Quote:
Originally Posted by ShortNCuddlyAm
Why should it not concern me? The UK law (I know the original article is about changes in US law, but the whole "nothing to hide, nothing to fear" mentality is not limited to any one country) still has a presumption of innocence; monitoring my conversations "just in case" presumes that I am being considered potentially guilty.
You can be punished under suspiscion of doing something that may be illegal, as well; even if you are later found innocent at trial, or even released without charge before trial.
OK, you may not get a jail sentence, and your name may end up being officially cleared, but the simple act of being investigated could have devasting effects. Some accusations, it seems, don't easily shift once the suspiscion has been planted.
For example, imagine people you knew - family, friends, employers, co-workers etc - found out you were being investigated for paedeophilia because your credit card had been used to buy child porn. That as part of the investigation the police had conducted a raid on your house, seized your PC etc. You may lose your job, the support of friends and family. There will be that suspiscion attached to you. And this before a trial has even taken place.
Then imagine that it is discovered that your card has been used, but not by you - that you are a victim of credit card fraud, to be precise. Even if at this stage your name is cleared you have still been punished for something you didn't do. And because many people subscribe to the "no smoke without fire" mentality, you may continue to be punished by parts of society for a crime you didn't commit.
|
An interesting example but what is the alternative?
Should law enforcement kindly ask your permission to come quietly and check to see if you have any child porn? Maybe make an appointment for next week when the neighbours will be on holiday? Trusting that you would not clear out all evidence before their arrival. Or should they assume all credit card purchases of child porn are a mistake and simply not investigate the matter?
I grant you that some accusations will seem to stick regardless of the their truth. That is unfortunate. However, I still don't see how this example should be used to argue that law enforcement should not have the means to conduct lawful, court warranted surveillance.
In fact, if anything, this law would give law enforcement the ability to monitor your spending habits and internet browsing and communications privately. After such surveillance it would become obvious that there is some discrepency and that you have not participated in any such illegal activity since surveillance began. They could then investigate other possibilities such as credit card fraud as a possible explaination. All this without alerting your neighbours and thus protecting your privacy.(whether they would actually do so in reality is another matter but with this law the above scenario would become possible, which it currently isn't)
I'm all for careful vigilance when it comes to law and its application. Just to be clear and for the record I'm also against the misuse or abuse of law. I just don't see how this law is really any different to the laws enabling wiretapping and other forms of surveillance that are already in place. It simply applies to the internet.
Cheers,
PKFFW