La_Dolce_Vita Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 http://uk.news.yahoo.com/5/20090325/twl-fa...on-3fd0ae9.html http://uk.news.yahoo.com/blog/talking_politics/article/9903/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manxman2 Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 the way in which we collect communications data needs to change so that law enforcement agencies can maintain their ability to tackle terrorism and gather evidence." theres the keyword. theres people who believe the nsa and mi5 are the original sponsors of these sites anyway and have been quietly data mining since conception. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted March 25, 2009 Author Share Posted March 25, 2009 the way in which we collect communications data needs to change so that law enforcement agencies can maintain their ability to tackle terrorism and gather evidence." theres the keyword. theres people who believe the nsa and mi5 are the original sponsors of these sites anyway and have been quietly data mining since conception. What do you mean by referring to the 'keyword' of terrorism? Do you agree with this snooping? I wouldn't be surprised with what you say about Facebook. Governments find it harder and harder to spy and snoop at a time when they believe they have more right to. The governments will do anything to make it easier for them to have access to data they want or remove barriers to information. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manxman2 Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 agree ofcourse not. the anti terrorist legislation is a sham. wouldnt surprise me if new labour refused hold any more elections and refused to give up government. if they did what could anyone do about it...? demonstrate .. you would be subect to immediate arrest . conspire to strike or cause civil unrest .. you would be subect to immediate arrest . really what could anyone do they have the country by the balls.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted March 25, 2009 Author Share Posted March 25, 2009 agree ofcourse not. the anti terrorist legislation is a sham. wouldnt surprise me if new labour refused hold any more elections and refused to give up government. if they did what could anyone do about it...? demonstrate .. you would be subect to immediate arrest . conspire to strike or cause civil unrest .. you would be subect to immediate arrest . really what could anyone do they have the country by the balls.. They would have to be a massive level of popular opposition. It could happen as the government control is increasing incrementally with no signs of it abating. Depends how far the scummy bastards want to take their hold on power. Voting conservative isn't going to change things. Problem is this increase in government control comes with an increase in power of their lackeys, the police. Like you say demonstrators and protesters can now be subject to terrorism legislation in some instances. They came down really hard on Climate Camp protesters some months back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manxman2 Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 i will wager that this latest news story about social networking sites is a precursor to a whistle blower who was/is going to release some embarrassing information. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Tatlock Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 I think it's a good thing. Anyone called Sharon, Brett, Kylie or the like - should be immediately arrested and imprisoned. IME, Facebook and the like are full of pond life with very few real friends - innit? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimbms Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 Facebook is mainly for public viewing, therefore anyone can look at it so no law is broken, end of story Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pragmatopian Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 As an investigator I'm often bound by daft or ambiguous data privacy and employment laws from taking proportionate measures to investigate targets suspected of wrongdoing within companies even when those targets have carried out their nefarious activities using the company's phones and computer equipment! In a way I'm quite jealous of law enforcement agencies who appear to have no such issues. I've no qualms with them responding to credible threats by issues sub poenas for communications records from whatever source, but creating vast data banks of everybody's communication records from whatever source 'just in case' seems rather disproportionate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted March 25, 2009 Author Share Posted March 25, 2009 Facebook is mainly for public viewing, therefore anyone can look at it so no law is broken, end of story It is, but how can people get access to your profile when your privacy settings do not allow friends to view your profile, or what methods and permission are they getting to view this information. I ask because I read in the Manchester Metro today how benefits investigators now look at facebook profiles to determine whether people are fibbing or not. As an investigator I'm often bound by daft or ambiguous data privacy and employment laws from taking proportionate measures to investigate targets suspected of wrongdoing within companies even when those targets have carried out their nefarious activities using the company's phones and computer equipment! In a way I'm quite jealous of law enforcement agencies who appear to have no such issues. I've no qualms with them responding to credible threats by issues sub poenas for communications records from whatever source, but creating vast data banks of everybody's communication records from whatever source 'just in case' seems rather disproportionate. Exactly, I think the same, responding to a threat is different from trouncing over everyone's privacy in order to determine if there are threats. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
When Skies Are Grey Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 So, LDV, you are for the wilful vandalism of private property...but against the collection of private information on a public forum....hmmmm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimbms Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 So, LDV, you are for the wilful vandalism of private property...but against the collection of private information on a public forum....hmmmm I would say it is a fine case of cherry pick the the events to suit the misguided dreamworld idealistic beliefs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted March 26, 2009 Author Share Posted March 26, 2009 So, LDV, you are for the wilful vandalism of private property...but against the collection of private information on a public forum....hmmmm ...which are completely different things. And no I don't condone just any acts of vandalism on property. I would say it is a fine case of cherry pick the the events to suit the misguided dreamworld idealistic beliefs Maybe, the things that are of most interest are issues of freedom. No more different than why other people would comment on what matters to them. Though if you think issues of freedom are misguided then I would think you are misguided. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
immortalpuppet Posted March 26, 2009 Share Posted March 26, 2009 Its to cut down on petrol expense! if they have an eye on you and you are using a PC they have got all your stuff anyway, the problem is being able to use that evidence in court. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theman Posted March 27, 2009 Share Posted March 27, 2009 100% they do omg. there been loads of pep's getting nicked in the uk thanks to face book's and big mouths Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.