New Laws - Email and web use 'to be monitored'
02 April 2012, 01:32 PM
#31
Scooby Regular
Individual liberty as opposed to mob rule or the tyranny of the majority. It's a set of laws which set a boundary beyond which state or individuals cannot exercise power over others. It's established by reason on the basis that no one person is born with a divine right of authority over another. The principle is a limit to which the state can interfere in private matters. As opposed to pure democracy, where the basis of legitimacy for the use of force is a majority thinking it's 'right'.
It was called the rule of law back in the day when it properly applied.
It was called the rule of law back in the day when it properly applied.
02 April 2012, 01:39 PM
#32
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Type 25. Build No.34
Posts: 8,222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Individual liberty as opposed to mob rule or the tyranny of the majority. It's a set of laws which set a boundary beyond which state or individuals cannot exercise power over others. It's established by reason on the basis that no one person is born with a divine right of authority over another. The principle is a limit to which the state can interfere in private matters. As opposed to pure democracy, where the basis of legitimacy for the use of force is a majority thinking it's 'right'.
It was called the rule of law back in the day when it properly applied.
It was called the rule of law back in the day when it properly applied.
02 April 2012, 02:28 PM
#34
Former Sponsor
Individual liberty as opposed to mob rule or the tyranny of the majority. It's a set of laws which set a boundary beyond which state or individuals cannot exercise power over others. It's established by reason on the basis that no one person is born with a divine right of authority over another. The principle is a limit to which the state can interfere in private matters. As opposed to pure democracy, where the basis of legitimacy for the use of force is a majority thinking it's 'right'.
It was called the rule of law back in the day when it properly applied.
It was called the rule of law back in the day when it properly applied.
Is this similar to "Free man of the land" kinda thing?
02 April 2012, 03:23 PM
#36
Scooby Regular
To an extent. But the rule of law is still a core principle in our legal systen today, and it was the main political issue that occupied people's minds in this country and the United States up until the last hundred years. From the 17th century onwards, people fought to make the laws applicable to everyone. The main issue in politics was not "what should the govt (or force) do?" - the primary concern was what the govt should 'have a right' to do. The result of this was a state that only concerned itself with certain affairs; everything else was the business of the individual.
That's in stark contrast to today, where the basis for the legitimacy of force is enough people wanting to use that force (the majority) which is then justified on the basis that it's for the 'general' or public good. There is no point at which people believe the individual should be left alone. All behaviours are there to be changed or molded at the behest of the state for the individual's 'own good' if enough others agree. Hence the smoking ban, the restraint of free speech in the name of 'hate crimes' and the 'discouragement' of any behaviours deemed to be out of the fashion of the time, even when they would have until very recently been considered private business.
That's in stark contrast to today, where the basis for the legitimacy of force is enough people wanting to use that force (the majority) which is then justified on the basis that it's for the 'general' or public good. There is no point at which people believe the individual should be left alone. All behaviours are there to be changed or molded at the behest of the state for the individual's 'own good' if enough others agree. Hence the smoking ban, the restraint of free speech in the name of 'hate crimes' and the 'discouragement' of any behaviours deemed to be out of the fashion of the time, even when they would have until very recently been considered private business.
02 April 2012, 03:32 PM
#37
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 10,329
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is a philosophical notion as outlined by thinkers such as John Locke.
(Taken from wiki).
This can be interpreted differently but essentially things like right to free speech and free association, free movement fit into this category. It is the things one is 'free' to do in a natural state before the state interferes with laws and coercion.
It is distinct from legal rights which are created by the state.
(Taken from wiki).
According to Locke there are three natural rights:
- Life: everyone is entitled to live once they are created.
- Liberty: everyone is entitled to do anything they want to so long as it doesn't conflict with the first right.
- Estate: everyone is entitled to own all they create or gain through gift or trade so long as it doesn't conflict with the first two rights.
It is distinct from legal rights which are created by the state.
02 April 2012, 03:35 PM
#38
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 10,329
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No since the idea is the 'right' to exercise ones natural rights ends when one impinges on other peoples 'right' to exercise their natural rights.
In lay terms. One can do what you like until you harm other people. It is a pretty simple concept.
In lay terms. One can do what you like until you harm other people. It is a pretty simple concept.
