Rant Will someone please kill this bitch? :(

[Scouse]

They'll do what they're going to do with the car tracking scheme. Introduce it in limited areas as a trial, with only volunteers taking part. Because they are volunteers, they'll be people who don't object whole heartedly to the system. They'll get feedback, proving that most people thought the scheme worked. They'll then introduce it officially in that area, making it easier to crackdown on the people that refuse, because there will be less of them, and they will make an example of them to scare people off that may follow suit. Then they will role it out across the rest of the country in stages.

I'm guessing with the ID card they'll make them voluntary at first, and then make them necessary for certain things like getting a passport, or opening a bank account, and then for people in certain jobs, or for getting NHS treatment, and it will be a case of slowly herding those that object into a corner.

I could just be wildly paranoid though

Nope D. You're bob-on.

 

[Scouse]

And that bit isnt baiting me? :lol:

Actually, I was referring to me but I can see why you'd read it that way. I've no idea if you play CS

 

[MYstIC G]

Ive lived in a country with an ID system for 26 years. I dont have a problem with them and thats all I'm saying.

But that's not this country. This country has a Data Protection Act but it might as well have been written on toilet paper, data is lost or leaked all the bloody time and nothing happens.

Also I don't know about anyone else but all it actually seems to do here is, for example, say my Dad asks me to ring orange to sort out his mobile upgrade, the twats at the call centre insists on taking him through security each time the call is passed between "departments"...

 

[Chilly]

dont tell them its you? pretend to be him. if you have all the right info then they have no way of knowing.

 

[Krazeh]

But that's not this country. This country has a Data Protection Act but it might as well have been written on toilet paper, data is lost or leaked all the bloody time and nothing happens.

Also I don't know about anyone else but all it actually seems to do here is, for example, say my Dad asks me to ring orange to sort out his mobile upgrade, the twats at the call centre insists on taking him through security each time the call is passed between "departments"...

That's got nothing to do with the DPA, is just twattish companies making customers jump through hoops. Is just easy for them to use DPA as a scapegoat for their ridiculous policies.

 

[MYstIC G]

That's my point, it's worthless and the only impact it has on the real world is negative bullshit. ID cards will be completely bullshit just the same.

 

[Scouse]

On the related topic of immigrant students having to get biometric ID cards before everyone else, one of the feedbacks (amongst the unsurprising crock of shit that is 'media by opinion') says it all best:

This system is creating a two-tiered society - and not just in education but at all levels of society, given that this 'legislation' is being applied to all visa applications - where being 'other' means that your rights are fewer, you are monitored, where your otherness justifies an assumption of criminality and suspicion of your person.

This "assumption of criminality" is at the heart of all this and the heart of the problem with "New Labour" policies. It is creating a "two tiered society". But not for long - we'll all be shunted into the shit tier along with the immigrants, and half the country will hail its arrival whilst not giving two tugs of a donkeys cock about how the other half of the country (you know, your neighbours) feel about it.

We've had swathes of our rights being taken away at the margins since NL came to power. None of this legislation ever (hugely) negatively affects the majority of the population so they remain ignorant or apathetic.

Of course some good could come out of ID cards - but the cost is FAR to high. And cries of "it'll never happen" are just naivety of the most ignorant kind.

When Tony Blair talked about his Third Way he may as well have been saying Third Reich as far as I'm concerned

 

[dysfunction]

Explain to me which particular rights are you referring to that we will lose? And those that we have lost so far since NL came to power...

 

[old.Tohtori]

I'm not gonna get into the whole "is it good/bad" because as i see it "system good, implementation iffy". But,

They'll do what they're going to do with the car tracking scheme. Introduce it in limited areas as a trial, with only volunteers taking part. Because they are volunteers, they'll be people who don't object whole heartedly to the system. They'll get feedback, proving that most people thought the scheme worked.

Shouldn't the ney-sayers get off their arse and do something then? Volunteer, show the "other side", say no etc?

If they don't volunteer for it, then how can they co,plain that only the yei-sayers were involved?

 

[MYstIC G]

Surely concious non-participation by a majority should be seen as sufficiently negative feedback? i.e. we don't want it and we'd tell you if we did want it?

In my own humble opinion most problems we have presently stem from a "Minority > Majority" theme that has existed since Labour came to power.

 

[Scouse]

Explain to me which particular rights are you referring to that we will lose? And those that we have lost so far since NL came to power...

Do the reading yourself Dys! It's the only effective way to understand the arguments. Faffing about on a forum rarely changes someone's mind.

But, just to keep you happy, I'll give you a couple. The right to protest has been severely curtailed since Labour came in and under section 44 of the Terrorism act the police now have the right to stop-and-search anyone without "reasonable suspicion"...

I'm not providing links because you have to want to find out for yourself.

As for the ID cards - I figured my last post contained enough in-your-face reasons - but you don't want to see them.

Lets turn this about. What evidence can you provide that they're a good thing that don't have the potential to be abused by unscrupulous or malicious intent?

