I'm still holding out hope for a tasty Sheffield Hallam by-election before long.
This is why Labour are going to fail. Your ill will towards Clegg and other Lib Dems blinds you guys to the real task of beating the Tories and reversing some of the damage in Scotland.
I don't particularly have ill will towards the Lib Dems (although I do have ill will towards Clegg, that wouldn't really be relevant to this because any Hallam by-election would presumably mean Clegg was quitting and off the scene anyway).
When I said "tasty", I meant it would be an interesting and unpredictable contest, from a general politico's POV rather than a Labour partisan's POV.
Is one of the 'intended' consequences of the data gathering to make it an environment in which any nefarious data exchanges and transmission will be done under the radar, with security and care in a way that is hidden from authority? After all, you can't do your illegal business in the open, it is all monitored.
As such the spooks can disregards the 90% of traffic that we all transmit on our daily business and concentrate efforts on the content that the originator is try to disguise and hide.
It should make the targeting effort much easier and more accurate for the spooks leaving them free to ignore most of the innocent traffic.
Except that as a response to Snowden all traffic from Google and Facebook (to name but two) is now encrypted. That's a pretty fair proportion of the traffic on the internet. It was done specifically to close down the options for governments to go on fishing expeditions in the way you suggest, and follow the tried and tested route of collecting evidence and getting warrants. Before the end of this year probably 70% of internet traffic will be encrypted by default, legitimate and unlawful alike.
Cheers Antifrank, things certainly look grim for the LDs – are there no positives?
[Edit - apart from enriching the treasury]
The Lib Dems need to give some of the public a reason to support them. The mere absence of any opposition in the centre ground is insufficient: they need a positive cause to call their own.
If I were being helpful, I might suggest that they try to take charge of the Remain campaign. Neither of the main parties seem too anxious to own it.
They could take up the Fruit and Nut cause. Vote Lib Dem to eradicate sultanas in chocolate. A review of PB comments reveals this would net them another 10% in a stroke.
I can't believe how stupid the Tories and Theresa May are being with the Snooper's Charter.
It is worse than stupid. It is bloody dangerous.
How about being blown up by terrorists? Is there some extremely clever reason why you consider it a good idea to allow terrorists and other criminals unfettered access to the internet and mobile phone network to plot their activities?
International terrorists with half a brain aren't accessing the internet without a certain level of "protection", certainly not in a way that recording ISP level traffic would do anything to stop.
This law will do nothing to change how they operate, if anything it will just make them more careful. The spooks can already access TOR and VPN traffic and I don't have a problem with that. But to do so, they have to do some leg work. This bill has nothing to do with this.
It is a totally different thing for GCHQ to spy on a terrorist like that, than a whole host of other agencies looking at people general internet traffic.
So if 99.9999% are law abiding, how would the police or whoever spending time spying on say you help anybody? Is there anything to be gleaned by the police from knowing how terminally thick we all are for wasting our time on PBdotcom?
Why do they even need the opportunity from such widescale powers to glean that?Comments like that suppose embarrassment is behind the objection, but it really isn't.
I would have thought that if previous records are not kept than it would be a matter of evidence that might give a conviction being lost. I would like it explained just how it is different from tapping a the phone or intercepting the mail of a suspect? What is so special about the internet? As our current conversations prove, we waste too much time on it anyway. I see little example of the interweb enriching our lives, its far too easy to spend money on Amazon as it is. Yet here I am telling you all about it.... I suppose there are exceptions, finding a decent recipe for instance.
Cheers Antifrank, things certainly look grim for the LDs – are there no positives?
[Edit - apart from enriching the treasury]
The Lib Dems need to give some of the public a reason to support them. The mere absence of any opposition in the centre ground is insufficient: they need a positive cause to call their own.
If I were being helpful, I might suggest that they try to take charge of the Remain campaign. Neither of the main parties seem too anxious to own it.
They could take up the Fruit and Nut cause. Vote Lib Dem to eradicate sultanas in chocolate.
I can't believe how stupid the Tories and Theresa May are being with the Snooper's Charter.
It is worse than stupid. It is bloody dangerous.
How about being blown up by terrorists? Is there some extremely clever reason why you consider it a good idea to allow terrorists and other criminals unfettered access to the internet and mobile phone network to plot their activities?
International terrorists with half a brain aren't accessing the internet without a certain level of "protection", certainly not in a way that recording ISP level traffic would do anything to stop.
This law will do nothing to change how they operate, if anything it will just make them more careful. The spooks can already access TOR and VPN traffic and I don't have a problem with that. But to do so, they have to do some leg work. This bill has nothing to do with this.
It is a totally different thing for GCHQ to spy on a terrorist like that, than a whole host of other agencies looking at people general internet traffic.
So if 99.9999% are law abiding, how would the police or whoever spending time spying on say you help anybody? Is there anything to be gleaned by the police from knowing how terminally thick we all are for wasting our time on PBdotcom?
Why do they even need the opportunity from such widescale powers to glean that?Comments like that suppose embarrassment is behind the objection, but it really isn't.
I would have thought that if previous records are not kept than it would be a matter of evidence that might give a conviction being lost. I would like it explained just how it is different from tapping a the phone or intercepting the mail of a suspect? What is so special about the internet? As our current conversations prove, we waste too much time on it anyway. I see little example of the interweb enriching our lives, its far too easy to spend money on Amazon as it is. Yet here I am telling you all about it.... I suppose there are exceptions, finding a decent recipe for instance.
