Another rushed law, another death knell for privacy

[CAM]

So how did everyone find today's well-timed cabinet shuffle distracting everyone from DRIP going through parliament today? UK Parliament rubber-stamps EMERGENCY data grab 'n' keep bill

[tmcd35]

IMHO, Labour's Yvette Cooper seems to have the right measure of the situation:

 

"We cannot reject this legislation; it would be wrong to do so."

 

The MP added that it could be used "to get the wider debate we need" on surveillance laws in Blighty, which includes a full review of the Regulation Investigatory Powers Act - a legislation passed by the then-Labour government in 2000

[jinnantonnixx]

Charlie Brooker spotted it.

What is Drip and how, precisely, will it help the government ruin your life? | Charlie Brooker | Comment is free | The Guardian

 

But think of how safe we'll all be. A small price to pay. I'm warm and fuzzy already.

[Theblacksheep]

UK academics open letter to government specifying the current bill doesn't just keep existing laws, it extends the surveillance state

 

Lucky the austerity measures granted an additional £800m for the surveillance state.

Edited July 15, 2014 by Theblacksheep

[sonofsanta]

She also's quoted with

Labour's shadow home secretary Yvette Cooper said that people will only continue to support such powers if "safeguards aren't abused". She said trust among the British public was low because the government was rushing the bill through Parliament.

which is a remarkably observant stance for a politician. Colour me surprised and impressed, as these things go.

 

The timing hadn't gone unnoticed re: cabinet shuffle. I am glad, at least, that they amended the sunset clause to six months from two years, though I wouldn't be at all surprised if the replacement is suddenly rushed through in December after radio silence on the topic for the next six months.

 

Oh, and look at the turnout!

 

I think "Democracy Live" may be an ironic programme title. (image source: screencap of BBC Democracy Live - Data Retention and Investigatory Power Bill)

[Theblacksheep]

Mocking of "democracy" by the 3 party clique

 

be great to contrast that House of Commons picture with the amount of politicians crying about their expenses.

 

Its about time they all went on their 6 weeks holidays soon.

Edited July 15, 2014 by Theblacksheep

[sonofsanta]

be great to contrast that House of Commons picture with the amount of politicians crying about their expenses.

 

Its about time they all went on their 6 weeks holidays soon.

 

Or with the picture of the debate on pay for MPs:

(source: MPs call for, in private at least, a 32% pay rise | Politics | The Guardian)

[X-13]

https://www.openrightsgroup.org/blog/2014/drip-heroes

 

The MPs who voted against DRIP... Which, unsurprisingly, doesn't include mine.

Edited July 16, 2014 by X-13

[SpuffMonkey]

https://www.openrightsgroup.org/blog/2014/drip-heroes

 

The MPs who voted against DRIP... Which, unsurprisingly, doesn't include mine.

 

Not many divisions where you fing Dennis Skinner and Peter Bone in the same lobby!

[Grey-gear]

It seems that there is a lot of criticism due to the speed that the bill passed, just shows you how the MPs can put the moc in democracy.

 

BBC News - Commons passes emergency data laws despite criticism

[mthomas08]

It seems that there is a lot of criticism due to the speed that the bill passed, just shows you how the MPs can put the moc in democracy.

 

BBC News - Commons passes emergency data laws despite criticism

 

As I said before no point throwing toys out of the pram at the moment. They could end up doing a U-Turn in 2 days, 2 weeks or 2 months. When the election comes it could be a new Gov in charge and do another U-Turn on it. I'm not willing to lose any sleep over this matter or raise my blood pressure because nothing will change what the Gov wants to do.

[SYNACK]

I'm not willing to lose any sleep over this matter or raise my blood pressure because nothing will change what the Gov wants to do.

 

 

 

And this is why democracy fails, it is already at the point that the government does whatever it pleases and there is no recourse, just a choice as to the figurehead doing what a very few people tell them to do.

