Sir Tim Berners-Lee Accuses UK Government of "Draconian Internet Snooping" 192
An anonymous reader writes "According to British daily The Telegraph, Sir Tim Berners-Lee has warned that plans to monitor individuals' use of the internet would result in Britain losing its reputation as an upholder of web freedom. The plans, by Home Secretary Theresa May, would force British ISPs and other service providers to keep records of every phone call, email and website visit in Britain. Sir Tim has told the Times: 'In Britain, like in the US, there has been a series of Bills that would give government very strong powers to, for example, collect data. I am worried about that.' Sir Tim has also warned that the UK may wind up slipping down the list of countries with the most Internet freedom, if the proposed data-snooping laws pass parliament. The draft bill extends the type of data that internet service providers must store for at least 12 months. Providers would also be required to keep details of a much wider set of data, including use of social network sites, webmail and voice calls over the internet." Jimmy Wales doesn't seem to be a very big fan of the UK snooping either.
Who cares when Google is around? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Not for me they don't son. None of this noscript pussying around either, broken sites are broken -- turn javascript off!
Re:Who cares when Google is around? (Score:4, Insightful)
Uhm....
First of all - Google collects data about my VOIP calls? I don't think so.
Google is mostly only present on the web, not the rest of the internet.
Even then, you have to be logged into a Google account.
Even then, they don't collect data they don't care about.
Even then, Google is one of the few countries that won't just hand whatever data over to the government that they ask for with no questions.
Even Google wouldn't want to retain every detail of everything a user does - ISPs certainly don't. I can only think of one place that would really love this idea - hard drive makers. Think about it - when everything you do is logged in detail, and that data has to be retained long-term, then the ISPs and government will have to store it somewhere. It's going to be Hard Disk, at least until it gets cut to tape.
Re: (Score:2)
Uhm....
First of all - Google collects data about my VOIP calls? I don't think so.
on Google Volce (not technically VoIP) and Google chat sure. They also sync your contacts for android, not sure about the call history
Google is mostly only present on the web, not the rest of the internet.
I'll give you that one. They have DNS and email, but it's all optional. For email, they aren't saving anything more than any other webmail provider. For DNS, you have no idea what they save.
Even then, you have to be logged into a Google account.
For them to save data? No. Just no.
Even then, they don't collect data they don't care about.
When they care about *logging wireless packets* from their Streetview cars, we can conclude that they care about almost all data
Even then, Google is one of the few countries that won't just hand whatever data over to the government that they ask for with no questions.
You can have this one too
Re:Who cares when Google is around? (Score:5, Informative)
First of all - Google collects data about my VOIP calls? I don't think so.
on Google Volce (not technically VoIP) and Google chat sure.
Well, duhh, yes - the service provider you're buying a service from knows you're buying that service. If you don't want google to know about it, use a different service provider (but then that service provider knows...). This is no different from how its always been, whether on the internet or not - the telco knows when you made a phone call through their network, the baker knows when you bought a loaf of bread from him.
They also sync your contacts for android
Only if you tell them to... You can happilly use an Android device without asking Google to sync your contacts if you want to.
not sure about the call history
Google only gets your call history if you ask them to back up all your data. Again, you don't have to use this functionality (personally, I back up my phone nightly using rsync over my wifi network, so I don't bother using Google's backup stuff).
I'll give you that one. They have DNS and email, but it's all optional.
So, just like all the stuff you said above - they provide some services, its up to you whether you use those services and if you do they are going to know something about you in the same way as anyone else providing those services would.
For email, they aren't saving anything more than any other webmail provider.
Google _do_ analyse your email content to target advertising at you, which is more than many other webmail providers (although I imagine the likes of yahoo and hotmail do the same these days).
Even then, they don't collect data they don't care about.