Shouldn't the ney-sayers get off their arse and do something then? Volunteer, show the "other side", say no etc?

If they don't volunteer for it, then how can they co,plain that only the yei-sayers were involved?

OK. They should sign up to having their car movements tracked because they don't like the idea of having their cars tracked?

Should ID-objectors voluntarily give up their fingerprints and get an ID card to show their objection to getting an ID card and ponying up their fingerprints?

That argument's almost as daft as religion! Oh, errrr...

 

[Scouse]

In my own humble opinion most problems we have presently stem from a "Minority > Majority" theme that has existed since Labour came to power.

This is true. They want ID cards in because they think it's better for the Majority to suffer in order to crack down on a Minority.

That's the wrong way to protect the rights of a "free people".

 

[old.Tohtori]

OK. They should sign up to having their car movements tracked because they don't like the idea of having their cars tracked?

Should ID-objectors voluntarily give up their fingerprints and get an ID card to show their objection to getting an ID card and ponying up their fingerprints?

That argument's almost as daft as religion! Oh, errrr...

Well if they did, the whole tracking system wouldn't be implemented as people would oppose it.

The only thing stopping it from going "grand scale" is the smaller scale tests, and if no opposers go into that control group, ofcourse it'll go through.

See the point? You can't complain if you do nothing but complain and hope it'll stop it. Take a bullet if you will, let them track your car for a month, if it serves your purpose.

Complaining about it is as daft as a kid screaming "i dun wanna eat that! It's bad!" even when they haven't tasted it.

Not to mention, if you don't do illegal stuff, shouldn't be a problem.

And don't bring religion into it.

 

[Scouse]

Not being funny Toht, but the above argument is so far retarded I really don't want to start. You even pulled out the "nothing to hide nothing to fear" argument

You cannot register your opposition to pervasive intrusive surveillance by registering for it.

 

[old.Tohtori]

Not being funny Toht, but the above argument is so far retarded I really don't want to start. You even pulled out the "nothing to hide nothing to fear" argument

You cannot register your opposition to pervasive intrusive surveillance by registering for it.

That wasn't my point, my point was against the argument that they only go through 'cause people who are "for" them are participating in them.

As such, if one wants to oppose them, and the only way to do so is to participate in them when the test is going on, then they should.

And yes, if for example i had nothing to hide, i wouldn't mind the police peeping in on me. Hell, if they want to peep on MY personal affairs, they're the ones who are sick

And you can be against my point of view, but would you mind not calling me retarded for it?

 

[Chilly]

Explain to me which particular rights are you referring to that we will lose? And those that we have lost so far since NL came to power...

The right to protest in parliament square. The right to make jokes about whatever the fuck you like to whoever the fuck you like. Some good things have happened as well, the freedom of information act, enhancements to the DPA and the office that enforces it.

 

[Scouse]

That wasn't my point, my point was against the argument that they only go through 'cause people who are "for" them are participating in them.

As such, if one wants to oppose them, and the only way to do so is to participate in them when the test is going on, then they should.

This is why I called it retarded. You actually think people opposed to surveillance should volunteer for being spied upon

Lets take a moment and think about that eh? I mean, really think...

And yes, if for example i had nothing to hide, i wouldn't mind the police peeping in on me. Hell, if they want to peep on MY personal affairs, they're the ones who are sick

And people who don't understand the reason why this isn't a valid argument deserve to be called retards in my book. I mean, you yourself acknowledge that it would be "sick" to want to spy on you...

 

[old.Tohtori]

Yes, let's twist it to mean that.

If the small scale experiment is an experiment and not a "life long spy on you", why not participate in it to show your protest on it? And the point still wasn't that, the point was towards "they only test on people who like it" not being viable if the people who oppose i odn't participate in the test.

Also, i meant that it would be sick for police wanting to watch me wank. Not that it's sick to watch where my car is. (following is sarcasm)But ofcourse a isn't enough indication that it was supposed to be taken in jest.

But nice to see you can't participate in a discussion without calling people names, evne when asked politely to stop it.

 

[DaGaffer]

If the small scale experiment is an experiment and not a "life long spy on you", why not participate in it to show your protest on it? And the point still wasn't that, the point was towards "they only test on people who like it" not being viable if the people who oppose i odn't participate in the test.

Comes back to the argument about trust in government again. Based on previous behaviour, there's very little connection between the real outcomes of the "trial" and the results the government publishes. All a trial does is introduce a creeping rollout of the program, which will effectively be an ongoing "beta" as they expand it to cover more and more data, perfect for getting the public to sleepwalk into total surveillance.

Bottom line is that even if you trusted this government (which I don't, not at all) you still don't know what future governments will be like. Why voluntarily give any future government the tools for suppression of the population? It just makes no sense.

 

[old.Tohtori]

Comes back to the argument about trust in government again. Based on previous behaviour, there's very little connection between the real outcomes of the "trial" and the results the government publishes. All a trial does is introduce a creeping rollout of the program, which will effectively be an ongoing "beta" as they expand it to cover more and more data, perfect for getting the public to sleepwalk into total surveillance.

