Here's an example of the British government's plans to monitor the internet and potentially invade people's privacy:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-18434112

Of course, there have been many things similar to this that have got people annoyed, and most of them haven't come to pass. But the number of attempts to control the internet and in turn invade people's privacy is increasing, and eventually one of these bills may come to pass.

3 questions:
1) Is it a necessary evil? What should be the limit to such intrusiveness?
2) Will it accomplish anything? People can always find ways around these things.
3) Will such a bill ever pass? Is there anything the public can do to prevent it?

Personally I'm very libertarian in my beliefs and I value social liberty greatly. I believe Penn Jillette to be correct when he says that if a question can be answered, or a problem be solved, by allowing the individual more freedom, then that is definitely the best solution. For this reason I'm against any and all monitoring, both of the virtual world and the real world in the public sphere.

No.
No.
And I don't know because I don't know shit about UK politics.

One thing I'd like to point out is that monitoring shit isn't taking really away 'muh freedums' so much as an invasion of privacy.

It's not like you're going to be monitored 24/7. Presumably it's just storing the data so that it can be looked at if it needs to be, same as how no one looks at CCTV footage until there's been a crime.

I thought the argument the BBC mentioned was interesting:

"Just like the internet, any private home can be a crime scene, but should we install hidden cameras and microphones in every bedroom in the land?"

...because I would be completely in favour of doing that. If it was cost-effective I'd move to have everyone microchipped at birth.

On the topic of CCTV, there needs to be more of it.

That shit preemptively stops crime as if there were a policeman on every corner.

Quote from Myself

No.
No.
And I don't know because I don't know shit about UK politics.

Something tells me it's not going to concern the UK only.

Quote from Zed

It's not like you're going to be monitored 24/7. Presumably it's just storing the data so that it can be looked at if it needs to be, same as how no one looks at CCTV footage until there's been a crime.

The amount of CCTV cameras currently in this country is unacceptable in my eyes so I don't see that as a valid argument. I just don't like the idea of being monitored without my permission.

...because I would be completely in favour of doing that. If it was cost-effective I'd move to have everyone microchipped at birth.

You can't be serious? How is having cameras installed in people's homes worth the small amount of crimes it will prevent? The only problem with arguing these things is that there is no tangible number or statistic as to why monitoring people is a bad thing, and yet most people consider it an unacceptable invasion of privacy, me included. You can respond saying "invasion of privacy doesn't really matter", but I'd go so far as to say people's privacy is just as important as preventing crimes.

Also the bill was just an example, it's not specific to the UK.

I don't like the whole mentality that everyone is assumed to be up to no good and thus needs constant monitoring. At the same time, I don't see any other way to go about doing it. To compare what the government is proposing, I employ the exact same method of surveillance on Fileize. As a programmer, to make sure everything is secure, I have to assume that anyone using my site at any time is going to try to hack it. So I program defensively, make sure to check that what the user is doing is within the bounds that I have set up. Part of this is a system to log the actions of my users. At any time I can pull up a list of your activity on the site by email or IP. I can also see everything you've uploaded.

Some might not agree with this and find it morally deplorable, but I think it's entirely necessary, and have yet to come up with a better solution. If I wake up tomorrow to find that fileize has been replaced with pictures of cocks, I have the users logs to look in to, so that I can see who was doing what and when. Maybe then I can identify the culprit, patch the security flaw, restore the site and ban the perpetrator. Without all that I'd just be up the creek without a paddle. Besides, it's not like I'm sitting there all day spying on you and looking at your private shit. There are far too many files and users coming in and doing shit for me to do that. I think it would be the same with the government monitoring shit. I highly doubt they would bother to hire people to sift through the data on a daily basis, there is far too much coming in for it that to happen.

Quote from Automaton

The amount of CCTV cameras currently in this country is unacceptable in my eyes so I don't see that as a valid argument. I just don't like the idea of being monitored without my permission.


You can't be serious? How is having cameras installed in people's homes worth the small amount of crimes it will prevent? The only problem with arguing these things is that there is no tangible number or statistic as to why monitoring people is a bad thing, and yet most people consider it an unacceptable invasion of privacy, me included. You can respond saying "invasion of privacy doesn't really matter", but I'd go so far as to say people's privacy is just as important as preventing crimes.

Surely it's not an invasion of privacy if no one is looking at it. If it makes you feel better it could be set so that no footage can be looked at without a court order and the request would have to be for specific hours.

I for one don't trust the government to not sift through people's private lives. I also don't trust them not to use any excuse to do so, and also don't trust them not to sell that information to the highest bidder.

There was a large controversy a while back over social networks keeping information that they shouldn't have. Why is it deemed acceptable just because the government holds such data? Oh, right, because they're people that are here to "protect" us, here to protect our rights... to privacy... well, shit.

Welcome to America, where you can own automatic rifles and shoot people if they trespass onto your property or if you are concerned that they may cause you harm.

Quote from Automaton

I for one don't trust the government to not sift through people's private lives.

There is not enough time in the day and enough money in the world to actually monitor people like you are describing.

Quote from Automaton

I also don't trust them not to use any excuse to do so, and also don't trust them not to sell that information to the highest bidder.

wat

elaborate

Quote from Automaton

There was a large controversy a while back over social networks keeping information that they shouldn't have.

Which was dumb because it said as much in the ToS.

Quote from Automaton

Why is it deemed acceptable just because the government holds such data? Oh, right, because they're people that are here to "protect" us, here to protect our rights... to privacy... well, shit.

oh noooooo muh freeduuuuums

Quote from Captain Cook

Welcome to America, where you can own automatic rifles and shoot people if they trespass onto your property or if you are concerned that they may cause you harm.

so hardcore

i don't see a reason this kind of shit needs to happen, other than an excuse for the government to control yet another thing.

Quote from Myself

There is not enough time in the day and enough money in the world to actually monitor people like you are describing.

I'm not saying that they're going to look through all that shit. I'm just saying the fact that they CAN doesn't seem right to me. Would you want your neighbour to have the same rights as that? I certainly wouldn't, and I don't feel that the government should have that right over and above anyone else. And I know, I know, "but my neighbour doesn't have the power to stop cyber crime", and then again we come down to the fact that doing this will achieve jack shit when you consider that there are things called proxies and VPNs.

wat

elaborate

How does that need elaborating on? Not necessarily the British government - I haven't seen all too much evidence of it overseas yet - but the American government is notorious for being run by the large corporations, who essentially get their way based on how much money they have. If one of those corporations wants our information, I wouldn't put it past the government to allow them that right, perhaps a company that says it will use the information and do some good with it and help the government out with whatever they're looking to achieve through using that information themselves.

Which was dumb because it said as much in the ToS.

Oh, I forgot that just because people should have known something means that that something is OK. I guess if I forget to read a letter that tells me my family is going to be killed by the author, then that act is completely fine. What's the difference between arguing over the ToS and arguing over what's happening due to the ToS because you didn't read it? Either way, I agree it wasn't that bad, but I'd say bills like this are much, much worse.

oh noooooo muh freeduuuuums

I feel sorry for you if you find it so easy to dismiss liberty and make fun of those complaining that we are losing it.

monitoring of the internet i am not really fussed about at all. i'm pretty sure our ISPs already log our activity for similar reasons, such as in case of a guy being found with kiddy porn on his computer or some such shit and needing to buttdevastate his sources or whatever the fuck it is they do. as far as invasion of privacy goes: if there happens to be some government dickbag who is that is so bored that they feel the need to sift through my internet logs, i don't even begin to care if that person discovers that i occasionally visit redtube (gasp).

the real issue in my opinion is internet censorship. i don't know about your governments, but the australian government has been pushing for this for a while, which poses a serious threat to freedom of speech.

having said that, it might be that monitoring of the internet is merely a stepping stone towards internet censorship, but that's not for me to judge.

I believe they're all part and parcel of the same thing: control. The internet is an open highway of information that governments see as unruly, because let's face it, there's no policing on the internet, there CAN'T be. Not only that, but there shouldn't be.