when you understand they do body odor impregnation to rape and ejaculate inside girls, when you get they exchange babies, when you understand how they behave in the real world... time to go shanghai. and don't forget, found > killed.
Topic: Britain passes the 'most extreme surveillance law ever passed in a democracy' (Read 1018 times)
November 29, 2016, 09:28:07 PM
November 29, 2016, 09:18:52 PM
when you understand they do body odor impregnation to rape and ejaculate inside girls, when you get they exchange babies, when you understand how they behave in the real world... time to go shanghai. and don't forget, found > killed.
Yer i will have to get back to you..It will take me 3 days to decode what you mean..BUT us British are good at that
..I will try and do it in 1 day then 
.. November 29, 2016, 02:38:58 PM
In my country over here, I wont be bothered about such laws maybe it even exists, who knows but I asked with which infrastructure? But based on the law enacted in UK, everyday government wants to find ways to control every aspect of our lives and individuals as well go along way in making that a possibility and they will hide under the idea of security reasons to foster their ideas on the citizens but if I am not a threat to the state why should I be bothered if anyone is watching...
What happens if/when the state decide what you're doing is in fact a threat? It's possible in future that governments could view the accessing of this very forum an act of subversion. This is very much a case of "creeping normality", the way a major change can be accepted as normal, if it happens slowly, in unnoticed increments, when it would be regarded as objectionable if it took place in a single step. Piece by piece they will erode your rights until none remain.
- First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
.. 
November 29, 2016, 01:28:42 PM
In my country over here, I wont be bothered about such laws maybe it even exists, who knows but I asked with which infrastructure? But based on the law enacted in UK, everyday government wants to find ways to control every aspect of our lives and individuals as well go along way in making that a possibility and they will hide under the idea of security reasons to foster their ideas on the citizens but if I am not a threat to the state why should I be bothered if anyone is watching...
What happens if/when the state decide what you're doing is in fact a threat? It's possible in future that governments could view the accessing of this very forum an act of subversion. This is very much a case of "creeping normality", the way a major change can be accepted as normal, if it happens slowly, in unnoticed increments, when it would be regarded as objectionable if it took place in a single step. Piece by piece they will erode your rights until none remain.
- First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
November 29, 2016, 11:26:45 AM
In my country over here, I wont be bothered about such laws maybe it even exists, who knows but I asked with which infrastructure? But based on the law enacted in UK, everyday government wants to find ways to control every aspect of our lives and individuals as well go along way in making that a possibility and they will hide under the idea of security reasons to foster their ideas on the citizens but if I am not a threat to the state why should I be bothered if anyone is watching...
November 29, 2016, 06:05:31 AM
UK and democracy? There is no real constitution and there is no real parliament. It's just a weak imitation of parliamentarism under oligarchic monarchy.
Who are these oligarchs that control the UK?The royal family are 99% symbolic.
November 24, 2016, 01:45:09 PM
The UK has always been on the first line in the struggle against global terrorism. As a consequence, it has always been a target for terrorist attacks. I'm sure that this law will strengthen the security.
Pffft... The terrorists have already won if we have to surrender all our rights and privacy. "Those who would give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety".
Also, this law won't stop a significant proportion of Terrorism. What's to stop terrorists making their plans outside of the UK, using whatever encrypted services they like, then coming into the UK to carry out the plan? What if they attack UK citizens residing elsewhere in the world? Communication is global, which means the vast majority of it lies outside of the UK's jurisdiction.
And this clearly isn't just about terrorism when you look at the list of government agencies who have been granted access to everyone's browsing history. Along with the obvious security-related ones, the list also includes agencies like:
- Department of Health
- HM Revenue & Customs
- Department for Transport
- Department for Work and Pensions
- NHS trusts and foundation trusts in England that provide ambulance services
- Common Services Agency for the Scottish Health Service
- Competition and Markets Authority
- Department for Communities in Northern Ireland
- Department for the Economy in Northern Ireland
- Financial Conduct Authority
- Fire and rescue authorities under the Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004
- Food Standards Agency
- Food Standards Scotland
- Gambling Commission
- Health and Safety Executive
- Information Commissioner
- NHS Business Services Authority
- Northern Ireland Ambulance Service Health and Social Care Trust
- Northern Ireland Fire and Rescue Service Board
- Northern Ireland Health and Social Care Regional Business Services Organisation
- Office of Communications
- Scottish Ambulance Service Board
- Welsh Ambulance Services National Health Service Trust
I mean, the Food Standards Agency? Ambulance services? What are the terrorists going to do? Poison our bloody pork pies and then run us over with the ambulance?
