Quote:
Originally Posted by Wynonie Harris
The whole point is, we don't know whether they're innocent or not until they've been investigated. Are you suggesting that we have less than 28 days? Perhaps you'd prefer to go back to the pre-2000 period when we only had 48 hours?
I've not mentioned 100 or 1000 days, I've already said 42 days seems reasonable to me. The point is that terrorism itself has become more complex and sophisticated over the years. Gone are the old days of IRA plots involving one computer and a few disks. Modern terrorist plots can involve hundreds of computers, thousands of disks, multiple identities, passports and mobile phone accounts. I would prefer to err on the side of caution by giving the authorities more time to investigate these situations. And, yes, I WOULD prefer to see innocent people locked up temporarily, than to see dangerous terrorists slip through the net, and I make no apologies for that.
But enough of this debating between me and you, Cyfr - you reckon you've got popular opinion on your side and you seem to think your arguments are so convincing. There's a fair cross-section of popular opinion on Accyweb - put it to the vote and see what the results are. Should be interesting!
|
Thats the argument the government used and it turned out to be completely false. Theres legislation for encrypted data already. All the serious and complex cases have been solved way before even 28 days, so there is no reason to extend to 42. You didn't mention 100 days, but whats to stop the government coming back again in a year and using the same arguments? That we 'might' need extra days? So are you saying you're against increasing it more than 42?
Polls have already been done, you don't seem to believe them, so why would you believe an AccringtonWeb one?