EU demands ALL Internet records to be stored for a year in pre Lisbon Orwellian move.

Run_to_da_hills

Details of every email sent and website visited by people in Britain are to be stored for use by the state from tomorrow as part of what campaigners claim is a massive assault on privacy.

A European Union directive, which Britain was instrumental in devising, comes into force which will require all internet service providers to retain information on email traffic, visits to web sites and VOIP Skype calls made over the internet, for 12 months.

Police and the security services will be able to access the information to combat crime and terrorism.:rolleyes:

Hundreds of public bodies and quangos, including local councils, will also be able to access the data to investigate flytipping and other less serious crimes.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/scienceandtechnology/technology/technologynews/5105519/Internet-records-to-be-stored-for-a-year.html

espinolman

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Details of every email sent and website visited by people in Britain are to be stored for use by the state from tomorrow as part of what campaigners claim is a massive assault on privacy.

A European Union directive, which Britain was instrumental in devising, comes into force which will require all internet service providers to retain information on email traffic, visits to web sites and VOIP Skype calls made over the internet, for 12 months.

Police and the security services will be able to access the information to combat crime and terrorism.:rolleyes:

Hundreds of public bodies and quangos, including local councils, will also be able to access the data to investigate flytipping and other less serious crimes.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/scienceandtechnology/technology/technologynews/5105519/Internet-records-to-be-stored-for-a-year.html

That link is not working . What about Ireland , is details of our internet use here in Ireland stored , do you know?

Run_to_da_hills

espinolman wrote: »

That link is not working . What about Ireland , is details of our internet use here in Ireland stored , do you know?

I gather so in the near future if this is now a European Directive. We can soon expect to see black helicopters. :eek:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/scienceandtechnology/technology/technologynews/5105519/Internet-records-to-be-stored-for-a-year.html

Run_to_da_hills

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

I gather so in the near future if this is now a European Directive. We can soon expect to see black helicopters. :eek:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/scienceandtechnology/technology/technologynews/5105519/Internet-records-to-be-stored-for-a-year.html

Black helicopters? pfft get with the times, the lizards are obviously using invisible hovercraft now.

espinolman

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

I gather so in the near future if this is now a European Directive. We can soon expect to see black helicopters. :eek:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/scienceandtechnology/technology/technologynews/5105519/Internet-records-to-be-stored-for-a-year.html

Oh no , they will be coming to get me for listening to Alex Jones .:rolleyes::D

meglome

espinolman wrote: »

Oh no , they will be coming to get me for listening to Alex Jones .:rolleyes::D

And what happens when they don't?

Heineken Helen

As bad as THAT is:

"Privacy campaigners say the move to force telecoms companies to store the data is the first step towards the controversial central database at the heart of the Home Office's Intercept Modernisation Programme, which will gather far more detailed information on Britain's online activities"

I heard them talking about this on the radio this evening... that there are plans to store ALL of these databases in the one place... having all this information together so they will literally be monitoring every step we take.

Heineken Helen

Do you know where I'd find the actual wording of the law? Rather than just news sites... cos we know how the government can change if and when it wishes

Run_to_da_hills

Heineken Helen wrote: »

Do you know where I'd find the actual wording of the law? Rather than just news sites... cos we know how the government can change if and when it wishes

Not if Lisbon gets through :eek:

Run_to_da_hills

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Not if Lisbon gets through :eek:

Read it yet or still make those claims without a basis?

Heineken Helen

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Not if Lisbon gets through :eek:

Not what if Lisbon gets through?

What I mean is... they say one thing yesterday and it's different today and suddenly they've pushed through a bill with no parliamentary debate and nobody knows what the hell's going on

Remember when they said DNA would only be held if you're guilty? It would be funny only it's not!

Run_to_da_hills

King Mob wrote: »

Read it yet or still make those claims without a basis?

The EU Parlament will make this and future directive Euro wide except for Ireland because the Irish Government would be concerned about civil liberties. :rolleyes:

Run_to_da_hills

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

The EU Parlament will make this and future directive Euro wide except for Ireland because the Irish Government would be concerned about civil liberties. :rolleyes:

SO no you still haven't the lisbon treaty.

Heineken Helen

King Mob wrote: »

SO no you still haven't the lisbon treaty.

Have YOU? Where does it guarantee that wouldn't happen?

Run_to_da_hills

King Mob wrote: »

SO no you still haven't the lisbon treaty.

I DON'T NEED TO READ THE FU*ING TREATY.

The title of this thread is enough to warn us of the type of totalitarian crap that we can expect to hear coming from of Brussels. .

Heineken Helen

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

I DONT NEED TO READ THE FU*ING TREATY.

The title of this thread is enough to tell us of the type of Orwellian crap that we can expect to hear coming out of Brussels. .

I've read it and, hard as I tried, I couldn't find ANY guarantees other than the politicians words (and we all know how good they are ) so perhaps King Mob will educate us and prove us wrong?;)

Purple Gorilla

Isn't this good?

The Current Data Retention laws in Ireland force providers to keep records for 3 years as far as I'm aware. This directive will lower this to 1 year now

Run_to_da_hills

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

I DON'T NEED TO READ THE F**ING TREATY.

The title of this thread is enough to tell us of the type of Orwellian crap that we can expect to hear coming out of Brussels. .

Well if you're making claims like that I'd imagine you'd have to read it.
Unless of course your claim is baseless.

Heineken Helen wrote: »

Have YOU? Where does it guarantee that wouldn't happen?

Yes I have and there's nothing in that would allow them to force something like that on us.
There's also no guarantee in the treaty about not sending Irish troops to the moon, therefore they must be planning to send us to the moon.

Run_to_da_hills

Purple Gorilla wrote: »

Isn't this good?

The Current Data Retention laws in Ireland force providers to keep records for 3 years as far as I'm aware. This directive will lower this to 1 year now

This is geared towards the centralization of all digital records, a different thing altogether.

Heineken Helen

Purple Gorilla wrote: »

Isn't this good?

The Current Data Retention laws in Ireland force providers to keep records for 3 years as far as I'm aware. This directive will lower this to 1 year now

They WANT to keep it for longer... which means they will. They're also talking about a central database which will incorporate this communications database along with the national health database (your medical records on file) and the genetics database. Undoubtedly there will be other databases included in this (most of them have been found to be illegal) and they will all be kept together on the ONE database and they will be able to be viewed by hundreds and thousands of 'government workers' which even includes royal mail employees :rolleyes: NICE eh?

Heineken Helen

King Mob wrote: »

Well if you're making claims like that I'd imagine you'd have to read it.
Unless of course your claim is baseless.

Yes I have and there's nothing in that would allow them to force something like that on us.
There's also no guarantee in the treaty about not sending Irish troops to the moon, therefore they must be planning to send us to the moon.

Since this would have been fairly simple to include in the treaty and, if included, would have got many more votes, why haven't they done it? Seems way too simple to me... unless they don't want to for SOME reason! If the fears are unfounded, put it IN the treaty... otherwise don't give us false promises!

Heineken Helen

Heineken Helen wrote: »

Since this would have been fairly simple to include in the treaty and, if included, would have got many more votes, why haven't they done it? Seems way too simple to me... unless they don't want to for SOME reason! If the fears are unfounded, put it IN the treaty... otherwise don't give us false promises!

Why haven't guaranteed against sending people to the moon unless they don't want to?

Purple Gorilla

Heineken Helen wrote: »

Since this would have been fairly simple to include in the treaty and, if included, would have got many more votes, why haven't they done it? Seems way too simple to me... unless they don't want to for SOME reason! If the fears are unfounded, put it IN the treaty... otherwise don't give us false promises!

They can't put it in the treaty. If they were to change even one letter of that treaty it would have to be re-ratified by every country in the EU again

Heineken Helen

King Mob wrote: »

Why haven't guaranteed against sending people to the moon unless they don't want to?

Is that the only debate you've got?:rolleyes:

Cos sending people to the moon is EXACTLY the same of passing through laws without public consultation... yeh, they'd NEVER do that

Heineken Helen

Purple Gorilla wrote: »

They can't put it in the treaty. If they were to change even one letter of that treaty it would have to be re-ratified by every country in the EU again

So let them re-ratify it? How can they expect people to vote twice on the same thing? The whole treaty is a shambles... there are many things with BOTH sides can argue effectively, therefore it's simply not good enough. If you have a treaty where anybody can argue any piece of wording to suit their own opinion, well how is that going to be effective in any way?

A Primal Nut

Who gives a crap they can check my internet records all they like why are people so worried about this stuff?

Run_to_da_hills

Heineken Helen wrote: »

So let them re-ratify it? How can they expect people to vote twice on the same thing?

Easiy, just lie through the teeth and try to convince the Irish public that Lisbon 2 is a different document.

Heineken Helen

A Primal Nut wrote: »

Who gives a crap they can check my internet records all they like why are people so worried about this stuff?

