Theresa May confirms with Dimbleby that a Conservative majority will vote in the Snoopers' Charter

[LateX'Dog]

If you have any doubts about the importance of a right to privacy here are a series of quotes from relevant articles and scientific papers:

Privacy is important to the development of full individuals because there has to be an interior zone within each person that other people don’t see. There has to be a zone where half-formed thoughts and delicate emotions can grow and evolve, without being exposed to the harsh glare of public judgment. There has to be a place where you can be free to develop ideas and convictions away from the pressure to conform. There has to be a spot where you are only yourself and can define yourself. - The Lost Language of Privacy (nytimes)

In a forthcoming article for the Harvard Law Review, [Georgetown University law professor Julie E. Cohen] lays out a strong argument that addresses the titular concern "What Privacy Is For."
Cohen's argument criticizes the dominant position held by theorists and legislators who treat privacy as just an instrument used to advance some other principle or value, such as liberty, inaccessibility, or control. Framed this way, privacy is relegated to one of many defenses we have from things like another person's prying eyes, or Facebook's recent attempts to ramp up its use of facial-recognition software and collect further data about us without our explicit consent. As long as the principle in question can be protected through some other method, or if privacy gets in the way of a different desirable goal like innovation, it is no longer useful and can be disregarded.
Cohen doesn't think we should treat privacy as a dispensable instrument. To the contrary, she argues [...] privacy cannot be reductively conceived as one specific type of thing. It is better understood as an important buffer that gives us space to develop an identity that is somewhat separate from the surveillance, judgment, and values of our society and culture. Privacy is crucial for helping us manage all of these pressures -- pressures that shape the type of person we are -- and for "creating spaces for play and the work of self-[development]." Cohen argues that this self-development allows us to discover what type of society we want and what we should do to get there, both factors that are key to living a fulfilled life.
[...]You might think it is a good idea to willfully hand over your data in exchange for personalized coupons or promotions, or to broadcast your location to friends. But consumption -- perusing a store and buying stuff -- and quiet, alone time are both important parts of how we define ourselves. If how we do that becomes subject to ever-present monitoring it can, if even unconsciously, change our behaviors and self-perception. - Why Does Privacy Matter? One Scholar's Answer (the atlantic)

The abstract of Cohen's paper states:

privacy is an indispensable structural feature of liberal democratic political systems. Freedom from surveillance, whether public or private, is foundational to the capacity for critical self-reflection and informed citizenship. A society that permits the unchecked ascendancy of surveillance infrastructures cannot hope to remain a liberal democracy. - What Privacy Is For (Harvard Law Review, Vol. 126, 2013)

privacy and data protection regimes are not there merely to protect the best interests of the right holders (and, indeed, as has been widely discussed in debates about the commodification of personal information, those best interests might sometimes be better promoted by personal information disclosure rather than maintenance of 'secrecy'), but are necessary, in a democratic society, to sustain a vivid democracy. There, the [1983 German Constitutional Court] decision is crystal clear in its consideration that “if one cannot with sufficient surety be aware of who knows what about them. Those who are unsure if differing attitudes and actions are ubiquitously noted and permanently stored, processed or distributed will try not to stand out with their behaviour. Those who count with the possibility that their presence at a meeting or participation in a civil initiation be registered by the authority,will be incited to give up abandon practising their basic rights (Basic Law, Art. 8 §. 9).”

[...]privacy regimes and data protection should be conceived together as forming the evolving bundle of legal protections of the fundamental individual and social structural value of the autonomic capabilities of individuals in a free and democratic society. Guaranteeing the generic right to privacy (or the principle of privacy, should we maybe say), given the crucial role it plays in enabling the autonomic capabilities of the individual legal subject, is a precondition to any meaningful exercise of all other rights and freedoms acknowledged by the Council of Europe. This is particularly explicit in the case of freedom of expression but is also true regarding all other fundamental rights and freedoms, including, crucially, those social and economic rights87 that guarantee the full participation of the individual in the social and political fabric of society. The 'autonomic capabilities' that privacy and data protection are meant to encourage are, we believe, among the 'capabilities' that Amartya Sen described in his perspective of substantial freedom and which condition our possibility to become “fuller social persons, exercising our own volitions and interacting – and influencing – the world in which we live”.88 - Reinventing Data Protection? (Gutwirth et al): The Right to Informational Self-Determination and the Value of Self-Development: Reassessing the Importance of Privacy for Democracy

