British Government To Grant Warrantless Trawl of Communications Data 82
First time accepted submitter cardpuncher writes "Having opposed the previous government's attempts to introduce mass surveillance of Internet communications, the Conservatives are planning to introduce the very same policy they previously described as a 'culture of surveillance which goes far beyond counter terrorism and serious crime.' The plan is essentially to allow stored communication data to be trawled without the inconvenience of needing a warrant or even any reasonable suspicion."
Re:I hope this is an April Fool (Score:5, Informative)
The story is real, the Slashdot summary is utterly incorrect. For example, from the article:
"A new law ... would not allow GCHQ to access the content of emails, calls or messages without a warrant"
Also it doesn't say anything about trawling stored data, or proposing a requirement to stored data, rather that with a a warrant, GCHQ must be able to access data in real time.
A warrant is required. (Score:5, Informative)
This is about real time access with a warrant. I suggest that everyone RTFA for once. The summary and title are WRONG. That is not to say that it is not still troubling but let's be real here.
Re:A warrant is required. (Score:4, Informative)
No it isn't. The summary relates to "stored communication data" - which is the stuff that ISPs are required to hold short of actual message content (email senders and recipients, URLs, dates and times of being online) - and not real time access to communications in progress. The article makes it clear that without a warrant:
"It would enable intelligence officers to identify who an individual or group is in contact with, how often and for how long. They would also be able to see which websites someone had visited."
I think the summary "warrantless trawl of communications data" is, er, warranted since it means that fishing expeditions can be carried out for anyone visiting certain websites and graphs of communications between individuals can be constructed without any need to persuade a magistrate (a fairly low threshold) that the invasion of privacy is reasonable.
Re:back to onetime pads and tapped morse it is, th (Score:5, Informative)
They can introduce all the warrantless tapping statutes they like but there's no obligation or wish on my part to hand over my decryption keys
Incorrect. The UK has the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act [wikipedia.org], which lets them demand encryption keys/passwords. If you do not comply, you can face jail time [arstechnica.com]
Re:back to onetime pads and tapped morse it is, th (Score:5, Informative)
I am under no lawful obligation to ...
Willful ignorance or believing that you're in the US are not excuses that a UK court will accept. The comment you were replying to pointed you to the exact law that you're trying to deny exists.