Tad right wing, but what do you think?

catallus

Well it can't be denied that if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear.

All this talk about the "invasiveness" of the modern state is all just so much complaining about the rise of technology.

Should the state be permitted to pursue criminals? Of course, and if it can then it should. End of story.

K-9

kowloon wrote: »

Left wing and right wing are such useless terms. You can simplify things to such an extent they become meaningless. Off the top of my head 'Authoritarian' would stand out as something a little more apt.
I heard the Sikhs creep down to the pool early in the morning to lay out their towels and stake their claim on all the best spots.

They do crossover on occasion but as generalisations they make sense. They make less sense in Ireland because we want the best of Health, Education and Welfare systems and pay low taxes. It's the false dichotomy of being socially liberal and fiscally conservative.

Nodin

catallus wrote: »

Well it can't be denied that if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear.

All this talk about the "invasiveness" of the modern state is all just so much complaining about the rise of technology.

Should the state be permitted to pursue criminals? Of course, and if it can then it should. End of story.

...this presumes that the state will always be "good" and not misuse its position.

mlumley

TROLL

Sh1tbag OToole

catallus wrote: »

Well it can't be denied that if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear.

All this talk about the "invasiveness" of the modern state is all just so much complaining about the rise of technology.

Should the state be permitted to pursue criminals? Of course, and if it can then it should. End of story.

Just because it is easier to invade people's privacy with new technology doesn't mean you should.

catallus

But how far should that privacy go?

We live in a parliamentary democracy, regular elections and clear oversight are a given, we're not talking about the Soviet police state, where government control was so pervasive that the police had nothing better to do but spy on citizens.

Sh1tbag OToole

catallus wrote: »

But how far should that privacy go?

We live in a parliamentary democracy, regular elections and clear oversight are a given, we're not talking about the Soviet police state, where government control was so pervasive that the police had nothing better to do but spy on citizens.

You should be able to go about your day without being spied on or monitored in any way unless a warrant has been issued for you specifically. No tracking devices, no DNA databases for innocent people, no unwarranted phone or internet eavesdropping, no ANPR and CCTV networks, no local council spying on people to "dig up dirt on them" as happens here in the Youkay, no random pensioners being lifted because they drove past a protest on a Sunday afternoon.

Even if we had the best most salt of the earth government in the world I wouldn't want this and I don't go around committing crimes. Nothing to hide is a tired old phrase that holds no water. I could just as easily say everybody has something to hide and that there's no shame in it. The fact is we live in an imperfect world where no government or agency is infallible, governments go from being good to being bad, abuse and corruption is rife. What is deemed acceptable can be made illegal tomorrow if there is moral panic or if the government otherwise feels pressurised to do so (possibly even by other countries ie. Sean Sherlock and his copyright law)

kowloon

catallus wrote: »

I'm sorry Kowloon, but how are they useless?

K-9 wrote: »

They do crossover on occasion but as generalisations they make sense.

I suppose misused is a fairer way of putting it. I'm sick of people saying left is one thing and right is the other, like the two are polar opposites. The idea that left and right are the two ends of a straight line.
Treat each issue individually and worry about all the pigeon-holing later.
It makes it harder to demonise the other party with cries of 'they're lefties/right-wingers' but I've always prefered the idea of working things out over indoctrination.

catallus

Anybody who has being paying attention knows the situation in the UK. Blair and Brown did more than anyone to expand the power of the state and their bribed quangos and social support networks. I watched it with a close eye and yes, it could be argued that some aspects of life in England are now in police-state territory. I don't know if the conservatives are doing much to tear it down, but we are not England.

I'm all about freedom for innocent people but to dilute the sovereign right of the people to be protected from crime by crying about CCTV or whatever just smacks of the "Me=Victim" culture.

wp_rathead

Chemical Burn wrote: »

When children were born in the late eighties and early nineties (like me), a heel-prick test was performed, this gave information on all the allergies the child had / might have had.

I am of the opinion, that ALL children (regardless of whether the parents consent or not, even if for silly religious reasons), should have a blood sample taken, along with finger print. These should be kept on file:

My reasons:

If a child's (or even at adult hood) identity is stolen, this situation can be quickly ameliorated.

If a child / adult commits a crime, then he / she can easily be identified from crime scene blood / hair DNA, fingerprints, etc. If you've nothing to hide, you've nothing to fear. This will allow us to circumvent crime especially because of the growing number of Muslims in Ireland because they are wearing the Hijab etc, also the Shiks wearing the towel thing, not saying crime is specific from them, but if their faces are covered it obviously poses a problem in identification.

