Another rushed law, another death knell for privacy

[sonofsanta]

BBC News - Emergency phone and internet data retention to be passed

 

The highest legislative court with power over this country strikes a law down as being unreasonable and invasive, and Cameron etc. decide that actually, no, they really like spying on all of us, so let's rush a law through and make sure we continue eroding the freedom and liberties of the nation while shouting and pointing about terrorists, the gift that keeps on giving.

 

I think my gorge hit its heighest point when I read "It is the first duty of government to protect our national security and to act quickly when that security is compromised." - actually, Dave, I think the first duty is to protect its citizens. Sometimes that means national security, yes. Right now, though, I think the greatest danger to our citizenry is you.

 

Please, nobody reply with "I've got nothing to hide, so I've got nothing to fear" or variants thereof, because I haven't got the energy to fight with people who haven't done even the most basic research into this issue. It's a well trodden philosophical and political point, and parroting the line is nothing but a naïve and simplistic acceptance of doing as you're told, ignorant of the realities of abuse of power which we've seen even this week with the convenient loss of the Westminster dossier on child abuse suspects.

[Arthur]

Not good!

 

I actually posted about this new law three days ago, but no one seemed to be bothered by it judging by the response.

[Grey-gear]

Are they putting this law being put in place because the EU have said companies should not\don't need to keep records about who calls who and who e-mails who?

 

This Law is only working till 2016 or when ever they extend it to.

Edited July 10, 2014 by Grey-gear

[sparkeh]

Oh hey its ok its got a "sunset clause" which means its ends in 2016 so we can ramp up its powers for what replaces it have a sensible debate about what its replacement law should contain.

[sonofsanta]

Not good!

 

I actually posted about this new law three days ago, but no one seemed to be bothered by it judging by the response.

 

Didn't think to search as it was a new story on the BBC site - sorry!

 

Are they putting this law being put in place because the EU have said companies should not\don't need to keep records about who calls who and who e-mails who?

 

Yes - EU Court has struck down the law that forced companies to keep the data, so the government are drafting a direct replacement to cover the issue in our own legislation. Don't like a decision Europe has made? Just re-instate the original state of affairs with your own law in the meantime, knowing it'll take time for any legal challenge to go through!

 

Oh hey its ok its got a "sunset clause" which means its ends in 2016 so we can ramp up its powers for what replaces it have a sensible debate about what its replacement law should contain.

 

I read it as "it has a sunset clause so we can assuage fears now then quietly implement a permanent law in two years when everyone has forgotten/gotten used to the idea/we can say it's been fine for two years, why complain now, do you want the terrorists to win?"

[pcstru]

I think my gorge hit its heighest point when I read "It is the first duty of government to protect our national security and to act quickly when that security is compromised." - actually, Dave, I think the first duty is to protect its citizens. Sometimes that means national security, yes. Right now, though, I think the greatest danger to our citizenry is you.

It is not a failing that just affects DC or even the Conservatives. These erosions of our right to privacy and liberty seem to (too easily) acquire all party support. Why is that? That's what I really don't get.

[MrKJLS]

Do I even have the right to privacy anymore?

 

You can watch parliament debating it live here: BBC Democracy Live - Communications data statement

 

edit: the debate has finished.

Edited July 10, 2014 by MrKJLS

[Grey-gear]

These erosions of our right to privacy and liberty seem to (too easily) acquire all party support. Why is that? That's what I really don't get.

 

Calls to questions is this really a democracy or some new form of goverment?

 

Do I even have the right to privacy anymore?

 

Did we ever?

Edited July 10, 2014 by Grey-gear

[sonofsanta]

It is not a failing that just affects DC or even the Conservatives. These erosions of our right to privacy and liberty seem to (too easily) acquire all party support. Why is that? That's what I really don't get.

 

+1 that - the Lib Dems don't seem to think very liberally any more, do they?

[hardtailstar]

Could somebody explain this to me as i dont understand it! lol

[localzuk]

We aren't a democracy, we're a constitutional monarchy. The only true concept of a democracy is one where there isn't a monarch that can dissolve parliament (ie. ignore the will of the people).

