All of your web browsing to be watched by the police!

No comment.

Natasha Whittam wrote:

The police aren't interested in your gay porn fetish Rebel, they just want to track terrorists and major crime.

I don't see what 'innocent until proven guilty' has to do with any of this, they're not suggesting people will be put away without a trial.

That may well be the case but the police have a habit of going on fishing expeditions as has happened in the past.

The problem with this legislation is that it is open to abuse. Private e-mails should be just that. If the legislation is passed it is only a matter of time before it is abused for some reason other than what it was originally intended for.

Reebok Trotter wrote:Private e-mails should be just that.

Even if that e-mail shows someone planning the next 9/11?

Do you seriously think that terrorists do most of their plotting and scheming via e-mail ? They might be stupid but they are not that stupid. They form small cells and are well aware of the security services ability to snoop electronically.

Reebok Trotter wrote:Do you seriously think that terrorists do most of their plotting and scheming via e-mail ? They might be stupid but they are not that stupid. They form small cells and are well aware of the security services ability to snoop electronically.

Several bomb plots have been stopped because e-mails and phonecalls have been intercepted. Didn't you watch 24?

I did indeed. I seem to recall Jack Bauer being summoned to appear before a Grand Jury for failing to work within the protocols of the security services.

Our Rita, down at Civil Liberties will have a field day with this one.

Bernard Dennis Park wrote:I'd be amazed if this didn't happen already tbh.

Already does, otherwise how do the IP's know what adverts to put up when you log on such as I get Eurolines, Nuon, Dixons and MediaMarkt, but when I use my UK IP address I get National Express, Curry-PCWorld, E.On and Monster Job-board! Each person have their own "personal" adverts which are put on by what you frequently use/do online - so, in short, yes they do already know what you are doing online!

bwfc71 wrote:

Bernard Dennis Park wrote:I'd be amazed if this didn't happen already tbh.

Already does, otherwise how do the IP's know what adverts to put up when you log on such as I get Eurolines, Nuon, Dixons and MediaMarkt, but when I use my UK IP address I get National Express, Curry-PCWorld, E.On and Monster Job-board! Each person have their own "personal" adverts which are put on by what you frequently use/do online - so, in short, yes they do already know what you are doing online!

this is cookie tracking.

cookies are small files a website posts on your hard drive every time you visit a web site - it makes it easier for your browser to load the page on the next visit, assists in keeping the web history and helps save passwords and usernames.

they have been used since the inception of the internet, but only log visits - no actual activity is recorded in them.

If you want to see how many you have amassed, search for the character '@' in windows search ...

Whenever I come across cookies I scoff them. Problem solved. It's fcuk all to do with the government or security services what foodstuffs we consume.

If this law goes ahead, without changes, any agencies would have too much information to cope with. I don't mind cooperating with the law, but I see no reason for them to intrude into my life without my permission. I do think that we tie our own hands behnd our back with strict laws on such things, but loosen the ties slightly, rather than throw them away, and give the authorities a free hand. In the last few years we have more cameras watching us, laws to govern what we think ( so-called 'hate laws'), laws to tell everyone how we got, and spend, our money, (anti money laundering), and a load of little changes, plus local byelaws. Whether we ike it or not, we are already being monitored in all aspects of our life, the only thing that keeps us happy is that we don't know how much. This law, as it is, is too big a step to take, and a genuine risk to our futures.

gloswhite wrote:If this law goes ahead, without changes, any agencies would have too much information to cope with. I don't mind cooperating with the law, but I see no reason for them to intrude into my life without my permission. I do think that we tie our own hands behnd our back with strict laws on such things, but loosen the ties slightly, rather than throw them away, and give the authorities a free hand. In the last few years we have more cameras watching us, laws to govern what we think ( so-called 'hate laws'), laws to tell everyone how we got, and spend, our money, (anti money laundering), and a load of little changes, plus local byelaws. Whether we ike it or not, we are already being monitored in all aspects of our life, the only thing that keeps us happy is that we don't know how much. This law, as it is, is too big a step to take, and a genuine risk to our futures.

Well said Glos. There are more CCTV cameras in the UK per square mile than any other country in the world. Every town centre is ringed with cameras ( under the umbrella of security )

By all means look after our citizens but when the council start installing CCTV cameras in our dustbins to see if we are depositing waste correctly, it really is a step too far.

It wasn't what the legislation was really set up for and that is why I have concerns about the current proposals.