Seriously thoughtful They want to know all about you

[SameOldStory]

Originally Posted by PKFFW

There does not appeart to be anything in the proposed law that seems to suggest your government wishes to be able to covertly monitor everyones communications without the need for any oversight or warrant etc.


Are you suggesting the law enforcement of your country should not have any power to conduct surveillance of suspected criminals?

I checked to make sure that I didn't give that impression.

Originally Posted by SameOldStory

I've read here or there about the ability of Amazon to track your reading thru the Kindle. That seemed to concern some. Not me, I've got a clear conscious.

Originally Posted by SameOldStory

It could make the country a better place.

Originally Posted by SameOldStory

Look at it this way - Suppose there was someone in the US conspiring with someone in the UK to break the law by removing DRM from an ebook?

THAT is international crime! Something must be done.

The last was a bit tongue in cheek. It is, I think, an international crime. But on the order of jaywalking.



"What is the difference between monitoring your skype conversation compared to monitoring your telephone conversation?"

Again;

Originally Posted by SameOldStory

I've read here or there about the ability of Amazon to track your reading thru the Kindle. That seemed to concern some. Not me, I've got a clear conscious.

My one real comment is that, as in the case of our RICO laws, It too may expand into other areas, and be used in ways that it shouldn't. That was why I gave the reference to a law DESIGNED for organized crime being used in common prostitution.

[SameOldStory]

Originally Posted by ShortNCuddlyAm

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.

Very good point. My credit card was stolen by a postman! He sold the card and I started getting thousands of dollars in bills from around the country.

Proving that I wasn't buying things in California while I was working in Washington DC was easy. But if they had purchased child pornography with it over the internet.... Well, there would be no way to restore my innocence from that charge, even after they found none on my computer.

[nekokami]

Originally Posted by SameOldStory

And when the "Rule of Law" is unjust, or applied with malice?

The "rule of law" means that we try to make a written system of laws, and enforce them uniformly. It doesn't mean that they are applied with malice.

As for unfair laws, yes, there are many and there have been many in the past. I am still of the opinion that the "rule of law" system is better than any alternatives I know of which have been used on a large scale. Would you like to propose an alternative?

[SameOldStory]

The "rule of law" gives us a foundation from which to work. From there we can make improvements as needed.

"It doesn't mean that they are applied with malice."

I'm afraid that they have in the past, and probably will in the future. Nothing is ever perfect. We have to keep vigilant.

Back in the early 70s, I remember listening to two old guys behind me in a restaurant.

One guy, apparently a retired cop, was telling how he used to give tickets to black people for driving past an old abandoned school bus.

Malice? I'll let you decide.

[nekokami]

Originally Posted by SameOldStory

The "rule of law" gives us a foundation from which to work. From there we can make improvements as needed.

"It doesn't mean that they are applied with malice."

I'm afraid that they have in the past, and probably will in the future. Nothing is ever perfect. We have to keep vigilant.

Back in the early 70s, I remember listening to two old guys behind me in a restaurant.

One guy, apparently a retired cop, was telling how he used to give tickets to black people for driving past an old abandoned school bus.

Malice? I'll let you decide.

My point is, that's not the rule of law, by definition. That's a misuse of laws.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_law

[SameOldStory]

I may be wrong, but I think that we are agreeing with each other. But simply using different words.

"That's a misuse of laws."

And that is why I'm saying that we have to be vigilant.

That incident probably happened in the 30s, 40s, or 50s. Possibly even in the 60s. What he did was against the law, but a black man or woman of that time wouldn't dare to speak up. Even a sympathetic white person probably wouldn't stand up to the local sheriff to support the black person.

[nekokami]

Racial profiling is still going on, and still needs to be fought. There are still attempts to pass laws that try to make it legal. (I won't get into examples, because this is a subject fraught with controversy.)

The "rule of law" is an ideal, not fully existing anywhere in the world. But I think it is an ideal worth striving for. Getting back to the OP, the government asking for online services to be prepared to support legal, court-ordered surveillance seems sensible. I oppose warrantless wiretapping or other surveillance in all forms, but we have a court process requiring probable cause for surveillance or search, and it seems reasonable to me that this would apply to digital communications.

[PKFFW]

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

[ShortNCuddlyAm]

Originally Posted by PKFFW

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

The alternatives? Plenty. All of which are available without recourse to continuing surveillance. For starters, investigating the allegations properly (did the person or persons accused actually buy child porn, for example. Are there any indications of hacking or other dodgy behaviour on the sites concerned, especially if a gateway site was used.). Not releasing the names into the public domain until trial (OK, that won't stop neighbours talking etc, but it will help a little). Full, honest communications - between the forces involved, and also between the forces and the defendants (so no implying that credit card fraud has been investigated and no evidence of it found when that is not the case).. Checking that the "indecent" images found on seized computers actually are child pornography and not legal adult images.

It bears repeating, all this could have been done without any form of surveillance in place.

All of the above would have helped. It would have cut down the number of accused, it would have cut down the number of children removed from their families, and it may even have cut down on the number of suicides that resulted. The example I gave was a summarised and somewhat editorialised version of actual events in the UK a few years back. I'm not using it as an example against surveillance, but in response to this response:

No, because they can still only punish you for things that are illegal. Ok, that is not exactly true, but anything they did to you for something that was not illegal would, in itself, be illegal. And I don't think that were so far gone as a society that they could get away with that sort of thing for very long.

I mentioned earlier one of the reasons why I am against this kind of surveillance - it seems to reverse the presumption of innocence until found otherwise.

[GeoffC]

Originally Posted by SameOldStory

The last was a bit tongue in cheek. It is, I think, an international crime. But on the order of jaywalking.

I think most folk in the UK can be accused of that crime ....