'Snooper's Charter' law being rushed through.

[Freefaller]

Are people really that bothered about ISP's holding their data for a year? I understand that it's meant to be private but unless you have a criminal investigation against you then no one is going to see it.

I guess it depends how easily embarrassed you are at your browsing habits.

 

[FishFluff]

As I said, it makes it more difficult for them to operate

Except it doesn't. Setting up Tor is a 2 minute job that even the most retarded terrorist could manage.

 

[oldbag]

They've known about people's browsing habits for years via prism.

 

[LateX'Dog]

Except it doesn't. Setting up Tor is a 2 minute job that even the most retarded terrorist could manage.

But is TOR even safe enough to use for privacy?

 

[oldbag]

The worrying thing is when they can build a 'social profile' on everyone really fast, with things like beliefs, places posted on, people interfaced with, sites browsed, etc. which they are probably near to now.

 

[Freefaller]

They aren't gaining more access or getting more information. This legislation is ostensibly to replace existing legislation that was struck down as a major infringement of privacy in the EU courts.

I do wonder how long it will take for a privacy group to take this law to the EU courts and see if they can get it struck off.

Thanks you worded it better than I did.

So, if they're doing it as it stands, despite the uproar, how does an EU law prevent it from happening any further? They could do it surreptitiously anyway? It's been happening for years anyway so I don't see how having a legislation from the EU makes it any different? If they want to do it they will, as they can always push the "case of national security" trump card.

 

[Tefal]

exactly my thoughts.

Unfortunately there are always going to be a vocal group lunatic liberal luvvies who just bellow and shout about things like this. Hopefully though these new measures will prevent crimes being committed against innocents.

just like the last surveillance act resulted in those nasty terrorists being captured rather than say undercover police officers and surveillance teams being used to check if children were in the right catchment area for their school?

 

[RDM]

The worrying thing is when they can build a 'social profile' on everyone really fast, with things like beliefs, places posted on, people interfaced with, sites browsed, etc. which they are probably near to now.

It would probably just be quicker to buy it from Google.

 

[scorza]

Except it doesn't. Setting up Tor is a 2 minute job that even the most retarded terrorist could manage.

And then what? Go and google "how to build a dirty bomb"? It's not that simple and does make it harder to use the internet for nefarious purposes.

Besides, I was under the impression that a lot of the illegal TOR sites were already compromised these days.

 

[memyselfandi]

Frankly I suspect that Google have all the information that they are going to collect about me anyway (and more) and the NSA/GCHQ/etc probably have access to that.

 

[Judgeneo]

Disgusting news.
Cross-party approval before announcement?
Getting a bill that legalises spying on pretty much anyone, rushed through in under a week?

Democracy at its finest.

Besides, I was under the impression that a lot of the illegal TOR sites were already compromised these days.

Also unless you download it in a pretty private way, you'll be detected an put on a watch list before you do anything at all.

Still the most private way to go on the web though.

 

[atpbx]

I dont think there is anybody out there who really believes this has anything to do with protecting us from pedophiles and terrorism.

What it is, is diverting attention from the fact that a number of MP's have been raping children and those that havent have been covering it up.

Hence the nonsense with the phones on the airplanes, this idiotic bill, everything and anything they can do to draw attention away from that will be dragged out.

It will be a public health scare next.

 

[Cosimo]

does anyone believe that will actually happen

There will be another excuse then an.............

 

[MikeTheNative]

I dont think there is anybody out there who really believes this has anything to do with protecting us from pedophiles and terrorism.

What it is, is diverting attention from the fact that a number of MP's have been raping children and those that havent have been covering it up.

Hence the nonsense with the phones on the airplanes, this idiotic bill, everything and anything they can do to draw attention away from that will be dragged out.

It will be a public health scare next.

Hence the nonsense with the phones on the airplanes Wasn't it the American's who wanted this?

Also isn't it the ISPs who want this bill rushed through?

 

[Judgeneo]

Hence the nonsense with the phones on the airplanes Wasn't it the American's who wanted this?

Our policy is very much in-line with america on these issues, we share most of the information too.

Also isn't it the ISPs who want this bill rushed through?

Not at all, they just wanted clarification on what the governments needed, not extra powers going to the government, and additional compliance for them to deal with.

 

[arknor]

But the emergency Data Retention and Investigation Powers Bill would also "clarify" the law on bugging of suspects' phones by the police and security services, when the home secretary issues a warrant, after concerns service providers were turning down requests.