 

Someone described the type of society we live in very well the other day. They called it "neo-feudal", which I feel fits very nicely. The only real outcome is that everyone will get so sick of the corruption and erosion of rights that they will revolt. It might be a while, but it'll most likely happen I reckon.

[tmcd35]

I haven't done an exhaustive web search so forgive me, but the Beeb article doesn't really give enough detail for me to hold an opinion on the emergency law itself. Statistically I fail to see what the problem is unless you are already waiting for the old bill to knock on your door for some reason.

 

The only worrying sentence in the article was "Mr Cameron repeated his vow to push ahead with plans for a giant database of all websites visited by UK citizens" but that's only because it suggests our beloved leader fundamentally misunderstands how the Internet works. He might as well propose a UK Plc buyout of Google, and even then I doubt his database would be anywhere near complete.

 

That article speaks more on EU democracy (a true oxymoron) and the politics of an in/out referendum than it does personal privacy.

 

Just what are the powers being proposed? Who exactly can use them? What are the limitations of use on those powers? How exactly are they to be exercised.

 

I suppose, given the quick one week turn around, the answers to those questions are likely to contain more holes than a good Swiss cheese. Maybe the real story is parliament being allowed to turn around any legislation in such a short space of time? I take it is going to be exempt from the usual three readings in each house - or are they really going to push through the entire system that quickly?

[sonofsanta]

I haven't done an exhaustive web search so forgive me, but the Beeb article doesn't really give enough detail for me to hold an opinion on the emergency law itself.

 

There's not enough detail because the Bill hasn't been published yet, we've just been told it's happening:

To pass any new law in just a week is rare. So too is it to have the backing of all three main parties even before it is published.

(BBC News - Emergency phone and internet data storage law to be brought in)

 

Which doesn't bode well. Last time they rushed a law through this quickly, IIRC, was the ironically-named Digital Economy Act, done in the dying days of a parliament as part of the wash-up process and passed without the normal due process.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]25541[/ATTACH]

(source: Digital economy bill rushed through wash-up in late night session | Technology | theguardian.com)

[Alkaline]

Nothing to fear, nothing to hide.

 

There is nothing new, only making legal what was already being done.

[tmcd35]

There's not enough detail because the Bill hasn't been published yet, we've just been told it's happening:

 

I refer the honourable gentleman to my previous reply...

 

Maybe the real story is parliament being allowed to turn around any legislation in such a short space of time?

[sonofsanta]

I refer the honourable gentleman to my previous reply...

 

And I didn't argue it we're on the same hymn sheet with that one. If the European Court ruled in April, though - three full months ago - why is the law only being rushed through now? Call my a cynic, but I reckon it's because they're sneaking something through that only becomes apparent after proper consideration of the bill.

 

@Alkaline - either you're being sarcastic, or you didn't read the end of my first post. And "being done" and "being done legally" are different things - if it is being done, and we know it is thanks to Snowden, we can kick up a fuss and try to do something about it. Once it's rubberstamped and legalised and all neat and tidy, though, it becomes much harder.

 

People shouldn't fear their government. Governments should fear their people. (And no I'm not advocating V for Vendetta and bloody revolution, just lamenting that our government no longer acts in our interests or as an expression of our communal will.)

[Theblacksheep]

Nothing to fear, nothing to hide.

 

There is nothing new, only making legal what was already being done.

 

Its making legal what has rightly been made illegal by Europe.

 

People have everything to fear from a state that has too much power. The Steven Lawrence family had nothing to hide yet they faced surveillance, intimidation and propaganda from state tools. I find the nothing to fear comments bordering on the retarded, unless sarcastic.

Edited July 10, 2014 by Theblacksheep

[CAM]

We aren't a democracy, we're a constitutional monarchy. The only true concept of a democracy is one where there isn't a monarch that can dissolve parliament (ie. ignore the will of the people).

