http://www.itpro.co.uk/public-sector...ata-collection

dennis@home wrote

http://www.itpro.co.uk/public-sector...ata-collection

That isnt a cost, its a benefit.

Makes no sense that the UK parliament can't do what it decides should be
done.

On 23/12/16 18:12, Rod Speed wrote:
dennis@home wrote

http://www.itpro.co.uk/public-sector...ata-collection


That isnt a cost, its a benefit.

Makes no sense that the UK parliament can't do what it decides should be
done.


The government is not your friend. We need to be protected from bad
government. The EU could do that and now it will be gone. So we aren't
taking back control, we are just handing it to someone else.
TW

On 24/12/16 02:29, TimW wrote:
On 23/12/16 18:12, Rod Speed wrote:
dennis@home wrote

http://www.itpro.co.uk/public-sector...ata-collection



That isnt a cost, its a benefit.

Makes no sense that the UK parliament can't do what it decides should be
done.


The government is not your friend. We need to be protected from bad
government. The EU could do that and now it will be gone. So we aren't
taking back control, we are just handing it to someone else.
TW

The government is not your friend. We need to be protected from bad
government. The EU was exactly that and so we left. So we are
taking back control, and handing it to someone else. Someone we can vote
out next election.

TFTFY

"TimW" wrote in message
news
On 23/12/16 18:12, Rod Speed wrote:
dennis@home wrote

http://www.itpro.co.uk/public-sector...ata-collection


That isnt a cost, its a benefit.

Makes no sense that the UK parliament can't do what it decides should be
done.


The government is not your friend.

Dont need friends, got plenty of those.

What we all need is sensible legislation.

We need to be protected from bad government.

That is what the constitution is there for.

The EU could do that

Like hell it could. It was in fact the worst approach
to govt, policy decided by unelected bureaucrats who
can't even be sacked when they **** up badly enough.

Merkel can be given the bums rush at the ballot box
now that she ****ed up so spectacularly encouraging
more than a million illegals to move to Germany.

Nothing can be done now that the EU has been stupid enough
to allow them to pour in in much larger numbers to the EU.

and now it will be gone.

And so that completely stupid approach to govt should be.

So we aren't taking back control,

Even sillier than you usually manage with who
gets to decide that sort of government policy.

The British parliament gets to do that, again.

we are just handing it to someone else.

Even sillier than you usually manage, remoaner.

On 23/12/2016 15:32, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Fri, 23 Dec 2016 14:33:02 +0000, dennis@home
wrote:

http://www.itpro.co.uk/public-sector...ata-collection

The terrorists must be delighted.


It should make no difference! The ruling is that it is unlawful to
collect this data for EVERY person in the country and for the
authorities to have 'free' access as a matter of routine.

If someone is suspected of being involved in crime/terrorism then the
authorities can still obtain a court order and get the information, as
they have always been able to do.


--
mailto: news {at} admac {dot] myzen {dot} co {dot} uk

On Saturday, 24 December 2016 08:40:12 UTC, alan_m wrote:
On 23/12/2016 15:32, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Fri, 23 Dec 2016 14:33:02 +0000, dennis@home
wrote:

http://www.itpro.co.uk/public-sector...ata-collection

The terrorists must be delighted.


It should make no difference! The ruling is that it is unlawful to
collect this data for EVERY person in the country and for the
authorities to have 'free' access as a matter of routine.

If someone is suspected of being involved in crime/terrorism then the
authorities can still obtain a court order and get the information, as
they have always been able to do.

They need to be able to identify suspects from suspicious traffic, not vice versa.
Have you got something to hide?

On 24/12/16 10:47, harry wrote:
They need to be able to identify suspects from suspicious traffic, not vice versa.
Have you got something to hide?

Who hasn't, from someone?

Cf Hillary Clinton....

the point is once the data is held somewhere, the potential exists for
someone else to get hold of it...