It's not so much about the checking as it is the storing and monitoring of information on EVERYBODY. I've done nothing wrong so why am I being treated like a terrorist? When authorities have these powers, there are several possible ways in which it could be abused. You could become a suspect in a crime simply for clicking on a certain website, then they have the right to take your dna and keep in indefinitely. If you're innocent, they have no right to treat people this way.

Are you comfortable surfing the web if there's someone standing behind you watching everything you do? I'm not... and it's not cos I'm doing anything wrong... it's cos it's none of their business.

Run_to_da_hills

A Primal Nut wrote: »

Who gives a crap they can check my internet records all they like why are people so worried about this stuff?

Nazi Germany and the former Soviet union would have given their right arms for such technology and invasive rights.

humanji

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Nazi Germany and the former Soviet union would have given their right arms for such technology and invasive rights.

I doubt it since there was no internet back then so they'd have nothing to monitor.

Run_to_da_hills

humanji wrote: »

I doubt it since there was no internet back then so they'd have nothing to monitor.

The Nazis did very well with what little technology they had back then.

http://www.ibmandtheholocaust.com/

humanji

So? Again, it really has no relevance to the thread. You're just putting it in there in an attempt to scare people into a reaction. The subject should speak for itself. If it doesn't and you've to resort to Godwining the thread, then it doesn't say much for your argument, does it?

Purple Gorilla

Heineken Helen wrote: »

So let them re-ratify it? How can they expect people to vote twice on the same thing? The whole treaty is a shambles... there are many things with BOTH sides can argue effectively, therefore it's simply not good enough. If you have a treaty where anybody can argue any piece of wording to suit their own opinion, well how is that going to be effective in any way?

You want 27 countries to restart the whole re-ratifacation process because you want them to add in assurances for things which were never in the treaty in the first place?

In that case, I want an assurance that the Irish people won't be made give cats oral sex.

It's not actually in the treaty (like the things you want assurances for) so therefore by your logic, it's possible that our EU Masters will force it upon us.

Diogenes

Heineken Helen wrote: »

I've read it and, hard as I tried, I couldn't find ANY guarantees other than the politicians words (and we all know how good they are ) so perhaps King Mob will educate us and prove us wrong?;)

Thats not really the way the law works. If the treaty listed all the stuff that wasn't going to happen, or wasn't going to cover it would be exponentially larger. King Mob's analogy is perfectly valid.

Heineken Helen

Purple Gorilla wrote: »

You want 27 countries to restart the whole re-ratifacation process because you want them to add in assurances for things which were never in the treaty in the first place?

In that case, I want an assurance that the Irish people won't be made give cats oral sex.

It's not actually in the treaty (like the things you want assurances for) so therefore by your logic, it's possible that our EU Masters will force it upon us.

Yes, it IS possible.

And yes, I want them to reword the whole thing... read my post that you quoted again and see what my major difficulties are. Not with any specific detail or something they mentioned or left out... but with the entire wording of the thing. JUDGES were saying they could make head nor tail of it... so whose interpretation is it going to be open to?

Heineken Helen

Diogenes wrote: »

Thats not really the way the law works. If the treaty listed all the stuff that wasn't going to happen, or wasn't going to cover it would be exponentially larger. King Mob's analogy is perfectly valid.

Well IMO it SHOULD be larger... it IS to replace the European constitution after all... so if there's stuff left out, it's just not good enough. They've had long enough to work on it.

Purple Gorilla

Heineken Helen wrote: »

Yes, it IS possible.

And yes, I want them to reword the whole thing... read my post that you quoted again and see what my major difficulties are. Not with any specific detail or something they mentioned or left out... but with the entire wording of the thing. JUDGES were saying they could make head nor tail of it... so whose interpretation is it going to be open to?

If it was so bad then why would all the major parties here back it?

And actually, the ironic thing in your post is that the reason the Lisbon Treaty is so detailed (and hard to read) is so there is no room for any other interpretation of what is in the treaty.

6th

So quantity not quality then?

humanji

In fairness, the treaty is worded pretty well. It's just that us lay-men don't easily understand the type of legal talk that it uses.

There's no real underhanded stuff in the treaty and it's not really going to effect any of our lives to any great extent. The treaty is trying to cut down the pointless and expensive beurocracy that is making Europe horrifically unfair and undemocratic. IT's not there to create new rules, but to refine old ones.

Heineken Helen

Purple Gorilla wrote: »

If it was so bad then why would all the major parties here back it?

And actually, the ironic thing in your post is that the reason the Lisbon Treaty is so detailed (and hard to read) is so there is no room for any other interpretation of what is in the treaty.

