Jesus Christ.....can't be those fuckers again...

Why would they?

 

Same reason they want to record and store all your private online activity, conversations, photographs and videos - for security reasons. Why are you ok with those being recorded, but not offline things?

Not in the slightest. I have nothing to hide either. But you're avoiding the question again. Would you be happy to have audio recording devices installed in your house? And if not, why not?

 

Is Brexit Secretary David Davis a contrary cunt for fighting against the proposed bill?

one is in private one is in public.

simple as that really

your actions in your own home are nobody's business 

your actions in public could be everybody's.

Same reason they want to record and store all your private online activity, conversations, photographs and videos - for security reasons. Why are you ok with those being recorded, but not offline things?

 

Because, as I have said, I am of no interest to them. 

ok

 

privacy is the difference, and everyone is entitled to theirs

 

should be free to talk about and do what i want in my own house and not watch what i say, and we don't do anything criminal, and have nothing to hide

 

out and about in public, with the public, using services provided by third parties, fine, observe away within the law

 

I presume then you would be ok to have video and audio recording your every word and action within your own home?

 

"Privacy is the difference"? This makes no sense. How is the snoopers charter not an invasion of privacy?

Because, as I have said, I am of no interest to them. 

 

So why are you ok with them recording all your online activity? You are of no interest to them after all...

 

And you're still not answering the question.

Edited December 21, 20169 yr by Cheese

one is in private one is in public.

simple as that really

your actions in your own home are nobody's business 

your actions in public could be everybody's.

 

So terrorists only discuss their plans in public? Then what is the point of recording private online communications?

So why are you ok with them recording all your online activity? You are of no interest to them after all...

 

I've nothing to hide. They are not going to bug my house. We are going in circles.

I've nothing to hide. They are not going to bug my house. We are going in circles.

 

You aren't able to answer the question. That's the reason we are going in circles. 

And today the European Court of Justice has ruled that "general and indiscriminate retention" of data for 12 months, under the UK's Data Protection And Investigatory Powers Act is against EU law.

 

This is the culmination of a challenge championed by (then) Conservative backbencher, David Davis.

 

You just couldn't make it up.

As we deal in big data, its a bit more complex than that and we've been watching this for a good while now.

You aren't able to answer the question. That's the reason we are going in circles. 

 

I have. You just don't listen when you get in one of these moods.

You aren't able to answer the question. That's the reason we are going in circles.

 

As you know full well, in your own home you can't drive a truck into people etc. But you can make plans over the internet etc.

Listening in to everyone would be impossible to monitor and police, especially if wum's kept choosing to discuss things tongue in cheek.

"Privacy is the difference"? This makes no sense. How is the snoopers charter not an invasion of privacy?

I've got no issue with online/mobile communication being kept to allow them to be looked into when a person/group becomes under investigation for terrorism or some other serious crime - I am confident that any dick pics I send will never come to light in relation to anything ISIS or nonces are up to, I have nothing to hide 

 

they'll only be kept for 12 months, accessed if/when required and think it's fair enough if you use 3rd party services, I've got nothing to hide

 

if this is the sort of thing that will help thwart further terrorist or criminal activity, I am all for it, it'd be more effective then sending them all home and bombing the fuck out of them

 

but I wouldn't want my home under constant 24 hour surveillance, that crosses the line of privacy, even though I've got nothing to hide

 

funnily enough, there isn't a law trying make that sort of thing a necessity 

 

so, now I take it you don't agree with your communications being stored for 12 months to be accessed if you become under some sort of investigation, if not, why not?

I have. You just don't listen when you get in one of these moods.

 

No, you haven't. Why are you ok with all your online communications, video, photographs being stored, but not offline things?

As you know full well, in your own home you can't drive a truck into people etc. But you can make plans over the internet etc.

Listening in to everyone would be impossible to monitor and police, especially if wum's kept choosing to discuss things tongue in cheek.

 

You can't drive a truck into people on the internet either. You can make plans to do so in your own home.

 

Why not let the security services listen to EVERYTHING instead of just online communication? If you can discuss private things in your home without detection, I'm pretty sure terrorists can too.

