UK Government Expands Spying Powers 332
An anonymous submitter provides the best write-up of this story: "Today's front page story of The Guardian covers an attempt by the UK government to expand the number of organisations entitled to demand communications data under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (RIPA). Previously only Customs and Excise, the Inland Revenue, various law enforcement bodies and intelligence agencies were able to demand this information. The list of agencies proposed in the new Draft Statutory Instrument authorises practically everyone from local councils to the Food Standards Agency to demand traffic data. Traffic data includes almost all information attached to a communication apart from the contents of the communication itself. The location of your mobile phone, for example. Who you called on it and who's called you. The URLs you've visited or IP addresses of people who've visited your server... and the list goes on. The two o'clock update has a quote from the PM's spokesman reassuring us how safe we're all going to be once the Department of Work and Pensions can check our phone records. There's also an editorial piece to emphasise that this is a Bad Thing."
talk to your MP (Score:4, Informative)
Re:talk to your MP (Score:1)
Also announced today: Segregation of the children of asylum seekers into dedicated schools. This is all going a long way to sowing the seeds of hate in this country.
I wrote to my MP , Don Foster, about earlier legislation to introduce ID cards, and I happen to know he read the letter. So do it.
Who needs to watch Big Brother when you can live Big Brother.
Re:talk to your MP (Score:2, Insightful)
What you must do, I learned, is to ask your MP who exactly is involved in the implementation of these plans, and talk to them directly. This eliminates a layer of obfuscation and lets you put more political pressure on the culprits.
Despite all the outcry, it still went ahead. I'd put money on the same happening again. Our current goverment is very much about doing what they want whether we want it or not, I'm afraid.
Re:talk to your MP (Score:3, Informative)
Apparently it's not a problem because there are so many "safeguards" in place ;-) Quote from the prime minister:
"This data can only be sought if it is judged to be necessary:
Yeah right, Tony. How about this: "For the purposes of preventing crime and nothing else " -- We don't give a $417 about "preventing disorder", whatever you take that to mean.
Re:talk to your MP (Score:2, Insightful)
I mean it's there under two provisions of the act, both preventing injury, AND breaking the law.
I just hope that if this law goes through, every single Labour politician gets a speeding ticket on the way home to their wife/mistresses. Somehow it's more likely to be the Conservative party that get's it though.
Is this your cell phone sir?
Re:talk to your MP (Score:2)
Why is everyone so uppity about McDonald's wanting to send you an IM on your cell phone whenever you are within a block?
Caution, Will Robinson! (Score:2)
Take points from the form letters that have been posted here and elsewhere, by all means, but don't just copy/paste it!
A little bit of thought and attention to the points that matter most to you will significantly increase the impact it will have on the recipient.
Re:Caution, Will Robinson! (Score:2)
I've done plenty of ranting/cross-posted between here and k5 with these links, hopefully there should be a varied selection for those really not wanting to use a little creativity. sigh
Re:talk to your MP (Score:4, Informative)
Please, please, please don't send a form letter via Fax Your MP. It does more harm than good - any MP receiving more than one copy will ignore both, and it gives the impression that Fax Your MP is some kind of spam engine.
Here's the (slightly) longer explanation [faxyourmp.com] as to why this gives us at FYMP the willies (and sometimes means we have to killfile certain form letters). If you'd like to write your own letter, I've thrown the resources that you need onto the new STAND site [stand.org.uk].
By all means use mocktor's excellent letter as a starting point for your own. But using your own words is so much more effective.
This is Fascism, pure and simple. (Score:2, Insightful)
We're in trouble, people: it really seems that there is a transnational, concerted effort to clamp down on our privacy and rights as far as people will stand for it, using terrorism as an excuse.
In fact, the populace is being systematically denuded of what makes us citizens rather than property of the state. I never used to buy all of that conspiracy theory bullshit, but the more of this stuff I see, the more I wonder what's really going on...
Re:This is Fascism, pure and simple. (Score:4, Informative)
This is a particularly sinister development. Tony Blair's government attempts to discredit critics [bbc.co.uk] (in this case, the survivor of a train disaster who criticised his governments handling of rail safety) using background checks and database searches. These new powers will give the civil service the ability to persecute anyone who has a grievance against the government, even if only by ad hominem attacks, ad nauseum.
Re:This is Fascism, pure and simple. (Score:3, Insightful)
It wouldn't matter one bit if she was a member of a political party - this is a woman who testified to a board of enquiry with her face held on by a transparent plastic mask, as a survivor of a wreck in which many people were killed! Surely you cannot mean that being a member of a political party other than the one in power means that you sacrifice your right to justice - because that really is Fascism. In rhetorical terms, trying to claim that an opponent has no valid case because of an unrelated personal decision is an ad hominem attack, and definitely unacceptable in such a serious matter. The Blair government has a history of "spin", using PR to deflect legitimate criticism - do a web search for "Stephen Byers", whose department used September 11 to "bury" news unfavourable to their party.
British perspective (Score:4, Insightful)
The last election had almost 50% of the electorate not voting - it's not apathy, it's disgust for both major parties on the part of the educated and informed. We've been subjected to ridiculous, pathetic, bite-size policies that can make the evening news; attempts to score cheap points over rivals, and general contempt from those supposed to represent us. Those who lap this travesty up (and there are many) are sufficient to propogate the unfortunate status quo.
I have the chance to work in the USA in the near future - I'm going to jump with both feet. You may have the (spit!) DMCA et al, but the prospect of remaining in the police-state-once-called-the-UK turns my stomach.
Simon
Re:British perspective (Score:2)
You're wrong about there being nothing you can do though. Liberty is never handed to anybody on a plate, it sometimes gets built into a system after years of bitter struggle. It's in the nature of governments to erode whatever freedoms have previously been won. Governments like to govern. Left to their own devices they will eventually decide when you should take shit. Write to your MP, go on a march, make some noise for fuck's sake.
The US has it's own problems, for instance they seem to have just decided that there's no need to bother with evidence or trials anymore, just declare that someone was thinking about doing something bad and you can lock them up for ever without trial. All that in a country that already locks up a higher proportion of its population than anywhere except Russia.
Re:British perspective (Score:2)
I've lived abroad more than I've lived in the UK. My family has a history of working for Shell, and moving a lot
"You're wrong about there being nothing you can do though."
Actually, I'm not. I've tried writing to my MP - Mr Neil Gerrard, Walthamstow, London. He ignores me (doesn't even reply!) I've tried mail,fax, and email. As for going on a march, the issues are too complex: ask joe public whether liberty should be exchanged for security these days, and you'll get a resounding YES every time. Foolish but true. Gaining support for a march/demonstration is commensurately hard.
The UK "government" are cynically abusing the lack of public knowledge about the consequences of their actions, and manipulating the current perceptions of public danger (terrorism being the latest in a line of public-enemy-number-one's: the previous was child-pornography) in order to spy on the populace.
The UK "government" are proposing to open and read your mail under almost every situation. Quoth the UK prime minister's representative:
"This data can only be sought if it is judged to be necessary in the interests of national security; for the purpose of preventing or detecting crime or preventing disorder; or in the interests of the economic wellbeing of the UK; if it is in the interests of public safety, or for the purpose of protecting public health; or for the purpose of assessing or collecting any tax, duty or levy payable to a government department; or for the purpose in an emergency of preventing death or injury, any damage to a person's physical or mental health; or mitigating any injury or damage to a person's physical or mental health."
... so, just about anything then....
It just sickens me. It's not apathy that stops people from going to the polls, it's disgust with those purporting to represent them! In such cases, the "loyal majority" who unthinkingly vote for their party preserve the status quo.
Eventually you have to decide whether to spend years fighting it or just leave them to it. I'm off, hopefully at least. I have the advantage of a lot of expert skills in a growing media-industry, and I'm a partner in a valued company. Not everyone has my advantages, and that's the worst part.
"The US has it's own problems,..."
As does everywhere. It's a matter of what you can swallow, and what makes your stomach turn. Currently the UK governemnt polices make me vomit.
Simon.
Re:British perspective (Score:2)
Me too. Actually the restrictions are so meaningless that I'm beginning to think these changes might be a good thing ! They just don't go quite far enough. When I can find out who Cherie Blair has been in contact with in the last week, which websites Jack Straw's children visit etc then I'll feel like we're on a level playing field.
Re:British perspective (Score:2)
Whilst you're right about the disgust perhaps being the most significant factor, apathy in this matter is dangerous. Doing nothing is fare worse than doing something, and that matters even at elections (I always suggest people spoil their ballots if they disagree with the options, at least it's registered!).
Britains can sometimes surprise, and Blair is doing a superb job at the moment of stamping all over the will and mandate he claims he was given. It's a slow process affecting change in our system, but it will catch up eventually.
In the meantime, scream about the abuses, cock ups and problems. Look what happened to Byers? Bit by bit, change can be affected. I believe that Britain is, by nature, a tolerant country.
Re:British perspective (Score:2)
I have the chance to work in the USA in the near future - I'm going to jump with both feet.
Having worked in the US, I was more than happy to return to the UK. We at least have the illusion of privacy, the Yanks don't even seem to have that any more...
Al.American perspective on British perspective (Score:2)
I hate to break it to you, but things aren't much better here in the USA. The electorate is grossly uninformed, the elected aren't too much better informed, the media aren't talking about the issues, election turnout hovers about 60%, and instead of two parties, we have the Republicans and the Republican-Wannabes (otherwise known as the Democrats). Oh yeah, we have the Green and Reform parties, too, but those guys are just making noise at this stage.
On the other hand, there's still a lot that America has to offer. The food, and the variety of food, is excellent. The cost of living is relatively low while the salaries are relatively high. The music is fantastic once you turn off the damn radio. Our graduate schools, especially in technology, are second to none. Girls will dig your Brit accent. And you can't beat the scenery.
The only real pain in the ass, as far as you're concerned, is going to be learning to drive on the right-hand side of the road, and getting used to American football. The gun laws may be a bit of a shock, too, but they're a thing of beauty once you get used to them.
Re:American perspective on British perspective (Score:2)
Hmm. My opinion, from living in the US for a while, is that Americans in general aren't as accepting as Britons. If they don't like something, they let you know, and they don't wait for someone else to make a scene. This seemingly trivial behavioural difference explains a lot about the relative politics, IMHO.
"The only real pain in the ass, as far as you're concerned, is going to be learning to drive on the right-hand side of the road"
I'm in the US at least twice a year for trade shows etc. Mostly West coast, for about 2 months a year. I worked out that I tend to drive more in the US than in the UK, because in London there's no need for a car apart from shopping, and in the US there certainly is... My yearly mileage in the UK is ~1000 miles/year. My insurance company never believe me, but 52 trips to Sainsbury's = ~52 miles, and 3 trips "oop noorth" comes to ~900 miles....
I won't mention my opinion on guns - I've been opinionated enough already for one day
Simon
Re:This is Fascism, pure and simple. (Score:2)
Doubleplusgood (Score:1, Offtopic)
Ingosc will always be at war with Eurasia.
Q: What's the difference between George Bush and
Mussolini?
A: At least Mussolini could get the trains to run on time......
If you're going to make a joke... get a good one. (Score:2)
Trains in America? You have never been to the US, have you? I have been all over the US my whole life, NEVER TOOK A TRAIN.
