UK Government To Revise Snooping Bill 79
megla writes "The BBC is reporting that the Draft Communications Bill is going to be re-written following widespread opposition. The hugely controversial bill would, as it stands, require ISPs to retain vast amounts of data and grant broad powers to authorities to access it, in some cases without needing any permission at all. For those who are interested in the gritty details the first parliamentary report into the legislation is sharply critical at times.
This is good news for anyone in the UK who values their privacy, but it may not be enough. Many would prefer to see the bill scrapped entirely." Opposition to the bill, at least in its original form, isn't just from crazy civil libertarian types, either; reader judgecorp points out that it even includes Deputy prime minister of Britain Nick Clegg.
No to big brother! (Score:5, Informative)
It doesn't need to be revised, it needs to be scrapped!
Re: (Score:3)
[quote]It doesn't need to be revised, it needs to be scrapped![/quote]
If you outlaw snooping, only outlaws will be snoops... no, wait!
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
There's a quotation about Ben Franklin that should come right around here.
Re: (Score:2)
"Lightning makes for a shocking experience"
Is that the quote you were referring to?
Re: (Score:2)
"Lightning makes for a shocking experience"
Is that the quote you were referring to?
Or was it "Where the hell did I put that key?"
Bill follows hot on the heels... (Score:4, Insightful)
...of the National Intelligence Council's Global Trends 2030 report [bloomberg.com], where:
...major trends are the end of U.S. global dominance, the rising power of individuals against states, a rising middle class whose demands challenge governments, and a Gordian knot of water, food and energy shortages, according to the analysts.
[enormous caches of data] will enable governments to “figure out and predict what people are going to be doing” and “get more control over society,”
Make no mistake, we (collectively) pose a risk to the power of the 0.1% going forward, and bills like this are being pushed through in "democratic" nations worldwide. Sadly we as a group always seem to vote against our best interests, so being aware of the long term trend is probably not going to change anything (thanks corporate media).
As expected ... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
As you smash one down they keep coming back with another version. How about a bill to make this sort of thing illegal?
Regime change?
Re: (Score:2)
Good idea, but wouldn't that just reverse what's happening now? "us" and "them" will just trade places and the circus continues.
Re:As expected ... (Score:4, Insightful)
That implies that someone could undo all this madness induced lawmaking that government has been up to lately.
Re:Clegg's making a stand against it. (Score:5, Informative)
For those not familiar with UK politics, I'll just point out here that some of the claims in the parent AC post are objectively wrong. For example, not all Lib Dem MPs reneged on the tuition fees commitment (the pledge mentioned by the parent poster).
And the apology [youtube.com] was funny...
Re:Clegg's making a stand against it. (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
For those unfamiliar with UK politics, Nick Clegg is the member of a minority party that gained power as part of a coalition. A lot of people who voted for them are unhappy that, in joining the coalition, they've had to make some compromises and have only managed to achieve some of their objectives. These people would, presumably, much rather that they'd stayed out and achieved none of them, allowing smug LibDem voters to keep claiming that things aren't their fault.
The point was that the LibDems only did so well because a lot of people were prepared to vote tactically. In my constituency, the chances of a Labour candidate winning are approximately the same as my winning the National Lottery two weeks running, so the argument was that it's better to vote LibDem in the hope of beating the Tories, rather than "waste" your vote on Labour.
The LibDem won, but then they formed a coalition with the fucking Tories anyway, which had never been suggested, and when the far mor
Re: (Score:2)
The people, that is the British people, opted not to give anyone a clear majority, and that means that promises made prior to the election are pretty much swept away. If the British people wished the Liberal Democrats to keep their promises, they should have given them a majority in the House of Commons.
I'm not necessarily trying to defend the LibDems here, but since no one saw fit to elect any party as a majority government, it's hard to go back after the fact and decry that no one is keeping their word. T
Re: (Score:2)
Then there should have been a hung parliament. 20% of the total electorate voted Labour in last time. That's less than the amount of adult smokers ffs.
Even less voted for Conservative this time, but marginally more than Labour. Somehow a coalition representing a quarter of the population's preference was deemed acceptable. It's bollocks.
