Police "to be" granted power to view your Internet History [UK]

[Bensemus]

i dont know what laws you guys have over there but in canada if a cop asks to look at your phone or computer you have to give them your pw or you can be arrested

Thats only true if you are under arrest. A cop can't stop you on the street and just ask to see your phone. It was brought to the supreme court and past in a 4-3 split so it might change in the future. 

[stconquest]

Thats only true if you are under arrest. A cop can't stop you on the street and just ask to see your phone. It was brought to the supreme court and past in a 4-3 split so it might change in the future. 

 

Nah, Harper's out... chances of it passing (in the near future) are slimmer... hopefully

[IAMSWIFT1]

Ohh No They Can See The Porn I Watch,Thats It/S

But I Do Think They Shouldn't Be Able To,They Should Have To Contact The ISP To Get That Info

[Arty]

i dont know what laws you guys have over there but in canada if a cop asks to look at your phone or computer you have to give them your pw or you can be arrested

 

 

The nothing to hide argument again is it?

 

 

 

Would be fine if someone was to sit with you at the bathroom everyday because you have nothing to hide? 

 

Nope!

Anyone who plays nothing to hide is a retard mother fucker

 

The jews had nothing to hide,

and look what happened to those people

[Arty]

Thats only true if you are under arrest. A cop can't stop you on the street and just ask to see your phone. It was brought to the supreme court and past in a 4-3 split so it might change in the future. 

same with teachers /\ they can't search your phone.

[GSTARR]

 

If there's a requirement for the police to present a warrant before checking, then there's room for compromise...

 

My conditions:

• requirement for court issued warrant
• owner of said internet history must be present during the checking of said history
• checking of history must be limited to time period stated in warrant

 

Why. Just why. You obviously don't work a desk job or anything to do with paperwork. You just added another two weeks to a case that can range from murder {time happens to be important} to fraud {time also happens to be important}.

[Bensemus]

Nah, Harper's out... chances of it passing (in the near future) are slimmer... hopefully

I didn't think of that

Hopefully you are right.

[stconquest]

I didn't think of that

Hopefully you are right.

 

It should not affect the decisions made by the judges, but it should affect what they are deciding on... They might not have to judge on such stupid things while Trudeau's Gov. is in power... time will tell.

[Snickerzz]

So, there is some poor policeman that has to view my internet histroy? I already feel sorry for the bastard.

Me too all the kinky pron

[Bensemus]

Me too all the kinky pron

lol

[DigitalHermit]

Why. Just why. You obviously don't work a desk job or anything to do with paperwork. You just added another two weeks to a case that can range from murder {time happens to be important} to fraud {time also happens to be important}.

 

Exactly...

 

Private information is still private information regardless of who holds it. Disclosure and transparency is needed when it comes to this.

 

By being denied access without a warrant (issued by court, presented to person in question + holder of information, within 1 week prior to start of opening of files related to internet history), we eliminate the possibility that private information would be used for purposes outside that stated in the warrant..

 

by having the 'suspect' present at the time of inspection of evidence, an arrest can also be made easier...

 

and yes, I've worked a desk job... but the organization was efficient as f*ck so I think that this would be possible if implemented correctly...

[soaringchicken]

already allowed in Australia

[Sanctuary2808]

So the UK is getting it's own version of our "metadata retention law". Poor things.

[GSTARR]

Exactly...

 

Private information is still private information regardless of who holds it. Disclosure and transparency is needed when it comes to this.

 

By being denied access without a warrant (issued by court, presented to person in question + holder of information, within 1 week prior to start of opening of files related to internet history), we eliminate the possibility that private information would be used for purposes outside that stated in the warrant..

 

by having the 'suspect' present at the time of inspection of evidence, an arrest can also be made easier...

 

and yes, I've worked a desk job... but the organization was efficient as f*ck so I think that this would be possible if implemented correctly...

What do you mean exactly.  That didn't at all expand upon the topic I presented. You provided no counter argument to the fact that someone might get away with something because nobody pressed fucking ctrl-H on their computer. Doesn't sound like it happens much, but with hundreds of millions of people, you do the math

And the fact that you have to mention that the job was efficient "as f*ck" proves that most aren't. So that was irrelevant

[Swndlr]

Police going through my internet history:

"What the fuck did I just see?" - Police

Theyd be more so scarred than benefited

[DigitalHermit]

What do you mean exactly.  That didn't at all expand upon the topic I presented. You provided no counter argument to the fact that someone might get away with something because nobody pressed fucking ctrl-H on their computer. Doesn't sound like it happens much, but with hundreds of millions of people, you do the math

And the fact that you have to mention that the job was efficient "as f*ck" proves that most aren't. So that was irrelevant

 

Law enforcement will be viewing the history from the ISP's logs and not the user's logs.. the ISP's logs are harder to tamper by the suspect...

also, the ISP has a near 1-1 correspondence between user and telco account... not to mention that legit IDs are needed to apply for an internet connection...

