Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Privacy Government Security Social Networks United Kingdom Your Rights Online

Online Activities To Be Recorded By UK ISPs 312

Posted by timothy
from the like-y'-do dept.
SmartAboutThings writes "The United Kingdom online monitoring law just got published, showcasing some disturbing facts. The paper is 123 pages long and is actually a draft of the Communications Data Bill. You might not be so happy to find out that from now, every single thing you do online will be recorded and stored by the good old Internet Service providers (ISP). What do we mean by online activity? Well, everything."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Online Activities To Be Recorded By UK ISPs

Comments Filter:
  • Be good. (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 14, 2012 @03:32PM (#40327989)

    Nothing to hide, nothing to fear.

    • Re:Be good. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by sobachatina (635055) on Thursday June 14, 2012 @03:48PM (#40328267)

      I hate it when people say this. At the risk of feeding a troll...

      You might be doing nothing wrong and still have plenty to hide from some people. I don't consider going on vacation wrong but I don't broadcast to the internet that my house will be vacant.

      What if you don't support the controlling political party? You might value some anonymity.

      Sure if the government, and all the individuals within it that have access to that data, are always perfectly honorable you might never have a problem. Does this seem like a likely situation for you to stake your life or wellbeing on?

      Giving that much power to the government is just begging one power hungry corrupt individual to abuse it to gain more power.

    • Re:Be good. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by CanHasDIY (1672858) on Thursday June 14, 2012 @04:06PM (#40328527) Homepage Journal
      ... and if a person did have something they wanted to not make public, or "hide" as you put it, what fucking business is it of yours, or more specifically, the governments?

      Every hear of a guy named Matthew Shepard? [wikipedia.org] He didn't hide the fact he was homosexual, and was kidnapped, robbed, chained to a fence, and brutally beaten to death for it.

      "Something to hide" != something illegal or wrong, jackass.
    • by dissy (172727)

      Nothing to hide, nothing to fear.

      Then why haven't you turned yourself in?
      You've broken hundreds of laws today alone, and if you count all the countries of the world, you have broken thousands of laws today alone.

      I don't see you making an example of what you preach...

    • Re:Be good. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Beardo the Bearded (321478) on Thursday June 14, 2012 @04:44PM (#40329001)

      All criminals wear clothing. Clothes can be used to hide weapons or drugs, mask your identity, and blend into crowds.

      Therefore, we should make it unlawful to wear clothing. It will make it easier for the police to do their jobs. After all, if you've done nothing wrong -- and you've been to the gym and haven't been at the crisps again -- you've got nothing to hide, do you?

      • Re:Be good. (Score:4, Funny)

        by EdIII (1114411) on Thursday June 14, 2012 @06:04PM (#40329729)

        That's quite brilliant actually. Loin clothes for the men and dental floss thongs for the ladies.

        Of course, that means I could blend into a crowd like a Ninja since everyone would be concentrating on the thongs.

        Contrary to popular belief, boobies never get old.

    • A paper on privacy [ssrn.com] and why "monitoring is no problem because only criminals have something to hide" is a poor justification. If you compare the benefits of monitoring for the good of society against the usually slight or non-existant damage to an individual from being monitored, society always wins out. However, privacy is not just monitoring. What affect does it have on society when everyone is aware that there are large databases of information about your life and people will use to make decisions about
  • The only answer (Score:5, Informative)

    by nospam007 (722110) * on Thursday June 14, 2012 @03:34PM (#40328017)

    www.torproject.org/projects/torbrowser.html.en

    • Re:The only answer (Score:5, Interesting)

      by turgid (580780) on Thursday June 14, 2012 @04:02PM (#40328465) Journal

      Oh, so you're a paedophile drug-dealing terrorist [slashdot.org] now, are you?

      You're probably a pinko-commie [whitehouse.gov] too!

  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 14, 2012 @03:34PM (#40328037)

    This is apparently a Bill that has not actually been passed yet.

    • by wierd_w (1375923) on Thursday June 14, 2012 @03:48PM (#40328257)

      no, but it will.

      It may take several attempts, but it eventually will.

      The reason is simple: the powers that be *want* this. Much like SOPA, PIPA, ACTA, and whatever the current generation mutant strain is, keeps getting brandished about like a giant black rubber donkey dildo. The public says no, but the powers that be want to fuck us. They keep whipping out dildo after dildo, refusing to take the hint that we *DON'T WANT ANY* dildos, not just that specific one.