On 24/12/2016 08:47, harry wrote:


They need to be able to identify suspects from suspicious traffic, not vice versa.
Have you got something to hide?



The authorities first have to identify from the 100s of millions of
daily calls or internet accesses which are the destination/source for
this suspicious traffic. Do you not think that once identified the
authorities do not already (legally or illegally) monitor this traffic?

Do you believe that these days with all the publicity that terrorists
still set up accounts in their own name and address in order to
communicate with each other? For £15 you can buy a basic mobile phone,
put in an untraceable PAYG SIM and make a few calls before tossing it
away.

Certain legislation will only work if everyone is law abiding. It does
nothing to stop criminal activities.

--
mailto: news {at} admac {dot] myzen {dot} co {dot} uk

On 24/12/16 11:17, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , TimW
wrote:

On 23/12/16 18:12, Rod Speed wrote:
dennis@home wrote


http://www.itpro.co.uk/public-sector...ow-for-snooper

s-charter-as-eu-court-bans-mass-data-collection


That isnt a cost, its a benefit.

Makes no sense that the UK parliament can't do what it decides should be
done.


The government is not your friend. We need to be protected from bad
government. The EU could do that and now it will be gone. So we aren't
taking back control, we are just handing it to someone else.

Someone else that we have some ability to vote out of office. Unlike
the EU Commissioners who can't be voted out (but perhaps you hadn't
noticed that), or the EU Parliament where, yes, there are elections,
but they don't make any substantial difference to the make up of the
Parliament.

You need to understand that, in those European countries that use PR,
the notion of a permanent political *class* is much more embedded than
it is here.


Yes, and they naively believe that makes them better at running stuff,
whereas we can see that it actually makes them worse.

In my view,non targeted data collection only leads to a mountain of data
nobody can sift through. Without at least collecting it as needed it seems
to be a total waste of everyone's time in the current state of the art.
Brian

--
----- -
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...

Blind user, so no pictures please!
"dennis@home" wrote in message
eb.com...
http://www.itpro.co.uk/public-sector...ata-collection

On 24/12/2016 09:51, Brian Gaff wrote:
In my view,non targeted data collection only leads to a mountain of data
nobody can sift through. Without at least collecting it as needed it seems
to be a total waste of everyone's time in the current state of the art.
Brian


If you collect it and then identify someone of interest you can then
sift through the data looking for others to be interested in.

In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Chris Hogg
wrote:

On Fri, 23 Dec 2016 14:33:02 +0000, dennis@home
wrote:

http://www.itpro.co.uk/public-sector...-for-snoopers-
charter-as-eu-court-bans-mass-data-collection

The terrorists must be delighted.

They will be delighted with what the EU has achieved for them:
weakening Greece and Italy (front line states against immigration)

And you really think a strong economy will stop immigrants trying to get
to that country?

because of that currency flop, the Euro, and opening borders making
terrorist travel a lot easier (as we have just seen).

We'll be building a wall between Eire and Ulster, then?

And hadn't you noticed that the recent German tragedy was carried out by
someone not from an EU country?

--
*If I worked as much as others, I would do as little as they *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
alan_m wrote:
On 24/12/2016 08:47, harry wrote:


They need to be able to identify suspects from suspicious traffic, not vice versa.
Have you got something to hide?



The authorities first have to identify from the 100s of millions of
daily calls or internet accesses which are the destination/source for
this suspicious traffic. Do you not think that once identified the
authorities do not already (legally or illegally) monitor this traffic?

Do you believe that these days with all the publicity that terrorists
still set up accounts in their own name and address in order to
communicate with each other? For £15 you can buy a basic mobile phone,
put in an untraceable PAYG SIM and make a few calls before tossing it
away.

Certain legislation will only work if everyone is law abiding. It does
nothing to stop criminal activities.

Very true. Allowing the state free access to everything might be fine if
you think that information could only be used against terrorism, etc. But
in practice it will get used for any purpose 'the state' thinks is OK.

