4 ms·
I can't speak for others, but here's the issues I have with it. Firstly, as you suggest, I dislike the notion of the government monitoring the Internet use of
by gloob 17y ago
I can't speak for others, but here's the issues I have with it.
Firstly, as you suggest, I dislike the notion of the government monitoring the Internet use of private individuals. Fortunately for me, I do not live in the UK, which is (to my inexperienced eyes) a country where this is a relatively alien notion. (Perhaps relevant: http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/01/uk-approves-pol/ http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/01/uk-approves-pol/)
Secondly, it essentially does an end-run around large chunks of what I like about the legal system (the parts with juries and lawyers and defendants-who-can-defend-themselves). I suppose I just have this quaint notion that if someone is demonstrably doing something illegal, you should drag them into court for it rather than mucking around with some ad-hoc, newly minted system for inconveniencing them.
- tc7 17y agoAh, cool. I like the legal system bit. Seems that we have a system in place to deal with these people (criminals), and we should think long and hard before implementing something else on top of it. Or in between it. I wonder if this kind of thing is brought up not because they want to crack down harder, but because somewhere in the back of their minds they don't want to have to go through the whole jail/immense fine conviction that the law demands, but would rather just prevent the criminals from criminaling any longer. Less fuss. Similar, perhaps, to building a higher wall instead of arresting and prosecuting the guy that jumps over every morning and steals your cabbages?