      When they finally manage to snooker us into taking it (all the way I might add, without any lube), then they tell all their friends about it, and from then on, that type of dildoing becomes standard practice, for everyone, everywhere.

      What we need is to propose counter legislation FORBIDDING proposals of this type. Simply defeating every proposed terror dick they whip out of their rape kit won't work.

      • by Kittenman (971447) on Thursday June 14, 2012 @04:11PM (#40328595)
        It's usually standard practice to use a car analogy on Slashdot, but I find your new item quite refreshing. And a point well made.
        • It's usually standard practice to use a car analogy on Slashdot

          Imagine them forcing a car... all the way into your ass.

      • by Anonymous Brave Guy (457657) on Thursday June 14, 2012 @04:13PM (#40328631)

        The reason is simple: the powers that be *want* this.

        Even that isn't true. The Lib Dems are pretty strongly opposed to this, as are some high profile Tories, David Davis being probably the most obvious figurehead.

        This is the usual power grab by police/security services/whoever, backed by the usual FUD about terrorism and organised crime. It's probably also something of a "We can still be friends, right?" from the Home Office to the police, whom the government in general and the current Home Secretary in particular have annoyed a lot in recent weeks.

        Something might get through, but I very much doubt it will look anything like this by the time it's been done over by civil libertarians, ISPs who would have to foot the bill, and people who actually have a clue about technology. We as a nation might be far less protective of our privacy than I personally would like, but we're not completely clueless. Look at the way ID cards were beaten down, despite a huge push from government. More recently, look at the way the way the government at EU level has turned against ACTA, despite the national governments of almost every member state already ratifying it and publicly claiming they support it.

        Even in the US, where the popular claim is that the government don't care about anything much any more, look how fast the politicians got educated about SOPA and PIPA and in many cases completely flipped their position after the entire Internet decided to teach them that these things matter. A lot of the time, the problem is that the legislators are naive and just listen to the loudest voices; never attribute to malice that which can be sufficiently explained by incompetence, as the old saying goes.

        You're right that certain organisations will keep trying. Maybe that's how it's supposed to be. It's not exactly the spies' job to look out for people's privacy, after all. We just have to make sure that the other side of the debate is heard as well, and that anything that reaches the statute books is a sensible balance between the competing interests.

        • by wierd_w (1375923) on Thursday June 14, 2012 @04:47PM (#40329025)

          What makes you think that the powers that be are the representatives/senators/MPs/whatevers?

          Multinational interests have powers that flow fluidly accross multiple political jurisdictions. They are the ones that want the dildo in your hole.

          They won't stop until they are either told sraight up that they can't, or until they succeed in getting one rammed in there.

          Despite what they might say, multinational corporations are not people. They are not human. They don't tire of devising ever more terrifying dicks to aim at you. They never get tired of trying, because they know that as long as they keep at it, they will eventually succeed.

          If you think accepting a tiny dildo as a compromise is a sensible solution to the problem, I have only one thing to say:

          Enjoy.

      • What we need is to propose counter legislation FORBIDDING proposals of this type.

        Meaningless.

        New laws automagically supersede older laws. So as soon as they pass the next generation of privacy-invading law, it'll supersede the "you can't invade people's privacy" law...

        In the USA, we'd have to have Constitutional Amendment to make these things go away forever.

        And that's not going to happen, since it requires a supermajority in both the House and Senate, plus the approval by 38 States.

  • With the requirement to store every single thing users do, it might be a good time to invest in EMC because it is going to require an enterprise (VNX level) SAN to record all what is going on, as well as the licenses for features like deduplication (since a bunch of troll posts are usually alike, the SAN can store one copy, and pointers to the others.)

    As a user in the UK, I'd be looking to find the best always-on VPN service, one in the country (since some services are country-locked), and one situated some

    • by Hatta (162192)

      perhaps Sweden or Norway

      Is Sweden all that safe anymore? After the issues with The Pirate Bay and Julian Assange, and crazy shit like this [thelocal.se], Sweden doesn't seem that appealing anymore.

    • by Terrasque (796014)

      Sweden have been doing this shit for years already, and here in Norway the politicians are working their asses off to log everything, too. Only, not one of those politicians have any clue about computers, so they still have no idea what should be logged (and thus it's still not active, even tho it should be active from April this year).