02 April 2012, 03:47 PM
#39
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 10,329
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That's in stark contrast to today, where the basis for the legitimacy of force is enough people wanting to use that force (the majority) which is then justified on the basis that it's for the 'general' or public good. There is no point at which people believe the individual should be left alone. All behaviours are there to be changed or molded at the behest of the state for the individual's 'own good' if enough others agree. Hence the smoking ban, the restraint of free speech in the name of 'hate crimes' and the 'discouragement' of any behaviours deemed to be out of the fashion of the time, even when they would have until very recently been considered private business.
First of all it was just the economic life of the individual that was partly appropriated with the state and you have gov intervention in the market and welfare to 'maximise happiness'.
But this is important because now liberalism coincides an individuals nature is not all his own to do with as he sees fit.
So now we see the state encroaching into civil, private life etc etc more and more, all in the name of promoting happiness. At some point there will not be more libertarianism in liberalism.
02 April 2012, 04:04 PM
#40
Scooby Regular
I completely agree. There's been a mix up of definitions along the way as well. Liberalism used to mean what you call Libertarianism now. A 'liberal' was for individual rights. Recently because of its use in America it has become synonymous with very illiberal ideals. Many of them use it for the notion of fairness the name implies: i.e. If you are a liberal you want people to be 'free'.
02 April 2012, 04:23 PM
#42
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Type 25. Build No.34
Posts: 8,222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am completely with you right up to the point where you bring guns into the equation
Last edited by Martin2005; 02 April 2012 at 04:27 PM.
02 April 2012, 04:39 PM
#43
Former Sponsor
To an extent. But the rule of law is still a core principle in our legal systen today, and it was the main political issue that occupied people's minds in this country and the United States up until the last hundred years. From the 17th century onwards, people fought to make the laws applicable to everyone. The main issue in politics was not "what should the govt (or force) do?" - the primary concern was what the govt should 'have a right' to do. The result of this was a state that only concerned itself with certain affairs; everything else was the business of the individual.
That's in stark contrast to today, where the basis for the legitimacy of force is enough people wanting to use that force (the majority) which is then justified on the basis that it's for the 'general' or public good. There is no point at which people believe the individual should be left alone. All behaviours are there to be changed or molded at the behest of the state for the individual's 'own good' if enough others agree. Hence the smoking ban, the restraint of free speech in the name of 'hate crimes' and the 'discouragement' of any behaviours deemed to be out of the fashion of the time, even when they would have until very recently been considered private business.
That's in stark contrast to today, where the basis for the legitimacy of force is enough people wanting to use that force (the majority) which is then justified on the basis that it's for the 'general' or public good. There is no point at which people believe the individual should be left alone. All behaviours are there to be changed or molded at the behest of the state for the individual's 'own good' if enough others agree. Hence the smoking ban, the restraint of free speech in the name of 'hate crimes' and the 'discouragement' of any behaviours deemed to be out of the fashion of the time, even when they would have until very recently been considered private business.
03 April 2012, 12:41 AM
#44
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Type 25. Build No.34
Posts: 8,222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I mean who decides when someone impinges upon others rights, the 'other' or the 'impinger'? Or do we need a higher authority to be arbiter? Where does one persons right stop and another start?
Is natural law handed out at the barrel of a gun, or in a courtroom?
It's the problem with all these abstract ideas, they never actually work!
03 April 2012, 12:50 AM
#45
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (22)
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Doncaster, S. Yorks.
Posts: 21,415
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've read about this. Aren't there issues for the layman using it? Either security issues or stumbling across something you wouldn't want to see? Or can it be used in just the same way most of us currently browse the net now without any of these worries - i.e. you only get what you specifically seek out?
Tor is safe enough, as you need to be looking for what you don't want to see to find it. Tor helps hide your tracks when looking on 'the deep web' and .onion sites. Cheese pizza/Captain planet etc. needs to be searched for off things like the 'hidden wiki'. I've had a good delve at a computer geek mates house looking at a lot of the stuff that was at the heart of the Wikileaks stuff. That, the above CP and assassins seemed the easier things to look into if you're that way inclined.
03 April 2012, 09:03 AM
#47
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 10,329
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Like a lot of 'simple concepts' it is very difficult to actually apply.
I mean who decides when someone impinges upon others rights, the 'other' or the 'impinger'? Or do we need a higher authority to be arbiter? Where does one persons right stop and another start?
Is natural law handed out at the barrel of a gun, or in a courtroom?
It's the problem with all these abstract ideas, they never actually work!
I mean who decides when someone impinges upon others rights, the 'other' or the 'impinger'? Or do we need a higher authority to be arbiter? Where does one persons right stop and another start?