Because you can't trawl phone taps, and you need warrants for phone taps. With the proposed regulations you can pull out every person that has visited www.jihadinutter.com within the last year and use that as the basis to start an investigation, absent any real information as to whether they actually tried to visit that site, whether someone else was using their PC, whether that site was visited by a link from an email, by a virus, by a trojan, by a browser following links to preload pages you never even visited.
Cheers Antifrank, things certainly look grim for the LDs – are there no positives?
[Edit - apart from enriching the treasury]
The Lib Dems need to give some of the public a reason to support them. The mere absence of any opposition in the centre ground is insufficient: they need a positive cause to call their own.
If I were being helpful, I might suggest that they try to take charge of the Remain campaign. Neither of the main parties seem too anxious to own it.
An excellent idea. I believe Nick Clegg does not have any frontbench responsibilities, so he seems the obvious candidate.
Thanks to clowns like Cameron, Miliband & Davey electricity supply has increased the use of diesel generators.
After the idiocy of environmental regulation causing the closure of pretty much all of our cement factories, resulting in the business to relocating to China where the same cement is produced using the same process (with less regulation) but now in addition we burn a load of bunker fuel shipping it half way around the world... nothing much surprises me in the environmental idiocy stakes.
If I were being helpful, I might suggest that they try to take charge of the Remain campaign. Neither of the main parties seem too anxious to own it.
Didn't Clegg already try that with his "party of In" pitch last year, and only ended up achieving the impossible by dragging down the LibDems' ratings further?
On the Investigative Powers stuff, the police spokeswoman this morning was trying to pretend that having access to browsing history is the same as telephone data. She was talking to nonsense of course. If I know the site I can see exactly what the person was looking at which is rather more information than you get from knowing that Person A rang Person B at this time for this many minutes.
It's not metadata anymore. It's substantive information.
I think if you were looking at the 'how to build an atomic bomb from regular everyday household chemicals' page then the police might suddenly develop an interest. But as long as we stick to 'Mary Berry' then you will probably find the police have better things to do. When it comes to thought police I do concede we have something to worry about.
Do you really think that, especially after Snowdon, somebody with the intellectual capacity to build a substantial explosive device and plan an attack, is just whacking that stuff into google from their own pc on an unencrypted connection?
There is no evidence that the girl was actually able to go past downloading the material i.e that she could actually go through with a plot. She sounds like a total moron.
BUT, the other kid that she conversed with, was much more serious threat. And guess what, despite being only 16, he used an encrypted phone. They had no idea about him or that he was such a threat. It was only after they seized his phone, sent it away to be cracked, that they then released they had stumbled across something much more serious.
This new law wouldn't have changed anything about being able to monitor his activities.
If I know the site I can see exactly what the person was looking at
Not really. For example: Knowing someone had visited www.nhs.uk wouldn't tell you very much. Knowing they were looking at specific pages might.
Well, my browsing history will show that I looked at a particular page on the Telegraph website, say, so I would be surprised if it only showed www.nhs.uk as opposed to www.nhs.uk/mental health services, say.
The authorities want it because it will give them useful information. That means that it will invade our privacy and will be useful to all sorts of people who have less than noble motives for wanting it.
Pretending that it doesn't matter handing this stuff over while at the same time claiming it is essential to stop us all being blown up and our children sold into sex slavery is the most dishonest of arguments.
Tim Farron ✔ @timfarron Make no mistake the Liberal Democrats will fight any attempt to bring back the so-called Snooper’s Charter under a different name.
Cheers Antifrank, things certainly look grim for the LDs – are there no positives?
[Edit - apart from enriching the treasury]
The Lib Dems need to give some of the public a reason to support them. The mere absence of any opposition in the centre ground is insufficient: they need a positive cause to call their own.
If I were being helpful, I might suggest that they try to take charge of the Remain campaign. Neither of the main parties seem too anxious to own it.
An excellent idea. I believe Nick Clegg does not have any frontbench responsibilities, so he seems the obvious candidate.
As regards VPNs, you know what? I have a sneaking suspicion that GCHQ might have thought of that. It never ceases to amaze me that people with zero knowledge of surveillance think they know more than the spooks about what is effective.
We are wasting a lot of money on GCHQ if it does not know how to break codes.That's is business. Given the dangerous world we live in, one where mad crazy irrational numpties have easy access to nasty dirty chemical radio active substances then I would hope the likes of GCHQ are doing all that have to and more to keep track of what is going on. Of course there are only a few of these nutjobs but it only takes one. I suspect they are laughingtheir socks off at the naïve stupidity of the sanctimonious free-for-all apologists.
Do you feel better after that rant ?
Now back to the real world. Intelligence officials are on record as saying the problem isn't breaking the codes (with one or two notable exceptions) the problem is knowing which bit of encoded traffic to break. It all takes time, breaking a heavily encrypted message could take several hours or days of effort from a very expensive computer, they are not going to do it unless they have a reasonable assumption that the result is going to be worth the cost. Breaking encryption on billions of messages, on the off chance that a few of the might be useful isn't on the cards.
So I'm right then? The geeks and gooks are capable of breaking codes and its wise to leave them to it once they have worked out who might be the source of trouble. It's not me and so frankly I don't care.
