FORUMula1.com

[darwin dali]

I think Britain is already enough of a police and surveillance state with all the cctv spying on every corner. I would feel rather uncomfortable about my own privacy.
If you give the government authority to cut communications (texting, etc.), who's to say you'd not hamper a legitimate uprise against an oppressive regime down the road? Slippery slope that is

[bud]

Slippery slope that is

I agree

[andrew]

I think Britain is already enough of a police and surveillance state with all the cctv spying on every corner. I would feel rather uncomfortable about my own privacy.
If you give the government authority to cut communications (texting, etc.), who's to say you'd not hamper a legitimate uprise against an oppressive regime down the road? Slippery slope that is

I disagree, but what do I know, I only live in the UK(!)

A CCTV on every corner is exagerated. Sure there are cameras but to be honest you don't notice them and I don't feel paranoid or like I'm being followed. The only ones who get upset about these are the ones with something to hide. The cameras are there as a deterent and to provide evidence to help with convictions. To be honest, if some scum bag whacks me over the head and nicks my wallet then I'm sure as hell going to be hoping is was caught on camera!

These lowlifes were using Blackberry, Facebook etc to start more riots. Not only is this illegal it is extremely difficult to police. I don't feel uncomfortable about my own privacy as I don't have anything to hide. I also don't waste my time on Facebook and other such social networking nor do I have a Blackberry and I have no intention of every wasting time and money on any of these toys.

Monitoring of text messgaes, phonecalls and communications in general has been going on since at least 11th September 2001 and probably for a good few years before. The only difference is the UK Government are being very open in telling us what they are going to do whereas monitoring has been going on but it has been done covertly. A few years ago, there was a bloke who was in a Clash tribute band who was arrested. His crime? Sending a text message to a fellow bandmate with whom he was discussing the lyrics to Tommy Gun.

I take it you are outside looking in? You have to remember that not only is the country near bankrupt, the police are hugely overstretched and are looking at having to make huge cuts.

Besides, they are only going to cut off those who are trying to start more riots. What's wrong with that? Take away the medium they use to spread their hate and it makes it harder for them to instigate more trouble. As usual, these human right people are commenting on something they do not understand.

These guys are like spammers. Spreading a message that sensible law-abiding people don't want to hear and polluting internetland with their warped vision of reality.

I mean, what's wrong with this:

David Cameron said the intelligence services and the police were exploring whether it was "right and possible" to cut off those plotting violence.

Hope the Government have the balls to switch off these idiots.

[vaptin]

I think these riots are a pretty big deal, this wasn't a political protest, it was widespread violence. People walking around smashing stuff up with impunity.

Think I'll laugh at the focus in Britain though, its all cos of the evil twitter and facebook that apparently is the root of everything nowadays, and lets sort it out by focusing on people on benefits as that's the root of all evil.

All I can think of is, now what? There isn't an obvious single social issue, its more of a widespread mindset that caused the problems, all that happened was people suddenly felt confident enough to act out on it. The guy who was shot, was a spark, a trigger, the gun itself was already loaded. Not sure I trust the Conservatives to look into it properly, I don't see any social reforms etc.

[andrew]

Think I'll laugh at the focus in Britain though, its all cos of the evil twitter and facebook that apparently is the root of everything nowadays, and lets sort it out by focusing on people on benefits as that's the root of all evil.

These were the mediums used to spread the word of riots and encourage others to travel to riotsa and even start new ones. It is only sensible to strip the rioters of their privlege of using these media.

[myownalias]

The surveillance cameras really don't bother me; I have done nothing wrong and have nothing to hide; infact I was attacked by three guys some years ago on my way home and it was all caught on camera; which led to the prosecution of all three with one being banned from England; he was a Scot who was visiting family in my home town!

Shutting off public services is completely unacceptable; these hooligans are more than capable of organising a riot without BBM, Facebook, MySpace and Twitter; this is as bad as the idea in the US that was floated about having an internet kill switch; we are supposed to live in a democracy not a communist state, this suggestion goes way too far!

[andrew]

he was a Scot who was visiting family in my home town!

I jest not but the sad fact is they were probably on a busmans holiday.

Shutting off public services is completely unacceptable; these hooligans are more than capable of organising a riot without BBM, Facebook, MySpace and Twitter; this is as bad as the idea in the US that was floated about having an internet kill switch; we are supposed to live in a democracy not a communist state, this suggestion goes way too far!

The public services are only being shut off for those who have done something wrong. Anyone who is innocent is free to carry on with their life unhindered.

These people have been involved in illegal activity and have used social networking sites to spread their message. This is probably against the rules of use for these sites so they should be chucked off by the admin of facebook, twitter etc etc.

