Online Safety Bill Etc

[Stephen]

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

Because we lack the experience or knowledge to answer & resolve many issues or simply can't be bothered to deal with them, we elect MP's to do so on our behalf.

Ultimately, it will be these people who will decide what needs addressing and how to do it.

We are able to try and influence them in various ways if we wish and, of course, some MP's are better than others.

Sorry, but how are those MPs anymore experienced or knowledgeable than us? Those privileged many with there expense accounts and people to do things for them. Many without kids too.

[jem]

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

Because we lack the experience or knowledge to answer & resolve many issues or simply can't be bothered to deal with them, we elect MP's to do so on our behalf.

Ultimately, it will be these people who will decide what needs addressing and how to do it.

We are able to try and influence them in various ways if we wish and, of course, some MP's are better than others.

Tell me, do you honestly think that the MPs we elect have any more experience or knowledge than the ‘my mate down the pub who thinks...’? Of course not, they will vote for whatever ‘seems’ popular at the time. And this is irrespective for the practicalities of doing it or doing further harms that the legislation probably will cause.

Let me give you an example;

Do you believe that child sexual abuse is wrong? Yes or No?

If ‘no’ then do you believe that everything should be done to minimise it? Yes or No?

Statistics suggests that the vast majority of child sexual abuse happens in their own home. Do you agree with this? Yes or No?

So would monitoring of activity inside everyone's home, reduce the incidence of CSA? Yes or No?

Logically you have to say ‘yes’ so we must install cameras in every room in every house in the country, watched 24/7 by, oh maybe we get the unemployed* to do this for a small fee and they ‘report’ anything they don’t like! Do you agree with this? Yes or No?

If ’no’ then you obviously don’t agree that ‘everything should be done....’; you are no better than a child molester yourself! You see how this works?

After all, who cares who is watching what you do, after all, if you have done nothing wrong then you have nothing to fear; no? I assume you have no curtains up at your windows?

Look Richard, I have absolutely no doubt that you are a good person, you generally want to protect vulnerable people, but sometime, well often really, the obvious ’sounds like a good idea’ solution isn’t well thought through and causes more issues than it solves.


* absolutely no disrespect to anyone who is unemployed, just struck me as a possible source of people who could be paid a little extra to spend a couple of hours each day watching what others are doing in their own home. What could possibly go wrong?

[mrmistoffelees]

So Richard in another thread you posted the following statement

‘ Some people are born disabled, but it's possible that they chose this in order to understand what the life of a disabled person is like eg they previously scoffed or discriminated against disabled people, realised that this was wrong and decided to go on a 'training course'. This is a very controversial view as, essentially, it's saying that abused/neglected/disabled people chose the situation that they are in or experienced.’

Taking your logic could it not be the children at risk chose to be born that way ?

You can either admit your statement is gibberish or, you can accept its applicable in any scenario.

Choose one as you can’t have it both ways

[jem]

Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees

So Richard in another thread you posted the following statement

‘ Some people are born disabled, but it's possible that they chose this in order to understand what the life of a disabled person is like eg they previously scoffed or discriminated against disabled people, realised that this was wrong and decided to go on a 'training course'. This is a very controversial view as, essentially, it's saying that abused/neglected/disabled people chose the situation that they are in or experienced.’

Taking your logic could it not be the children at risk chose to be born that way ?

You can either admit your statement is gibberish or, you can accept its applicable in any scenario.

Choose one as you can’t have it both ways

Good point, so Richard believes any child/person who is abused actually ‘chose this’ and wanted it to happen. So how dare we intervene with laws preventing this?

Or we just assume it’s all gibberish and move on!

[RichardCoulter]

Originally Posted by Stephen

Sorry, but how are those MPs anymore experienced or knowledgeable than us? Those privileged many with there expense accounts and people to do things for them. Many without kids too.

In theory it's down to us to ensure that we vote for the best people for the job, but I accept that it's not always that simple.