 

Someone described the type of society we live in very well the other day. They called it "neo-feudal", which I feel fits very nicely. The only real outcome is that everyone will get so sick of the corruption and erosion of rights that they will revolt. It might be a while, but it'll most likely happen I reckon.

 

The London riots were but a taste of such disorder. That was organised electronically, now there are extreme policies being put in place to monitor and clamp down on electronic communication. Makes you wonder what the true purpose of these restrictions is for...

[SovietRussia]

Remember though, this isnt the physical content of the communication its the metadata from the communication (date, time, location etc)

 

Perhaps there is something be said for the way this has been rushed through, but if our very fragmented constitution allows for emergency legislation, then all you can do is contact your local MP and find out what he is voting and try and sway his opinion, but with all 3 major political parties behind this, I am sure their minds are already made up. This is how our country is ran and we just have to accept that.

 

Also a central database of all our web history is just stupid, because they will give the contract to an outsourced company, if they did it in house (We pay our taxes for the Government Digital Service the people behind GOV.UK) it would be a step in the right direction.

Edited July 10, 2014 by SovietRussia

[sparkeh]

This is how our country is ran and we just have to accept that.

No we don't, see above comments about riots and revolution.

[tmcd35]

Its making legal what has rightly been made illegal by Europe.

 

People have everything to fear from a state that has too much power. The Steven Lawrence family had nothing to hide yet they faced surveillance, intimidation and propaganda from state tools.

 

Here in is my problem, what I don't understand. What exactly has been made illegal by the EU? What exactly is too much power?

 

Is it wrong to expect ISP's to maintain logs for a predetermined length of time? How many of us run Internet filters that keep just these kinds of logs? I do. Is that an invasion of our users privacy?

 

The question isn't the logs, it's the access to the logs. Who can gain access, how and why? Do they need evidence or reasonable suspicion to gain a court order for a named suspect? Or can they go on random fishing expeditions? Given my meagre (in comparison) 30 day logs and 800 users - fishing expeditions are long, laborious, often fruitless and man power intensive.

 

I'd be more worried about forcing all outgoing traffic through a great firewall of the UK were packet sniffing gets a lot easier than this - even with this needles and haystacks come to mind.

Edited July 10, 2014 by tmcd35

[localzuk]

I believe the EU have struck down a law which basically told all ISPs and telecoms companies to store all comms data for up to 24 months (depending on the local government implementation). The court ruled it was too wideranging - as it wasn't targeted at a specific person or group, and retention was too long for 'general' data capture. So, if the law was 3 months data retention, then that would've been acceptable I believe. Or if the law said that a specific group was targetted, a longer time was acceptable. Or if a judge gave a warrant etc...

 

The issue was that it conflicted with the pre-existing privacy laws that disallow this sort of thing.

[sparkeh]

Open Rights Group Executive Director Jim Killock:

"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. The ruling still stands and these new plans may actually increase the amount of our personal data that is retained by ISPs, further infringing on our right to privacy.

Blanket surveillance needs to end. That is what the court has said."

[tmcd35]

"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. The ruling still stands and these new plans may actually increase the amount of our personal data that is retained by ISPs, further infringing on our right to privacy.

Blanket surveillance needs to end. That is what the court has said."

 

Yeah, I saw that. Doesn't say how our right to privacy is being infringed, or how exactly this is blanket surveillance. Are ISP just required to keep the logs, or are they required to do nightly uploads to GCHQ?

 

I believe the EU have struck down a law which basically told all ISPs and telecoms companies to store all comms data for up to 24 months (depending on the local government implementation)

 

If this is what the emergency legislation is reinstating, and nothing else, I fail to see the problem. The problem isn't with this legislation, it's potentially with other pre-existing legislation that gives relevant authorities access to that data.

[localzuk]

Yeah, I saw that. Doesn't say how our right to privacy is being infringed, or how exactly this is blanket surveillance. Are ISP just required to keep the logs, or are they required to do nightly uploads to GCHQ?

 

They're required to keep them, and a list of different organisations can access them without any warrant or oversight.