Security versus privacy? There's only going to be one winner

Discussion in 'privacy general' started by lotuseclat79, Jun 9, 2016.

  1. lotuseclat79

    lotuseclat79 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2005
    Posts:
    5,096
  2. mirimir

    mirimir Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2011
    Posts:
    6,029
    Good luck with that :)

    Didn't work out so well with the American colonies, did it?
     
  3. zapjb

    zapjb Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2005
    Posts:
    3,518
    Location:
    USA - Back in a real State in time for a real Pres
    Winner's already been decided & many years ago at that.
     
  4. deBoetie

    deBoetie Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2013
    Posts:
    1,149
    Location:
    UK
    Hague was not only former foreign secretary, but leader of the conservatives (in opposition). When the Snowden revelations emerged his response was "If you've got nothing to hide, you've got nothing the fear". Seriously. Maybe he was trying to compete with "in extremis" Cameron - who accused people concerned about the privacy and civil liberties issues of mass surveillance as "la-di-dah, airy-fairy". He represents a cadre of career politicians who let the security services operate without effective oversight. You get them paraded out when they think the case for their powers is being challenged.

    He is out of line with the debate in the Commons on the Investigatory Powers Bill, where there was lip service to the notion that security and privacy don't have to be competitive, and there is a new clause inserted as an amendment to the bill specifically to increase privacy and that it should be necessary and proportionate, in line with the ECHR. While privacy and family life is a qualified right according to the ECHR, it is a right that can be upheld by courts.

    There will also be an independent review of the operational case for the bulk powers over the next 3 months led by Anderson, but this will not be in time for Commons to vote on what it says, the unelected Lords will be the only ones able to amend the Bill as a result (which the Commons then vote on) . The Bill is supposed to complete this year.

    Personally, my take is that the amendments represent a self-congratulatory stitch-up between the Conservatives and Labour (who got privilege protection for Trade Union members), and the Scottish National Party (ironically because they nearly voted for independence) are the only ones who provided proper opposition to the Bill, and the absurdly unfinished nature of it - why is a critical independent review of the operational case for bulk interception only being done now? But they've already decided they're going to have bulk interception and "Internet Connection Records" regardless.

    I'm conscious of the nature of this board, and the avoidance of politics, I am trying to indicate how the political currents will affect the technical and legal measures that are likely to be in future legislation.
     
  5. Anonfame1

    Anonfame1 Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 25, 2016
    Posts:
    193
    Politics are very relevant to the entire purpose of these forums- politics have a huge effect on privacy.

    And for the Americans who think it might not apply to them, just wait awhile. Its been my observation that American laws trail British ones by a few years/decades- soon we'll be in the same frying pan (or we already are and the water isnt as hot yet)...
     
  6. JRViejo

    JRViejo Global Moderator

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2008
    Posts:
    20,940
    Location:
    U.S.A.
    FYI. Wilders has a long standing Policy and if a thread turns into a Political Discussion, it will be closed.
     
Loading...