thatbloke
Junior Administrator
Seconded.
Maybe the UK is more willing to accept it due to the nature of other measures that are already in place?
Passports required to buy Pay-as-you-go mobile phones.
- Thread starter Traxata
- Start date
Seconded.
Maybe the UK is more willing to accept it due to the nature of other measures that are already in place?
Xarlaxas
Active Member
Well, in my opinion all these extra checks and things make me rather worried, it's how they wean people into accepting all sorts of dictatorial rules and regulations. I mean I'm very unlikely to be arrested and locked up in prison for 28 days without any reason (and if the government had any say it would be 42 days) but the fact that they *can* do it to me, or anyone else is terrifying, you've got to think about it in a pre-emptive manner, if we don't stop the government from taking our freedoms away now then it will be too late.
thatbloke
Junior Administrator
But they will only ever hold you for that long if they suspect that you have been up to illegal activities.
Stay on the right side of the law and there's now problem...
That's interesting. It's been proven (yeah I know, citation needed) that security cameras don't actually decrease the crime rate. All they do is encourage crime to happen places where the cameras can't see it. It's something to think about.
They define what is and isn't legal, and they have records of everywhere you've been recently. You don't see an issue here?
Even without some sort of vast evil conspiracy, let's run through a hypothetical situation here. The police are investigating a murder and would like to ask you a few questions. They wonder where you were the night of June 9th. Do you remember? They already know, and if you answer wrong, you've lied about where you were on the night of a murder despite the fact they have evidence you were near the scene. Oops! Enjoy your time in custody.
thatbloke
Junior Administrator
that would be my own fault for having a crap memory and would be put right as soon as I sorted my head out.
thatbloke
Junior Administrator
If they already know they wouldn't be asking me that question. They would be telling me where I was...
Xarlaxas
Active Member
Not if they can't find the person who committed the crime and just want to close the case. "Hey, this person was near the crime scene and said he wasn't! Nick him!"
And if they decide not to have juries anymore and just have judges decide whether you're guilty or not the system gets even more closed and dangerous.
And if they decide not to have juries anymore and just have judges decide whether you're guilty or not the system gets even more closed and dangerous.
The other bit to watch with measures like this is where it is leading too..........
Watch films like V for Vendetta and Farenheit 451 (where all literature is burned by "firemen") or Equilibrium (having any kind of emotion is illegal) the world they describe is very much controlled by a goverment who say they are looking our for their people and probably started with small measures. Where does it stop.......
Watch films like V for Vendetta and Farenheit 451 (where all literature is burned by "firemen") or Equilibrium (having any kind of emotion is illegal) the world they describe is very much controlled by a goverment who say they are looking our for their people and probably started with small measures. Where does it stop.......
KillCrazy
Active Member
I don't think a police investigation would work like that. If they knew where you were they wouldn't ask you to try and catch you out, they would tell you. And if it did work like that, it's still a bit far fetched an example. Even without all the surveillance people can be wrongly accused for crimes.
Why would they tell you what they know? If you're a suspect, they want an on-the-record statement from you that contradicts solid evidence. Once they've proven you're a liar, their life gets much easier.
I'm not even saying you'll be convicted. But again, the real criminals are smart enough to avoid the cameras. Why sacrifice your privacy for something so ineffective and so open to abuse?
Again, if you've got nothing to hide, then you don't mind them placing cameras in your shower?
KillCrazy
Active Member
That's also a crazy statement. Privacy comes in to play then. I don't need privacy to walk the high streets but I do mind privacy in my own home. Of course you'd mind a camera in your shower.
Such a silly comment to make!
DeZmond
Junior Administrator
Extra surveillance measures, especially those enacted in legislation, are a cause of concern for me. You have to remember that these laws will not only be used by the current administration (which I don't trust, however you may feel free to disagree) but also by every subsequent administration! You might trust Gordon Brown/Labour/whoever but who's to say it won't be abused by the government that's in power 2 terms from now?
Also, the fact that the government already has access to all the information it wants in these databases it's currently providing shows how much of a 'function creep' it wants to introduce.
And don't even get me started on the 42 day limit they want... 28 days is already 27 days too long!!
Back on topic, as has been said already I don't think that passports being required for buying a PAYG mobile phone makes any difference since you need similar stuff for a contract phone, and the information they want is already available.
Also, the fact that the government already has access to all the information it wants in these databases it's currently providing shows how much of a 'function creep' it wants to introduce.
And don't even get me started on the 42 day limit they want... 28 days is already 27 days too long!!
Back on topic, as has been said already I don't think that passports being required for buying a PAYG mobile phone makes any difference since you need similar stuff for a contract phone, and the information they want is already available.
decky101
In Cryo Sleep
Sorry D, must side with Crazy on that one, there's a difference between having nothing to hide legally and going full frontal for the surveillance guys, surveillance would become a glorified porn channel, the number of applicants would soar.......It would spell DISASTER!
. Seriously though, there's quite a chasm between having nothing to hide legally, but privacy is an important issue, and an important human right.
This is exactly what I'm saying. Why is everyone so happy to give it up?