It is exactly the same as if a member of this here site started a thread encouraging more riots. The person who started the thread and those that support and encourage the thread would likely be banned or at the very least repremanded and closely watched for a while but everyone else who either ignores it or condemns it would be free to continue to use this site. This is exactly the same here, only it's not the laws of Formula1.net they have broken, it is the law of the land.

You still have your democracy only it is policed and those who cause trouble have their on-line activities restricted.

[myownalias]

Shutting off public services is completely unacceptable; these hooligans are more than capable of organising a riot without BBM, Facebook, MySpace and Twitter; this is as bad as the idea in the US that was floated about having an internet kill switch; we are supposed to live in a democracy not a communist state, this suggestion goes way too far!

The public services are only being shut off for those who have done something wrong. Anyone who is innocent is free to carry on with their life unhindered.

These people have been involved in illegal activity and have used social networking sites to spread their message. This is probably against the rules of use for these sites so they should be chucked off by the admin of facebook, twitter etc etc.

You still have your democracy only it is policed and those who cause trouble have their on-line activities restricted.

I believe that the government were talking about a complete shutdown during times of trouble, how can they stop certain users from using social media? Yes they can deleted/block accounts after the fact but it's so easy to sign up again with a new free email address and continue, and I would suggest that cellphone companies/social networking sites wouldn't be very cooperative!

[andrew]

The 2nd paragraph of the BBC report you quoted says that they are looking at cutting off those who are plotting violence. Quite easily done through IP addresses and no need to worry about e-mail addresses. The idea is for it to be a deterent and that's all it will ever be. A solution will never be found as those who want to create trouble will always find a way to spread their message.

However, having a total shut down in times of trouble, similar to what would happen in a wartime situation, is the only way to stop these people from reaching out to others (ignoring their personnal friends who would be a phone call away).

Cellphone companies and social networking sites can quote the Data Protection Act though I am not sure if it is a case of force majeure in times of trouble so the Data Protection Act goes out the window.

To be honest, as far as I am concerned the instigators of the violence have waived their right to have their civil liberties respected. What about the civil liberties and the human rights of those whose businesses have been wrecked or have been attacked for no reason at all or are now homeless because someone burnt down their building?

[myownalias]

The 2nd paragraph of the BBC report you quoted says that they are looking at cutting off those who are plotting violence. Quite easily done through IP addresses and no need to worry about e-mail addresses. The idea is for it to be a deterent and that's all it will ever be. A solution will never be found as those who want to create trouble will always find a way to spread their message.

Ah, I missed that completely, I'm sure that social networking sites already take down messages that threaten violence or break applicable laws!

To be honest, as far as I am concerned the instigators of the violence have waived their right to have their civil liberties respected. What about the civil liberties and the human rights of those whose businesses have been wrecked or have been attacked for no reason at all or are now homeless because someone burnt down their building?

You're not going to get any argument from me! There is talk of council tenants that were involved being evicted... if they can't respect their own community, they deserve to be gone!

[andrew]

The 2nd paragraph of the BBC report you quoted says that they are looking at cutting off those who are plotting violence. Quite easily done through IP addresses and no need to worry about e-mail addresses. The idea is for it to be a deterent and that's all it will ever be. A solution will never be found as those who want to create trouble will always find a way to spread their message.

Ah, I missed that completely, I'm sure that social networking sites already take down messages that threaten violence or break applicable laws!

I think the main problem is the size of these sites making moderation quite a difficult task. It wasn't as if it was 1 or 2 rouges spreading the hate, it was hundreds! The downside to social networks. They can be used as a tool for good in keeping in-touch with distant friends and relatives along with raising awareness for good causes. The downside is when they are abused and used to spread the hate.

To be honest, as far as I am concerned the instigators of the violence have waived their right to have their civil liberties respected. What about the civil liberties and the human rights of those whose businesses have been wrecked or have been attacked for no reason at all or are now homeless because someone burnt down their building?

You're not going to get any argument from me! There is talk of council tenants that were involved being evicted... if they can't respect their own community, they deserve to be gone!

I have no sympathy at all, there are plenty of good people who are stuck on waiting lists for council housing. They are going to cost the tax payer millions. Be aswell stick more deserving people in the council homes rather than these low lifes. I would like to see the ones who are on various benefits have them stopped to contribute to the cost of repairing the damage they caused along with the cost of the additional policing and the courts working 24 hours!

[darwin dali]

I think Britain is already enough of a police and surveillance state with all the cctv spying on every corner. I would feel rather uncomfortable about my own privacy.
If you give the government authority to cut communications (texting, etc.), who's to say you'd not hamper a legitimate uprise against an oppressive regime down the road? Slippery slope that is

I disagree, but what do I know, I only live in the UK(!)

