Which brings to mind Ben Franklin: "Anyone who trades liberty for security deserves neither liberty nor security."

So GCHQ just wants to do what Microsoft, apple, google etc are already doing to us without any legislation being passed or our permission requested.

Go for it. Bore yourselves to f*******g death.

Quote ="Mintball" Anyway, how about us all starting now by ccing every email you post to david.cameron@number10.gov.uk?'" That would be one hell of a protest campaign And of course they'll now know that it was you who suggested it ...

Quote ="Mintball" Anyway, how about us all starting now by ccing every email you post to david.cameron@number10.gov.uk?'" That would be one hell of a protest campaign And of course they'll now know that it was you who suggested it ...

Oh, I got the idea from some angry libertarian on Twitter. I'm just reporting it.

Some?

There's bloody thousands of them already. After all the strife of the last ten days, I reckon the very last thing Cameron wants is his very own Spartacus moment.

I'm up for it

I must admit, the idea tickles me pink.

So I think that's a 'me too'.

Difference is that "Microsoft, apple, google etc" can't arrest you for it.

Quote ="Mintball"I love the idea that the Tories (rightly) opposed such ideas when in opposition – and have now done a complete about face, for no apparent new reason that has been declared. Anyway, how about us all starting now by ccing every email you post to david.cameron@number10.gov.uk?'" TBF David Davis is agin it and he says he's a tory.

Quote ="Mintball"I love the idea that the Tories (rightly) opposed such ideas when in opposition – and have now done a complete about face, for no apparent new reason that has been declared. Anyway, how about us all starting now by ccing every email you post to david.cameron@number10.gov.uk?'" TBF David Davis is agin it and he says he's a tory.

Last time I looked 95% + of Daily Telegraph readers were against it too.

I'm on it too Minty, already posting it to Facebook....

[url=http://liberalconspiracy.org/2012/04/03/ten-facts-to-know-about-the-snooping-bill/Ten things you need to know about the proposed bill[/url

As ever, the only people who will lose out over this are people with something to hide.

I personally don't care if they have access to everything I do. If it saves one life, it's worth it IMO.

I'm sometimes pleased that my old man is no longer around. I dread to think what him and his mates would think of an imbecilic attitude like yours, after they'd spent 6 years fighting on three continents to oppose pervasive regimes. Then you come along and would happily sign away any hard-fought freedoms, in the name of the mythical war on terror.

I wondered how long before someone would emerge with the cretinous old 'if you've nothing to hide' excuse for an argument.

But at least this was only a trolling use of it ...

Cut out the middleman and just hand everything over to the local police, with a copy to GCHQ in Cheltenham and MI5 in London. Then you can relax and not worry about anything at all. Ever.

Why is it cretinous just because you don't agree with it? You are very predictable when it comes to politics, basically adopting an anti-Government approach to just about everything.

These powers do not mean they will be snooping on the average person's Facebook account or reading their emails. All it means is that they could, should they need to. There is a difference there.

Why do you object to it? If it gives them more power to deal with potential serious criminality, what is the downside?

Ignore Saddened. He's in one of his "I need to be noticed" moods.

Let's install cameras in every room of every house: that'll cut domestic violence, sexual abuse, rape and goodness knows what else.

There is already an established, legal procedure if they need to, that has been in existence for years, so why does it need altering? Scaremongering politics, I'm afraid

Everyone has something to hide or something that could be used to incriminate them. If you have and express any political or religious view that then could be used to execute you under a future, authoritarian government. Your complacency is astonishing.

This is completely OT, but I saw this article this morning and thought fondly of you.



[url=http://www.businessrevieweurope.eu/business_leaders/bespoke-saville-row-tailoring-at-its-best?utm_campaign=europe%2Bmarch2012&utm_source=europe%2Bmar02-12&utm_medium=newsletterSaville or Savile??[/url

Just thought I'd mention it.

Anyway, I am not convinced the proposal is just (or even) about terrorism. It's about maintaining the status quo, which is under threat from modern communications. The latter permit instant organisation, instant campaigning and instant dissemination of information. In other words, they are a potential threat to the established State by providing a vehicle for real democracy (but also evil in anarchy, etc). It's about keeping the genie in the bottle before it emerges rather more strongly than in the recent riots. There are lots of IT literate young people without proper jobs and in debt, the seeds of a Britannic Spring are sown and the goverment / establishment will wish to stamp on any germinating shoots before they can establish themselves.

Some time ago, we had a discussion about ID cards in this forum.
I was against them then and I'm against these new powers for the same reasons ... as I see it, the citizen in the street has no comeback, no checks and balances to protect him/her against misuse of the data.

When I see those put in place, preferably via a written constitution, then I might (!) change my mind.

Nah – that's tb's tailor.

Assuming that t'interwebby and e-mails had yet to be invented.

Would this or any other government propose intercepting, opening and photocopying every letter that was posted to, from or within the UK?

And what do you presume would be the reaction?