That is the most Brit-centric comment I have ever heard. Honestly, the US railway system (AmTrack) has really precious little to do with the government other than grabbing riding priveledges off of private rail systems.
Oh, and the difference between Bush and Moussolini, and your little ridiculous, unfounded, General Anti-American Commie Nutter Beliefs(TM), is that Bush is trying to save his people instead of killing them outright in an angry, syphillitic haze.
I highly, highly doubt that George Bush will do things so horrible like Moussolini that he will end up strung up in front of his parliament so that the populace will definitely know he is dead. Quite the contrary, he'll probably get a few statues out of it, and a library. Maybe a monument.
That was because he will be remembered as one who tried to stop the death of others (and especially his citizens), instead of encouraging it.
SO, I would just like to say this on behalf of all the people that live in countries with no real freedoms...
Go screw yourself and your left wing, centralized governments that make all of the decisions for me and take all of my earnings to do it.
I mean it. Screw you and your ridiculous Utopia. There is a reason why they call it Utopia.
BECAUSE IT DOESN'T EXSIST.
Elected???? (Score:1)
the supreme court appointing him....
Oh that's right, we are already altering history to suit our needs aren't we?
Re: Elected???? (Score:2)
> was simply the Supreme court confirming what is clearly written in the Constitution -- that a state judiciary (SCOFLA in this case) may not step in and overturn the results of a federal election.
Care to point out where in the constitution that is said?
The issue is (was) that the Florida legislature exercised its constitutional right to legislate how presidential electors would be appointed in Florida. However, under Florida's constitution the Florida supreme court has the final judicial word on cases of Florida law. Plaintifs claimed that Florida law was not being followed and the case was escalated all the way up to the FSC -- exactly as it should be under the Florida constitution.
The SCOTUS ruling was nothing but a bunch of special pleading to ensure that their man got the job. The majority abandoned their long-held principles on this case, and then tried to cover their asses by saying "this ruling shall not be a precedent for the future".
But if it was the correct ruling, why shouldn't it be a precedent?
BTW, Bush-vs-Gore isn't the issue. It's the precedent -- legally binding or not -- that scares the hell out of me. Now all of America's political machines know that if they can rig an election and then run out the clock on the challenges, the rigged results will stand -- if they have friends in the Supreme Court.
And of course, it might not be the Republicans that 'win' next time. The Democrats have big scary political machines in other states, and will probably 0wn the SCOTUS someday too. I won't cheer a SC that hands an election to the Democrats, either.
Re: Elected???? (Score:2)
> He was legally elected. The only people who doubt that are those who didn't know how to punch a damned hole into a piece of paper, or how to follow an arrow.
Let's not forget overseas military votes that were counted even though they missed the legal deadline.
It can still get worse. (Score:2, Insightful)
The cure is not in legislation, it is in revitilization of simple core concepts of succesful society, namely, politeness, respect, and active participation in a shared cultural goal.
Or we can just accept continued branding and enforcement policies that have become popular in the last century. #099-11-1234 you will not go out with that woman, as she is
-GiH
I love sporks, they're the camels of eating utensils.
God Bless the U.S. (Score:3, Funny)
Irony (Score:1)
Moita Carrasco
Re:God Bless the U.S. (Score:1)
I understand you meant this ironically, but quite seriously: can you provide any cite to something on this scale happening in the US at all?
I know it's very fashionable to say `US bad, Europe good', but the fact remains that England has impositions on the privacy and other civil liberties of its citizens that would be unimaginable here in the US.
Official Secrets Act, anyone?
Re:God Bless the U.S. (Score:2)
Bill text [epic.org]
EFF Analysis [ttp]
Re:God Bless the U.S. (Score:2)
How about the current situation, see how far your rights stretch when your "patriotic" neighbour informs on you and you are detained as an "enemy combatant" and passed over to "military interrogation".
Fun fun fun.
Re: God Bless the U.S. (Score:2)
> the fact remains that England has impositions on the privacy and other civil liberties of its citizens that would be unimaginable here in the US.
Dunno 'bout England, but we're certainly on a slippery slope here in the USA. E.g., we found out yesterday that a US citizen has been in custody for over a month without anyone knowing about it, and even now that they've announced it he still isn't being given his constitutional right to counsel and there's no prospect of a trial by a jury of his peers in store for him.
How many other US citizens are being held under similar circumstances? I doubt we would have ever heard of this one if not for the Adminstration's pressing need to show the public that our spy agencies are protecting us.
And if they take offense at this post, what's to stop them from declaring me an "enemy combatant" and disappearing me without any rights, too?
A "state of emergency" has always been a popular excuse for setting aside constitutions. The US public needs to speak out on this now, before it goes any further.
Re: God Bless the U.S. (Score:2)
> With due respect, I suggest you read more about Mr. al-Mujahir's case before you start drawing wild conclusions.
> In particular, Mr. al-Mujahir had a lawyer while he was being held in New York, and waived the opportunity to contest being transferred to military jurisdiction. He is more than welcome to contest this transfer if a later date if he wishes to. Likewise, your claim that this case was kept secret is simply false. It is certainly true that the media became more interested in Mr. al-Mujahir's case when the larger charges of attempting to explode a dirty nuclear device in the US were added to his case, but his detention was a matter of public record at all times.
Thank you. Do you have a source where I can read up on it, since the US media can't be bothered to keep us informed?
> As for Mr. al-Mujahir being subject to military jurisdiction, the precedent for trying US citizens caught entering the nation as an act of war on behalf of a foreign power dates back to the earliest days of this nations' history, with cases in the early nineteenth century, the Civil war, and the Second World War.