Of course they'd all back it... it's kinda like politicians against people

So why ARE there so many interpretations then if it's watertight? And many educated people have differing opinions. I already mentioned a judge who said he wouldn't know what to do with it in his courtroom.

Flamed Diving

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

I DON'T NEED TO READ THE FU*ING TREATY.

Therefore you have no right to criticise it.

Heineken Helen

Heineken Helen wrote: »

Of course they'd all back it... it's kinda like politicians against people

So why ARE there so many interpretations then if it's watertight? And many educated people have differing opinions. I already mentioned a judge who said he wouldn't know what to do with it in his courtroom.

Because some people don't read and jump to anti EU conclusions?

I personally wouldn't see how a judge would use it in his court either, there's not that much on criminal law in there.

Heineken Helen

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Therefore you have no right to criticise it.

as with all the government ministers who never read it had no right to tell us to vote for it either.:cool:

thecommander

Heineken Helen wrote: »

as with all the government ministers who never read it had no right to tell us to vote for it either.:cool:

Your right there, but it doesnt take from the fact that RTDH makes some sort of point daily about what the Lisbon treaty can and cannot do, yet he hasn't read it. Bit silly really.

Flamed Diving

Heineken Helen wrote: »

as with all the government ministers who never read it had no right to tell us to vote for it either.:cool:

Agreed. We have an extreme POV, I guess.

Diogenes

Heineken Helen wrote: »

Well IMO it SHOULD be larger... it IS to replace the European constitution after all

One of the major arguments from the "No" side was that the treaty was too complicated.

... so if there's stuff left out, it's just not good enough. They've had long enough to work on it.

So you propose the treaty list off all the things the EU won't do.

The EU promise not invade my privacy.

The EU promises not to invade Turkey and rename Istanbul as Constantinople.

The EU promises to not make Freddie Mercury it's patron saint, and replace all national anthems with their 80s hit "bicycle"

The EU promises not to paint Belgium mauve, and force all Flemish speakers to dress in clown outfits.

And so forth. It's a ridiculous notion of yours Helen, the treaty is about what it's about, and shouldn't have to go around listing what its not about.

humanji

Heineken Helen wrote: »

as with all the government ministers who never read it had no right to tell us to vote for it either.:cool:

But in the case of the politicians, they have people who are hired to translate the treaty into easily understandable terms to save the politicians months of trying to get their head around it. The problem is that they never bothered to get these same people to do the same for the rest of us.

meglome

Heineken Helen wrote: »

as with all the government ministers who never read it had no right to tell us to vote for it either.:cool:

Seriously HH this has been done to death in other threads and not one of these supposedly bad things that Rtdh is saying could be found in the treaty by anyone. As they are not there. It's utterly ridiculous to suggest that they should put every possible eventually into a treaty, the document would be the size of a bus and no one could read it.

Flamed Diving

humanji wrote: »

But in the case of the politicians, they have people who are hired to translate the treaty into easily understandable terms to save the politicians months of trying to get their head around it. The problem is that they never bothered to get these same people to do the same for the rest of us.

I remember there being a website, helpline and easy-to-read publication being released. The way people went on about it, you swear they wanted Bertie Ahern to call around, sit them on his lap and read the treaty to them individually.

Heineken Helen

meglome wrote: »

Seriously HH this has been done to death in other threads and not one of these supposedly bad things that Rtdh is saying could be found in the treaty by anyone. As they are not there. It's utterly ridiculous to suggest that they should put every possible eventually into a treaty, the document would be the size of a bus and no one could read it.

Of course they're not there... the Lisbon treaty is about HOW Europe WILL be governed... it doesn't give much governance to our own elected government but rather, it leaves Ireland with a tiny vote into how things are going to be done and it takes the decision making even further away from the people... so anything they decide to do, well we're going to have much less of a say in it and our constitution will have no say in it.

I don't like the changes it is suggesting... it doesn't mean that Ireland WILL be in the EU army or that abortions will become legal or that kids can be charged with crimes... BUT we've all seen how France and Germany are becoming more united recently and how they will stand strongly together on anything... it's going to turn into Eurovision style voting... and we'll be in the position where our only friends are the UK

Heineken Helen

Flamed Diving wrote: »

I remember there being a website, helpline and easy-to-read publication being released. The way people went on about it, you swear they wanted Bertie Ahern to call around, sit them on his lap and read the treaty to them individually.

I read that too... it certainly was very helpful and unbiased... it didn't deny any of my fears though.