy said:

It's been happening for as long as you care to remember.

Just trying to make it legal. That's all.

I agree with this.
RIPA for example.
Surveillance that has always taken place is now regulated.

[roachcoach]

ExChrispy Porker said:

I agree with this.
RIPA for example.
Surveillance that has always taken place is now regulated and abused wholesale suffering from frankly epic scope creep.

Fixed that for you.

It's ok, they're only going to use it on criminals, paedos and terrorists.


Of course....quite how they can identify these people in isolation without dragnet style surveillance.....

[Dixie68]

Oh who gives a monkeys, seriously? They can read my emails and monitor my texts for all I care.

[grumbledoak]

As I understand it the proposed law didn't really change anything and will now be released only as draft anyway.

[ExChrispy Porker]

roachcoach said:

Fixed that for you.

It's ok, they're only going to use it on criminals, paedos and terrorists.


Of course....quite how they can identify these people in isolation without dragnet style surveillance.....

I don't see what has changed. 'Abuse' or the potential for it has always existed.

[Ozzie Osmond]

MX7 said:

Is this a different story from the "Privacy? What Privacy?" thread?

Oh yes indeed! http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-17601594

Trials in secret and without a jury just in case the government gets a little bit embarrassed by small matters such as lack of evidence or gross incompetence. Presumably the evidence will be so cecret that the defendant can't be allowed to know it either. After all he is a (suspected) terrorist!

So you monitor everyone round the clock and then put the "guilty" through a secret trial where the eevidence is "too sensitive" to be disclosed. Sounds like the ultimate totalitarian regime.

[roachcoach]

ExChrispy Porker said:

I don't see what has changed. 'Abuse' or the potential for it has always existed.

That doesn't make it ok and it certainly doesn't mean we should increase abuse potential.

[ExChrispy Porker]

roachcoach said:

That doesn't make it ok and it certainly doesn't mean we should increase abuse potential.

I agree.
In fact RIPA, for example, has decreased the amount of surveillance undertaken in many cases. Too many hoops to jump through.

[MX7]

Ozzie Osmond said:

MX7 said:

Is this a different story from the "Privacy? What Privacy?" thread?

Oh yes indeed! http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-17601594

Trials in secret and without a jury just in case the government gets a little bit embarrassed by small matters such as lack of evidence or gross incompetence. Presumably the evidence will be so cecret that the defendant can't be allowed to know it either. After all he is a (suspected) terrorist!

So you monitor everyone round the clock and then put the "guilty" through a secret trial where the eevidence is "too sensitive" to be disclosed. Sounds like the ultimate totalitarian regime.

Ok, but this is for a civil court, and it already happens in a criminal court.

As long as a Judge still has to approve it, I don't really see a problem. Ideally it would be preferable if we didn't put ourselves in that predicament in the first place, but such is the world.

[roachcoach]

MX7 said:

Ok, but this is for a civil court, and it already happens in a criminal court.

As long as a Judge still has to approve it, I don't really see a problem. Ideally it would be preferable if we didn't put ourselves in that predicament in the first place, but such is the world.

They want ministers making the decisions. Those bastions of character and symbols of decency.

You know, the s who were stealing expenses money, those guys.

[MX7]

roachcoach said:

MX7 said:

Ok, but this is for a civil court, and it already happens in a criminal court.

As long as a Judge still has to approve it, I don't really see a problem. Ideally it would be preferable if we didn't put ourselves in that predicament in the first place, but such is the world.

They want ministers making the decisions.

Yes, and I think that's an obvious failing. I can't even see it becoming legislation in it's present form. The Lords won't let it pass.