If I know the site I can see exactly what the person was looking at
Not really. For example: Knowing someone had visited www.nhs.uk wouldn't tell you very much. Knowing they were looking at specific pages might.
Well, my browsing history will show that I looked at a particular page on the Telegraph website, say, so I would be surprised if it only showed www.nhs.uk as opposed to www.nhs.uk/mental health services, say.
The authorities want it because it will give them useful information. That means that it will invade our privacy and will be useful to all sorts of people who have less than noble motives for wanting it.
Pretending that it doesn't matter handing this stuff over while at the same time claiming it is essential to stop us all being blown up and our children sold into sex slavery is the most dishonest of arguments.
I was simply correcting your incorrect understanding. The proposal is NOT to keep the browsing history (although as it happens it is currently the case that your ISP may have this, as may any computers through which the web request passes. But I digress...). It is to store the top-level only: so only nhs.gov.uk, not the specific pages visited.
Cheers Antifrank, things certainly look grim for the LDs – are there no positives?
[Edit - apart from enriching the treasury]
The Lib Dems need to give some of the public a reason to support them. The mere absence of any opposition in the centre ground is insufficient: they need a positive cause to call their own.
If I were being helpful, I might suggest that they try to take charge of the Remain campaign. Neither of the main parties seem too anxious to own it.
Running as the "Party of In" during last year's Euros wasn't exactly a barnstormer for them.
They'd have better luck doing the liberal bit of the Liberal Democrat rather than be a British echo chamber for the EU.
For instance, right now I'm looking to them (by default) to give perhaps the only serious opposition to the Snooper's Charter. And I actually want them to be successful and effective in doing that, so am almost cheering them on.
If that's how a right-wing Conservative feels, I'm sure there's a broader latent liberal base they could exploit there.
Tim Farron ✔ @timfarron Make no mistake the Liberal Democrats will fight any attempt to bring back the so-called Snooper’s Charter under a different name.
Something most of us here are in agreement with Farron.
I can't believe how stupid the Tories and Theresa May are being with the Snooper's Charter.
It is worse than stupid. It is bloody dangerous.
How about being blown up by terrorists? Is there some extremely clever reason why you consider it a good idea to allow terrorists and other criminals unfettered access to the internet and mobile phone network to plot their activities?
They have unfettered access to our postal system as well. That doesn't meant that the authorities should be allowed to open all our letters.
Cheers Antifrank, things certainly look grim for the LDs – are there no positives?
[Edit - apart from enriching the treasury]
The Lib Dems need to give some of the public a reason to support them. The mere absence of any opposition in the centre ground is insufficient: they need a positive cause to call their own.
If I were being helpful, I might suggest that they try to take charge of the Remain campaign. Neither of the main parties seem too anxious to own it.
An excellent idea. I believe Nick Clegg does not have any frontbench responsibilities, so he seems the obvious candidate.
Hmmm indeed. Are there any other former MEPs who have also held Cabinet office amongst the Lib Dems? Ideally they wouldn't be in either House, so as to devote the maximum amount of time to the Remain campaign. Anyone?
Tim Farron ✔ @timfarron Make no mistake the Liberal Democrats will fight any attempt to bring back the so-called Snooper’s Charter under a different name.
Lol - back to the unelected Lords Mr. Farron. I thought the article above was quite good and it's clear to me the LDs made the wrong choice with Farron as leader.
If I know the site I can see exactly what the person was looking at
Not really. For example: Knowing someone had visited www.nhs.uk wouldn't tell you very much. Knowing they were looking at specific pages might.
Well, my browsing history will show that I looked at a particular page on the Telegraph website, say, so I would be surprised if it only showed www.nhs.uk as opposed to www.nhs.uk/mental health services, say.
The authorities want it because it will give them useful information. That means that it will invade our privacy and will be useful to all sorts of people who have less than noble motives for wanting it.
Pretending that it doesn't matter handing this stuff over while at the same time claiming it is essential to stop us all being blown up and our children sold into sex slavery is the most dishonest of arguments.
I was simply correcting your incorrect understanding. The proposal is NOT to keep the browsing history (although as it happens it is currently the case that your ISP may have this, as may any computers through which the web request passes. But I digress...). It is to store the top-level only: so only nhs.gov.uk, not the specific pages visited.
I still don't like the idea of giving the plod or any local government idiots access to any of the information gathered by the result of this Bill. It should be for the Spooks and only for the Spooks.
Cheers Antifrank, things certainly look grim for the LDs – are there no positives?
[Edit - apart from enriching the treasury]
The Lib Dems need to give some of the public a reason to support them. The mere absence of any opposition in the centre ground is insufficient: they need a positive cause to call their own.
If I were being helpful, I might suggest that they try to take charge of the Remain campaign. Neither of the main parties seem too anxious to own it.
An excellent idea. I believe Nick Clegg does not have any frontbench responsibilities, so he seems the obvious candidate.
Hmmm indeed. Are there any other former MEPs who have also held Cabinet office amongst the Lib Dems? Ideally they wouldn't be in either House, so as to devote the maximum amount of time to the Remain campaign. Anyone?
If I know the site I can see exactly what the person was looking at
Not really. For example: Knowing someone had visited www.nhs.uk wouldn't tell you very much. Knowing they were looking at specific pages might.