Edited July 16, 2014 by SYNACK

[tmcd35]

As I said before no point throwing toys out of the pram at the moment. They could end up doing a U-Turn in 2 days, 2 weeks or 2 months. When the election comes it could be a new Gov in charge and do another U-Turn on it. I'm not willing to lose any sleep over this matter or raise my blood pressure because nothing will change what the Gov wants to do.

 

To be fair, the speed and way this bill has been passed is something we should be vocal about. Should Parliament have the power to turn around laws so fast? And if so, under what circumstances?

 

There are three things that worry me about this legislation regardless of it's actual intent:

 

- Relationship with the EU. The purpose of the bill is to re-enact EU statute that has been deemed illegal by the EU courts.

- The level of powers given to the secretary of state. When I glanced through the bill the other day it was very much "the Secretary of State can do whatever they please in defining data retention regulations"

- The speed in which it progressed through Parliament. One week is no where near enough time for any statute to be properly debated.

 

The core purpose of the legislation I have no problem with, agree with to some extent. The way this has been handled scares the bejebus out of me! One only hopes that after the next election seemingly sensible people like Yvette Cooper can restore our faith in democracy...

[Disease]

I think any additions to the law are irrelevant, anyone who thinks they have any privacy on the Net or phones is an idiot tbh. These laws just legalize what they are doing in secret and have been doing in secret for decades.

[Grey-gear]

As I said before no point throwing toys out of the pram at the moment. They could end up doing a U-Turn in 2 days, 2 weeks or 2 months. When the election comes it could be a new Gov in charge and do another U-Turn on it. I'm not willing to lose any sleep over this matter or raise my blood pressure because nothing will change what the Gov wants to do.

 

I know there's little point to being angry about this as it has not passed yet, but it just seems that no real thought has been put in to this.

[mthomas08]

I think any additions to the law are irrelevant, anyone who thinks they have any privacy on the Net or phones is an idiot tbh. These laws just legalize what they are doing in secret and have been doing in secret for decades.

 

Exactly. They are simply legalising what they have been doing for a long time.

 

I know there's little point to being angry about this as it has not passed yet, but it just seems that no real thought has been put in to this.

 

I wouldn't disagree with you at all.

[sted]

And this is why democracy fails, it is already at the point that the government does whatever it pleases and there is no recourse, just a choice as to the figurehead doing what a very few people tell them to do.

 

but the system is so broke thats all we get. There is no way that anyone other than one of the 2 main parties will get in next time possibly with lib dems as a coalition partner. The system is rigged to keep politicians in a job there is as far as i can see nothing we can do about it banks/oil compaines/other big businesses have way more access (and more importantly influence) to mps than we do and so nothing will change. One of the main parties could annopunce they were going to do pretty much any horrible thing and i doubnt the voting stats would alter much

[X-13]

anyone who thinks they have any privacy on the Net or phones is an idiot tbh.

 

Ad hominem much?

 

These laws just legalize what they are doing in secret and have been doing in secret for decades.

 

Maybe it has been going on for decades in secret...

 

It doesn't make it ok nor does it make it necessary.

 

And making a law to allow something you've been doing in secret, which has been deemed illegal is not the way governments should be.

[Disease]

Ad hominem much?

 

 

 

Maybe it has been going on for decades in secret...

 

It doesn't make it ok nor does it make it necessary.

 

And making a law to allow something you've been doing in secret, which has been deemed illegal is not the way governments should be.

 

Not Ad Hominem at all, just plain simple truth, there is no argument about it there is no privacy on the net or phones simple as that.

 

It may not be right but it is not going to stop happening and it is not going to go away so don't expect privacy. How do you think they foil so many terrorist plots. Also read up about how the US intercepted switches etc from major vendors on their delivery route, modify the firmware, repackage the product and send it on it's way to the customer. See how deep the rabbit hole goes and you will see why it's idiotic to expect privacy.

