<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Labour Party Concerns About Data Retention</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.digitalrights.ie/2007/02/26/labour-party-concerns-about-data-retention/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.digitalrights.ie/2007/02/26/labour-party-concerns-about-data-retention/</link>
	<description>Civil, Legal and Human Rights in a Digital Age</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 23 Jul 2010 13:08:53 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: GoodLuck</title>
		<link>http://www.digitalrights.ie/2007/02/26/labour-party-concerns-about-data-retention/comment-page-1/#comment-21321</link>
		<dc:creator>GoodLuck</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 15 Mar 2007 09:24:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.digitalrights.ie/2007/02/26/labour-party-concerns-about-data-retention/#comment-21321</guid>
		<description>I&#039;m with you on this.

It&#039;s a retroactive search warrant permitting broad fishing expeditions. You may have the right to a lawyer, but years of emails were done without that right. You may have the right to silence, but the records predate this right. You have the right to defend yourself, but can you? Do you even recall the context of a particular conversation years after the fact?

So in effect your removing basic rights of an accused person.

It will lead to charges being fitted to available evidence rather than evidence being collected to prove charges, and that&#039;s a lot easier to do. 

Who do you want to arrest? I&#039;m sure I can find something to arrest them on, given the vagaries of law and the masses of evidence I can selectively quote from.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;m with you on this.</p>
<p>It&#8217;s a retroactive search warrant permitting broad fishing expeditions. You may have the right to a lawyer, but years of emails were done without that right. You may have the right to silence, but the records predate this right. You have the right to defend yourself, but can you? Do you even recall the context of a particular conversation years after the fact?</p>
<p>So in effect your removing basic rights of an accused person.</p>
<p>It will lead to charges being fitted to available evidence rather than evidence being collected to prove charges, and that&#8217;s a lot easier to do. </p>
<p>Who do you want to arrest? I&#8217;m sure I can find something to arrest them on, given the vagaries of law and the masses of evidence I can selectively quote from.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Danny X</title>
		<link>http://www.digitalrights.ie/2007/02/26/labour-party-concerns-about-data-retention/comment-page-1/#comment-19570</link>
		<dc:creator>Danny X</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 27 Feb 2007 15:14:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.digitalrights.ie/2007/02/26/labour-party-concerns-about-data-retention/#comment-19570</guid>
		<description>A terrible shame. I didn&#039;t want to believe that our government could erode civil liberties to the extent the US government does. I really didn&#039;t want to believe it but I do now.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>A terrible shame. I didn&#8217;t want to believe that our government could erode civil liberties to the extent the US government does. I really didn&#8217;t want to believe it but I do now.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
