No Warrant? No Worries!

[ChrisJones 7,973]

3 minutes ago, Blackbriar said:

 

Not really - there's always the Law of Unintended Consequences !

A bit further down the line, a situation arises where  'they' realise..........."Oh, we could use that law we brought in ! You know, the one that was meant to keep the popular safer !"

True but I do try and lean towards optimism and even though I posted this in the Big Brother thread, regarding internet regulation, I still think that the public sector is incompetent to the point where they couldn't sift through all that data if their lives depended on it. With all their current surveillance powers we still read the headline 'Was Known To Authorities' and 'Was On The Watchlist' but yet they haven't prevented anything.

As you said earlier there is no due process and this basic right is being scoffed at in a war for information.

[Blackbriar 8,568]

9 minutes ago, ChrisJones said:

True but I do try and lean towards optimism and even though I posted this in the Big Brother thread, regarding internet regulation, I still think that the public sector is incompetent to the point where they couldn't sift through all that data if their lives depended on it. With all their current surveillance powers we still read the headline 'Was Known To Authorities' and 'Was On The Watchlist' but yet they haven't prevented anything.

As you said earlier there is no due process and this basic right is being scoffed at in a war for information.

 

But if you know you might be under surveillance, you can take countermeasures !

 

 

 

 

 

(Like not looking up !)

[Meece 1,957]

There is something that you hyper sensitive chaps are overlooking.  Plod hasnt got 2 bob in pocket to do anything let alone do some sort of clandestine snooping on the general public's random habits. Unless you start to trigger a load of potential key words or end up exchanging texts or email with known nutters or criminals then you arent going to be looked at. Now if your car has a stoplight not working you might have a bald tyre and othr defects and be an easy target for a ticket. If you aint up to no good then you havent got anything to worry about. If they want to rock on down here, their more than welcome and they wont need a warrant or anything. I'll even give em a cup of tea and a biscuit or two. As long as they dont abuse the dog I'm easy.

[Blackbriar 8,568]

40 minutes ago, ChrisJones said:

True but I do try and lean towards optimism and even though I posted this in the Big Brother thread, regarding internet regulation, I still think that the public sector is incompetent to the point where they couldn't sift through all that data if their lives depended on it. With all their current surveillance powers we still read the headline 'Was Known To Authorities' and 'Was On The Watchlist' but yet they haven't prevented anything.

As you said earlier there is no due process and this basic right is being scoffed at in a war for information.

 

I used to shoot with a chap who worked at Hanslope Park - an offshoot of GCHQ. It's top secret...........(a few miles out of Milton Keynes, just before you get to Tatshall End.)

His answer to every question was "I can't confirm or deny", or just to say "I can't discuss that."

He did, however, tell me (in reply to a generalized question) that there is no program of universal surveillance, but there IS the technical capability to do it...............they just don't have enough staff !

[Blackbriar 8,568]

6 minutes ago, Meece said:

There is something that you hyper sensitive chaps are overlooking.  Plod hasnt got 2 bob in pocket to do anything let alone do some sort of clandestine snooping on the general public's random habits. Unless you start to trigger a load of potential key words or end up exchanging texts or email with known nutters or criminals then you arent going to be looked at. Now if your car has a stoplight not working you might have a bald tyre and othr defects and be an easy target for a ticket. If you aint up to no good then you havent got anything to worry about. If they want to rock on down here, their more than welcome and they wont need a warrant or anything. I'll even give em a cup of tea and a biscuit or two. As long as they dont abuse the dog I'm easy.

They won't be 'snooping - they leave that to the Home Office' ! Once you're in the nick, even for the silliest of reasons - or maybe a random stop and search - it's open season, and no warrant needed !

I think you're missing the point that this about your basic right to privacy. If I've done nothing wrong, why spy on me ?

