E-mail and Web Use to be Monitored

..According to this from the BBC:

link



It does say that they'll need a warrant before handing it over, but it does throw up some interesting questions regarding the nature of internet security and privacy. Was reading the comments and one of them said that it would be akin to opening up other people's post, but I'm not so sure.

What do you make of this? A good move that will do some good for the country? Or an invasion of privacy?

bollocks... crime and terrorism my ARSE!

Frightening us into handing our privacy over. Its a bulls*** excuse and a waste of money.

If crime and terrorism was at a point where it was affecting our lives frequently then perhaps it would be warranted.

Aside from the IRA and the 7/7 bombings and the occasional shed theft or car breaking into who is really so affected by crime and terrorism?

If it goes through I will stop using the net and a telephone apart from at work.

Bollocks to them.

This part here I can agree with,"If this was such a serious security issue why has the Home Office not ensured these powers were in place before the Olympics?".

But I also agree where it said it's an absolute invasion of privacy.

Wasn't it George W Bush who wanted to do something like this?but he ended up in deep s*** over it??.

I find it rather creepy, but that's an american perspective. I've noticed that we tend to be more against these things than those in the uk.

I don't want to jump on the outrage bandwagon just yet as I can't find BBC's april fool's day story and have a feeling this might be a contender.

But even if it were going to be implemented, the sheer volume of information would drown out most of the info I'd have thought- they'd only be looking for key words that link to things like terrorism.

That said, I am uncomfortable with the idea that everything will be on show. Some put things on social networking sites all the time but that's out of choice. This wouldn't be, unless you choose to hide your IP or go to an internet cafe (which would look suspicious anyway). Systems like this can always be open to corruption as well.

They do that? Cool.

All the news outlets do, but the BBC are usually more subtle. They did an amazing one a few years ago when they had David Attenborough (a UK broadcasting legend of sorts) film a really realistic wildlife video of some penguins flying

Hmm it's on the radio now as well as the top news story. So I'm going to assume it's legit. But if not I really will be a fool

I am hearing more about this. It is a f***ing outrage.

I have a feeling, since reading you guys do this over there on April fool's day,..that this is just a prank.

It's been verified by competing news sources now so I don't think so.

I do think this info was released today to brush it under the carpet though.

I'm confused. If it says a warrant would be needed first to access any of this for an individual, then how is that different in terms of invasion of privacy for entry into a home or any other type of "personal space"?

It says that it won't see the actual content of the messages or webpages without a warrant but can see who you're talking to and when/how long. It would also be able to see real-time updates of what sites you go on. So it sounds a bit like an overprotective parent to me.

I don't know how it currently works but I imagine it's so as to see if anyone is in contact with known persons of interest/terror suspects.

I don't get what's spurned this though.

Oh okay, because, here at least, such records as internet usage, emails, and texting, etc, have long been able to be accessed for cases.

Yeah..I don't think they can be arsed with the everyday life of just any Joe Schmoe; it will be people of interest they will be weighing down on..but apparently they needed that access to cover all..

It's bit unsettling..but I can honestly say I'd be for it (having nothing to hide); as I feel they have good reason to take these measures.
They are aware of things that we, the people are not...
Because yes, 'something', obviously, spured them to this action.

True.

I'm in two minds about that 'nothing to hide' view though. This article was tweeted by a respected writer a little while ago and makes a somewhat good counter: link

But I don't care much for the way it's written so I'm still unsure just how much credit to give it. Plus it's about the slightly different issue of identity cards so you have to do a bit of thinking and take the gist of it.

And yes chances are they won't be bothered about the majority, but having so much information in one place means it is open for corruption if the wrong person has access to it. Plus the system is very expensive and apparently we're back in recession, so there's that. If it's for completely the right reason (i.e. for some kind of top secret, country threatening thing) then fair enough, but it's still morally questionable in terms of liberty.

It's also apparently illegal under EU law, which adds another interesting dimension to it.