When they care about *logging wireless packets* from their Streetview cars, we can conclude that they care about almost all data
I would say that Google's attitude seems to be "lets collect as much data as we can, we might find a neat way of analysing it in the future". There are, of course, good and bad things about that. Afterall, people use Google's services precisely because they work really well, and a lot of that is down to Google figuring out how to analyse your data in new and useful ways (useful to *you* as well as them).
That said, I don't really see the big deal with the whole wireless logging thing. They caught some packets that were broadcast in the clear into a public space for anyone with a receiver to see. If people didn't want their network traffic to be seen by others they had ample opportunity to encrypt it *using the standard functionality of their router*. And even so, the streetview car is moving at speed, it won't capture more than a few packets so they're going to be hard pushed to get anything particularly scary from the data. The whole thing strikes me like someone standing in their front window naked and then complaining that someone who drove past caught a glimpse of them - if you don't like it you should've drawn the curtains.
Re: (Score:2)
If you don't want google to know about it, use a different service provider (but then that service provider knows...). This is no different from how its always been, whether on the internet or not - the telco knows when you made a phone call through their network, the baker knows when you bought a loaf of bread from him.
The difference between Google and other companies is that
1. Most companies don't claim to be interested in collecting data. You effectively have to trust them to delete the information when they no longer need it for billing and accounting. Google does save the data, and you have to trust them not to do anything evil with the data. The difference is that you have to trust the telephone company (ugh) for a short time, while you have to trust Google until its demise.
2. Google provides lots of different servic
Re: (Score:2)
Google is one of the few countries
I knew Google was big, but I didn't think they were that big :)
Re: (Score:2)
Considering revenue as like GDP, Google is larger than many countries. They'd be about the 160th (out of 210) largest country by GDP.
Re: (Score:2)
I just had a thought; what would the Google National Anthem be?
Re: (Score:3)
hold on, I thought jQuery was run by a not-for-profit foundation, not Google?
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Google runs a CDN (Content distribution network) that hosts JQuery and it has become one of the main ways to include JQuery in your website. There are many advantages to this (since many websites all load Jquery from the same url, one cached version makes all those sites load quicker, etc), but the disadvantage is that since the file gets pulled directly from Google's webservers, they get to roughly monitor website traffic. The catch-22 is that most JQuery powered sites would be using Google Analytics (or s
Re: (Score:3)
Don't rely on third parties to host code.
Nobody gives a shit about your rights anymore. (Score:2, Insightful)
Right to privacy? Nope. Freedom of Speech? Nope.
Although I think all the conspiracy theorists are crazy, the new world order is the eventual coalescence of the violation of inalienable rights and it's frequency of occurence across all nations.
Re:Nobody gives a shit about your rights anymore. (Score:5, Insightful)
Right to privacy? Nope. Freedom of Speech? Nope.
Although I think all the conspiracy theorists are crazy, the new world order is the eventual coalescence of the violation of inalienable rights and it's frequency of occurence across all nations.
Anymore the difference between the tinfoil hat brigade and the rest of society is, mainstream society believes that 1984 is coming. The tinfoil hat brigade believes it's already here.
Re: (Score:2)
Nope. Freedom of Speech? Nope.
This has been noted in your file ...
Re: (Score:2)
Your noting has been noted.
Re:Nobody gives a shit about your rights anymore. (Score:4, Funny)
We will be nice today and only ask the small sum of $1,000,000,000.00, payable within 3 hours..
In Bitcoins, right?
To prevent the "TERRORIST, CHILD ABUSERS and PIRATES" from using them.
Re:Nobody gives a shit about your rights anymore. (Score:5, Insightful)
I have to admit I snorked my coke when I saw that the UK government was supposed to be an "upholder of web freedom".
The UK government is one of the most openly snoopy governments in the developed world. If that's what they do in public, what do they do in private?
Re: (Score:2)
If that's what they do in public, what do they do in private?
They have sex once a month, with their legitimate wives, in the missionary position. They don't have anything to hide, why should they care about privacy?
