Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    14 Jan '15 19:40
    http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-30816331

    In a Commons statement on the Paris terror attacks, the home secretary defended her calls for internet firms to store details of people's activity on the internet and social media.

    The Lib Dems have blocked plans for what they call a "snoopers' charter".

    Labour warned of a "caricatured argument" between the parties.

    Mrs May told MPs there was no cross-party consensus to give security services "the capabilities they need".

    Without the Communications Data Bill, Mrs May said crimes "would go unpunished", and more people were in danger with "every day that passes".

    The bill had not been about "letting the government snoop on your emails", she said.

    "It is allowing the police and the security services - under a tightly regulated and controlled regime - to find out the who, when, where and how of a communication - but not its content."


    Obviously, between Ed Snowden, PRISM and the Patriot Act, we have the same basic debate in the US, but what say the Europeans here about the willingness to giving the authorities power to track communications?
  2. Standard member DeepThought
    Losing the Thread
    14 Jan '15 19:51
    This is self-defeating. Only rank amateurs would communicate plans for terror attacks using electronic communications since the Wikileaks revelations. If they didn't insist on advertising GCHQ then they would be more effective.

    Existing legislation is probably already sufficient since based on the OP they are not suggesting that GCHQ should be allowed to look inside the communication, merely record that it occurred. So this is looking more like a PR exercise than anything else to me.
  3. 14 Jan '15 19:59 / 4 edits
    Originally posted by sh76
    http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-30816331

    [quote]In a Commons statement on the Paris terror attacks, the home secretary defended her calls for internet firms to store details of people's activity on the internet and social media.

    The Lib Dems have blocked plans for what they call a "snoopers' charter".

    Labour warned of a "caricatured argument" betwe ...[text shortened]... he Europeans here about the willingness to giving the authorities power to track communications?
    I remember when they tried to bring in identity cards in the UK, saying it was vital to prevent terrorism.

    So we asked, how many terrorist attacks in recent years would have been prevented by identity cards?

    And they said 'err.....'.

    Then we said 'but the new type of terrorists don't seem that keen to remain anonymous. They make videos of themselves telling us who they are and what they intend to do.'

    And they said 'err.....did I say prevent terrorism? You must have misheard. I meant prevent benefit fraud.'

    So we told them to piss off.

    Then they said 'we need to be able to lock someone up for an equivalent of a six month jail sentence without trial. It is vital to prevent terrorism.'

    So we said 'how many terrorists in recent years have escaped justice by us only being allowed to lock them up for 30 days?'.

    And they said 'err......'.

    So we told them to piss off. And the Prime Minister said he hoped we would not rue the day we did this.

    We didn't.

    I can't say what other Europeans think about this, but Brits will generally happily consider measures to combat terrorism, even quite draconian ones, if they are backed by evidence that they are needed.

    Not trawled out each time there is an incident to make politicians look tough in the lead up to an election.

    Another thing that makes be proud to be Brit sometimes, if that's OK with you.
  4. 14 Jan '15 20:10 / 1 edit
    Given that Irish nationalists (PIRA, INLA, etc.) killed many more people in the
    UK than any Muslim groups have done so far, why should the UK government
    change its laws on account of a rationale of 'fighting Muslim terrorism' now?
  5. Standard member finnegan
    GENS UNA SUMUS
    14 Jan '15 20:10
    Originally posted by Rank outsider
    I remember when they tried to bring in identity cards

    Another thing that makes be proud to be Brit sometimes, if that's OK with you.
    Spot on. Within hours of the Paris murders, while most normally wired up human beings are still mourning and shocked, the Home Secretary claims to have understood what happened and what lessons to learn, producing her proposed solutions which just happen to be the same old same old, dragged out repeatedly in the hope that one day everyone will be so bored they tell her to go ahead after all just to shut her up. The fact is that anyone claiming to have understood the ramifications of the Paris attacks so quickly is not looking for evidence, just confirmation of existing opinions. It is deeply cynical. Do you remember the Spanish Madrid bombings, and the attempt of the Spanish Government of that time to make political capital out of that outrage? It would be no bad thing if this lot had the same response from voters.
  6. 14 Jan '15 23:12
    If Sh76 wants the UK to amend its laws in 'response' to men using guns to
    kill a relatively small number of people in France, then would Sh76 also want
    the USA to amend its laws--even the Second Amendment if necessary--in
    response to many cases in which men (or even boys) using guns have killed
    more people in the USA?
  7. 14 Jan '15 23:36
    Originally posted by sh76
    http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-30816331

    [quote]In a Commons statement on the Paris terror attacks, the home secretary defended her calls for internet firms to store details of people's activity on the internet and social media.