      And, as an extra bonus, they leave the bill to the ISP's. Because, you know, anything else would be expensive.

      The really sad part is, one of the reasons the police wants long

  • Protecting yourself against malicious use of your computers will become mandatory...or else you can get framed.

  • by mehrotra.akash (1539473) on Thursday June 14, 2012 @03:42PM (#40328151)

    You might not be so happy to find out that from now, every single thing you do online will be recorded and stored by the good old Internet Service providers (ISP). What do we mean by online activity? Well, everything. From exchanging emails, browsing history, instant messaging to the most important use of social networks.

    For stuff like emails, wont encryption be an issue?
    And for other stuff, storing the MASSIVE amounts of data
    I have no stats to back this up, but on a national level, wont the storage requirement touch Petabytes per day? (or atleast 100's of Terabytes per day?)

    • by Creepy (93888)

      TFA says the government will foot the 1.8 billion pounds (about 2.8 billion dollars) cost. Not sure if that is just storage or storage and monitoring tools because I didn't read the 123 page paper.

      Still, this sounds like a good time to put hard disk and tape drives into my investment portfolio and maybe pray for more Thailand floods (causing another shortage and thus prices going up).

    • by AmiMoJo (196126)

      Currently they store the from and to addresses of all emails sent, as well as the subject line, date stamp and IP address of the machine connecting to the server (usually your router, but not always). Encryption makes no difference as you can't encrypt the headers since obviously the server needs to read them.

      For web monitoring they record the domain name of every site requested by each connection. It isn't clear how it is implemented, but presumably it is some kind of DPI to intercept HTTP requests rather

  • Riots (Score:5, Interesting)

    by onyxruby (118189) <.onyxruby. .at. .comcast.net.> on Thursday June 14, 2012 @03:43PM (#40328169)

    Why aren't their riots in the streets over this? For years I have heard about Europe being very pro-privacy. I have even worked with their privacy standards from a professional standpoint.

    What went wrong? Seriously, how on earth did this ever happen? Your cars and your online activities are all being monitored by your government with your blessing! The communists never had it that good, all they got were phone calls and letters. You gave your own government a blessing to invade your privacy at a level the East German's could have only dreamed of. Something is very, very wrong in UK today. What the hell happened?

    • "For years I have heard about Europe being very pro-privacy."

      Europe is not entirely united. There is a lot of national variation. The UK is particually susceptable to the old 'think of the children' - we've been in a pedophile-panic here for years that is even worse than in the US.
      • by cpu6502 (1960974)

        >>>pedophile-panic

        In the U.S. nudist websites (including kids) are legal. How does the UK handle them? Have they been banned?

        • We try to pretend they don't exist, and nudists live in fear because they know that if anything looks even the remotest bit suggestive involving children then they'll have a lynch mob coming to visit. Just run an image search on 'nudist' - you'll notice that children are entirely absent, because no-one would be dumb enough to share that part of the photo album with the world.
        • by Talonius (97106)

          It's sad that I wanted to post a joke in reply to this post, but I'm afraid it would be logged, tracked, and used against me in a court of law.

      • Re:Riots (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Nerdfest (867930) on Thursday June 14, 2012 @04:29PM (#40328823)

        Think of the children? These people should be thinking that they've just robbed their children of the right to privacy. They're most certainly not thinking of the children.

    • Re:Riots (Score:5, Insightful)

      by BasilBrush (643681) on Thursday June 14, 2012 @04:11PM (#40328583)

      Yes what the hell happened? The Tory party when in opposition opposed the National ID Card scheme, on the basis of privacy concerns and cost. They and their supporters often quoting George Orwell. As soon as they were in power they cancelled the scheme.

      Now the very same part are going to spy on what everyone does on the internet, and it's going cost 1.5 billion UKP. At a time when all public services are being cut back.

      Even accepting the fact that they are huge hypocrites, this does not make sense.

      So what manner of corruption is going on here?

      • by 0123456 (636235)

        So what manner of corruption is going on here?

        Politicians.

        You didn't really think the Tories were any less corrupt than Labour, did you?

