Police 'to be given powers to view everyone's entire internet history'

[Terminal_Boy]

When the state starts prying into the private lives of its law abiding citizens; it shouldn't be surprised when these citizens stop obeying its laws.

 

[Uther]

Also, why does it feel like every time there's a debate in parliament about security and privacy does it fall on the same day as some other headline grabbing item?

Doctor's pay Vs blanket data collection this time around.

Ah you noticed. Funny that...

 

[thebennyboy]

Why is Theresa May still in government? Her and Jeremy Hunt should have been given the boot by now.

 

[Glanza]

If this goes through how long till our browsing habits are sold to companies for targeted advertising?

 

[ikillbears]

Ministers will promise world-leading levels of restrictions, scrutiny and oversight which they say will be designed to prevent abuse from ever taking place.

That's the part that made me laugh

 

[Raymond Lin]

If this goes through how long till our browsing habits are sold to companies for targeted advertising?

They sort of do that already in the way of cookies.

As for his bill, it's something no doubt always have happened but now want to do it above board. Even if it's rejected, does anyone actually believe they would not just do it anyway?

 

[thebennyboy]

VPN ahoy! Good luck with the Snoopers Charter, Theresa May!

 

[leaskovski]

The same as google stores everything you ever googled..

The voice transcripts history are most amusing!!!

 

[McPhee]

Also, why does it feel like every time there's a debate in parliament about security and privacy does it fall on the same day as some other headline grabbing item?

Doctor's pay Vs blanket data collection this time around.

Because that's exactly how it happens? The government schedules these things deliberately. Big NHS and immigration stories and announcements pop up every time there's a topic that the government would rather not discuss. On surveillance, on the economy, on TTIP, they always make sure there's another story to overshadow the debate.

The sad fact is that most people are more interested in the NHS and immigration than anything else. Make a big announcement on one of those two topics and you can do what you like for the rest of the day - the majority won't be watching.

 

[Oh Ed not again.]

Because that's exactly how it happens? The government schedules these things deliberately. Big NHS and immigration stories and announcements pop up every time there's a topic that the government would rather not discuss. On surveillance, on the economy, on TTIP, they always make sure there's another story to overshadow the debate.

The sad fact is that most people are more interested in the NHS and immigration than anything else. Make a big announcement on one of those two topics and you can do what you like for the rest of the day - the majority won't be watching.

Which makes it all the more underhanded in my opinion, and should make everyone question the real motivation behind this draconian, Orwellian and quite frankly dystopian legislation. Three adjectives that have fallen into cliche in recent years, but never more applicable.

-

Some of the big hitting items in May's Snooper's bill in this iteration:

The large and complex bill also contains proposals covering how the state can hack devices and run operations to sweep up large amounts of data as it flows through the internet.

Did the BBC really just say "hack devices"? Technology companies the world over must be dreading the inevitable "government hacked my iPhone/Galaxy/Xperia" headlines.

The bill does not propose forcing overseas companies to comply with these orders.

Oh, don't worry about it actually.

In urgent situations, such as when someone's life is in danger or there is a unique opportunity to gather critical intelligence, the home secretary would have the power to approve an interception warrant without immediate judicial approval.

Can't see that getting abused, nope not at all.

I despair.

Edit - Watching this live, unsurprisingly the house has cleared out from PMQs and it's under half full. The rest of them are sitting there shuffling papers, playing with their phones, staring at the sky, yawning, and posturing their own agenda. Labour are backing this too. The party whips are cracking loudly on this.

 

[estebanrey]

UK terrorism laws have never been abused by authorities, councils, institutions, police forces, security services etc. I have complete faith the same won't happen with these new powers.

Quite. Much like how regular coppers are using 'Anti-Terror' laws to prevent people filming them making arrests.

The power was sold to us as one which would stop terrorist reconnaissance but in reality is being used to keep all police operations un-filmed and secret.

 

[Oh Ed not again.]

What are the safeguards which will be in place? Eg. if ever decision then has to be transparently examined by a panel of the judges, with sanctions if the power was misused, wouldn't that be reasonable?

Yes, that would be reasonable on the face of it. However, I can't help but think there will be several caveats and loopholes that will allow these means to be circumvented. Simply put, I just don't trust the agenda, the proposer or the circumstance. I live to be proven wrong as always however.

You know they all have live streams to their offices, right? And whilst there they could do work whilst also paying attention to the debate? You say that as though you want all MPs crammed in there, otherwise they're not treating this seriously .

Given the importance of this matter I would have thought this warranted actual attendance as to discuss the matter and represent their constituents, not sit in their offices watching it on telly in the background.

As it's been discussed on a day where Jeremy Hunt's drama is unfolding, after PMQs during lunch with a meagre attendance in the house I honestly don't feel that they are giving it the gravitas it deserves.

 

[Oh Ed not again.]