Is natural law handed out at the barrel of a gun, or in a courtroom?
It's the problem with all these abstract ideas, they never actually work!
For example private property rights are fairly clear cut if you hold title right? If somebody walked into your house kicked you out then said they own it I think you would find that quite clear cut?
Similarly right to free speech is simple. We allow it until it harms somebody else by slander or libel.
Most things are simple like that. It gets complex when we introduce social utility into the mix because this is an opinion ultimately.
03 April 2012, 05:51 PM
#51
Scooby Regular
I wonder which bunch from the usual suspects would bid for a contract from the government to deliver this and then deliver nothing, but massively over budget and cost tax payers hundreds of millions. I can’t see it happening.
Of more interest from an IT prospective is the processing power and more importantly the storage requirement to capture everything they say they are going to capture and store it. Personally I don’t think it’s possible, even if it’s just email headers, never mind web traffic. The only way I could see it happening from the IT prospective is that legislation is brought in to say that any company that provides interweb connectivity has to do the job for them. I suspect they’ll refuse, dig their heals in, say it’s too expensive and the whole thing will get buried again, until some other half-wit simpleton pops up and suggests it again.
Of more interest from an IT prospective is the processing power and more importantly the storage requirement to capture everything they say they are going to capture and store it. Personally I don’t think it’s possible, even if it’s just email headers, never mind web traffic. The only way I could see it happening from the IT prospective is that legislation is brought in to say that any company that provides interweb connectivity has to do the job for them. I suspect they’ll refuse, dig their heals in, say it’s too expensive and the whole thing will get buried again, until some other half-wit simpleton pops up and suggests it again.
03 April 2012, 07:43 PM
#52
Guest
Posts: n/a
Yet again this is an EU inspired initiative which the politicians are announcing as though it's as purely home-grown one. That way we don't all blame those nasty foreigners. Wash your mouth out if you have .... 
Read Ricjard North's piece at ... http://eureferendum.blogspot.co.uk/2...n-brother.html ...
Now, who can give me a reason why all politicians shouldn't be hung, drawn and quartered
Dave
Read Ricjard North's piece at ... http://eureferendum.blogspot.co.uk/2...n-brother.html ...Now, who can give me a reason why all politicians shouldn't be hung, drawn and quartered
Dave
03 April 2012, 07:52 PM
#53
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: the rev limiter
Posts: 3,719
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
this new law is a total invasion of privacy in my opinion.
the goverment can say what they want but I dont believe them.
they forget very quickly that they serve us when they are intoxicated whith greed and power.
I am sick of there lies and disregard for the well being of our country they are rotten to the core
to me they are destroying our country a little peice at a time.
taking away our fredoms and lining there pockets at the same time.
sorry for the rant but at one time I was proud to be brittish
now I am disgusted with how our country is being run.
the goverment can say what they want but I dont believe them.
they forget very quickly that they serve us when they are intoxicated whith greed and power.
I am sick of there lies and disregard for the well being of our country they are rotten to the core
to me they are destroying our country a little peice at a time.
taking away our fredoms and lining there pockets at the same time.
sorry for the rant but at one time I was proud to be brittish
now I am disgusted with how our country is being run.
03 April 2012, 11:26 PM
#55
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: the rev limiter
Posts: 3,719
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
UH OH !!!!!
Run for cover lads because you dont want a fine for incorrect spelling
I hear sgt Dave Hutton will fine you a pack of skittles and a couple of gummy bears for every misspelt word !!!
TBH I dont even care if I didnt spell a word properly
If I had loads of incorrect spellings I would understand being pulled up for it.
but because I didnt spell the word british properly
that make's me not proud enough to spell it properly.
you make me laugh pal
on the subject of misspelling I notice your location as " chacing H20......"
There is no such word as chacing in the english dictionary
I believe the word you were trying to spell is chasing.
In the future please learn to spell yourself before correcting other people.
lets get back to the original thread subject shall we!
Run for cover lads because you dont want a fine for incorrect spelling
I hear sgt Dave Hutton will fine you a pack of skittles and a couple of gummy bears for every misspelt word !!!
TBH I dont even care if I didnt spell a word properly
If I had loads of incorrect spellings I would understand being pulled up for it.
but because I didnt spell the word british properly
that make's me not proud enough to spell it properly.
you make me laugh pal
on the subject of misspelling I notice your location as " chacing H20......"