November 24, 2016, 08:46:35 AM
The UK has always been on the first line in the struggle against global terrorism. As a consequence, it has always been a target for terrorist attacks. I'm sure that this law will strengthen the security.
November 24, 2016, 08:40:54 AM
And if the snooper's charter wasn't enough of an affront to privacy and personal freedom, next up we have a clause included in the digital economy bill that will involve censorship of adult content. It's fair to assume Britain's #1 websearch will soon be those three glorious letters, V, P and N.
'Thought Police' will be knocking soon enough.
Once again we see that the British lads. They were the first in Europe said NO to the endless refugees. Thereby saved his country. Russia has always aimed at destabilizing the situation in Britain. I'm willing to sacrifice some of their rights for the sake of victory over the enemy. 'Thought Police' will be knocking soon enough.
November 23, 2016, 03:02:21 PM
And if the snooper's charter wasn't enough of an affront to privacy and personal freedom, next up we have a clause included in the digital economy bill that will involve censorship of adult content. It's fair to assume Britain's #1 websearch will soon be those three glorious letters, V, P and N.
'Thought Police' will be knocking soon enough.
'Thought Police' will be knocking soon enough.
November 19, 2016, 05:54:34 AM
UK and democracy? There is no real constitution and there is no real parliament. It's just a weak imitation of parliamentarism under oligarchic monarchy.
Who are these oligarchs that control the UK?The royal family are 99% symbolic.
November 19, 2016, 05:53:49 AM
And what about democracy? The UK has always been considered one of the most democratic countries. The English courts are still the fairest in the world.
If democracy did what it said on the tin, this probably wouldn't have happened. But it's probable we have an illegitimate government who obtained their majority illegally. They've also spent hundreds of thousands of pounds worth of taxpayers money in an attempt to block inquiries into their electoral fraud. Then, once they were in, they knocked an estimated 800,000 people off the electoral roll and proposed boundary changes to make it harder for opposition parties to win in future. So yeah, not placing a great deal of faith in the shadow of a husk we still mistakenly refer to as democracy.
If my original post doesn't sound insane enough, I'll rephrase it. In the UK, your internet service provider will be breaking the law if they don't track your every move online. It's illegal to not spy on you.
Madness.
The courts have challenged a few government decisions as of late, so I'll keep my fingers crossed that the same happens with this. I'm not optimistic, though. Might as well call it the DPR(U)K.
November 18, 2016, 05:09:40 PM
UK and democracy? There is no real constitution and there is no real parliament. It's just a weak imitation of parliamentarism under oligarchic monarchy.
November 18, 2016, 04:20:17 PM
The global decentralized mesh network technology can't come soon enough.
November 18, 2016, 03:54:51 PM
http://www.zdnet.com/article/snoopers-charter-expansive-new-spying-powers-becomes-law/ and http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/snoopers-charter-2-investigatory-powers-bill-parliament-lords-what-does-it-mean-a7423866.html
So the chances are, security agencies in many countries are doing exactly the same thing covertly, outside the rule of law, so I'm not pretending for a second that the UK is somehow alone in this. But Britain has now placed the responsibility of spying on the masses squarely in the hands of Internet Service Providers. Mass surveillance will now be 100% legal and enshrined in the rule of law. But obviously the politicians had to make sure certain aspects of the law won't apply to them because they're hypocrites. Glaring privacy issues aside, this law is likely to be highly ineffective at catching criminals, because a basic knowledge of technology enables people to circumvent it. Some of it is also technically unenforceable, because politicians apparently don't understand how mathematics or encryption work.
This marks a large shift in societal views towards privacy and personal freedom. How long before other countries follow suit?
And what about democracy? The UK has always been considered one of the most democratic countries. The English courts are still the fairest in the world.So the chances are, security agencies in many countries are doing exactly the same thing covertly, outside the rule of law, so I'm not pretending for a second that the UK is somehow alone in this. But Britain has now placed the responsibility of spying on the masses squarely in the hands of Internet Service Providers. Mass surveillance will now be 100% legal and enshrined in the rule of law. But obviously the politicians had to make sure certain aspects of the law won't apply to them because they're hypocrites. Glaring privacy issues aside, this law is likely to be highly ineffective at catching criminals, because a basic knowledge of technology enables people to circumvent it. Some of it is also technically unenforceable, because politicians apparently don't understand how mathematics or encryption work.
This marks a large shift in societal views towards privacy and personal freedom. How long before other countries follow suit?
Just because they are a democracy doesn't mean that they are not violating the rights of their people. It just means that their average voter is apathetic ad uninformed. There are definitely countries that are worse than Britain but a surveillance bill like this is not acceptable for a first world country.
