why are people worried about investigatory powers act? sorry

>>17797247
>if you do nothing wrong what do you have to worry about?
It doesn't really matter. Faggots used it to spy on exes and look up personal info for the keks. Outside of low level abuse like that, some pissed off worker could frame you or release that shit to the public, simply because he had a bad day, it doesn't even need to be personal. It also can be personal because you fucked his wife or something.

AND then we get to the chance of a regime change, where it's going to be extra dangerous. What if the new government outlaws watching shemale porn?

AND then there is the chance that somebody else gets the data, government workers aren't known for their competence and it creates a great initiative for hackers, be it foreign governments or a fat dude with nothing else to do. This is all when you're an average person, once you're semi important like a journalist, the danger quadruples.

This are just the practical worries. From privacy POV it's also simply not cool if you're not having any and might influence how you act. It's not too different from having webcams installed in your place.

>dont the police/government do stuff like this anyway?
Maybe in fucked up countries like US or UK where the population is cucked by fear of unicorns and other unlikely shit like terrorism.

Do you realise that the government is made up of people? Like, when someone reads your messages, or looks at videos you took, etc, it's not Government Drone #249 doing it, it's Steve, who's now jerking off to the nudes you have on your computer of your girlfriend.

>dont the police/government do stuff like this anyway?
The only way they can legally violate your privacy is by presenting a case to a court as to why they think it's necessary to do so, and getting a warrant from the court. The judiciary thus acts as protector of the rights of the citizen. Widespread surveillance is therefore offensive on two ground:
1/It allows the executive to bypass a power that should belong to the judiciary, therefore insulting the separation of powers.
2/It treats every citizen as though they are a suspect.

>i get the "you have a right to privacy" blah blah
I don't understand how you can be this dismissive. Just because you don't value your privacy doesn't mean nobody else should be allowed to.

>>17797274

>I don't understand how you can be this dismissive. Just because you don't value your privacy doesn't mean nobody else should be allowed to.

maybe its because im depressed and dont care about life, but seriously.. whats the worst that can happen? as long as everything you are doing is legal?

>>17797266
>What if the new government outlaws watching shemale porn?
then i'll stop watching it? pretty simple huh?

>>17797283
It's legal to take a shit, it doesn't mean I want someone watching me do it.

>>17797298
whats the worst that could happen if someone just watched you taking a shit?
because i seriously wouldn't care less if somebody wanted to watch..

>>17797287
You still have a history of doing something that's considered illegal now, which can be easy used against you. Besides, they might prosecute ex shemaleporn watches to be on the safe side.

>>17797312
Well, how can I possibly explain how normal people think to a person who has no self-respect and doesn't understand human dignity?

ok so its just the tin foil hat society who are paranoid about this?

>>17797312
And just because YOU don't care it's alright to impose a law on others?

How about executing fatasses?

Because these surveillance powers are being used to persecute those to challenge the status quo. protestors, investigative journalists, wikileaks, etc. I think these groups are necessary and should not be the focus of excessive government surveillance

>I think these groups are necessary and should not be the focus of excessive government surveillance

why do you think its ok for investigative journalists and wikileaks to breach privacy and not the government?

>>17797351
waiting...

>>17797351
Investigative journalists don't spy on everybody.

>>17797381
i highly doubt the government will waste their time and money spying on what jumper helen wants to order from m&s

>>17797394
Because governments are know for efficiency, right?

Besides, as another anon already explained, government isn't some kind of magical AI. It's people like you and me.

>>17797416
ok and then what?
so steve knows that i want to buy black shoes for work tomorow from clarks...
ok now what?
is he going to go to the shop before me and hide all the pairs before i get there so i cant buy them? or is he going to do nothing?

>>17797247
>im sure they could check your internet history long before this bill was passed?
Pretty much this. I don't know why people made a big deal out of Snowden. If you didn't realize that governments have that in depth an ability to spy on people you're a moron, and if you didn't realize they would abuse that power you're especially a moron.

I agree it's bullshit and believe we should be allowed some privacy but there's frankly nothing we can do about it. Fighting it is pointless.

>>17797425
>is he going to go to the shop before me
To wait and rape you because you didn't notice him in 3rd grade.
Besides, there is enough less harmless but perfectly legal information about you.

You got tons of examples why it's a bad idea.

>>17797452
Like?
Just 1 good example please...
For the past 2 hours I've been doing this on different websites and have yet not received 1 solid reason I should care about this

>>17797466
Just check the thread.