 

Please read the article again...

 

it's not a matter of pressing ctrl+h on the suspect's computer... it's pressing ctrl+h on the computer and verifying the records with the ISP...

 

the weakness of the system is that should the suspect encrypt his traffic, other methods will have to be taken to disprove innocence...

[Albatross]

No they shouldn't (certain situations apply though and certainly NEVER without a warrant) and I'm getting really tired of that "nothing to hide" crap being used as an argument. It makes absolutely no sense...

[dfsdfgfkjsefoiqzemnd]

not to mention that legit IDs are needed to apply for an internet connection...

 

Not if you use a smartphone with a prepaid SIM that has data options.  Sure, it's more expensive, but it's an unregistered connection. 

Of course it's only as anonymous as your precautions are thorough. 

[vanished]

First of all, if this is what it appears to be, it means that companies must keep a record of things done on their network.  Since I can't imagine anyone doing anything bad in any way at work, I can't imagine how this could be an issue; it's not like they're making ISPs keep a list of all network activity.  In short, your personal browsing at home should be totally unaffected.

 

Second, I seem to have missed the part where they are able to tie any specific traffic to a particular user.  It says they have to keep records on what sites were accessed... ok, so by who?

 

Finally, for these reasons and others, how will this in any way help solve crimes!?

[vXhanz]

 

 

Finally, for these reasons and others, how will this in any way help solve crimes!?

 

I don't think this will do much to "solve" crimes, but be used as a preventative measure to keep things from happening in the future. Someone looking at materials to make bombs or blow up schools would be of interest to LEO's especially if they can start early surveillance. They could get in contact with that person and dupe them into thinking they were getting "real" bomb making material and show intent. That would of course lead into the people who are into making/sharing/looking up kiddie porn and other gross stuff like that. 

 

That being said, do I agree with this? No. I think there needs to be probable cause to initiate a search like that. 

[Kamina]

UK a police state. Coming to you, soon... IN USA.

[Photonic]

As long as they are not going to be spying through the internet i will be knda od fine for it but i would hate if some police officer said they were going to check my history

 

Can't wait to move to Canada

[TacticlTwinkie]

The police should not be able to view anyone's internet history freely. It doesn't matter if you have nothing to hide or not. It is a violation of everyone's freedom of privacy. Privacy isn't something the government bestows upon you, it is a basic human right. Without some sort of warrant, the police have no right to go snooping about what you have done on the Internet.

[Delicieuxz]

 

I bet some of you are thinking "Why the hell did you vote yes?!!!!". Well, I think they have every right to view it. I have nothing to hide, even if I did I guess there are ways around it such as VPN (unless they have access to that as well).

 

 

You having nothing to hide does not mean that there is a right for another to view your history. Are you not a real person? If you're calling it a right of the police to view your history, then you're making yourself property of the police, and your life subject to their determinations. If it is the police's right to decide whether to view your computer activity, then it therefore is not your right to manage your computer activity, and decide whether to open it up to another person.

 

And if it is not your right to decide regarding those things, then how is it valid for you to give an opinion on this subject matter? By saying it is the police's right to view your history, you're saying you don't possess the right to control your activity and make your own decisions regarding it - therefore, where does your right to have an opinion on the matter come from, since you don't have the experience of knowing what the value of holding rights over your own activity is, since you claim to not have rights over your own activity?

 

By saying the police have every right, you're saying that you have none, and therefore you are less than a full person. Therefore, your opinion is also of less value than one that comes from a full person, who retains possession of themselves and doesn't whimsically cede themselves into the hands of police, or anyone else.

 

 

Having nothing to hide doesn't mean you mandatorily have to prove it. If you really have nothing to hide, then you wouldn't feel as though you needed to make a point of it.

[Delicieuxz]

Remember that policing is one of the professions most populated by psychopaths, and that this basically means that police are among those who can be trusted least of all, out of all society - and that they will exploit and take advantage of much, and be dishonest about much, as to many of them, a truth and a lie are equal tools to achieve their objective. People shouldn't be ambivalently handing anything over to them.