Should the British government be able to monitor our use of texts, calls and internet

[DeletedUser17143]

This debate is raging in my house at the moment. I personally don't see the problem. The way I see it you don't HAVE to have a phone or a computer. They are luxuries that we choose to have. So I think it is perfectly acceptable for them to be monitored by the government. It isn't much different that what Google and Facebook (Not to mention most other internet giants) do already. And the phone information will come from the providing networks who already keep this information. So what is the problem with the government being able to look at it? I think people should only fear it if they have something to hide.

Here are some of the main points surrounding it.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-17590363

 

[DeletedUser]

A resounding NO to this one. we are entitled to privacy. this is supposed to be a free country, and if the government starts hacking phones they're no better than Rupert Murdoch. End Of.

 

[DeletedUser17143]

But they wouldn't be reading through every text and e-mail you send or listening into your calls. It would just be stored in a sort of database. So when they want to put someone under surveillance i.e. a suspected terrorist, they can quickly access their own records to see who they have been contacting, where they were and when they contacted them. They can already do this, it just requires a warrant from a magistrates court. So really it is just removing the middle man.

 

[DeletedUser]

Lol, you make the assumption a government, it's elected representatives, and it's employees are noble and right. There are a lot of reasons for recognizing privacy as a right within an alleged free country, not the least of which is -- privacy. Information about somebody can be used to extort (such as knowing they cheat on their wife, lied on their resume to their employer, etc), being able to access their bank account(s), obtaining passwords/codes and corporate insider information that can be used for corporate espionage or stock market exploit, etc and so on.

No, it's not okay. If all you have going on in life is a chat with your girlfriend or $100 in your bank account, no big deal. But when you obtain collateral, gain business or political power, hold corporate or military secrets, or manage sensitive data, then it becomes a big deal.

For instance, if someone were to record all my phone and internet activity, they would be able to access my bank account (through the app i use on my phone), gain passwords to multiple sites I visit, gain access to my paypal account, obtain administrator access to websites/forums I manage, and from there they can gain insider information on whatever businesses I interact with, client data, credit card info, etc., from customers both in and out of my respective country.

Allowing your government to obtain carte blanche access isn't merely a can of worms, it's the end. I don't even need to examine the slippery slope associated with this. The immediate effect would be a complete change in the way people do business; not merely to regain privacy, but because of obligations they hold to their customers and business partners.

 

[DeletedUser]

I suppose that when postal mail and the telephone were introduced, people had this very same conversation. When the British government sought, and obtained, licence to tap phones and intercept mail in much the same way a lot of people would have said that it was the end of free society and privacy and the first step to dictatorship, and history proved them wrong. This will be no different - it will pass into law, be used to detect and disrupt organised crime and terrorism (which will eventually find new work-arounds) and very occasionally someone will be tempted to abuse the privilege, find themselves in the papers and have to resign in disgrace. It's no big drama.
Thanks to an independent judiciary any monitoring will be heavily, almost oppressively, regulated, and since 99.999 recurring% of all electronic traffic is useless garbage to any government, and interception, evaluation and transcription are expensive processes it will make zero difference to anyone who is not either making bombs or wholesaling cocaine.

Even in Britain, the economy has not got to such a pass that the government needs to hack HS's bank account.

 

[DeletedUser]

It's this collective complacency that allows these things to happen. Once the data is stored, it's stored forever and can be accessed by anyone in the gov't down the road.

 

[DeletedUser16008]

Lol, you make the assumption a government, it's elected representatives, and it's employees are noble and right. There are a lot of reasons for recognizing privacy as a right within an alleged free country, not the least of which is -- privacy. Information about somebody can be used to extort (such as knowing they cheat on their wife, lied on their resume to their employer, etc), being able to access their bank account(s), obtaining passwords/codes and corporate insider information that can be used for corporate espionage or stock market exploit, etc and so on.

No, it's not okay. If all you have going on in life is a chat with your girlfriend or $100 in your bank account, no big deal. But when you obtain collateral, gain business or political power, hold corporate or military secrets, or manage sensitive data, then it becomes a big deal.

For instance, if someone were to record all my phone and internet activity, they would be able to access my bank account (through the app i use on my phone), gain passwords to multiple sites I visit, gain access to my paypal account, obtain administrator access to websites/forums I manage, and from there they can gain insider information on whatever businesses I interact with, client data, credit card info, etc., from customers both in and out of my respective country.