>and have yet not received 1 solid reason I should care about this
"I have nothing to say, what's the point of freedom of speech?"
"I never got robbed, what's the point of cops?"
"I don't want to vote, what's the point of democracy?"

And so on.

>>17797486
Well people in this thread have freedom of speech and have just been talking shit so maybe we don't need it

Do cops walk around with you 24.7 to make sure you don't get robbed?

The same people who voted are the ones crying now about this bill

So... I don't see the point you were making?

>>17797495
>so maybe we don't need it
"There is no point to freedom of speech unless people use it to say what I want"

>Do cops walk around with you 24.7 to make sure you don't get robbed?
The fact that we do have cops and an executive part of a system discourages most. Just like having no freedom of speech and no privacy would discourage any critical thought about the government, slowly leading into dictatorship. There are enough historical and modern examples.

>The same people who voted are the ones crying now about this bill
How do you know they voted in support for it? The shit barely got any attention because UK was too busy committing economical suicide. I doubt the majority even knows it exist and even fewer understand the consequences.

>I don't see the point you were making?
In the lines of "Why do we need an educational system if I don't care about learning."

Feel free to post your private info here as protest against privacy and all.

>>17797534
>How do you know they voted in support for it?
It's in their files.

>>17797577
Touché.

>>17797247
Even though this shit has been going on for longer now, putting it into legislative form is another step towards fucking real-time monitoring of our communication.

Suddenly a crazy imagined scenario doesn't sound so crazy anymore: you want to buy or rent a house/apartment that just happened to be within 5 miles of a school? Sorry mate, application denied, because we have records of you whacking it to furry porn.

The worst thing about this act isn't even the monitoring itself, but rather who has access to the personalised data.

>if you do nothing wrong what do you have to worry about?
This is why you can't even buy cutlery without an ID in the UK.

>>17797394

You haven't looked into xkeyscore and prism, right?

>>17797635
>rather who has access to the personalised data.
Should've studied in school and became a food inspector, so you can blackmail all your school bullies, now you're fucked :)

>>17797247
They are not effective, a waste of money and give the government too much control. I believe in smaller government. Let the people have more power.

>>17797651
It's not even a small-big government debate, it's paving the way to a surveillance state and even most die hard statists don't like that.

>>17797364
Didn't tag my post so i missed it.

OK, maybe wikileaks was a bad example, but if those in power won't be transparent than we must fall to means such as email dumps.

Investigative journalists help keep those in power accountable, and i think that's needed because power is corrupting

>>17797394
>>17797425
>>17797466
Just because you're boring doesn't mean other people aren't. If you don't care about the human rights abuses of those who speak up against injustice, then yeah you probably shouldn't care

>>17797641
Well, why do you need cutlery? What the fuck do you need to eat that can't be eaten with a plastic spork? And why the fuck do you need to eat it?

>>17797247
Because definitions of what is "wrong" can change, and what you don't have to worry about today might be what the government starts prying into tomorrow.

Case in point: 20 years ago the government didn't give a damn whether you were Muslim or not.

20 years ago collecting child porn might be something to be ashamed about, but it wouldn't get you in jail.

Ten years ago, getting your girlfriend to send you nudes and then showing them around was bad form, but not likely to get you in jail.

Who know what is sitting on your computer today, perfectly legally, that will be illegal tomorrow?

You really have to consider the scale of information out there on people, every call you've made, every text, call, email, post, detailed financial information, every uncouth social media comment,made detailed address and employment information, years of web browsing history, every person in your social network.

People act differently she they believe they are being observed.
If you've ever had any strong political or religious views you should be concerned.

If you've ever been involved in anything illegal or even just adjacent to it you should be concerned.

Imagine if every person you knew that has used drugs at any point was held liable, every minor traffic violation was recorded, every painful personal conversation, existed forever.

The stakes are huge.

>>17798133
In that case I'm not worried in the slightest.... again... if you have not done or said anything wrong, there's no reason to worry

>people are still falling for this bait

>>17798156
Your mum is bait

>>17798133
>Imagine if every person you knew that has used drugs at any point was held liable, every minor traffic violation was recorded, every painful personal conversation, existed forever.
Sounds like a perfect society, why would you want to get away with crime?

>>17797247
Have you read 1984. Right to privacy or give everyone access to all personal non threatening(SSN, bank numbers). I should be able to browse YOUR history then if you think privacy doesnt matter.

>>17799323
go ahead lad

>>17799313

>hurt durr if'n you ain't done nothin' you ain't got nothin' to fear may may

You want to live in a Panopticon? I don't.

>>17799446
Why not? You're already in it and you're doing just fine.

