I think you should probably find that out before you use it as a central plank of a pro-surveillance argument. 
1 Like
If I were submitting some sort of proper arguement I wouldnāt really focus on the beheading aspect pap.
Iād focus more on the conversations Iād heard/over heard and things id seen involving two teenagers and their annoying friends I had to deal with for a large part of last year. Iām confidant enough to know that they were looking at stuff they wouldnāt want their parents to know about at times.
I would think common sense tells you that if you can use the Web un-monitored versus monitored, for many people what they look at will be different.
In the same way as I never tried to look at octoporn on a work computer!
We treat teenagers differently in the justice system for a reason. Judges will weigh youthful indiscretion into their decisions when sentencing, and we have different facilities for offenders of a certain age.
Are you soberly suggesting that we change the rules of survelliance for everyone based on what teenagers might do?
If we donāt apply the adult standard to kids in court, thereās no fucking way Iād want to be surveilled because of shit they might be doing.
1 Like
Thereās many adults out there who act like teenagers or have lower mental ages than many teenagers.
Personally Iām not too bothered about my Internet history as I donāt need the government to analyse this data and conclude Iām a total bore, I already know that.
But if it highlights someone searching how to make bombs and allows them to be prevented from blowing some people up, or if it highlights some whos reading up on rape and other sadistic stuff and somehow theyāre able to prevent them from going out and raping a school girl, or if it highlights someone weak who can be manipulated by extremists before they get manipulated, then Iām ok with that.
In reality the sheer volume of data means theyāll have no interest in Tokyo looking at octoporn or the vast majority of normal porn that everyone views. If this helps catch some of the sickos viewing child porn, again thatās good as far as I can see.
I donāt buy it myself, and the problem with having ādecent reasonsā to cut down on individual freedoms is that like with most things, itās simply a foot in the door for more dangerous legislation.
Perhaps people need reminding that we live in a country that, after a major disaster at a football stadium, decided to use police resources to look up the criminal records of the dead in order to smear them, rather than admit how they fucked up.
Depends if you trust the authorities, I guess. I canāt. Iāve seen them shit on rights too many times.
1 Like
Originally posted by @Spudders
To be fair pap I did start with the fact it should be parents responsible for this kind of thing.
But kids with always try and search for stuff online they probably shouldnāt. Iām just saying they might be less likely to do so if they knew that their searches would appear on a list.
Which the police wonāt let the parents see. And it already does appear on a list, which is why you delete your browsing history and cookies. And then itās a question of ā¦
Meh. Too much to consider. Donāt see why the police need to see it. Possibly the anti-terrorist people. The normal police? Just watch those at Westminster and youāll be busy for decades.
Errrā¦ well you can find out how to do things in many different ways. The bomb-making people arenāt likely to go looking on Wiki - the only person you *might* get is someone whoās a total amateur. And it has to be taken along with other evidence because itās not clear proof anyway.
Papās point about being able to trust the government (and the police) is a key one, if not the key one. South Yorks police spring to mind. Now if they could have carried out their activities online and the only people who could have accessed that would have been the police then that would have led to a very great injustice.
While we still have a culture where any number of wholly irrelevant markers suggest youāre a 'wrong āunā e.g. not allowing single people on holidays because it upsets families because clearly the individual is a threat to all children everywhere ( a not too distant piece in the news in the last couple of years) then any information can quite wrongly be used to create a persona that is then the obviously guilty party.
3 Likes
I can see this surveillance being very useful for prosecuting/taxing those naughty citizens who download content illegally or stream live football for example.
No more films for Bearsy.
1 Like
Sorry mucker, but you really donāt need to have blanket surveillance to catch paedos online. The normal process of suspicion, investigation, trial and conviction do just fine for me. Moreover, the online arena actually presents opportunities for detection that simply did not exist before. Police are able to monitor the specific groups where people hang out, and build cases from the information they discover there. They should be able to arrest more paedophiles than ever, and there are plenty of cases in the local rags that bear this out.
So with that all in mind, I find it difficult to accept it as an argument for the sort of surveillance weāre proposing. I have always disliked collective punishment; I hate it when a boss doesnāt have the balls to confront, so sends a company wide email which incriminates everybody. Bad stuff happens; we have a criminal justice system and some of the most draconian anti-terror and free speech laws in the world, and one of the most enabled police forces. How many times have they broken their covenant with the public? Orgreave, Hillsborough, Stephen Lawrence and Ian Tomlinson are just a few, very high profile cases in which the police have acted appallingly, fed lies to the press, smeared victims and in some cases, got away with if not murder, then definitely manslaughter.
Since 1990, 1500 people have died either in police custody or shortly after contact with police. There hasnāt been a single conviction, not even the yob who hastened Ian Tomlinsonās end. And what about all those cases in which undercover operatives have formed relationships, and even had children with activists? The victims describe their former partners as state-sponsored rapists.
I know there are plenty of coppers that do a decent job everyday, but collectively, they serve the establishment, unless anyone thinks coshing miners or newspaper salesmen as āpolicing by consentā. They need to have their power checked and curtailed, not enlarged.
Surveil that, cunts*
*govt, not my darling Sotonians.
2 Likes
It;s all about ācontrolā, not āprotectionā.
2 Likes
ā¦guess better stop looking at the retro stuff then? 