Allowing your government to obtain carte blanche access isn't merely a can of worms, it's the end. I don't even need to examine the slippery slope associated with this. The immediate effect would be a complete change in the way people do business; not merely to regain privacy, but because of obligations they hold to their customers and business partners.

This is of course all true. Business will be seriously affected, domestic as will as international.

Allowing your government to obtain carte blanche access isn't merely a can of worms, it's the end.

In a nutshell its game over


I'm going to be dramatic for a change.

The British government have a habit ( as do others ) of using rules and laws in ways they were not intended in later parliaments.

Perfect example was the anti terrorist law that the UK used to freeze Icelandic companies bank accounts etc during the Icelandic bank meltdown.

So you go about your business as say a journalist, join say a paper called private eye, leave and continue on your career..... In say 10 years or so the British government has shutdown private eye under some new obscure rule and they go over some of your articles during your time there and also the texts and research mails youve done. all perfectly innocent and all in a days work. Turns out they find something of interest in a mail to someone who has since gotten a political criminal record but also now your press officer for the oppositions political party. You have now become a possible subversive and on the watch list, who knows maybe your children of whom your older son is doing rather well and working with government contracts gets his proposal refused due to relationship with the father ... namely you. He's also now a possible subversive and no longer considered on the Gov contract listing. Your credit rating is adjusted and your wife can no longer get that loan for a car you were hoping for. Your job becomes unstable, people start to question your credibility...

You went to school with someone who later becomes an issue they check back on his texts and find your name comes up in some obscure convo with the word murder or something of the sort....

Hell yea id have and do have a problem with this big brother thing.... this isnt a random check like in a postal service or phone tap ... this is the holding of ALL Texts and Emails... it dosnt even have a timeline.. ie 3 years 5 years etc ... this can be indefinite and its totally possible especially as time goes on to accommodate every single person logged on a virtual server for almost an infinite amount of info and detail..... that ebay sale you made 6 years ago ? wheres the tax for it ? that nike tshirt you bought 3 years ago from that site ? it was a forgery your guilty of buying a copy as it was 2.99 you owe the balance of 20.99 and also a fine for breaking the law....

The point is this law will be abused along with the information ... at some future date... COUNT ON IT..

Oh and the best reason of all.... incompetence and trustworthiness of government.

Not taking into account, future hacking, corruption, style of society change, new laws etc. Wait until everything gets linked into a super server to correlate and profile you for the whole of your lifetime and every other digital transaction you do. What if for some crazy reason teleportation became a reality ? think they wont log every move you make too ? or how about when chips and surveylance records your movement not just 20 times a day but hundreds, think they won t link that in as necessary information about you ? it would make a great worth while intelligence network and easy when everything is wifi. All this is a certainty at some point along the road we are going not a theory.

Still think its not a problem ? still think you will have a measure of privacy ? Do you think your future governments will become less invasive or more ?

Do you take your personal or families freedom seriously, not just today but what could be ? and could is all you need to consider because if its a possible reality why would any sane person even take the chance of it happening ?

Sure for now it won't be noticeable but 20 years from now it will be, and not for the better.
Every step that erodes privacy and the right to it must be opposed, for if we continue to allow this invasion step by step your children and theirs will not thank you for it but probably curse you for your apathy.

Do I have to point out this is totally Orwellian and/or Huxleyan in its intention..... nothing less.

 

[DeletedUser]

I can understand why you would be against this if you suffered from paranoia.

The same drama happened over CCTV cameras - people prophesying doom & gloom, the end of privacy, Big Brother etc. Same with speed cameras - adulterers exposed with their mistresses, everybody's movements tracked etc.

Actual result - safer roads, speeders banned or made to drive more cautiously, looters identified and prosecuted, missing persons traced, terrorists identified, criminals deterred, assaulters prosecuted with the help of undeniable evidence, and even the police have to be more careful if they want to assault somebody. Safer streets and better citizen protection.

National security demands that certain criminal behaviour be identified by any means practicable. The government has a duty of care to the governed. This will happen anyway, and it's the sign of a mature democracy that it will be regulated and responsibly scrutinised.

Freedom isn't secured by letting everyone, jihadists and mafiosi included, communicate secretly - just the opposite.