-

--
*A 'jiffy' is an actual unit of time for 1/100th of a second.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
Someone else that we have some ability to vote out of office. Unlike
the EU Commissioners who can't be voted out (but perhaps you hadn't
noticed that), or the EU Parliament where, yes, there are elections,
but they don't make any substantial difference to the make up of the
Parliament.

Remind us again of how many votes UKIP got at the last election, but have
effectively no voice in the UK parliament with only one seat?

I'll give you a clue. They got almost three times as many votes as the SNP
who have 56 seats in the UK parliament.

It appears you only support the sort of democracy that works for you.

--
*Verbs HAS to agree with their subjects *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Sat, 24 Dec 2016 09:51:19 -0000, Brian Gaff wrote:

In my view,non targeted data collection only leads to a mountain
of data nobody can sift through. Without at least collecting it
as needed it seems to be a total waste of everyone's time in the
current state of the art.

Isn't it great that we have these data management experts
contributing to a d-i-y group?

On 24/12/16 11:51, Brian Gaff wrote:
In my view,non targeted data collection only leads to a mountain of data
nobody can sift through.

Software can. Google does this routinely. To present you with ads about
products you looked at last week....

Without at least collecting it as needed it seems
to be a total waste of everyone's time in the current state of the art.

I guess that's why Google has spent billions on it.

Brian

On 24/12/16 00:56, Rod Speed wrote:


"TimW" wrote in message
news
On 23/12/16 18:12, Rod Speed wrote:
dennis@home wrote

http://www.itpro.co.uk/public-sector...ata-collection



That isnt a cost, its a benefit.

Makes no sense that the UK parliament can't do what it decides should be
done.


The government is not your friend.

Dont need friends, got plenty of those.

What we all need is sensible legislation.

We need to be protected from bad government.

That is what the constitution is there for.

The EU could do that

Like hell it could. It was in fact the worst approach
to govt, policy decided by unelected bureaucrats who
can't even be sacked when they **** up badly enough.

Merkel can be given the bums rush at the ballot box
now that she ****ed up so spectacularly encouraging
more than a million illegals to move to Germany.

Nothing can be done now that the EU has been stupid enough
to allow them to pour in in much larger numbers to the EU.

and now it will be gone.

And so that completely stupid approach to govt should be.

So we aren't taking back control,

Even sillier than you usually manage with who
gets to decide that sort of government policy.

The British parliament gets to do that, again.

we are just handing it to someone else.

Even sillier than you usually manage, remoaner.


Here we have a single, simple, clear example of how we will lose
important safeguards of our rights and freedoms when we lose our
membership of the EU. You stare at it and blink and scratch your head
with complete incomprehension and then give it a bit of swearing and
rant out a few meaningless phrases like 'unelected beurocrats' plus a
bit of gratuitous abuse and that's your response. That's the ukip way.

Of course ukippers have spent years complaining bitterly that the EU
protects the Human Rights of its citizens. Now it suits you to say that
they can't and never could. It's also the ukip way.

Tim W

On 24/12/16 12:18, mechanic wrote:
On Sat, 24 Dec 2016 09:51:19 -0000, Brian Gaff wrote:

In my view,non targeted data collection only leads to a mountain
of data nobody can sift through. Without at least collecting it
as needed it seems to be a total waste of everyone's time in the
current state of the art.

Isn't it great that we have these data management experts
contributing to a d-i-y group?


It is hilarious. Brian knows better than all the CIA and MI5 put
together. Or maybe he has just been taken in by the government telling
him that their data collection program is really harmless and meaningless.

TW

On 24/12/2016 13:31, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 24/12/16 11:51, Brian Gaff wrote:
In my view,non targeted data collection only leads to a mountain of data
nobody can sift through.

Software can. Google does this routinely. To present you with ads about
products you looked at last week....


