Slashdot Mirror
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."
"We believe we got it wrong and we need to address fears people have." I give Mr Blunkett credit for taking that stance.
Your mammas flamebait.
"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!
I just hope that Tony's reforms don't wreck the system entirely.
..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.
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.
Government of the people, by corporate executives, for corporate profits.
Let's hear it for the unelected aristrocrats![1] :D
:P
[1] May not be spelled correctly, but then I'm just an oik
Actually, fox hunting and the hassle over the gay age of concent aside, the house of lords is not bad really. I mean, they seem to be better at opposing bad legislation than the party lackies in the commons...
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....)
Great Linux Site
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.
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.
"Enlightenment is your ego's biggest disappointment." --Yoginanda
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
Linux is Linux, if One need clarify their dist: <Dist>/GNU Linux
bsds are of course just BSD
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.
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.
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.
"The large print giveth, and the small print taketh away" -Tom Waits
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.
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.
Slashdot is so frikking anglo-centric.
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....
"The large print giveth, and the small print taketh away" -Tom Waits
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.
--- Yx3 = Delilah ---
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
And the people shall be oppressed, every one by another, and every one by his neighbour Isaiah 3:5
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!
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.
Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
Uh... Where do you think the major NSA listening stations for the Eastern Hemisphere are?
Hint: there's one here, and another one here.
Reality is the ultimate Rorschach.
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 ...
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.
Linux is Linux, if One need clarify their dist: <Dist>/GNU Linux
bsds are of course just BSD
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.
Physicists get Hadrons!
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.
-- What do you need?
-- Gnus. Lots of Gnus.
Well said. Libertarians do not impore their moral view on others.
-- MartinG To mail me: echo kewyjlcxyzvjfxbqwh | tr bcefhjklqvwxyz
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.
-- MartinG To mail me: echo kewyjlcxyzvjfxbqwh | tr bcefhjklqvwxyz
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!
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
Physicists get Hadrons!
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.
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!
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
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.
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.
Perhaps you have ideas about what to do, given your knowledge of the religious and territorial claims which stretch back over MORE TIME THAN YOUR COUNTRY HAS EXISTED in it's current form.
Perhaps also, if you stopped funding them (50% of IRA funds are USA-sourced) it would help stop innocent children from being bombed and murdered on their way to school in Northern Ireland.
We are self-sufficent. We could park a nuclear sub off any major city in the world and reduce it to a smoking ruin in seconds. No "missile shield" could help. A pre-emptive military strike against us would (and could) not prevent this.
At the end of the day, Mao was right in one respect: power comes from the end of a gun, and the UK is one of the most militarily powerful nations in the world.
Aside: Britain is one of the best submariner nations in the world. I've worked on some of the technical systems in modern submarines, and it's quite funny how different classifications affect what is shown... When everyone watching is classified for "UK EYES ONLY", the displays get significantly more detailed and informative. With a lot more relevant info to work with, the same
algorithms in the software can produce a lot more useful output
Simon
Physicists get Hadrons!
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
#--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!)!
"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
Physicists get Hadrons!
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.
"Yup, they sure did. But you were far from alone. The entire commonwealth joined with you."
:-)
:-) about what's right and what's wrong.
A good point. I have a colleague who continually refers to what "he" did, and not what "we" did. I find it irritating.
This is why saying that Britons in general consider the Commonwealth (1.7 billion people, almost 1/3 the world's population!) to be part of "we" is not adequate unless it's said. Nonetheless, we do, well at least *I* do, 1 down, 57million to go
Should a major conflict arise again, I'd expect most of the Commonwealth to be with us rather than against us, not because you should or must, but because we mostly share the same ideals and values (monarchy aside
Simon
Physicists get Hadrons!
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.
Well well, the Anonymous Coward strikes again. With lightning wit and dazzling erudition, (s)he strikes the devastating blow. Not.
.. 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."
You think I'm being coy ? Odd thing to say.
