looks like I might be doing the same thing lol. I've been planning for what I will do if the snooper's charter gets in for a while now, guess it's time to get a vpn.
More like 100% bullshit. People who got something illegal to hide will slip through due to the mass of data collected. The "Nuclear Shotgun from Orbit"-approach hits them all but leaves nothing behind.
All of these "projects" look like childrens paintings of a stunning landscape: Helpless moves inspired by a rough idea.
These politicians all act for the sake of acting, burning budget of useless things without even coming close to their goal.
1 Like
Also It's harder to argue for more surveillance when your immigration policy practically invited potential serious criminals in for 15 years.
Is this confirmed, I've not been following the parliamentary debates too closely? I always suspected it would be the case in practice but damn, I didn't think they'd have the balls to disclose their hypocrisy.
It's sad but there's an element of truth to that and it presents the possibility of overturning this in the courts or parliament.
This is my biggest gripe with the whole idea. It wont prevent crime or terrorism it may only help an investigation after the fact. The only way to leverage this information as a preventative measure is to pro-actively search the data for incriminating evidence. This would of course essentially mean constant surveillance of the whole populace because if you were going to do this it only makes rational sense if you are 100% comprehensive in your analysis. If an individual is of genuine concern to security agencies (in which case they are presumably in possession of a convincing case), obtaining a warrant for surveillance should not be an issue.
So what do they want it for? I can honestly only see it being used for nefarious means or at best a saftey blanket of a haplessly paranoid government. The number of groups and organisations who could get access to this data and would love to use it for their own ends is staggering - the press alone! Blackmail and character assassination will replace tabloid slander and rumours. Both on the left and right, we live in a climate where deceit is considered an acceptable means of pushing an ideology. This really is a bomb waiting to go off.
Perhaps we are at a point where its better to be open about your choices, although that should apply to everyone law enforcement, politicians etc... They say sunlight is the best disinfectant. If used right it could be a great democratic tool.
They've been exempt from phone tapping for ages, I think maybe having mail intercepted for even longer.
It was more a case of whether that would be overturned or extended.
Germans saying that are marked as Nazis...
It requires the explicit authorisation of the prime minister.
26 Members of Parliament etc.
(1) This section applies where—
(a) an application is made to the Secretary of State for the issue of a
targeted interception warrant or a targeted examination warrant, and
(b) the purpose of the warrant is—
(i) in the case of a targeted interception warrant, to authorise or
require the interception of communications sent by, or intended
for, a person who is a member of a relevant legislature, or
(ii) in the case of a targeted examination warrant, to authorise the
selection for examination of the content of such
communications.
(2) The Secretary of State may not issue the warrant without the approval of the
Prime Minister.
(3) In this section “member of a relevant legislature” means—
(a) a member of either House of Parliament;
(b) a member of the Scottish Parliament;
(c) a member of the National Assembly for Wales;
(d) a member of the Northern Ireland Assembly;
(e) a member of the European Parliament elected for the United Kingdom.
1 Like
Because lot of them are registered outside of UK and USA.
Yes & No. Sure, every physist knows the basic theories on how to build a bomb, but how many countries actually have - not many. Why? Becuse you need the reasons, politcal will, and economic clout to do so.
This is a similar thing. It is not cheap to log the meta-data of an entire popultions internet history. It's even more expensive to then actually do anything with it. For these reasons this logging will only track the IP addresses that devices connect to - not actual web-pages or content, and unless you are under watch would be used like CCTV recordings are - only looked at as part of an investigation into an alledged crime.
This is realavtively simple to defeat - just find a VPN that is registered outside of the UK. Then all the government will have is a record of your PC/Phone visiting the VPN IP address. However if you are arrested for a crime the police/HMRC will just trawl through all the data on your PC anyway. Plus they can compare your PC's fingerprint (the meta-data that makes your PC almost unique) against web-site logs siezed under warrant/subpona.