If you're prepared to make an exception in this case because you have faith and trust in the UK government, you shouldn't. The Snowden leaks revealed that as well as illegally sharing data with the USA so it could spy on UK citizens, our intelligence and security organisation (GCHQ) did the following:

GCHQ manipulates online polls and page views

GCHQ engages in misinformation campaigns and subverts online discourse

the Joint Threat Research and Intelligence Group (JTRIG) employs a range of offensive techniques to discredit, disrupt and entrap its targets. Techniques discussed include honey-traps, amending or deleting social media presences, discrediting block posts and denial of service attacks.

a dedicated cyber-attack unit [(JTRIG)] engaged in activities against Anonymous, disrupting the political expression of many online activists when DDOS attacks were used against IRC servers in an operation called Rolling Thunder.

A presentation prepared by GCHQ’s [JTRIG] makes clear the agency’s willingness to use mainstream social media channels “propaganda”, “deception”, “pushing stories” and “alias development.”



Oh and to you guys:

How do you know it doesn't, we don't have the policy in place yet. Are you like Mystic Meg or something ?

How on earth do you know that?

Unfortunately technology now allows naughty people to do very naughty things that weren't possible in the same way 15 years. Give up technology if you don't like the way things are going and live a simple life else its something we'll have to live with in this tech reliant world.

Take a read of this:

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/2...arlie-hebdo-attack-so-give-us-more-info.shtml

I appreciate that most of the people won't even read anything I've posted and just put the usually hyperbole, but hey i always give GD too much credit.

 

[Amp34]

I'm saying your accusation was wrong.

I know. And what I'm saying is any review will last just long enough for government to pass new legislation to keep the same extreme monitoring ongoing. Essentially changing the goalposts to suit an argument rather than modifying the argument... Therein lies the problem with governments legislating on something that benefits governments...

You'd be against a remodelling of the system?! Even if there were no new powers, a remodelling is needed.

No, I'm not against remodelling the system, I've already talked about redoing it. What I'm against is the remodelling of a system to make it more draconian and then saying "that's fine, all those negatives are overruled by a couple of minor positives".

A bit like saying "you're innocent but you're still going to jail, as recompense we'll give you a slightly larger cell, is that ok?"

So you're going with a slippery slope argument..?

No, however the slippery slope argument is another legitimate worry when such draconian legislation is discussed/implemented. Privacy is an important part of a free society, it should only be taken away in extreme circumstances, certainly not wholesale. If the government believe you have done something wrong then get a warrant to monitor you, don't monitor everyone "just in case".

I mean things like the Erol Incedal case where journalists who were allowed to hear certain evidence aren't allowed to tell us what it was.

I know what you mean, which is why I mentioned it explicitly. That is one case, what about all the others that must have happened if the issue is such a big problem? Reporting seems quite lax on them, if any actually went to court. People mention regularly that it must nip plots in the bud but never explain how, it doesn't appear to be through the courts.

 

[Rroff]

I appreciate that most of the people won't even read anything I've posted and just put the usually hyperbole, but hey i always give GD too much credit.

Some of that involves training exercises rather than actual use, just like the government will have contingency plans for attacking our allies, etc. some stuff needs to be prepared for/drilled in that you hope you never have to use.

That isn't to say I'm trying to make GCHQ look innocent, etc. just that some people misunderstand the way some things work and see something sinister in something fairly normal.

 

[BlackDragon]

Some good information in this Reddit post for how to voice your opposition.

 

[scorza]

Some good information in this Reddit post for how to voice your opposition.

Any information on how to voice my support?

 

[Mynight]

Any information on how to voice my support?

Keep quiet I think is the best answer

 

[BlackDragon]

Any information on how to voice my support?