Well, my browsing history will show that I looked at a particular page on the Telegraph website, say, so I would be surprised if it only showed www.nhs.uk as opposed to www.nhs.uk/mental health services, say.
The authorities want it because it will give them useful information. That means that it will invade our privacy and will be useful to all sorts of people who have less than noble motives for wanting it.
Pretending that it doesn't matter handing this stuff over while at the same time claiming it is essential to stop us all being blown up and our children sold into sex slavery is the most dishonest of arguments.
Many employees of local authorities enjoy their jobs precisely because they are natural curtain twitchers.
I still don't like the idea of giving the plod or any local government idiots access to any of the information gathered by the result of this Bill. It should be for the Spooks and only for the Spooks.
As I've already said (not that I'm doing anything other than reading out what's in the Guardian), local authorities will be explicitly excluded from accessing this information. That's a reduction in their current powers. What's more the Bill adds a whole load more safeguards, including for the first time judicial authorisation of interception warrants.
Cheers Antifrank, things certainly look grim for the LDs – are there no positives?
[Edit - apart from enriching the treasury]
The Lib Dems need to give some of the public a reason to support them. The mere absence of any opposition in the centre ground is insufficient: they need a positive cause to call their own.
If I were being helpful, I might suggest that they try to take charge of the Remain campaign. Neither of the main parties seem too anxious to own it.
An excellent idea. I believe Nick Clegg does not have any frontbench responsibilities, so he seems the obvious candidate.
Hmmm indeed. Are there any other former MEPs who have also held Cabinet office amongst the Lib Dems? Ideally they wouldn't be in either House, so as to devote the maximum amount of time to the Remain campaign. Anyone?
Chris Huhne..?
Correct, 10 points to Mr St. Clare. Your bonuses are on 3 other former Lib Dems who have been in trouble with the law...
Very difficult to disagree with the article, the conclusion or the tip. If I had to guess the number of Lib Dems after the next election now I would guess4.
As regards VPNs, you know what? I have a sneaking suspicion that GCHQ might have thought of that. It never ceases to amaze me that people with zero knowledge of surveillance think they know more than the spooks about what is effective.
We are wasting a lot of money on GCHQ if it does not know how to break codes.That's is business. Given the dangerous world we live in, one where mad crazy irrational numpties have easy access to nasty dirty chemical radio active substances then I would hope the likes of GCHQ are doing all that have to and more to keep track of what is going on. Of course there are only a few of these nutjobs but it only takes one. I suspect they are laughingtheir socks off at the naïve stupidity of the sanctimonious free-for-all apologists.
Do you feel better after that rant ?
Now back to the real world. Intelligence officials are on record as saying the problem isn't breaking the codes (with one or two notable exceptions) the problem is knowing which bit of encoded traffic to break. It all takes time, breaking a heavily encrypted message could take several hours or days of effort from a very expensive computer, they are not going to do it unless they have a reasonable assumption that the result is going to be worth the cost. Breaking encryption on billions of messages, on the off chance that a few of the might be useful isn't on the cards.
So I'm right then? The geeks and gooks are capable of breaking codes and its wise to leave them to it once they have worked out who might be the source of trouble. It's not me and so frankly I don't care.
Absolutely. I don't think anyone here has said the spooks should not be able to tap the internet connections of persons of interest and decrypt their communications. they can do that right now with the powers thy have, and I think they should have those powers in the interest of national security.
However that is a totally different kettle of fish to what is in the proposed law, requiring ISPs to store browsing history for EVERYONE for 12 months, reveal communications data without a warrant to a broad range of people well outside the intelligence services. Last year over half a million sets of communication data were passed out as the results of over a quarter of a million requests. Any suggestion this is just about national security is laughable
I can't believe how stupid the Tories and Theresa May are being with the Snooper's Charter.
It is worse than stupid. It is bloody dangerous.
How about being blown up by terrorists? Is there some extremely clever reason why you consider it a good idea to allow terrorists and other criminals unfettered access to the internet and mobile phone network to plot their activities?
They have unfettered access to our postal system as well. That doesn't meant that the authorities should be allowed to open all our letters.
And why would they want to? But they can open the mail if they want to. If some plotter was planning some plot via the mail system. I imagine the mail can be scanned for chemicals though that I appreciate is not the same thing. The fact is that web records are kept and available. The police can look at phone records and bank records and transfers now with the usual warrants. Are the police competent in what they do? I do not really know. Possibly not. The stories you hear are not usually very encouraging, but the people they deal with are not really either.
I still don't like the idea of giving the plod or any local government idiots access to any of the information gathered by the result of this Bill. It should be for the Spooks and only for the Spooks.
As I've already said (not that I'm doing anything other than reading out what's in the Guardian), local authorities will be explicitly excluded from accessing this information. That's a reduction in their current powers. What's more the Bill adds a whole load more safeguards, including for the first time judicial authorisation of interception warrants.
Yes, I just don't trust the oversight and it does include the ability for local authorities to get access under some set of circumstances and the definition of "abuse" hasn't been outlined, I just hope it is very wide when they do. Even the plod shouldn't be given access. The NCA I can sort of understand give they look at organised crime.
I still don't like the idea of giving the plod or any local government idiots access to any of the information gathered by the result of this Bill. It should be for the Spooks and only for the Spooks.
As I've already said (not that I'm doing anything other than reading out what's in the Guardian), local authorities will be explicitly excluded from accessing this information. That's a reduction in their current powers. What's more the Bill adds a whole load more safeguards, including for the first time judicial authorisation of interception warrants.