Kind of makes me wonder why they are bothering really - the main thing is that it now properly frames in law the kind of activities that were already happening. A second more sinister reason is that the door is now open for more effective powers to follow - implied licences on encryption, a ban on non-approved VPN's etc. This might just be the thin end of the wedge...
There is currently a repeal petition against the IPB: https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/173199
This Bill has to be prevented. Currently parliament will have to consider debating it as at this current time it has reached 114,317 signatures.
If you are a UK citizen please help by signing the petion the government needs to know that we do not want this to happen it is wrong and ignores the human right to privacy.
If you are not a UK citizen you can still help us by sharing the petition and help us to get as many signatures as possible.
1 Like
The Slashdot article has some nice quotes.
https://news.slashdot.org/story/16/11/28/0430248/
by MobyDisk ( 75490 ) on Monday November 28, 2016 @11:13AM (#53377589) Homepage
It isn't a false equivalence: instead, you moved the goal posts.
First, we made fun of those nations because the government spied on everyone.
Now we spy on everyone.
So in response, we changed the argument. We claim that it was never really the spying that was the problem, it was that they were blocking free speech.
Next, we block free speech.
Then we can change the argument again: It wasn't the blocking of speech that was the problem, it was that they jailed people and held them without charges.In the US, we've been playing this game for decades:
We now have a special jail where we can hold people without charges (Guantanamo Bay).
But we can move the goal posts again. We still aren't as bad as those other guys, because they do it on their own soil!
We used to make fun of Russia for requiring paperwork to travel, now we require it.
But it wasn't the paperwork that was the problem! It was that they had special "watch lists." Now we have them.
But it wasn't the watch lists that were the problem! It was that they had to all be personally inspected in order to travel. Well now we do to.As you can see, we have already gone down the slippery slope, we merely hide it by moving the goal posts. Eventually, the next generation will grow-up expecting this kind of stuff, having never known what it was like to be free. If you find yourself saying "well, we are nothing like place XXXX" then you should pause, reflect, and see if this is the same standard you applied a decade ago.
Royal assent happened today. This is now the law of the land.
Oh, and if we have any Corbyistas in here, he (and a lot of Labour) abstained on this allowing it through, as did the spineless David Davis, who was 100% against it until he got a ministerial position.
The Government has responded to the partition. The TL:DR version is this:
So its essentially "because of terrorism" and we need it to stop the bad guys.
1 Like
That bit. That sounds interesting i wonder what it actually means ? Or how it is actually applicable.
1 Like
The unsettling thing about that statement is "the introduction of a threshold" which means that one doesn't exist already and it doesn't give any sort of timescale as to when/if it'll happen and what constitutes a "minor crime". These rules are said to be in effect before the end of the year, and lets say that this "threshold" isn't introduced until later next year. What is stopping government agencies from using this data for "minor crimes" before the threshold is even a thing?
Things will go wrong with this. Many things at many levels. Then the law will be pulled back. That's how they do this, massive overreach and then massive problems and overspend.. cut overreach and cut budgets which reduces effectiveness and overspend making it having little to no point in the first place. The cycle continues on the next election round, increase spending and powers.. whoops.. back to square one.
They didn't abstained. 70+% of them voted yes on the bill.
Source: http://www.publicwhip.org.uk/division.php?date=2016-06-07&number=13
Well, shit. In my defense this information was relayed to me from a Corbyn supporter who was annoyed that he had abstained, so that was where their emphasis lay, not with the numbers of Labour members that voted it through.
Am completely unsurprised to see Dennis Skinner's name of the list of Labour rebels.
The LibDems need to get a Scott Ludlam like figure and make a lot of noise about this. It will swing a lot of votes their way.
Ah, the old we need this cause terrorist line of reasoning. I knew the petition wouldn't do much but still it saddens me reading the email response.
What sadder still is the general public generally don't give a damn. well in my neighbourhood at least. I want to know what the fallout plan for when the logs are hacked and made public is going be.
Because I'm pretty sure it's not case of if but a matter of when.