Continued erosions of civil liberties and personal freedoms.

[format]

With the passing of the FISA (link) byt the US senate today, and the passing of a Swedish law which enables the Swedish government to 'tap' all phonecalls and emails within the country, not to mention various efforts by the UK(42 days detention etc etc) and other world powers, it seems increasingly like the world is edging closer to a big brother state.
It just seems like one law after another is being passed and the opportunity for abuse of these powers is becoming increasing likely.

Tell me, oh enlightened Hexus members, am I being paranoid, or should we all be very, very afraid?

[Andeh13]

Not worried at all. If the police genuinely believe they have enough evidence to arrest someone or tap their phone line then its my opinion they should be allowed to do it. Id rather the odd person got caught up in it and spent a few days in a cell (as long as they get fairly compensated), then a dozen serious suspects slip through the net.

But then again no much does bother me, and my political views rarely hold up against any form of scrutiny!

[kalniel]

What are you afraid of exactly? If you're clever enough to obey the law then you've got nothing to worry about. If you don't agree with the law then get it changed.

It's only stupid people who don't want to obey the law that have caused any of the above - if we could somehow educate them then maybe we wouldn't need it.

[mediaboy]

It's all very well saying "stay legal and you've nothing to be frightened of" but the point is that it only takes a wrong comment at the wrong time to the wrong person to be imprisoned for 42 days.. possibly.

I mean, if I was to make the comment, "A person with 20 heat seeking missiles on top of a hill near heathrow could cause more damage than any suicide bomb on a bus" or something likewise (I'm not sure if the previous comment is true, it's just an example), to someone that views that as conspiracy to terrorism - which it could well be... afterall it's planning an act of terrorism - then they report me to the police I could theoretically get held for 42 days without charges, trial or access to a lawyer.

Please could someone verify exact conditions of imprisonment... I know vaguely what they are, but exact definitions would be nice.. I'm not sure were to get the exact wording of the act from - but some people can seem to pull these wordings out of thin air.. (saracen...)

Now, I'm not exactly saying anything like this is a bad idea. Afterall, it has it's merits. Unforntunately, it opens the floodgates. If conspiracy to terrorism becomes conspiracy against the government, and the government can tap every conversation you have, every e-mail you send and record everything you type or do, it means that anyone that refuses to comply - or agree - with their rules can be arrested.

THAT is only a few small steps away. A slight changing in the wording of the acts, or a change of perception and you immediately have two thirds of the country arrested for conspiracy to commit terrorism (32.5% of votes cast were labour.. if I remember correctly.)

Andehh - the point is that they can be taken at any point, for no reasons whatsoever - other than that they MAY be conspiring to commit terrorism.



Now I'm not exactly some hotshot when it comes to political debates, but surely this imprisonment (which is what it is) becomes false imprisionment should you ever be proved innocent - or not proven guilty. These laws seem to be removing MY rights one by one.... and I want them back - or at least I want assurances that this is the end of the road. 42 days is too long. 6 weeks without a lawyer? In that time I could have earnt (remembering I'm 14) somewhere in the region of £100-200 (which for me is a fair bit.) I'm definite that most people on this forum earn a lot more than that in 6 weeks.

Could you afford to be without income for 6 weeks... could your family stand not haivng you in the house for 6 weeks... 6 weeks is a long time. And you can't get out during that time.


My rights are going down the drain.. I want them back, but I'm not getting them back.

We've had two fairly awful PMs one after another and frankly - it's sickening what they think they can do.

[Marcos]

Not worried at all. If the police genuinely believe they have enough evidence to arrest someone or tap their phone line then its my opinion they should be allowed to do it. Id rather the odd person got caught up in it and spent a few days in a cell (as long as they get fairly compensated), then a dozen serious suspects slip through the net.

But then again no much does bother me, and my political views rarely hold up against any form of scrutiny!

Agreed, doesnt affect good citizens really, just ignore it, do well, and no authority will bother you

[Clunk]

We've had two fairly awful PMs one after another

Four in a row.

Anything before that, I was too young to remember if they were good or bad.

[format]

Agreed, doesnt affect good citizens really, just ignore it, do well, and no authority will bother you

The thing is, what happens when it does affect good citizens? It's far too late to stop it. I talked about a big brother state, have any of you actually read 1984, and if so, don't you think it's a worrying prospect?

[kalniel]

afterall it's planning an act of terrorism - then they report me to the police I could theoretically get held for 42 days without charges, trial or access to a lawyer.