    • Re:Riots (Score:5, Informative)

      by newcastlejon (1483695) on Thursday June 14, 2012 @04:22PM (#40328733)

      Why aren't their riots in the streets over this? For years I have heard about Europe being very pro-privacy. I have even worked with their privacy standards from a professional standpoint.

      Because this is a bill that hasn't been voted on, much less passed and will more than likely be knocked back by the House of Lords so many times it'll be re-drafted into something impotent. The summary isn't merely wrong, it's practically as bad as the Daily Mail in terms of hyperbole:

      "You might not be so happy to find out that from now, every single thing you do online will be recorded and stored by the good old Internet Service providers (ISP)." (emphasis mine)

      What went wrong? Seriously, how on earth did this ever happen? Your cars and your online activities are all being monitored by your government with your blessing!

      By cars, I expect you mean the ANPR cameras that check for valid tax and insurance. These are always accompanied by signs letting you know they're there, just like speed cameras.

      The communists never had it that good, all they got were phone calls and letters.

      Indeed, I imagine that very few people in Soviet Bloc countries had access to the Internet or their own cars

      You gave your own government a blessing to invade your privacy at a level the East German's could have only dreamed of.

      Yeah... sure.

      Something is very, very wrong in UK today. What the hell happened?

      Nothing happened; the press still use sensationalism and the people are still subject to about the same level of surveillance as in most other First World countries. And before someone trots out the millions of CCTV cameras thing again, let me just say that it's been debunked so many times it doesn't even merit a citation.

      • By cars, I expect you mean the ANPR cameras that check for valid tax and insurance. These are always accompanied by signs letting you know they're there, just like speed cameras.

        Even if you are right, and I don't know that you are: In what way does the existence of signs make it in any way OK? In case you've forgotten, in 2001, the state had lots of signs saying "Big Brother is watching you."

        • 2001? What am I thinking of?! I mean 1984 of course!

        • In what way does the existence of signs make it in any way OK?

          I didn't say it did, but clearly marked cameras aren't really comparable to the near-omnipresent electronic panopticon* that was portrayed in Nineteen Eighty-Four (a minor niggle: the book isn't called 1984). Besides which, there's a big difference between surveillance of certain public places/roads and a telescreen in every home. There's also a difference between looking for "thoughtcrime" amongst the public and catching uninsured drivers on the roads or violent criminals in the streets.

          Invoking Nineteen

      • by radio4fan (304271)

        I expect you mean the ANPR cameras that check for valid tax and insurance. These are always accompanied by signs letting you know they're there, just like speed cameras.

        Firstly, they are not all accompanied by signs. Many trunk roads have fixed ANPR cameras which aren't marked. All the police's traffic cars (including unmarked cars) have ANPR cameras and don't have any signs. Even back in 2010 there were over 4000 ANPR cameras [guardian.co.uk] operating with absolutely no regulatory oversight.

        Secondly, the cameras are hardly just used to "check for valid tax and insurance". Some are operated by the Ministry of Defence, FFS. Every plate checked has its location, time (and in many cases a ph

    • by AmiMoJo (196126)

      There is some hope. There was a bit on the radio today about a company offering free wifi in London, and when they interviewed a few potential users all of them asked what the company was getting out of it and what personal data they wanted. A couple mentioned spying on users too. It seems that a lot of young people are at least aware of privacy issues.

      • by jez9999 (618189)

        There is some hope. There was a bit on the radio today about a company offering free wifi in London, and when they interviewed a few potential users all of them asked what the company was getting out of it and what personal data they wanted. A couple mentioned spying on users too. It seems that a lot of young people are at least aware of privacy issues.

        That would be Virgin Media snooping on people's web browsing on that Wifi. The funny thing about the UK is that people seem to have a problem with private c

  • by cpu6502 (1960974) on Thursday June 14, 2012 @03:46PM (#40328243)

    "If you have nothing to hide, then why complain?" - That's what they said when I told them I refused to open my car for the police. They'll probably say the same when I say the police should not be recording our websurfing.

       

    • by TubeSteak (669689)

      "If you have nothing to hide, then why complain?" - That's what they said when I told them I refused to open my car for the police. They'll probably say the same when I say the police should not be recording our websurfing.

      For people who refuse to understand principles, sometimes making it personal will work.
      Stick a keylogger on their computer and, after a week, tell them what you've done.
      "If you have nothing to hide, then why complain?"

  • 1984 (Score:5, Interesting)

    by denis-The-menace (471988) on Thursday June 14, 2012 @03:47PM (#40328247)

    *The* authoritative guide to oppress and subdue your population into submission and complacency.

    Warning: Void for the wealthy and/or connected.

     

  • cat /dev/urandom >> file1.txt >> curl http://some.british.web.site/ [web.site]

    • by ArsonSmith (13997)

      does firefox still have that testing plugin from the mozilla beta days that would randomly start loading websites? Maybe just have that run 24x7.

    • by Skapare (16644)

      That command does not seem to work very well. All I ended up with is a giant file called "curl" with a ton of garbage in it.

      I think the real solution is the wide spread use of encryption.

  • Mixed feelings ... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by MacTO (1161105) on Thursday June 14, 2012 @04:00PM (#40328437)

    I definitely don't like the idea of my online activities being monitored since I value my privacy very highly.

    On the other hand, governments are in a bit of a bind. They are responsible for enforcing the law and creating an effective justice system. This is incredibly difficult for them to do given the scope of activities that can (and do) take place online. After all, you can't exactly place a police officer on a beat to keep the peace without having some sort of electronic monitoring. Likewise, you cannot collect evidence to prove innocence or guilt without maintaining some sort of record of electronic transactions.

    I don't know where the solutions to these problems lay. That being said, I would suggest that those of us who oppose electronic surveilence start thinking about solutions to this problem. After all, governments need a way to do their job, and simply opposing legislation like this doesn't exactly help them do their job.

    • by cpu6502 (1960974)

      Same way they do it now: Put a police officer on "the beat" and watching for illegal activity like stealking credit numbers, or adults trying to seduce children. OF COURSE the more-likely outcome is 100% recording of everything we do, followed by some Mussolini type leader using the info to "disappear" his online enemies. (Or less onerous, government forcing newssites to publish gov't propaganda & erasing anti-government posts/replies.)

    • So long as the governments of the world continue to work in a bubble of their closest supporters, cranking out bills like this without actually consulting the people (or even panels of industry experts), we're going to shoot down every goddamn one and make their lives as miserable as possible until they understand we, the citizens who elected them, need to be a part of this process. Or put simply, they've never asked for our input on a solution. That's not how it works where I live, at least. Maybe one day
    • by bmacs27 (1314285)
      You used to need a warrant to tap a phone line. What's wrong with that system?
      • by MacTO (1161105)

        There are two issues with warrants:

        1) Unless a portion of the crime takes place in the physical world, it is very difficult to gather the evidence required to obtain a warrant. In those cases some form of electronic monitoring would be required in order to obtain that evidence. At the very least you need to know that computer A connected to computer B. Those records should be external to computer A and computer B since neither party is likely to maintain logs or, if they do maintain logs, they are possib

        • by bmacs27 (1314285)
          Funny, in the old days they used to just follow the money. Ultimately, for it to be a worthwhile criminal endeavor even the online criminal needs to profit in either money or physical goods.
    • by Talonius (97106)

      I don't see how having access to everything done by everyone in a nation will help them. Information overload. If they're using it to fight crime, the crime has to occur first. And the potential privacy implications of such a database as well as the identity theft/blackmail potential is simply unreasonable as a counterweight to the gains.

    • They are responsible for enforcing the law and creating an effective justice system.

      Not when their solutions violate people's privacy or rights.

    • fter all, governments need a way to do their job, and simply opposing legislation like this doesn't exactly help them do their job.

      Actually, it does. In the old days, when you wanted to know what someone was up to, you used something called an "eyeball" to watch them. Governments are lazy -- they want dragnets, they want all electronic data available for inspection for any reason, without a warrant. They want retroactive immunity for torturing and murdering civilians. But arguments that they can't do their job here are bullshit: I can put a video camera that watches your screen and keyboard and know what you're up to online, and those

    • by Hatta (162192)

      I don't know where the solutions to these problems lay.

      I do. Warrants. If you need data, get yourself probable cause and present it to a judge. If you don't have probable cause, fuck off and die. If you have probable cause, you'll get your warrant, and you can record the data you had probable cause to believe would provide evidence for a crime.

