New monitoring powers 'to tackle terrorism' proposed
bbc.co.uk
bbc.co.uk
Newspeak and doublethink abound.
The benefits cap reduction paid for people who are working to have their personal tax-free allowance raised and decreased the reward for not working ergo they are helping working people by providing tax relief as a reward. This just isn't the same "helping working people" soundbite that the vocal minority of media and population are annoyed about however which is where the disparity arises.
They are ramping up surveillance with the intention of combating online terror. But there probably isn't anything much going on, but they're still doing it so they can be seen to be doing it.
Now I don't necessarily agree with the situation, would personally smash the state in a second, nationalise all industry and live as a strong fisted respectable worker under a common flag, singing Auferstanden aus Ruinen in a second but newspeak and doublethink it is not.
The stated intention of combating online terror. However much like their ISP filtering, it was used for things other than the stated purpose within the first 6 months.
Humans in quantities more than one aren't trustworthy even if their initial intentions are good. Bad solutions attract bad people eventually. That's what happens in that 6 months...
There are three seperate systems:
1) the mandated porn filters; these are optional. Some of them have granularity so the customer can select other categories of stuff to block
2) court ordered blocking of torrent sites. These are quite seperate from the porn filters and they require a judge to rubber stamp an order.
3) the IWF lists of sites dealing in images of child sexual abuse. This is a system voluntarily used by most UK ISPs to filter sites that contain images of child sexual abuse.
When arguing against them it's probably useful to at least be factually accurate about the different systems.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jan/03/david-c...
I mean you can deny these things happen I guess? Before Cameron started meddling, this stuff was far less frequent and far more reasonable.
Focussing on those cases is probably a mistake. They're caught in filters by accident, and the people responsible say "whoops!" then tweak the filters to unblock the charity sites. http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/new...
And we've seen this rhetoric from politicians - "this is complicated; mistakes do get made; but we adjustthe filters when mistakes are made; and we need the filters because TERRORISTS or EXTREME PORNOGRAPHY".
https://www.blocked.org.uk/faq
You are aware they block things like dating sites as a matter of policy unless you opt-in to the "perv list", yeah?
You seem to think that I think the filters are a good idea. I don't. I do know that using factually wrong information when talking about the filters does not help when you're trying to change law.
Its a term that was used for years in relation to the filter that it was about "perverts".
For someone dedicated to factual accuracy, the fact you seem to think commonly used terms in relation to something are "wrong" is proof you really don't get it.
Most of the UK was nationalised at some point in time but I had a stab at how successful centrally planned economy was in East Germany from the worker's perspective here.
If what they really need is to go after "suspected terrorists", then all they should need is a warrant from a judge. But of course this bill is not about that. It's about spying on everyone, and about censoring "extremist speech" (I assume the government gets to decide what is extremist, too, and not a judge?).
Checks and balances are supposed to exist for a reason. We've played this game before giving governments total power to "do stuff", including "protecting us", "improve the economy", "national security", whatever. It doesn't end well for the population. In fact, it ends exponentially worse than any "threat" mentioned when the government asks for such powers, for every single person, not just those "who have something to hide" or are "extremist".
A lesson in picking the lesser of evils. Nobody will learn it though, and the UK is screwed for the forseeable future.
The Tories have a slimmer majority now than they had in the coalition, and a Lords which isn't all roses and flowers about this. And the Lib Dems (in one of the few promises they actually kept) sent the Draft Communications Data Bill rejected last time over to an independent parliamentary committee - which promptly savaged its drafting and lack of consultation, amongst other things: http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/...
If the Tories come back with the same draft or worse, it will have a very hard time.
I've written to my MP already - and got a copy-pasted bit of Tory party manifesto back, which indicates how much thought she's put into it so far I suppose - but it does at least contain a paragraph about not wanting to propose sweeping mass surveillance legislation obviously, which this in fact is, so I'm going to reply again when I have sight of the draft to pick out the specific problems. I can at least try to get her to read it and reflect my concerns.
No luck with any letters I've sent there!
All the Lords can do, is amend it and send it back to the commons until they're happy. And typically they only do that if they feel there are legal problems (e.g. ECHR/EU challenges).
So I guess what I am saying is: Don't expect the Lords to block this. If it is a manifesto promise they cannot/will not.
Edit: Apparently the Lib Dems are universally loved, and never did anything wrong. I retract my statement.
The thing is, even if they did that, they actually were an effective moderate voice. They did actually prevent exactly this sort of thing previously. They should be judged on their achievements, not on an unachievable election promise. An election they didn't win.
If you care about this sort of thing then please consider joining the ORG (https://www.openrightsgroup.org/join/) and/or writing to your MP.
One of the few advantages of a fptp voting system is that MPs have a very real constituency link. If enough people write on issues like this then MPs have to either listen or accept that they are directly losing support. So please do write to them.