A CCTV on every corner is exagerated. Sure there are cameras but to be honest you don't notice them and I don't feel paranoid or like I'm being followed. The only ones who get upset about these are the ones with something to hide. The cameras are there as a deterent and to provide evidence to help with convictions. To be honest, if some scum bag whacks me over the head and nicks my wallet then I'm sure as hell going to be hoping is was caught on camera!

These lowlifes were using Blackberry, Facebook etc to start more riots. Not only is this illegal it is extremely difficult to police. I don't feel uncomfortable about my own privacy as I don't have anything to hide. I also don't waste my time on Facebook and other such social networking nor do I have a Blackberry and I have no intention of every wasting time and money on any of these toys.

Monitoring of text messgaes, phonecalls and communications in general has been going on since at least 11th September 2001 and probably for a good few years before. The only difference is the UK Government are being very open in telling us what they are going to do whereas monitoring has been going on but it has been done covertly. A few years ago, there was a bloke who was in a Clash tribute band who was arrested. His crime? Sending a text message to a fellow bandmate with whom he was discussing the lyrics to Tommy Gun.

I take it you are outside looking in? You have to remember that not only is the country near bankrupt, the police are hugely overstretched and are looking at having to make huge cuts.

Besides, they are only going to cut off those who are trying to start more riots. What's wrong with that? Take away the medium they use to spread their hate and it makes it harder for them to instigate more trouble. As usual, these human right people are commenting on something they do not understand.

These guys are like spammers. Spreading a message that sensible law-abiding people don't want to hear and polluting internetland with their warped vision of reality.

I mean, what's wrong with this:

David Cameron said the intelligence services and the police were exploring whether it was "right and possible" to cut off those plotting violence.

Hope the Government have the balls to switch off these idiots.

I knew some of the following, but also found some new information that seems rather disturbing:
The United Kingdom is seen as a pioneer of mass surveillance. At the end of 2006 it was described by the Surveillance Studies Network as being 'the most surveilled country' among the industrialized Western states.

On 6 February 2009 a report by the House of Lords Constitution Committee, Surveillance: Citizens and the State, warned that increasing use of surveillance by the government and private companies is a serious threat to freedoms and constitutional rights, stating that "The expansion in the use of surveillance represents one of the most significant changes in the life of the nation since the end of the Second World War. Mass surveillance has the potential to erode privacy. As privacy is an essential pre-requisite to the exercise of individual freedom, its erosion weakens the constitutional foundations on which democracy and good governance have traditionally been based in this country."

Public perception

A YouGov poll published on December 4, 2006, indicated that 79% of those interviewed agreed that Britain has become a 'surveillance society’ (51% were unhappy with this). In 2004 the Information Commissioner, talking about the proposed British national identity database gave a warning of this, stating, "My anxiety is that we don't sleepwalk into a surveillance society." Other databases causing him concern were the National Child Database (ContactPoint), the Office for National Statistics' Citizen Information Project, and the NHS National Programme for IT.

CCTV networks

In 2002 it was estimated that the United Kingdom was monitored by over 4.2 million CCTV cameras that's 1 camera per 14 Brits! , some with a facial recognition capacity, with practically all cities and towns under 24hour surveillance. Currently, in the City of Westminster, microphones are being fitted next to CCTV cameras. Westminster council claims that they are simply part of an initiative against urban noise, and will not "be used to snoop", but comments from a council spokesman appear to imply that they have been deliberately designed to capture an audio stream alongside the video stream, rather than simply reporting noise levels.

As of Feb 2010, many larger cities in the UK now have CCTV in which if an operator spots anything illegal or troubling, they are able to speak through the cameras via loudspeaker into the street, and some also have microphones to allow them to hear what the public are saying.




Communication

In 2002 the UK government announced plans to extend the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA), so that at least 28 government departments would be given powers to browse citizens' web, email, telephone and fax records, without a warrant and without a subject's knowledge. Public and security authorities made a total of 440,000 requests to monitor people's phone and internet use in 2005-2006. In the period 11 April to 31 December 2006 the UK government issued 253,557 requests for communication data, which as defined by the RIPA includes who you phoned, when they phoned you, how long they phoned you for, subscriber information and associated addresses.

Since October 2007 telecommunication companies have been required to keep records of phone calls and text messages for twelve months under the Data Retention Directive. Though all telecoms firms already keep data for a period, the regulations are designed to ensure a uniform approach across the industry. This enables the Government and other selected authorities within the UK such as Police and Councils amongst others to monitor all phone calls made from a UK landline or Mobile upon request.

