UK Reconsiders Expansion of Surveillance Powers 193
davecl writes "BBC News Online is reporting that the plans to allow a vast range of bodies to access email and phone records have now been shelved. They seem to have been surprised by the depth and breadth of opposition. The measures may surface again after November in the new session of parliament, but they'll be taking it much more seriously then. Looks like we may have scored a notable success here, but continued vigilance will be needed."
Phew (Score:1)
I normally dislike Conservatives, but the fact the the Conservative peers in the House of Lords were determined not to let the amendment pass in any form reaffirms my faith in the political system. Well, for the next 5 minutes anyway. :)
Re:Phew (Score:1)
Re:Phew (Score:3, Insightful)
I just hope that Tony's reforms don't wreck the system entirely.
Re:Phew (Score:4, Funny)
The House of Lords is made up of an eccentric bunch of old codgers. But that's one of the reasons it works. They might be eccentric, but they hold a few things dear and one of those is civil rights. It might seem undemocratic to have a bunch of unelected old loonies as part of the decision making process, but their long sherry-enhanced afternoons napping and discussing the rights of the common man are actually beneficial to the democratic process. Of course, I don't think this kind of set-up would export very well. Other places don't have the quality of barmy old fogies that the UK has.
Re:Phew (Score:1)
Its taken centuries of inbreeding and pampering to produce our high-quality barmy old fogies. You can't expect other countries to even come close to that, old boy
Re:Phew (Score:2)
The cure for admiration for the house of Lords is to see them at work. They are mostly a bunch of worn out party hacks who are selected on their pliability.
The Tories in the HoL may be depended on to block Labour attacks on civil rights, unfortunately most attacks come from the Tory party itself. The HoL did very little to block the attacks on civil liberties from Michael Howard. Would they have blocked the RIP bill ifit had been proposed by a Tory?
The HoL has on balance had more negative than positive effects. The HoL threw out two Home Rule bills for Ireland which led to the IRA.
The HoL has an important function and executes it very baddly.
Re:Phew (Score:2)
As far as I'm concerned, full marks to the old fogies! There's a lot to be said for a body of people steeped in British traditions, who are NOT accountable to anyone for their decisions. So long as they have no real executive power, of course. The HoC can always push through a bill that's bounced back and forth 3 times without further recourse to the HoL, but that makes headlines and people sit up and take notice...
Simon.
Re:Phew (Score:2)
Re:Phew (Score:2)
No, the Queen is the last-ditch attempt to deny the HoC. There is no requirement for the monarch to sign any bill (and thus make it a law), but to refuse to sign would (at least) cause a constitutional crisis. It would possibly spell the end of the monarchy, unless the populace saw it as "right" to refuse to so sign. The Queen would have to do some very fast talking
Simon
Re:Phew (Score:2)
Of course the added income from tourism pays for at the very least the queen, phillip, charles, harry and will's upkeep.
Re:Phew (Score:1)
Re:Phew (Score:1)
For the most part, that may be correct but it's misleading.
Lord Winston, for example is one of the world's leading geneticists and is a Lord for that very reason. I would hardly describe him as an old codger. Moreover, the fact that he is part of the UKs legislature leaves me feeling a lot more secure in Parliament's ability to pass sensible laws involving genetics. It's a pity that there aren't any leading computer scientists in the HoL.
The problem with the HoL isn't that it's non-elected, it's who it's populated with. (In fact, the fact that it's un-democratic is it's strength. Modern democracy is little more than a popularity contest as someone else has said, by removing the HoL from that process it becomes apolitical and the need to toe the party line is extinguished.)
Re:Phew (Score:1)
Re:Phew (Score:1)
Re:Phew (Score:2)
[1] May not be spelled correctly, but then I'm just an oik
Actually, fox hunting and the hassle over the gay age of concent aside, the house of lords is not bad really. I mean, they seem to be better at opposing bad legislation than the party lackies in the commons...
Re:Phew (Score:2)
If you were to treat a household animal (say, cat or dog) in this way you would be banned from owning an animal and face a hefty fine (I also note that there are more stray cat's in this country than foxes).
Like badger baiting and bear fighting and cock fights, it's a step away from nasty vile things we've been doing to animals and each other for thousands of years. Yay!
Re:Phew (Score:2)
I can't argue with your opinion there, but it certainly means you are NOT a libertarian, since you seem to find it acceptable to allow the law to force your opinion on others. To repeat, I'm not saying that's good or bad - just that it's not libertarian.
On being a libertarian (Score:2)
A libertarian is one who advocates *liberty*.