"Police and intelligence officers will be able to see the names of sites people have visited without a warrant, Home Secretary Theresa May said. But there would be new safeguards over MI5, MI6 and the police spying on the full content of people's web use."
"Police and other agencies would be then able to access these records in pursuit of criminals - but also seek to retrieve data in a wider range of inquiries, such as missing people. Mrs May stressed that the authorities would not be able to access to everyone's browsing history, just basic data, which was the "modern equivalent of an itemised phone bill". But investigating officers will not have to obtain a warrant, just get their request signed off by a senior officer, just as they do now - some 517,000 such requests were granted last year."
My reading of that is that any old plod can find out what sites you've visited if he or she wants to. All they need is the complicity of their boss and we've seen how the police like to help and protect their own.
Mr. Nabavi, your lack of concern about this is perplexing.
Its entirely unsurprising, he is being a good Cameroon. Hence his insouciance about plod raiding our mail, and his "undecided" views on the EU referendum
Thanks to clowns like Cameron, Miliband & Davey electricity supply has increased the use of diesel generators.
After the idiocy of environmental regulation causing the closure of pretty much all of our cement factories, resulting in the business to relocating to China where the same cement is produced using the same process (with less regulation) but now in addition we burn a load of bunker fuel shipping it half way around the world... nothing much surprises me in the environmental idiocy stakes.
Not sure where you get your cement information from,but the large works are all still operating in the UK,albeit they have moved over the years from multiple wet kilns to usually a single dry kiln per site. They have also made enormous progress in alternative fuels and raw materials.
My reading of that is that any old plod can find out what sites you've visited if he or she wants to. All they need is the complicity of their boss and we've seen how the police like to help and protect their own.
They need the authority of a senior officer unconnected with the investigation, and only for specific named purposes. They also need to go through a central contact point to get the info, so it's not the case that they can sit trawling through private info without anyone knowing.
I can't believe how stupid the Tories and Theresa May are being with the Snooper's Charter.
It is worse than stupid. It is bloody dangerous.
How about being blown up by terrorists? Is there some extremely clever reason why you consider it a good idea to allow terrorists and other criminals unfettered access to the internet and mobile phone network to plot their activities?
They have unfettered access to our postal system as well. That doesn't meant that the authorities should be allowed to open all our letters.
And why would they want to? But they can open the mail if they want to. If some plotter was planning some plot via the mail system. I imagine the mail can be scanned for chemicals though that I appreciate is not the same thing. The fact is that web records are kept and available. The police can look at phone records and bank records and transfers now with the usual warrants. Are the police competent in what they do? I do not really know. Possibly not. The stories you hear are not usually very encouraging, but the people they deal with are not really either.
Because what is in effect being proposed here is that people would have to write the key topics of the letter on the front of the envelope, and then the people could skim those topics and decide which letters they wanted to get a warrant to open and read in full. Do you think the public would be happy about writing "divorce" or "affair" or "leather gear" on the front of their envelopes ? No ? Well perhaps the police shouldn't be able to see that you visited sites dealing with those topics without a warrant either.
Scumbags. Fire bars of soap and warm water at them.
I see John McDonnell gave a speech earlier, and Corbyn sent a message of support.
Kettle them. A cold afternoon in the rain should focus their little minds. Many of them would have been amongst the low life that rampaged in Lambeth over the weekend.
BBC giving the good old soft soap on students behaviour. Minor minor scuffles, not by proper students and think of the young students, they were very scared.
I can see the pictures on Sky news and although not a full on riot, it was hardly what I would describe a minor scuffle i.e a couple of people pushing.
My reading of that is that any old plod can find out what sites you've visited if he or she wants to. All they need is the complicity of their boss and we've seen how the police like to help and protect their own.
They need the authority of a senior officer unconnected with the investigation, and only for specific named purposes. They also need to go through a central contact point to get the info, so it's not the case that they can sit trawling through private info without anyone knowing.
PNC is only supposed to be accessed for specific named purposes as well, and yet we continually see members of the constabulary getting ticked off for looking at the records of people they either know, or would like to know. It hardly fills us with confidence.
Scumbags. Fire bars of soap and warm water at them.
I see John McDonnell gave a speech earlier, and Corbyn sent a message of support.
Kettle them. A cold afternoon in the rain should focus their little minds. Many of them would have been amongst the low life that rampaged in Lambeth over the weekend.
PNC is only supposed to be accessed for specific named purposes as well, and yet we continually see members of the constabulary getting ticked off for looking at the records of people they either know, or would like to know. It hardly fills us with confidence.
And they have powers to arrest you as well, which is hugely more of an intrusion on your civil liberty. Presumably you want that stopped?
Bad election night last night for both the Dems and the pollsters.
For the Dems, they lost the gubernatorial race in Kentucky and suffered setbacks in the state legislature elections, they lost the pot referendum in Ohio, failed to pick up just one seat in the Virginia Senate they needed to gain control, lost the HERO initiative in Houston, and their mayor in 'sanctuary city' San Fran. For the rest of the South, the tide continues to rise against the Dems - see this NYT article about how bad things are for them in WV.