Re: (Score:2)
About time we got rid of FPTP and had some sort of proportional representation. Alternative Vote was never enough, it didn't please those who wanted to stick with FPTP, and certainly didn't for those that want a system such as STV.
I really want proportional representation. I want my friend who may have voted for a different party and didn't get in to power because of FPTP to have some representation even if I find their views barbaric.
Re: (Score:2)
AV was better than nothing, and it was rejected. With AV in place parties that would have moved to a "purer" form of proportional representation like STV would have at least a moderately greater chance of being elected. But a rejection of AV essentially killed electoral reform for Westminster for at least a generation. It's rejection was also pretty much a rejection of all things LibDem, since this was the big ticket item in the coalition agreement that Clegg and Cameron had negotiated. From the AV referend
Re: (Score:2)
And the British electorate had the chance to get rid of FPTP voting in favor of an AV system, and they rejected that. So that tells me the voters like the kinds of Parliaments they get.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If the voters are easily fooled, then why would electoral reform improve the matter? If the most basic unit of the electoral exercise is the simpering idiot you suggest, then clearly it matters little the precise nature of picking representatives.
Re: (Score:2)
No, it tells you that the voters in the referendum thought they'd prefer the current kind of Parliament more than the alternative they were being offered. You can't logically read any more into the result than that.
In fact, a significant part of the "no" campaign was arguing that if the electorate positively endorsed AV, that would be even worse than sticking with the previous arrangement, because then anyone who wanted any form of actual PR later would have to overcome the claims of "but the people voted f
Re: (Score:2)
And the British electorate had the chance to get rid of FPTP voting in favor of an AV system, and they rejected that. So that tells me the voters like the kinds of Parliaments they get.
Oddly, there wasn't a great deal of enthusiasm from the Tories (the senior partners in the government) for AV or anyother form of proportional reprsentation. The AV compromise presented to the public was unenthusiastically promoted, badly explained and never going to inspire anyone much.
Re: (Score:2)
This is a pretty disingenuous argument, and one that is used by disappointingly frequently by squirming Lib Dems. This is the wording of the pledge:
“I pledge to vote against any increase in fees in the next parliament and to pressure the government to introduce a fairer alternative.”
Nothing about being in government, and it's pretty clear that the wording allows for them being in a coalition. This was a personal promise made by individuals, not just a manifesto point.
Re: (Score:2)
The people, that is the British people, opted not to give anyone a clear majority, and that means that promises made prior to the election are pretty much swept away. If the British people wished the Liberal Democrats to keep their promises, they should have given them a majority in the House of Commons.
I'm not necessarily trying to defend the LibDems here, but since no one saw fit to elect any party as a majority government, it's hard to go back after the fact and decry that no one is keeping their word. The voters picked this Parliament, they have to live with it.
Yes, but the LibDems should never have agreed to be the junior partner in a coalition with the Tories in the first place. It would have made infinitely more sense to do a deal with Labour, they are far closer idiologically.
It's just that at the time, there was so much anti-Gordon Brown hysteria in the media, that Nick Clegg thought he was being clever by picking Cameron, when anyone with an ounce of political sense could have told him he was fucking himself and his party up for the next generation or two
Crazy civil libertarian types? (Score:5, Insightful)
Opposition to the bill, at least in its original form, isn't just from crazy civil libertarian types, either; reader judgecorp points out that it even includes Deputy prime minister of Britain Nick Clegg.
So now, even on Slashdot, anyone who gives a damn about their privacy is "crazy"? The Ministry of Truth is doing a superb job.
Re: (Score:3)
The Ministry of Truth is doing a superb job.
I think you meant plus good or double plus good.
Yep. (Score:1)
Thanks to the conservative media, Civil Liberties has become a "Liberal" issue.
If you're a law abiding citizen, then you have nothing to worry about; therefore, you don't need Civil Liberties.
Of course what folks fail to realize is that there are so many laws on the books, everyone breaks at least three per day on average. We are all criminals in some shape or form.
I wish there was a satire website that would follow politicians and publish their criminal activity. Example: Well, this PM ( or Senator depend
Re:Crazy civil libertarian types? (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm sincerely hoping the submitter was being sarcastic about that. Because civil liberties shouldn't be a left-wing issue or a right-wing issue, it should be an every-wing issue. It's the fundamental idea of modern democracy, and should never be negotiable.
Re:Crazy civil libertarian types? (Score:4, Informative)
I'm sincerely hoping the submitter was being sarcastic about that. Because civil liberties shouldn't be a left-wing issue or a right-wing issue, it should be an every-wing issue. It's the fundamental idea of modern democracy, and should never be negotiable.
As the submitter, I'd like to point out that the final paragraph was added by the editor and I also think the "crazy libertarians" line is a little weird, especially for somewhere like Slashdot which has generally liberal views on technology and privacy.
Re: (Score:2)
Are you aware of the fact that liberals and libertarians aren't necessarily the same set?
Paul Ryan is a Libertarian. Kennedy was a liberal.
They mean different things.
Re: (Score:2)
And despite that, libertarians and liberals generally have the same views on when a government should be allowed to spy on a citizen: only when the law enforcement can demonstrate probable cause that the citizen in question has committed a crime.
Re: (Score:2)
And that might be well one of the few things they agree on. Almost everything else about what a government is for and should be doing isn't going to match up at all.
Though, nowadays it seems like everybody is pushing for more surveillance and erosion of rights in the name of security theater.
Sadly, everyone who loudly says governments should be backing off and not be so intrusive, be they 'left' or 'right' leaning, are all lumped into the category of "crazy" and dismissed.
I'm pretty sure this might be one
Re: (Score:2)
As the submitter, I'd like to point out that the final paragraph was added by the editor
If it was easier for him to snoop then the parent would have been able to see this from your Internet records and you wouldn't have had to clear this issue up!
Re: (Score:3)
I'm sincerely hoping the submitter was being sarcastic about that. Because civil liberties shouldn't be a left-wing issue or a right-wing issue, it should be an every-wing issue. It's the fundamental idea of modern democracy, and should never be negotiable.
The modern-day USA suffers from bipolar illness. Absolutely nothing is safe from "with-us-or-against-us", even if it's only which end of an egg to crack open.
Re: (Score:2)
As a rallying cry, Bush's declaration was as close to resembling a real leader as he ever got.
Unfortunately, unscrupulous people then took it and applied it to every dodgy political action they could get away with. Don't support Guantanamo? You must be a terrorist sympathizer! Alarmed by the Patriot Act? Why do you hate America? Don't want to wear a flag pin? You traitor, you hate our Freedoms!
The actual fracturing of the USA into polarized factions, I consider to go further back than 9/11 - back to at leas
Re: (Score:2)
As the submitter, I'd like to point out that the final paragraph was added by the editor...
Why am I not surprised? [slashdot.org]
...and I also think the "crazy libertarians" line is a little weird, especially for somewhere like Slashdot which has generally liberal views on technology and privacy.
More than a little weird when you realise the the UK doesn't have Libertarian parties in the same sense that the US uses the word; the coalition is made of of Conservatives and Liberals.
I try not to rant (too much) about free services but please, timothy, you need to do a better job of editing before you should start editorialising. It's bad enough seeing ill-informed comments without you added to the mix.
Re: (Score:2)
Opposition to the bill, at least in its original form, isn't just from crazy civil libertarian types, either; reader judgecorp points out that it even includes Deputy prime minister of Britain Nick Clegg.
So now, even on Slashdot, anyone who gives a damn about their privacy is "crazy"? The Ministry of Truth is doing a superb job.
No, because if you take slashdot posters as an example, a lot of libertarian types are crazy. However right they are about privacy and liberty issues, their extreme anti-government rhetoric tars the whole package with the same loony brush.
Brits Want 'Digital' Privacy (Score:4, Insightful)
While I would be appalled if such a measure came up on this side of the pond; although we do seemingly allow Facebook and insert any company with an online presence here to do a lot of data collection; I am somewhat surprised to hear about this apparent level of outrage from Britain.
The U.K. has been monitoring its citizens via a network of CCTV cameras for sometime and they appear to be especially prevalent in cities such as London where we have been lead to believe that your movements are recorded as soon as you step onto the street.
Has the line finally been crossed?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
You'll find few people in the UK who particularly care about CCTV cameras one way or another. Whatever theoretical drawbacks they have, there are few practical issues with them, while there is a measurable reduction in crime rate. And the taking of footage of us in public doesn't qualify as a privacy issue anyway.
But no one can see much crime-fighting benefit in storing everyone's internet traffic for months, while the drawbacks in terms of ISP costs, which will be passed to the customer, are obvious. An
Re: (Score:3)
You'll find few people in the UK who particularly care about CCTV cameras one way or another. Whatever theoretical drawbacks they have, there are few practical issues with them, while there is a measurable reduction in crime rate. And the taking of footage of us in public doesn't qualify as a privacy issue anyway.
Granted I may be wrong in terms of the scope of camera availability. I'd argue that whether this is a privacy issue isn't that clear cut. While a private citizen taking video in public may not be a privacy issue, the collection and storage of video with current technology, facial recognition, etc. is something I would consider a serious privacy issue. The potential for malicious use is too high. Knowing where I am is one things, knowing where I was, how long I was there, how often I was there, etc. is a
Re: (Score:3)
although we do seemingly allow Facebook and insert any company with an online presence here to do a lot of data collection
The difference being we willingly provide that info to those companies; there's no law that forces Facebook et al to record user data. In the case of CCTV, it is all around us, but only in public areas. However, the Snooping Bill would have required ISPs to record private data without our knowledge/permission, so yes it's crossed a line.
Can we kill this meme please? (Score:4, Insightful)
I wish someone would kill this meme once and for all.
The source for the "Government CCTV everywhere" myth was a reporter looking at a sample street and extrapolating. A bit like taking the population density of downtown LA, Chicago or New York and applying it to the whole US land area and saying the US population was tens of billions [I'm too lazy to work out the figures but I hope you get the idea].
The overwhelming majority of CCTV cameras are privately owned (therefore they must be good in Slashdot groupthink) and not controlled by/accessible to the government/police/spooks... Even when they may have captured evidence of a crime it's non trivial for the authorities to get hold of the data and when they do, given the screenings shown on TV appeals*, the recordings are of such poor quality that it's debatable why they're there at all.
If anything you have more anonymity nowadays than a generation or two ago when a whole army of little "old ladies sitting behind net curtains" and gossiping about the goings on of people in the street was the norm -- still probably the case in smaller communities everywhere.
If you're really concerned, you have a right under current data protection laws to see/be given a copy of recordings where you are identifiable; not sure if anyone has ever bothered with this.
Now this proposed bill, on the other hand, is a completely different matter; the level of outrage is a feature of people faced with a first past the post electoral system that favours two parties who are more similar than different -- should be familiar to you too ;-)
Please don't equate British people with our MPs
*There's a programme on BBC every month or so where they appeal for help in solving some cases and show CCTV footage and re-enactments.
Re: (Score:2)
We have met Big Brother, and Big Brother is us.
Re: (Score:2)
Just for the record, CCTV isn't nearly as simple an ethical issue as you're implying there. While the cameras installed a few years ago generate low quality imagery, modern ones can film you in glorious HD and full colour from a considerable distance. Moreover, facial recognition technology exists that could match you up against those handy computer-friendly photos you have to provide for passports and driving licences these days with a useful level of accuracy, meaning the authorities could literally estab
Re: (Score:2)
Which doesn't matter if there is still at least one watching you that isn't.
Re: (Score:2)
If you're not guilty of anything, then society has a
Re: (Score:2)
Even if there was blanket CCTV coverage available live to the police, they would only be using it to find and convict criminals.
Ah, yes, if we have nothing to hide then we have nothing to fear. Except incompetence or malice, that is.
I admire your optimism, but having personally been on the wrong side of a government screw-up involving mistaken identity (in my case, tax-related rather than criminal), I can assure you that they do make mistakes. Moreover, I can also testify that even if your life is being turned upside down as a result, and even if the situation described by their collective databases is clearly absurd and the records
Re: (Score:2)
Why would we think that?
In the US, the PATRIOT act can compel someone to hand over the information without any real judicial oversight and a requirement they don't tell anybody. I assume the UK is about the same.
Increasingly, the data private industry collects on us can get into government hands quite readily.
Re: (Score:2)
In the US, the PATRIOT act can compel someone to hand over the information without any real judicial oversight and a requirement they don't tell anybody. I assume the UK is about the same.
