Printable View
The Data Retention Bill was published the other day, which will mandate 2 years retention of traffic data, down from the current 3 years and 6 years before that, but still a kick in the face for presumed innocence. Please read a few of the articles by DRI for an overview of what's wrong with this law.
Maybe the wrong place for this but are we happy that this remains an untouchable ? In a different context and different set of circumstances, I have no difficulty with its being abandonedQuote:
Originally Posted by dahamsta
What such context and circumstance might that be? Should "untouchables" not be absolute?Quote:
Originally Posted by Angus
By way of interesting coincidence, I'm doing a presentation on this very topic at work next week. No real plan of attack has been formed as yet but I imagine content will be along the lines of specific critique of the Bill and then a more general look at the continuing (insidious?) erosion of civil liberties. (I may also try to add colour to the presentation through the composition of a song, or a poem, or some photos representative of the issue. Suggestions of photos in particular would be welcome. :))Quote:
Originally Posted by dahamsta
Overall, I imagine this isn't an issue that unduly bothers most people? I suppose that when you don't immediately feel pain from something then it won't concern you as much?
What are your personal views Dahamsta - I couldn't believe DRI have said it all?
For example, if a serial offender is in a situation where there is sufficient evidence that they may have re-offended in a particular case - for example, somebody in their care has been injured or hurt - it is not unreasonable to expect that serial offender to be required to account for their actions, for the right of silence to be dropped and for a presumption of innocence to be suspended.Quote:
Originally Posted by kingdom hoop
Second example - if the chief executive or finance director of a bank is found to have presided over tax evasion of other fraudulent activity, I struggle with a presumption of innocence because de facto as corporate officers, the presumtpion needs to be that they knew what was going on.
Unfortunately after 2,000 years of civilisation, we have never got this right. Not suggesting we go back to the dark ages of the Inquisition but the balance or rights and responsibilities is wrong.
There are exceptions to all rules Angus, that's why we have the third pillar of democracy in judges. Your first example is one that could have precedent set by a judge. Your second example, assuming it relates to employment, is a civil matter so it wouldn't have any bearing. The presumption of innocence needs to remain written in law, as do other important rights such as representation, etc.
kingdom_hoop, my "presumption of innocence" line pretty much sums it up, I feel strongly abour privacy and don't believe anyone has a right to store my private and/or personal information without cause. I believe warrants should be required for access to personal data, in the same way they're required for other intrusions. Since politics is about compromise though, I would be willing to accept a law with a short retention period - imho 6 months is more than enough, but I would be willing to accept 1 year - and extremely strong regulation on usage, and punishments for abuse. The proposed law has none of this.
I'm still undecided as to whether the hosting side of my business will comply with this law if it's passed. If it passes in it's current form, it most certainly won't.
adam
I am in practically full agreement with you daham. Just one extending point though: As you remark, "politics is about compromise" - and also by its nature it is about placating the public, so to that end, as long as there is there is no widespread public disapproval with the tone of this law and others like it, how do propose slowing the slide towards overwhelming intrusiveness? Do we agree by not disagreeing?
There have been some interesting articles in news-sources on this general topic today, I give you three:
For an excellent, persuasive overview of the Data Retention Bill, read Karlin Lillington's article in Friday's Irish Times: http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/...250837622.html.
Then, there's the more general point on the unreliable nature of Irish internet service providers (who we are supposed to trust with our personal info), also in Friday's Irish Times: http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/...250842430.html.
And finally, an article on the more general point of excessive and utterly imperfect over-surveillance trend that Western Governments are so attached to, courtesy of The Economist; they look at E-Passports, an interesting article no matter what your perspective: http://www.economist.com/sciencetech...66895&fsrc=rss.
Unfortunately, we don't. Ignorance counts for everything when it comes to legislation like this, and the Irish population as a group is about as ignorant as you could possibly get.Quote:
Originally Posted by kingdom hoop
I don't read Karlin's stories any more. I don't believe Eircom is unreliable, in fact the last time I checked they had some of the best technical people in the country, they just don't advertise it. Eircom is, however, duplicitous - they hushed this incident up at the outset, and then lied about it - which should be a far greater concern. Then again, anyone that trusts a company like Eircom given their history should be left to be thinned out by nature.
The RFID passports are proof of a sort that a lot of this type of thing isn't malicious at all though. Only a moron with close to no understanding of technology and privacy would implement something like that. Seriously, a complete moron. If the person that had that brainwave ever comes to Foot.ie, I'd suggest they look in a mirror. That's a moron you're looking at.
adam