Comments on: Do we need the Snooper’s Charter to save lives?

By: Jon

Jon — Fri, 07 Dec 2012 14:47:54 +0000

Now why would the murdoch owned Sun “newspaper” be saying privacy is irrelevant? I wonder Hmmm…

By: John

John — Fri, 07 Dec 2012 09:50:53 +0000

I would prefer to see a law passed which regulated the press than one which regulates the people!
The PM vetoed the former, lets see if he does the same this time (I doubt it personally).

By: DaveF

DaveF — Thu, 06 Dec 2012 11:10:46 +0000

As ever we seem to be setting new laws when the existing ones could be used.

By: JohnAHind

JohnAHind — Mon, 03 Dec 2012 15:45:15 +0000

No surprise that Rupert Murdoch through his mouthpiece Trevor Kavanagh is in favour of this. Once every policeman in the country has uncontrolled and unaccountable access to everyone’s internet records his ‘reporters’ will be free to bribe them for salacious stories about celebrities and crime victims!

The government is putting up a huge smokescreen here: Most reasonable people agree law enforcement authorities should have access to communications (content as well as traffic records) UNDER LEGAL WARRANT. They never explain why they need to do this without a warrant and the accountability and restraint that brings.

They should have no problem getting warrants for surveillance of suspected terrorists, organised criminals or pedophiles, and this should give them access to content as well as traffic. And while we are about it, they should need warrants for telephone call records as well!

By: Craig

Craig — Mon, 03 Dec 2012 15:30:43 +0000

As it always the case the people who have something to hide will not be caught. They will be using something like gmail webmail over HTTPS and not a thing will be known about who they are talking to.

However your grandparents or parents still using their ISP’s email account on a dated Outlook Express… Yes they need to be tracked.