      How is this difficult in any way? I mean, let's apply your logic to other times when a warrant would be required:

      They are responsible for enforcing the law and c

    • by Pepebuho (167300)

      Are you naive?
      Regarding your second argument, "need for evidence", It is collected AFTER a crime has been convicted AND someone is a SUSPECT. It has never been our western tradition to go and treat the innocent like guilty. That is why you have forensic sciences and such to gather evidence, and believe me, there is nothing as resilient as a disk drive. You would have to melt down your drive for someone not to be able to read it. That's why police are making their job HARDER, not easier with such laws. Now i

  • Goes to show what a bunch of idiot reactionaries the people running the show in Westminster are.

    Are they going to show us any evidence that such a drastic and draconian law is required? Where is the evidence that this is needed?

    It's all down to the idiotic, blind ideology that we've come to expect from the halfwits in power.

    Somehow, I'm hoping that these people ARE actually smarter than they appear, and are simply putting this forward to distract the media from something more reactionary and ideologically-

    • by Talonius (97106)

      See the "people are too stupid to run a democracy" study published a few months back.

      Really, here in the US, there's no benefit to doing the right thing - or anything. You'll get lambasted from both sides no matter what choice you make. Objective political reporting is dead, if it ever existed. Satisfying the donors and behind the scenes manipulators is about the only approval you can expect.

      And that's our (the voting public's) fault. We have become unwilling to compromise and negotiate and instead we p

      • by 0123456 (636235)

        And that's our (the voting public's) fault. We have become unwilling to compromise and negotiate and instead we prefer highly publicized stand offs over minute issues while our paid taxes slowly swirl down the drain.

        Uh, no. The problem is far too much compromise.

        The Bad Guys view compromise as weakness and after they've convinced the Good Guys to compromise away part of their freedom, they come back in a year or two demanding more. Then repeat until it's all gone.

        Only a total no-compromise attitude can prevent that, and the Good Guys are too good to do that. This nonsense will only stop when the majority are willing to say 'No More' and mean it.

  • How do they record your secure web activities? Seems the only thing they can know from it is where your HTTPS requests are going to. And what about the VPN set up to friends in free countries like Norway and Sweden?

  • Communications are private. This is one of the bases of democracy. If you lose that, and you spy on the citizens, then you are already inside the dictatorship style of society. You CAN'T do that, not even to stop a nuclear explosion to destroy a city or something massive like that. Is one of the pilars of our society, and the other options are worse. Plus, we choose to live in democracy, is our choose, nobody should overrule that and force a dictatorship on everyone.

  • From the first few pages of the document, they are talking about communication data but not content - i.e. source, destination, perhaps size. Stuff ISPs probably log but might not store. It is explicitly excluding content

    It's still not great, but to take a telephone analogy it's like the itemised billing stats, not recording all the calls. Or a physical example - getting the post office to record the address written on the envelope, but not open it and read the contents.

    From the actual document itself: "Not

  • by Gordonjcp (186804) on Thursday June 14, 2012 @05:00PM (#40329161) Homepage

    More UK-bashing from timothy again, I see.

    It's not "from now on". The proposal has been published. It is not a law, and is unlikely to ever become one.

    Do you hate us because we're free, timothy? Is that what it is?

    • by Mashiki (184564)

      It's not "from now on". The proposal has been published. It is not a law, and is unlikely to ever become one.

      Do you hate us because we're free, timothy? Is that what it is?

      Oh I don't know about that. My mother having lived under the STASI and been a part of the underground in her teenager years, I'm quite sure that they would have been rubbing their hands in glee over such a proposed law. This is a statists wet dream, and goes beyond a pure fantasy in terms of what would be considered an invasion of privacy.

      Besides, the UK isn't free. And the veneer is wearing thin in many places. Otherwise, you wouldn't see Brits fleeing to places like Canada or Australia in such large n

  • hard drive prices expected to rise as demand grows

  • Cost (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Geeky (90998) on Thursday June 14, 2012 @05:29PM (#40329411)

    I'd like to see their working on the financial figures. According to the document the Bill "is estimated to lead to an increase in public expenditure of up to £1.8 billion over 10 years from 2011/12. Benefits from this investment are estimated to be £5 – 6.2 billion over the same period."

    Exactly what financial benefits? Where's the saving?

    Otherwise, the question we should all, in the UK, be asking our MPs is which hospitals are going to be closed to pay for this?

We will have solar energy as soon as the utility companies solve one technical problem -- how to run a sunbeam through a meter.

Working...