I think you have jumped to the conclusion that the recent bill was allowing anyone to be instantly held for up to 42 days as easily as they could be for a single day - that's just the kind of mis-information that opponents of the bill might spread, trying to scaremonger rather than allow people to make up their own minds based on fact.

The thing is, what happens when it does affect good citizens? It's far too late to stop it. I talked about a big brother state, have any of you actually read 1984, and if so, don't you think it's a worrying prospect?

Why would any sensible nation elect a government that didn't have the best interests of the people at heart? More to the point, how would such a government stay in power?

[j1979]

Agreed, doesnt affect good citizens really, just ignore it, do well, and no authority will bother you

define a good citizen????

so would you be happy with CCTV in your home? orwell was right about people...

[Marcos]

define a good citizen????

so would you be happy with CCTV in your home? orwell was right about people...

Monitoring phone calls for terrorism is one thing, CCTV in your own home is just some ridiculous extreme example

[j1979]

Monitoring phone calls for terrorism is one thing, CCTV in your own home is just some ridiculous extreme example

sorry but its bull ****...

monitoring phone calls of genuine terrorists is almost impossible due to the fact that they will buy new phones regularly, and replace sims very often with untraceable PAYG sims. only live monitoring (like you might see on an episode of 24) is useful, and correct me if im wrong but they can do that already!!

as for CCTV in your home, if the green light for data disclosure is passed, then im sorry but the infrastructure for CCTV is already there in the form of web cams, mobile phone cameras and home CCTV (which ill guess 50% of are not closed circuit but connected to a telco/computer network in the form of an alarm company!!)...

so it begs the question why?

[format]

Why would any sensible nation elect a government that didn't have the best interests of the people at heart? More to the point, how would such a government stay in power?

The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
I'm not trying to claim that the governments of the world are purposefully intended on total domination of our liberties, but it may happen nonetheless.
How many countries elect a leader that goes on the become a dictator?

(lots)

[Dingo]

snip

Do us a favour old son, me and the boys would rather watch a movie tonight, so can you just walk past the window every 20 minutes so we know you are still in?......seriously though, for Christ saike, just dump her, she's far too clingy and wants too much attention, and having seen the surveillance photos, you coukld do far better.....(not to say, of course, that your e-mail has alerted us to your macheavellian lifestyle and liberal politics!







.....and remember children, there is a terrorist under your bed, remember the story of Billy Goat Bin Laden?!!

[CaseyV9]

What are you afraid of exactly? If you're clever enough to obey the law then you've got nothing to worry about. If you don't agree with the law then get it changed.

It's only stupid people who don't want to obey the law that have caused any of the above - if we could somehow educate them then maybe we wouldn't need it.

I would agree. But like all things it can be abused and then innocent people have got something to worry about. That kind of thing has happened before, isn't that why we have privacy laws in the first place?

And anyway, I don't trust the goverment. Do you trust Labour with all the scandals they have?

[Lucio]

It's unfortunate, the people except that our governement must 100% keep us safe from everything. Even a relatively small number of deaths due to terrorism is listed as a "Great Tragedy" and "Worst day of our lives" by the media.

I always wondered whether it was easier to come up with a list of privacy's people expected and make a law saying "these things must remain private" instead of doing in the arse about face way of going "well we can look at this, and this, and this and this" and so on.

[kalniel]

The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
I'm not trying to claim that the governments of the world are purposefully intended on total domination of our liberties, but it may happen nonetheless.
How many countries elect a leader that goes on the become a dictator?

(lots)

Oh I don't deny it happens, but I don't think it can happen in this country in the foreseeable future. Our democracy is incredibly mature, and we have a fair number of safeguards that would take a lot of work to undo.

I would agree. But like all things it can be abused and then innocent people have got something to worry about. That kind of thing has happened before, isn't that why we have privacy laws in the first place?

Anything can be abused - but if you let that stop you doing something then you'd never get out of bed for fear that something bad was going to happen. You have to make rational decisions based on the possibility of something going wrong and put safeguards in place to reduce the chance of abuse.

Do you trust Labour with all the scandals they have?

What scandals exactly? It sounds like you are trusting in tabloid headlines rather than forming your own opinion. Yes, humans have made mistakes - in most cases they aren't even Labour party members, but here you are saying Labour can't be trusted. I can think of several 'scandals' involving members of opposition parties - that doesn't mean the party as a whole is corrupt, just that they have a few stupid people in them - ultimately that's the fault of the electorate, but it'd be silly to say 'all polititions can't be trusted' based on the fact that the vast majority of them can be trusted but a couple make silly mistakes.