more good news from around the world

Discussion in 'Computer Support' started by thanatoid, Oct 16, 2008.

  1. thanatoid

    thanatoid Guest

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1077788/Government-
    unveils-Big-Brother-plan-Now-want-snoop-phone-email-text-
    message.html

    --
    Those who cast the votes decide nothing. Those who count the
    votes decide everything.
    - Josef Stalin

    NB: I am filtering everything from discussions.microsoft and
    google groups, so no offense if you don't get a reply/comment
    unless I see you quoted in another post.
     
    thanatoid, Oct 16, 2008
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. thanatoid

    HEMI-Powered Guest

    thanatoid added these comments in the current discussion du jour
    ....
    Big Brother has been alive and well for sometime. It is much less
    a technological issue than it is a legal issue. And, the nature
    of "wire taps" to catch would-be terrorists vs. ordinary
    criminals is largely classified. If you look at the United
    States, the USA PATRIOT Act and FISA have effectively gutted our
    Bill of Rights protections such as privacy. The FISA renewal
    earlier this year goes so far as to even indemnify
    telecommunications companies including cell phones from any
    criminal prosectution or civil liability even if the wire tap is
    deemed inappropriate or illegal. I cannot speak for the UK, but
    believe that your rights that began with the Magna Carta are
    equally abridged.
     
    HEMI-Powered, Oct 16, 2008
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. thanatoid

    Aardvark Guest

    Unlike the US, the UK has never had a written constitution. What rights
    we have today are based on case law, legal precedent and the Magna Carta.
    All it would take to remove any rights (such as we have) is Act of
    Parliament (if not less).
     
    Aardvark, Oct 16, 2008
    #3
  4. thanatoid

    HEMI-Powered Guest

    Aardvark added these comments in the current discussion du jour
    ....
    So, what's your protection from excesses of the Crown in earlier
    times or excesses of an errant PM in later times? I am hardly
    knowledgable on the parliamentary form of government except some
    very rudimentary stuff that I do like, such as the ability to
    force the party in power to hold an election of confidence, or
    whatever it is properly called.

    The idea of a more rigid document, no matter what it is called,
    is to prevent mischief of the ordinary politician types by making
    it difficult to go past certain basic rights, freedoms, and
    priveliges, not to mention to define the basic rules for
    governing and both the powers and duties of the legislative
    branch, executivie branch, and judicial branch of government.
    Yours is entirely different than ours but you do have 3 branches.

    It was also desired by our Framers to not tie the hands of normal
    government busines by requiring a formal Amendment be passed and
    ratified by "the several states". This is one of the great
    beauties of our Constitution. Various passages are left
    intentionally vague to allow for the advances in technology and
    the changes in the wishes of the citizens over time without major
    rewrites every couple of generations. There is no proof that this
    idea worked except that the total number of Amendments is rather
    small.

    Now, the power of our Supreme Court to not only interpret the
    Constitution but to strike down laws passed by Congress and
    signed by the president if they are deemed against the basic
    stuff in the Constitution. This last power isn't specifically
    given to the Supreme Court or any Federal circuit or appellate
    court but then, it is also not prohibited. So, in a landmark case
    known as Marbary v Madison, as in President Madison, a law was
    overturned on Constitutional grounds in, I think, 1804 or so.

    This system has worked reasonable well over the approximately 200
    years it has been in force. As vacancies on the 3 levels of the
    courts occur, the sitting president may nominate new jurists but
    the Senate has "advise and consent" power to either confirm or
    deny the appointment as they can with any treaty or political
    appointment. So, over time depending on the winds of change in
    the 2 or 3 party system, the Courts have moved from liberal to
    centrist to conservative and back again. In modern times there is
    a dangerous thing going on by so-called activist judges known as
    "legislating from the bench" meaning that a circuit or appellate
    judge might do something not in the wishes of the people. The
    Supreme Court has no requirement to hear any and all appeals so
    it may or may not go along or it may or may not overturn. It is
    too soon to tell if this is good or not, but our next president
    is sure to fill one vacancy, maybe 2, perhaps even three so
    depending on who wins next month, the entire complexion of the
    Court may move from right of center today to well left of center.
    Or, it may get even more right, right?
     
    HEMI-Powered, Oct 16, 2008
    #4
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.