UK Reconsiders Expansion of Surveillance Powers

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."

Comments

fp?

[n3r0.m4dski11z]

props to im about to quit my job

Phew

[Dynamoo]

Phew.. it looks like common sense may prevail.

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

[purpledinoz]

Since when does common sense prevail? They're gonna trial-and-error it until they get it right. That's how things are done, and that's how they will be done. Now I have to go compile again to see if this works.....

Re:Phew

[PhilHibbs]

I think the House of Lords is the best part of our democracy. It may seem counterintuitive that an unelected body enjoys this accolade, but it's true. I think it's basically because the farcical popularity contests that we call elections (on both sides of the pond) are a far cry from a decent, working democracy.

I just hope that Tony's reforms don't wreck the system entirely.

Re:Phew

[@madeus]

Let's hear it for the unelected aristrocrats![1] :D

[1] May not be spelled correctly, but then I'm just an oik :P

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

[julesh]

Yes, but the house of lords is impotent. As long as commons really wants to pass a bill, lords cannot do anything other than delay it... not a sound basis for a two-tiered democratic system.

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.

Re:Phew

[Anonymous Coward]

Well I'm a liberterian, so I agree with the lords on the foxhunting issue, but I agree with you on the gay age of consent problem.

Re:Phew

[pubjames]

I think the House of Lords is the best part of our democracy. It may seem counterintuitive that an unelected body enjoys this accolade, but it's true.

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

[AndrewRUK]

Well of course not.
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

[@madeus]

I'm libertarian, but I'm also a vegitarian (of the non leather shoe wearing variety) and where lives are concerned am not in favour of killing or treating living things cruely (and personal freedom's to kill other things for fun be dammed).

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

[Anonymous Coward]

and personal freedom's to kill other things for fun be dammed

No, you can't have it both ways. If you're a libertarian, you'll have no complaints to me hanging a sheep from a rafter by its legs will I slit its throat, and then cooking it over an open flame for me and my friends to enjoy later.

It seems that a lot of people on Slashdot like to call themselves Libertarians without actually understanding what that means, but doing it to sound cool. Idiots.

Re:Phew

[Zeinfeld]

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.

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

[Space cowboy]

Well, that may be your view, but in my experience almost every time I've been upset about the stuff going through the (elected!) House Of Commons, the House Of Lords has knocked it back, or at least amended it judiciously.

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

[MartinG]

Well said. Libertarians do not impore their moral view on others.

Re:Phew

[MartinG]

personal freedom's to kill other things for fun be dammed

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.

Re:Phew

[Gumshoe]

The House of Lords is made up of an eccentric bunch of old codgers

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

[PhilHibbs]

Lord Winston, for example is one of the world's leading geneticists and is a Lord for that very reason.

I thought it was because he's a Groucho Marx lookalike!

Re:Phew

[PhilHibbs]

The cure for admiration for the house of Lords is to see them at work.

Was it not ever thus - "Anyone who likes sausages and respects the law should not watch either of them being made" - I'm not sure where that quote comes from, but it's a good one.

Re:Phew

[Gumshoe]

Doh! I must have been eating those funny mushrooms again. What was I thinking? :-)

Re:Phew

[@madeus]

Being a libertarian does not simply mean being in favor of everyone "do what the hell they like whenever they like to whoever or whatever they like". That's quite utterly ridiculous and an astoundingly naive statement.

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!

Re:Phew

[Anonymous Coward]

For the record, I'm not a libertarian, and I never said I was one in my post, either.

If you are a libertarian though, you should know full well that in order to force your views regarding vegetarianism on others, you would have to inact laws that artifically restrict the majority of the people. Hardly Libertarian by any stretch of the imagination.

As for the rediculous points that you attempt to use to prove that you are a Libertarian, you should know full well that interfering with another human, by killing them, or sexually abusing them, is not the same as killing an animal. Attempting to say otherwise places you on the same level as "Pro Lifers" who then go and blow doctors up, or "Peace Activists" that start riots and smash shop windows. It makes you an idiot.

Re:Phew

[Hard_Code]

All I have to say is that watching British parliament on CSPAN is *WAY* more interesting than watching US Congress. I mean, these people actually argue to each others face! They have to use logic on their feet (not written by staffers the last week) and support their arguments. The actually seem to know understand the issues they are talking about, and don't just blow smoke with colorful presentations from Kinkos. It seems so (relatively) spin-free! What a contrast to stale old Congress, where everyone gets their turn to stand up and drone on in a monotonous overblown topheavy grandeloquent speech. At times it seems like people in Parliament are actually going to physically fight with each other. Now that's what I call government!

Re:Phew

[copec]

I can see your point of being a "libertarian", but I disagree that animals and humans (which are commonly refered as two seperate entities in this way) are on the same level. Humans are superior to every species on this earth. There is a reason we are on top of the food chain.

I believe in free knowadge, and choice. Give people the liberty to do anything they want. Then teach them to make the best choices.

People giving themselves to a system will always work better then people being forced into it.

On a side note, I do eat meat, but only in moderation. I do not believe in hunting for entertainment, or the excessive meat eating like the average American (Its their choice though, inform them why its bad)

Re:Phew

[dadragon]

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...