The pollsters all called KY for Conway (Dem) - again they were wrong. Bevin took it 52.5% to 43.8% so not even close. Admittedly, these results are on very low turn out, so they talk more to the strength of the GOP base's anger rather than the overall support for their policies. But still - a very bad result for the pollsters and their ability to weight voting intention.
FWIW, I am being bombarded with emails from a whole bunch of political campaigns, not all of them federal and not all of the local ones in my state. They seem to have two purposes - fund raising, and making all local elections national.
On the Investigative Powers stuff, the police spokeswoman this morning was trying to pretend that having access to browsing history is the same as telephone data. She was talking to nonsense of course. If I know the site I can see exactly what the person was looking at which is rather more information than you get from knowing that Person A rang Person B at this time for this many minutes.
It's not metadata anymore. It's substantive information.
I think if you were looking at the 'how to build an atomic bomb from regular everyday household chemicals' page then the police might suddenly develop an interest. But as long as we stick to 'Mary Berry' then you will probably find the police have better things to do. When it comes to thought police I do concede we have something to worry about.
How about a website page telling me where I can find a castor oil plant? Innocent, you say. Maybe. Maybe not. It's Latin name is Ricin Communis and it can be used to make the ricin toxin, which is of interest to terrorists.
The fact is that you don't know and the authorities don't know what aspect of anyone's personal life that person would prefer to keep private. What may be OK to you may be embarrassing to them. Privacy is essential to freedom. And you don't have privacy if you have to worry about whether what you are doing falls within some unspecified boundary of normality that no-one would be interested in.
I have lived a varied life. There are plenty of skeletons in my cupboard, none of them criminal or even necessarily embarrassing but all of them matters private to me and which, for that reason alone, I don't want shared with total strangers jiust because the authorities say so.
Scumbags. Fire bars of soap and warm water at them.
I see John McDonnell gave a speech earlier, and Corbyn sent a message of support.
Kettle them. A cold afternoon in the rain should focus their little minds. Many of them would have been amongst the low life that rampaged in Lambeth over the weekend.
Oh yes. Cried her little eyes out because the nasty policemen wouldn't set her free.
What did she expect? To be treated any differently to all the other demonstrators in central London over the years? I bet she whooped and hollered when the Pro hunting mob were barricaded into Parliament Square.
I still don't like the idea of giving the plod or any local government idiots access to any of the information gathered by the result of this Bill. It should be for the Spooks and only for the Spooks.
As I've already said (not that I'm doing anything other than reading out what's in the Guardian), local authorities will be explicitly excluded from accessing this information. That's a reduction in their current powers. What's more the Bill adds a whole load more safeguards, including for the first time judicial authorisation of interception warrants.
"Police and intelligence officers will be able to see the names of sites people have visited without a warrant, Home Secretary Theresa May said. But there would be new safeguards over MI5, MI6 and the police spying on the full content of people's web use."
"Police and other agencies would be then able to access these records in pursuit of criminals - but also seek to retrieve data in a wider range of inquiries, such as missing people. Mrs May stressed that the authorities would not be able to access to everyone's browsing history, just basic data, which was the "modern equivalent of an itemised phone bill". But investigating officers will not have to obtain a warrant, just get their request signed off by a senior officer, just as they do now - some 517,000 such requests were granted last year."
My reading of that is that any old plod can find out what sites you've visited if he or she wants to. All they need is the complicity of their boss and we've seen how the police like to help and protect their own.
But PC Plod would never use embarrassing information about sites you've visited that you wouldn't want your spouse or employer to know about to pressure you into saying things you wouldn't otherwise, surely?
And they'd certainly never leak it to embarrass a (Tory) politician.
I still don't like the idea of giving the plod or any local government idiots access to any of the information gathered by the result of this Bill. It should be for the Spooks and only for the Spooks.
As I've already said (not that I'm doing anything other than reading out what's in the Guardian), local authorities will be explicitly excluded from accessing this information. That's a reduction in their current powers. What's more the Bill adds a whole load more safeguards, including for the first time judicial authorisation of interception warrants.
"Police and intelligence officers will be able to see the names of sites people have visited without a warrant, Home Secretary Theresa May said. But there would be new safeguards over MI5, MI6 and the police spying on the full content of people's web use."
"Police and other agencies would be then able to access these records in pursuit of criminals - but also seek to retrieve data in a wider range of inquiries, such as missing people. Mrs May stressed that the authorities would not be able to access to everyone's browsing history, just basic data, which was the "modern equivalent of an itemised phone bill". But investigating officers will not have to obtain a warrant, just get their request signed off by a senior officer, just as they do now - some 517,000 such requests were granted last year."
My reading of that is that any old plod can find out what sites you've visited if he or she wants to. All they need is the complicity of their boss and we've seen how the police like to help and protect their own.
But PC Plod would never use embarrassing information about sites you've visited that you wouldn't want your spouse or employer to know about to pressure you into saying things you wouldn't otherwise, surely?
And they'd certainly never leak it to embarrass a (Tory) politician.
Tim Farron ✔ @timfarron Make no mistake the Liberal Democrats will fight any attempt to bring back the so-called Snooper’s Charter under a different name.
On the Investigative Powers stuff, the police spokeswoman this morning was trying to pretend that having access to browsing history is the same as telephone data. She was talking to nonsense of course. If I know the site I can see exactly what the person was looking at which is rather more information than you get from knowing that Person A rang Person B at this time for this many minutes.
It's not metadata anymore. It's substantive information.