In this case, the right of something not be killed, versus the right of something to kill. Just as being a libertarian does not automatically qualify you as being in favour of kiddy fiddling, being liberal does not mean you have go along with everything everyone else want's to do, regardless of consequence.
And, in this case, it's a case of the law forcing an opinon of the majority on a small minority who have no respect for the liberty of a 3rd party.
Re:On being a libertarian (Score:2)
Re:On being a libertarian (Score:2)
You can draw the line at liberty at the theft of ideas (copyright), or at theft of actual property, or at rape, or at murder, spousal abuse, or at cruelty to animals.
- Traditional western culture does not permit any of these. That is very typically libertarian.
Libertarian's are democrats, laissez-faire capitalists, and support the rule of law and government (with as little intervention as practically possible).
- Some cultures do permit quite a few of these (theft of 'copyright', rape, spousal abuse and cruelty to animals are all quite permissible in some countries).
This is much more anarchic. Countries with this more anarchic approach (like middle eastern countries, like Iran) tend to have less free market capitalism, less complicated legal systems and less protection for individual freedom's.
Needless to say, libertarian and anarchists are not exactly compatible as the latter have no interest in *protecting* freedoms (which libertarians do!)!
Re:On being a libertarian (Score:2)
IT APPEARS YOUR A PRO FOX HUNTER AND TRYING TO JUSTIFY IT! Haha!
I should have guessed.
Like it or not foxes may not have the vote but animals in this country do have 'rights', to project them from you.
Re:On being a libertarian (Score:2)
However, there are no absolute morals, or absolute ethics. I do not believe in so-called majority rule and I don't believe as many do, that large numbers of people believing the same thing somehow makes it correct. As such, and out of respsect for my fellow human beings, I believe in treating each other persons moral values as being of equal worth to my own. For this reason, I feel strongly against the abolition of foxhunting. It is no more than a large number of people trying to bully another group into having the same moral values. Where there is significant moral disagreement on an issue, the law should not take sides.
Well known things that fall or fell into this category are foxhunting, drug taking
homosexuality, and boxing.
The law should protect peoples freedoms against intrusion from other people. This is why rape, assault etc are, and should remain illegal.
Re:On being a libertarian (Score:2)
These groups often work _with_ people they think are harming animals to find a way forward. Much more constructive and respectful than just using the blunt tool called legislation to bully people around, and evidently much more effective also.
Re:On being a libertarian (Score:2)
The law should protect peoples freedoms against intrusion from other people
But our law doesn't stop there. It goes as far as protecting other animals too, like cats, dogs and horses.
Is that a good thing? In your opinion is that permissiable in a liberal society?
With regard to your other comments, with issues of homosexuality, drug taking and boxing there are consenting people, and it's fairly clear what the law should be, and by and large everybody agrees and the law seems to be appropriate.
(Though the issue of drug taking is thorny and muddied because of the nature of the suppliers and the negitive effect's it can have on others in society [such as crime] and the varying ways in which it can negatively impact on the participants and there ability to function in society (and the exitance of a society and government is a requirement to the idea of a liberal state). That said, I'm in favour of the legaisation of cannabis in the UK, as are about half the populace it would seem, but we all know how complex the issues are. )
Re:On being a libertarian (Score:2)
In a liberal democracy the cut off point is first passed the post, indeed this is of course famously what the Liberal Democrats in the the UK have been trying to achive in our electorial system.
Let's be very clear that if you accept that 50% or more of the population want a ban (which in fairness you havent said you do, but just supposing for sake of argument and bearing in mind that this is what almost every independant poll would suggest) that the appropriate democtratic thing to do would be to make it law.
Indeed, the Liberal Democratic party is in favour if introducing a ban if public weight is behind it (not to assert that that being liberal is the same as being a Liberal!).
If you don't think 50 % is a good cut off point - then what is? I don't mean that antagonistically, though I can see the problems with it, I just can't see a better alternative.
As an example, a mori poll from the end of last year ( http://www.mori.com/polls/2001/ifaw.shtml ) shows 7 out of 10 of Scots (I am a Scot myself) *oppose* any form of hunting with dogs. Only 1 in 10 were actually in favour of allowing it.
This was the Protection of Wild Mammals Bill.
Surely that is enough only 10% in favour, 90% abstaining or against!
I am proud to say, that under the relatively new Scottish parlament, it is now illegal to fox hunt on horses, or to bait foxes in Scotland. This was voted in by MSP at 83 to 36 with 5 absentions on Febuary 13th, 2002 and is truly an act of liberal democracy in every, even the most idealistic, sense.
What being a libertarian means. (Score:2)
As I said, being a libertarian merely means advocating liberty. That is the (or strictly speaking 'a') definition of the word. It does not mean advocating anarchy which is *very* different and much more like what you are describing.
You can draw the line at liberty at the theft of ideas (copyright), or at theft of actual property, or at rape, or at murder, spousal abuse, or at cruelty to animals.
- Traditional western culture does not permit any of these. That is very typically libertarian.
Libertarian's are democrats, laissez-faire capitalists, and support the rule of law and government (with as little intervention as practically possible).
- Some cultures do permit quite a few of these (theft of 'copyright', rape, spousal abuse and cruelty to animals are all quite permissible in some countries).
This is much more anarchic. Countries with this more anarchic approach (like middle eastern countries, like Iran) tend to have less free market capitalism, less complicated legal systems and less protection for individual freedom's.
Needless to say, libertarian and anarchists are not exactly compatible as the latter have no interest in *protecting* - or asserting - freedoms (which libertarians do!)!
Re:Phew (Score:2)
Re:Phew (Score:2)
I may want to roast your genitals over an open fire, gut you like a fish and cut you into little pieces and mail you home to mother, but oh - do you stop your so called liberty then? What about child molesting? Are you _that_ liberal? Would your liberarian priciples not be offended if your neighbor was to molest your children? Or perhaps feed them to his doberman?
So, either your an idiot (by your _own_ definition, not mine!) or your in favor of being able to randomly kill people for fun (and, not forgetting, kiddy fiddling).
No wonder your posting anonymously.
It seems clear, the only person trying to 'sound cool' by calling themselves a libertarian (or indeed a Libertarian) appears to be you.
If your going to use the term at all, at least take the time to learn the difference between a libertarian and a Libertarian because YOU plainly don't know what they mean!
Learn what the word means! (Score:2)
"Libertarian" and "libertarian" and not the same thing at all. DO YOU HAVE _ANY_ IDEA of the difference?
And no - for the record - I have never been in favour of enforcing vegetarianisim.
Quite frankly I DO belive that killing one animal is pretty much the same as killing another animal on a moral level. How does that make me a 'pro lifer' or a 'peace activist' that starts riots? I know I'm most definately NEITHER.
So, at any rate, now we your 'libertarian' principles go as far as 'it's okay to do things to animals, as long as they arn't human animals'. That's fine, we have established your liberty has limits. So if your idea of liberty can have limits, why not mine?
Oh I forgot I am on the same level as those who kills doctor and stars riots! Sounds like Bush saying "Your with us or your with the terrorists!"
I didn't swallow that one either.
Re:Phew (Score:2)
Logically though, I've never been able to excuse the idea that we arn't just smart, bald monkeys with opposable thumbs (I've never belived I was created in the image of a mysterious being) and my primary reason for being vegetarian was that I've never been able to see how, logically, it's okay to kill some things but not other things (except where the other things are obviously dangerous and pose a serious threat, which I've found quite easy to justify).
Obviously the truth is we all rationalize it in a number of ways, by viewing some things as 'friendly' (pet's, humans) and others as 'enemy' (things that taste nice), but that varies so much from country to country it's clearly not very logcial (And of course, only a few hundred years ago it was okay to kill any human as long as they didn't come from the same bit of land as you).
To be honest, if the world were roaming with nasty pointy teethed things that were trying to eat me all the time, I'd be quite happy to kill them first, eat them and use them as rugs.
Though I hasten to add that I don't consider looking for wild bears the shouting 'it's coming right for us!' before shooting it between the eyes to equate to the same thing
Re:Phew (Score:2)
Physically, despite differences in size and shape, we are very similarly constructed to other mammals (four limbs, two lungs, one heart, one brain, a spine, a nerve stem at the back of the neck, similar number of bones, similar design and layout of bones and organcs, etc).
The problem is we don't like to admit how similar we are because it makes us think about and face very awkward questions about the nature of our duality (like the way that we keep cat's and dog's as family pets yet eat sheep and chickens).
It's interesting to raise this with young children as I've had friends childen ask why I don't eat meat (say, when we go to McDonalds). When I explain why (very deliberately not in a pushy sense and certainly without trying to advocate!), many immediately delare that that's a really good idea because eating sheep and chickens seems genuinly revulsive to them (though of course they are only children and as soon as they are offered a hamburger they think twice, but as everyone else seems to be doing it so they just go a head and eat it). There lack of inhibition about stating their revulsion without first justifing it to themselves (as all adults do in such situations - including me!) is quite interesting though.
Relevant points are that animals both dream and not only that, they have emotions (Which are chemical reactions, not complex mental constructs. Though these reactions are often *manipulated* by mental processes they are themselves physical, chemical reactions common to most mammals.). We like sex for the same reasons rabbits do, we get pleasureable responses in our brain. Of course I do think that there is a deeper level of understanding with humans due to our vastly greater brain power which adds an amazing amount of dimension, but if it wern't for the chemical rewards, we wouldn't have any reason to bother, except to make babies (and of course these reactions are nature's way of making sure we do have babies).
Quite a few animals can dream which demonstraights some sort of self awareness on some level (to imagine 'yourself' doing something, you need to have a level of self awareness). We don't of course know what they are dreaming *about*, but with the muscle movement (snarling, tail wagging, and legs moving while dreaming) it's clear they are acting natural out movements and 'being' themselves. I would also *think* (so purely IMO) that they can, like us, tell the differences between dreams and reality when they awake (only because that would seem like mother nature fucked up quite a bit if they can dream but can't tell when they wake up! Though I know that *I* sometimes have problems remebering wheather something was a dream or not, but I tend to tream about boring things like having meetings and working at the computer a lot.
Animals also behave differently emotionally depending on how you treat them and the experiences they have throughout life, this is particularly noticeable in cats (you can certainly see it in dogs too, but it seems dogs take a lot more rough and tumble than cat's will happily tolerate). This is very noticeable in maltreated animals and is much more than simple instinctive anger or fear and it can be very complex. It's notale that similar (non verbal) techniques for therapy used on on humans work on other mal treated animals like dogs, cats, and horses to help them work round problems like lack of trust, anger, fear and bulling (in instances where other animals are unusually dominant and cruel to others).
I don't think putting humans in the same category as animals is as black and white as a lot of people imagine it.
I think that one thing that is black and white about this issue, is that humans are animals.
When we refute or choose to ignore this we are ignoring much of our behavior that is very base and instinctive, and we are distancing ourselves from the greatly differing ways we treat different species.
I do think it's one thing to discuss how similar we are, and whether we should or are in any way obligated to treat them differently, but quite another not to admit we are a dominant and very advanced species, not an entirely different class of being.
Re:Phew (Score:1)
If they could actually do anything real, the house of lords would be a good system, at least now that labour has done away with heridatary peers' rights to attend... essentially it is now an unelected oversight committee with positions awarded to people who have made great achievements (usually in the country's interest).
Or something like that anyway. It needs improvement over what it currently is, but the house of lords is a good idea.
Impotent (Score:1)
No it's bloody well not. Why do you think The Glorious Leader has been trying so hard to trim its claws? If the Commons want to pass a bill, and the Lords are opposed to it, then it's dead in the water at that point. It can be re-drafted a couple of times to get the engine spinning again, but unless the Lords are then brought round to the Commons' way of thinking, it's still dead.
What worries me is that Tony is trying to limit the long-term as well as the short-term usefulness of the Lords. Bearing in mind that, if Britain goes into the Euro, he'll almost certainly get the European Presidency, that'll give him the ability to force legislation through the British parliament via Brussels without the niggle of the Lords getting in the way.
Scary.
Re:Impotent (Score:2)
A certain Thatcher used this during her term in office...
I'm actually pro-the-lords as well. It strikes me that a group of people with a say, who are NOT responsible to the populace, but can speak from their own hearts/minds is a good thing.
The only plus point is that whenever the Lords are bypassed, it makes the headlines - although obviously not sufficiently, or I'd not be writing this
Simon
I takes a big man to say... (Score:2)
Re:I takes a big man to say... (Score:1, Insightful)
They shouldnt have been stupid enough to bring forward this proposal in the first place, now they have finally seen sense there is no reason for us to get the bunting out. We need politicians who are aware enough of the issues not to wastetheir time with pointless snooping laws like this in the first place.
Re:I takes a big man to say... (Score:1)
If you ever find one, will you tell us?
--Ng
Pirate radio - what's the frequency? (Score:3, Funny)
About time! Pirate radio stations has been a scourge to this country for too long I tell you, TOO LONG!
Re:Pirate radio - what's the frequency? (Score:1)
of course... (Score:4, Insightful)
Control freaks (Score:5, Insightful)
I actually voted for them at the last election to make sure that the Conservatives were kicked out, but not again. I realised the other day that I was agreeing with some of the things the Conservative politicians were saying. It made me feel dirty. I'll be voting Liberal from now on.
Re:Control freaks (Score:1)
Re:Control freaks (Score:2)
pre-industry times.
Re:Control freaks (Score:3, Insightful)
Agreed. I really can't see why they thought this bill would help. If they just wanted mail headers, they truly wouldn't learn much of any great benefit anyway.
Of course, I doubt this is their plan. Given their stated aims of wanting to be able to read every e-mail that goes through the UK: We needed to take powers so that we could decrypt commercial encrypted emails and other communications. Why? Because we knew that terrorists were going to use this," said Straw [zdnet.co.uk], it's clear that the government really do want to turn us into a big brother state.
This power will be abused, it's just a matter of time, and if commercial spying by select companies becomes legal, it's obvious that people within these companies will be tempted to engage in industrial espionage.
--
Naq V org guvf jbhyq cvff gur tbireazrag bss gbb...
Re:Control freaks (Score:2)
Gatso cameras are the wrong type to do surveillance with. They are really there to provide a source of income to the treasury and a pretence that the government is doing something about road safety.
The Liberals ... (Score:1)
Re:The Liberals ... (Score:1)
Well, if you do that, I suppose that you'll be guranteed that the party you vote for will never bring forward such outrageous legislation - because they'll never be in government.
Maybe we should do away with governing parties - we should all just have competing oppositions. That way no obnoxious legislation will ever be enacted - or any legislation that we do like either
--Ng
Re:The Liberals ... (Score:1)
Re:Control freaks (Score:2)
Shouldn't you vote for who you agree with?
--
Evan
Re:Control freaks (Score:1)
Shouldn't you vote for who you agree with?
Not speaking for the original poster, but whoever is in opposition will usually make criticisms of the current government that anyone would agree with. It's important to not let that sway you and bear in mind what their own policy would be (and of course what you know of their party). In the case of the Conservatives, they've proven in the past that they're just as bad. The Lib Dems have always seemed to at least talk the right sort of talk, and in local councils where they've had control (that I've lived in, anyway) they've done a reasonable job too so that choice is probably a "less bad" one.
Re:Control freaks (Score:2)
I actually voted for them at the last election to make sure that the Conservatives were kicked out, but not again. I realised the other day that I was agreeing with some of the things the Conservative politicians were saying. It made me feel dirty.
Why? There is no such thing as a politition who you can agree with 100%, and that is before they start compromising everything important. There will be conservatives better than liberals. There may even be times that one of the above two are better than any third party. Just vote for the best canidate. I generally hold the rule that if you have been in office you are by definition not the best canidate. (Even if stalin is the other choice)
Re:Control freaks (Score:1)
I guess it should be comforting to know that the US is not the only place where people will vote against someone who makes sense because they have some ingrained aversion to the placard over the tent they stand in. We have Democrats that sound (and vote) like Republicans and the converse is true too. Why are they in one party when their ideology is more closely aligned with the other? Because their daddy was a staunch whateverparty as was his daddy before him.
I registered for a different party than my father. I checked out their platforms and went with the one that most closely matches what I think is right. I vote for someone based on how closely they match what I believe - regardless of party affiliation.
or mirror of populace? (Score:3, Informative)
While London in 1983 was in the midst of a time of relatively high terrorism, The experience of being in London for a US citizen was an interesting contrast. People were very mindful of left packages anywhere public. Paris was markedly more striking in the presence of guards armed with automatic weapons outside many embassies / banks. Only saw that once in London that trip.
In 1996 there was a very different feel. The presence of private security cameras was highly visible and I was warned a few times about elevated danger of street crime. London still felt far safer on ballance than any US city I've ever spent time in, but still much changed from '83, let alone '69.
In the US presently I think most of the population would welcome far stricter intrusions of privacy than what the government has actually opposed (which is still somewhat more than I'm happy about).
The UK has lived with visible levels of terrorism for decades, while for we in the US it's a pretty new adjustment. Don't know how that affects policy or people's actions on a daily basis, 'cause I don't live there.
Re:or mirror of populace? (Score:1)
There are strong arguments that this is related to some of those incursions you say you welcome, including the ban on handguns -- which didn't even reduce the rate of gun crime, much less violent crime in general.
Re:or mirror of populace? (Score:3, Informative)
Before the handgun ban, relatively few were in circulation, and it's fair to say that the law itself cannot have made a blind bit of difference one way or another as far as gun related crime goes for that reason. The usual arguments that widespread gun-ownership deters crime cannot apply in a country where widespread gun-ownership did not exist.
(Interestingly, gun related crime has increased in Britain since then, but for an entirely unexpected reason: Britain became the center for the illegal gun trade outside of the US. Bizarre.)
I write this for the purposes of explanation. I've yet to make my mind up on issues related to banning guns, having gun-toting friends but also having lived in Britain and being thankful for an environment where having a confrontation with the police doesn't run any danger of having a lethal weapon pointed at you...
Re:Terrorism and location (Score:1)
[Sigh] too true. My first thought on seeing the damage to the WTC was "goddess it's finally happened *here* :-(". The second was knowning that many of the folks in the US fail to realize that much (most?) of the rest of the world has faced this crap for decades. I think anyone who observed the lax state of US security over the recent decades has realized that this would happen someday.
It didn't help that the IRA was getting 50% of its money from US citizens supporting Noraid either. ... Or perhaps they didn't care.
The son of my neighbor (who's a retired boston police officer), just 2 doors down was arrested maybe 10 years ago by FBI for trying to run guns to the IRA. He'd actually been dealing with FBI posing as PIRA. I'm glad they bagged at least that one.
I lost friends in the UK armed forces ... Perhaps US isolationism will be reduced as a result of 11/11. Personally I don't hold much hope.
Dear goddess. I'm sorry and grieve for you and your people who were lost. As to how the US is changing internally, while my observation has *often* been of heightened isolationism, there is also heightened awareness that terror is not new. And that everyone else has been living with it for a long time.
Voting Liberal from now on (Score:2)
That's the thing about the LibDems. You're actually allowed to agree with the Tories if and when they happen to be talking sense; and you're actually allowed to agree with Labour if and when they happen to be talking sense; and naturally, of course, you're allowed to disagree with other liberals when they're talking a load of bollocks, as we do from time to time.
Control Freaks R'nt Us!, basically.
It's gonna happen anyway.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Maybe there is some democracy left in the UK (Score:3, Informative)
I raise my glass to all who, like myself, contacted their MP's and raised a stink.
EtF.
Re:Maybe there is some democracy left in the UK (Score:1)
Writing to your MP does work. Or at least enough to make it worth the 5 minutes of your time to write a polite message to them.
--Azaroth
Re:Maybe there is some democracy left in the UK (Score:2)
Personally, I think that parliament should be like national service. We'd all have to do our bit. Failing that, parliamentary members should have short terms of office, and anyone from the community should be accepted for nomination. I'd vote for our local milkman, he's a sensible bloke.
Surprised look. (Score:1)
(GASP!) You mean people didn't -like- the idea of having their privacy invaded? I'm shocked! [But mostly not.]
Sheesh.
Its not over yet. (Score:4, Insightful)
The RIP act should be over turned completly, not expanded in any way shape or form.
Re:Its not over yet. (Score:1)
Re:Its not over yet. (Score:1)
It does beg of conspiracy theories, mixed with the juices of a traitorous plot.
Re:Its not over yet. (Score:1)
Nah, not completely - the cops do need some surveillance powers - it's just that they should be backed up by judicial warrant when they intrude into people's private lives. That said, I've read RIPA about three times - and I still don't know what it really gives authority to do. So I pity the poor copper that risks an investigation and his career on his interpretation of that pile of garbage.
Of course the really scary bill was the one which came before it (at the tail end of the last Tory government - the electronic communications bill). Effectively the banning of unlicensed crypto, and mandatory key escrow. Once business and civil liberties folks got torn into it, the DTI gutted the nasty bits from it and left it to the Home Office to face the flak.
On the other hand, I think that Blunkett deserves a bit of credit for saying that you can't just crap over people's basic rights - even if you could railroad this through Parliament. Some things are important.
As I said in an earlier post - party political rants aren't useful here - it's not the Labour party or Conservatives, or Lib Dems that are the driving force - it's the civil servants, seeking to boost their departmental budgets by having more people with more powers. And I've never known a politician yet who has managed to avoid the lure of all these little secrets that the spooks can let them into ( if only you'd let us do this more, Minister, we could be really good for you. )
For those who wrote to your MPs - keep doing it! The politicos hate controversy when there are no votes in it. This proposal will resurface, and we need to let them know that it'll stink worse as a zombie than it did while alive.
--Ng
admit I'm surprised (Score:2, Insightful)
Equally, it was interesting to hear of the FBI agent who accidentally dumped sniffed al quaida emails when he(she?) realized that unauthorized private emails had been recorded.
While I'm very much concerned about some of the responses post sept 11, when I read the statutes, they were(e.g.) quite explicit about granting authority to read *headers*.
Mostly I think these folks are acting in good faith and often the biggest headlines originate in things that are still 1/2 baked on release.
'course software can be like that also
Don't get complacent. (Score:5, Insightful)
1) Propose draconian unworkable legislation.
2) Await the huge opposion.
3) Retract the proposal and quickly pass original intended less-severe version while everyone is celebrating victory.
I'm serious, keep your eye on him. We must not let this sort of thing pass in ANY FORM. A single miniscule step in the wrong direction is too far. I will be continuing to push for the original unmodified act to be cut down to size also. I suggest you do the same if you live in the UK.
Re:Don't get complacent. (Score:1)
However, by my reckoning, if a Govt organisation believes that there is criminal activity going on then thren they should be involving the relevant authorities who are there to deal with criminal investigations - THE POLICE! That is what they are there for!!!!
But then since when has any govt (British or otherwise) ever seen a reason to have one criminal investigation organisation when 200 will do?
Re:Don't get complacent. (Score:2)
has more details. Amazingly, he`s now saying:
----
He added: "The proposals were intended to provide protection and regulation of the access to data.
"The rest of the world interpreted them in entirely the wrong direction.
----
Er, thats because what you proposed was entirely the opposite of what the name of the bill would suggest, fuckwit.
Perhaps he should stick to saying that he`s been appalled by the contents of programs hes not seen (because he is blind), on the say-so of a colleague who hasnt seen it? (Brass Eye special, in case you`re interested).
Influence (Score:4, Interesting)
"Mr Blunkett's son Hugh, who works in computers, is understood to have briefed his father on privacy fears associated with the original proposals. "
Noteworthy that a geek should teach a politician about privacy - an integral part of modern democracy.
Postman Pat 21st century (Score:1, Funny)
"Goodmorning Pat"
"I've just been reading your email to check if you're a terrorist."
A second thought (Score:2, Interesting)
sheild the wrong people? (Score:1, Insightful)
There i spoke out against it so i'm not condoning that behaviour. You're right, we shouldn't shield the wrong people, we should shield everyone. So basically your idea is that we should grant everyone privacy except maybe terrorists and kiddie pr0nographers? That is the way it currently works. I'm constantly reassured that I have nothing to fear b/c i'm not doing anything wrong.
Who gets to choose the people that get spied on? I don't have a problem with the fact that law enforcement has the power to set up wiretaps and spy. The problem is with the oversight involved. Who watches the watchers? How do we curb abuses of wiretap powers?
Re:A second thought (Score:1)
What governments seem to want to to do these days is predict when something bad is going to happen and prevent it. Privacy is sacrificed in the process. How far are we prepared to go to prevent such things as child abuse? It's a constant tug of war which the "think of the children" brigade seem to be winning at the moment.
Goddamnit. (Score:4, Funny)
Slashdot is so frikking anglo-centric.
Re:Goddamnit. (Score:2)
Simon
Vast range of bodies? (Score:1)
Zombies reading email? Fat people AND skinny people looking at my phone records? Must be the zombies if they're being shelved.
www.stand.org.uk (Score:4, Informative)
"slashdotted" due to soccer... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:"slashdotted" due to soccer... (Score:1)
- Forza Korea!
- It's "Football" not "Soccer"
- If you're interested in that sort of the thing, the BBC, as a publicly funded body, has all it net stats and monitors open to the world.
This [bbc.co.uk] is the monitor page, and this [bbc.co.uk] is the mrtg graphs of all their internet links.Interesting is the sept 11th peak, but also their traffic is generally much higher now than last september.
Home office blurts out the truth..... (Score:3, Informative)
oh please, I dont believe you... (Score:1)
hmm..must do it though i might be bashed for it, quote from "The Craft":
"your sorry..your sorry...sorry my ass!!!" (then to my amusement the ugly actor falls to his death onto pavement...yay!)
ohh what will happen next....the American government trying to take over the world wide web...chuckles to self with amusing thought...
Misunderstanding (Score:1)
In reading 1984 the modern Blair seems to have mistaken his namesakes work for an instruction manual rather than the disturbing warning that it was intended to be.
"The future of humanity Winston, is the arse of David Blunketts guide dog emptying itself onto a human face"....
Hmmmm......
that was just the first try, there will be more... (Score:2)
Regulation not controle (Score:2)
If they are snooping it should be illegal. (Score:2)
Re:I hope this is a smiley.. (Score:1)
The most efficient method of dealing with terrorism is to offer the leaders a seat in a legislative and the usually perks of the 'gravy train'.
Then you can depsise and complain bitterly how stupid and half-assed they are as you do any other politician...
It worked in Northern Ireland. We now have idiotic zealots sitting in debate and wasting public money on 2 copies of everything to the masses (i.e letters to schoolchildren in english and irish)(should have used e-mail, then the kids could class both as spam).
Re:I hope this is a smiley.. (Score:1)
Re:finally (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:finally (Score:2, Insightful)
France and Canada are second-world nations ? The second world nations were the communist countries back in the days of the chilly-war...