Bottom line is that even if you trusted this government (which I don't, not at all) you still don't know what future governments will be like. Why voluntarily give any future government the tools for suppression of the population? It just makes no sense.

Yeah, it's a whole different matter if the trial is at all reliable etc. I get that. Which wasn't what i was disbuting ofcourse.

Ofcourse suppression tools shouldn't be given, but then if we take godwins into it(which has been invoked already), noone figured hitler would go so mental.

If you are too afraid to give any tools to the government, then you're in a stale situation. Unless the situation is "a ok" now, then it shouldn't stay there.

 

[DaGaffer]

If you are too afraid to give any tools to the government, then you're in a stale situation. Unless the situation is "a ok" now, then it shouldn't stay there.

ALL governments should be regarded as untrustworthy by default. There hasn't been a government in human history that hasn't tried to accrue more power to itself. Some societies have recognised that, which is how democracy was developed in the first place (and why you get rules like two term maximums for US presidents).

If everyone worked on the basis that no government will ever have your best interests at heart all the time, then our democracies would be much healthier. But of course 99% of all populations are either stupid, lazy, scared or all three, (although in the case of "scared" and to a certain extent "lazy", they're given a helping hand) so they're happy to let government shoulder more responsibility, so they don't have to. Not surprisingly, governments then tend to behave either as nannies ("we know best") or elites ("do as your told"), or more likely, both, because we've given them implicit permission to do so (as far as they're concerned).

 

[old.Tohtori]

ALL governments should be regarded as untrustworthy by default. There hasn't been a government in human history that hasn't tried to accrue more power to itself. Some societies have recognised that, which is how democracy was developed in the first place (and why you get rules like two term maximums for US presidents).

If everyone worked on the basis that no government will ever have your best interests at heart all the time, then our democracies would be much healthier. But of course 99% of all populations are either stupid, lazy, scared or all three, (although in the case of "scared" and to a certain extent "lazy", they're given a helping hand) so they're happy to let government shoulder more responsibility, so they don't have to. Not surprisingly, governments then tend to behave either as nannies ("we know best") or elites ("do as your told"), or more likely, both, because we've given them implicit permission to do so (as far as they're concerned).

Oh i agree on that we shouldn't trust a government, but at same time, we shouldn't ban all government tools. If you know what i mean.

 

[Scouse]

If the small scale experiment is an experiment and not a "life long spy on you", why not participate in it to show your protest on it?

I'm sorry you're offended by me calling your opinion retarded. I did get you to try to think about why the above is retarded - so you could find out for yourself why it's retarded. But you declined to even posit a theory on why it may be retarded, so I guess you either a) didn't bother or b) can't see it, and are therefore retarded

Before anyone flames me for being obviously inflammatory may I point out that I've tried arguing points of principle and I've tried arguing points of fact but, as usual, people aren't for the changing so I've decided to turn myself into a childish retard because I can't for the life of me think of any other way to get people to actually think about what was written. So I've given up

 

[old.Tohtori]

I'm sorry you're offended by me calling your opinion retarded. I did get you to try to think about why the above is retarded - so you could find out for yourself why it's retarded. But you declined to even posit a theory on why it may be retarded, so I guess you either a) didn't bother or b) can't see it, and are therefore retarded

You COULD ofcourse tell me why, instead of being a...well like THAT about it...

 

[Scouse]

You COULD ofcourse tell me why, instead of being a...well like THAT about it...

Confucious say "man who discovers truth for himself truly discovers truth"...

...or something :|


We need an "ambivalent smiley"...

 

[old.Tohtori]

Confucious say "man who discovers truth for himself truly discovers truth"...

...or something :|


We need an "ambivalent smiley"...

It's not truth, it's your opinion, and f*ck me if i'm psychic enough to read what you MEAN instead of write.

You only think it's "retarded" 'cause you don't look at it in the context, but in YOUR context, as in, "but they would spy on us!", when it's a trial.

Success of trial not included.

 

[MYstIC G]

Scouse, stop hitting your head against the table, I can hear it from here!

 

[Scouse]

I can't be more obvious than I already was. If you can't understand what I'm getting at with this:

You actually think people opposed to surveillance should volunteer for being spied upon

Then there's little more I can do?

Have you thought about how other people may feel about being the subject of surveillance, and not discounted it as "them being stupid or paranoid", perhaps?

I'm clutching at straws here to get through to you, and tbfh, I was enjoying the insults a lot more

 

[Scouse]

Scouse, stop hitting your head against the table, I can hear it from here!

Gah. Should have read a little further I suppose

 

[old.Tohtori]

Grah!...

The thing you claim i do, you do yourself as avidly.

It's not about "oh i want to be spied upon!".

It's about "oh i'll go into this control group to show them it doesn't work!"

Or..."i'll go into this control group and give OUR side of the story".

INSTEAD, of complaining "only the guys who like this are in the control group so they let it go through".

Get it?