![[personal profile]](http://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Not Without a Warrant: My Response to the Communications BIll
Wednesday, July 4th, 2012 09:47 am
Regarding the Communications Bill, and Huppmeister J's herculean efforts to inject some sense into it. I think we're missing a trick when we go on about the technical problems involved with it, because those who formulated the bill know the implications of that won't filter through to the general public until it's too late.
In order to filter through to the general public we need a simple, easy to understand concept. Not without a warrant. The rozzers, the HMRC, whichever government department, should not be able to access my personal information without my permission unless they have justified to a person who issues warrants that they have a good reason to do so.
This principle can easily be applied to all methods of communication - phone, email, snail mail, even semaphore. The technical difficulties or lack thereof of the actual methods of interception are something of a smokescreen to the actual problem, which is that I, for one, do not want the police or the government routinely storing everything I do on the internet or by post or whatever. If they think I have done something bad, and they have evidence that I have done something bad, and they can persuade a judge or magistrate that it's bad enough that they need access to my accounts to check if I have done the bad thing, then that is COMPLETELY different from routine, at will, real time access to EVERYBODY'S accounts.
So yeah, I'm going to use those four words to describe my opposition to the bill: not without a warrant.
In order to filter through to the general public we need a simple, easy to understand concept. Not without a warrant. The rozzers, the HMRC, whichever government department, should not be able to access my personal information without my permission unless they have justified to a person who issues warrants that they have a good reason to do so.
This principle can easily be applied to all methods of communication - phone, email, snail mail, even semaphore. The technical difficulties or lack thereof of the actual methods of interception are something of a smokescreen to the actual problem, which is that I, for one, do not want the police or the government routinely storing everything I do on the internet or by post or whatever. If they think I have done something bad, and they have evidence that I have done something bad, and they can persuade a judge or magistrate that it's bad enough that they need access to my accounts to check if I have done the bad thing, then that is COMPLETELY different from routine, at will, real time access to EVERYBODY'S accounts.
So yeah, I'm going to use those four words to describe my opposition to the bill: not without a warrant.