Ah, so your Commons can brute-force a bill too. I thought that was a strictly Canadian thing, oh well. Does the Queen HAVE to sign it after it's been passed, or can she veto it?

Unfortunaltly out Senate (HoL) is made up of a bunch of old Liberals and Conservatives who remain loyal to their parties and don't often use their powers. I personally think that the senators should be appointed by the province they represent, not the federal government, and that there should be an equal number of senators for each province. Renaming the Senate to the House of Lords would be cool too :)

Re:Phew

[dadragon]

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.

But you must realise, that in a few years Sir Winston will no longer be a leading geneticist, and instead be an old codger. The problem is that Lords can't be kicked out and (AFIAK, IANB) there is no maximum age for Lords. There should be a manditory retirement age for your Lords, like there is for our Senators (Who are also appointed for life).

What I like about the HoL is that it's also the last court of appeal in your country. It would be nice if one could appeal a court decision before any part of Parliament here.

Re:Phew

[loply]

If you ever watch the house of lords on BBC Parliament they are indeed a godsend.

They are nothing like those "other" image-oriented sleezebag politicians and they always seem to reason correctly and accurately.

They have a certain neutrality and arent concerned with public image or government spin, which is what we need more of.

Re:Phew

[@madeus]

I agree with you, I certainly wouldn't stop people eating meat (after all we are omnivours and there are plenty of other animals only too happy eat us :), so there are certainly good arguments for eating meat from ethical standpoint.

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

[PhilHibbs]

The problem is that Lords can't be kicked out

They can, and nearly all the hereditary ones were last year. Parliament changed the rules, and they lost their seats (apart from a few).

Re:Phew

[PhilHibbs]

When the Palace of Westminster was re-built after the war, Churchill insisted that the Commons chamber be too small to accommodate all members. That way, when there's important business at hand and everyone's attending, there are a load of members standing, and the place just looks heaving. It adds a real sense of urgency.

Re:Phew

[Space cowboy]

"Ah, so your Commons can brute-force a bill too. I thought that was a strictly Canadian thing, oh well. Does the Queen HAVE to sign it after it's been passed, or can she veto it?"

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

[isorox]

One of the major reasons we need the queen and close (heir to thone etc) family is because of this last ditch veto. Sort of like a safety check.

Of course the added income from tourism pays for at the very least the queen, phillip, charles, harry and will's upkeep.

Re:Phew

[dpuu]

America has a similar unelected body but, unlike HoL, it has teeth. Its called the Supreme Court.

Re:Phew

[Anne Thwacks]

You forgot to mention another important part of the system - most of them are so rich that bribing them is beyond reach.

Clearly NOT the case in the house of commons.

Re:Phew

[dadragon]

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.

I see. In modern times, has it ever been that a sitting monarch (ie Liz II, George V, VI, Edward, etc) has refused to sign a bill? The last time something like that happened here was when Lord Byng (Governor General, Monarch's representative to Canada) refused to dissolve Parliament here at the request of the Prime Minister, and instead offered to the Loyal Opposition leader to form the government. As you say, it caused a big constitutional crisis.

Re:Phew

[plugger]

I can't agree that this is a major reason we need the queen etc. What has caused this retreat by the government is simply public opinion.

As far as protection from our own government is concerned, don't expect the queen to be relevant. Maybe the European Court would veto the government, but not the royal family. It won't happen.

Re:Phew

[copec]

well, I believe ( -- and thereby not a "logical" argument.) that since we as humans are the only beings that are capible of knowing what ourselfs are, that we are inherently different creatures then animals. Even studies have shown (and by no means justifying what happen on corporate meat farms) that animals do not even feal pain in the sense that humans feal pain.

Animals feal pain on the most instictual level that something is wrong. That is about it. A human actually has mental reactions to wounds, even a baby who hits their head will throw a fit, and huge portions of their brain (The same area's that that 'glow' with joy) will fire. Just from the studies I have read. (I'm trying to find some linkage) Animal's are as linear as a computer, they are mearly a machine. Where a human has depth and soul to them.

Everything in life I make a decision, and more and more things I take in moderation. I dont think putting humans in the same catagory as animals is as black and white as alot of people imagine it.

It doesn't mean that I dont respect nor love animals and nature. quite the opposite actually.

Re:Phew

[PhilHibbs]

It seems to me, though, that it's even more open to bias than the HoL, in that there's only 9 members, and GWB gets to appoint two.

Re:Phew

[@madeus]

Oh I don't think the argument that animals do not feel pain in the same way or are self aware are true. Any claims they feel or interpret nerve impulses differently to us more advanced primates is purely justification for continued mal treatment by a much smarter dominating species who ought to know better.

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. :). Though I certainly accept there is room for debate about how much self awareness this demonstraights, and weather it demonstraights significant amounts at all.

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

[copec]

hmmmm..... touche.

I takes a big man to say...

[Launch]

"We believe we got it wrong and we need to address fears people have." I give Mr Blunkett credit for taking that stance.

Re:I takes a big man to say...