But its not too intelligent - it presents ads for items already
purchased and unlikely to be purchased again for many years.


--
mailto: news {at} admac {dot] myzen {dot} co {dot} uk

In article om,
lid writes
http://www.itpro.co.uk/public-sector...9/blow-for-sno
opers-charter-as-eu-court-bans-mass-data-collection
How is this a cost arising from Brexit?
--
bert

In article , alan_m
writes
On 23/12/2016 15:32, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Fri, 23 Dec 2016 14:33:02 +0000, dennis@home
wrote:


http://www.itpro.co.uk/public-sector...819/blow-for-s
noopers-charter-as-eu-court-bans-mass-data-collection

The terrorists must be delighted.


It should make no difference! The ruling is that it is unlawful to
collect this data for EVERY person in the country and for the
authorities to have 'free' access as a matter of routine.

If someone is suspected of being involved in crime/terrorism then the
authorities can still obtain a court order and get the information, as
they have always been able to do.


By which time it will be too late.
--
bert

Brian Gaff wrote

In my view,non targeted data collection only leads to a mountain of data
nobody can sift through.

It isnt done manually.

Without at least collecting it as needed it seems to be a total waste of
everyone's time in the current state of the art.

Nope, with the current system, after some obscenity like the
very recent obscenity in Berlin with the truck, its possible to
see who he has communicated with in the recent past one
you have worked out who was the driver and hopefully then
be able to find at least some of his associates if there are any.

That has to be better than nothing. Particularly with fools like that
that are actually stupid enough to leave his wallet behind in the truck.

We have recently seen a rapist/murderer caught in days after
the murder because he didn't realise that the victim had a phone.
Her phone was tracked moving over the same route as his from
the crime scene and so it wasn’t hard to work out who did it.


"dennis@home" wrote in message
eb.com...
http://www.itpro.co.uk/public-sector...ata-collection

In article ,
harry writes
On Saturday, 24 December 2016 08:40:12 UTC, alan_m wrote:
On 23/12/2016 15:32, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Fri, 23 Dec 2016 14:33:02 +0000, dennis@home
wrote:



















http://www.itpro.co.uk/public-sector...ata-collection

The terrorists must be delighted.


It should make no difference! The ruling is that it is unlawful to
collect this data for EVERY person in the country and for the
authorities to have 'free' access as a matter of routine.

If someone is suspected of being involved in crime/terrorism then the
authorities can still obtain a court order and get the information, as
they have always been able to do.

They need to be able to identify suspects from suspicious traffic, not
vice versa.
Have you got something to hide?
No they don't. Having found a suspect they need top know with whom they
are communicating to identify the scale of the threat. The vast majority
of the retained data will never be looked at, certainly not by human
eyes.
--
bert

In article , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
Someone else that we have some ability to vote out of office. Unlike
the EU Commissioners who can't be voted out (but perhaps you hadn't
noticed that), or the EU Parliament where, yes, there are elections,
but they don't make any substantial difference to the make up of the
Parliament.

Remind us again of how many votes UKIP got at the last election, but have
effectively no voice in the UK parliament with only one seat?

I'll give you a clue. They got almost three times as many votes as the SNP
who have 56 seats in the UK parliament.

It appears you only support the sort of democracy that works for you.

I support the form of democracy that has served us reasonably well for
the last 300 years or more. I accept that from time to time anomalies
arise but I can live with them as the system on the whole is better than
any other currently in action elsewhere in the world.
--
bert

On 24/12/16 17:30, TimW wrote:
Here we have a single, simple, clear example of how we will lose
important safeguards of our rights and freedoms when we lose our
membership of the EU. You stare at it and blink and scratch your head
with complete incomprehension and then give it a bit of swearing and
rant out a few meaningless phrases like 'unelected beurocrats' plus a
bit of gratuitous abuse and that's your response. That's the ukip way.

