Only 12% of UK thinks Snoopers' Charter is 'adequately explained' Only 12 per cent of the British public believe the Home Secretary has “adequately explained the impact of the Investigatory Powers Bill to the UK public and presented a balanced argument for its introduction”. A survey on data privacy issues conducted by Open-Xchange has found that the "internet-savvy" public in the UK, …
33 per cent [think] national security [is] more important for the government to protect than the right to personal privacy at 11 per cent.
This false dilemma skews the whole debate from the outset. National security is directly contingent on accountability. Accountability only develops when people can be trusted. And if they can be trusted there's mostly no need for snooping.
Indeed, snooping erodes trust; and lack of trust amounts to a loss of security.
Of course it isn't adequately explained. If they actually explained all the ways within which they will twist it to screw over normal citizens (who are not supposed to be the target of this, they are looking for the 'terrorists' and other malcontent needles in the haystack) and the truth about just how astronomical the costs are going to be and how that is going to affect everyone through higher prices/hidden taxation then nobody within even a shred of decency would ever consider supporting it.
Yes, yes I know it would probably still get through as their appears to be a very high proportion of politicians with no humanity when compared to the population as a whole (almost as if it were a requirement to becoming a politician), but still, at least it would be nice if for once they would actually be honest with us.
But that only works if the MP's listen to the public...
Unfortunately my MP did not listen when I wrote to him, instead sending out a 'standard letter' to every one who contacted him, meaning he received many letters, but didn't read them or bother to listen to the general message
What's the point? Andy the weazel Burnham has stated Labour will abstain, I.e. effectively vote yes. My MP voted for the ruled partially illegal DRIPA as well. Even David Davis has said he doesn't want to derail the bill and he has been a key voice among MPs who don't support mass spying on people.
It's not as complex as made out. We know what the terrorists are about, so we trust them more than GCHQ and the rest, the people who labelled Harold Wilson a Soviet agent, who think Vanessa Redgrave is a "subversive" and who work, at our expense, to ensure that society heads in the direction they think best for us.
"In some respects, however, the UK remains more conservative than its left-and-right hand kin, with 33 per cent thinking national security was more important for the government to protect than the right to personal privacy at 11 per cent."
Sounds like someone has been writing very loaded questions there. The whole 'national security' vs privacy is a false dichotomy. There is no reason to believe that taking away personal liberty strengthens national security. Indeed, if this were the case, there would still be a British Empire covering 2/3 of the globe.
It is the need that I want explained... and please don't bring out the tired rubbish about: paedophiles, terrorists, drug barons and master criminals - we have heard that all before and it does not hold water; yes: they may catch a few low hanging fruit (the simpletons); but the big boys are not going to stop using good encryption just because it becomes illegal - that is even assuming that we are really at real risk from these people or that open-to-government encryption will let them be stopped.
So: why does she want it? She is either stupid or has some other, hidden, purpose.
... because I have not researched the theme.
Only 12 per cent of the British public believe the Home Secretary has “adequately explained the impact of the Investigatory Powers Bill to the UK public
That said there are differences between adequate explanation and/or adequate press reporting of an explanation.
Doesn't Hansard still do its parliamentary reporting stuff
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