One would assume these requests are being turned down because they do not fit in with what is allowed by law?

"Some companies are already saying they can no longer work with us unless UK law is clarified immediately," said Mr Cameron.

One would also assume these companies do not want to do anything beyond the law that would possibly put them in trouble at some point in the future?

"Sometimes in the dangerous world in which we live we need our security services to listen to someone's phone and read their emails to identify and disrupt a terrorist plot."

Wasn't it cameron that tried to justify this the first time around by using homeland the tv series as a justification because it's how they catch terrorists in that series.

oh it was

‘In the most serious crimes [such as] child abduction, communications data... is absolutely vital – who called who and when, and where was the telephone at the time. Not the content, but the communications data.

‘I love watching crime dramas on the television. There’s hardly a crime drama where a crime is solved without using the data of a mobile communications device.’

‘We have to explain to people is that... if we don’t modernise the practice and the law, over time we will have the communications data to solve these horrible crimes on a shrinking proportion of the total use of devices and that is a real problem for keeping people safe.

‘Everybody raises questions about who has access to my data and why but I’m absolutely convinced that proper rules for communications data is essential.’

If only he watched star trek instead or BSG

Maybe if these companies are turning down requests there is a god damn good reason for it.

 

[jumpy]

As I understand it telecommunications companies (etc) already keep your metadata for 12 months anyway, mostly for billing and the like.

Our security services already have the power to tap your electronic communications, should it be required.

What seems to be different with this 'bill' is that they will not have to ask a judge for authorisation to do so anymore.
That and the timescale of this bill leaves very little time to understand and contest what leading proponents might have been economical with the truth of the contents - whether or not there are any alterations or additional clauses to the previous snooping charter.

It's all very well for nick clegg to bandstand about how the liberal democrats have insisted on this termination clause to undo the bill in 2016 in order to debate the future of how these types of security bills ought to be legislated... If the man had any integrity whatsoever, instead of shamelessly hyping up his parties position, he'd outright block this bill.
But he's a politician from a know-nothing party who has a foot in the doors to power in the coalition. So he won't.

And if anyone is foolish enough to think this bill will be repealed come 2016... it will certainily be argued for, and granted continuation with further addendums to it's scope and our freedoms.

Not only will the proposed legislation infringe our right to privacy, it will also set a dangerous precedent where the government simply re-legislates every time it disagrees with a decision by the CJEU.

Says it all really.

 

[cupofjava]

That'd different though isn't it. That's dying to preserve or win freedom in the face of oppression, not being killed through lack of security.

If you were killed fighting the government because you resisted their actions I could see your point. But being murdered in a preventable terrorist attack is not a hero's death and the responsibility for such deaths lie partly with those who opposed the opportunity to prevent them.

Don't soil the good names of those who genuinely died in the name of freedom by using them to prop up your liberal (small L) agenda.

I think I misunderstood your initial comment and was arguing something different. I wasn't liking the deaths of those men to being murdered in a terrorist attack. My mere point was that these men fought against oppression, yes, so that we could enjoy our freedoms today. As have many others throughout time. The freedom we enjoy is slowly being encroached upon though, whether you want to admit it or not.

I would also argue that a government trying to spy and control it's people is the start of oppression. Which is how many people will see moves like this.

 

[Darg]

Well, I don't know where I stand on this subject overall, but I know where I stand on this post.

Does it not seem slightly off to you that in one sentence, you are deriding him for 'letting other people tell him what his opinion is'. In the very next sentence you tell him that he is wrong to have that opinion, and you ... tell him what his opinion should be.

Pushing your side of a debate is not telling someone what to think, it's trying to persuade them to reevaluate their own opinion in the hope that they may take your side or atleast come to a compromise.

 

[atpbx]

Well, I don't know where I stand on this subject overall, but I know where I stand on this post.

Does it not seem slightly off to you that in one sentence, you are deriding him for 'letting other people tell him what his opinion is'. In the very next sentence you tell him that he is wrong to have that opinion, and you ... tell him what his opinion should be.

Hence the nonsense with the phones on the airplanes Wasn't it the American's who wanted this?

Also isn't it the ISPs who want this bill rushed through?

Nope and nope.

It's like when they kept trotting out the nonsense that Al Qaeda was this massive international terrorist organisation that wants to kill us all.
So we must do this that and the other to "protect us".

Yeah what ever.