You can always tell when a remoaner runs out f valid arguments by the
way he starts to mount personal attacks against ukip members by
ascribing attributes to them that are actually attributes of remoaners.

And the utter inability to spell English words, like bureaucrat.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...

In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Chris Hogg
wrote:

On Fri, 23 Dec 2016 14:33:02 +0000, dennis@home
wrote:

http://www.itpro.co.uk/public-sector...-for-snoopers-
charter-as-eu-court-bans-mass-data-collection

The terrorists must be delighted.

They will be delighted with what the EU has achieved for them:
weakening Greece and Italy (front line states against immigration)

And you really think a strong economy will stop immigrants trying to get
to that country?

because of that currency flop, the Euro, and opening borders making
terrorist travel a lot easier (as we have just seen).

We'll be building a wall between Eire and Ulster, then?

And hadn't you noticed that the recent German tragedy was carried out by
someone not from an EU country?

WTF?! Was he one of those rabid white swivel-eyed right wing bigots?

"TimW" wrote in message
news
On 24/12/16 00:56, Rod Speed wrote:


"TimW" wrote in message
news
On 23/12/16 18:12, Rod Speed wrote:
dennis@home wrote

http://www.itpro.co.uk/public-sector...ata-collection



That isnt a cost, its a benefit.

Makes no sense that the UK parliament can't do what it decides should
be
done.


The government is not your friend.

Dont need friends, got plenty of those.

What we all need is sensible legislation.

We need to be protected from bad government.

That is what the constitution is there for.

The EU could do that

Like hell it could. It was in fact the worst approach
to govt, policy decided by unelected bureaucrats who
can't even be sacked when they **** up badly enough.

Merkel can be given the bums rush at the ballot box
now that she ****ed up so spectacularly encouraging
more than a million illegals to move to Germany.

Nothing can be done now that the EU has been stupid enough
to allow them to pour in in much larger numbers to the EU.

and now it will be gone.

And so that completely stupid approach to govt should be.

So we aren't taking back control,

Even sillier than you usually manage with who
gets to decide that sort of government policy.

The British parliament gets to do that, again.

we are just handing it to someone else.

Even sillier than you usually manage, remoaner.

Here we have a single, simple, clear example of how we will lose important
safeguards of our rights and freedoms when we lose our membership of the
EU.

Even sillier than you usually manage.

Even you should have noticed that it was a british court
that has just ruled that the parliament and not just the
govt that gets to decide when Article 50 gets invoked.

Didnt need any EU for that.

You stare at it and blink and scratch your head with complete
incomprehension

Everyone can see that is more of your remoaner lies.

and then give it a bit of swearing and rant out a few meaningless phrases
like 'unelected beurocrats'

Everyone can see that is more of your remoaner lies.
Nothing meaningless about that.

plus a bit of gratuitous abuse and that's your response. That's the ukip
way.

More of your remoaner lies.

I have absolutely NOTHING to do with ukip and
have always considered that they are completely
****ing irrelevant given that they couldnt even
manage to get Farage a seat in parliament and
could only manage the one MP, who would
have remained an MP regardless of which
party he preferred to be part of.

UKIP didnt even manage to produce the referendum,
Cameron had one because he had decided that it was
the best way to shut up Tory MPs who wanted BRexit.

Of course ukippers have spent years complaining bitterly that the EU
protects the Human Rights of its citizens.

More of your remoaner lies.

Now it suits you to say that they can't and never could.

More of your remoaner lies.

It's also the ukip way.

More of your remoaner lies.

You lot lost. You get to like that or lump it, remoaner.

Thats what real democracy is about, remoaner.

"TimW" wrote in message
news
On 24/12/16 12:18, mechanic wrote:
On Sat, 24 Dec 2016 09:51:19 -0000, Brian Gaff wrote:

In my view,non targeted data collection only leads to a mountain
of data nobody can sift through. Without at least collecting it
as needed it seems to be a total waste of everyone's time in the
current state of the art.