 

[DeletedUser]

It is no secret power corrupts. If you allow the governments more power all you can expect is more corruption. Your personal information is a big cookie jar and you are just going to leave it out there for Government employees to use as they see fit? I would personally go back to paying bills in cash, in person, before I would trust the whole government with my personal information. Why can they not just get a warrant to get the information they need?

 

[DeletedUser16008]

I can understand why you would be against this if you suffered from paranoia.

“A paranoid is someone who knows a little of what's going on.” but “Sometimes paranoia is just having all the facts.” William S. Burroughs

The same drama happened over CCTV cameras - people prophesying doom & gloom, the end of privacy, Big Brother etc. Same with speed cameras - adulterers exposed with their mistresses, everybody's movements tracked etc.

Actual result - safer roads, speeders banned or made to drive more cautiously, looters identified and prosecuted, missing persons traced, terrorists identified, criminals deterred, assaulters prosecuted with the help of undeniable evidence, and even the police have to be more careful if they want to assault somebody. Safer streets and better citizen protection.

*sigh* here we go with the "we need protecting from others who are out to kill us" brigade. What the heck has having free access to all forms of your communication got to do with making you safer and just how do you think we got on for thousands of years before ? whos being paranoid or doomsaying here ?

National security demands that certain criminal behaviour be identified by any means practicable. The government has a duty of care to the governed. This will happen anyway, and it's the sign of a mature democracy that it will be regulated and responsibly scrutinised.

What is democratic or mature about being herded ? I seriously have to question your concept of freedom. They will push it to the very limit if allowed to.....you even know it judging by the fact your resigned to it. My god man listen to yourself...."will be regulated and responsibly scrutinised" translates to "controlled and constantly monitored in ever more detail" you actually embrace this crap or believe government is able to do anything as delicate as this responsibly....forever ? Or even think in your democracy you seem to think is so mature there is any choice at all

Freedom isn't secured by letting everyone, jihadists and mafiosi included, communicate secretly - just the opposite.

Sorry whos being paranoid again ? yes Eli thats exactly what Freedom is about.... its also called individual privacy. I like mine, I own it, I was born with it, in fact i like to exercise that right to discuss whatever i wish with whoever i wish.... in private ( insert Secret if you wish ) most regularly.

Short term it may seem to be of use longterm not a chance. As for CCTV and speeding its been proven it does nothing to alleviate accidents just a revenue stream from innocent speeders... ooo save us from the bad bad criminals... and yes its also been used to convict bad bad criminals for leaving dog poop on the sidewalk and a host of other minor issues also... so nice to know your safe to go out whereas before you were getting blown up on every corner.....

So you like the idea of being spoon fed, kept in fear of the boogyman and treated like a good little lab rat, good for you. Id rather be paranoid of what they could do out of historical example than believe the BS they are selling is all about protection for the people and current laws ... chances are those laws will change and become ever more invasive and restrictive as history always shows.

If it wasnt bad enough you were born into captivity with a cage of a certain size most are not even aware of. Your happy to build your cager ever smaller under the illusion its for "your own protection".... what happens when all freedom has gone and yours or your children's life and every private communication has gone with it ? will you be happy then ? as you say it has been a number of things CCTV etc... didnt stop there though did it ?

"Wish You Were Here"

So, so you think you can tell Heaven from Hell,
blue skies from pain.
Can you tell a green field from a cold steel rail?
A smile from a veil?
Do you think you can tell?
And did they get you to trade your heroes for ghosts?
Hot ashes for trees?
Hot air for a cool breeze?
Cold comfort for change?
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage?
How I wish, how I wish you were here.
We're just two lost souls swimming in a fish bowl, year after year,
Running over the same old ground.
What have we found? The same old fears.
Wish you were here.

Roger Waters

 

[DeletedUser17143]

This is of course all true. Business will be seriously affected, domestic as will as international.

It will also affect businesses for the better. Newspapers will be able to be tracked to see if they are phonehacking or calling the voicemail of other people and checking their messages. When you argue something at least have the decency to weigh up the pros and cons before running your mouth.

*sigh* here we go with the "we need protecting from others who are out to kill us" brigade. What the heck has having free access to all forms of your communication got to do with making you safer and just how do you think we got on for thousands of years before ? whos being paranoid or doomsaying here?