    The Lib Dems have blocked plans for what they call a "snoopers' charter".

    Labour warned of a "caricatured argument" betwe ...[text shortened]... he Europeans here about the willingness to giving the authorities power to track communications?
    As long as we have Islamic terrorists that the government can label simply : extremists, the government has the right to invade everyone's privacy.

    Perhaps a motive for doing nothing about Islamic terrorists and continued importing of terrorists into the county.
  8. 14 Jan '15 23:46
    Originally posted by Duchess64
    If Sh76 wants the UK to amend its laws in 'response' to men using guns to
    kill a relatively small number of people in France, then would Sh76 also want
    the USA to amend its laws--even the Second Amendment if necessary--in
    response to many cases in which men (or even boys) using guns have killed
    more people in the USA?
    How many gun deaths were there in the USA? Numbers?
    How did that number compare to DUI, or drivers texting while behind the wheel of an automobile?
  9. 14 Jan '15 23:52
    Originally posted by Hugh Glass
    How many gun deaths were there in the USA? Numbers?
    How did that number compare to DUI, or drivers texting while behind the wheel of an automobile?
    In 2010 there were more than 30,000 'gun deaths' (homicides and suicides
    involving firearms) in the United States. But if most Americans regard that
    as a minor inconvenience for their glorious 'gun freedoms' and prefer to
    obsess about fewer than 20 French people being killed with guns in Paris,
    then that's their choice.
  10. Standard member finnegan
    GENS UNA SUMUS
    15 Jan '15 00:36
    Originally posted by Hugh Glass
    How many gun deaths were there in the USA? Numbers?
    How did that number compare to DUI, or drivers texting while behind the wheel of an automobile?
    http://safety.trw.com/texting-while-driving-now-leading-cause-of-us-teen-deaths/0710/
    Texting while driving is now the leading cause of death among teenagers – surpassing drinking and driving, according to a study by Cohen Children’s Medical Center. Disturbing statistics from the report include:

    More than 3,000 teens die each year in crashes caused by texting while driving
    Approximately 2,700 teens are killed in drunk driving accidents
    More than 50 percent of teens admit to texting while driving
    In addition, Virginia Tech studies show drivers are 23 times more likely to be in an accident if they are texting while driving. And while surveys show distracted driving is becoming more socially unacceptable among teens, these young drivers continue to text while driving, especially when they are alone. Bridgestone Americas Inc. found that of 2,000 young drivers, 71 percent said reading and receiving texts and emails is unacceptable while driving – yet 45 percent admit to doing it. Of those:

    95 percent read texts and emails when alone – 32 percent do so when with friends or parents
    More than 90 percent admitted to posting on social media sites while behind the wheel – but only 29 percent when with others
    75 percent admit to watching a video when alone – compared to 45 percent when with others
    Texting while driving is a problem. It can't be denied. Should we deport all teenagers who text while driving?
  11. Standard member finnegan
    GENS UNA SUMUS
    15 Jan '15 00:42
    Distracted driving is a dangerous epidemic on America's roadways. In 2012 alone, 3,328 were killed in distracted driving crashes.
    [/quote]http://www.distraction.gov/

    Texting in cars and trucks causes over 3,000 deaths and 330,000 injuries per year, according to a Harvard Center for Risk Analysis study.
    Texting while driving a vehicle has now replaced drinking while driving as the leading cause of accidents and deaths of teenage drivers.4 Texting in traffic isn’t simply a problem among teens and 47% of adults admit that they text while driving.5 Texting drivers are 23 times more likely to be involved in a crash than non-texting drivers.
    http://www2.potsdam.edu/alcohol/files/Driving-while-Texting-Six-Times-More-Dangerous-than-Driving-while-Drunk.html

    It's bad but not yet on a scale comparable to gun deaths it seems.
  12. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    15 Jan '15 02:00
    Originally posted by Duchess64
    If Sh76 wants the UK to amend its laws in 'response' to men using guns to
    kill a relatively small number of people in France, then would Sh76 also want
    the USA to amend its laws--even the Second Amendment if necessary--in
    response to many cases in which men (or even boys) using guns have killed
    more people in the USA?
    1. I have no wish that the UK amend its laws in any way. Whether the UK does so is the choice of its own citizens.

    2. I'm not anti-gun control (within reason) and I don't think that common sense gun control regulations that already exist in many American cities and states require amending the Second Amendment.