Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sun 15th Apr 2012 13:05 UTC
Internet & Networking "Unfortunately, Cameron's declaration that the 'free flow of information' can sometimes be a problem, then an aberration, seems to have turned into a pillar of the UK government's 2012 agenda. Despite declaring early on in his term that internet freedom should be respected 'in Tahrir Square as much as Trafalgar Square', his government is now considering a series of laws that would dramatically restrict online privacy and freedom of speech." The United Kingdom's crippling nanny state culture reaches the web. A country in deep financial problems, facing pervasise social unrest, censors the web to prevent riots. Sure Cameron, make it so.
Thread beginning with comment 514269
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: bad journalism!
by cfgr on Sun 15th Apr 2012 15:05 UTC in reply to "bad journalism! "
Member since:

Aljazeera are fairly well known here in the UK for having a very strong bias when it comes to news. In this particular case, it was simply bad journalism.

The article is full of citations to other news sources.

1. Under the current proposals (they are still just that) these powers can only be used if there is a perceived threat from that individual against the state or the people

Who defines what is a perceived threat and what not? That's what the warrant is for. There is no reason to take that away other than wanting to cut corners at a huge cost for liberty and modern civilisation.

2. The intention of the bill is to update what the intelligence services have access to. Currently these powers exist already for phone calls. Clearly this is no longer the main means of communication used by those who wish to commit crimes.

Those powers exist with court orders. They can legally get all the information they need in case of terrorism investigations. There is no need to throw judicial oversight out the window here. Read the article.

3. Where a BIG argument is taking place is who decides on when these powers can be used. The Judiciary or Parliament.

Ever heard of separation of powers? The executive branch does the investigation, the judicial branch does oversight by making sure the law is followed or the case gets thrown out. If you give all power to one branch, you might as well go for a totalitarian government. The three branches of government exist for a good reason, and it worked out fine during the IRA era when attacks on British soil were frequent and real, so why wouldn't it now?

4. (this is a personal one) I find it odd that we think its ok for for Google to read our emails for the purpose of adverts. But not the intelligence services to protect lives...

I signed up with Google, not the government. If I think the government should know something, I'll let them know myself. Furthermore, Google can't jail you and has a much cleaner track record than the government. Have you even read the part about the libel laws in the article? Have you even looked at the article or did you just self-censor once you noticed Al Jazeera in the URL?

Edited 2012-04-15 15:11 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 12

RE[2]: bad journalism!
by Adurbe on Sun 15th Apr 2012 16:58 in reply to "RE: bad journalism! "
Adurbe Member since:

I did read the article, but I have also read the draft bill (its only 30 pages thus far) which is why I know it was reported upon badly.

Of particular note, please read the section on the powers of the Secretary of State and the extension this bill will provide. And indeed on where the separation of powers actually occur under the UK's parliamentary democracy as you seem to have confused where that line is.

Reply Parent Score: 0

RE[3]: bad journalism!
by cfgr on Sun 15th Apr 2012 17:38 in reply to "RE[2]: bad journalism! "
cfgr Member since:

Wrong bill. This is about the CCDP (and RIPA).

You can get the links to related files and websites here:

Edited 2012-04-15 17:40 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 4