There is no such word as chacing in the english dictionary
I believe the word you were trying to spell is chasing.
In the future please learn to spell yourself before correcting other people.
lets get back to the original thread subject shall we!
Last edited by nizmo80; 04 April 2012 at 01:55 AM.
04 April 2012, 09:30 AM
#56
Guest
Posts: n/a
...
on the subject of misspelling I notice your location as " chacing H20......"
There is no such word as chacing in the english dictionary
I believe the word you were trying to spell is chasing.
In the future please learn to spell yourself before correcting other people.
lets get back to the original thread subject shall we!
on the subject of misspelling I notice your location as " chacing H20......"
There is no such word as chacing in the english dictionary
I believe the word you were trying to spell is chasing.
In the future please learn to spell yourself before correcting other people.
lets get back to the original thread subject shall we!
And as to the 'British' spelling, you were the one who said you were proud to be British, yet can't be bothered to spell it properly. Incorrect spelling and lack of punctuation just means people take a lot less notice of what you're saying. Basic communication!I obviously hit a sore spot ...
Dave
04 April 2012, 11:32 AM
#57
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: the rev limiter
Posts: 3,719
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ah, but that's a deliberate misspelling and you've obviously not got it yet. And as to the 'British' spelling, you were the one who said you were proud to be British, yet can't be bothered to spell it properly. Incorrect spelling and lack of punctuation just means people take a lot less notice of what you're saying. Basic communication!
I obviously hit a sore spot ...
Dave
And as to the 'British' spelling, you were the one who said you were proud to be British, yet can't be bothered to spell it properly. Incorrect spelling and lack of punctuation just means people take a lot less notice of what you're saying. Basic communication!I obviously hit a sore spot ...
Dave
Well TBH if it is deliberate then it is pointless and not funny
and a bit boring kind of like yourself
Oh and people take less notice of what I am saying
well I have had a look at your profile and after 13 years of being a member
on snet and 8935 post's you only have one friend in your friends list
Looks like people take alot less notice of what you're saying than you think !!!!
If it does not work out in the spelling police Dave I am sure you can get a job with this guy.
You even get a standard issue monocle and everything
And for the record you did not hit a sore spot.
I just thought your post was a little bit petty
And for a second time lets get back to the original thread subject shall we!
Last edited by nizmo80; 04 April 2012 at 03:05 PM.
07 April 2012, 01:42 PM
#58
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 39,877
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Another thing which woprries me is that some councils are asking the people to inform on someone seen using a hosepipe.
Wasting water is certainly bad under the circumstances now in the South East, but I reckon it is a dangerous and shameful act to try to set people against people by try to get them to snitch on each other.
This is the sort ot thing that was done by dictatoring style governments who were only too pleased to have nasty minded informers on their side who were trying to get special favours for themselves!
Les
Wasting water is certainly bad under the circumstances now in the South East, but I reckon it is a dangerous and shameful act to try to set people against people by try to get them to snitch on each other.
This is the sort ot thing that was done by dictatoring style governments who were only too pleased to have nasty minded informers on their side who were trying to get special favours for themselves!
Les
07 April 2012, 05:08 PM
#59
Guest
Posts: n/a
well I have had a look at your profile and after 13 years of being a member on snet and 8935 post's you only have one friend in your friends list I must admit that even after being on here for so long I had no clue there was a 'friends' list. But then I've never had a Faceplant or Twatter account either .... 
Don't believe I've ever looked at anyone's profile on here either.Dave
07 April 2012, 06:10 PM
#60
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: the rev limiter
Posts: 3,719
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is deliberate - whether you think it is or not. If you worked out my location you'd catch on. Not that it is very funny at the ed of the day but I really can't be ar5ed to change it.
Glad you're so interested in my profile I must admit that even after being on here for so long I had no clue there was a 'friends' list. But then I've never had a Faceplant or Twatter account either .... Don't believe I've ever looked at anyone's profile on here either.
Dave
Glad you're so interested in my profile
I must admit that even after being on here for so long I had no clue there was a 'friends' list. But then I've never had a Faceplant or Twatter account either .... Don't believe I've ever looked at anyone's profile on here either.Dave
What will the spelling police think when they see this infraction I wonder
they might even take away your spelling police badge
And give you back your trainee spelling police chocolate badge
And the famous
added to your last post looks like I have hit a sore spot PMSL.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Sam Witwicky
Engine Management and ECU Remapping
17
13 November 2015 10:49 AM