Isn't it great that we have these data management experts
contributing to a d-i-y group?


It is hilarious. Brian knows better than all the CIA and MI5 put together.
Or maybe he has just been taken in by the government telling him that
their data collection program is really harmless and meaningless.

Or he has enough of a clue to realise that if you arent doing
anything illegal, that data collection is harmless and meaningless
and that it is useful when arseholes do stuff like the recent Berlin
atrocity.

"bert" wrote in message
...
In article om,
lid writes
http://www.itpro.co.uk/public-sector...9/blow-for-sno
opers-charter-as-eu-court-bans-mass-data-collection
How is this a cost arising from Brexit?

The EU gets no say on that post BRexit.

Whether that is a cost or a benefit tho...

On Saturday, 24 December 2016 09:04:57 UTC, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 24/12/16 10:47, harry wrote:

They need to be able to identify suspects from suspicious traffic, not vice versa.
Have you got something to hide?

Who hasn't, from someone?

Cf Hillary Clinton....

the point is once the data is held somewhere, the potential exists for
someone else to get hold of it...

If you've ever watched the mechanics of data trawling you find that the 'reasoning' used is routinely idiotic, that the differentiation between fact & fiction is largely nonexistent, and the conlcusions drawn are thus complete nonsense a substantial amount of the time. Thus any data is liable to result in inappropriate hostile responses.

'I've got nothing to hide' may be true, but it's a naive way to deal with the realities of modern life.


NT

On Saturday, 24 December 2016 11:44:49 UTC, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
alan_m wrote:
On 24/12/2016 08:47, harry wrote:


They need to be able to identify suspects from suspicious traffic, not vice versa.
Have you got something to hide?



The authorities first have to identify from the 100s of millions of
daily calls or internet accesses which are the destination/source for
this suspicious traffic. Do you not think that once identified the
authorities do not already (legally or illegally) monitor this traffic?

GCHQ

Do you believe that these days with all the publicity that terrorists
still set up accounts in their own name and address in order to
communicate with each other? For £15 you can buy a basic mobile phone,
put in an untraceable PAYG SIM and make a few calls before tossing it
away.

Certain legislation will only work if everyone is law abiding. It does
nothing to stop criminal activities.

Very true. Allowing the state free access to everything might be fine if
you think that information could only be used against terrorism, etc. But
in practice it will get used for any purpose 'the state' thinks is OK.

or a purpose some prat thinks they can get away with putting under the umbrella of a legitimate state activity, no matter how unrealistic that is.


NT

On Saturday, 24 December 2016 15:31:00 UTC, TimW wrote:
On 24/12/16 00:56, Rod Speed wrote:
"TimW" wrote in message
news
On 23/12/16 18:12, Rod Speed wrote:
dennis@home wrote

http://www.itpro.co.uk/public-sector...ata-collection



That isnt a cost, its a benefit.

Makes no sense that the UK parliament can't do what it decides should be
done.


The government is not your friend.

Dont need friends, got plenty of those.

What we all need is sensible legislation.

We need to be protected from bad government.

That is what the constitution is there for.

The EU could do that

Like hell it could. It was in fact the worst approach
to govt, policy decided by unelected bureaucrats who
can't even be sacked when they **** up badly enough.

Merkel can be given the bums rush at the ballot box
now that she ****ed up so spectacularly encouraging
more than a million illegals to move to Germany.

Nothing can be done now that the EU has been stupid enough
to allow them to pour in in much larger numbers to the EU.

and now it will be gone.

And so that completely stupid approach to govt should be.

So we aren't taking back control,

Even sillier than you usually manage with who
gets to decide that sort of government policy.

The British parliament gets to do that, again.

we are just handing it to someone else.

Even sillier than you usually manage, remoaner.