Re: (Score:3)
I'm happy to see so many politicians being judged by what they do in bed, instead of what they do in the office. It's nice to see the Brits are focused on what really, really matters.
Shows the opposite, actually (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If that's what they do in public, what do they do in private?
Well you could join MI5 or get a position at GCHQ to find out. But then you wouldn't be able to tell us.
And obviously you would run the risk of killing yourself but somehow zipping your corpse into a holdall [bbc.co.uk] in the bath.
Underpaid and unloved (Score:5, Interesting)
Everyone is doing it (Score:2)
Your data is already being sold to advertisers by your phone company, by any form you filled in your details, by any "free!" email account etc. So many different companies and bodies are collecting data and personally identifiable information that we're becoming apathetic to it.
We need strong legislation and standards to make sure data collection is kept to a necessary minimum
Re:Everyone is doing it (Score:4, Insightful)
I've spent a whole day at 3 different jobs attending a Data Protection Awareness course.
Companies are also realising that the data they collect isn't quite as valuable as they once thought. That's why the big supermarkets that lead the way on this data mining with their loyalty cards are actually reducing the rewards they offer.
New technology brings new challenges, but to pretend we are slipping towards a 1984 state just betrays your ignorance of history which actually shows that the majority of movement is going towards increased rights.
Magna Carta only applied to the aristocracy at the time remember, and as recently as 1918 women couldn't vote here.
Re:Everyone is doing it (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well off the top of my head, Insurance Companies can no longer discriminate against you based on your sex.
Which is stupid, if you really think about it. Insurance should be based on one thing and one thing alone - the likelihood of you making a claim. Before that EU directive, that's essentially what was in place.
Re: (Score:3)
It's just the same argument about shops having 'No Blacks' signs in the window, only at a slightly less obviously 'wrong' end of the spectrum.
An insurance company can only go on personal driving history or generalities. This is just a new rule to stop them lumping all members of one group t
Re: (Score:2)
You clearly didn't read what I said, which was that insurance premiums should be calculated only on the likelihood of you making a claim. If you happen to be in a demographic that's less likely to make a claim, then you should pay less for insurance. What demographic that is is irrelevant.
Re: (Score:2)
Doesn't follow that you should charge a particular man more.
Re read my post, what if blacks make more claims, presumably someone knows if they do or don't but nobody suggest charging people more or less depending on their ethnicity.
Re: (Score:2)
What part of 'only on the likelihood of you making a claim' is so difficult to understand here? Maybe it's the 'only' part, since you keep banging on about ethnicity and sexuality. Did you notice I never identified a particular trait in anything I said? Or did you just read my words and interpret a layer of meaning that just doesn't exist?
Re: (Score:2)
Which is stupid, if you really think about it. Insurance should be based on one thing and one thing alone - the likelihood of you making a claim. Before that EU directive, that's essentially what was in place.
I am arguing that the EU directive is not stupid. Not sure any longer what you are now arguing about.
Re: (Score:2)
I see I have to boil my argument down to the bare minimum, since you seem intent on purposefully misreading it:
More likely to make claim => higher premiums.
That is my entire argument, in all it's manifest complexity. Note how it cleverly weaves absolutely no discrimination whatsoever into its logic.
Re: (Score:2)
Before that EU directive, that's essentially what was in place.
That is what you said.
The directive you are implying has changed something for the worse relates to the gender of the applicant for the insurance. Any normal person would infer that you were criticising the directive and therefore approving of the discrmination the directive removed.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Society has long rehearsed this argument and if you really think you've some up with a new argument you are an idiot.
You are either in the 'No blacks allowed' camp or you are not. I'm not.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No longer true, I think (Score:2)
I suspect the insurance companies didn't argue the toss with the EU because the statistics were trending towards equality anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
How is it that someone can take them away but not give them back again? Can't they recognize a new right? Why are either of these things impossible?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
you guys might be a shining light of freedom
More like a dim bulb in a basement.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And you can go to prison if you smoke the wrong plant, or be sent to Gitmo if you say the wrong words loudly and forcefully enough or don't pay enough taxes. Yeah, you're totally free.
Re:Everyone is doing it (Score:5, Insightful)
to pretend we are slipping towards a 1984 state just betrays your ignorance of literature. We're in Brave New World.
Fix'd.
+1 Insightful (Score:2)
Where are mod points when you need them?
Re: (Score:2)
In the hands of a fascist government.
What? (Score:2)
Re:Everyone is doing it (Score:4, Insightful)
Actually, as anyone working in IT in the UK can attest, we have very strict rules on what you can do with people's data.
There are indeed very strict rules. But what good are rules if they are not enforced?
As an example, an organisation I dealt with illegally sold my personal data to numerous "partners" (they asked me if I agreed to have my data passed to "partner companies", I declined, they did it anyway). A complaint has been filed with the ICO, and the ICO's response has been to write to the company in question telling them they shouldn't do that. That's it - the ICO are not interested in doing anything to enforce the data protection law except write sternly worded letters to people.
Meanwhile, whilst the original company has now stopped selling off my data, the companies they sold it to have sold it. And the ones they sold it to have sold it. There is no way for me to prevent that (now widespread) data being distributed further. Futhermore, these third party companies aren't even guilty of doing anything wrong since as far as they knew, I had agreed to have this data distributed (since thats what the first company told them).
What is needed is 2 things:
1. Rules forbidding the sale of any personal data between companies.
2. Actual enforcement of those rules and punishment for breaking them.
I am much happier with the likes of Google having my data than other companies - although Google may have a lot of my data, they don't sell it, so I pretty much know where it is, and if I don't like it I can cease using Google's services and make a formal request for them to destroy my personal data (which they are required to comply with under EU law). Most other companies that I have to deal with (e.g. my insurance company, etc.) are happy to sell the data on to other people, who will further sell it on and there's no longer any way for me to know who actually has this data any more. I *always* tick the "don't sell my data" box whenever I fill in a form, and yet my personal data is out there being bought and sold because a few companies have broken the law and ignored my preference. There is largely no way to know which companies have done this.
Re: (Score:2)
How to claim compensation [ico.gov.uk]
Re: (Score:2)
what's needed is jailtime for the execs...it's the only way to get them to take things seriously... a fine on the company is merely seen as the cost of doing business and comes out of the customers pockets in the long run...
Another way to make them sit up and notice would be to legally require them to pay the fines from the shareholder's divid
Which reputation? (Score:5, Insightful)
Which "reputation as an upholder of web freedom" would that be? The one based on them censoring Wikipedia for showing an album cover? Or the one where you have to hand over encryption keys or be thrown in jail?
Re:Which reputation? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Surveillance cameras are put on public streets
Networks were built and are managed by private corporations.
So you have two options:
Trust your government has your best interest at heart
Trust a business you are giving money to has your best interest at heart as it sells your info to your government
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Interesting. How do I encrypt a visit to the pharmacist, grocery store, or any other shop for that matter? Should I start wearing a balaclava? I believe that would cause more problems than it solves. How do I purchase stuff without being profiled? Maybe I should scratch all the markings of my currency bills to make sure they can't be tracked, and avoid using bank cards altogether, while stuffing said bills under my mattress? How do I encrypt my phone signal and how do I then make or receive calls from other
Re: (Score:3)
Oh, that old chestnut. I think you'll find that US cities have just as many CCTV cameras - possibly more - as UK cities.
The number that's often trotted out only works if there's a CCTV camera for every 50m (yes, fifty metres, about ten car lengths) of road right down to dirt farm tracks - which is clearly not the case.
Re: (Score:2)
I dunno, when I was in London there were a LOT more than one every 50m. I noticed large clusters on nearly every street corner, plus the ones on the underground...never saw anything like it in NYC -- sure, there's a fair bit of private ones scattered about, but that's not the same thing. As far as city/police owned cameras, you'll maybe find one or two on high traffic street corners. Never seen even a single cluster like the ones that were so common in London...
Re: (Score:2)
The one based on them censoring Wikipedia for showing an album cover?
IIRC, that filter is maintained by a private company.
The UK government loves to outsource - when it inevitably goes wrong, they can just say 'wasn't us!'
Re: (Score:2)
The UK government loves to outsource - when it inevitably goes wrong, they can just say 'wasn't us!'
But they are still the ones who made the laws requiring a filter to be present, or at least coerced the ISPs to install one. If I outsource an assassination to a hitman, does that mean I can somehow disclaim responsibility?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The one based on them censoring Wikipedia for showing an album cover?
IIRC, that filter is maintained by a private company.
The UK government loves to outsource - when it inevitably goes wrong, they can just say 'wasn't us!'
The IWF list is a privately maintained list of censored sites which is voluntarilly(*) used by ISPs and content filtering companies. They are funded by donations(+) from these companies.
(*) "Voluntarilly" means "often forcibly required by the government". For example, until BECTA was dissolved, companies wanting to sell content filtering systems to schools were required to use the IWF list.
(+) By "donations", I mean companies are required to "donate" somewhere from £1000 - £40000 per year if t
Re: (Score:2)
Run a Tor relay. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Run a Tor relay. (Score:4, Interesting)
So here's a serious question...
Assuming this tracking law gets in (which it seems it will eventually, as this isn't the first try for such a thing), then would it actually be a good time for everyone (inside the UK and International) to rent a virtual server some place (in the UK) and run an honest-to-goodness Tor exit node?
For us Brits, there's a risk of prosecution (although it's unclear to what extent). I'm sure "it's a Tor node, it's entirely public, and I personally didn't actually download all that stuff" might be enough defence to avoid life-changing legal action. IANAL, and I really have no clue what I'm talking about here.
However, for International folks, the worst than can really happen is that they shut down your VPS. You can then just go rent another one and be up and running in minutes.
Assuming this vaguely makes sense (particularly for non-UK residents), then we could conceivably have a "flood" of Tor-originated traffic to all manner of questionable web content flowing through our Royal pipework and into the ISP data logs, and into the Great Decentralised Central Government Database of Everything. I'm probably barking up the wrong dog here, but it seems interesting none the less.
Social networks (Score:3)
Good luck with logging social network use. Facebook and Twitter at least seem to use https by default for me. Unless ISPs can force people to download trusted certificates for a proxy that decrypts, logs, then re-encrypts their facebook usage, they won't be seeing much.
Incidentally, I run my own mail server. I relay my mail through it using TLS, and it too uses opportunistic encryption when contacting other SMTP servers. My ISP sees nothing but encrypted data going past. Many public SMTP servers now are supporting opportunistic encryption and supports 256 bit encryption (in fact, if you want to pass a PCI-DSS ASV scan, then if your mail server supports encryption it must disable all weak ciphers).
(Disclaimer: I don't live in the UK, but I do live in a British crown territory - whether a similar law is passed here is not guaranteed, for example we don't have anything like the RIP Act)
Plans to monitor individuals' use of the internet? (Score:3)
I assumed there was someone monitoring my use of the Internet, which is why I've always been cautious, at least with my home usage
Big Brother (Score:3)
http://yro.slashdot.org/story/12/09/04/1825205/australian-attorney-general-pushes-ahead-with-govt-web-snooping [slashdot.org]
For the first time in history people can communicate freely en masse and it scares them.
Hello? This is the EU, not the UK (Score:3, Insightful)
The source of this junk law is the European Union. It just so happens that the UK has implemented this directive. Others will follow suit if they haven't already!
"On 15 March 2006 the European Union adopted the Data Retention Directive, on "the retention of data generated or processed in connection with the provision of publicly available electronic communications services or of public communications networks and amending Directive 2002/58/EC".[1][2] The Directive requires Member States to ensure that communications providers retain, for a period of between 6 months and 2 years, necessary data as specified in the Directive"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telecommunications_data_retention#European_Union [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
It couldn't be that national governments get their European counterparts to push through unpopular directives?
Or that Britain doesn't have a Veto.
You know you would think people would remember voting in Conservative MEP's and they are not aliens but members of the same political party that also has members in the national government.
It wasn't Microsoft attacking Linux it was SCO much easier to attack the sock puppet.
It's not the record labels making disproportionate attacks it's the RIAA.
It's not s
We need new protocols to defeat the govts (Score:2)
Maybe a HTTP over BitTorrent maybe.
Something that is not tcp, and encrypted (not just byte for byte ,but with -bogus bytes- mixed in to round up the size of traffic, so all files under 128 bytes will be all the same size, 128 bytes so LEOs cannot even use file sizes to narrow down your access).
Something that talks to many servers to get the content.
This would require a whole new server design, or proxy wrapper to existing http servers, but yeah bittorrent http would work.
A) bittorrent server can server all
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds kinda like Freenet. Or I2P. Or FCON. Or even Tor at this point. Except those are far more secure than BitTorrent.
Internet Freedom - piffle (Score:2)
The current government do not care about Internet Freedom.
What they do care about is Competitiveness .
UK Upholder of Web Freedom. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
There are also a large number of Irish people, a significant fraction of which used to sympathise with the the IRA..... .and we managed to resolve that issue without panopticon surveillance and giving up our human rights.
Re: (Score:2)
You can still remain silent but they can hold it against you as if it were some kind of admission of guilt to refuse to speak to the police.
(possibly paraphrasing) "You have the right to remain silent, but it may harm your defence if you fail to mention now something which you later rely on in court."
So staying silent itself shouldn't be held against you - suddenly remembering an alibi six months down the line might, though.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And I say it's the other way around. Let the battle of the unfounded assertions commence!
Seems to me that uncovering the truth would usually be the quickest route to a conviction, anyway.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The only significant terrorist attacks in the UK have been carried out by white Christians, generally Irish. Since these attacks were largely funded by US Republicans eager to help "the folks back home", maybe we should be watching Americans too, since they think it's okay to commit terrorist acts.
We've never had any bother from the Muslims here, at all.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
We've never had any bother from the Muslims here, at all.
Apart from the 77 bombings [wikipedia.org], the Glasgow Airport attack [newsmax.com], the Exetrer bomb attack [bbc.co.uk], shoe bomber and dozens of failed attempts and arrests [wikipedia.org].
Re:What some people don't realise (Score:4, Funny)
The Glasgow airport "attack" wasn't terrorism, it was two drunk Asian kids crashing a car. It happens all the time in Renfrew, it's a rough area.
Re: (Score:2)
The Glasgow airport "attack" wasn't terrorism, it was two drunk Asian kids crashing a car. It happens all the time in Renfrew, it's a rough area.
I suppose they all plant car bombs in London [dailymail.co.uk] before-hand, fill their cars with petrol and propane tanks, and that if they survive are Jailed for life for planned mass murder [bbc.co.uk]?
Re: (Score:2)
The Glasgow airport "attack" wasn't terrorism, it was two drunk Asian kids crashing a car loaded with propane canisters. It happens all the time in Renfrew, it's a rough area.
FTFY. Maybe you were trying to be funny, but, eh...
Re: (Score:2)
For it to be "terrorism", it would have to be in some way terrifying. It wasn't.
Re: (Score:2)
For it to be "terrorism", it would have to be in some way terrifying. It wasn't.
Attempted terrorism, if you must - and even if you mustn't, that's still only your opinion. I'm sure plenty of people were terrified at the time.
Re: (Score:2)
Most people at the time seemed to be thinking "aw, there's some shit going on outside, let's leave via the international arrivals hall, it's closer to the car park anyway". I'm sure *some* people were freaking out, but most people weren't.
Re:What some people don't realise (Score:5, Insightful)
What *you* have to realise that apart from the 77 bombings which were reasonably effective they were all pretty pitiful. The IRA terrorists really knew how to do terrorism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1996_Manchester_bombing [wikipedia.org]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyde_Park_and_Regent's_Park_bombings [wikipedia.org]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1996_Docklands_bombing [wikipedia.org]
But even those were nothing. You have to remember that our grandparents and parents lived through this. Nothing since has been comparable in anyway.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Blitz [wikipedia.org]
The whole point of terrorism is to instil terror. *NOT* to kill people. That's a side effect. While you react to them they're winning. So don't react. As Ben Franklin said, "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety"
Re: (Score:2)
Mustn't forget this one
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1993_Bishopsgate_bombing [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3)
The 77 bomings were marginally effective. They killed people, but not very many (sucks for those people and their relatives, bit it's small compared to almost anything else) and certainly less than the IRA could muster. It also killed off the few compentent ones.
The other attacks proved utterly worthless. At best, the terrorists managed to hurt themselves, or get beaten up by passengers (with some considerable relish, I might add).
Otherwise, they served to demonstrate that London has truly effective traffi
Re: (Score:3)
The only significant terrorist attacks in the UK have been carried out by white Christians .. We've never had any bother from the Muslims here, at all.
Talk about selective memory.. have you missed the last 10 years or so?
Does this not count as significant in your books?!
"The 7 July 2005 London bombings conducted by four separate Islamist extremist suicide bombers, killing 56 people and injuring 700."
Re: (Score:3)
Oh that? Hardly significant. Give me a shout when they get to multiple thousands, like the American-funded Irish terrorists.
Re: (Score:3)
What does this have to do with anything? Because you believe there are terrorists that means we should spy on everyone?
Same justification for the TSA. I'd say freedom is far more important than safety, and anyone who would give it up is extraordinarily credulous.
Re: (Score:2)
Breivik believes himself to be a patriot and his actions were in defence of his country.
It seems he hasn't managed to qualify as a madman either.
You see that is part of the problem. If we take the case of an earlier poster talking about the Muslim population in being a threat to England. Arguably that same poster might just see it as his patriotic duty to defend his country against the Muslim threat. Maybe he could become Englands Breivik. How do we know? Chances are someone liable to take action will list
Re: (Score:2)
Probably a depressingly large number. There are plenty of right wing extremist groups in the UK (BNP, NF, EDL, etc.), and I'm sure in the rest of the world, who might not have been entirely comfortable with a massacre of children at a summer camp, but sympathise with his motives. They invariably use their "Christian" identity as one of their defining features.
They'll still be only a tiny fraction of Christians as a whole, but on a simple count are a significant number people.
Re: (Score:2)
Hell, I bet if you were honest, you would say that you sympathize with his actions (without condoning them).
Don't be ridiculous, for one thing I cannot comprehend why he attacked a labour party camp, apparently all non-Muslims. Secondly even if he had attacked Muslims, this would be descending to their level. As I said, many Muslims disobey the Qur'an and Hadith by living peacefully with non-Muslims and treating them as equal. The security services should be ruthless in dealing with those supporting terror, people certainly shouldn't attack a mass group for the actions and belief of 6% of them.
Emphasis mine. And, you shouldn't attack a group of people for any percentage of them doing something you object to. Apart from being racist you're willingly giving up YOUR rights because of a false belief that because x% of people involved with religion/belief y that censorship and snooping is fine. You are wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
As I said, many Muslims disobey the Qur'an and Hadith by living peacefully with non-Muslims and treating them as equal.
How big of you to point out that not all Muslims are evil, and that the ones who reject their own religion can live in the civilized world.
The thing is, everyone picks and chooses from their sacred books. The Christians, for example, don't exactly follow these rules:
Re: (Score:2)
Not to mention the Catholics and their literal interpretation of "let the children come unto me"...