🚀 go-pugleaf

"Clive D. W. Feather" <clive@on-the-train.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:+5jhP3MRtaH8Ew1O@romana.davros.org...
..
> The relevance of demon.service is ?

The recent voluminous thread on "NTK on NCS on NNTP".

Under "Anti-Terrorism" Act, ISPs can now be compelled to log the kind of
data that would enable NCS actually to do what they initially said they were
doing.

> The relevance of uk.gov.social-security is ?

The government has already taken powers in Social Security Fraud Act 2001
(http://www.hmso.gov.uk/acts/acts2001/10011--a.htm#1) to get direct
electronic access to data from colleges, utilities, banks, credit providers
and credit reference agencies, and other organisations to be used for
data-matching to catch suspected benefit fraudsters.

Under "Anti-Terrorism" Act, subject to data protection law, ISPs can now be
compelled to log (and RIP gives power to access) traffic data - potentially
in bulk, subject to 'proportionality' in pursuit of any crime including
benefit fraud.

Not very far away from traffic analysis of a person's web activity being
matched for being unsuitable or inconsistent with being a benefit claimant.

(The Tories wanted Social Security snoopers actually to be included in list
of agencies authorised to obtain)

> I would also argue that uk.politics.censorship is not relevant, since
> this is regulation, not censorship,

Surveillance and intrusions of privacy that chill free-speech are a form of
censorship.

> and that is *exactly* why
> uk.net.regulation exists.

Why is there some imperative to confine discussion to the most tightly
defined single group ? Even if this group *is* the most appropriate group,
why do you think discussion should *only* occur there ? There are many
interests peripheripherally or centrally affected by Net regulation. Why
should they all be subsumed into discussion in uk.net.regulation ? That is
exactly what cross-posting is *for* ?