Here we have a single, simple, clear example of how we will lose
important safeguards of our rights and freedoms when we lose our
membership of the EU. You stare at it and blink and scratch your head
with complete incomprehension and then give it a bit of swearing and
rant out a few meaningless phrases like 'unelected beurocrats' plus a
bit of gratuitous abuse and that's your response. That's the ukip way.

Of course ukippers have spent years complaining bitterly that the EU
protects the Human Rights of its citizens. Now it suits you to say that
they can't and never could. It's also the ukip way.

Tim W

I find such failure to comprehend odd.

In article ,
TimW wrote:
Here we have a single, simple, clear example of how we will lose
important safeguards of our rights and freedoms when we lose our
membership of the EU. You stare at it and blink and scratch your head
with complete incomprehension and then give it a bit of swearing and
rant out a few meaningless phrases like 'unelected beurocrats' plus a
bit of gratuitous abuse and that's your response. That's the ukip way.

Of course ukippers have spent years complaining bitterly that the EU
protects the Human Rights of its citizens. Now it suits you to say that
they can't and never could. It's also the ukip way.

It's very odd, isn't it? Taking back control will involve removing many
rights that somehow the kippers think will never effect them.

I could quite understand that if there weren't, apparently, so many
'working class' that seem to support UKIP. Basically turkeys voting for
Xmas. Exactly the same as in the US.

It's certainly a lesson to others that some people will believe anything
they're promised. I suppose it's the same sort of person who plays the
lottery each week.

--
*Why is the third hand on the watch called a second hand?

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
TimW wrote:
Here we have a single, simple, clear example of how we will lose
important safeguards of our rights and freedoms when we lose our
membership of the EU. You stare at it and blink and scratch your head
with complete incomprehension and then give it a bit of swearing and
rant out a few meaningless phrases like 'unelected beurocrats' plus a
bit of gratuitous abuse and that's your response. That's the ukip way.

Of course ukippers have spent years complaining bitterly that the EU
protects the Human Rights of its citizens. Now it suits you to say that
they can't and never could. It's also the ukip way.

It's very odd, isn't it? Taking back control will involve removing many
rights that somehow the kippers think will never effect them.

I could quite understand that if there weren't, apparently, so many
'working class' that seem to support UKIP. Basically turkeys voting for
Xmas. Exactly the same as in the US.

It's certainly a lesson to others that some people will believe anything
they're promised. I suppose it's the same sort of person who plays the
lottery each week.


I see the Remoaners are back in full crying mode!

wrote in message
...
On Saturday, 24 December 2016 09:04:57 UTC, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
On 24/12/16 10:47, harry wrote:

They need to be able to identify suspects from suspicious traffic, not
vice versa.
Have you got something to hide?

Who hasn't, from someone?

Cf Hillary Clinton....

the point is once the data is held somewhere, the potential exists for
someone else to get hold of it...

If you've ever watched the mechanics of data trawling you find that
the 'reasoning' used is routinely idiotic, that the differentiation
between
fact & fiction is largely nonexistent, and the conlcusions drawn are thus
complete nonsense a substantial amount of the time. Thus any data is
liable to result in inappropriate hostile responses.

How odd that none of us get any inappropriate hostile responses.

'I've got nothing to hide' may be true, but it's a
naive way to deal with the realities of modern life.

Bull****.

On Monday, 26 December 2016 18:08:20 UTC, Rod Speed wrote:
tabbypurr wrote in message
...
On Saturday, 24 December 2016 09:04:57 UTC, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
On 24/12/16 10:47, harry wrote:

They need to be able to identify suspects from suspicious traffic, not
vice versa.
Have you got something to hide?

Who hasn't, from someone?

Cf Hillary Clinton....

the point is once the data is held somewhere, the potential exists for
someone else to get hold of it...