---------- Post added at 22:48 ---------- Previous post was at 22:46 ----------

Originally Posted by jem

Tell me, do you honestly think that the MPs we elect have any more experience or knowledge than the ‘my mate down the pub who thinks...’? Of course not, they will vote for whatever ‘seems’ popular at the time. And this is irrespective for the practicalities of doing it or doing further harms that the legislation probably will cause.

Let me give you an example;

Do you believe that child sexual abuse is wrong? Yes or No?

If ‘no’ then do you believe that everything should be done to minimise it? Yes or No?

Statistics suggests that the vast majority of child sexual abuse happens in their own home. Do you agree with this? Yes or No?

So would monitoring of activity inside everyone's home, reduce the incidence of CSA? Yes or No?

Logically you have to say ‘yes’ so we must install cameras in every room in every house in the country, watched 24/7 by, oh maybe we get the unemployed* to do this for a small fee and they ‘report’ anything they don’t like! Do you agree with this? Yes or No?

If ’no’ then you obviously don’t agree that ‘everything should be done....’; you are no better than a child molester yourself! You see how this works?

After all, who cares who is watching what you do, after all, if you have done nothing wrong then you have nothing to fear; no? I assume you have no curtains up at your windows?

Look Richard, I have absolutely no doubt that you are a good person, you generally want to protect vulnerable people, but sometime, well often really, the obvious ’sounds like a good idea’ solution isn’t well thought through and causes more issues than it solves.


* absolutely no disrespect to anyone who is unemployed, just struck me as a possible source of people who could be paid a little extra to spend a couple of hours each day watching what others are doing in their own home. What could possibly go wrong?

This is why legislation should be thought through very carefully due to the 'law of unintended consequences'.

---------- Post added at 22:49 ---------- Previous post was at 22:48 ----------

Originally Posted by jem

Good point, so Richard believes any child/person who is abused actually ‘chose this’ and wanted it to happen. So how dare we intervene with laws preventing this?

Or we just assume it’s all gibberish and move on!

I didn't say what you claim.

---------- Post added at 22:52 ---------- Previous post was at 22:49 ----------

Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees

So Richard in another thread you posted the following statement

‘ Some people are born disabled, but it's possible that they chose this in order to understand what the life of a disabled person is like eg they previously scoffed or discriminated against disabled people, realised that this was wrong and decided to go on a 'training course'. This is a very controversial view as, essentially, it's saying that abused/neglected/disabled people chose the situation that they are in or experienced.’

Taking your logic could it not be the children at risk chose to be born that way ?

You can either admit your statement is gibberish or, you can accept its applicable in any scenario.

Choose one as you can’t have it both ways

This theory could be applicable to any scenario.

As the late Queen Elizabeth II said "We are here to observe, to grow, to learn and to love. Then we go home".

[Sirius]

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

Because we lack the experience or knowledge to answer & resolve many issues or simply can't be bothered to deal with them, we elect MP's to do so on our behalf.

Ultimately, it will be these people who will decide what needs addressing and how to do it.

We are able to try and influence them in various ways if we wish and, of course, some MP's are better than others.

You do know that MP's vote based on the instructions of the party whip dont you.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

This is why legislation should be thought through very carefully due to the 'law of unintended consequences'.

My irony meter just exploded.

[RichardCoulter]

Originally Posted by Sirius

You do know that MP's vote based on the instructions of the party whip dont you.

Not all of them have a party whip. Those that do are not obliged to follow their party whip if their conscience doesn't allow them to.

---------- Post added at 13:35 ---------- Previous post was at 13:22 ----------

WhatsApp has today announced that it will support Apple in it's ongoing row with the UK Government over privacy. They believe that the requirements of the Online Safety Act and a secret order that Apple received last February* could set a dangerous precedent and is another example of foreign powers trying to regulate it's own tech businesses.

*In the event of a national security risk, the Home Office said it needs to be able to access Apple data worldwide. Apple argue that, to enable this, they would have to build in a 'back door', which they have outright refused to do.on the grounds that others may find it.

