Commenting on social, political, economic and general topics

DRIP- They Should all be on one- Arsenic Preferred?

with 3 comments

DRIP, the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act has been discussed more fully and more intelligently than I could hope to equal from a legal point of view.

But from a historical and technical viewpoint, I would like to add my opinion.

Fifty years ago, no government would have dared suggest we open every letter you send in case it was terrorism in action; neither would they suggest a similar action with regard to telephone calls. But this was not just because it was unconscionable; the practicality of doing such a thing, the cost was prohibitive. So governments limited themselves to requesting court orders to intercept communications that other evidence suggested were subversive.

Now we live in an age where communications can and are intercepted by governments and individuals, and easily so; it’s commonly known as hacking.

Now hacking, contrary to the general public’s view is not necessarily illegal. Every time you enter the options or settings of your computer or smartphone and make changes, you have hacked it.

What has changed is the technology, which has, with the free internet made it possible for dissenters to share and discuss information freely and without interference.

This government is slowly closing down that freedom. To access all information is using the proverbial sledgehammer to crack a perceived nut. No evidence required, no court order required. No legislative checks on the actions of the administration.

So, the government don’t like what you say openly, online? They look at your private communications, which while not necessarily illegal may not be conversations you would wish to be public. Then comes the ‘knock’ and you’re told ‘stop criticising the government or we tell the world about your same sex boyfriend/girlfriend, your extramarital affair, your love of camels’. Or even more insidiously, they can take a look at communications between union members and pre-empt industrial action making it effectively impotent. They can be aware of peaceful, legal demonstrations and have a large police presence ready and waiting. Or they could even have paid trouble makers attend to disrupt and discredit said peaceful demonstrations.

The improper- and hidden- use of these powers is virtually endless.

Hey, Lizzy 2, watch out- Iain Duncan Smith may have an eye on the crown!


Written by Smiling Carcass

28/07/2014 at 6:46 PM

Posted in dataveillence

Tagged with , ,

3 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. I’d say that those who need to spy on others are very unsure of themselves, as well as being nosy gits! I don’t give a damn what they do with my emails, my phone calls or my internet use – I will always stand up for myself and will NEVER, EVER have my voice muted or stopped. That goes for anything I write or anything I publish.
    The internet is a very powerful tool and there are so many clever and competent people out there that could actually stop, or disrupt, what the government and their cohorts want.
    There can also be a lot of “lies” and “rumours” spread – that would make the government popular if they are trying to cover demonstrations etc that aren’t where they say they are 🙂
    We’ll find ways, we always do, and what the thickheaded government don’t realise is that most stuff isn’t done over the net – Pillocks! 🙂


    28/07/2014 at 7:39 PM

    • You make some very valid points, Jay most of which I agree with- what I have to say publicly is just that- public comment. I say little privately that I would be ashamed or afraid to be made public, if anything.

      But this is tantamount to the argument used by spies and undesirable, black-ops government departments and the police, etc. ‘nothing to hide, nothing to fear’.

      But I think I failed to clarify my point; I do not want my online or telephonic, or any other communications monitored beyond the already publicly available media, such as this blog or FaceBook. I say little I am afraid to repeat or make public, because I believe in my political and socio-economic opinion and will defend it and modify it where persuaded to do so by superior argument.

      But we have become accepting of this ‘nothing to hide, nothing to fear’ argument where our digital life is concerned; and yet, would we be so happy to give up those privacies and freedoms to say and think as we please if this law allowed government or their appointed agents to enter our homes freely and without recourse to the judiciary?

      The point I make, jay, is that we would never- never- have accepted freely a law that allowed this intrusion into the privacy of our homes, and yet this age of communication not only gives governments the means to pry on private communications, but we have become accepting of allowing it.

      I am somewhat of a lay-expert (if there is such a term- let alone such a thing!) on internet security and have long argued on technical forums against the intrusion of private companies into OUR computers with their cookies and trackers that are rife on most web pages- including WordPress- which they too tell us is for our benefit.

      What I am saying is our freedoms and privacy must be defended at every level, and the fact we can bypass this prying does not alter the fact they are trying to do it.

      Smiling Carcass

      28/07/2014 at 8:13 PM

  2. Reblogged this on Jay's Journal and commented:
    A government of pillocks who think that they are clever – mwhahaha…


    28/07/2014 at 7:40 PM

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: