cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

Internet privacy

Community Veteran
Posts: 18,878
Thanks: 2,070
Fixes: 26
Registered: ‎06-11-2007

Re: Internet privacy


@7up wrote:

So what is T May really hoping to gain by spying on us all? - It seems from my POV that they don't bother to stop people they know about.. so what flaming difference will spying on us all make?


 

 

in these situations... "knowing about someone`s    "intent"..". is not sufficient grounds to haul them in.....  well maybe it is... but the police need to have hard evidence of a crime that HAS happened, before they can actually haul them up in court for it...  By hauling them in "prior to the event"... all they have done is alert the miscreants that they are being watched, which makes them more secretive in future...

 

not defending the criminals in this, but... let`s say.... three blokes decide to get together in a pub somewhere, and talk about making a bomb...  to all intents and purposes, it is, the same as 3 women getting together in the front room and talking about making cupcakes. ...

  until they have actually made the bomb/cakes there is no hard evidence, sufficient to get the criminals put away, BEFORE they bloww the bomb up. ... Unfortunately.... 

 

As for the women in the above.... depends on how good the cupcakes are..... Cheesy

 

 

To put it another way.... you may be contemplating exceeding the speed limit...but the cops can`t touch you for that....  until you have actually done it..

Community Veteran
Posts: 6,316
Thanks: 1,175
Fixes: 1
Registered: ‎23-09-2010

Re: Internet privacy

It is a crime to threaten to kill someone though.

Talking about making a bomb would probably come within that - maybe.

Community Veteran
Posts: 3,918
Thanks: 486
Fixes: 7
Registered: ‎05-04-2007

Re: Internet privacy


@7up wrote:

As much as I thought I'd never say it, I am considering giving up the internet. I might switch to PAYG mobile broadband that is unregistered as i don't use much bandwidth anyway. Only problem with that is i'd have to give up my email and ebay (etc) accounts.. plus this one.. Yes the traffic would still be spied on but they at least wouldn't know who I am!


It is a difficult one. One the one hand, you could be doing/planning something very bad - or (less in my opinion) uploading copyrighted material onto the internet. Both are bad (I'm not not proclaiming they're not, both illegal), but where do you draw the line on this? Look at Traffic Wardens (I refuse to call them by their PC name) - they get performance related pay based on the number of tickets they issue. As do the company my council get for issuing litter fines, who have no authority at all and just pretend to call the police when they're not.

All it would take is someone to misinterpret a comment (and hopefully to think they wouldn't be on PRP) to pick up a sarcastic comment in jest and think I'm serious. No I wouldn't say some very bad ones, but it is easy to make a joke of something and someone will overact to get a bit of extra £'s in bonuses and to justify their job. Especially when it comes to a performance review and potential pay rise time.

In Australia (and other countries I'm sure), you have to register a PAYG SIM with ID before you can buy one - I had to show my passport as it was the only thing I had. I'm suprised it doesn't come into effect here.

Community Veteran
Posts: 18,878
Thanks: 2,070
Fixes: 26
Registered: ‎06-11-2007

Re: Internet privacy

@billnotben 

The difference between that scenario, and the manchester suicide bomber is....

 

In your case... if the crime happened, then the evidence the police heard prior to the event, could lead them to the perpeterator(s)  and a resulting trial

 

in the case of the suicide bomber... unfortunately, all the "evidence" collected prior to his demise, is not worth a fig once he has blown himself up...  as it could not be used to stop him...

(even if they found all the stuff in his house, prior to the event,.... all that does is alert the bomber and delay the event until the heat is off ... 1 year later maybe  ? ? ? )

Steve
Seasoned Pro
Posts: 6,819
Thanks: 315
Registered: ‎13-07-2009

Re: Internet privacy


@billnotben wrote:

It is a crime to threaten to kill someone though.

Talking about making a bomb would probably come within that - maybe.


Not if it's a water bomb.

If life gives you lemons, make lemonade.
Community Veteran
Posts: 14,678
Thanks: 845
Fixes: 12
Registered: ‎01-08-2007

Re: Internet privacy


@Alex wrote:


Look at Traffic Wardens (I refuse to call them by their PC name) - they get performance related pay based on the number of tickets they issue. As do the company my council get for issuing litter fines, who have no authority at all and just pretend to call the police when they're not.


Clearly another voice who knows everything.

Just under a decade ago Gordon Brown OUTLAWED ticket targets and performance related pay for traffic wardens / parking attendants / civil enforcement officers. It was about the only good thing he did.

Yes there has been a recent scandal regarding litter tickets but that is a separate issue that you should not confuse with parking tickets.

I might suggest that you don't state facts that you are up to date with in the future.

I need a new signature... i'm bored of the old one!
Highlighted
Community Veteran
Posts: 3,918
Thanks: 486
Fixes: 7
Registered: ‎05-04-2007

Re: Internet privacy

I didn't say I did (know everything)?

Well I am sure the recent BBC documentary (re: litter police) wasn't faked.

I used to work at a council, near the parking department. So I knew it went on then and have no reason to think it doesn't still apply now. Who is going to be looked on more favourably then? The person who does 20 tickets a day or the one who does 80?