Quizzes & Puzzles3 mins ago
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Dom Tuk. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
I think it's a good thing, but I also think loudickson has a good point about encrypted hard drives. In this day and age, I think we need the old fashioned spies who infiltrate a neighbourhood and live amongst the 'suspects', but surely we also need internet spies who 'follow' suspects online, like a kind of updated version of Bletchley Park. If someone is a suspect, everything he does online needs to be tracked and deciphered. Is this as much a problem of laws not keeping pace with technology?
Hoorah for it's defeat !!!
The second post is precisely the reason the 90 day detention was so ill-thought-out and badly defined. So you think posession of an encrypted hard drive is grounds for 90 days of detention, loudickson71? And how do work that one out?
What does 'suspected' (of being a terrorist) mean anyway? What level of suspicion would have been required to justify 90 days' detention? The same degree of suspicion that justified the shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes on the tube at Stockwell?
You may think "Great, these people are terrorists, the longer we can lock them up while we gather evidence the better - let 'em rot!" - but then, when these laws are used on wholly innocent people; peaceful activists and protesters; computer 'geeks', anyone with a strong opinion that disagrees with the government, posters of a jokey comment on AnswerBank; then you'd better start watching out.
The laws that you wanted because they'd be used against them are now being used on you.
http://vigilant.tv/article/3160/psion-pgp-thwarts-italian-anti-terrorism-police
It can take at least 90 days to unencrypt a hard drive. If you have strong reason to believe someone is a terrorist, but need to check the hard drive for evidence, you cannot do this within 28 days.
Let the terrorist go free, cos that's what the bleeding heart liberals want. Let him go blow up a tube train. Even though you have good evidence on which to detain him while you make further checks.
It was the POLICE who asked for this.
We're not living in 1920.
I jus can't follow some of the logic ?? here.
Policeman, "Ah sir I see you have a laptop. Does it have an encrypted hard drive?".
Innocent passer-by, "Yes actually it does."
Policeman, "OK sir you had better come with me for 90 days."
Sorry, but I think the police would need a bit more evidence to arrest someone as a potential terrorist.
I don't know why they went for 90 days. What's wrong with re-applying every 30 days with sufficient evidence to have some doubts.
No doubt it's a victory for the Daily Mail.
Policeman, "Ah sir I see you have a laptop. Does it have an encrypted hard drive?".
Innocent passer-by, "Yes actually it does."
Policeman, "OK sir you had better come with me for 90 days."
Sorry, but I think the police would need a bit more evidence to arrest someone as a potential terrorist.
I don't know why they went for 90 days. What's wrong with re-applying every 30 days with sufficient evidence to have some doubts.
No doubt it's a victory for the Daily Mail.
We're not yet living in George Orwell's "1984" yet either.
Nice to see that some MPs still have a backbone and refuse to be dictated to, but the original need for a change in the law regarding detention without charge remains unanswered.
Whether or not it means a change of Prime Minister or a total revamp of our electoral system are questions still awaiting answer. Only time will tell.
Sorry lou - either you can decrypt a terrorist hardrive or you can't. If it takes 90 days (which some how I doubt) then that is really an issue of decryption, and the police's use of technology. If their computers are not good enough then fine, upgrade their technology. If they don't have the expertise, then train people up.
Using decryption as an excuse is the equivalent of saying - sorry sir, we can't take your finger prints as we don't have the necessary staff in place. We will have to detain you for 3 months before the staff will become available. Sorry for any inconvenience.
Justice is interested in securing convictions. You do that with evidence. Evidence now takes a lot of time to collate evidence and in some cases unencrypt it. Contact names/plans are all held on hard drives.
Without this evidence, you cannot hold the suspect beyond 28 days. They will be let go, despite there being good evidence that they are a threat and should be examined further, and they will continue to kill and maim.
You may have a less fragrant approach when you lose someone under this scenario.
Yes! Hooray! I want to live in a parliamentary democracy, not a police state. I want laws to be made by honourable members with a conscience and with a sense of liberty and logic, not to be dictated by a list of demands from a police force which is happy to shoot people willy-nilly and lie about it afterwards.
lou - do you read your own posts?
You say "it takes time to collate evidence and sometime unencrypt it" and "without this evidence you cannot hold the suspect beyond 28 days"
then go on to say "they will be let go despite there being good evidence that they are a threat"
So which is it? Is there evidence or not? If there is eveidence that they should be stopped, then why are they not being charged? Or is it the good old policeman's hunch?
"I may have a less fragrant approach" - yes I may well have. But looking at it logically, there have been less than 100 deaths in the UK down to terrorism. Compare that to any other death statistics and draw your own conclusions.
I thought the bill was to allow the police to hold suspects for up to 90 days.
I agree with Lou.
Why are we worrying about how aggrieved an individual may react if he/she has been held then subsequently released without charge? There will have been reasonable grounds for the arrest. Next you'll be suggesting we don't bother arresting anyone at all in case they get affronted and turn to terrorism in some kind of anti-establishment tantrum as a result.
Personally, I think it the 90 day law would have acted as more of a deterrent to those contemplating terrorist activity in the future.
Think about it. Obviously I'm using 'evidence' in two distinct ways.
The police need 'reasonable cause to believe ('evidence' in a way)' that someone has committed or is about to commit a crime before bringing them to custody. During that time in custody/questioning, evidence is gathered. You're just splitting hairs really, or not understanding the judicial process.
I quite agree with the point about the deaths. I think if you consider the number of deaths due to slip and trip, the police should be concentrating on that, rather than someone with a small bomb in preparation for the next London underground attack. No one in the UK would get scared of them anyway, so who cares if they take out 10/20, maybe even 50 like last time?
Lou. don't waste your breathe we're in a minority on here, but not in the country..
''victory for sanity' or a victory for the terrorists.
History will be the judge of that..not any of us, however certain some people think they have all the wisdom and clarity of thought.
Hope none of us on here will ever experience the loss of a relative at the hands of these islamic maniacs..and find out that one or more of them were let go after 28 days because of the lack of time for police to get sufficient evidence...the againsters won't have a out clause then in blaming blair...
How about a new law - lets lock up every Muslim in the country. Just in case one of them turns out to be a suicide bomber in the making. And if you don't agree to pass this law, and there is a suicide bomb attack on this country - well I TOLD YOU SO.
incidentally Elfin - somehow I doubt that if I was going to be a suicide bomber I would be put off by a potential 90 day lock up charge.
Surfer Mike - No, sorry but I believe you are in a minority on here and in the country
the>one:
i'm with lou.....i'd rather see somebody innocent locked up for 90 days than hundreds of deaths....
The whole point about the 90-day proposal being defeated is that it is not a choice between those two options. Innocent people being locked up for 90 days would make it more likely that there will be hundreds of terrorist deaths. It would result in disinterested people becoming alienated and radicalised by the experience.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.