Richard Posted January 5, 2009 Share Posted January 5, 2009 As long as we're quoting definitions maybe you'd like to share your views first Richard on the story before demanding I explain further. Definition of demanding To ask for urgently or preemptorily ; demand an investigation into a murder, demanding that he leave immediately ; demanded to speak to the manager To ask to be informed of ; I demand a reason for this interruption Not sure I have done either of those to be honest, merely expressed an interest into why you think this article is a non-story Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villal Posted January 5, 2009 Share Posted January 5, 2009 Routinely or not - not acceptable as far as I am concerned without a specific legal warrant those that deny that we are becoming a police state are either blind or ignorant or both (IMO) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drat01 Posted January 5, 2009 Share Posted January 5, 2009 those that deny that we are becoming a police state are either blind or ignorant or both (IMO) I am neither blind (but I did need some hospital assistance recently for an eye problem - the NHS was superb) nor ignorant - I could easily counter that with those that say we are are ignorant and / or paranoid but I wont. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villal Posted January 5, 2009 Share Posted January 5, 2009 those that deny that we are becoming a police state are either blind or ignorant or both (IMO) I am neither blind (but I did need some hospital assistance recently for an eye problem - the NHS was superb) nor ignorant - I could easily counter that with those that say we are are ignorant and / or paranoid but I wont. Fair enough thats the beauty of it being an opinion - neither are necessarily correct From wikipedia (yes i know!) The inhabitants of a police state experience restrictions on their mobility - proposed ID cards? and on their freedom to express or communicate political or other views - proposed Internet Filtering which are subject to police monitoring or enforcement. Political control may be exerted by means of a secret police force which operates outside the boundaries normally imposed by a constitutional republic -proposed snooping/hacking by police / MI5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheDon Posted January 5, 2009 Share Posted January 5, 2009 Routinely or not - not acceptable as far as I am concerned without a specific legal warrant those that deny that we are becoming a police state are either blind or ignorant or both (IMO) I'd say we are a long way off becoming a police state, however you can't deny that we're slowly getting closer to one. However I'd argue that this is just the natural way of things, and not something limited to just the UK. Many times in history governments have slowly erroded liberties, it's what they do, in their quest for having the power to control the populace they'll start bringing in more and more ways to take away certain freedoms from the people, and to monitor them. Eventually it'll reach a point where the populace feels things have gone too far, and then the populace demands change, that'll then either happen via democratic processes, or as in many cases, an uprising. Then the nice new government gets into power, with all it's liberties, and at the start everything is great, the people got the system they wanted, and then slowly they start doing the same. The process repeats over and over again, it's just the natural way that all systems seem to go as all governments try to gain more and more power to deal with their percieved threats. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gringo Posted January 5, 2009 Share Posted January 5, 2009 Eventually it'll reach a point where the populace feels things have gone too far, and then the populace demands change, that'll then either happen via democratic processes, or as in many cases, an uprising.I vote for an uprising. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted January 5, 2009 Moderator Share Posted January 5, 2009 Total and typical over reaction to a non-story again. So are you saying that it doesn't happen or it doesn't matter that it happens? I don't want to start any kind of "row" but genuinely, I'd be interested if anyone would like to answer snowy's question. Does anyone care to explain either why "it won't happen" or why "if it did happen it wouldn't matter" Regarding the lack of quotes in the original article in the Times, it's true that sometimes journalists get a half story and end up writing an article based around supposition and speculation as much as hard fact, but it's also true that sometimes they don't include quotes because they do have a genuine true story but the subject doesn't want to give it legs by saying anything at all. The thing with technology is that it creates uses for itself. We all do it - you start off with a mobile phone, to make phone calls on, and then you're taking photos and playing music on it. In the case of the Government and authorities, they see a technology and wonder "I bet we could intercept this, or look at that..." Combine that with the percieved size of a terrorist threat and you have an engine for all kinds of ideas for surveillance this and monitoring that.... It's right that there should be a debate about the limits, and for me it's absolutely right that both the disadvantages and advantages should be examined. It's also true that we are now under more scrutiny and observation than ever before. Much of it harmless at the moment, but nevertheless it's right to be concerned about the creeping effect of the intrusions. To answer snowy's question, myself, I don't think it's a non-story. I think that a justification for any such action would need to be given and publicly accepted before it should be allowed to happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted January 6, 2009 Share Posted January 6, 2009 To answer snowy's question, myself, I don't think it's a non-story. I think that a justification for any such action would need to be given and publicly accepted before it should be allowed to happen. Thank you for answering the question. I am sorry that anyone else felt my question to be a demand: it certainly wasn't meant as such. I also agree that I believe things ought to be discussed and sanctioned before they become the norm. If anyone is in any doubt then I am concerned by the substance, let alone the nature, of the story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaulMcgrathsknees Posted January 6, 2009 Share Posted January 6, 2009 Shami Chakrabarti, director of Liberty, the human rights