latest plans to monitor internet use in the UK
otcbn at callnetuk.com
Fri Jun 15 16:46:31 BST 2012
Brian Morrison wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Jun 2012 16:03:14 +0100
> Francis Davey <fjmd1a at gmail.com> wrote:
>> The objection is not
>> to anything in particular but to giving the government a blank cheque
>> by which they could order anything in particular.
> The government always argues that it does this because it does not want
> to have to bring forth further primary legislation, instead changes can
> be made by SI.
It's an intrinsically weak argument, in that the only people who would accept it are those who already agree that government should have the power to do anything it likes by administrative fiat. Such people are not likely to be the ones opposing this measure.
> Personally I intensely dislike this method of lawmaking, it smacks of
> the inability to decide on a course of action or to understand the
> dangers of allowing SIs to be passed with little or no scrutiny.
It's a bit like those clauses that employers sometimes try to get you to sign, in which you have to promise to indemnify them against every possible consequence of employing you. When you demur, they reply, "Oh but we wouldn't ever actually invoke that clause, it's just company policy to have it in there ..."
More information about the ukcrypto