As far as I know, you still need a court order in the UK. http://www.ico.gov.uk/for_organisations/data_protection/the_guide/~/media/documents/library/Data_Protection/Detailed_specialist_guides/SECTION_29_GPN_V1.ashx [ico.gov.uk]
Re: (Score:1)
Why would we think that?
In the US, the PATRIOT act can compel someone to hand over the information without any real judicial oversight and a requirement they don't tell anybody. I assume the UK is about the same.
PATRIOT act is US insanity, I haven't heard of equivalent in other 1st world western countries.
Re: (Score:2)
The overwhelming majority of CCTV cameras are privately owned (therefore they must be good in Slashdot groupthink) and not controlled by/accessible to the government/police/spooks... Even when they may have captured evidence of a crime it's non trivial for the authorities to get hold of the data and when they do, given the screenings shown on TV appeals*, the recordings are of such poor quality that it's debatable why they're there at all.
The private CCTV cameras are there for basically the same reasons that big padlocks are:
1. To deter amateur opportunists, and
2. To give evidence of a crime for insurance purposes.
The idea that all these cameras are linked into a central police command centre in order to provide live 24/7 blanket surveillance of Britain is risible.
Re: (Score:2)
Public CCTV has a different nature to it, making it less bothersome.
Most importantly, it tracks you when you are already out in public and therefore cannot reasonably expect much privacy anyway.
Secondly, but also important, there are open rules and regs. You require licence to operate CCTV which covers public land, and this is (well, theoretically) viewable by the public who can file an objection to it - and take court action if you want. This includes local/national government cameras.
Thirdly, the nature o
Re: (Score:2)
BS. I cannot reasonably expect that no person will look at me, but I can reasonably expect that I'm not being tracked everywhere I go by cameras. The differences between someone seeing you and a camera seeing you are astronomical.
It would be trivial to use some very basic counter-surveillance techniques if you wanted to avoid being monitored by CCTV cameras. For a start, despite what Americans seem to think, they don't cover most streets even in London, it's mainly busy junctions, and that's assuming you count all the privately owned CCTV cameras as part of the same hideous network.
If you don't think counter-surveillance is necessary (and for a normal person it isn't) then it just shows you have nothing to worry about in the firs
Re: (Score:2)
"The U.K. has been monitoring its citizens via a network of CCTV cameras for sometime and they appear to be especially prevalent in cities such as London where we have been lead to believe that your movements are recorded as soon as you step onto the street."
I live in Tottenham North London (a rather notorious area for riots) and I only see CCTV cameras on major roads.
There is one speed camera just down the road but that has been non-operational since it was installed several years ago.
Plus, here is a bit o
Re: (Score:2)
The U.K. has been monitoring its citizens via a network of CCTV cameras for sometime and they appear to be especially prevalent in cities such as London where we have been lead to believe that your movements are recorded as soon as you step onto the street.
US posters are always saying things like this, as though the UK had installed BigBrother-style telescreens in everyone's home to monitor them.
In fact, CCTV only sees what is on public streets. If you get caught for committing a crime by CCTV evidence, so what? You don't have a right to privacy in the fucking High Street.
Luckily there is no other ways to rewrite.... (Score:2)
... the word "NO!"
And it is well know that when you say something enough others will start believing it.
Soooo... keep saying it for the really hard headed governments.
RIPA it good!!! (Score:1)
When a problem comes along you must RIPA it!!!
When something's goin' wrong You must RIPA it!!!
Opposed by opposition (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
There are much greater differences between UK (and European) political parties than in the US.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, bless the Lib Dems if on nothing else at least they've been consistent on this in opposing it both in and out of government.
"crazy" (Score:2)
How dare you, after everything that's transpired over the last 10 years, call us "crazy civil libertarian types".
go on, have a cookie (Score:2)
Governments always ask for more than they need with bills like this, then the revised version seems reasonable. As always, Calvin and Hobbes explains it best:
http://bestofcalvinandhobbes.com/2012/04/mom-can-i-set-fire-to-my-bed-mattress/ [bestofcalv...hobbes.com]
except the electorate isn't as smart as Calvin's mom.