Yes, I'm aware of this. I also have a big problem with it: he is accused of entering the nation as an act of war on behalf of a foreign power. The constitutional guarantee of a trial by a jury of your peers decouples "accusation" from "guilt", and exists to protect citizens from things like secret trials. IMO the precedent should be ditched... though of course there's no reason to ask or present SCOTUS to examine the question.
Notice my
Re: God Bless the U.S. (Score:2)
> The Washington Post [washingtonpost.com] and others have had coverage of this over the last day and a half.
I meant the bit about it all being public knowledge for over a month, him having an attourney and declining to contest the military detention, and all that stuff that I haven't seen anywhere.
Re: God Bless the U.S. (Score:2)
> The cable news networks have had pretty good discussion of all of this stuff -- I'll try to dig up some transcripts, as they come online.
I don't do cable, but I'll probably catch Peter Jennings and Jim Lehrer tonight. They were pretty ignorant yesterday, though. Jennings did probe a bit on the counsel and trial issues, and he seemed to get "no" for the answers.
A Web link would be nice too, though. I respect Jennings and Lehrer more than I do most of the talking heads on the telly, but I'm not under any illusion that they're keeping me well informed.
That's why we fought the revolution (Score:2)
A simple rule of thumb: Citizens have rights, subjects have privileges. We believe our rights are unalienable -- they come from God. Subjects' privileges are granted by the crown and taken away by the crown as it sees fit.
Re:That's why we fought the revolution (Score:2)
A simple rule of thumb: Citizens have rights, subjects have privileges. We believe our rights are unalienable -- they come from God. Subjects' privileges are granted by the crown and taken away by the crown as it sees fit.
This is ont of the things that Americans seem to commonly misunderstand about the British system. We don't have rights, or privileges. We have responsibilities, our system is based on the responsibilities we have to the crown (or these days, effectively, society). So long as we fufill these responsibilities, we can do pretty much what we like...
That said, I don't think any of our politicians understand our system anymore either... *sigh*
Al.Bah! (Score:2, Funny)
This is presumably because our current government sees little value in the content of its own communications, it's all in the presentation and the spin
Beeb covers it too. (Score:1)
1984 (Score:1)
Another article (Score:2)
Encryption laws (Score:4, Interesting)
The GnuPG list was abuzz with this a while back because steganography is considered the only solution to this problem by some and a sure ticket to jail by others, so when discussion came up about stego in GnuPG, people were very passionate about it.
I can't imagine how such a law would get passed. It's just begging for abuse. But, then I look at the DMCA in the US, and I have to admit that the UK hasn't cornered the market on stupid laws.
Re:Encryption laws (Score:1)
Afaik none of this has ever been tested in a court where, imho, it is likely to get chucked out as unworkable if not completely in breach of the European Human Rights Act to which we are signatories in principle.
For background reading from the mouth of the horse, try here [homeoffice.gov.uk]
Re:Encryption laws (Score:4, Informative)
Not quite - it still has to go before a judge, who may just believe you when you say that you don't have the key, or forgot your password/passphrase, or whatever.
There are two big problems with that part of the RIP Act. The first is that it effectively shifts the burden of proof onto the accused. How do you prove that you do not posses some data, or do not know the passphrase for a key? The second is that you can be jailed for up to 5 years just for telling people that you received the demand to hand over your encryption keys. The motivation behind that is obvious - it's to stop people from warning their correspondents to stop using that key as it's been compromised. The potential for abuse, however, is clear - how do you seek legal advice or representation, if you can't tell anyone what's happening?
More to the point, how can the public ensure that the powers are not being abused, if they do not know how often they are invoked and in what circumstances?
Cheers,
Tim
Re:Encryption laws (Score:2)
I take it that you're not aware that the DMCA is an updated version of the UK Copyright, Design and Patents Act 1988 [hmso.gov.uk]?
On the bright side, UK government (including law enforcement) are institutionally clueless and conservative when it comes to technology. On the downside, they do tend to focus their small pools of talent in unfortunate places, such as quoshing civil protest. Mobile 'phones in the hands of protestors have been a thorn in the side of police (in the US as well) for years. Now they can use them to track the demonstrators, and they're not above making pre-emptive strikes to detain (not arrest) large numbers of people on the basis that they might cause a disturbance. Oh joy.
Balanced against this, it will allow emergency services to find accident victims, and welfare agencies to verify the location of benefit cheats stupid enough to give them a genuine mobile 'phone number. Whether it will be used effectively for this remains to be seen. The emergency services, perhaps, the benefits agency, I highly doubt.
The 'net access provisions are a mixed bag. Sure, most of us can see the benefit of gathering contributory evidence against paedophiles or violent criminals, but the costs to enable this seems out of proportion to the tiny amount of circumstantial evidence that it will provide. There's a small chance that it will be abused to track people visiting anti-government sites, but the payoff for law enforcement is so small that I doubt if they'll bother.
In other words, this looks like a hugely expensive white elephant that will be neither used nor abused, but will just sit around gathering dust and costing ISP's (and paying customers) money. I'll write to my elected representative (again), but as he's currently sleazing his way into the Inner Cabal of his party, I doubt if he'll even consider stepping off the party line on this issue.
Re:Encryption laws (Score:2)
Yeah, you do get to appear before a judge, but the idea that I should have to explain how your random bits are not my encrypted data and then leave it up to the judge to decide my fate is just scary!
Again, thanks!
Re:Encryption laws (Score:2)
The fundamental problem of RIP is that you need to prove your innocence having been assumed guilty, which completely contradicts english laws over a milennia old. (not really comparable to DMCA, because they're different issues: RIP = "to legalise government snopping", DMCA = "to guarantee profitability of music/film companies"
As Cox rightly pointed out, M. Blair MP doesn't give a shit about the "people", just about business (look at him trying to bribe car companies with our money to stay in the UK for examples aplenty) -- The good thing is that national newspapers (guardian.co.uk) are kicking up a fuss in popular newsstands about "why does your friendly local fireman need to read your email?" and it's being discussed...