 

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/05/photos-of-an-nsa-upgrade-factory-show-cisco-router-getting-implant/

Edited July 16, 2014 by Disease

[localzuk]

Not Ad Hominem at all, just plain simple truth, there is no argument about it there is no privacy on the net or phones simple as that.

 

You're stating this from the the current situation. There used to be plenty of privacy on the internet. Its only recent years that has so heavily focused on removing that privacy. Attacking people for *wanting* privacy on the internet is Ad Hominem and rather odd to say the least.

 

It may not be right but it is not going to stop happening and it is not going to go away so don't expect privacy. How do you think they foil so many terrorist plots.

 

Keep drinking the cool aid. There was a review of terrorist plot interventions in the USA a little while ago and it found that out of the ~50 plots foiled, I believe it was only 1 of them was aided by the NSA data. The rest were gained by on the ground intelligence, as had been done for hundreds of years.

[X-13]

Not Ad Hominem at all, just plain simple truth, there is no argument about it there is no privacy on the net or phones simple as that.

 

There's no argument, because you said there's no argument.

 

And anyone who DOES argue is an idiot.

 

Ad. Hominem. [And circular reasoning.]

 

How do you think they foil so many terrorist plots.

 

How do you know they do?

 

All we have is their word for it. And it's not like governments have routinely spread false information to get people to think a certain way or do what they want... oh, wait. They have.

[Disease]

You're stating this from the the current situation. There used to be plenty of privacy on the internet. Its only recent years that has so heavily focused on removing that privacy. Attacking people for *wanting* privacy on the internet is Ad Hominem and rather odd to say the least.

 

 

 

Keep drinking the cool aid. There was a review of terrorist plot interventions in the USA a little while ago and it found that out of the ~50 plots foiled, I believe it was only 1 of them was aided by the NSA data. The rest were gained by on the ground intelligence, as had been done for hundreds of years.

 

There has not been privacy on the net for over a decade, I am not attacking people for wanting privacy I am stating that privacy does not exist, Ad Hominen only counts if I attack the person not the argument, seeing as there is no argument about there being no privacy on the net, Ad Hominem is not valid. If you can prove that there is privacy on the net from the likes of the NSA/GCHQ then by all means display it. Until that point my statement stands.

 

Keep drinking Cool aid? That would be Ad Hominen and also therefore a bit hypocritical.

 

At the end of the day if people want to believe that they have privacy go for it, but don't be disappointed when you find out that it is a fallacy in the same way that people found out that exact fact on the TOR network, do a bit of research.

[localzuk]

There has not been privacy on the net for over a decade, I am not attacking people for wanting privacy I am stating that privacy does not exist, Ad Hominen only counts if I attack the person not the argument, seeing as there is no argument about there being no privacy on the net, Ad Hominem is not valid. If you can prove that there is privacy on the net from the likes of the NSA/GCHQ then by all means display it. Until that point my statement stands.

 

Your words were "anyone who thinks they have any privacy on the Net or phones is an idiot tbh". That is an attack on the person, not the argument.

 

Keep drinking Cool aid? That would be Ad Hominen and also therefore a bit hypocritical.

 

That was my intention. It was irony.

 

At the end of the day if people want to believe that they have privacy go for it, but don't be disappointed when you find out that it is a fallacy in the same way that people found out that exact fact on the TOR network, do a bit of research.

 

People aren't arguing that there is privacy.. They're arguing that there should be privacy from snooping by all sorts of people.

[sonofsanta]

ITT: rolling over and showing your tummy to the government, because what's the point in fighting, eh? Governments have never been forced into u-turns on any policy, ever. They always get their way.

[Disease]

 

 

That was my intention. It was irony.

 

Easy to explain hypocrisy as irony, whatever floats your boat.

 

 

 

People aren't arguing that there is privacy.. They're arguing that there should be privacy from snooping by all sorts of people.

 

Fair Enough point.