The opening post that I linked to has quite a few options.

An incomplete summary from the post would be:

• Contact those who oppose the bill by tweeting them (and using the #OpposeCDB tag). Example people are David Davis (conservative), and Lord Paul Strasburger.
• Contact your local MP. There's a template letter you can use as a base in the Reddit post.
• Voice your opposition to those who support the bill on Twitter and email/letters.

 

[LateX'Dog]

Oppose the "Snooper's Charter"

There is a building movement on the internet to tackle this. If you are interested in helping:

https://www.reddit.com/r/OpposeCDB

Is where you'll find all the information you need.

On May 23rd there are some planned protests, quite a few people are doing flyer drops, lots of people emailing their MP's, Lords and tweeting them too.

Start off by at least finding your representative:

http://www.parliament.uk/mps-lords-and-offices/mps/

Then send them a quick email, here is a template:

Dear [MP/ Name],

I am writing to express my concerns about recent comments made by the Home Secretary, the so-called 'Snooper's Charter' (Draft Communications Data Bill) which she has proposed, and how both relate to the manifesto pledges of the Conservative party.

On the day of the Conservative victory, Theresa May said the following:

"A Conservative government would be giving the security agencies and law enforcement agencies the powers that they need to ensure they're keeping up to date as people communicate with communications data. We were prevented from bringing in that legislation into the last government because of the coalitions with the Lib Dems and we are determined to bring that through because we believe that is necessary to maintain the capabilities of our law enforcement agencies so they can continue to do the excellent job day in day out of keeping us safe and secure."

As you'll know, May is referring to the Snooper's Charter which the Tory MP, David Davis, condemned as working to create "a nation of suspects" and which many citizens and MPs alike consider to be a fundamental breach of the privacy rights guaranteed to us by legislation such as Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Under the bill, ISPs and telecoms companies would be required to collect and store customer data for 12 months and hand it over to government and security services without so much as a warrant.

I am concerned by the immediacy with which the government is attempting to force this onto the national agenda—especially given that amendments to the bill have already seen attempts at being rushed through the House of Lords in a manner described as an "abuse of procedure" by the Open Rights Group.

Furthermore, I am forced to question the motivations behind this action in light of its absolute contradiction with the section of the Conservative manifesto which promises to "reject any suggestions of sweeping, authoritarian measures that would threaten our hard-won freedoms".

I very much look forward to hearing your thoughts on the matter.

Best wishes,

[Your Name]

[Your Address]

The American's defeated their version, lets defeat ours.

 

[V F]

 

[Caged]

Here you go

http://www.parliament.uk/draft-communications-bill/

 

[dowie]

Wouldn't it be worth waiting to see what the details are, before spacking out and spamming MPs?

lol

but they are stealing our freeeeeeedom!

 

[Caged]

That was last time. It'd be foolish to assume no changes after three years, even if there turn out to not be any.

Point taken, but I think "We were prevented from bringing in that legislation into the last government because of the coalitions with the Lib Dems and we are determined to bring that through because we believe that is necessary to maintain the capabilities of our law enforcement agencies so they can continue to do the excellent job day in day out of keeping us safe and secure." says quite a lot.

I would be very surprised if there are any major changes this time around. I am going to wait until it's been published and people have had time to explain various parts of it before I start sending MPs letters though.

 

[robgmun]

This.

People seem to have forgotten about the whole ID card thing.

+1

The only reason it didn't happen was because we kicked them out in the nick of time.

 

[LordSplodge]

Eh, stop doing it tomorrow?

I'm going to Godwin myself here but it is worth it. The Nazi Party (pre-war) implemented the Nuremberg Laws limiting what Jews could do in German society.

Are you saying that, that if such a law is passed here for example, you'd expect Jews to just stop being Jewish?

Anyway as for the 'Snooper Charter' there is plenty of research that shows that increased data collection leads to a decrease in actual events spotted because of a rise of false positives, it also can lead to innocent people being convicted of crimes.

So you achieve the exact opposite of what you set out to do. *slow clap*