Police state

It seems "big brother" may be inevitable. During the debate on the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers bill last night, Jack Straw stated:-

"They have to be able to access everybody’s data records in order to find those of one particular person, because the police, no more than the rest of us, are not given powers of clairvoyance with which to anticipate who is and who is not to be a suspect."

This clearly shows an attitude that everyone should be tracked and monitored and logged just in case they turn out to be a suspect later.

This is the very thing that the European Court found problematic when considering a basic right to privacy. We have a right to privacy.

This attitude has police state and big brother written all over it. When will it end? When will the people for which these MPs work (us!) tell them we would rather have privacy than a police state and suspicion of everyone?


  1. And how are these records to be secured? When they inevitably leak and criminals get hold of them, what can they do with them?

    I've started using duckduckgo.com as my search engine simply because it doesn't keep any records of my search history or anything else.

    1. It is not just that - what you see, once data is collected, is that you get feature creep. E.g. (a) new laws allow analysis and stuff that is not tracking a suspect. (b) court orders from copyright trolls to access the data because it is there. (c) stuff like this happening behind closed doors and with no oversight.

    2. You don't even need new laws. Just over-zealous enforcement of existing ones. Imagine how many "criminals" the authorities will be able to catch when they can easily run a massive electronic dragnet for teenagers using "offensive" language on Facebook (technically illegal under the 2003 Communications Act).

  2. I agree with Jack Straw. All MP's expenses, mortgages, bank accounts and share dealings should be a matter of public record so we can find out which ones have been defrauding the entire nation - especially since the Houses of Parliament has a high percent of criminals "in waiting" (based on past prosecutions).

    Oh - he's not willing to advocate that is he? Well, why should it be similar for the rest of the populace then? Parliament should lead by example - what's good for goose and all that.... (I also think all MPs should go through back-scatter and metal-detectors on entry for the purpose of "security" - after all, it's been "proven safe" for the general public).

  3. The UK Government only truly cares about The UK Government.

    - It takes away more of our privacy, while making sure its privacy is maintained.
    - It speaks about maintaining the Status Quo while ignoring our voices.
    - We must be criminals by default, so must have our data scrutinized.

    Show me proof this protects our local communities from crime, show me it can detect the plans of local thugs and drug gangs for example, and stop them before they target the elderly and vulnerable.

    1. I have little doubt that it _could_ protect the local communities from crime (I have more doubt that it actually would though). However, even if it does help reduce crime, the price is way too high IMHO.

    2. What are they saying needs logging?
      All data over your line?
      Just tcp session information?
      Just the logs you already keep like email transactions?


Comments are moderated purely to filter out obvious spam, but it means they may not show immediately.

TOTSCO - the top level - ordering

This should give you some idea of the issues with a simple matter of providing a broadband service. Bear in mind the broadband service may h...