UK: Email and web use 'to be monitored' under new laws

Is that actually a joke?

oh for fuck's sake.

April the First?

Maybe wait until tomorrow before allowing fury to take hold?

Y'all got enough government yet?

Gerald R. Ford said:

A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have.

Click to expand...

Once again, I'd like to thank TPTB for their selfless dedication in promoting the concepts of personal freedom, limited government, and suspicion of authority.

The thing is, I can't tell if it's an April Fool because it's exactly the sort of thing they would sodding do.

ETA: The Sunday Times are reporting it too - paywall protected (boo) but on the main page. Hmm.

Don said:

Y'all got enough government yet?

Once again, I'd like to thank TPTB for their selfless dedication in promoting the concepts of personal freedom, limited government, and suspicion of authority.

Click to expand...

How many times do we have to tell you, Don, but Gerald Ford is not the source of that quote.

Xelebes said:

How many times do we have to tell you, Don, but Gerald Ford is not the source of that quote.

Click to expand...

You sure about that?

http://www.monticello.org/site/jeff...ough-to-give-you-everything-you-wantquotation

Opty said:

You sure about that?

http://www.monticello.org/site/jeff...ough-to-give-you-everything-you-wantquotation

Click to expand...

Nah, Xelebes is right. Robovowels has pointed that out several times before, but I never can remember who the original is. We old dogs have trouble learning new tricks, apparently.

Gerald Ford did say it, but he wasn't the first.

It's actually a true story. As I recall, this coalition's beef against Labour was its authoritarianism.

Don said:

Nah, Xelebes is right. Robovowels has pointed that out several times before, but I never can remember who the original is. We old dogs have trouble learning new tricks, apparently.

Gerald Ford did say it, but he wasn't the first.

Click to expand...

Only other attributions to that quote I've ever seen are Thomas Jefferson and Barry Goldwater and both are incorrect.

Being a stickler for accuracy and primary sources, I'd be interested to know who the originator of the quote is...if it can ever definitively be proven.

Opty said:

Only other attributions to that quote I've ever seen are Thomas Jefferson and Barry Goldwater and both are incorrect.

Being a stickler for accuracy and primary sources, I'd be interested to know who the originator of the quote is...if it can ever definitively be proven.

Click to expand...

Found it. Paul Harvey in a book in 1952. Which explains my problem. I heard Jerry Ford say it, but I was born the year Paul Harvey wrote it, and not yet reading.

Don said:

Found it. Paul Harvey in a book in 1952. Which explains my problem. I heard Jerry Ford say it, but I was born the year Paul Harvey wrote it, and not yet reading.

Click to expand...

Ah, very cool. Thank you, sir.

Alessandra Kelley said:

Is this not a joke story? I mean, it can't possibly be for real, right?



I'm confused. That quote is ascribed to a book published by the Heritage Foundation in 1952. The only Heritage Foundation I know of is a conservative think-tank founded in 1973. What's this?

That quote is looking more and more obscure.

Click to expand...

I'd guess it's a reprint edition.

I'm afraid it's true. Here it is in the Guardian, and also in the Scotsman.

It's horrific, especially as this government objected to Labour trying the exact same thing. Usual excuse of 'national security', of course.

The optimists will take comfort in the fact that a) it's not been passed yet and is likely to have a hard time doing so, and b) it only demands addresses, times and durations and gives the government no right to actually listen to a call or read the content of an e-mail. Personally I still think it stinks.

The only meagre consolation I can find is that at least they're doing it in the open and allowing the national press to report on it as much as they like. But as the OP suggests, what kind of world is it when this is the best crutch we can find?

Swordswoman said:

The only meagre consolation I can find is that at least they're doing it in the open and allowing the national press to report on it as much as they like. But as the OP suggests, what kind of world is it when this is the best crutch we can find?

Click to expand...

And what kind of world is it when the very government who claim to be fighting 'terror', who tell us over and over that the terrorists will not win, are using that same nebulous concept to exercise power we'd never allow them to have in 'peacetime'?

Swordswoman said:

The optimists will take comfort in the fact that a) it's not been passed yet and is likely to have a hard time doing so, and b) it only demands addresses, times and durations and gives the government no right to actually listen to a call or read the content of an e-mail. Personally I still think it stinks.

Click to expand...

It won't pass. I doubt it will even get scheduled as legislation:

A new law - which may be announced in the forthcoming Queen's Speech in May - would not allow GCHQ to access the content of emails, calls or messages without a warrant.

Click to expand...

or it may get shelved just like it did when Labour had similar thoughts.

Alessandra Kelley said:

Beginnings of reactions in the Guardian.

Click to expand...

#telldaveeverything has been pretty good fun on twitter this morning. Nick Clegg has already pre-emptively rolled over and played dead on this, so the Tories seem to be full steam ahead.

Al Ross said:

It might not be a coincidence they announced it on April 1. People are distracted and those noticing might wave it away thinking it is a joke.

Click to expand...

On the other hand, it's not a good sign when you announce a new policy and people can't work out whether it's an April Fools joke.