Taking Liberties!

Joey the lips

Anyone see the documentry on taking liberties last night on E4. It was brilliant! The commentor made a very strong point that it all starts with,

What do you have to fear?

It is very interesting! I wonder if saving of phone records that can be used as evidence is a start of this. Granted without the saving of such records would not have convicted Joe O Relly but there is a difference in saving the location records and the actual conversation.

Rather than rant on about the subject I wonder has anyone actually got anything strong to argue in favour or against it.

JonathanAnon

Joey the lips wrote: »

Granted without the saving of such records would not have convicted Joe O Relly but there is a difference in saving the location records and the actual conversation.

Remember the only reason that Joe O'Reilly was convicted was because he admitted to having the phone initially to support his case. He texted his wife, to substantiate the theory that he was looking for her (i.e. was curious to know why she wasnt answering her phone cos he obviously hadnt killed her). But what in fact it did was place his phone in the vicinity of a different mast closer to his house, not at work where he claimed to be. And since he had initially admitted he had the phone, he couldnt say that the phone had been stolen.

To be honest, I'm still shocked that he was convicted on pretty much this alone. Much more seemingly water tight cases have been thrown out of the courts on appeal.

tbh, the law will not be of much use. After Operation Amethyst and the Joe O'Reilly case most people are aware of the fact that they are not secure using their Internet or their mobile. Anybody who is committing a crime using the Internet needs to connect to an open wifi network, anybody using a mobile needs to rob/buy a phone that cannot be traced. I think everyone is aware of this at this stage.

Joey the lips

JonathanAnon wrote: »

Remember the only reason that Joe O'Reilly was convicted was because he admitted to having the phone initially to support his case. He texted his wife, to substantiate the theory that he was looking for her (i.e. was curious to know why she wasnt answering her phone cos he obviously hadnt killed her). But what in fact it did was place his phone in the vicinity of a different mast closer to his house, not at work where he claimed to be. And since he had initially admitted he had the phone, he couldnt say that the phone had been stolen.

To be honest, I'm still shocked that he was convicted on pretty much this alone. Much more seemingly water tight cases have been thrown out of the courts on appeal.

tbh, the law will not be of much use. After Operation Amethyst and the Joe O'Reilly case most people are aware of the fact that they are not secure using their Internet or their mobile. Anybody who is committing a crime using the Internet needs to connect to an open wifi network, anybody using a mobile needs to rob/buy a phone that cannot be traced. I think everyone is aware of this at this stage.

So what you are saying is I am not worried about them keeping records cause if I do anything i wont do it that way! Am i correct!

But this is more than just phone records do youunderstand the whole aspect

Google taking liberties - I see they have it on google videos now

JonathanAnon

Well tbh, I havent seen the documentary, I was just referring to your point about Joe O'Reilly. I just think it's naive of anybody to think that these phone records and Internet records could not be made available anyway. I mean who thought that the phone companies would keep track of what time your phone contacted a particular mast??

whadabouchasir

JonathanAnon wrote: »

I mean who thought that the phone companies would keep track of what time your phone contacted a particular mast??

I think that google keep your recors for 9 months as well.This includeds what you searched for and when.I don't know if it includes what websites you acessed,It probably does though.

Fratton Fred

Joey the lips wrote: »

Google taking liberties - I see they have it on google videos now

I would do, but i am worried THEY might be watching me

It is a dificult one to call I believe. If we are to give the Gards etc the tools they need to do their job, then so be it, but how far do we go? Personally, i think that the recording that a phone call took place is ok, but the actual recording of a call is not. Similarly with email, if you are on a private email adress (work email accounts are a different thing i believe) I have no proble with people fining out who I am emailing, but I do have a pobelm with them being able to read my emails.

however, if sufficient evidence is available that a crime is being planned etc, then I am also happy for a court to provide permission for my calls and emails to be monitored.

Joey the lips

I think your missing the point so far with due respect. Can you see the retaining of such information as being good, bad or indifferent.

Do you think it right that a police man will ask you to produce I.D for who you are bearing in mind such ID is what lead to the massacre of the Rwandans

See why i ask is these laws actually scare the jasus out of me for my kids more than myself but I think if we fail to discuss these or just let them in as quick as the uk did we will be years actually trying to get back to "Normal" as such!

I am hopeing someone can convince me that my worries are unfounded by i am not getting a good response so far!

nyarlothothep

Imo increased authoritarian trends in society develop in part because people "let" it happen, they give their consent to be ruled through their inaction. Is this the age of post democracies? well, whatever passed for democracies.

Joey the lips

I love the fact that there has been 140 views of this in politics but only a couple of replies

I suspect either the topic is boreing( Give that man a cigar) or civil liberties is not top priority for anyone.

Such is life

Further information can be got at

http://www.iccl.ie/

mickeyrooo

Nobody really cares about anything joey until its at their doorstep. I know in the US (I think England is the same) they really destroyed civil liberties since '9/11'. All to fight terrorism, like it didn't exist before. When you do some research into this you really find out some shocking things about what the authorities (in the US at least) can do to you without any evidence and these changes only came about since '9/11'. Its the death of liberty.

Sand

Its the death of democracy.

Liberty you mean. The below is Democracy:

Right as the world goes is a question among only equals in power, while the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must.

To address the OP and the saving of phone records - I do not see the problem with the saving of phone records as such. I see the problem with such phone records being used for blackmail or political/economic advantage. So long as such records are somehow isolated from any particular person and can only be retrieved for the purposes of a criminal investigation, then it is no more objectionable than say...CCTV records.

mickeyrooo

just for you sand...

lostexpectation

Joey the lips wrote: »

Anyone see the documentry on taking liberties last night on E4. It was brilliant! The commentor made a very strong point that it all starts with,

What do you have to fear?

It is very interesting! I wonder if saving of phone records that can be used as evidence is a start of this. Granted without the saving of such records would not have convicted Joe O Relly but there is a difference in saving the location records and the actual conversation.

Rather than rant on about the subject I wonder has anyone actually got anything strong to argue in favour or against it.

arn't you supposed to give your opinion on these threads