Be careful what sites you visit in future

[andy at handiwork]

And there was me worrying about it. I almost feel guilty about even thinking there was anything but my best interests at stake here.

[David Johnson]

Mind you, that bloke who lost his job and got put on trial for tweeting that he was going to blow up Teeside airport unless they sorted out the delays preventing him meeting up with his girlfriend in Northern Ireland, is a teensy eensy, little bit of a concern.......

Have to be very careful about words that I use in messages now like b o m b and f e r t i l i s e r. I imagine my special code of putting a space in between letters will fool them. Being white, I'm sure will be a major advantage for me on the "war on terror".

[Skutch4]

Is it not true that anyone can buy a pay as you phone and use the internet anonymously and for instance buy and load credit on a certain type of card that needs no name or address ?

[andy at handiwork]

Knowing how governments work, probably not for very much longer.

[bamboo]

Isn't that maybe a good thing? Why does anyone need to be completely untraceable?
Terrorists, paedo's, idiots who organise riots and other such cock knockers, are the only ones who'd want to be out of the grid to that degree.

Unless you fall into any of the above categories, or similar, then I'm fairly confident that 'the man' isn't interested in you logging on to bigandbouncy.com.

Christ, most MP's probably have subs to some naughty websites, or phone sex chatlines...Jacqui Smith, I would have thought, has a few, to keep her hubby occupied.

Get yourself an allotment, not even the CIA can trace you there. !wink!

[one eyed jack]

That means all you lot secretly looking at ImSecretlyGayAnd LikeTo SeeMenSuckCocks.com are soooo busted!

Damn...and I was thinking of launching a site called SexyAlQuaedaChicks.com too

In fact, I suspect this is the way that corrupt police officers will try and convict "enemies of the state" by claiming they found child porn on their computers. If you think this is far fetched then consider this:

Years ago when I was busted I was charged for selling a tape I had no knowledge of in my possession. I talked to others in this business who got done and guess what? It was the same tape they got charged for but not convicted for and my brief told me this: "if you think the police wont stitch you up to get a conviction then you are very much deluded"

Silly little naive me. I thought corrupt cops only existed on the big screen and died horrible deaths in american action films. In real life they get promotion and are made head of divisions

I even thought Inspector Regan and Detective Carter from The Sweeney were the good guys. Then I grew up

[David Johnson]

my earlier post re. the Home Office version of why these databases are needed.

The relevant lines in the Tory Manifesto prior to May 2010 are

"?Labour have subjected Britain?s historic freedoms to unprecedented attack. They have trampled on liberties, and in their place compiled huge databases to track the activities of millions of perfectly innocent people, giving public bodies extraordinary powers to interfere in the way we live our lives.

The relevant line in the Tory Lib Dem coalition agreement is

"We will end the storage of internet and email records without good reason."

Needless to say, the Coalition government is apparently planning to do the opposite. As Andy states this appears to be a simple rebranding, not a change to the original, disgraceful Labour plan.

So given the above, to suggest that we sit and hope for the best is rubbish. This government has shown that it can cave in, quite frequently, to public pressure. A case in point is the plans to sell off the nation's forests. Another example is the hundreds of amendments to the Lansley bill that have been forced on the government by pressure both outside and inside Parliament.

"The agencies already have the ability to obtain and intercept the data they need under existing laws and access processes. So the expensive, unnecessary and draconian tool like the CCP really is difficult to justify, from a privacy perspective. The potential for scope creep highlights the disproportionate use of mass surveillance techniques. Storing everyone's communications data "just in-case" it comes in useful for an investigation is an inefficient and unjustifiable approach."

More info will obviously be available when the government publishes its plans, apparently in April/May.

[John Riggins]

It must be true because I read it in the Daily Mail.

To an old codger like me there is nowt to chose between the lot of them, the Labour Party that I joined in the late 60's as a mere boy bears no resembalance to this mob that call themselves 'New Labour', Blair was more Thatcher than Thatcher. I tore my card up in 1998, that was enough for me, now I can slag them all off equally whilst I remain an old commie living in dreams that one day we may all be equal and all enjoy a decent lifestyle, and live safely, free from the thuggery that roam our streets, rid of all the evil in the world and all the Murdochs and the like will be where they belong, stoking the fires of hell for infinity.


PS
I DO NOT READ THE DAILY MAIL!

[John Riggins]

Oh, and by the way if you really do want a website to steer clear of, Sunset Thomas.com, avoid like the plague unless you want 10,000 spam emails a day, yes a day, into your inbox, your sent box, your spam box and your trash box. Just gave that email address up to the spammers!