File: i want to know just what a government agency that certifies this would look like.jpg (49KB, 500x379px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 500x379px

>>17797247
Okay, you are fine with them watching every inch of your online life. If it means catching a crook, cool.

Well, if they gave powers to the cops to search your car and house, bathroom, your child's anus, just to be sure no one is being a criminal around you, that's even better.

And before you say these things are ridiculous, check with airport security. They love diddling children in the name of your safety.

>>17797283
Are you 100% positively absolutely sure you're not doing anything illegal? The average person commits multiple crimes, even felonies, every day without realizing it.

Personally even if my candydoll collection is legal, I know I'd still be getting massive grief over it that I want nothing to do with.

>>17799421
its fine. You either belong to the camp where privacy doesnt exist, or you belong to the camp where privacy is a right. As long as you dont mind anyone being able to pull up a web browser and watch you when you shower, piss, eat, sleep, and no your location at all times you are consistent and I cant really find a fault there.

2 days ive been looking for an answer to why people are paranoid and have not received one lmao... I guess its just the guilty people who have things to hide who are worried..

>>17797247

They already know OP.
That being said, being alright with it because you have nothing to hide, is like saying that you don't care about freedom of speech because you don't have anything to say.

>>17799686
why would someone with nothing to say care about freedom of speech? this is the stupidest thing I have ever heard

>>17799690

Are you retarded?

>>17799692
maybe I am

>>17799692
you didn't answer the question though... just like everyone else you duck the questions and just say some bullshit to make the question sound stupid

>>17799716

Your question was kinda stupid tho.

>>17799716

Alright, I'll bite.
Nobody should need to justify why the 'need' a right. The burden of justification should fall on the one seeking to infringe said right.

Your question shows that you lack a basic understanding of human rights. Happy?

>>17799732
humans have no rights... sad that you people feel you're entitled to things when you're not..
why do humans deserve rights?

>>17799750

Oh go away.

>>17797247
>i get the "you have a right to privacy" blah blah but if you do nothing wrong what do you have to worry about?

Your right to privacy you fucking retard. Would it be OK to you if the government installed cameras in every room of your house? Of course it would be because this thread is shitty bait.

>>17799750
Hahaha weak ass bait, faggot

>>17799750
Wow this retard

>>17797247
Just because you're not doing something wrong now, doesn't mean it won't be judged to be wrong later.

Stfu i dont care if i am or not doing something qrong gtfo troll

>>17800692
I meant judged by the government, you idiot.

Unless watching shemale porn becomes illegal I'm fine.. but you guys know you're doing something ilegal or border line legal and thats why you're so scared

>>17797247
>but if you do nothing wrong what do you have to worry about?
Mistakes, bias and all the other practical shit. You might as well ask why you have the right to be present at your own trial and give your own version of events. People get a ton of simple shit wrong, read all kinds of nonsense into things, and often miss key details that make it obvious that there's nothing wrong going on.
The problem is they don't stick to surveillance, they'll stick you on no-fly lists, disallow you from transferring money, prevent you from passing background checks etc. and you have no real recourse even if you do manage to prove/realize that something is going on, and no real way of knowing what to avoid in the first place. The institutions that perform this kind of thing are often pretty defensive and secretive about their business, so it's not like you can just waltz in and ask them to fix their mistake.

>>17801245
>>17797247
A good example of this is the guy that was nearly convicted of child pornography for possessing movies of Lupe Fuentes. He had to contact her directly, and she produced the proof that she was of legal age when all the movies were produced that he had. Look it up.

>>17797247
"wrong" depends on who's watching


Anyways we've been under surveillance for decades. It's just more openly legal now.

>>17797283
yeah go ahead and consider suicide

>>17797283
I don't do everything legally though. That's my problem with the Snoopers Charter.

It's like watching someone take a shit. They don't have anything to hide. Everyone's turds come out of the same hole. But do you think they're comfortable with you staring at them while they squeeze one out?

I respect privacy and do not appreciate the govt trying to destroy it.

>>17797283
>oooh maan, my life, whats even the point, why care about anything. discussion about net nuetrality and investigatory powers is really the only thing that keeps me going please entertain my retarded thread.

fuck off fuckhat. you do realize this can backfire and actually do harmful shit right? what if some company is working on trch and already invested tons of r&d, youre saying its okay for some random government workers to have direct access to their work AFTER theve spent assloads of effort only to tip off to some rival company? do you know how incentive killing that is

oh by the fuck way, governments that dont want you watching shemale porn have a tendency to make their laws retroactive you fuckhead so its not a matter of 'stopping'