As to RIP key confiscations, the only real defense is over-the-top schemes like either freenet, or overseas key-storage / stego. Given that most people I know can't even figure out the windows version of PGP after it's already installed for them, I can't see that happening.
My policy seems to be "Key's on a disk, and it's gonna get microwaved the moment someone kicks my door" -- other people have "is your key compromised?" "no" or "I cannot answer" style of defenses, or "I'll explain key revocation only if it's not RIP related" -- it doesn't realy matter in practise, because criminals will take the 2 years for key-deletion in preference to 10 years for kiddie-porn (or 10 years for having a browser-cache with copyrighted web-pages in it, according to new legislation under debate)
It's a pity that the "intelligence versus politics" warfield is moving to the UK, but at least there are some people here who know about it -- stand should be at least as successful as the EFF, I hope.
whew! (Score:2, Funny)
I live in the US, land of the free, home of... err.. Nevermind
*packs bags for move to tongan Islands*
Re:whew! (Score:1)
With due respect, can you point to anything in the US which approaches the violations of privacy and other civil liberties in Great Britain brought about by bills like this one?
Official Secrets Act, anyone?
Re:whew! (Score:2)
It is no different to any other country's security laws. I suspect that if you sold US nuclear arm tech to the chinese that you would go to jail for a long time. That is all the OSA is, just a codification.
By the way, when people sign the OSA (as I have), this is simply to make a record that you have read it. Everyone is bound by the OSA, in the same way as an American will be bound by the equivalent laws.
Stop talking crap about the OSA, most people have no real idea what it is and seem to regard it as some mythical piece of legislation that means you can be hung from you finger nails for the rest of your life if you leak the colour of Tony Blair's underpants. It isn't, its just a normal law for keeping state secrets, secret.
Paul
Re:whew! (Score:2)
The Other Side of Government Data Access (Score:3, Insightful)
Would you rather penetrate MI6? Or the Department of Work and Pensions?
I'm not saying I distrust any podunk agency. I'd much rather not particularly need to. Desperately.
--Dan
Re:The Other Side of Government Data Access (Score:2)
Re:The Other Side of Government Data Access (Score:2)
If that's the case, then you do actually need to compromise or work with (or be) an insider to get full information, which is probably far easier with some agencies than others (like infiltrating a competent counterintelligence service versus, oh, food safety inspectors). Of course, a food safety inspector might come under scrutiny if he makes odd intercept requests (unless his superiors are also compromised), so they payoff might be limited, but *shrug* depends on compartmentalization and institutional safeguards.
too late. (Score:1)
But the proposal, it should be stressed, is expanding the number of agencies who have access to this data. That is, a series of British agencies already collect the data.
This battle should've been fought years ago. Our current political environment is not conducive to stuffing the data collection genie back in the bottle.
-FC
It _was_ fought years ago... (Score:2)
Legislation spinning out of control (Score:1)
Not good. But something is worse. (Score:2)
UKGov currently embroiled in 'dig-for-dirt' emails (Score:5, Interesting)
Survivors of the Paddington rail disaster have recently discovered that the Department of Transport was digging into their private life. The intent was to find out their political affilitations and use these to discredit them. The reason? They were critical of a government minister, the legendarily poor Steven Byers.
In other words, being critical of government policy was enough to start an investigation into their private lives. This is causing a small scandal here at present, a scandal which really should be much larger and probably only isn't because we're so used to such poor standards from our politicians.
Cheers,
Ian
Re:UKGov currently embroiled in 'dig-for-dirt' ema (Score:2)
Except the attacks where clearly political motivated, I cannot see how a prospective parliamentary candidate can be viewed other than inherently biased. The add the fact that the Tories are responsible for the poor state of the railways because of their ill conceived meddling.
In other words, being critical of government policy was enough to start an investigation into their private lives.
This is a misnomer, there are at least two degrees of separation, from the Civil Servants that can legally access this data, via the executive, to the party workers. As the son of a Civil Servant, I can assure you they take there independence extremely seriously.
Re:UKGov currently embroiled in 'dig-for-dirt' ema (Score:2)
But in this case they were bypassed. That's my point - people who could legally ask for this information were being instructed to ask for it by someone who could not have got it themselves.
As the son of a Civil Servant, I can assure you they take there independence extremely seriously. Oh, I know plenty of civil servants and have done for years. Not a smear on the service. It is a direct criticism of the ridiculous 'political advisor' system, whereby someone who's entire job is explicitly political is able to order those who are supposed to be neutral to do their bidding.
To come on to your other point:
Except the attacks where clearly political motivated, I cannot see how a prospective parliamentary candidate can be viewed other than inherently biased.
To be alive is to be political. Everyone has a political viewpoint - you, me, the candidate...everyone. But does this make the questions less valid?
Then add the fact that the Tories are responsible for the poor state of the railways because of their ill conceived meddling.
Cheers,
Ian
Re:UKGov currently embroiled in 'dig-for-dirt' ema (Score:2)
The minister didn't ask anything. An official did. A public servant.
Labour has the right to ask what it wishes. The Department of Transport should adhere to strict neutrality.
Incidently, let's suppose one of the survivers had been the leader of the Green party. Would their comments and questions be any less valid for that fact? Why not deal with the questions rather than the personalities?
Cheers,
Ian
Do it! (Score:4, Informative)
If you're like me, you'll find writing to your MP about matters like this very rewarding. Saying that, I neglected to write or fax when the RIP bill first came up, despite my intentions to do so.
I last wrote (dead tree, rather than fax) to my MP at the time regarding Higher Education funding (at the request of my old University), and got a nice reply back saying he'd deal with it in due course. Subsequently, I received a pp'd letter saying he'd contacted the appropriate people.
