The government's "online snooping" scheme to track email, Facebook, Twitter and other web use comes with an official pricetag of at least £1.8bn and an official warning that the figure may well prove to be an underestimate, the Home Office has revealed.
The government claims it cannot afford to pay for young people to go to school.
But apparently it can find three times as much to snoop on their use of Facebook.
As an example of misplaced priorities this has to be high on the Tory list.
And it shames them.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
Until recently I fell into “I’m not bothered about CCTV as I’m not a criminal” camp. It’s policies like this though – spending incomprehensible amounts of money on largely pointless on-line snooping – that makes it clear that the direction of travel towards an undemocratic, fear-driven police state is bad for everyone…
Mission creep.
Betcha it will be used to spy on things like blogs….after all, they are anti-democratic (depending upon your viewpoint)
Anyway, it’ll get all-party support.
But won’t the collected information be capable of being used in the fight against tax evasion?
£1.8b is the 10 year cost though according to the article.
Of course Richard, you are right in your view on misplaced priorities.
Someone once said Education, Education, Education.
“£1.8b is the 10 year cost though according to the article.”
That’s still £180 million on average every year….money that could be better spent elsewhere, I’m sure!
“Under the proposals, the police, the National Crime Agency, spooks and the taxman would be able to “apply for access” to such data, the Home Office said”
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/06/14/web_super_snoop_draft_bill_released_by_home_office/
What are they scared of? Their obvious fear of us speaks volumes, does it not?
It’s great though….really….no guns, no bombs, no nukes, no viruses: yet they still hate and fear us.
Don’t you just know they’d like to have a dusk-to-dawn curfew for all the little people….
Try browser add-on trackmenot, just to confuse the issue a bit….
“How can we find £1.8 billion to spy on Facebook but not to pay for sixth form education?”
Because ministers’ friends in the IT, security and finance industries will benefit directly and handsomely from the former. Those who would benefit most from the latter don’t count.
BTW, Richard, if Labour were in power we would still be wasting £1.8B to spy on Facebook although I concede 6th form education would not have been cut as much.
What’s not to like about the cost ?
£1.8bil to deliver £5-6.2 Billion in cost savings over the same period, not to mention (one would hope) quicker crime solving through easier access to the needed communications.
It ‘might’ help save lives through terrorism prevention, might help reduce children be preyed upon by paedophils etc. on social network sites.
Perhaps people should actually read the draft bill rather than jump on the sensationalist headline grab and regurgitation that seems to perpetuate in all current media.
Those claims come from the realms of fantasy
No those claims come from the document which I took the time to at least flick through.
Criticisms of this nature are akin to someone criticising your green new deal by only looking at the cost element and ignoring all the positive parts.
And I’m suggesting they’re fantasy – not on your part – on theirs
“Misplaced priorites”?
I thought you said the State knows best how to spend our money and should therefore be allowed to tax us more?
Oh good heavens sake
I argue for courageous politicians – this is the action of paranoid ones
I am under no illusion that all politicians are equal
How do we accept more taxation from “courageous” politicians but then less taxation when they are replaced by “paranoid” ones?
How do we even tell the difference?
Notwithstanding, do you think the State is nimble enough and honourable enough to allow such flexibility?
Yes
As are voters