[Blackbriar 8,568]

13 minutes ago, Meece said:

There is something that you hyper sensitive chaps are overlooking.  Plod hasnt got 2 bob in pocket to do anything let alone do some sort of clandestine snooping on the general public's random habits. Unless you start to trigger a load of potential key words or end up exchanging texts or email with known nutters or criminals then you arent going to be looked at. Now if your car has a stoplight not working you might have a bald tyre and othr defects and be an easy target for a ticket. If you aint up to no good then you havent got anything to worry about. If they want to rock on down here, their more than welcome and they wont need a warrant or anything. I'll even give em a cup of tea and a biscuit or two. As long as they dont abuse the dog I'm easy.

OK. Try this one........

I'm out rabbiting with the dog. The next day, I've got the same coat on, and I'm stopped for jumping a red light. I'm searched and they find the knife, that I've forgotten to take out of my pocket. Offensive weapon !

At the police station, this law gives them the right to access all the data information on my phone..........ALL OF IT ! Locations, times, call logs, messages, everything ! None of it anything to do with simply forgetting to take an Opinel out of my pocket.

Search history could be misconstrued - I've visited BBC news reporting about stabbings in London........I've got a knife in my pocket..........

[Meece 1,957]

They won't find much on my phone. I  don't use it for anything other than the  very odd incoming call. Your paranoid. There's  people committing  serious crimes and they ain't doing anything  about it. Don't worry be happy and go hunting whilst you still can.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/5941389/bail-shake-up-leaves-criminals-free/

 

[Blackbriar 8,568]

14 minutes ago, Meece said:

They won't find much on my phone. I  don't use it for anything other than the  very odd incoming call. Your paranoid. There's  people committing  serious crimes and they ain't doing anything  about it. Don't worry be happy and go hunting whilst you still can.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/5941389/bail-shake-up-leaves-criminals-free/

 

And, (I'd forgotten )that, while I'm in the nick, they'll take a DNA sample.............to be held for I don't know how long, and used for purposes I'm not allowed to know. And even if I'm exonerated that sample will still be held on record.

And I'm not paranoid ! You can bring in any new criminal law you like - criminals won't respect it, be affected by it, or have any care for it ! It's the quiet, law abiding majority that suffer from it, though !

People shouldn't be afraid of their governments, governments should be afraid to their people !

 

[ChrisJones 7,973]

37 minutes ago, Meece said:

There is something that you hyper sensitive chaps are overlooking.  Plod hasnt got 2 bob in pocket to do anything let alone do some sort of clandestine snooping on the general public's random habits. Unless you start to trigger a load of potential key words or end up exchanging texts or email with known nutters or criminals then you arent going to be looked at.

Not really. We've said on numerous times, on numerous threads, over numerous years that public sector couldn't find their arse with both hands. The issue isn't one of paranoia, although granted I can see how it reads, it's one of the erosions of individual liberties. I don't think for a moment that I'm under surveillance. On the contrary, I've voluntarily given my data to numerous government and law enforcement bodies as a condition of employment. I have to and I'm alright with it. The issue is that the inalienable right to privacy is as sacrosanct as the inalienable right to free speech. The only difference between the two countries on this topic is that any information downloaded from a phone over here has to be done with a warrant or else it's inadmissible. Over there they'll just take the information without consequence as there are no laws that prohibit it. Regardless of the end result, it's a violation of your basic rights.

42 minutes ago, Meece said:

Now if your car has a stoplight not working you might have a bald tyre and othr defects and be an easy target for a ticket. If you aint up to no good then you havent got anything to worry about. If they want to rock on down here, their more than welcome and they wont need a warrant or anything. I'll even give em a cup of tea and a biscuit or two. As long as they dont abuse the dog I'm easy.

That's a fair one. There are plenty of laws on the books that say you have to keep your vehicle up to a certain safety standard and you consent to that every time you drive one but the keyword there is consent. If you consent to law enforcement snooping around your property that's all up to you but they cannot do it without your permission or a warrant, but you still have a fundamental right to privacy. This behaviour is counter to that and morally reprehensible. It's not whether you've done anything wrong it's a violation of your basic rights.

[Blackbriar 8,568]

 

I can see this forum getting REALLY boring , when we have to resort to posting letter to each other............