Ok, it changed nothing - higher education is still poorly funded - but I felt I'd done 'my bit'. Multiply that out, and it could have an effect. Although with the almost dictatorial goverment system we have, it's hard to imagine enough Labour MP's rebelling against a 3-line whip to reject the amendment.
It makes a lot more sense to write something you have thought about, rather than copy/pasting somebody else's letter. If the same MP (well, secretary) receives a few similair messages through the same format (ie. fax), they IMNSHO are (even though they shouldn't) more likely to discount your views.
Different letters, especially if they are dead-tree compliant (come on, how many tech savy MP's have you ever seen or heard from?) go so much further.
So do it, people. This extension of power is extreme, and deserves a letter writing campaign and far more attention.
So:
# Write to your MP. It'll only take a few minutes to write it, print it, sign it, and send it.
# Write again after a few weeks if you've not heard back.
# Forward the link to this story (when it hits the front page or sections) to your friends.
# Mention it to friends at the pub. It's ridiculous, and i'd be startled if anybody - even the non-techies in your circle of friends - agree it makes sense for these organisations to have this amount of power.
# Check that newspapers are giving this coverage.
# Write letters to newspapers on the subject, expressing your feelings.
None of this takes a huge amount of time. It's worth it, and you'll feel a lot better for doing it.
And if anything, it might start to pursuade the government and media that techy's can actual get themselves organised into a politicial pressure
group.
Maybe. Perhaps.
Mmmmm.
Well, one step at a time, then, eh?
Gotta love the initials (Score:2)
Why domestic spying was restricted in the U.S. (Score:5, Informative)
After Nixon's resignation, the Church Committee, named after its chairman, Senator Frank Church of Idaho, conducted a wide-ranging investigation of US intelligence agencies. In its final report, issued in April 1976, the committee concluded: "Domestic intelligence activity has threatened and undermined the Constitutional rights of Americans to free speech, association and privacy. It has done so primarily because the Constitutional system for checking abuse of power has not been applied."
The committee said the abuses by the intelligence apparatus mirrored the growth of excessive executive power and excessive secrecy, and that in the name of "national security" intelligence officers and their senior officials blatantly disregarded the law and the civil liberties of their targets. (Sound familiar, anyone?)
The Church Committee revealed the enormous scope of the operations against anti-war demonstrators, civil rights activists and left-wing political parties. This included the FBI's Counterintelligence Program (Cointelpro), which had the stated goal "to expose, disrupt, misdirect, discredit, or otherwise neutralize" left-wing opponents of government policy. FBI headquarters alone developed over 500,000 domestic intelligence files on US citizens.
In addition the committee found:
* At least 26,000 individuals were at one point catalogued on an FBI list of persons to be rounded up in the event of a "national emergency."
* Nearly a quarter of a million first class letters were opened and photographed in the US by the CIA between 1953 and 1973, producing a CIA computerized index of nearly 1.5 million names.
* Separate files were created on approximately 7,200 Americans and over 100 domestic groups in the course of the CIA's Operation CHAOS (1967-1973), aimed at crushing the student anti-war movement.
* Millions of private telegrams sent from, to, or through the US were obtained by the National Security Agency from 1947 to 1975 under a secret arrangement with three US telegraph companies. (Replaced now by Eschalon)
* An estimated 100,000 Americans were the subjects of United States Army intelligence files created between the mid-1960s and 1971.
* Intelligence files on more than 11,000 individuals and groups were created by the Internal Revenue Service between 1969 and 1973 and tax investigations were started on the basis of political rather than tax criteria.
The Senate committee also found that these agencies sent anonymous letters attacking the political beliefs of targets in order to induce their employers to fire them. Similar letters were sent to spouses in an effort to destroy marriages. The committee also documented criminal break-ins, the theft of membership lists and misinformation campaigns aimed at provoking violent attacks against targeted individuals.
One of the most infamous operations uncovered by the Church Committee was the FBI's campaign to "neutralize" civil rights leader Martin Luther King Jr. This included an extensive surveillance program to obtain information about the "private activities of King and his advisers" to use in order to "completely discredit" them. The FBI mailed King a tape recording made from microphones hidden in hotel rooms. As one agent testified, this was an attempt to destroy King's marriage. The tape was accompanied by a note suggesting that the recording would be released to the public unless King committed suicide.
The FBI's Cointelpro operations against the Black Panthers involved the killing of several leaders, including Fred Hampton, by the Chicago police, as well as the frame-up and imprisonment of scores of others.
Horrifying. (Score:2)
Extending this list by this much does more than greatly increase the number of agencies allowed access to personal information--it greatly increases the number of people who might have access to it, and to abuse it. Especially scary is the power on the local level.
Need I even mention that many of these agencies have no personnel with the training to gather information, much less interpret it accurately. How long before the good old US follows suit? Or have they already granted these powers to every branch of government?
This is a Statuaraty Order (Score:2)
A Statuary Order, does not need to be debated to become law, it just "neads to be layn befor the House for seven days".
What this gobadygook actual means is, as long as its in the Commons Libary for a week and nobody chalanges it it will become law.
Don't just complain - complain in writing. (Score:3, Informative)
It's important to note that only comments in writing will be noticed. That's the way the system works. Also, by writing to your MP you're going to get attention - it's part of their office to reply - even sending out form letters creates notice. The easy way for us to make comments is by faxing your MP [faxyourmp.com].
Go and do it now.
Cool (Score:2)
DCMA - ouch (Score:2)
Pity us poor Brits - not only do we have to put up with Star Trek months after you guys see it, we also get duff laws through that have been bounced once and this time they are even more duff.
