HD erase quickie
in [UK Mac]
|
From: David Kennedy on 7 Apr 2010 07:30 Peter Ceresole wrote: > > However the threat is real, terrorists do exist, encouraged of course by > the actions of our own government in the Middle East (but especially by > those of the USA). The law has to provide the police with the means to > pursue them. Since forever it was (still is) legal to intercept mail. > Technology moves on, and all it does now is to recognise later (and more > useful) ways of organising crime, and easier and stronger ways to hide > criminal intentions. Didn't many [all?] of ACPO say that they already had the powers but needed the courts to back them up? [or am I confusing this with some other piece of legislation?] -- David Kennedy http://www.anindianinexile.com
From: Jaimie Vandenbergh on 7 Apr 2010 08:04 On Wed, 07 Apr 2010 12:30:54 +0100, David Kennedy <davidkennedy(a)nospamherethankyou.invalid> wrote: >Peter Ceresole wrote: >> >> However the threat is real, terrorists do exist, encouraged of course by >> the actions of our own government in the Middle East (but especially by >> those of the USA). The law has to provide the police with the means to >> pursue them. Since forever it was (still is) legal to intercept mail. >> Technology moves on, and all it does now is to recognise later (and more >> useful) ways of organising crime, and easier and stronger ways to hide >> criminal intentions. > >Didn't many [all?] of ACPO say that they already had the powers but >needed the courts to back them up? >[or am I confusing this with some other piece of legislation?] Possibly - I was told a year or so ago by a friend who takes an interest in such things that fully half of Labours more-than-one-law-per-day legacy were redundant and already covered elsewhere. Cheers - Jaimie -- Imagine there were no hypothetical situations.
From: Pd on 7 Apr 2010 10:35 Peter Ceresole <peter(a)cara.demon.co.uk> wrote: > The police certainly do misbehave; Gareth Peirce told me that the police > routinely behaved in a criminal way towards her clients. Like shooting them seven times in the head. The whole terrorist paranoia is blown way out of proportion, by the media and the police. All this harassment of photographers is a prime example. Yes, a terrorist may well take photos of his intended target beforehand. No, not everyone taking photos of a public building is necessarily a terrorist on a reconnaisance mission. -- Pd
From: Bruce Horrocks on 7 Apr 2010 13:41 On 07/04/2010 12:28, David Kennedy wrote: > Weren't the first deportees under the terrorist legislation the Nat West > three; and, wasn't the same act used to freeze the Icelandic Bank assets? It was the "Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001" -- the Icelandic bank assets were frozen using the 'Crime' bit of the legislation, not the 'Anti-terrorism' bit. -- Bruce Horrocks Surrey England (bruce at scorecrow dot com)
From: Rowland McDonnell on 7 Apr 2010 14:08
Peter Ceresole <peter(a)cara.demon.co.uk> wrote: > Jaimie Vandenbergh <jaimie(a)sometimes.sessile.org> wrote: > > > Ho ho! What's the point of a good police-state type law like RIPA if > > it's so easy to get around? > > > > Failure to comply with a RIPA section 49 notice can lead to up to two > > years in priz plus fines, if convicted. Nice. > > Not so nice- especially as the first person to be imprisoned under the > act turned out to be schizophrenic, and was sent to gaol because the > judge didn't call for a presentencing report which would have revealed > the fellow's state of mind. <http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/11/24/ripa_jfl/> > However, the claim that they need these powers given the threat, is > persuasive. Given the facts of reality, you are wrong. As I explain - and has been explained all over the press. The fact is that if you have evidence that'll get you sent down for a very long time if the cops see it, and if you have the choice of `not letting them see it and suffering a light penalty as a result' or `letting them see it and suffering a very heavy penalty as a result', anyone who's not completely barking mad will just refuse to hand over their password(s). All the law does is turn into criminals those who wish privacy. It is useless against terrorists, the alleged target of the law. Since it is so obviously utterly useless against the specified target, one has to wonder: was it really incompetence on the part of the government, or what? > People such as animal rights terrorists have apparently used > encrypted communications. I don't see that they should have a right to > conceal these from the police. Serious criminals prefer the lesser sentence resulting from `refusing to give your password' than the heavier sentence they'd get if they *did* give the password: the law is guaranteed-useless against its stated targets. I don't see that the state should have a right to turn someone in to a criminal just for wishing to maintain privacy in the face of a state that cannot be trusted - which is all that the law achieves. >You may call it a 'police state type > law', but that's just the usual facile nonsense; proportionality is the > important thing. If it were used unreasonably, or often, then it would > be a cause for alarm, but it doesn't seem that it has. This law so far has been used by the state apparatus only to criminalize the otherwise-innocent. This law can have no effect on the serious criminals who wish to conceal their activities. The law is cause for alarm - cause for /major/ alarm. Rowland. -- Remove the animal for email address: rowland.mcdonnell(a)dog.physics.org Sorry - the spam got to me http://www.mag-uk.org http://www.bmf.co.uk UK biker? Join MAG and the BMF and stop the Eurocrats banning biking |