[Anonymous Coward]

I dont give him any credit for it. These people are elected to make sensible decisions for the public good. Of course they should admit it if they balls things up. They dont deserve a gold star for it!
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...

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, maybe. But what kind of damn fool government is so out of touch it thinks it can get away with such an Act?

What kind of government is willing to take such a large axe to the kinds of basic liberties the UK is founded on? Nothing has been as revealing about the contemptuous mindset of our elected rulers, than this.

When I heard about this proposed extension of the law, I decided then and there I would not be voting for this government again. I haven't changed my opinion because Blunkett has calculated introducing this law would damage his chance of becoming Prime Minister. I intend to vote against them at the next election, for any candidate best placed to unseat a sitting Labour MP - via vote trading if necessary.

This bunch needs an almighty kick up the arse and unfortunately it's hard to see where it's going to come from.

What it proves is the need for fundamental constitutional reform in the UK - immediately.

Re:I takes a big man to say...

[Anonymous Coward]

it sounds good, doesnt it. but consider this opinion.

Re:I takes a big man to say...

[Ngwenya]

We need politicians who are aware enough of the issues not to wastetheir time with pointless snooping laws like this in the first place.

If you ever find one, will you tell us?

--Ng

Re:I takes a big man to say...

[slipgun]

"We believe we got it wrong and we need to address fears people have." I give Mr Blunkett credit for taking that stance.

Yep, same here. His political instincts and mine may be more or less completely opposed, but unlike many in the government of His Tonyness, he has a shred of honesty in him.

Re:I takes a big man to say...

[Fembot]

the same man who said "This bill will reduce the number of people who can read your emails" the other day on radio 4. Apparently at the moment lots of agencies etc can get your data with out guidlines or restrictions at all. (well thats what he said anyway)

Pirate radio - what's the frequency?

[CoderByBirth]

"The government had cited the investigation of benefit fraud rings and pirate radio stations as two examples where the new powers would be used."

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?

[nicklott]

Indeed, and of course the Fire Brigade will be at the forefront of the anti-pirate-radio offensive, necessitating these sweeping new powers.

Re:Pirate radio - what's the frequency?

[Anonymous Coward]

as much as I like a lot of pirates there have been instances of pirates with dodgy equipment bleeding into other bands - including emergency freqs. a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing. I could probably build a transmitter. doesn't mean It will work perfectly and not cause interferance.

Re:Pirate radio - what's the frequency?

[Anonymous Coward]

Doesn't mean you need to be able to read my email headers to find out where that dodgy transmiter is, either. The Police have been shutting down Pirate Radio for decades, using that old fashioned technique of detective-work. That, and some simple triangulation.

Re:Pirate radio - what's the frequency?

[BBPing]

I know what you mean. Every time I turn one on they are always playing that "Yo-ho-ho and a bottle of rum" song.

Re:Pirate radio - what's the frequency?

[Xenographic]

Arrrrrh, matey, them pirates be the scourge of the radio waves. They've done scuttled many a station, leaving her crew to the briney deep. I've even heard tell that they plan to make a certain Ms. Spears walk the plank, but it's just gossip.

But...

[j0nkatz]

What will this mean to the censors like Michael of slashdot?

of course...

[nicklott]

..this just means they're going to call it something different and pass it without telling us, but at least they said they were wrong, it's not often they do that.

Re:of course...

[nanoakron]

No.

We're not America.

-Nano.

Control freaks

[Moderation abuser]

The current government seem to be a bunch of control freaks. Gatsos, cameras everywhere, monitoring email, RIP etc.

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

[cmdr_shithead]

VOTE GREEN

because they are the greatest

Re:Control freaks

[nicklott]

Like the man said, Vote Green, they're much better...

Re:Control freaks

[ranulf]

The current government seem to be a bunch of control freaks. Gatsos, cameras everywhere, monitoring email, RIP etc.

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, 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

[JabberWokky]

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.

Shouldn't you vote for who you agree with?

--
Evan

Re:Control freaks

[bluGill]

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

[jeremyp]

Actually you can learn a lot from reading e-mail envelopes and headers. It's called traffic analysis and was used very effectively (on radio communications) during the last war.

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.

Re:Control freaks

[carlos_benj]

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.

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.

Re:Control freaks

[six809]

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

[spiro_killglance]

Providing you want to roll the UK back to
pre-industry times.

Re:Control freaks

[ethereal]

Hmmmm... Incumbent fatcat politician, or murderer of millions. What to choose, what to choose.

Re:Control freaks

[desolation angel]

I do really hate having to point out that GATSOs (aka Speed Cameras) are not surveilance. If you are breaking the law by driving too fast then they will take a picture of you speeding and fine you, which is nothing less than you deserve.
You do not have a right to drive whatever speed you consider safe. Owning and driving a car entails certain responsibilities. One death through speeding is one death too many.

Sorry it's offtopic but motorists really do fucking piss me off sometimes...

Re:Control freaks

[signifying nothing]

I actually voted for them at the last election to make sure that the Conservatives were kicked out

You obviously didn't realise that Labour had been in power for five years at the last general election. I admit, not noticing that the we no longer had a Tory government is very excusable.

goat

[cmdr_shithead]

PEACE

no more war

It's gonna happen anyway....