If a passport is lost abroad, then the person can reenter Ireland with just their fingerprints, easy !!!

I would go one step further, and put tracking devices into children, these can be tracked by parents and maybe a certain number of select Gardaí (possibly just Gardaí, for reasons which are obvious). If the child is kidnapped, the scumbag who kidnapped him / her can easily and quickly be found. If the child is lost the child can also easily be found. Adults, uon reacing the age of 18 can then opt to keep it in, or have it removed. Keeping it in can be a good thing, for example, if a scummy tramp falsely accuses a man of false rape, then he can absolve his name in court by showing where he was with undeniable proof. If a woman is is abused by her husband, then the prick can be brought to justice with this device too. This will not provide any audio or picture of the person, just a satellite location of where he or she is.

So what do you think ??

PLEASE no tl;dr or just replying "no".

Debunking the dangerous "Nothing to Hide-Nothing to Fear"

catallus

Wprathead, that's a good list, I particularly agree with point 3. Civil disobedience is a necessary and healthy part of any society, and should be supported.

I don't think anybody here agrees with the OP, with his ideas of tagging kids and giving an opt-out at 18.

I'd like to see how many say that they'd like total freedom from surveillance. Nobody wants cameras in their homes but how many are against cameras on their streets?

Nodin

catallus wrote: »

But how far should that privacy go?

We live in a parliamentary democracy, regular elections and clear oversight are a given, we're not talking about the Soviet police state, where government control was so pervasive that the police had nothing better to do but spy on citizens.

Garda superintendent issue warrants for searches without recourse to a judge. Charlie Haughey and phone tapping. The "heavy gang". The Garda scandals in Donegal. The Ban on abortion information, condoms etc. We don't live in a state where there was some big trials, a clean out and clear change of ethics, the guilty punished and so on.

MadsL

catallus wrote: »

I'd like to see how many say that they'd like total freedom from surveillance.

Me. Waste of money as it does not work.

Nobody wants cameras in their homes but how many are against cameras on their streets?

Me.

I'd prefer actual police officers thanks.

CruelCoin

Chemical Burn wrote: »

This will allow us to circumvent crime especially because of the growing number of Muslims in Ireland because they are wearing the Hijab etc, also the Shiks wearing the towel thing, not saying crime is specific from them, but if their faces are covered it obviously poses a problem in identification.

What about knackers wearing hoodies zipped around their faces so they look like kenny from south park? Knackers are biologically incapable of wearing anything other than hoodies and tracksuits, so lets include them in the "usually wear concealing clothing" category.

What about people wearing motorcycle helmets?

Also, learn some more about the religions you try to ridicule.

The hijab covers the hair only, not the face. It is the niqab that covers the face, and the majority of Muslims don't wear it.
Also, the Shiks turban only covers the head, again, not the face.

Teyla Emmagan

The heel prick test was not to identify all your allergies. It's a specific test for one thing that irish people are prone to. Something to do with blood. It will annoy me now until i get to look this up.

Hoop66

The heel-prick test is mostly for inherited metabolic disorders such as PKU, TSR etc. These are disorders that can usually be managed by diets, but you need to be aware of them early on to give the kid the best chance, developmentally.

PKU, for instance, means that they don't make an enzyme to metabolise Phenylaniline, an amino-acid present in most protein. If the phenylaniline levels build up in the blood it can be toxic to the brain and cause developmental difficulties. It is managed by a low-protein diet, with supplements of protein drinks with the phenylaniline removed.

Prior to 1966, it was not tested for, and so some kids weren't given the correct diet and ended up in institutions with very low quality of life.

If you want to have a DNA databse of everyone at birth, fine. Then try and get insurance if you have makers for heart-disease, cancer etc etc.

newmug

Teyla Emmagan wrote: »

The heel prick test was not to identify all your allergies. It's a specific test for one thing that irish people are prone to. Something to do with blood. It will annoy me now until i get to look this up.

You're thinking of Haemochromotosis.

newmug

Hoop66 wrote: »

If you want to have a DNA databse of everyone at birth, fine. Then try and get insurance if you have makers for heart-disease, cancer etc etc.

Fcuk getting insurance, give me the cure! Imagine the possibilities science would have if the sample size for these diseases increased a million-fold, we could nail all these diseases instead of fannying around in the dark discovering little clues here and there every decade. I'm all for a DNA database!

monkeypants

Who's going to own this DNA database? If you're answer is "We will", I've a bridge in London to sell you.