I've got no issue with online/mobile communication being kept to allow them to be looked into when a person/group becomes under investigation for terrorism or some other serious crime - I am confident that any dick pics I send will never come to light in relation to anything ISIS or nonces are up to, I have nothing to hide 

 

they'll only be kept for 12 months, accessed if/when required and think it's fair enough if you use 3rd party services, I've got nothing to hide

 

if this is the sort of thing that will help thwart further terrorist or criminal activity, I am all for it, it'd be more effective then sending them all home and bombing the fuck out of them

 

but I wouldn't want my home under constant 24 hour surveillance, that crosses the line of privacy, even though I've got nothing to hide

 

funnily enough, there isn't a law trying make that sort of thing a necessity 

 

so, now I take it you don't agree with your communications being stored for 12 months to be accessed if you become under some sort of investigation, if not, why not?

 

Where exactly is the line?

So terrorists only discuss their plans in public? Then what is the point of recording private online communications?

no, but that's not what you asked.

you asked about why people wouldn't want cctv or recording devicesin their houses.

the answer is privacy, as someone else also said.

theres a debate as to whether public places should be covered by cctv for the prevention of crime.

the same debate isnt happening for private houses and the reason is, privacy.

that's the answer to the question you asked

that privacy can be over ruled in cases where sufficient justification is warranted, hence police being able to conduct surveillance and phone taps etc

 

zico's cracking one off is a good example ( always down to that on here), your own bedroom, fine, town hall square same act, not so fine.

Presume you all think David Davis is a cunt for taking this to the ECoJ and stopping it... Or is he just being a contrary cunt too? 

Where exactly is the line?

 

I think it's between compiling online / mobile communication using 3rd party providers, and setting up some sort of audio and visual surveillance in everyone's house

 

why did you not answer my question?

no, but that's not what you asked.

you asked about why people wouldn't want cctv or recording devicesin their houses.

the answer is privacy, as someone else also said.

theres a debate as to whether public places should be covered by cctv for the prevention of crime.

the same debate isnt happening for private houses and the reason is, privacy.

that's the answer to the question you asked

that privacy can be over ruled in cases where sufficient justification is warranted, hence police being able to conduct surveillance and phone taps etc

 

zico's cracking one off is a good example ( always down to that on here), your own bedroom, fine, town hall square same act, not so fine.

 

You engage in online communication in your own fucking home though! You send private photo's to people from your own home! You might even have online audio/video conversations with people whilst sat in your own home!

You can't drive a truck into people on the internet either. You can make plans to do so in your own home.

 

Why not let the security services listen to EVERYTHING instead of just online communication? If you can discuss private things in your home without detection, I'm pretty sure terrorists can too.

Of course they can, but if the tools they use to plan and enact their deeds are monitored then that makes it more difficult for them.

Like I said its impossible to monitor everyone's conversations whether we agree to it or not. Moreover in reality if someone says I want to nobble someone but can't actually enact it then that's generally speaking as good as we can expect.

Probably plenty of folk on here exclaiming they'd like to thump a fellow poster in a moment of angst. Doesnt mean they enact it. Can you imagine the listening police charging round to everyone house on that premise- just not happening.

You engage in online communication in your own fucking home though! You send private photo's to people from your own home! You might even have online audio/video conversations with people whilst sat in your own home!

i do all of that through my own choice.

i can turn it off when ever i like, to use your line of argument, do you think terrorists set up face book groups and publicly plan bombings the same as i share football scores and pics of the kids nativity?

 

and thats still not the same as having a cctv in your home or anything to do with the question you asked about why people wouldnt want one in there.

I think it's between compiling online / mobile communication using 3rd party providers, and setting up some sort of audio and visual surveillance in everyone's house

 

why did you not answer my question?

 

I didn't mention 'surveillance'. I'm not talking about someone constantly watching/listening to you. I'm talking about recording and storage for future reference. Exactly the same way they want to use your online data...

 

In answer to your question - no, I don't think there should be nationwide mass storage of private communications in any form. Targetted surveillance is absolutely correct, but mass storage is no use to anyone, and is merely a stepping stone to the further invasions of privacy you cite as a reason for not wanting your house bugged.

i do all of that through my own choice.

i can turn it off when ever i like, to use your line of argument, do you think terrorists set up face book groups and publicly plan bombings the same as i share football scores and pics of the kids nativity?

 

and thats still not the same as having a cctv in your home or anything to do with the question you asked about why people wouldnt want one in there.

 

Of course not, and it's a point I've made several times.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world

 

 

Great news hunt for this terrorist right across Schengen zone. Who could come up with such a stupid idea.????

Edited December 21, 20169 yr by Mounts Kipper

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world

Great news hunt for this terrorist right across Schengen zone. Who could come up with such a stupid idea.

Just clicked a link below the article about explosion at fireworks factory in mexico. Kinell.