«

Nothing is stated in this report as to warrants. I wonder if they are
in the bill?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politic...651?print=true

RichA <> wrote:
>Nothing is stated in this report as to warrants. I wonder if they are
>in the bill?
>
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politic...651?print=true


Why the obsession with Britain, Rich?

The ISPs will record date, time and address visited or to which email
is sent. Similar legislation already applies to cell phone calls. The
content of any message or file transfer is not recorded

Public opinion seems neutral to supportive. The only people objecting
strongly are those obsessed with the minutiae of legislation affecting
civil liberties.

On 12/4/2012 6:16 AM, Anthony Polson wrote:
> RichA <> wrote:
>> Nothing is stated in this report as to warrants. I wonder if they are
>> in the bill?
>>
>> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politic...651?print=true
>
>
> Why the obsession with Britain, Rich?
>
> The ISPs will record date, time and address visited or to which email
> is sent. Similar legislation already applies to cell phone calls. The
> content of any message or file transfer is not recorded
>
> Public opinion seems neutral to supportive. The only people objecting
> strongly are those obsessed with the minutiae of legislation affecting
> civil liberties.
>

If civil liberties are not protected, they will be lost.


--
Peter

On Wednesday, December 5, 2012 3:31:38 AM UTC, PeterN wrote:
> On 12/4/2012 6:16 AM, Anthony Polson wrote:
>
> > RichA <> wrote:
>
> >> Nothing is stated in this report as to warrants. I wonder if they are
>
> >> in the bill?
>
> >>
>
> >> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politic...651?print=true
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Why the obsession with Britain, Rich?
>
> >
>
> > The ISPs will record date, time and address visited or to which email
>
> > is sent. Similar legislation already applies to cell phone calls. The
>
> > content of any message or file transfer is not recorded
>
> >
>
> > Public opinion seems neutral to supportive. The only people objecting
>
> > strongly are those obsessed with the minutiae of legislation affecting
>
> > civil liberties.
>
> >
>
>
>
> If civil liberties are not protected, they will be lost.

Which civil liberties are likely to be lost here ?

>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Peter

On Mon, 03 Dec 2012 15:12:41 -0800, RichA wrote:

> Nothing is stated in this report as to warrants. I wonder if they are
> in the bill?
>
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politic...651?print=true

I coudn't care less. The only objection I would make if my actions were
monitored by a police officer is he/she is wasting police time.

I don't object to it like I don't object to having my face visible in
public or having number plates on my car. It makes me easy to be traced,
it does not mean I am actively traced (unless there is a reason).

Stop being paranoid, relax and enjoy life, they will get you anyway when
the time comes.


DanP

Anthony Polson <> wrote:
> RichA <> wrote:

>>Nothing is stated in this report as to warrants. I wonder if they are
>>in the bill?

>> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politic...651?print=true

> Why the obsession with Britain, Rich?

> The ISPs will record date, time and address visited or to which email
> is sent. Similar legislation already applies to cell phone calls. The
> content of any message or file transfer is not recorded

| The primary objective in government data retention is traffic
| analysis and mass surveillance. By analysing the retained
| data, governments can identify the locations of individuals,
| an individual's associates and the members of a group such as
| political opponents. These activities may or may not be
| lawful, depending on the constitutions and laws of each
| country. In many jurisdictions access to these databases may
| be made by a government with little or no judicial oversight
| (e.g. USA, UK, Australia)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telecom...data_retention

> Public opinion seems neutral to supportive.

Based on which sources? Your one-sided reception of equally
one-sided reporting?

> The only people objecting
> strongly are those obsessed with the minutiae of legislation affecting
> civil liberties.

You got that wrong. The people objecting strongly are those
not believing that a government is always, automatically,
the people's best friend and must never be doubted

Then there are those who believe that data retention is
a necessary evil, but that the length of the retention is
too large.

Far on the other side are the anti-terrorist-childpornography-
"software and media 'piracy'" people who would rather abolish
all essential freedom of others and make everyone transparent
for a slightly more 'secure' life.

-Wolfgang