Well that's authoritative then! When did we give them authority to do this? I don't recall agreeing to or signing anything that gives them this authority and who exactly is doing this? Who can view my file and what the hell is in it? What is their data retention policy and how can they assure me my data is safe? So many questions... Our right to privacy is an unalienable Human Right, granted to us by the UN.
This is a bit of a revelation to me and I'm half inclined to file a freedom of information request to find out what, who, when and why. Presumably - on request we should be able to see our file?
saddler wrote:The then Inspector & Sgt from the Firearms Dept.
It was a comment I'd posted on a WW2 forum regarding Lothian & Borders Police's then current bright idea de jour that some pump action shotguns were really Section 5 as they slam-fired....they spent about a year looking into the S.5 aspect in some detail....before it died a death.
Oh, the same Dept has money to burn on purchasing several SGC 9mm LR carbines with a view to make them run illegally so that they can ban them....the outcome of that one? "I got it to go fully auto for one shot..."(but it then jammed solid rendering the gun totally inoperable)
...ah-but under the 2017 BraveHeart-Sturgeon Act of Inyerfacejimmy, the Scottish SNP-Marxist-"Forth Reich" (All Hail Der Golden Peasant King Eck of Salmond) - establishment has the right to do what they want, to who they choose to, without repercussions or any impact on their expense account or behind the scenes trade agreements with the PLO or Herr Merkel
They don't really have the time or motivation to trawl the internet looking for potential reasons to entrap people (FAC holders or not).
But if they're tipped off or something you've done has brought you to their attention, it's inevitable someone, somewhere might spend an hour or two on Google researching you.
There are some simple precautions everyone should take such as having a different user name on every forum and social media platform you subscribe to and not making it your real name unless you are forced to. Even then you can disguise it by formatting it differently or purposely misspelling it.
Once information about you is out there in the public domain, it's not easy to delete it.
Yep it feels like that. Don't new applicants have to agree to allow the Police access to their medical records? If we have a right to privacy for our medical data, why doesn't this extend to our internet activity? I presume this extends to metadata for our phone records and god knows whatever else.
The infringement to our civil liberties seems disproportionate to the risk posed by holding an FAC. As a minimum there should at least be transparency as to what they're doing behind closed doors.
William Wallace: There's a difference between us. You think the people of this country exist to provide you with position. I think your position exists to provide those people with freedom. And I go to make sure that they have it.
saddler wrote:...ah-but under the 2017 BraveHeart-Sturgeon Act of Inyerfacejimmy, the Scottish SNP-Marxist-"Forth Reich" (All Hail Der Golden Peasant King Eck of Salmond) - establishment has the right to do what they want, to who they choose to, without repercussions or any impact on their expense account or behind the scenes trade agreements with the PLO or Herr Merkel
Is this your opinion or do you have "insider" info? If they're not getting their "good intelligence" from the internet, where are they getting it from? Metadata from phone records doesn't paint a clear picture of your "conduct."
I work in IT and it's totally within current technological bounds, to automatically trap this information and search through it based on predefined criteria. Once setup it doesn't really take very much extra work to look for one extra FAC holder. A report could be e-mailed to your FEO should a keyword be triggered...
I have wondered why they request your e-mail address when you apply for your FAC. An e-mail address would make good search criteria as it's always sent in clear text... Hmmm...
JSC wrote:They don't really have the time or motivation to trawl the internet looking for potential reasons to entrap people (FAC holders or not).
HALODIN wrote:
This is a bit of a revelation to me and I'm half inclined to file a freedom of information request to find out what, who, when and why. Presumably - on request we should be able to see our file?
HALODIN wrote:Is this your opinion or do you have "insider" info? If they're not getting their "good intelligence" from the internet, where are they getting it from? Metadata from phone records doesn't paint a clear picture of your "conduct."
I work in IT and it's totally within current technological bounds, to automatically trap this information and search through it based on predefined criteria. Once setup it doesn't really take very much extra work to look for one extra FAC holder. A report could be e-mailed to your FEO should a keyword be triggered...
I have wondered why they request your e-mail address when you apply for your FAC. An e-mail address would make good search criteria as it's always sent in clear text... Hmmm...
Are you suggesting Police/MI5/Security Services are currently intercepting all the internet traffic and emails of all FAC holders and analysing it?
The systems have existed for some time, but whether it's use has extended to FAC holders is the question at hand. So if you don't believe this is true, perhaps you could explain where they get their "good intelligence" from about "your" conduct?
Two of the chief protagonists - Britain and America - officially deny its existence. But the BBC has confirmation from the Australian Government that such a network really does exist and politicians on both sides of the Atlantic are calling for an inquiry.
JSC wrote:Are you suggesting Police/MI5/Security Services are currently intercepting all the internet traffic and emails of all FAC holders and analysing it?
