UK Government Expands Spying Powers

An anonymous submitter provides the best write-up of this story: "Today's front page story of The Guardian covers an attempt by the UK government to expand the number of organisations entitled to demand communications data under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (RIPA). Previously only Customs and Excise, the Inland Revenue, various law enforcement bodies and intelligence agencies were able to demand this information. The list of agencies proposed in the new Draft Statutory Instrument authorises practically everyone from local councils to the Food Standards Agency to demand traffic data. Traffic data includes almost all information attached to a communication apart from the contents of the communication itself. The location of your mobile phone, for example. Who you called on it and who's called you. The URLs you've visited or IP addresses of people who've visited your server... and the list goes on. The two o'clock update has a quote from the PM's spokesman reassuring us how safe we're all going to be once the Department of Work and Pensions can check our phone records. There's also an editorial piece to emphasise that this is a Bad Thing."

Comments

This is Fascism, pure and simple.

[vkg]

Wake up, you brits: the police state envisioned by Orwell is becoming real. If you look at the loss of liberty in the last fifteen years, and extrapolate forward fifteen more, we'll be RFID tagging the populace.

We're in trouble, people: it really seems that there is a transnational, concerted effort to clamp down on our privacy and rights as far as people will stand for it, using terrorism as an excuse.

In fact, the populace is being systematically denuded of what makes us citizens rather than property of the state. I never used to buy all of that conspiracy theory bullshit, but the more of this stuff I see, the more I wonder what's really going on...

Re:This is Fascism, pure and simple.

[sql*kitten]

Call it cynical perhaps - but you'd be surprised how often it is the case that people present themselves as being motivated by some non-political cause but are actually long-time supporters or even members of the opposition party.

It wouldn't matter one bit if she was a member of a political party - this is a woman who testified to a board of enquiry with her face held on by a transparent plastic mask, as a survivor of a wreck in which many people were killed! Surely you cannot mean that being a member of a political party other than the one in power means that you sacrifice your right to justice - because that really is Fascism. In rhetorical terms, trying to claim that an opponent has no valid case because of an unrelated personal decision is an ad hominem attack, and definitely unacceptable in such a serious matter. The Blair government has a history of "spin", using PR to deflect legitimate criticism - do a web search for "Stephen Byers", whose department used September 11 to "bury" news unfavourable to their party.

It can still get worse.

[GodInHell]

Remember that as we continue to advance technologically, the ability of society to observe itself will only increase. When we can put sensing equipment in nanites the size of a dust particle, will we?

The cure is not in legislation, it is in revitilization of simple core concepts of succesful society, namely, politeness, respect, and active participation in a shared cultural goal.

Or we can just accept continued branding and enforcement policies that have become popular in the last century. #099-11-1234 you will not go out with that woman, as she is .67 years older than the upper limit of the codified regulations of interpersonal relations, sub section 3 of section 123, page 197. Please refrain from further fraternization, or suffer the penalty of public sporking.

-GiH
I love sporks, they're the camels of eating utensils.

Re:If you think this applies to you

[Anonymous Coward]

Even if you're a good little Right Wing Troll, you have to hate this. It will Cost Money, and lots of it, to comply with this bill. Everyone loses!

The Other Side of Government Data Access

[Effugas]

You're a terrorist. You want to see just how much your enemy can find out about you.

Would you rather penetrate MI6? Or the Department of Work and Pensions?

I'm not saying I distrust any podunk agency. I'd much rather not particularly need to. Desperately.

--Dan

British perspective

[Space cowboy]

There is frankly little we can do. This is the direct result of democracy - the uninformed electing the uncaring. The labour government has an enormous majority within the house of commons, not because it is good or popular but simply because it's the better of two, frankly awful, choices.

The last election had almost 50% of the electorate not voting - it's not apathy, it's disgust for both major parties on the part of the educated and informed. We've been subjected to ridiculous, pathetic, bite-size policies that can make the evening news; attempts to score cheap points over rivals, and general contempt from those supposed to represent us. Those who lap this travesty up (and there are many) are sufficient to propogate the unfortunate status quo.

I have the chance to work in the USA in the near future - I'm going to jump with both feet. You may have the (spit!) DMCA et al, but the prospect of remaining in the police-state-once-called-the-UK turns my stomach.

Simon

Re:talk to your MP

[grokBoy]

When RIP was on the horizon, I exchanged several communications with Richard Burden, MP. Despite the fact that he did actually answer my letters, there was very little actual substance to what was said.

What you must do, I learned, is to ask your MP who exactly is involved in the implementation of these plans, and talk to them directly. This eliminates a layer of obfuscation and lets you put more political pressure on the culprits.

Despite all the outcry, it still went ahead. I'd put money on the same happening again. Our current goverment is very much about doing what they want whether we want it or not, I'm afraid.

Re:talk to your MP

[WolfWithoutAClause]

So, under the act, if you have a cell phone, it's OK to track any and all cell phones to show that you were speeding in your car?

I mean it's there under two provisions of the act, both preventing injury, AND breaking the law.

I just hope that if this law goes through, every single Labour politician gets a speeding ticket on the way home to their wife/mistresses. Somehow it's more likely to be the Conservative party that get's it though.

Is this your cell phone sir?

Just faxed my MP (Jane Griffiths, Reading East)

[Stephen Williams]

Here's what I wrote. (I've never written to an MP before, so this is probably rubbish...)

Dear Ms. Griffiths,

I am writing because I am concerned about the amendments to the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA) which have been tabled. Specifically, these amendments will give any government agency, as well as any local authority, the power to demand records from Internet service providers regarding their customers' emails and Web browsing.

I appreciate the need for information to be turned over to government agencies as part of criminal investigations. However, I am troubled by the proposed new powers because they will not require a court order. Combined with the sheer number of people employed by the government and local authorities, the potential for abuse of the system is worrying.

Furthermore, permitting surveillance of the general population erodes the presumption of innocence until guilt is proven - the cornerstone of our justice system. It is almost as if the government considers every member of the population to be a potential criminal who must be monitored.

I have supported the Labour Party throughout my adult life, having been attracted by the party's commitments to equality and fairness for all citizens. The amendments to the RIPA do not fit well with these commitments.

Sincerely,

Stephen Williams.