And here you go with the "ALL GOVERNMENT PLANS ARE BAD AND ARE ONLY INTRODUCED TO KEEP US BLIND TO WHAT IS REALLY GOING ON". It will help to make us safer. You do realise that it is not just us who advance technologically, right? The whole world does. And as this happens new measures need to be put in place to deal with that. If anyone is being paranoid it is you. Unless you have something to hide there is no need to worry whatsoever. And even if you do, the chances of the government actually caring are very minimal.

What is democratic or mature about being herded ? I seriously have to question your concept of freedom. They will push it to the very limit if allowed to.....you even know it judging by the fact your resigned to it. My god man listen to yourself...."will be regulated and responsibly scrutinised" translates to "controlled and constantly monitored in ever more detail" you actually embrace this crap or believe government is able to do anything as delicate as this responsibly....forever ? Or even think in your democracy you seem to think is so mature there is any choice at all

You think democracy doesn't herd you? Your own picture below destroys any argument of democracy. In fact when Labour were in power they tried to pass this law but The Conservatives and Lib Dems were against it. So they didn't. And now it will happen anyway. But at the hands of different people. So how much difference does our so called "free choice" make. The outcome always seems to be the same.

Sorry whos being paranoid again ? yes Eli thats exactly what Freedom is about.... its also called individual privacy. I like mine, I own it, I was born with it, in fact i like to exercise that right to discuss whatever i wish with whoever i wish.... in private ( insert Secret if you wish ) most regularly.

Freedom isn't free. We all have to make sacrifices. And whats more freedom in reality just means living with the lesser of two evils so to speak. And in this case, I am happy to give away a bit of my privacy to live in a safer country. If you think everything in life is handed to you on a platter then I would suggest that you wake up and pull your head out of the clouds.

Short term it may seem to be of use longterm not a chance. As for CCTV and speeding its been proven it does nothing to alleviate accidents just a revenue stream from innocent speeders... ooo save us from the bad bad criminals... and yes its also been used to convict bad bad criminals for leaving dog poop on the sidewalk and a host of other minor issues also... so nice to know your safe to go out whereas before you were getting blown up on every corner.....

"innocent speeders"... what. Do you even think before you write this stuff? When I'm driving and I see a speed camera coming up I always double check to make sure that I am inside the speed limit. Don't you? I think everyone does. So even if you think it has no effect, it does.

Have a look at this http://www.slower-speeds.org.uk/files/10myths031220.pdf

I'll just highlight a certain part:

3. RAISING SPEED LIMITS IN THE USA MADE NO DIFFERENCE
TO CASUALTIES

Claim: In an article titled ‘Motorists cry foul at rise in speed cameras’, the Daily Telegraph argued that speed ‘does not of itself cause accidents’ and that ‘when the 50mph national speed limit was lifted in America, there was no noticeable increase in accidents caused by speed.

Reality: This would be very interesting if it were true. In 1987 the national speed limit in the United States rose from a 55 mph limit imposed during the fuel crisis in the early 70s to 65 mph. In 1995 individual states were allowed to set their own limits. A recent report found that the post-1995 rise in speed limits in many American states has triggered a 35% increase in death rates. The report compared 22 states that raised interstate highway speed limits to 70 or 75 mph when the federal speed limit was abolished in 1995 to 12 states where the limit stayed at 65 mph, and found that there were 1,880 more deaths on interstates between 1996 and 1999 in states with higher speed limits. The reverse effect is also evident: in 1974, when the national speed limit was lowered to 55 mph, fatality rates dropped by 50% on the interstate highways and by 70% on other four-lane rural highways. The US National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is now advocating the adoption of speed camera laws similar to those in the UK to help counteract the rising death toll.

Viktor you are just arguing with pessimism, which is just as bad as arguing with fallacy. Which you seem to loath so much. Before you start making scenarios up for how this will end badly, maybe you should consider that no one wants this. Do I want to know that the government can be tracking my every action? NO. Is it necessary? YES. What have I done? Accepted that some things happen. And although they wouldn't happen in an ideal world. This is not an ideal world. Stop crying about it and deal with it. Whatever happened to the British stiff upper lip? We used to not let anything phase us. But apparently now we are a nation of moaners and cry babies.

 

[DeletedUser]

Have a look at this http://www.slower-speeds.org.uk/files/10myths031220.pdf

I'll just highlight a certain part:

3. RAISING SPEED LIMITS IN THE USA MADE NO DIFFERENCE
TO CASUALTIES

Claim: In an article titled ‘Motorists cry foul at rise in speed cameras’, the Daily Telegraph argued that speed ‘does not of itself cause accidents’ and that ‘when the 50mph national speed limit was lifted in America, there was no noticeable increase in accidents caused by speed.

