Comments:UK government to spy on phone, email, browsing, of entire population

One of the biggest problems with this is that it not only violates the rights of UK citizens but the rights of anyone around the world who communicates with anyone in Britain. The question is, will any government stand up for it's citizens' rights? --Poisonous (talk) 05:00, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I for one...
welcome Britian's new Orwellian overloads... Enjoy INGSOC guys, glad I'm not British. Oh Labour, where did you go so wrong. --TUFKAAP (talk) 05:36, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Freedom is slavery! Fephisto (talk) 11:37, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Skype?
With Skype partnering with Tom to get into the Chinese market and the snooping that went on there, will they cave to this one too and let the Brits snoop on your Skype chats and record them? --Brian McNeil / talk 08:33, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Hurray for Democracy!!
I just love democracy! Democracy?? OMG!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.242.246.169 (talk) 10:09, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

omg
its well bad omfg —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.219.81.176 (talk) 12:26, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

that why we have the ACLU (as much i hate too admit it) but they will always fight for Citizens rights. --66.229.17.181 19:01, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh dear...
Hopefully this doesn't start a pattern of taking away rights in the name of national security. -Raziel (talk) 19:59, 6 October 2008 (UTC)


 * What do you mean, "start"? ...To think all I need to do is cross the Irish Sea and I'll instantly arrive in a country where I don't have to put up with all these constant creeping violations of our rights. --128.243.253.112 20:40, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I am strongly opposed to this mad rubbish, where on earth did it come from?
As if Labour can:

- Build the damned thing, considering I'm convinced that it's ACTUALLY IMPOSSIBLE to achieve their goals, with the current technology, and also they're useless with databases generally. The NHS one has cost insane amounts of billions of pounds, and it looks like it will NEVER work. And all it's supposed to do is store patient records, no?

- Keep the data secure, do we need any more evidence that they're useless at data security?

They can't do it, of course they shouldn't, but it's not just that; they CAN'T. They're not able, and it's really not possible. How does our government expect to monitor data stored and managed by computers in say, Japan, but used by people here via secure connections? Emails are international, and although basic, old fashioned email can theoretically be monitored, it can easily be encrypted. That technology has been in place for donkey's years. And since when does any home user use real email? Doesn't everyone use webmail such as gmail? Gordon; you can't expect to monitor that. We don't own gmail or hotmail. So as long as every terrorist uses hotmail, gmail, yahoo mail, lycos mail or whatever, the system will surely never even record any of their communications, and BOOM, that's the sound of 12 BILLION JILLION ZILLION POUNDS going up in a OMG, SUICIDE ATTACK. Because they happen ALL DAY here, and the only way to stop them is to spy on innocent people because it's actually only innocent people that will be affected by the system. It'll be so easy for anyone with the know-how to circumvent, they won't even need to try, and when terrorists go to pakistan for training, one of the things they're trained in is computers... So even if they're pants-on-head retarded, they'll come back knowing how to use a gmail account. Makes you wonder, does anyone in the government know this? I think a LITTLE more thought needs to go into this before we drop 12 billion on it. And remember that's a 12 billion budget, since when has anything like this stayed in budget?

I really can't believe this is happening, you could just give the 12 billion to me, then I would happily tell the government if I suspect someone of being a terrorist. Then at least they've got a chance of catching one, or even better, take a bet with another country:

"I bet you 12 billion that we'll get a terrorist attack"

Saudi Arabia could afford to take that right? And so they'd make bloody sure we don't have any terrorist attacks, and eventually when we don't have any, we can give the 12 billion to saudi arabia. We've still lost 12 billion, but the country was safe and nobody got blown up or spied on.

As if terrorists spend all day texting eachother about their plans.

"rite m8, we still blowin up nelsuns collum l8r at 9:30?" "ye m8, wot is ur full naym n adress agen?" "n wear will u be 4 da next 3 hours?" "we r so terrorists. we blow sh*t up n go 'yalla yalla' all da tym"

later at MI5:

"We have reason to believe that a terrorist attack was to take place l8r at nelsun's collum. Fortunately, with the help of our uber-database, we caught the terrorists, who were utterly flabbergasted that we found them out."

I want no part of their ridiculous surveillance society, fortunately they're so useless, staying out of the evil all seeing eye of this thing will be easy, and probably the only way to ensure your entire life doesn't end up on a usb key in the pocket of some dodgy telemarketer in Bangladesh.

This is what the terrorists want us to do, these are the actions of a scared nation. The terrorists don't want to kill us all (well, theoretically) they want to scare us into doing what they want us to. Why are we letting the terrorists win?

I think more people die each year of cancer than of terrorism. So why not give the £12 billion to cancer research? —Preceding unsigned comment added by SirronTM (talk • contribs) 21:44, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Unethical, But...
Well yes I believe in comparison to the high standards of democracy in America (cough, cough)this is a violation of the people's rights. However, as I have nothing to hide and because I don't live in the UK, it's not that voluminous of an ordeal. It is when the government surpasses this boundary that i shall be wary. So what about you guys?


 * "As I have nothing to hide"? So that makes draconian and intrusive violations of privacy alright then? Being suspected of terrorist activity is a reasonable justification for the government to place a tap on your phone; being a citizen of the United Kingdom is not. --128.243.253.113 00:01, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

GOD SAVE THE QUEEN —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.229.152.103 (talk) 22:23, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

What I don't understand is that both the telegraph and the times online suggest that it could be used to view encrypted traffic. Is this bad journalism, a massive, previously unknown hole in https/ssl or just an encryption=terrorism point of view? 144.82.194.253 15:07, 12 October 2008 (UTC)