Quote:
Originally Posted by Dephormation
But I can't make sense of what I know at present.
Don't get me wrong, fighting terrorists is a laudible goal, and one I wholly support. But what were the Home Office thinking, when the UK was and remains in a state of critical/severe threat level? And when Phorm presents such a severe security and privacy risk to the UK?
|
The conclusion that I would personally draw is that regardless of what they say to the contrary at the time the government immediately saw in Phorm the potential to be able to skirt existing privacy laws and see everywhere that everybody goes whilst online in real time!
I think the moment when I stopped accepting anything the government, or their agencies say, at face value was before the Iraq war when I returned home from work to find my wife in tears because she'd just heard the news that Iraq were capable of delivering a chemical warhead missile strike on targets in the UK within 45 minutes! They expected us to believe that a country under strict sanctions since the first gulf conflict (Iraqi invasion of Kuwait) had developed icbm capabilities! In that first war their scud missiles struck Tel Aviv from launchers on the Syrian / Iraqi border only because the warheads had been removed in order to achieve that extreme range! They consequently justified going to war with Iraq on the basis that they posed a direct threat to British Sovereign Territory - the only justification NATO would accept for such action.
Liars