I can see a legal case happening to judge whether the Home Office has the right to tell Apple what to do.

Neither party has thus far commented on this 'secret' order, presumably because it's supposed to be a secret!

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

I can see a legal case happening to judge whether the Home Office has the right to tell Apple what to do.

Thats easy to answer, so should be a very short case - "No, it doesnt".

The old "National Security" excuse is complete nonsense. If Apple or WhatsApp made backdoors, the "National Security" threats would simply move elsewhere, leaving the rest of us open to attack by criminals who get hold of the "backdoor".

[nffc]

Originally Posted by Paul

Thats easy to answer, so should be a very short case - "No, it doesnt".

The old "National Security" excuse is complete nonsense. If Apple or WhatsApp made backdoors, the "National Security" threats would simply move elsewhere, leaving the rest of us open to attack by criminals who get hold of the "backdoor".

Apple isn't a UK company but has stores here, probably offices, and sells products and services to UK customers.


They can't control what they do compared to if it was a UK company. But they could in theory say that if Apple wanted to continue offering products and services to UK customers, it would need to comply with UK law, and also they could say that if they are not complying with requests from UK bodies that they could no longer sell products and services in the UK.


Doing that for something like this would just mean other people would be able to provide work arounds, or that they would lose a lot of tax from sales etc, so it wouldn't be a decision which would be popular or useful to make.


It would be interesting to see what would ultimately happen when the OSA is in full swing and some random site in the USA or South Africa or something is being interrogated by the UK authorities because some 15 year old saw something they shouldn't have.

[Sirius]

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

Not all of them have a party whip. Those that do are not obliged to follow their party whip if their conscience doesn't allow them to.

---------- Post added at 13:35 ---------- Previous post was at 13:22 ----------

WhatsApp has today announced that it will support Apple in it's ongoing row with the UK Government over privacy. They believe that the requirements of the Online Safety Act and a secret order that Apple received last February* could set a dangerous precedent and is another example of foreign powers trying to regulate it's own tech businesses.

*In the event of a national security risk, the Home Office said it needs to be able to access Apple data worldwide. Apple argue that, to enable this, they would have to build in a 'back door', which they have outright refused to do.on the grounds that others may find it.

I can see a legal case happening to judge whether the Home Office has the right to tell Apple what to do.

Neither party has thus far commented on this 'secret' order, presumably because it's supposed to be a secret!

That is excellent news, fingers crossed that Apple and WhatsApp win there case. It will set a precedent that the Government cannot just demand stuff and get away with it. Plus we then have 2 x secure platforms that the Government cannot snoop on.

[RichardCoulter]

Originally Posted by Sirius

That is excellent news, fingers crossed that Apple and WhatsApp win there case. It will set a precedent that the Government cannot just demand stuff and get away with it. Plus we then have 2 x secure platforms that the Government cannot snoop on.

Whichever way it goes it will clarify things one way or the other. Essentially, it would clarify which is more important, personal privacy or the Government being allowed access to deal with terrorism. I said some time ago that I thought it would eventually come to this.

As this affects something as important as privacy of the individual from the state, perhaps we should have a referendum?? I suspect that those who have been affected or are worried about terrorism will vote one way and those that haven't/aren't will vote the other, but it will provide clarification of how the electorate feel.

[Stephen]

Government reach should only go so far. Search for certain keywords should trigger investigation. However personal privacy is very important so I dont think generally spying and watching what people do is what's needed at all.

[papa smurf]

how long will it be before they start steaming our letters open at the sorting office

[Sirius]

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

Whichever way it goes it will clarify things one way or the other. Essentially, it would clarify which is more important, personal privacy or the Government being allowed access to deal with terrorism. I said some time ago that I thought it would eventually come to this.

As this affects something as important as privacy of the individual from the state, perhaps we should have a referendum?? I suspect that those who have been affected or are worried about terrorism will vote one way and those that haven't/aren't will vote the other, but it will provide clarification of how the electorate feel.

We all know what happens when they allow a referendum 🤣