Now let me see if I've got this right... You're claiming that something that happened four hundred years ago (I assume you're talking about the harpers here) has such bearing on the modern British view of the world that children should be murdered to make sure people get your message.
Sorry, no actually I'm not sorry. I don't agree.
I don't hold grudges for that long - every nation would be at war with every other if that were the case, and man would degenerate to the animal from which he came.
"you guys have fucked up every country you ever laid hands on and demonstrated
I don't recall saying that. Mao said power comes from the end of a gun, but power and actions are two different things. British actions towards Ireland in recent times (beginning with Major) do not appear to me to be British Imperialism imposed from above. The peace process is (slowly) making ground, sometimes in spite of the politicians on both sides, but gaining ground nonetheless.
Simon
Physicists get Hadrons!
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.
:). Though I certainly accept there is room for debate about how much self awareness this demonstraights, and weather it demonstraights significant amounts at all.
Physically, despite differences in size and shape, we are very similarly constructed to other mammals (four limbs, two lungs, one heart, one brain, a spine, a nerve stem at the back of the neck, similar number of bones, similar design and layout of bones and organcs, etc).
The problem is we don't like to admit how similar we are because it makes us think about and face very awkward questions about the nature of our duality (like the way that we keep cat's and dog's as family pets yet eat sheep and chickens).
It's interesting to raise this with young children as I've had friends childen ask why I don't eat meat (say, when we go to McDonalds). When I explain why (very deliberately not in a pushy sense and certainly without trying to advocate!), many immediately delare that that's a really good idea because eating sheep and chickens seems genuinly revulsive to them (though of course they are only children and as soon as they are offered a hamburger they think twice, but as everyone else seems to be doing it so they just go a head and eat it). There lack of inhibition about stating their revulsion without first justifing it to themselves (as all adults do in such situations - including me!) is quite interesting though.
Relevant points are that animals both dream and not only that, they have emotions (Which are chemical reactions, not complex mental constructs. Though these reactions are often *manipulated* by mental processes they are themselves physical, chemical reactions common to most mammals.). We like sex for the same reasons rabbits do, we get pleasureable responses in our brain. Of course I do think that there is a deeper level of understanding with humans due to our vastly greater brain power which adds an amazing amount of dimension, but if it wern't for the chemical rewards, we wouldn't have any reason to bother, except to make babies (and of course these reactions are nature's way of making sure we do have babies).
Quite a few animals can dream which demonstraights some sort of self awareness on some level (to imagine 'yourself' doing something, you need to have a level of self awareness). We don't of course know what they are dreaming *about*, but with the muscle movement (snarling, tail wagging, and legs moving while dreaming) it's clear they are acting natural out movements and 'being' themselves. I would also *think* (so purely IMO) that they can, like us, tell the differences between dreams and reality when they awake (only because that would seem like mother nature fucked up quite a bit if they can dream but can't tell when they wake up! Though I know that *I* sometimes have problems remebering wheather something was a dream or not, but I tend to tream about boring things like having meetings and working at the computer a lot.
Animals also behave differently emotionally depending on how you treat them and the experiences they have throughout life, this is particularly noticeable in cats (you can certainly see it in dogs too, but it seems dogs take a lot more rough and tumble than cat's will happily tolerate). This is very noticeable in maltreated animals and is much more than simple instinctive anger or fear and it can be very complex. It's notale that similar (non verbal) techniques for therapy used on on humans work on other mal treated animals like dogs, cats, and horses to help them work round problems like lack of trust, anger, fear and bulling (in instances where other animals are unusually dominant and cruel to others).
I don't think putting humans in the same category as animals is as black and white as a lot of people imagine it.
I think that one thing that is black and white about this issue, is that humans are animals.
When we refute or choose to ignore this we are ignoring much of our behavior that is very base and instinctive, and we are distancing ourselves from the greatly differing ways we treat different species.
I do think it's one thing to discuss how similar we are, and whether we should or are in any way obligated to treat them differently, but quite another not to admit we are a dominant and very advanced species, not an entirely different class of being.