I think if you were looking at the 'how to build an atomic bomb from regular everyday household chemicals' page then the police might suddenly develop an interest. But as long as we stick to 'Mary Berry' then you will probably find the police have better things to do. When it comes to thought police I do concede we have something to worry about.
How about a website page telling me where I can find a castor oil plant? Innocent, you say. Maybe. Maybe not. It's Latin name is Ricin Communis and it can be used to make the ricin toxin, which is of interest to terrorists.
The fact is that you don't know and the authorities don't know what aspect of anyone's personal life that person would prefer to keep private. What may be OK to you may be embarrassing to them. Privacy is essential to freedom. And you don't have privacy if you have to worry about whether what you are doing falls within some unspecified boundary of normality that no-one would be interested in.
I have lived a varied life. There are plenty of skeletons in my cupboard, none of them criminal or even necessarily embarrassing but all of them matters private to me and which, for that reason alone, I don't want shared with total strangers jiust because the authorities say so.
I do such searches (e.g. using polonium for assassination) on at least a weekly basis, if not daily. I have never received any interesting calls from the FBI. Perhaps because I know the key players in their Weapons of Mass Destruction directorate.
Mr. Nabavi, your lack of concern about this is perplexing.
Its entirely unsurprising, he is being a good Cameroon. Hence his insouciance about plod raiding our mail, and his "undecided" views on the EU referendum
Mr. T, due to your Amerification, your views on chocolate are inherently dubious.
I do miss British confectionary and savoury biscuits. Fortunately, Cadbury's are now available but the complaint is that Hershey's have f'd up the formula for the US market.
I feel like a heretic, but I prefer sultanas to raisins.
Not a heretic, just thoroughly untrustworthy.
Guess that makes me an untrustworthy heretic too.
Sad to say. I'm sorry, I draw the line at preferring sultanas over raisans. Politics is subjective, but some things should be unquestionable.
What is your position on Marmite?
Ah, I'm a bit of a traitor there - I'm a vegemite man. Such oddity probably explains why I've voted LD several times - they should target the weird vote - I know people will say they already do, but mostly a particular type of weirdy, whereas there's a lot of weird people out there waiting to be tapped.
Apropo of nothing (except bragging), just signed off on the final proof of my next piece for publication. Four page Comment in a little rag called Nature. Due out Thursday 12 November. Embargoed until then, but will post the link once I am allowed.
Apropo of nothing (except bragging), just signed off on the final proof of my next piece for publication. Four page Comment in a little rag called Nature. Due out Thursday 12 November. Embargoed until then, but will post the link once I am allowed.
I feel like a heretic, but I prefer sultanas to raisins.
Not a heretic, just thoroughly untrustworthy.
Guess that makes me an untrustworthy heretic too.
Sad to say. I'm sorry, I draw the line at preferring sultanas over raisans. Politics is subjective, but some things should be unquestionable.
What is your position on Marmite?
Ah, I'm a bit of a traitor there - I'm a vegemite man. Such oddity probably explains why I've voted LD several times - they should target the weird vote - I know people will say they already do, but mostly a particular type of weirdy, whereas there's a lot of weird people out there waiting to be tapped.
Did you spend time Down Under or are you truly weird?
Thank, Antifrank. I hope the Liberals recover and flourish to the detriment of Labour. As history attests England should be governed by Liberals or Tories, Labour has brought nothing but woe.
Apropo of nothing (except bragging), just signed off on the final proof of my next piece for publication. Four page Comment in a little rag called Nature. Due out Thursday 12 November. Embargoed until then, but will post the link once I am allowed.
Congratulations.
Your book arrived a couple of days ago, and I'm looking forward to reading it. Second hand unfortunately, so you won't get any income from it. If you'd like to nominate a charity for a couple of quid to go to?
Unusually, Mrs J picked it up from my to-be-read stack and took it before me. That usually only happens with sci-fi novels. Make of that what you will ...
Comments
and the Lib Dems need a Labour revival.
When I said "tasty", I meant it would be an interesting and unpredictable contest, from a general politico's POV rather than a Labour partisan's POV.
I suppose there are exceptions, finding a decent recipe for instance.
>.>
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/0f664c78-821b-11e5-8095-ed1a37d1e096.html#axzz3qXNIkMqb
Thanks to clowns like Cameron, Miliband & Davey electricity supply has increased the use of diesel generators.
I was reading that the tyre production redundancies in Ballymena, crushing an already struggling area, are partly down to high energy costs.
There is no evidence that the girl was actually able to go past downloading the material i.e that she could actually go through with a plot. She sounds like a total moron.
BUT, the other kid that she conversed with, was much more serious threat. And guess what, despite being only 16, he used an encrypted phone. They had no idea about him or that he was such a threat. It was only after they seized his phone, sent it away to be cracked, that they then released they had stumbled across something much more serious.
This new law wouldn't have changed anything about being able to monitor his activities.
The authorities want it because it will give them useful information. That means that it will invade our privacy and will be useful to all sorts of people who have less than noble motives for wanting it.
Pretending that it doesn't matter handing this stuff over while at the same time claiming it is essential to stop us all being blown up and our children sold into sex slavery is the most dishonest of arguments.
Make no mistake the Liberal Democrats will fight any attempt to bring back the so-called Snooper’s Charter under a different name.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/apr/02/nigel-farage-triumphs-over-nick-clegg-second-debate
Mr. 565, the stopped clock is telling the right time.