Reality: This would be very interesting if it were true. In 1987 the national speed limit in the United States rose from a 55 mph limit imposed during the fuel crisis in the early 70s to 65 mph. In 1995 individual states were allowed to set their own limits. A recent report found that the post-1995 rise in speed limits in many American states has triggered a 35% increase in death rates. The report compared 22 states that raised interstate highway speed limits to 70 or 75 mph when the federal speed limit was abolished in 1995 to 12 states where the limit stayed at 65 mph, and found that there were 1,880 more deaths on interstates between 1996 and 1999 in states with higher speed limits. The reverse effect is also evident: in 1974, when the national speed limit was lowered to 55 mph, fatality rates dropped by 50% on the interstate highways and by 70% on other four-lane rural highways. The US National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is now advocating the adoption of speed camera laws similar to those in the UK to help counteract the rising death toll.

Viktor you are just arguing with pessimism, which is just as bad as arguing with fallacy. Which you seem to loath so much. Before you start making scenarios up for how this will end badly, maybe you should consider that no one wants this. Do I want to know that the government can be tracking my every action? NO. Is it necessary? YES. What have I done? Accepted that some things happen. And although they wouldn't happen in an ideal world. This is not an ideal world. Stop crying about it and deal with it. Whatever happened to the British stiff upper lip? We used to not let anything phase us. But apparently now we are a nation of moaners and cry babies.

This kind of ignores that way more ppl are driving... As the number of ppl driving increases then the number of accidences increase to include fatal ones. If someone has a pattern of misusing power it is not pessimism to expect the same pattern to continue. Its "necessary" for the government to track your every action?

 

[DeletedUser]

This boils down to privacy vs. security and many people will choose security because they're scared of getting hurt/dying in any one the infinite ways that could happen. It's quite foolish to think this way....no one is immortal.....

 

[DeletedUser]

This kind of ignores that way more ppl are driving... As the number of ppl driving increases then the number of accidences increase to include fatal ones. If someone has a pattern of misusing power it is not pessimism to expect the same pattern to continue. Its "necessary" for the government to track your every action?

That conflicts with the reports for the first few years after the limit was decreased. It didn't seem to have a big impact on the number of accidents, but it did cut down significantly on the fatalities.

 

[DeletedUser16008]

It will also affect businesses for the better. Newspapers will be able to be tracked to see if they are phonehacking or calling the voicemail of other people and checking their messages. When you argue something at least have the decency to weigh up the pros and cons before running your mouth.

oh ive run the pros, i don't give a stuff about papers hacking famous peoples convos but.. protect the few and intrude on the many SAY WHAT ?

And here you go with the "ALL GOVERNMENT PLANS ARE BAD AND ARE ONLY INTRODUCED TO KEEP US BLIND TO WHAT IS REALLY GOING ON". It will help to make us safer. You do realise that it is not just us who advance technologically, right? The whole world does. And as this happens new measures need to be put in place to deal with that. If anyone is being paranoid it is you. Unless you have something to hide there is no need to worry whatsoever. And even if you do, the chances of the government actually caring are very minimal.

You do realise the whole world needs a happy pill not a shot of anaesthetic. Government arn't in the slightest bit responsible and yes i care if its abused or misused. Your mantra is bad stuff won't happen which is not what history tells us. Pretty naive of you to think otherwise.

You think democracy doesn't herd you? Your own picture below destroys any argument of democracy. In fact when Labour were in power they tried to pass this law but The Conservatives and Lib Dems were against it. So they didn't. And now it will happen anyway. But at the hands of different people. So how much difference does our so called "free choice" make. The outcome always seems to be the same.

Duh what point did you think i was making with my cartoon ? there is no difference

I didnt say there wasn't an option but its not the obvious choices put before us thats for sure. It also dosnt mean I have to follow the herds and choose one of the two either.

Freedom isn't free. We all have to make sacrifices. And whats more freedom in reality just means living with the lesser of two evils so to speak. And in this case, I am happy to give away a bit of my privacy to live in a safer country. If you think everything in life is handed to you on a platter then I would suggest that you wake up and pull your head out of the clouds.

hehe you go right ahead and give it up for the false fears and solution then. I know life isnt on a platter everything I have ive worked hard for and also know how important ones freedom is, i'll not give one shred of it up without fighting just as hard for it, theres nothing lesser about it.... either its right or its wrong... giving up my freedom to any degree is to me wrong.

