I understand what you say completely. That scenario is morally wrong. This however is completely different. For one, they aren't permitted to read anything. The only info stored would be web address (main webpage, no sub pages) IP and time/date. To access that authorities would need the permission of a judge BEFORE accessing it. The legislation is designed to only be used against national security threats.
So is ours. They're supposed to get warrants, but they often don't. When they don't get a warrant and somebody sues the government for it, the spy agencies invoke State Secrets protection, so the lawsuit gets thrown out of court. The protections are built into the law, but those protections aren't enforceable as long as the government gets immunity from having their spy tactics exposed.
Typically, the biggest problem with this type of legislation is the broad wording. Let's explore an example. "A threat to national security." How can you contain the definition of such a concept? We all know what it's supposed to mean, but that's not how governments have used it. There's a case where an American child of about 8 years old was placed on the no fly list for being a "threat to national security." The boy's crime? His name was similar to someone else's name who once made a phone call to a suspected "terrorist." I don't know. Maybe they don't teach critical thinking in the U.K. It's just amazing how few U.K. citizens are critical of their own government. U.K. The Nanny State U.K. The Surveillance State Sorry, I'm really done with this thread. At the end of the day, if you're happy, what else matters, right? Ignore us Yanks. We will keep petitioning our government for a redress of our grievances while we glance over our shoulders and look across the Atlantic with a raised eyebrow. Long live the queen! Cheerio! ️
Sorry but you really generalized Americans and British people. By the way many of us British people view Americans as gullable and willing to swallow most of what their government tells them; I am slightly uncomfortable with this Bill, however I am not completely opposed. Some aspects of it are pretty good and requires (monitoring fraud) however it is a clear breach of privacy.
It is a documented fact, there are those in any nation using intelligence gathering that lawfully or not Will use that information for personal gain.
America just kill each other all the time horrible place to live rather get watched walking down every road I live rather than fear being shot every road I walk down.
What are you doing privately that a judge would need to sign off on a warrant to get the limited data about your Internet usage that you don't want the world to see? Critical thinking yes we have it. But I guess the main difference in opinion is that yes we are more trusting of our government and its use of information than our American cousins. We do live in a society where we are monitored. Both uk and USA use cameras to monitor the public. As do many others. Is it a total infringement of privacy. Not really unless you are hiding something. The warrant will only reveal evidence that can be used to support your guilt, or maintain your innocence. It's less intrusive than cameras on the streets. Than passports monitoring movements. It requires a judge signing off a warrant. It's a new law dealing with new technology and issues pertaining to its use. A government that does not legislate for the advances of its society is a lost cause. I see where people's objections come from. But the reality is. The only ones that need to worry are those the law is designed to catch and prevent.
Lol perhaps not the best idea. Any media attention is good for them. But does make you wonder what people are looking at, that they don't want people seeing
Window licker hmm unless your mom is a window then I guess I am Back on the topic government is pushing for a world government run by a select few and these are necessary steps to ensure that happens
I don't understand why people who normally post well-developed arguments are: a) bickering about somewhere and something insignificant b) getting so ludicrously personal Who cares if the UK retains information which it receives anyway for a few months more. Maybe you should instead be concerned with how Cameron sold the nation to China, decimated our FCO budget and has overseen an irreparable diminution to our external affairs.