So maybe we should examine the actual detail, rather than spinning half truths/random snippets out of context/etc, as is happening with this general 'debate'. It helps no one if people pick out one part and make it sound scary, when it could be a reasonable measure when looked at properly.

It's very easy to make it sound scary, because blanket survelliance of an entire population's browsing and communication histories is scary. No matter how you truss it up, no matter how many "locks" she puts in front of the data, the act is still happening. Massive amounts of profilable data is still sitting there for a year.

How would it be more helpful if they were all rammed in there? There are constant questions because there are more questions than time to take them. Another few hundred people in there being unable to speak really wouldn't add anything .

If it was a matter I'd raised with my MP, I'd want to be represented in the house. Before anyone says "why didn't you?", it's very much on my list now the details are coming out.

 

[Oh Ed not again.]

I'm talking about the particular point you made about the Home Secretary being able to authorise a warrant without judicial authorisation in extreme circumstances, and how that might be abused... without pointing out any of the safeguards there might be when it comes to that particular measure. Highlighting such a potential issue in such one-sided way undermines the debate.

OK, so yes that was a cynical and somewhat unsubstantiated point but it's not the focus of my argument. I'll stick it on the back burner until the full details of the bill comes out, but I still genuinely believe that the bill will contain a means to access the data en masse for profiling purposes. If not now, then in months and years to come. This has been a slow creeping change after all.

On that vain, my main point is the mass collection of data in the first place under the pretense that it's to catch certain groups of people. Certain groups of people that are most probably using alternative means to communicate anyway. If they weren't then they certainly would be by the time this comes into effect. Thus rendering the main justification moot. So what are we left with? A rather uncomfortable truth that the government has a year's worth of data of it's population's communication and reading habits. Even if you believe the safeguards in the legislation to be true, that's still a lot of sensitive information to be sitting in one place. A juicy target for whomever, legitimate or otherwise.

Sitting there being unable to speak wouldn't be meaningfully representing anyone. And this is just one session amongst the many there will be, along with MPs being able to write to the Home Secretary, etc.

Fair point. OK, we'll see how it plays out in the weeks to come with regards to meaningful debate, representation and hopefully opposition.

 

[Amp34]

That's the part that made me laugh

Like removing the need for a warrant to see the information...

The reason it's world leading is because other countries (outside N Korea and China) enacted laws to stop this happening after the Snowdon leak. Just see the debate and changes in law the U.S. has seen for example.

Besides, they have yet to show they have a need for this data. This wouldn't have stopped any of the recent(ish) terror attacks, which where committed by people on surveillance lists or at least known to the police and tracked at one point. Existing laws were all that were needed to monitor those people, but lack of resources/misappropriated resources meant they weren't tracked properly, or they were using methods this new legislation wouldn't help with either.

 

[TheVoice]

Quite. Much like how regular coppers are using 'Anti-Terror' laws to prevent people filming them making arrests.

The power was sold to us as one which would stop terrorist reconnaissance but in reality is being used to keep all police operations un-filmed and secret.

The police are given these powers, and the officers are then trained (sometimes well, sometimes not so well) in the application of those powers. They're also warned constantly about the rising terrorist threat, about how anyone could be watching, gathering information or intelligence and preparing to strike. There are signs up all over police offices, messages on computers when you log in, emails with threat updates etc.

Perhaps it shouldn't entirely come as a surprise then that such powers are sometimes applied wrongly.

 

[Glanza]

The police are given these powers, and the officers are then trained (sometimes well, sometimes not so well) in the application of those powers. They're also warned constantly about the rising terrorist threat, about how anyone could be watching, gathering information or intelligence and preparing to strike. There are signs up all over police offices, messages on computers when you log in, emails with threat updates etc.

Perhaps it shouldn't entirely come as a surprise then that such powers are sometimes applied wrongly.

Sadly the you can't film me terror excuse is becoming a standard in the I don't want you filming me arresting this person etc.

 

[doofer]

The Govt. taking all our 'Freedom' away to stop the Terrorlolists taking our 'Freedom' away.

 

[OhEsEcks]

Sadly the you can't film me terror excuse is becoming a standard in the I don't want you filming me arresting this person etc.

It's been in use since the 70s and Irish Republican terror. "Collecting information likely to be of use to terrorists" is the charge. They need to be damn sure they got hard evidence though.

 

[Trusty]

Lets be honest here, if there was a terrorist attack on the scale of 9/11 and the police/government had no way of stopping it. Us (the public) would be in outrage about it. If you are terrorist hunter who gets off on stopping people dying, would you really spend hours and hours searching through some random persons internet history. It doesnt add up..

As long as there are strict rules regarding access to our history then i'm all for more safety. People have too many tin foil hats i reckon, they are there trying to the right thing remember. That's why they get into those jobs in the first place.

The Govt. taking all our 'Freedom' away to stop the Terrorlolists taking our 'Freedom' away.

That's not the same though...