[Outofnowhere 93]

42 minutes ago, Blackbriar said:

 

I used to shoot with a chap who worked at Hanslope Park - an offshoot of GCHQ. It's top secret...........(a few miles out of Milton Keynes, just before you get to Tatshall End.)

His answer to every question was "I can't confirm or deny", or just to say "I can't discuss that."

He did, however, tell me (in reply to a generalized question) that there is no program of universal surveillance, but there IS the technical capability to do it...............they just don't have enough staff !

Depends on the individuals interpretation of universal surveillance.  A few months back the gov gave a list of bank details of illegal aliens to the banks to freeze their accounts.  They weren't watching if that's your interpretation of surveillance, it was more the cross referencing of data harvested from numerous other sources they have access too.

The universal surveillance starts and ends with the collection and storage of the data.  Collecting data means they dont need to "tail" anyone as your phones do most of it for them.   When they choose to access it is neither here nor there as it's always accessible.

[Blackbriar 8,568]

8 minutes ago, ChrisJones said:

Not really. We've said on numerous times, on numerous threads, over numerous years that public sector couldn't find their arse with both hands. The issue isn't one of paranoia, although granted I can see how it reads, it's one of the erosions of individual liberties. I don't think for a moment that I'm under surveillance. On the contrary, I've voluntarily given my data to numerous government and law enforcement bodies as a condition of employment. I have to and I'm alright with it. The issue is that the inalienable right to privacy is as sacrosanct as the inalienable right to free speech. The only difference between the two countries on this topic is that any information downloaded from a phone over here has to be done with a warrant or else it's inadmissible. Over there they'll just take the information without consequence as there are no laws that prohibit it. Regardless of the end result, it's a violation of your basic rights.

That's a fair one. There are plenty of laws on the books that say you have to keep your vehicle up to a certain safety standard and you consent to that every time you drive one but the keyword there is consent. If you consent to law enforcement snooping around your property that's all up to you but they cannot do it without your permission or a warrant, but you still have a fundamental right to privacy. This behaviour is counter to that and morally reprehensible. It's not whether you've done anything wrong it's a violation of your basic rights.

 

I don't know about 'over there', but in the UK, the government is guilty so many times of bringing in new laws, where laws already exist that adequately cover the situation.............

[Blackbriar 8,568]

6 minutes ago, Outofnowhere said:

Depends on the individuals interpretation of universal surveillance.  A few months back the gov gave a list of bank details of illegal aliens to the banks to freeze their accounts.  They weren't watching if that's your interpretation of surveillance, it was more the cross referencing of data harvested from numerous other sources they have access too.

The universal surveillance starts and ends with the collection and storage of the data.  Collecting data means they dont need to "tail" anyone as your phones do most of it for them.   When they choose to access it is neither here nor there as it's always accessible.

I asked, and he meant "everyone, all the time". The only thing that stops it is that it isn't possible to constantly monitor the unimaginable amounts of traffic.

But his premise was that this is due to the amount t of staff available, not the technical capability !

[ChrisJones 7,973]

5 minutes ago, Blackbriar said:

 

I can see this forum getting REALLY boring , when we have to resort to posting letter to each other............

You'd have to be really p*ss*d to get into that thread. That's real dedication right there! Could you hold the mood though? The anticipation would kill you!
 

2 minutes ago, Blackbriar said:

 

I don't know about 'over there', but in the UK, the government is guilty so many times of bringing in new laws, where laws already exist that adequately cover the situation.............

The big one now is the gun debate after the Parkland shooting despite the fact that multiple laws were broken before and during the tragedy they're still under the belief that further restrictions will stop deranged criminals. If the public sector cannot enforce existing laws we should be looking at why.

[Outofnowhere 93]

But that's my point Bf, in the past until you became a person of interest physical surveillance was not required.  Now they have data surveillance by way of data collection going on in the background on all of us 24/7.  In a way it's the worst kind as in the old days they had nothing on you until you'd done something now, they're collecting all the time.