David Cameron Says Fictional Crime Proves Why Snooper's Charter Is Necessary

An anonymous reader sends this story from TechDirt: "You may recall the stories from the past couple years about the so-called 'snooper's charter' in the UK — a system to further legalize the government's ability to spy on pretty much all communications. It was setting up basically a total surveillance system, even beyond what we've since learned is already being done today. Thankfully, that plan was killed off by Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg. However, Prime Minister David Cameron is back to pushing for the snooper's charter — and his reasoning is as stupid as it is unbelievable. Apparently, he thinks it's necessary because the fictional crime dramas he watches on TV show why it's necessary. Cameron said, 'I love watching, as I probably should stop telling people, crime dramas on the television. There's hardly a crime drama where a crime is solved without using the data of a mobile communications device. What we have to explain to people is that... if we don't modernise the practice and the law, over time we will have the communications data to solve these horrible crimes on a shrinking proportion of the total use of devices and that is a real problem for keeping people safe.'"

Re:I know right?

[dargaud]

I'm posting to remove error in moderation, but you make NO fucking sense.

Ok, Mr

[JoeCommodore]

Your TV prviledges are revoked, go to your room!

Re:On the subject of integrity

[Mitreya]

Techdirt is honest reporting at its finest, rivaling even Slashdot's journalistic integrity. They're both very upfront and clear about their biases.

...his reasoning is as stupid as it is unbelievable.

Sometimes that isn't bias, as much as an accurate and objective assessment. It is a bad idea to seriously consider every ridiculous statement instead of dismissing it outright.

That's why politicians start from ridiculous propositions -- so that any "compromise" is well in their favor.

Re:On the subject of integrity

[ganjadude]

Whenever a controversial law is proposed, and its supporters, when confronted with an egregious abuse it would permit, use a phrase along the lines of 'Perhaps in theory, but the law would never be applied in that way' - they're lying.

just like the patriot act. we have the author of the bill running around now stating that he never intended for it to be used in the way its being used. Well if you didnt intend for it to be used in this way, why did you write it in a way that it COULD be used in this way???

He is a masterful politician

[EmagGeek]

Let's face it, 90% of people are fucking stupid, and believe everything they see on TV, including "crime dramas" where unbelievable feats of forensic science are achieved in every episode. People eat this shit up, and most of this stupid underclass believes it is necessary to prevent or solve crimes.

This is why the revelations that these ubiquitous, omniscient surveillance systems exists generated nothing more than enthusiastic yawns among the populace.

People... just... don't... care...

Honestly, the people who do care, even being as vocal as they can be, make an almost imperceptible noise against the drums of big tyrannical government - like an annoying mosquito in the ear of the underinformed, low-information majority who just wants to know when the next episode of the Kardashians or Property Brothers or CSI or other mindless drivel will be on.

Re:On the subject of integrity

[ganjadude]

good point, but on that note the laws are generally not written by the politicians, they are salesmen, they get handed the laws that are written by their handlers or companies or lawyers. So in reality I would argue that the laws were written with the loopholes, and in a way that gives himi the excuse of saying it was never intended to be used that way, even though it is

Re:On the subject of integrity

[HiThere]

He's a politician. You can tell he's lying if you see his lips move.

P.S.: I don't follow British politics. If that's an overstatement in British politics, I appologize. I'm assuming that in it's broad aspects it resembles US politics.

Re:On the subject of integrity

[BasilBrush]

British politics differs hugely from American politics. However, yes, in the moving lips = lies point, politicians are the same worldwide.

Re:Also true for the Steve Jackson Games raid

[l0n3s0m3phr34k]

after reading the actual game manual itself, I think the Secret Service (not FBI) went ballistic over the detailed descriptions of phreak boxes. There was enough info there for someone who didn't know such devices existed to be "hey wait, this is a real thing..." and try to build one. There was also enough info to tell people where to look for said plans on bulletin boards, and how the tech behind it all worked.

From our viewpoint it's just ridiculous. However, from a conspiracy-crazy early 90's law enforcement, such a book being published as a "game manual" and being directed at the very people who could, would, and did build boxen just because of this book...This book was used by teenage and early adult guys, who where educated and anti-social (thus the playing of RPG's) and the government knew it would take little effort to go from SJ's book to a working device able to manipulate our pre-digital telephone network.

Please, before anyone gets mad about the "anti-social" comment, this is from the perspective of law enforcement. They are mostly sports, outdoor, alpha-style chimps...not the kind who "play games" inside that are based on "imagination". The late 80's where full of maniac press reports of crazy "Satanic cults" and DnD, so authorities took a very dim view of RPGs.