"innocent speeders"... what. Do you even think before you write this stuff? When I'm driving and I see a speed camera coming up I always double check to make sure that I am inside the speed limit. Don't you? I think everyone does. So even if you think it has no effect, it does.

Seriously ? I don't give a damn and speed up as soon as im past it as does everyone else, matters not the second im past it.

Viktor you are just arguing with pessimism, which is just as bad as arguing with fallacy. Which you seem to loath so much. Before you start making scenarios up for how this will end badly, maybe you should consider that no one wants this. Do I want to know that the government can be tracking my every action? NO. Is it necessary? YES. What have I done? Accepted that some things happen. And although they wouldn't happen in an ideal world. This is not an ideal world. Stop crying about it and deal with it. Whatever happened to the British stiff upper lip? We used to not let anything phase us. But apparently now we are a nation of moaners and cry babies.

WTF does bending over and being violated have to do with being British ? in fact im standing up for its other value individual freedom. No one wants this but its being rammed up hard anyway, just accept it like a good little dog WTF ? Far from moaning I'm downright angry they want to even think about messing with it. As for phase me ? I'm not part of and never subscribed to the pathetic stiff upper stuck up shut the heck up your British and don't dare say anything camp.

Oh no its not necessary either, nothing makes you now more unsafe than 30, 40 or 50 years ago. Your less likely to be a victim of serious crime and injury than at any other time in history. I don't let anything phase me nor do I ascribe to being one of the sheeple scared to come out of his ever smaller hole. Life is there to be lived not walled off and every detail picked through by some future up or worse.

I want Less laws, less wars, less meddling, less big Brother , less government, less restrictions not more.

Sorry if you think its part of being British to just put up with whatever crap gets thrown at you because its not to me.

You tried putting a genie back in the bottle lately ? no ? well don't pee down my back and tell me its raining then.

 

[DeletedUser]

That conflicts with the reports for the first few years after the limit was decreased. It didn't seem to have a big impact on the number of accidents, but it did cut down significantly on the fatalities.

If I remember correctly 1974 is the same year they started putting in shoulder belts by law.

 

[DeletedUser]

If I remember correctly 1974 is the same year they started putting in shoulder belts by law.

You don't. It became mandatory for new vehicles to have them in the '60s ('67 or '68, I believe. I wasn't driving yet at the time), but states didn't start requiring their use until the mid '80s.

 

[DeletedUser]

You don't. It became mandatory for new vehicles to have them in the '60s ('67 or '68, I believe. I wasn't driving yet at the time), but states didn't start requiring their use until the mid '80s.

Right it was this.

1974

General Motors produces the first airbags.

Federal law requires all vehicles to have seat belt interlock system that prevents engine from starting unless driver and passengers are buckled up (later repealed by Congress in response to public outcry over "inconvenience"). -http://www.aa1car.com/library/timeline.htm

 

[DeletedUser]

Thanks to an independent judiciary any monitoring will be heavily, almost oppressively, regulated, and since 99.999 recurring% of all electronic traffic is useless garbage to any government, and interception, evaluation and transcription are expensive processes it will make zero difference to anyone who is not either making bombs or wholesaling cocaine.

You haven't reviewed what is being proposed Eli. What they propose is a "default" storing of all information, inclusive of sniffers to obtain all interactions, and a sweeping regulation that would do away with any judiciary review. I.e., no additional permissions required, as they'll merely be accessing information already stored.

"It has been reported that the idea is that ISPs would have to install hardware enabling GCHQ to access on demand communications data without a warrant." ~ http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-17590363​

 

[DeletedUser]

Well, I guess some people are scared of governments and some aren't. Nothing is gonna change that. Personally, I think it's kind of narcissistic to think that they are even interested in what we do, above being able to tap us for a few quid now and then (which I can afford).If you're scared of peeping Toms then draw the curtains and if it means that people like Victor will have to stop posting then it can't come too soon for me.

All governments know that if they get too far out of line they may come in for the Gadaffi treatment. They should fear us, not the other way round. While we have a free press, independent judiciary, democratic multi-party elections and a non-political military I am not going to join the drama over this.

@HS. Correct. I have not looked into the details. I have plenty of people to do that for me and they will let me know if they find anything fishy.