In 2008 plans were being made to collect data on all phone calls, emails, chatroom discussions and web-browsing habits as part of the Government's Interception Modernisation Programme, thought likely to require the insertion of 'thousands' of black box probes into the country’s computer and telephone networks. The proposals were expected to be included in the Communications Data Bill. The "giant database" would include telephone numbers dialed, the websites visited and addresses to which e-mails are sent "but not the content of e-mails or telephone conversations." Chris Huhne, Liberal Democrat Home affairs spokesman, said: "The government's Orwellian plans for a vast database of our private communications are deeply worrying." In November 2009, ministers confirmed that the estimated £2 billion project will proceed as planned. A consultation found that 40% of people were against the plans which will also include monitoring communications in online games.

[vaptin]

Think I'll laugh at the focus in Britain though, its all cos of the evil twitter and facebook that apparently is the root of everything nowadays, and lets sort it out by focusing on people on benefits as that's the root of all evil.

These were the mediums used to spread the word of riots and encourage others to travel to riotsa and even start new ones. It is only sensible to strip the rioters of their privlege of using these media.

Well yes, but its not the fault of twitter and facebook, its really the wrong focus. It seems strange to me, that people are focusing on that, I don't see it being that significant or interesting. Just a "sign of the times", people seem keen to keep talking about the effect of social media.

[vaptin]

The 2nd paragraph of the BBC report you quoted says that they are looking at cutting off those who are plotting violence. Quite easily done through IP addresses and no need to worry about e-mail addresses. The idea is for it to be a deterent and that's all it will ever be. A solution will never be found as those who want to create trouble will always find a way to spread their message.

However, having a total shut down in times of trouble, similar to what would happen in a wartime situation, is the only way to stop these people from reaching out to others (ignoring their personnal friends who would be a phone call away).

Cellphone companies and social networking sites can quote the Data Protection Act though I am not sure if it is a case of force majeure in times of trouble so the Data Protection Act goes out the window.

To be honest, as far as I am concerned the instigators of the violence have waived their right to have their civil liberties respected. What about the civil liberties and the human rights of those whose businesses have been wrecked or have been attacked for no reason at all or are now homeless because someone burnt down their building?

Well yeah, saying a total shut down will stop the bad guys communicating via the medium that was shut down, is true. But then you equivalently say, locking everyone in a padded cell would stop us killing each other. Less extreme, its like banning all knives or dog ownership. It's a complete infringement on people's lives, government has no say in banning everyone from using private websites that do not inherently cause harm to others.

[andrew]

Think I'll laugh at the focus in Britain though, its all cos of the evil twitter and facebook that apparently is the root of everything nowadays, and lets sort it out by focusing on people on benefits as that's the root of all evil.

These were the mediums used to spread the word of riots and encourage others to travel to riotsa and even start new ones. It is only sensible to strip the rioters of their privlege of using these media.

Well yes, but its not the fault of twitter and facebook, its really the wrong focus. It seems strange to me, that people are focusing on that, I don't see it being that significant or interesting. Just a "sign of the times", people seem keen to keep talking about the effect of social media.

No one is saying it is the fault of the social networking sites. These are being abused by those who want to spread their hate and instigate more riots. It is a fact that social media makes it a hell of a lot easier but these are merely tools which have been abused.

The 2nd paragraph of the BBC report you quoted says that they are looking at cutting off those who are plotting violence. Quite easily done through IP addresses and no need to worry about e-mail addresses. The idea is for it to be a deterent and that's all it will ever be. A solution will never be found as those who want to create trouble will always find a way to spread their message.

However, having a total shut down in times of trouble, similar to what would happen in a wartime situation, is the only way to stop these people from reaching out to others (ignoring their personnal friends who would be a phone call away).

Cellphone companies and social networking sites can quote the Data Protection Act though I am not sure if it is a case of force majeure in times of trouble so the Data Protection Act goes out the window.

To be honest, as far as I am concerned the instigators of the violence have waived their right to have their civil liberties respected. What about the civil liberties and the human rights of those whose businesses have been wrecked or have been attacked for no reason at all or are now homeless because someone burnt down their building?

Well yeah, saying a total shut down will stop the bad guys communicating via the medium that was shut down, is true. But then you equivalently say, locking everyone in a padded cell would stop us killing each other. Less extreme, its like banning all knives or dog ownership. It's a complete infringement on people's lives, government has no say in banning everyone from using private websites that do not inherently cause harm to others.

The only infringement is on those who have infringed upon the rights of those of us who have done nothing wrong, i.e. loss of privileges for criminals, which I am all for.

The Government are not looking at banning everyone. The only time this would happen was if the riots were to flare up again, much like what would happen in a wartime situation, which is what these riots effectively were. This has been done in China and has apparently been very successful in quashing riots before they start by all accounts.

The only ones who will have a permanent ban are those which have broken the law.

As always, if you have done nothing wrong and have nothing to hide then the proposal will be nothing more than a short lived slight annoyance, but let’s face it in the grand scheme of life not being able to use social networking sites for a day or 2 is not going to cause anyone any harm whatsoever.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with what the Government is proposing if you are innocent.