[HowlinMad]

but I dont need to know about it. I know there are secret government organizations monitoring what we all do, but I can;t prove that and they don't tell me, so its ignorant bliss. They are gooing to do it anyways, just don't tell me, and I will stay happy. (But I still don't want them to do it....)

Maybe there is some democracy left in the UK

[Ethelthefrog]

I have been getting increasingly worried about the fact that Labour can do what they like seemingly unopposed because a) they have a rediculous majority in the House and b) the opposition simply don't have a clue. It is a great relief that democracy worked in this case.

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

[azaroth42]

I faxed my MP (Wirral West) and got a response by mail this morning in writing.

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

[tcr]

Democracy in the House of Commons is an illusion. They are all bogged down by the party whip system. Each MP realistically has to vote according to their respective party line, or risk punishment (or even perhaps expulsion from the party). 'Free votes' are only granted on issues of concience.

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.

[lionchild]

Hold on a minute, I've got my surprised look around here somewhere...um, just a second... (Insert sounds of rumaging here.) Oh, here it is.

(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.

[Hunts]

Its important to note that the plans have only been put off till Novemeber. Yes, the Government was a little shocked by the ammount of attention the changes to the RIP act got. But putting it off till November isnt likely to be about re-writing the changes, but more likely to give the government time to smooth the waters over with MP's so that come November no one notices when its voted on and passed.
The RIP act should be over turned completly, not expanded in any way shape or form.

Re:Its not over yet.

[RegularFry]

It's interesting to remember that the man who got the RIP act passed in the first place was Jack Straw, now the Foreign Minister...

Re:Its not over yet.

[Hunts]

A good point, and one I had over looked.
It does beg of conspiracy theories, mixed with the juices of a traitorous plot.

Re:Its not over yet.

[Ngwenya]

The RIP act should be over turned completly, not expanded in any way shape or form.

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

[fw3]

At the rules that government puts on official sniffing. I'm glad the UK Home Office has realized this was a mistake. Honestly I think part of the problem is that beaureaucrats and managers still don't follow the details of this technology well enough to gauge the societal effects of some policy ideas.

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

Re:admit I'm surprised

[Anonymous Coward]

The rip debate is about getting existing logs, not activly "sniffing" data.

Re:admit I'm surprised

[cainem]

The rip debate is about getting existing logs, not activly "sniffing" data.

Well, data recorded one second ago can be classed as 'an existing log'. Do you think they'll let this information sit around for a week or so just so it can go stale? Maybe there are already systems in place to make sure that this information is delivered in a timely fashion. We might never know.

Don't get complacent.

[Anonymous Coward]

David Blunkett has a method of getting what he wants:
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.

[vyzar]

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.

I could not agree more. The original proposals talk about using these powers for detection and prevention of crime (from what I recall).

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.

[MrFredBloggs]

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/homeaffairs/story/0 , 1026,739593,00.html

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).

finally

[tps12]

It's good to see the UK finally catching up with the US on the surveillance front.

Back in World War II, we counted on the British to give us a hand with codebreaking and even the odd invasion. Since then, despite what you see in James Bond movies, the US has been left shouldering an increasing amount of the responsibility inherent in maintaining global peace.

With this move, the UK may start carrying its own weight once again. If we want to wipe out terrorism on a global scale, we'll all need to do our part. So far the UK is the first to follow our lead here, but hopefully France and Canada and other second-world nations will follow suit.

Re:finally

[Darren Winsper]

Oh please, the date when the US started caring about terrorism outside its borsers is 11/9/01. The UKs been dealing with terrorism for a lot longer than that.

Re:finally

[idfrsr]

...but hopefully France and Canada and other second-world nations will follow suit.

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, makes a me little hesitant to jump on any US foriegn policy bandwagon....

Re:finally

[Anonymous Coward]

This has to be flamebait. But such is the ignorant, smug arrogance of the post, I am forced to bite.

1. We didn't help you with your codebreaking - you helped us! The key breakthroughs were made at Bletchley Park - a fact everyone knows except uneducated yanks whose knowledge of the Enigma machine comes from insulting dross like the movie U-571.

2. The 'increasing responsibility of maintaining world peace' during the Cold War was not an American 'burden' as you put it, but a shared venture across the Western World - under American leadership. We were *all* under threat of nuclear annhilation you know.

3. To what extent has the UK *not* carried its weight when dealing with security issues, in conjunction with America? Name me one occasion *ever*, you ignorant fool?

4. You don't wipe out terrorism with military might alone. Anyone who's actually fought terrorists (like the IRA for example, until recently legally part-funded by American citizens) - why - like the British in Northern Ireland - knows you *contain* terror with the military but you *defeat* terror with politics.

We won't blody well take lessons from you in how to fight terrorists.

Re:finally

[Jucius Maximus]

"France and Canada are second-world nations ? The second world nations were the communist countries back in the days of the chilly-war... "

I doubt that any of the G8 countries (including Canada, France) are second world nations.

Re:finally

[Anonymous Coward]

This has to be flamebait. But such is the ignorant, smug arrogance of the post, I am forced to bite

Uhh, yeah, thats called a "Troll" kid. As in, You Have Been.