:-)
Kuro5hin also has an article.... (Score:2)
Another Strategy (Score:4, Informative)
You could also try calling the labour party on 08705 900200 (UK Number, so +44 8705 900200 from outside the UK)
choose option 3 to be put through to a Goverment Information Adviser. A report of the calls they receive is sent out to Number 10.
They will tell you it is for law enforcement purposes (so why aren't the police doing it), but don't know very much about it. Quoting directly from the order will fox them thoroughly.
They have already received a number of calls.
There is also an option to contact Labour Party Head Office, although they don't seem to be answering right now.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
progress (Score:2)
We don't want these powers (Score:2)
(It was so obvious that we didn't want these powers that the council leader issued these instructions before consulting his fellow councillors, as it seemed inconceivable that any of us would take a different view.)
What this means for us across the pond... (Score:2)
This means that the Brits are more, um... willing to electronically spy, and if I remember right, Echelon works by the UK spying on us and vice versa. You can bet that whatever they are looking at, much time is spent spying on US domestic affairs.
Notification? (Score:2)
So how about a reciprocal notification requirement: Any agency that monitors your traffic is required to notify you of what and how they monitored within 30 days of having done so ? If it would jeopardize an ongoing criminal investigation, then the agency could petition a judge for extentions based on evidence collected. Otherwise, pfft! Once charges are filed, of course, they are required to disclose all evidence.
This notification requirement should have a noticable chilling effect on snoops who work in secrecy and dread being called upon to justify their snooping. They might be tempted skip notifications, but suitable penalties could be levied (disqualification of evidence, wiretap). Auditing would be necessary.
All you have to do to lose your liberties... (Score:2)
...is to stop demanding them.
Decide you'd rather be safe than free, or at least don't complain when others make that decision for you. Submit voluntarily to a random search because it makes the streets safer. Get frisked at the door. Carry a national ID. Get strip-searched before you get on the plane. Piss in the test cup and interoffice mail it to your boss. Don't write your congressman because we all know it doesn't make any difference. Stop reading the newspaper because it's so depressing. Don't vote. Use the supermarket's "discount card" so they can track everything you eat. Stop at the exit to the store when the employee tells you to and show them your receipt so they can be sure you're not stealing. Smile at the camera. Accept the software license that makes it illegal to use the program in ways the software company doesn't like. Receive information but don't create any. Watch TV because books are too thought-intensive. If you do read, have the FBI check your library's records to make sure nobody's checking out too many flagged books. Accept what you're told. Let the government gut the fifth amendment because it makes it too hard to get the bad guys. Let the FBI go back to spying on political organizations & religious groups again because "everything's changed." Let your bank share your personal data with anyone it wants because you're too busy to bother opting out. Mandate location chips in your cell phones so anyone who pays the phone company or gets a court order can know where you are 24/7. Fill out this survey for a chance at big prizes. Put a bio-locator chip in your kid's arm. Don't talk to strangers, they may think differently than you. Go from place to place in a metal box that prevents you from meeting or talking to anyone new or weird. Perpetuate the status quo. Pay more attention to how much money is in your pocket and how safe your investments are than how free you are, how creative you can be, and what the shape of the future is. Get yours - fuck the next guy.
Excuse the drama, but I don't know how else to express the feelings building up in me over the way the US is going. And I'm talking about the past 5-10 years, not just since September. If what our Declaration of Independence referred to as "certain inalienable rights" are no more than a greasy coin we can trade for a modicum of safety, 10% off our groceries, or a chance at winning a speedboat, what are they worth? Does a nation of people that would trade such liberty for these things deserve it? I simply no longer understand a large number of my fellow Americans who seem to think the above is basically OK. More than depressing, it's dangerous, and bodes ill for the long-term future of the nation.
Its bad, but it could be worse... (Score:2)
But can we name a country where this already takes place? Heres a hint, 'Carnivore'.
I guess the upside of this is that it is out in the public a law. You can overturn a law. You can demonstrate a law to be unworkable. You can show a law to be in conflict with other laws.
Its a lot better than 'policy' and 'guidelines'.
What can I do to avoid it? (Score:2)
If I run my own web server on my home ADSL line do I have to keep the logs or does it only apply to ISPs? If it does apply, then it seems to be time to develop a ficticious log generating program.
How is outgoing mail monitored? If I send my email via my ISPs mail server then I can see that they have a log. What if I send it direct? It doesn't seem to go through a proxy.
Likewise with HTML. Since I don't go out through a proxy presumably my ISP has to monitor all the packets to get a list of sites I have visited.
I guess I could go back to sending more real letters (these powers don't seem to apply to snail mail and presumably no-one monitors what I put in the post box). Perhaps its time to buy a bulk supply of disc mailers.
Anyone working on a scheme to get around it entirely? E.g. some scheme to send emails via FreeNet?
Bottom Line: Politicians don't care and Joe Public thinks we are all terrorists anyway. However, we are much more intelligent than them so we might as well use our brains to work on a technical solution.
The other shoe has dropped. (Score:2)
An extraordinary degree of opposition from all parts of the political spectrum succeeded in getting the worst aspects of that accursed Bill amended, though the resulting Act that passed into law is still highly objectionable. Crucially, some aspects of the way the RIP Act would actually work in detail were left unspecified in the legislation, to be clarified as regulations to be drawn up later by - yep, you've guessed it - the Home Office. This is fairly standard practice in the UK, but in this particular case one has to conclude that the parliamentarians who were trying to pull the teeth of the monster ended up by giving it a big yet kiss.