November 18, 2016, 03:43:26 PM
And what about democracy? The UK has always been considered one of the most democratic countries. The English courts are still the fairest in the world.
If democracy did what it said on the tin, this probably wouldn't have happened. But it's probable we have an illegitimate government who obtained their majority illegally. They've also spent hundreds of thousands of pounds worth of taxpayers money in an attempt to block inquiries into their electoral fraud. Then, once they were in, they knocked an estimated 800,000 people off the electoral roll and proposed boundary changes to make it harder for opposition parties to win in future. So yeah, not placing a great deal of faith in the shadow of a husk we still mistakenly refer to as democracy.
If my original post doesn't sound insane enough, I'll rephrase it. In the UK, your internet service provider will be breaking the law if they don't track your every move online. It's illegal to not spy on you.
Madness.
The courts have challenged a few government decisions as of late, so I'll keep my fingers crossed that the same happens with this. I'm not optimistic, though. Might as well call it the DPR(U)K.
November 18, 2016, 01:14:39 PM
http://www.zdnet.com/article/snoopers-charter-expansive-new-spying-powers-becomes-law/ and http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/snoopers-charter-2-investigatory-powers-bill-parliament-lords-what-does-it-mean-a7423866.html
So the chances are, security agencies in many countries are doing exactly the same thing covertly, outside the rule of law, so I'm not pretending for a second that the UK is somehow alone in this. But Britain has now placed the responsibility of spying on the masses squarely in the hands of Internet Service Providers. Mass surveillance will now be 100% legal and enshrined in the rule of law. But obviously the politicians had to make sure certain aspects of the law won't apply to them because they're hypocrites. Glaring privacy issues aside, this law is likely to be highly ineffective at catching criminals, because a basic knowledge of technology enables people to circumvent it. Some of it is also technically unenforceable, because politicians apparently don't understand how mathematics or encryption work.
This marks a large shift in societal views towards privacy and personal freedom. How long before other countries follow suit?
And what about democracy? The UK has always been considered one of the most democratic countries. The English courts are still the fairest in the world. So the chances are, security agencies in many countries are doing exactly the same thing covertly, outside the rule of law, so I'm not pretending for a second that the UK is somehow alone in this. But Britain has now placed the responsibility of spying on the masses squarely in the hands of Internet Service Providers. Mass surveillance will now be 100% legal and enshrined in the rule of law. But obviously the politicians had to make sure certain aspects of the law won't apply to them because they're hypocrites. Glaring privacy issues aside, this law is likely to be highly ineffective at catching criminals, because a basic knowledge of technology enables people to circumvent it. Some of it is also technically unenforceable, because politicians apparently don't understand how mathematics or encryption work.
This marks a large shift in societal views towards privacy and personal freedom. How long before other countries follow suit?
November 18, 2016, 12:23:02 PM
http://www.zdnet.com/article/snoopers-charter-expansive-new-spying-powers-becomes-law/ and http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/snoopers-charter-2-investigatory-powers-bill-parliament-lords-what-does-it-mean-a7423866.html
So the chances are, security agencies in many countries are doing exactly the same thing covertly, outside the rule of law, so I'm not pretending for a second that the UK is somehow alone in this. But Britain has now placed the responsibility of spying on the masses squarely in the hands of Internet Service Providers. Mass surveillance will now be 100% legal and enshrined in the rule of law. But obviously the politicians had to make sure certain aspects of the law won't apply to them because they're hypocrites. Glaring privacy issues aside, this law is likely to be highly ineffective at catching criminals, because a basic knowledge of technology enables people to circumvent it. Some of it is also technically unenforceable, because politicians apparently don't understand how mathematics or encryption work.
This marks a large shift in societal views towards privacy and personal freedom. How long before other countries follow suit?
So the chances are, security agencies in many countries are doing exactly the same thing covertly, outside the rule of law, so I'm not pretending for a second that the UK is somehow alone in this. But Britain has now placed the responsibility of spying on the masses squarely in the hands of Internet Service Providers. Mass surveillance will now be 100% legal and enshrined in the rule of law. But obviously the politicians had to make sure certain aspects of the law won't apply to them because they're hypocrites. Glaring privacy issues aside, this law is likely to be highly ineffective at catching criminals, because a basic knowledge of technology enables people to circumvent it. Some of it is also technically unenforceable, because politicians apparently don't understand how mathematics or encryption work.
This marks a large shift in societal views towards privacy and personal freedom. How long before other countries follow suit?
Jump to: