Government begins RIPA review

I dunno

"National security is the first duty of government"

Personally I think National Welfare is more important (as in, making sure the populace is in sound body and mind) and I suspect the constant TERRORISTORZ WILL KILL YOU, PEADOPHILES WILL RAPE YOUR CHILDREN, IMMIGRANTS WILL STEAL YOUR HOUSE AND JOB, etc, at the very least does harm to our mental welfare... That's before we get onto the "lock em up and let em rot" rehabilitation culture we have, to the point where the shooting of 3 people may have been averted if the powers that be had listened to a man pleading for psychiatric care and assesment.

Of course it's the kind of thing repeated again and again (for example peadophiles who've wanted chemical castrattion but can't get it because they havn't commited a crime, or an underfunded failing social service not having time to properly assess cases resulting in deaths and abuse.)

No none of that matters, we need to fight the terrorists. That's the nations number one priority.

I wonder how many people have died as a result of the terrible state of mental and social health care in this country? Not to mention the numbers left living a substandard life.

Country needs to sort its prioritise out, but that'll never happen while the media is so juvenille.

Ah, bless the ConDems

They're all about decentralising power, except when they're all about centralising power.

As noted above, RIPA is the only thing standing between what we have now (a camera on every street corner) and what we'd have if ACPO got its druthers (a camera looking in every window).

Maybe I won't need to emigrate after all

I've never objected to a government agency that thinks I'm a security risk taking the time to break into my house, insert key loggers, cameras and other bugs in my computer equipment, and monitor what I'm doing. The reason I don't object to this is that it's time-consuming and expensive, and it's hard to end up with an oppressive police state if you have to do this one person at a time.

I object to any act that allows a government agency - with their well-known 100% accuracy rate - to say "decrypt this file from 1993 for us, or we'll lock you up; we'll also lock you up if you tell anyone we asked". I still have back-up CDs with content from the 1990s on, and I doubt I can remember every password I used. If you think I'm a security risk, bug my computer. If you think I'm one of millions of people who *might* be a security risk, I'm sorry, but I'm not happy with any monitoring that's intrusive to lots of people. Recent authorities may be more bumbling than vindictive, but I don't like a legal system being in place which supports malicious overlords should they get into power - we had enough of that last century.

It's right for the police to keep asking for more surveillance powers - it's their job to spot every threat to society, because they'll get it in the neck when something slips through. But it's also reasonable for someone to draw the line when this surveillance is itself a threat.