4 ms·

Why does anybody other than policing and security agencies need access to this stuff? NHS? Fire and rescue? WHAT? They don't have a role in investigating crime.

by mathw 6y ago

Why does anybody other than policing and security agencies need access to this stuff? NHS? Fire and rescue? WHAT? They don't have a role in investigating crime. Okay the fire brigade do post-fire analysis of possible arson etc. but that's not something you need access to somebody's internet history for.

morrbo 6y ago
Yep, food standards Scotland could call up TalkTalk and ask for a copy of my browsing history. This is assuming its not been leaked because they got hacked by a 16 year old script kiddy *again*.
- outsomnia 6y ago
  The probability of the Chav Network being able to convert bungs into your private data, more or less at will, must be about 100% with that list.
  - emayljames 6y ago
    I'll call Dave at the Food Standards Agency, he'll get your internet history. Crimes against food.
jozvolskyef 6y ago
The NHS investigate people for abusing their authority as medical professionals. I don't know how they divide the work with the police, but they do have their own people for investigations.
- adwww 6y ago
  Also for fraudulent malpractice cases. An investigation made the news recently where a lady was suing a hospital. She claimed some massive disability following an operation, and the hospital's own investigations team followed her and filmed her jogging, drinking, etc. It would have been using these same powers to do the surveillance work.
  - HPsquared 6y ago
    Observing someone in public isn't really in the same league as this.
cs02rm0 6y ago
I don't even think the Police should have access. If it's that serious, have them ask an intelligence agency to investigate and report - as they do anyway today. They don't need direct access. But yes, crazy that the Food Standards Agency always end up on this list. Must be someone who knows someone.
knorker 6y ago
Because the UK is only borderline a free society. It's like asking why does the king of Saudi Arabia need to have the power to jail his subjects for no reason? Why does Putin need to have the right to jail or kill political opponents? The UK doesn't give you right to remain silent (your silence will be used against you), you are compelled to bear witness against yourself (you must surrender passwords), and there are super-injunctions where you are gagged and not even allowed to discuss the legal issue with your lawyer. This is the country that sent government thugs to force journalists to physically destroy their own laptops and hard drives. With religious clergy overtly and explicitly being part of government power (in house of lords). Hell, it's super recent that government power in house of lords stopped being inherited. Imagine if the US senate was staffed solely by inherited power. Not just in the style of Bust Sr/GWB, but actually inherited. It's not the same, since the US senate is more powerful than the house of lords, but "it's complicated". So your confusion here may come from the fact that you look at the UK as "like the US, but they talk weird", where it's a couple of step closer to "Like Saudi Arabia, but part of political power is elected". Obviously Saudi Arabia is much further away along this spectrum, but I hope you see my point anyway. You seem to be saying "how can a free society do this?", where the answer is "because it's not that free, your assumption is flawed".
- knorker 6y ago
  ... and this is what you get: A lifetime appointee to the house of lords has proposed a curfew for men after 6pm. https://news.sky.com/story/sarah-everard-baroness-who-suggested-6pm-curfew-for-men-says-she-wanted-to-make-a-point-12243462 https://news.sky.com/story/sarah-everard-baroness-who-sugges... This idiot (who is clearly making a completely idiotic contraproductive and divisive point, since I'm charitable enough to not take her at face value) is there for life. She can't even be voted out. She's there for life. But what can you expect from the Green Party? Are they actually competent at what they do in any country?
  - bananapub 6y ago
    The Greens in Australia are by and large the most rational party in the country, from the future of energy to drug policy to social policy.

by mathw 6y ago

morrbo 6y ago

Yep, food standards Scotland could call up TalkTalk and ask for a copy of my browsing history. This is assuming its not been leaked because they got hacked by a 16 year old script kiddy *again*.

outsomnia 6y ago
The probability of the Chav Network being able to convert bungs into your private data, more or less at will, must be about 100% with that list.
- emayljames 6y ago
  I'll call Dave at the Food Standards Agency, he'll get your internet history. Crimes against food.

jozvolskyef 6y ago

The NHS investigate people for abusing their authority as medical professionals. I don't know how they divide the work with the police, but they do have their own people for investigations.

adwww 6y ago
Also for fraudulent malpractice cases. An investigation made the news recently where a lady was suing a hospital. She claimed some massive disability following an operation, and the hospital's own investigations team followed her and filmed her jogging, drinking, etc. It would have been using these same powers to do the surveillance work.
- HPsquared 6y ago
  Observing someone in public isn't really in the same league as this.

cs02rm0 6y ago

I don't even think the Police should have access. If it's that serious, have them ask an intelligence agency to investigate and report - as they do anyway today. They don't need direct access. But yes, crazy that the Food Standards Agency always end up on this list. Must be someone who knows someone.

knorker 6y ago

Because the UK is only borderline a free society. It's like asking why does the king of Saudi Arabia need to have the power to jail his subjects for no reason? Why does Putin need to have the right to jail or kill political opponents? The UK doesn't give you right to remain silent (your silence will be used against you), you are compelled to bear witness against yourself (you must surrender passwords), and there are super-injunctions where you are gagged and not even allowed to discuss the legal issue with your lawyer. This is the country that sent government thugs to force journalists to physically destroy their own laptops and hard drives. With religious clergy overtly and explicitly being part of government power (in house of lords). Hell, it's super recent that government power in house of lords stopped being inherited. Imagine if the US senate was staffed solely by inherited power. Not just in the style of Bust Sr/GWB, but actually inherited. It's not the same, since the US senate is more powerful than the house of lords, but "it's complicated". So your confusion here may come from the fact that you look at the UK as "like the US, but they talk weird", where it's a couple of step closer to "Like Saudi Arabia, but part of political power is elected". Obviously Saudi Arabia is much further away along this spectrum, but I hope you see my point anyway. You seem to be saying "how can a free society do this?", where the answer is "because it's not that free, your assumption is flawed".

knorker 6y ago
... and this is what you get: A lifetime appointee to the house of lords has proposed a curfew for men after 6pm. https://news.sky.com/story/sarah-everard-baroness-who-suggested-6pm-curfew-for-men-says-she-wanted-to-make-a-point-12243462 https://news.sky.com/story/sarah-everard-baroness-who-sugges... This idiot (who is clearly making a completely idiotic contraproductive and divisive point, since I'm charitable enough to not take her at face value) is there for life. She can't even be voted out. She's there for life. But what can you expect from the Green Party? Are they actually competent at what they do in any country?
- bananapub 6y ago
  The Greens in Australia are by and large the most rational party in the country, from the future of energy to drug policy to social policy.