I am not from UK, but listen to me if any folks from UK are reading this.
This is one of the things that is harmful to your privacy. Should the list of websites that you visit be available for government unless you are under active investigation? Its not just the list of websites but every packet data that your devices send out, which means government could see your messages, data sent to dropbox, online spreadsheet like google docs etc. This is mass surveillance. You should be proud that your government have a website were you can start petitions. Now please use this feature and sign the petition so that this surveillance law can be repealed.
You sign the petition and ask your close friends and family to do the same. What you do not need is an intrusive government. I am voicing this because even though I am not a UK citizen, I do not want law makers in my country thinking "Oh those chaps has a fine surveillance law and their citizens are okay with it. Lets adopt that law".
As much as I'm strongly against this bill, that petition is so poorly worded that there's no way I'm going to sign it. I did sign a somewhat poorly worded petition before and, not unexpectedly, the condescending "response" merely addressed the more hyperbolic rantings it contained rather than any of the reasons over 100K people signed it.
There really needs to be some way to greenlight draft petitions before they start getting major traction, so that anything that makes it to parliament reads like it was written by either a lawyer or journalist and not some outraged and poorly-informed 14 year old.
I really seems like that site only serves to placate people that might otherwise write to their MP, go out and demonstrate, or take some other form of potentially effective action, while never actually achieving anything.
Write to your MP instead. And please try to present a cogent, well-informed argument that might actually persuade that MP to champion the cause. Rants like this petition might be effective when it comes to preaching to the choir, but it's never going to change anyone's mind.
Don't rely on that one, google for yourself any poll in the last 10 years. In fact, think about just about any issue that you care about but is not current government policy, and google an opinion poll on it. You'll begin to see that democracy functions very effectively indeed. There are exceptions, such as the death penalty in the UK, but mostly legislation follows the opinion of the public (the voting public actually) quite closely, as we see with gay marriage and drug decriminalisation.
A little over half of those polled were okay with "Police and intelligence agencies [having] access to this information for anti-terrorism purposes". The YouGov report also shows that there's much less trust in politicians and civil servants to "behave responsibly" with such data.
The Guardian article says that "[records] will be made available to a wide range of government bodies", which sounds like politicians and civil servants to me.
Given that the government doesn't have a great track record of proportionate use of these powers, I think this isn't the same as the question asked in the poll. (For example, at a local level http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/3333366/Half-of-counc...)
You're completely right. I would just point out that it's very close even when the question is explicitly phrased to specify politicians and civil servants (45 - 46%). It's likely that those with more trust in politicians are most more likely to be actual voters.
I'm from the UK, and I'm not signing that petition.
Maybe we do need an intrusive government? Maybe we, as a populace, believe that the data will save lives? That the cost of it existing is worth it compared to the cost of not having access to information on ~insert bad person here~. Maybe you value your privacy differently to us?
That's ok, btw, and I respect your point of view. Please, however, consider that alternative viewpoints are valid before telling everyone else what they must do to ensure their country is governed in a way that suits you.
I don't believe the end justifies the means, nor do I believe that data will be as useful as meatspace intelligence. Terror will continue anyhow. The war on encryption and privacy persists despite the fact that terrorists haven't even bothered to use encryption in the last attacks.
Obviously we don't get to tell you how to run your country, but at the same time we can certainly be troubled by your country's actions.
tbh my personal view is not entirely aligned with the one I made the comment - I just get incredibly frustrated by the tone of some posters. Statements of how all right minded people must behave, because no other viewpoint is valid.
I suspect that many of the people for whom this is a non-issue are demographically similar to those who voted for brexit. Their perspectives are different, and shouldn't be dismissed as merely ignorant.
Of course you can be troubled, and you're free to make arguments for why it may be considered a bad thing™ - influencing Brits to give a shit.
> That the cost of it existing is worth it compared to the cost of not having access to information on ~insert bad person here~
Can you give an example of "insert bad person here", where having more data made a difference?
> Maybe we do need an intrusive government?
We don't need intrusive government any more than intrusive neighbors. How do you even come to a personal preference for invasive government? Seems actively against self interest.
> Maybe we, as a populace, believe that the data will save lives?
Based on what evidence though? And what lives? How many British citizens were killed by terrorism in the last 5 years? You have far more people dying of smoking or car crashes.
> Maybe we, as a populace, believe that the data will save -American- lives?
I'm not trying to be snarky; I'm genuinely confused. Are you saying that UK citizens support surveillance, by and for the UK government, because it might aid the welfare of American citizens?
Alright, but then why are politicians and the media exempt from these data logs? What if you have a double agent in some government position, how would the government audit itself to guarantee it isn't being infiltrated?
This is one of the things that is harmful to your privacy. Should the list of websites that you visit be available for government unless you are under active investigation? Its not just the list of websites but every packet data that your devices send out, which means government could see your messages, data sent to dropbox, online spreadsheet like google docs etc. This is mass surveillance. You should be proud that your government have a website were you can start petitions. Now please use this feature and sign the petition so that this surveillance law can be repealed.
The petition against this bill is at: https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/173199
You sign the petition and ask your close friends and family to do the same. What you do not need is an intrusive government. I am voicing this because even though I am not a UK citizen, I do not want law makers in my country thinking "Oh those chaps has a fine surveillance law and their citizens are okay with it. Lets adopt that law".
Now get to action. Sign the petition at https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/173199