group, said she would challenge the legal basis of the move. “These are very intrusive powers – as intrusive as someone busting down your door and coming into your home,” she said. “The public will want this to be controlled by new legislation and judicial authorisation. Without those safeguards it’s a devastating blow to any notion of personal privacy.” She said the move had parallels with the warrantless police search of the House of Commons office of Damian Green, the Tory MP: “It’s like giving police the power to do a Damian Green every day but to do it without anyone even knowing you were doing it.” More sensationalist mumbo jumbo from the "rent a quote" queen. I'm more interested in what her part is in Common Purpose which ironically uses Chatham House rules on ALL courses and has a far fetched but interesting conspiracy surrounding it. Anyway, Police State? Don't know yet. The Association of Chief Police Officers (Acpo) said such intrusive surveillance was closely regulated under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act. A spokesman said police were already carrying out a small number of these operations which were among 194 clandestine searches last year of people’s homes, offices and hotel bedrooms. “To be a valid authorisation, the officer giving it must believe that when it is given it is necessary to prevent or detect serious crime and [the] action is proportionate to what it seeks to achieve,” Acpo said. Looks like this isn't new news anyway. Already being authorised by Home Secretary/ Surveillance commission. The word "routine" just seems to be purposely misplaced by the journo THE Home Office has quietly adopted a new plan to allow police across Britain routinely to hack into people’s personal computers without a warrant. And then adds hack/ quiet into the same headline. Unless the Home Secretary spends her days signing these applications up. Pah. Looks like drat was right - non story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted January 6, 2009 Share Posted January 6, 2009 Looks like drat was right - non story. Again, why? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted January 6, 2009 Share Posted January 6, 2009 What is 'her' involvement with 'Common Purpose'? Why is the fact that it is already being authorised (which seems part of the argument against??) some kind of step towards acceptance? No news because it already happens.... No news because the Home Office has shit all to do with it... No news because there is no statutory basis which people are not adhering to.... So, the state isn't doing anything wrong becuase there is nothing which says they shouldn't be doing what they are doing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaulMcgrathsknees Posted January 6, 2009 Share Posted January 6, 2009 Read the article more closely. Simply adds words like routine as scaremongering tactic. Home Secretary is using the tactic for surveilance - intrusive. It isn't to "routinely" hack. Naughty slant put on the dtory if you read what it actually says. If it is wrong to use this tactic in youropinion, they are wrong. If it is a sound tactic, they are not. She speaks at Common Purpose (on their website) and will refuse to answer whether she is a member. FOIA requests are ignored by this group. Just a few issues which I find incredibly hypocritical. Or maybe she would prefer powerful organisations and members of our community can continue what appears to have completely unreported meetings and think tanks using their influence and power over the unsuspecting masses? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted January 6, 2009 Share Posted January 6, 2009 FOIA requests are ignored by this group. Why would FoI requests pertain to this group? It isn't a public body, is it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaulMcgrathsknees Posted January 6, 2009 Share Posted January 6, 2009 From simple google search - not official Common Purpose site though. This next one is: Prisons/ Councils etc.....and Horsham Council - nice link to another thread! Sorry all a bit off topic. Or is it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted January 6, 2009 Share Posted January 6, 2009 Why would any of that mean that it is covered by the FoI Act? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaulMcgrathsknees Posted January 6, 2009 Share Posted January 6, 2009 Public tax money spent by Public bodies. Why shouldn't we know what we are investing in? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davkaus Posted January 6, 2009 Share Posted January 6, 2009 So why wouldn't the FoI request go to them, and not the actual public body? If the council buys their computers from PC World, do you think that company should have to answer whenever some irritating shit sends FoI requests to them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted January 6, 2009 Share Posted January 6, 2009 As Davkaus has said - the recipients of the public tax money do not become a public body covered by the FoI. The public bodies should be the ones to answer an FoI request about their donations and funding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaulMcgrathsknees Posted January 6, 2009 Share Posted January 6, 2009 So why wouldn't the FoI request go to them, and not the actual public body? If the council buys their computers from PC World, do you think that company should have to answer whenever some irritating shit sends FoI requests to them? That's another question altogether. But whilst we are on about it, by that argument, where it is public money - for example the Prison service do you think that company should have to answer whenever some irritating shit sends FoI requests to them? My view is no. It all gets daft. But if we want to be transparent where it suits and not where it doesn't.....therein lies the problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaulMcgrathsknees Posted January 6, 2009 Share Posted January 6, 2009 As Davkaus has said - the recipients of the public tax money do not become a public body covered by the FoI. The public bodies should be the ones to answer an FoI request about their donations and funding. Where is the clandestine behaviour then? Not with the Public bodies. With recipients of tax monies. Nice little loophole. Police state in the normal sense - no. Unseen Power and Police state - could well be. The Police are a tool of the people with real power and it isn't the folk who allow the consensual Policing. I sometimes wonder if the noises made by "human rights" folk aren't just there so we don't keep our eye on the real "ball". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts