What the hell were the last two decades?

[Syt]

CROP YOUR FUCKING QUOTES

[Barrister]

I'm an American;  we generally don't trust the govenment except when it comes to domestic policy.

The question as posed is a question of domestic policy.

[Martinus]

I'm an American;  we generally don't trust the govenment except when it comes to domestic policy.

Yup, that's the Polish way as well. BB is brainwashed into "serving the Crown" though.

[Barrister]

I'm an American;  we generally don't trust the govenment except when it comes to domestic policy.

Yup, that's the Polish way as well. BB is brainwashed into "serving the Crown" though.

Again with the ad hominem attacks Martinus. 

You again didn't address a single thing I said, and instead chose to attack my employer.

Withdraw from the debate if you feel you must.  But don't just stand there attacking me personally without commenting on the substance of my comments.

[Richard Hakluyt]

Though I also agree with RH's general dissatisfaction at the illiberal Home Secretaries we've had since Michael Howard.  What annoys me most, though, is the erosion of little freedoms and differences, and in councils the sort of hesitance and ungenerousness that a fear of litigation produces.

I would group these together, throw in the OTT "child protection" policies and we are engaged on a course of significant social change.

A very bad change IMO, hence my grumpiness on these issues 

[Martinus]

I'm an American;  we generally don't trust the govenment except when it comes to domestic policy.

Yup, that's the Polish way as well. BB is brainwashed into "serving the Crown" though.

Again with the ad hominem attacks Martinus. 

You again didn't address a single thing I said, and instead chose to attack my employer.

Withdraw from the debate if you feel you must.  But don't just stand there attacking me personally without commenting on the substance of my comments.

I gave you my concerns. You dismissed them as irrelevant. There isn't much more to it, really. It's simply a difference of principles, not a difference of logical argument. Either you get it or you don't - the concerns I (and others) voiced apparently don't exist for you.

[Martinus]

Besides, it is funny BB, that for someone who does not believe in social change when it comes to fundamental rights of people such as is the case with gay marriage (wasn't your argument once that while you cannot come up with a single coherent argument why allowing gay marriage is bad, the burden of proving its benefits is on the people who advocate it, since it involves social change?), you would usher in a massive social change that would follow from this continuing erosion of privacy, without a second thought.

I don't know where you got the idea that you are a conservative from. You are a statist, pure and simple.

[Crazy_Ivan80]

What if safeguards were put in place so it couldn't be misused?

In particular your example that a recording could be altered.  We've dealt with such 'problems' for years in dealing with, say, 911 calls.  Since the government is obliged to maintain the original recording it's never been an issue.  Not to mention if a government employee did deliberately tamper with such a recording it would by itself be a criminal charge.

safeguards can and will fail, laws can be changed, data can go corrupt...
Better be careful with the idea that it's okay to be watched all the time, we've had a few societies during the 20th century where it was actually tried.

[Martinus]

BB, and other Anglosaxon lawyers - could I ask you something, btw? This is not a troll or an ad hom - just an honest question and I'd appreciate if it was answered in the same vein. My question comes from the observation that often we do not exactly see eye to eye when it comes to constitutional and civil rights issues, and perhaps this is somehow based in different education basics we received.

So the question goes: did your legal education (especially when it comes to the concept or "theory" of law) stress the following message:

"One of the most fundamental principles of the rule of law, and one of the chief differences between rights of an individual and powers of the state, is that individuals are permitted to do anything that is not expressly prohibited and the state is prohibited from doing anything that it is not expressly permitted to do"?

[The Brain]

You seem to suffer an extreme misunderstanding of the basis of a free society. The people need not present arguments for why they should have specific liberties, instead it is the one arguing for such a vast infringement on the liberty of the people that must present compelling evidence that such infringement is necessary for the people's safety and that such safety can be safeguarded in no other way.

Please demonstrate why a CCTV camera in a public place is any kind of 'infringement of liberty', vast or not.

You are correct.  In a constitutional analysis, if any intrusion upon the privacy of an individual is done by the state, the government must show a basis for that intrusion.  But you have put the cart before the horse.  What is the intrusion upon privacy by a CCTV camera?

Why are you talking about CCTV when the question was about recording conversations?

[Barrister]

BB, and other Anglosaxon lawyers - could I ask you something, btw? This is not a troll or an ad hom - just an honest question and I'd appreciate if it was answered in the same vein.

So by implication everything else you've said in this thread is a troll and/or an ad hom?

My question comes from the observation that often we do not exactly see eye to eye when it comes to constitutional and civil rights issues, and perhaps this is somehow based in different education basics we received.

So the question goes: did your legal education (especially when it comes to the concept or "theory" of law) stress the following message:

"One of the most fundamental principles of the rule of law, and one of the chief differences between rights of an individual and powers of the state, is that individuals are permitted to do anything that is not expressly prohibited and the state is prohibited from doing anything that it is not expressly permitted to do"?

No, and that wouldn't be a legal principle recognized in a Westminster-style democracy.

The first part is correct - people can do anything unless expressly prohibited.

However the second part isn't.  "The state" can do anything unless prohibited by the constitution.

Edit: and in the UK of course there is no constitution.  The state can do anything that Parliament approves (subject to EU and international treaties).

[Barrister]

What if safeguards were put in place so it couldn't be misused?

In particular your example that a recording could be altered.  We've dealt with such 'problems' for years in dealing with, say, 911 calls.  Since the government is obliged to maintain the original recording it's never been an issue.  Not to mention if a government employee did deliberately tamper with such a recording it would by itself be a criminal charge.

safeguards can and will fail, laws can be changed, data can go corrupt...
Better be careful with the idea that it's okay to be watched all the time, we've had a few societies during the 20th century where it was actually tried.

So if 'safeguards can and will fail', should the government give up on keeping any records?  Should we throw out fingerprint and DNA databanks?  Should police shred their notebooks at the end of the day (or week,or year, or whatever)?

I'm sorry, that's an extremely simplistic answer.

The government already has extremely detailed information on you, your activities, your behaviours, etc.  I am amazed how much information I can sometimes gather on a person as a part of my job.  Now I (and the entire government) take the privacy concerns very seriously (and we're constantly in fear of running afoul of privacy laws), but the information is there.

Now perhaps you can state what is fundamentally different about CCTV cameras than about any other kind of information, but I haven't seen it yet.

[Barrister]

I gave you my concerns. You dismissed them as irrelevant. There isn't much more to it, really. It's simply a difference of principles, not a difference of logical argument. Either you get it or you don't - the concerns I (and others) voiced apparently don't exist for you.

I've gone back through the thread.  While it's hard for me to find any argument put forward by you in between all the ad homs, all I've seen you say is that you don't like CCTVs and you somehow believe that what happens on a public street should be private.

The concern about that kind of data being misused is real and safeguards and protocols should be put in place, but I still haven't seen any philosophical argument that makes CCTV cameras as inherently wrong.

[dps]

I'm an American;  we generally don't trust the govenment except when it comes to domestic policy.

The question as posed is a question of domestic policy.

Meant to say except when it comes to foreign policy.     

[dps]

"One of the most fundamental principles of the rule of law, and one of the chief differences between rights of an individual and powers of the state, is that individuals are permitted to do anything that is not expressly prohibited and the state is prohibited from doing anything that it is not expressly permitted to do"?

No, and that wouldn't be a legal principle recognized in a Westminster-style democracy.

The first part is correct - people can do anything unless expressly prohibited.

However the second part isn't.  "The state" can do anything unless prohibited by the constitution.

Edit: and in the UK of course there is no constitution.  The state can do anything that Parliament approves (subject to EU and international treaties).

From a U.S. perspective, the Federal government is supposed to only have the powers expressly granted to it by the Constitution but the courts have often interpreted those powers so broadly that I'm not sure that it means anything. 

The individual states, however, aren't bound to expressly granted powers even in theory.