Re:finally

[RegularFry]

Uh... Where do you think the major NSA listening stations for the Eastern Hemisphere are?
Hint: there's one here, and another one here.

Re:finally

[Peter Harris]

Alas, you have not been paying attention.

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.

Re:finally

[neocon]

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

[neocon]

OK, I for one am not going to knock the British assistance during the cold war -- certainly no other European power was of any assistance. But you want to talk about pulling your weight? Why is it that there are 200 British soldiers on the ground in Afghanistan -- a number smaller than the UK government's own estimates of how many citizens of the realm are fighting for al Qaeda?

As for `defeating terror with politics', I'll tell you what -- when you actually do something about the IRA instead of handing them the keys to the city and washing your hands of the matter, maybe we'll come back to you for advice. The current mess of a `peace process' is an example to no one.

And if you're so self-sufficient when it comes to defense, how 'bout we start seeing some of that lend-lease paid back, eh?

Re:finally

[Anonymous Coward]

And if you're so self-sufficient when it comes to defense, how 'bout we start seeing some of that lend-lease paid back, eh?

Sorry about the loan.... must have run it up single-handedly defending the free world while you were sitting on the fence.

WWI began in 1914, and WWII began in 1939.

You should really check up on history. It isn't as if you have much of it.

Re:finally

[Anonymous Coward]

when you actually do something about the IRA

Well if you lot would stop bloody funding the bastards!

Re:finally

[Space cowboy]

I have to say I find your comments extremely offensive.

"Why is it that there are 200 British soldiers on the ground in Afghanistan"

Look here 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.

"when you actually do something about the IRA ..."

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.

"how 'bout we start seeing some of that lend-lease paid back"

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

[Anonymous Coward]

The way british forces are being cut 200 soldiers is probably about 25% of the army this week. They're *vastly* under resourced, and are being sent off around the globe to far more places than just Afghanistan.

Re:finally

[Ngwenya]

And if you're so self-sufficient when it comes to defense, how 'bout we start seeing some of that lend-lease paid back, eh?

Err...you got it back, in 1945. You got 99 year leases on our various overseas bases, or you got the ships back undamaged (well, a bit pock marked, maybe...), and you got about $11 billion - from us.

By the time the base leases come up for renewal (in about 40 years time), you should have got more value than the remaining $20 billion. We'll call it quits, though, since you did supply 50 obsolete submarines to soak up German torpedoes :-)

--Ng

Re:finally

[Anonymous Coward]

> Why is it that there are 200 British soldiers on the ground in Afghanistan

Sigh. Take your head out your ass for one moment and get the facts. There are 6,000 UK troops directly involved in Afghanistan, 1,700 of which are on the ground. (Prime Ministerial statement to the House, March 20).

> -- a number smaller than the UK government's own estimates of how many citizens of the realm are fighting for al Qaeda?

And the nationality of the 'dirty bomber' was what exactly?

> when you actually do something about the IRA instead of handing them the keys to the city and washing your hands of the matter, maybe we'll come back to you for advice.

If by doing something you mean actually ending one of the most intractable terrorist wars in the modern era, boosting investment in Northern Ireland, creating more peace, prosperity and happiness than there has been in that hellhole for a generation - then maybe you do need our advice. The fact is - the war's over.

Of course, if we were Israel, the IRA was the PLO and we were following the favoured American approach - which is to wash your hands of any trouble in the world not directly underpinning the profits of Exxon - then you might see different results. Oh, of course, you do.

> The current mess of a `peace process' is an example to no one.

You are so right, a peace process which delivers peace is clearly a mistake. How much more productive the US-Israel-Palestinian peace process has been, and how foolish we have been not to follow that model.

> And if you're so self-sufficient when it comes to defense, how 'bout we start seeing some of that lend-lease paid back, eh?

Hey, you wrote it off, don't come whingeing to us about it now.

Re:finally

[Anonymous Coward]

No, it's not a clever remark designed to get a rise, it's bloody disrespectful and offensive to those who have fought in the past, and are fighting today for their country.

Re:finally

[neocon]

Hey, no argument there -- I'd love to see NORAID on the same list as the Holy Land Foundation and other Hamas front groups. But that's not likely to happen as long as Blair claims that the IRA/Sinn Fein is now a `partner in the peace process', now is it?

Re:finally

[dadragon]

-handedly defending the free world while you were sitting on the fence.

Single handedly? Ask any citizen of a former colony nation (ie Canada, Australia, New Zealand) and you'll find out that the first war was their "coming of age", where they proved to the world that they were capable of independance.

WWI began in 1914, and WWII began in 1939.

Yup, they sure did. But you were far from alone. The entire commonwealth joined with you.

You should really check up on history. It isn't as if you have much of it.

As a non-American, I can tell you to check up on history. You may have a lot of it, but yours isn't the only country in the world which has some.

Re:finally

[Space cowboy]

"Yup, they sure did. But you were far from alone. The entire commonwealth joined with you."

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 :-) about what's right and what's wrong.

Simon

Re:finally

[Anonymous Coward]

Absolutly. However that doesn't mean that its primary purpose is not to Troll. tps12 has just done it by insulting the memory of millions of dead, many of whom were young (In their 20's) when they died.

Re:finally

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh please, the date when the US started caring about terrorism outside its borsers is 11/9/01. The UKs been dealing with terrorism for a lot longer than that.

And for many of the same fundamental reasons.

Re:finally

[Anonymous Coward]

When everyone watching is classified for "UK EYES ONLY", the displays get significantly more detailed and informative.

Whereas we looney Yanks publish plans for our nuclear submarines in leaflets in cereal boxes. When will we learn?

Re:finally

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Terrible when it happens to yours, but fine while it was the Harps getting crushed. Admit it, you guys have fucked up every country you ever laid hands on and demonstrated, as you quote Mao --

At the end of the day, Mao was right in one respect: power comes from the end of a gun,

-- that the only way out from under your boot heel is by use of violence. How dare you prattle on about how abused you are by the Irish, you simpering child.

Re:finally

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey, no argument there -- I'd love to see NORAID on the same list as the Holy Land Foundation and other Hamas front groups. But that's not likely to happen as long as Blair claims that the IRA/Sinn Fein is now a `partner in the peace process', now is it?

Let's admit it -- in much of the world, today's statesmen are yesterday's terrorists.

Re:finally

[neocon]

In much of the world, today's statesmen are today's terrorists. That this happens does not make it desirable, much less part of any sane `peace process'.

Re:finally

[voidzero]

that the only way out from under your boot heel is by use of violence.

Gandhi was successful in a non-violent fashion.

Re:finally

[Space cowboy]

Well well, the Anonymous Coward strikes again. With lightning wit and dazzling erudition, (s)he strikes the devastating blow. Not.

"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 .. that the only way out from under your boot heel is by use of violence"

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

Oversight

[Anonymous Coward]

I guess we're gonna get this eventually, all we can really hope for is that they put some reasonable measures for oversight in place.

I don't like being spied on, but I'll be 'slightly' happier if I know some independant body is making sure that my list of favourite porn sites doesn't get in just anyones hands....

Influence

[kylant]

I like this line best:

"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.

Re:Influence

[loply]

I met him once. D. Blunkett was awarding my mother with some "super teacher" nonsense.

Re:Influence

[Anonymous Coward]

Is there any other way to contact Hugh, other then giving a shout at /.? (PING, are you there?)

Perhaps we can explain him what is wrong with a law that allows everyone who look/sounds/writes like a post office official to get proxy logs, mail headers, telephone logs, cell-phone location logs on everyone related to anything that qualifies as "really importand criminal stuff, like terrorists and radio pirates....you know..... trust us, we do know!"

Re:Influence

[Anonymous Coward]

Depends on what you mean contact. If you keep writing here I have a feeling he might listen, being a long time /. reader.

Re:Influence

[Anonymous Coward]

This works better if your friends have photos of the Home Secretary's son at drunken student parties... would you like the girl's email address?

Re:Influence

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't even think about it Voxol. :)

Postman Pat 21st century

[Anonymous Coward]

"Hello Farmer Bob"
"Goodmorning Pat"
"I've just been reading your email to check if you're a terrorist."

A second thought

[idfrsr]

Online surveillance is quite a hot topic and requires dilligence on all parties to maintain our privacy. My only concern is that we must not as a online community support or at least condone certain behaviour by not speaking against it. What I am talking about is especially exploitive content and primarily kiddie pr0n. We only help these peddlers of deviancy if we don't actively speak out against it and support efforts to curb child exploitation. I am in favour of privacy rights, but we should not shield the wrong people. I want privacy for those who respect the rights of others.

Re:A second thought

[fiona]

Unfortunately privacy doesn't really work that way. The price of freedom and privacy seems to be the inability to truly prevent crime. It's the old idea of being innocent until proven guilty. It means that someone can do something pretty nasty at least once. Getting caught, punished and prevented from doing it again is good but not really relevant.

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.

Re:I hope this is a smiley..

[Te1waz]

I hope this comment is meant to get a 'Funny' rating.

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).

Impotent

[RegularFry]

Yes, but the house of lords is impotent.
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

[Space cowboy]

Actually the original poster is correct. If the commons sends the bill to the lords for three times, they are no longer required to send it again until enactment.

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

Goddamnit.

[Gannoc]

You know, there ARE some readers outside of the UK, you know.

Slashdot is so frikking anglo-centric.

Re:Goddamnit.

[Anonymous Coward]

Thats a lie - we all know the earths flat and you fall off the edge when you go past the horizon.

Re:Goddamnit.

[Space cowboy]

Yes but they're not important. You do know we rule the world? :-)

Simon

Vast range of bodies?

[carlos_benj]

....the plans to allow a vast range of bodies to access email and phone records have now been shelved.

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

[Snart Barfunz]

I hope you all visited the above site and used it to fax your MP. Don't forget to go back when the bill resurfaces.

Re:www.stand.org.uk

[jweatherley]

You can also use this link to fax your MP - I did and am happy that this bill has been kicked into touch.

Re:www.stand.org.uk

[Anonymous Coward]

your mp's don't give a shit, you english fucktard. memo to dimwitted british political system: monarchy went out with the horse and buggy.

"slashdotted" due to soccer...

[CProgrammer98]

If you find the site slashdotted, it's because of the Korea/Italy game - it's the same servers they're using to give a live feed of the match report, and as it's just gone into extra time, it's likely to be congested for the next 45 minutes or so. Soccer fever is one of the very few things that can "slashdot" the bbc, I've only ever seen it once before, that was 9/11

Re:"slashdotted" due to soccer...

[nicklott]

Three things:

1. Forza Korea!
2. It's "Football" not "Soccer"
3. 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 is the monitor page, and this 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.

Re:"slashdotted" due to soccer...

[CProgrammer98]

I know it's Foorball, but I translated it for our American friends :)

Didn't know about the stats page, that's cool! Thanks.

The Liberals ...

[vrai]

... are the worst of all. Comitted to increasing government interference and taxation (nanny state ahoy!). I'm voting UKIP as it's made up of some uber-capitalists and is the closest to a Libertarian party in the UK.

Re:The Liberals ...

[Anonymous Coward]

UKIP is also made up of some uber-facists, but that of course is not important...

Re:The Liberals ...

[Ngwenya]

I'm voting UKIP as it's made up of some uber-capitalists and is the closest to a Libertarian party in the UK.

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 ...

[vrai]

The only 'facist' thing about the UKIP is the European super state they are opposed to. Their stance on immigration is far less facist than the Tories, and their stance on personal freedoms is far less facist than Labour. The only people who seem to spread FUD about the UKIP are those that leach off the state and have can't compete in a fair labour market.

Re:The Liberals ...

[Anonymous Coward]

It's a shame, you were sounding reasonable until that last sentence. the reasons for state aid and assistance are long and well documented and I wont go into them here.

Re:The Liberals ...

[plugger]

Don't forget those of us who do not leech off the state, can compete in a fair job market, but just don't like the backward looking little englander mentality of the UKIP.

sheild the wrong people?

[Anonymous Coward]

Kiddie pr0n is bad.

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?

Home office blurts out the truth.....

[babycakes]

A home office minister on BBC R4 yesterday blurted out that the government were collecting the data anyway, regardless....check the story on The Register ...

Re:Home office blurts out the truth.....

[inetuid]

Yeah, having worked at the largest dial ISP provider in the UK I can confirm that the Police have free reign to ask for whatever sniffing they like without a hint of protest. Plod justs says "Here's an IP address tell me what's going on" and they fall over themselves to get the information - who needs the RIPA act when corporates have no balls?

I agree with you

[Anonymous Coward]

It is outrageou to consider France & Canada as 2nd world nations.

They are 3rd world nations.

or mirror of populace?

[fw3]

I've only been to the UK 3 times, in '69, '83 and '96.

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?

[neocon]

Sadly, 1996 was one of the last times which London was safer than large cities in the US. In the years since then, their crime rate, especially violent crime has skyrocketed, topping out at 50% over New York City (and safely over US cities with larger crime problems) by 2000.

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?

[slipgun]

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.

Yep, the government has made the interesting yet surprising discovery that criminals don't obey gun laws.

Re:or mirror of populace?

[karmawarrior]

FWIW handguns were not outlawed in Britain due to gun crime, but fear of abuse by licenced holders, after one licenced gun owner, Thomas Hamilton, went bezerk in a school in Scotland.

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:or mirror of populace?

[slipgun]

FWIW handguns were not outlawed in Britain due to gun crime, but fear of abuse by licenced holders, after one licenced gun owner, Thomas Hamilton, went bezerk in a school in Scotland.

Although the police realised he had a history of mental illness, and hence should not have given him a license.

Terrorism and location

[Anonymous Coward]

"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."

This is indeed one of the frustrating UK-US differences. When a (typically but not universally) uninformed American comments on the level of UK surveillance, they never take the 20 years of terrorism on UK soil into account.

It didn't help that the IRA was getting 50% of its money from US citizens supporting Noraid either. The cry "Don't they know they're killing us" was all-too-obviously answered "No!". Or perhaps they didn't care.

I lost friends in the UK armed forces on UK territory in an attack on a UK military base in Northern England, July 1986. The IRA boasted that the attacks would continue while their US funds would support it, and there was no end for that in sight. I won't go into details (it's too painful) but emotions like mine are all-too-common in the UK, and all-too-new to the US. Perhaps US isolationism will be reduced as a result of 11/11. Personally I don't hold much hope.

Re:Terrorism and location

[fw3]

This is indeed one of the frustrating UK-US differences. When a (typically but not universally) uninformed American comments on the level of UK surveillance, they never take the 20 years of terrorism on UK soil into account.

[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.

OT: your sig

[sab39]

-- What do you need?
-- 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:I hope this is a smiley..

[sleaterkinney]

not funny but misinformed, The most efficent way of getting rid of terrorism is to give "terrorists" the means of changing what they want to change via non-violent means....

Re: Not democratic

[Anonymous Coward]

The amendments are only being shelved because of the House of Lords. This is not a victory for democracy (tyrany of the majority in this case). It's a victory for oligarchy.