As for everyone doing they're part for terrorism, the US' long history of support tyrannical dictatorships and also supporting the world's worst terrorist, Pol Pot [pbs.org], makes a me little hesitant to jump on any US foriegn policy bandwagon....
Re:finally (Score:1)
I doubt that any of the G8 countries (including Canada, France) are second world nations.
Re:finally (Score:1)
As for everyone doing they're part for terrorism, the US' long history of support tyrannical dictatorships and also supporting the world's worst terrorist, Pol Pot [pbs.org], makes a me little hesitant to jump on any US foriegn policy bandwagon...
Care to back that up with a credible cite? And when you've done so, care to explain why it was the UN which forced the Cambodians to keep Pol Pot around when the US and others were calling for a war crimes tribunal>
Re:finally (Score:2, Informative)
Hint: there's one here [multimap.com], and another one here [multimap.com].
Re:finally (Score:2)
This development is actually a setback: the Post Office, Fire Brigade, local councils and the cast of "The Archers" will not be able to participate fully in surveillance until after November. Maybe some of them will not even get to join in at all.
You neglecting some of our military contributions since WW2. British troops have traditionally been stoic and understanding about the need for US pilots to calibrate their weapons by making bombing runs on friendly troops, although admittedly Canada has taken on more of this duty recently.
OT: your sig (Score:1)
-- Gnus. Lots of Gnus.
Man, I want to see that Matrix adaptation...
A gnu-wielding RMS in dark glasses uses superhuman martial arts in his attempts to overturn the evils of proprietary software, emerging victorious in the end by installing Emacs on one of the Agents, and thereby crippling them with a massive outbreak of the "viral" GPL.
Meanwhile the beautiful female agent has fallen madly in love with hi... nah, let's not stretch reality too far
Stuart.
Re:finally (Score:3, Interesting)
Look here [bbc.co.uk] for a more informed view, 1700 soldiers by April, and more since, including HMS Ocean (helicopter carrier), HMS Illustrious (aircraft carrier), and HMS Fearless (assault ship) as well as an auxiliary fleet presence (engineers, supply, etc,). Get your facts right.
Perhaps you have ideas about what to do, given your knowledge of the religious and territorial claims which stretch back over MORE TIME THAN YOUR COUNTRY HAS EXISTED in it's current form.
Perhaps also, if you stopped funding them (50% of IRA funds are USA-sourced) it would help stop innocent children from being bombed and murdered on their way to school in Northern Ireland.
We are self-sufficent. We could park a nuclear sub off any major city in the world and reduce it to a smoking ruin in seconds. No "missile shield" could help. A pre-emptive military strike against us would (and could) not prevent this.
At the end of the day, Mao was right in one respect: power comes from the end of a gun, and the UK is one of the most militarily powerful nations in the world.
Aside: Britain is one of the best submariner nations in the world. I've worked on some of the technical systems in modern submarines, and it's quite funny how different classifications affect what is shown... When everyone watching is classified for "UK EYES ONLY", the displays get significantly more detailed and informative. With a lot more relevant info to work with, the same
algorithms in the software can produce a lot more useful output
Simon
Re:finally (Score:2)
"How dare you prattle on about how abused you are by the Irish, you simpering child."
You think I'm being coy ? Odd thing to say.
Now let me see if I've got this right... You're claiming that something that happened four hundred years ago (I assume you're talking about the harpers here) has such bearing on the modern British view of the world that children should be murdered to make sure people get your message.
Sorry, no actually I'm not sorry. I don't agree.
I don't hold grudges for that long - every nation would be at war with every other if that were the case, and man would degenerate to the animal from which he came.
"you guys have fucked up every country you ever laid hands on and demonstrated
I don't recall saying that. Mao said power comes from the end of a gun, but power and actions are two different things. British actions towards Ireland in recent times (beginning with Major) do not appear to me to be British Imperialism imposed from above. The peace process is (slowly) making ground, sometimes in spite of the politicians on both sides, but gaining ground nonetheless.
Simon
Re:finally (Score:2)
A good point. I have a colleague who continually refers to what "he" did, and not what "we" did. I find it irritating.
This is why saying that Britons in general consider the Commonwealth (1.7 billion people, almost 1/3 the world's population!) to be part of "we" is not adequate unless it's said. Nonetheless, we do, well at least *I* do, 1 down, 57million to go
Should a major conflict arise again, I'd expect most of the Commonwealth to be with us rather than against us, not because you should or must, but because we mostly share the same ideals and values (monarchy aside
Simon
Re:First the right to read emails? What next? (Score:2)
Under the current UK laws - If the government demands your private key from you in order to decrypt your email, and you refuse to supply it, you go to jail.
Not quite the same, but pretty much equivalent.