Well, now we have the detailed clarification from the Home Office of who should be allowed to snoop on our communications. A grab-bag of everyone from government departments with responsibility for sensitive areas like nuclear power to hundreds of thousands of minor civil servants and elected officials up and down the country, presented to Parliament in a form that doesn't even need further legislation to come into force - it's more in the nature of an administrative order. I will nevertheless admit that I'm a little surprised at how over the top this list of authorised organisations is. The Post Office is authorised to snoop on electronic communications? Any local authority (ie local town or district council)? Does the Home Office perhaps believe that snooping on electronic communications is going to help deliver letters on time, or keep the sidewalks free from dog-poop? More likely you'll end up with Councilor Bigbucks-the-Builder, head of the local building & planning department, trawling for information about the pesky folks who are orchestrating a campaign against selling off the school playing-field for a multi-story office development.
FWIW, my guess is that the more extreme entries in the wish-list are sacrificial and that the Home Office will give them up if pushed - though it will do this with the same bloody-mindedness and grudging bad grace that it displayed throughout the discussion on the original RIP Act which this 'clarifies' - so that some other entries which would otherwise be contentions, for example the government Department of the Environment - will slip through unopposed. Cynical, but unfortunately standard practice. I'd guess that other aims of such an extensive set of authorised organisations are to make the task of oversight as difficult as possible, and to maximise the uncertainty about whether a particular request for traffic information to an ISP can legitimately be resisted.
Brits: write to your MPs - politely but firmly. Look at the list of bodies that the Home Office wants to authorise to snoop - the wish-list is up on the government's web site here [hmso.gov.uk]. Ask your MP to consider what range of offenses and security concerns it is reasonable to use traffic analysis and access information to investigate, and what organisations are going to be directly involved in such investigations.
(Sigh) It took the BSE and foot'n'mouth debacles before the UK government finally reluctantly accepted that the old Ministry of Agriculture Fisheries & Food had become nothing more than an in-house lobbey for the agribusiness, and could no longer be trusted with supervising food safety. I shudder to think how long it will be before it is accepted that justice and supervision of law enforcement are now too important to be left to the Home Office.
Update: Vote has been deferred (Score:2)
Stand [stand.org.uk] report has more detail.
Might be worth faxing again to advise your MP of the new date?
Re:If you think this applies to you (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:If you think this applies to you (Score:1)
Where do you get the `Right Wing' in this statement?
Hint:
Right wing == distrustful of all government, belief in strict limits on state power, and firm adherence to the rule of law
Left wing == distrustful only of the current government, belief in replacing it with one which will have more power over the rights of the individual, but will be `good' this time, no really, we promise.
Re:If you think this applies to you (Score:1)
It's the fucking truth.
I ought to beat you with a golf club until you can't type. ever.
Re:If you think this applies to you (Score:1)
Re:If you think this applies to you (Score:1)
Re:If you think this applies to you (Score:2)
Re:If you think this applies to you (Score:1)
Re:If you think this applies to you (Score:2)
This I agree with. If you're going to collect the information, release it. If you don't want it released, don't collect it. You see this all the time in local politics. The small ponds' big fishees pitch a fit if their publicly funded cell phone records are released. Hey, I paid for it. Let me see what you're doing.
Re:If you think this applies to you (Score:2)
It does apply to me if my immediate family or acquaintances work for a government agency. Imagine your girlfriends father works there, and he concludes from your visits to goatse that you must be some anally fixated freak. That does not enhance your relationship. The problem is, you don't get a chance to explain the misunderstanding, because he will have made up his mind about you already, and will not ask you: "hey, I noticed you visited this website, care to elaborate?"
Don't think this is far-fetched: a lot of parents that work for the police/justice/whatever look up everything they can about potential new in-laws.
Same thing when looking for a new job: They will check you out, and if they can find your internet habits this way, they will. And again, you probably won't have a chance to explain the harmlessness of your actions.
Re:If you think this applies to you (Score:1)
Re:OHNO (Score:2)
Are you sure [colorado.edu]?
You're not that special? (Score:2, Interesting)
The government doesn't mind what you do if you don't matter. However if you do something outrageous, say protest some inane policy or attend a rally etc YOU WILL begin to matter.
In the US, the FBI started watching, taking pictures and keeping a file on the SCA for godsakes! For those who don't know, these are the re-inactment types who dress in armor and play at knighthood.
Why watch them you ask? Apparently because they had a "king" and so might wish to topple the government for a monarchy.
But what you said is true, you will probably never get touched as long as you STAY WITHIN the approved thought/consumption patterns and do nothing to attract attention.
Re:You're not that special? (Score:2)
Until such time as technology lowers data search and analysis costs to nil. At that point, everyone will be watched. Won't it be fun when every inane law is 100% enforceable??
Re:You're not that special? (Score:2)
The recent Queen of the Kingdom of the West - was denied entry to the US (she's an Australian Citizen - just happens to be the chick that King Uthar is dating) post 9/11.
Suspected ties to subversives is the rumored reason for denial. She isn't applying for citizenship - just a temporary visa so she can hang out for 6 months and be queen.
Re:Protecting each other. (Score:2)
This is not a case of "if you keep it, we'll have the right to make you give us a copy of it". This is the UK government saying "you will keep this data, and surrender it on demand, and all at your own expense".
I doubt that the legislation will apply to "hobbyist" servers, but you can bet that there will be stiff financial and/or criminal penalties for "real" ISPs that refuse to implement the necessary data retention procedures.
Cheers,
Tim
Re:If you're clean, who cares? (Score:2)
Your only kidding yourself. I've been framed, and misunderstood enough times that I no longer trust anyone with athority. And those incidences were before I reached 4th grade.
I was not fighting in first grade. I got wrote up for it anyway because someone in power decided that what I was doing just could have been fighting at a first glance, and so I was wrote up. I've not forgotten that incident. I have been innocent and just punished for it.
There are others, but that one stands out in my mind, and is proff byond the shadow of a doupt that goverment is out to get you.
Re:Is it really that bad? (Score:2)