If you've ever watched the mechanics of data trawling you find that
the 'reasoning' used is routinely idiotic, that the differentiation
between
fact & fiction is largely nonexistent, and the conlcusions drawn are thus
complete nonsense a substantial amount of the time. Thus any data is
liable to result in inappropriate hostile responses.

How odd that none of us get any inappropriate hostile responses.

Oh, I didn't know that all bs from authorities had just ceased. Great news. That or you've never heard of a court case in which the defendant was found innocent. Or you're just ****ed.

wrote in message
...
On Monday, 26 December 2016 18:08:20 UTC, Rod Speed wrote:
tabbypurr wrote in message
...
On Saturday, 24 December 2016 09:04:57 UTC, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
On 24/12/16 10:47, harry wrote:

They need to be able to identify suspects from suspicious traffic,
not
vice versa.
Have you got something to hide?

Who hasn't, from someone?

Cf Hillary Clinton....

the point is once the data is held somewhere, the potential exists for
someone else to get hold of it...

If you've ever watched the mechanics of data trawling you find that
the 'reasoning' used is routinely idiotic, that the differentiation
between
fact & fiction is largely nonexistent, and the conlcusions drawn are
thus
complete nonsense a substantial amount of the time. Thus any data is
liable to result in inappropriate hostile responses.

How odd that none of us get any inappropriate hostile responses.

Oh, I didn't know that all bs from authorities had just ceased.
Great news. That or you've never heard of a court case in
which the defendant was found innocent. Or you're just ****ed.

You never could bull**** your way out of a wet paper bag.

On Tuesday, 27 December 2016 01:23:31 UTC, Rod Speed wrote:
tabbypurr wrote in message
...
On Monday, 26 December 2016 18:08:20 UTC, Rod Speed wrote:
tabbypurr wrote in message
...
On Saturday, 24 December 2016 09:04:57 UTC, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
On 24/12/16 10:47, harry wrote:

They need to be able to identify suspects from suspicious traffic,
not
vice versa.
Have you got something to hide?

Who hasn't, from someone?

Cf Hillary Clinton....

the point is once the data is held somewhere, the potential exists for
someone else to get hold of it...

If you've ever watched the mechanics of data trawling you find that
the 'reasoning' used is routinely idiotic, that the differentiation
between
fact & fiction is largely nonexistent, and the conlcusions drawn are
thus
complete nonsense a substantial amount of the time. Thus any data is
liable to result in inappropriate hostile responses.

How odd that none of us get any inappropriate hostile responses.

Oh, I didn't know that all bs from authorities had just ceased.
Great news. That or you've never heard of a court case in
which the defendant was found innocent. Or you're just ****ed.

You never could bull**** your way out of a wet paper bag.

unlike you I don't need to.

wrote in message
...
On Tuesday, 27 December 2016 01:23:31 UTC, Rod Speed wrote:
tabbypurr wrote in message
...
On Monday, 26 December 2016 18:08:20 UTC, Rod Speed wrote:
tabbypurr wrote in message
...
On Saturday, 24 December 2016 09:04:57 UTC, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
On 24/12/16 10:47, harry wrote:

They need to be able to identify suspects from suspicious
traffic,
not
vice versa.
Have you got something to hide?

Who hasn't, from someone?

Cf Hillary Clinton....

the point is once the data is held somewhere, the potential exists
for
someone else to get hold of it...

If you've ever watched the mechanics of data trawling you find that
the 'reasoning' used is routinely idiotic, that the differentiation
between
fact & fiction is largely nonexistent, and the conlcusions drawn are
thus
complete nonsense a substantial amount of the time. Thus any data is
liable to result in inappropriate hostile responses.

How odd that none of us get any inappropriate hostile responses.

Oh, I didn't know that all bs from authorities had just ceased.
Great news. That or you've never heard of a court case in
which the defendant was found innocent. Or you're just ****ed.

You never could bull**** your way out of a wet paper bag.

unlike you I don't need to.

Everyone can see for themselves that that is just another of your bare faced
lies.