3 ms·

Even during an interview on BBC Radio 4 on Wednesday evening a government minister slipped in that the government need to keep an eye on catching paedophiles an

Even during an interview on BBC Radio 4 on Wednesday evening a government minister slipped in that the government need to keep an eye on catching paedophiles and serious organised crime. So this clearly isn't just for an immediate terrorist threat, they're just going through all the legislation that's been going a bit stale and rushing it through whilst the opinion polls don't really matter and all under false pretences or half truths.

revelation 12y ago
It's not even for paedophiles or serious organised crime either. As with all other new police capabilities, 90% of this will be used for the drug war and the remainder is split between a bunch of lowlevel crimes such as theft or harassment . There is data from Austrias data retention laws here: http://www.parlament.gv.at/PAKT/VHG/XXV/AB/AB_01179/imfname_353625.pdf http://www.parlament.gv.at/PAKT/VHG/XXV/AB/AB_01179/imfname_... Summing up, in 2013, data was used for investigations concercing the following offenses: - theft (35%) - drugs (18%) - robbery (16%) - stalking (14%) - fraud (12%) - threats (5%)
- pbhjpbhj 12y ago
  So, is your contention that because data was only used to catch regular criminals - drug dealers, robbers, stalkers, fraudsters and the like - that we should find that a bad thing. It's just prima facie it sounds quite good to me that criminals who might not have otherwise been convicted or discovered in their actions can now be so. All at the cost of the police knowing what my ISP [and GCHQ] knows about me already.
  - revelation 12y ago
    I really don't care to have this conversation right now. It's been discussed over and over, and the feigned ignorance is insulting. The point here is that if you are going to use this to catch petty criminals, you have to market it as such to the public. Instead, we have politicians conjuring up the image of imminent terrorist attacks and national security. It is a simple lie.
    - pbhjpbhj 12y ago
      Don't start a conversation and then say you don't want to talk about it, just don't join in. I'm not now expecting an answer but your second para sounds like you only have a problem with the fact that the use of the data isn't explicitly laid out in advance. Even if it's set up to combat terrorism and other crimes being noticed are a side-effect; you'd be happy as long as it's mentioned that other crimes discovered will also be prosecuted? Your comment sold such police powers well, I'd imagine most of the electorate reading that using this technology has and will continue to catch the perpetrators of the crimes you list would find it positive. Other than expanding the people that know inane trivia about me I find it hard to see what liberties are really given up.
      - tonylemesmer 12y ago
        Problem is, the law is being rushed in without checking or debate because of the stated purpose, however it would benefit from a debate if it being used for other purposes. That's the lie.

revelation 12y ago

It's not even for paedophiles or serious organised crime either. As with all other new police capabilities, 90% of this will be used for the drug war and the remainder is split between a bunch of lowlevel crimes such as theft or harassment . There is data from Austrias data retention laws here: http://www.parlament.gv.at/PAKT/VHG/XXV/AB/AB_01179/imfname_353625.pdf http://www.parlament.gv.at/PAKT/VHG/XXV/AB/AB_01179/imfname_... Summing up, in 2013, data was used for investigations concercing the following offenses: - theft (35%) - drugs (18%) - robbery (16%) - stalking (14%) - fraud (12%) - threats (5%)

pbhjpbhj 12y ago
So, is your contention that because data was only used to catch regular criminals - drug dealers, robbers, stalkers, fraudsters and the like - that we should find that a bad thing. It's just prima facie it sounds quite good to me that criminals who might not have otherwise been convicted or discovered in their actions can now be so. All at the cost of the police knowing what my ISP [and GCHQ] knows about me already.
- revelation 12y ago
  I really don't care to have this conversation right now. It's been discussed over and over, and the feigned ignorance is insulting. The point here is that if you are going to use this to catch petty criminals, you have to market it as such to the public. Instead, we have politicians conjuring up the image of imminent terrorist attacks and national security. It is a simple lie.
  - pbhjpbhj 12y ago
    Don't start a conversation and then say you don't want to talk about it, just don't join in. I'm not now expecting an answer but your second para sounds like you only have a problem with the fact that the use of the data isn't explicitly laid out in advance. Even if it's set up to combat terrorism and other crimes being noticed are a side-effect; you'd be happy as long as it's mentioned that other crimes discovered will also be prosecuted? Your comment sold such police powers well, I'd imagine most of the electorate reading that using this technology has and will continue to catch the perpetrators of the crimes you list would find it positive. Other than expanding the people that know inane trivia about me I find it hard to see what liberties are really given up.
    - tonylemesmer 12y ago
      Problem is, the law is being rushed in without checking or debate because of the stated purpose, however it would benefit from a debate if it being used for other purposes. That's the lie.