On being a libertarian

[@madeus]

Ah not true.

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

[Anonymous Coward]

As a libertarian (which bizarrely you also claim to be, but clearly are not) I can say it is not the job of the government to force the view of the majority on a minority. That's called dictatorship of the majority and is something libertarianism is intented to prevent.
If we went along with majority dictatorship then not so long ago we would have seen all gays and non-natives deported or killed.
Besides, the hunt supporters are not an insignificant minority when you consider that the pro-hunt march in London in the not so distant past was one of the largest ever on record and completely obliterated any gay-rights marches for example.
Please concede that the size or lack therof of any minority has nothing to do with whether they are right or not.
Also, part of the governments job is to protect the interests of the voters against attack from others. Perhaps its time foxes got the vote?

Re:On being a libertarian

[MartinG]

a true libertarian will advocate liberty, but also reaslise that that means allowing others _not_ to do the same, so long as it doesn't interfere with the liberty of themselves.

Re:On being a libertarian

[@madeus]

Ha! All this talk about libertarianisim (when you don't even know the difference between a libertarian and a Libertarian) is nothing but twaddle!

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

[@madeus]

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* freedoms (which libertarians do!)!

Re:On being a libertarian

[MartinG]

Who are you replying to? If it's me, then you guessed wrong. I hate fox hunting. It's cruel and barbaric, and in my view has no place in modern society. I would never let my children participate in a hunt, and I would do my best to pursuade anyone I met not to do so either (so long as such persuasion was not unduly intrusive)

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

[MartinG]

.. and just to respond to your final comment. Animals need no protection from me. I and my girlfriend are members of several animal conservation societies inclusing the whale and dolphin conservation society and the EIA (environmental investigation agency)
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

[@madeus]

I was not replying to you - try browsing at '0' or '-1' to view the origional posts. I'm certainly not accusing you of being a pro hunt lobbist, that would be grossly unfair as their would be no basis for say that, I was refering to the A/C poster (who it seems is because they are arguing on the issue, not simply because they belive the right to continue to do it should exist).

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

[MartinG]

It's acceptable that some animal cruelty is outlawed, but only when there is no real significant moral disagreement among the population. Foxhunting just doesn't fit.

It's not just because of an idealistic liberal standpoint that I hold these opinions, history teaches that people will not stand for being bullied around. How many fewer people smoke cannabil because it's illegal. Because of all the anti-hunt legislation threats, how many younger people whose families participate in hunts will now have a definite "us and them" mentatily that is more likely to cause them to want to hunt more not less.

In summary: Society should use the law to uphold the values we all agree on. It should not be used so stamp out minority moral values - and in fact cannot in the long term - attempting to do so will only lead to desperation, often civil unrest, and in extreme cases terrorism.

Re:On being a libertarian

[@madeus]

In summary: Society should use the law to uphold the values we all agree on.

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.

Re:On being a libertarian

[MartinG]

It doesn't matter if it's 90% of 51%, it's still a group of people bullying others around.
The term I often use is "significant moral disagreement" and I can't ever see why it's justified for a goverment to take sides where there is significant moral disagreement on an issue.

I bet over 70% of people would say smoking around children is bad. Should we then legally ban smoking in all places where children might be? No, because a significant number of people have no big moral objection to it. Some might not like it, but that's another issue.

(by the way - thanks for the first sustained intelligent discussion ive had on /. for a while(even if it is OT++))

Learn what the word means!

[@madeus]

Your *STILL* doing it!

"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:Learn what the word means!

[Anonymous Coward]

The difference between "libertarian" and "Libertarian" is one fucking capital letter, but because you're a hypocritical pedent, you have to pretend that you can't understand the argument. You clearly can understand the meaning, dispite the lack of proper capitlisation.

It makes you the same as the "Pro Lifers" who kill, and the "Peace Activists" who start riots, becuase you're all total fucking hypocrites who can't understand why people point and laugh at them.

WARNING: GOATSE LINK!

[Anonymous Coward]

n/t

What being a libertarian means.

[@madeus]

#--I've posted this elsewhere but reprinted here ed because I think's it's important that we all are clear on the difference between what are two often misunderstood terms.--#

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!)!

LOL

[Fizban64]

Very funny and well put. We are all a little Eccentric, it's in the british mandate.

There's a fine line between people who'll do their best for 5 years and someone who's top of there league doing the job for life. I just hope the control freak goverment will allow the Lords to find the correct balance.

I'm glan the RIP act has been shelved, we embrace this so called "Freedom", now the goverment want to put the ideas of big brother to shame, shame on the goverment, but atleast public opinion has told them enough is enough. Our system was based on innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, lets hope it will stay this way.

P.S on another note, Dam those Koreans were good today.

Voting Liberal from now on

[Tim Ward]

I realised the other day that I was agreeing with some of the things the Conservative politicians were saying.

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.

yes, quite recently in 1789 IIRC.

[Anonymous Coward]

I suppose this is before the dawn of time for some people.

Re:yes, quite recently in 1789 IIRC.

[Anonymous Coward]

Hardly before the dawn of time, but it's certainly before Victoria, and I see her as the Queen who hailed in the modern age.