6 ms·
And later on in the article: "Therefore, if the home secretary is stating that communications data was unavailable in specific cases, then that would suggest th
by rlpb 12y ago
And later on in the article: "Therefore, if the home secretary is stating that communications data was unavailable in specific cases, then that would suggest that a warrant was either not submitted to, or was rejected by, the companies in question. The question therefore should be why is this the case?"
Or is she citing cases where the authorities did not seek a warrant, or the judiciary refused a warrant? And if so, why?
- mike-cardwell 12y agoPresumably in some of those cases, the argument was that if they could scan a large number of peoples email for keywords they might have been able to find some evidence as to who was involved. You generally can't get a warrant to scan a large number of peoples email. Especially if that large number amounts to everyone. I don't agree that they should have the ability to do this, even if it saves lives. Because handing over this sort of power to a government only leads to the creation of a police state, which ultimately will probably ruin more lives. Freedom costs lives.
- pjc50 12y agoThis is Theresa May. Her statements will be either fabrications or horrendously contorted torture of a factual core into something wildly misleading. Remember the "I am not making this up" about the cat: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-15171980 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-15171980