It must be tempting, now that Tax Credit cuts have seemingly weakened Osborne, and the negotiations with the EU do not appear to be going well.
They'd have better luck doing the liberal bit of the Liberal Democrat rather than be a British echo chamber for the EU.
For instance, right now I'm looking to them (by default) to give perhaps the only serious opposition to the Snooper's Charter. And I actually want them to be successful and effective in doing that, so am almost cheering them on.
If that's how a right-wing Conservative feels, I'm sure there's a broader latent liberal base they could exploit there.
Mr. Taffys, Boris would be a critical failure as an Outer, given he's publicly stated we should vote Out then stay in.
Chris Huhne..?
What's not to like about an old airfield runway lined with banks of lovely green diesel generators?
Mr. Nabavi, your lack of concern about this is perplexing.
However that is a totally different kettle of fish to what is in the proposed law, requiring ISPs to store browsing history for EVERYONE for 12 months, reveal communications data without a warrant to a broad range of people well outside the intelligence services. Last year over half a million sets of communication data were passed out as the results of over a quarter of a million requests. Any suggestion this is just about national security is laughable
https://twitter.com/Snowden/status/661924092451397632
Are the police competent in what they do? I do not really know. Possibly not. The stories you hear are not usually very encouraging, but the people they deal with are not really either.
They completely lost any public sympathy over student fees.
But there would be new safeguards over MI5, MI6 and the police spying on the full content of people's web use."
"Police and other agencies would be then able to access these records in pursuit of criminals - but also seek to retrieve data in a wider range of inquiries, such as missing people.
Mrs May stressed that the authorities would not be able to access to everyone's browsing history, just basic data, which was the "modern equivalent of an itemised phone bill".
But investigating officers will not have to obtain a warrant, just get their request signed off by a senior officer, just as they do now - some 517,000 such requests were granted last year."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34715872
My reading of that is that any old plod can find out what sites you've visited if he or she wants to. All they need is the complicity of their boss and we've seen how the police like to help and protect their own.
They have also made enormous progress in alternative fuels and raw materials.
I see John McDonnell gave a speech earlier, and Corbyn sent a message of support.
Especially as many of them had their own fees paid up front by memmy and deddy.
I can see the pictures on Sky news and although not a full on riot, it was hardly what I would describe a minor scuffle i.e a couple of people pushing.
For the Dems, they lost the gubernatorial race in Kentucky and suffered setbacks in the state legislature elections, they lost the pot referendum in Ohio, failed to pick up just one seat in the Virginia Senate they needed to gain control, lost the HERO initiative in Houston, and their mayor in 'sanctuary city' San Fran. For the rest of the South, the tide continues to rise against the Dems - see this NYT article about how bad things are for them in WV.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/25/upshot/election-was-rough-for-democrats-it-was-worse-for-west-virginia-democrats.html?_r=0
The pollsters all called KY for Conway (Dem) - again they were wrong. Bevin took it 52.5% to 43.8% so not even close. Admittedly, these results are on very low turn out, so they talk more to the strength of the GOP base's anger rather than the overall support for their policies. But still - a very bad result for the pollsters and their ability to weight voting intention.
FWIW, I am being bombarded with emails from a whole bunch of political campaigns, not all of them federal and not all of the local ones in my state. They seem to have two purposes - fund raising, and making all local elections national.
A sample of what is on offer is here:
https://secure.stophillarypac.org/bumper-sticker/Default.aspx?initiativekey=6PQZSC0EY8XQ
Amusing as it is, I don't see myself driving around with a Hillary for Prison sticker on my bumper.
The fact is that you don't know and the authorities don't know what aspect of anyone's personal life that person would prefer to keep private. What may be OK to you may be embarrassing to them. Privacy is essential to freedom. And you don't have privacy if you have to worry about whether what you are doing falls within some unspecified boundary of normality that no-one would be interested in.
I have lived a varied life. There are plenty of skeletons in my cupboard, none of them criminal or even necessarily embarrassing but all of them matters private to me and which, for that reason alone, I don't want shared with total strangers jiust because the authorities say so.
What did she expect? To be treated any differently to all the other demonstrators in central London over the years? I bet she whooped and hollered when the Pro hunting mob were barricaded into Parliament Square.
And they'd certainly never leak it to embarrass a (Tory) politician.
Dave = Big Brother
I do miss British confectionary and savoury biscuits. Fortunately, Cadbury's are now available but the complaint is that Hershey's have f'd up the formula for the US market.
America does many fine things, but chocolate is not amongst that number.
Such oddity probably explains why I've voted LD several times - they should target the weird vote - I know people will say they already do, but mostly a particular type of weirdy, whereas there's a lot of weird people out there waiting to be tapped.
That's Vikram New Year, you know.
I hope the Liberals recover and flourish to the detriment of Labour. As history attests England should be governed by Liberals or Tories, Labour has brought nothing but woe.
Someone would want closures, job losses and a judge led inquiry.
Neuhaus dark chocolate orange sticks. Prestat truffles. That's the way to go.
Your book arrived a couple of days ago, and I'm looking forward to reading it. Second hand unfortunately, so you won't get any income from it.
Unusually, Mrs J picked it up from my to-be-read stack and took it before me. That usually only happens with sci-fi novels. Make of that what you will ...