Knasher

Chemical Burn wrote: »

I would go one step further, and put tracking devices into children, these can be tracked by parents and maybe a certain number of select Gardaí (possibly just Gardaí, for reasons which are obvious). If the child is kidnapped, the scumbag who kidnapped him / her can easily and quickly be found. If the child is lost the child can also easily be found. Adults, uon reacing the age of 18 can then opt to keep it in, or have it removed. Keeping it in can be a good thing, for example, if a scummy tramp falsely accuses a man of false rape, then he can absolve his name in court by showing where he was with undeniable proof. If a woman is is abused by her husband, then the prick can be brought to justice with this device too. This will not provide any audio or picture of the person, just a satellite location of where he or she is.

Creepy nanny state implications aside. This is impossible with current technology.

old hippy

"If you've nothing to hide, you've nothing to fear. This will allow us to circumvent crime especially because of the growing number of Muslims in Ireland because they are wearing the Hijab etc, also the Shiks wearing the towel thing, not saying crime is specific from them..."

Hmm. What are you saying, caller?

hide2013

why not just microchip children as is done with dogs? makes identification easy and if there is a gps in it (not usual with dogs but possible) you can trace their movements.

hatrickpatrick

It is downright shockingly frightening that so many people out there are not only indifferent to civil liberties and privacy, but would actively restrict them through policies like these.
Frightening.
If I wanted to live in a police state I'd move to the Middle East.

Catari Jaguar

Chemical Burn wrote: »

if a scummy tramp falsely accuses a man of false rape, then he can absolve his name in court by showing where he was with undeniable proof.

Logic fail?

Chemical Burn wrote: »

If a woman is is abused by her husband, then the prick can be brought to justice with this device too. .

Explain please??

Sh1tbag OToole

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

It is downright shockingly frightening that so many people out there are not only indifferent to civil liberties and privacy, but would actively restrict them through policies like these.
Frightening.
If I wanted to live in a police state I'd move to the Middle East.

When the right boogeyman stories are brought out in the tabloids you'd be surprised how you'd get turkeys to vote for Christmas.

All these overblown stories about Muslims, Unruly youthes and paedophiles scare people and they'll look to the government to try and stop them from "taking over" even though there is no fear of that happening really. A single shooting incident in the USA is being used as an excuse to disarm people the world over, get responsible gun owners to give up their toys. All because of one guy.

If the US government makes a balls of it and a cruise missile blows up a school 2 miles beside it's intended target its kind of "oh well, sh1t happens, you'd be lucky to hear about it in the Western media" but one lad with a gun killing a few people and the hat will be going around to every house in the United States for people to throw their freedom into for the common good.

old hippy

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

It is downright shockingly frightening that so many people out there are not only indifferent to civil liberties and privacy, but would actively restrict them through policies like these.
Frightening.
If I wanted to live in a police state I'd move to the Middle East.

And the same meaningless mantra "If you've nothing to hide, you've nothing to fear". Really? :rolleyes:

P_1

What in the name of bejaysus does the heel prick test have to do with 'controlling' the Muslim population

3ndahalfof6

ameliorated, and I backed the fook out of the room.

Herb Powell

Sh1tbag OToole wrote: »

When the right boogeyman stories are brought out in the tabloids you'd be surprised how you'd get turkeys to vote for Christmas.

All these overblown stories about Muslims, Unruly youthes and paedophiles scare people and they'll look to the government to try and stop them from "taking over" even though there is no fear of that happening really. A single shooting incident in the USA is being used as an excuse to disarm people the world over, get responsible gun owners to give up their toys. All because of one guy.

If the US government makes a balls of it and a cruise missile blows up a school 2 miles beside it's intended target its kind of "oh well, sh1t happens, you'd be lucky to hear about it in the Western media" but one lad with a gun killing a few people and the hat will be going around to every house in the United States for people to throw their freedom into for the common good.

Except it wasn't just one incident, there was an alarming number of mass shootings last year.

Sh1tbag OToole

Herb Powell wrote: »

Except it wasn't just one incident, there was an alarming number of mass shootings last year.

And that points to a deeper problem than just people having guns because they didn't just all buy their guns last year. Behind the façade of the American dream there is a lot of poverty and a lot of people fcuked up on drugs and it's a very cut-throat and unfriendly way of life over there in many ways. Also if you feel you have mental health issues you can't just walk into a place and get it sorted by the NHS. It's all insurance there and insurance doesn't want to pay for counseling.

People just dont walk into a school and start shooting people because they have such a good life but its easier to make a few hobbyists give up their assault rifles than to fix the root of the problem