UK Government Wants To Bypass Data Protection Act

rar42 writes "Clause 152 of the Coroners and Justice Bill, currently being debated by the UK Parliament, would allow any Minister by order to take from anywhere any information gathered for one purpose, and use it for any other purpose. Personal information arbitrarily used without consent or even knowledge: the very opposite of 'Data Protection.' An 'Information Sharing Order', as defined in Clause 152, would permit personal information to be trafficked and abused, not only all across government and the public sector — it would also reach into the private sector. And it would even allow transfer of information across international borders. NO2ID has launched a Facebook group to challenge this threat to data protection."

Comments

Slippery Slopes

[nurb432]

Someday you people will come to assume that anything the government asks is a portal to one.

Re:Slippery Slopes

[Chabo]

A portal to a slippery slope?

Sounds fun!

Re:Slippery Slopes

[artor3]

I believe that the slippery slope argument is a logical fallacy in most cases. (To implement laws that you don't want through what? Political momentum?)

The slippery slope argument is a logical fallacy only when it's used as deductive reasoning. But when you apply inductive reasoning, which is arguably much more applicable to politics, the slippery slope holds up nicely.

Every time A has happened, B has resulted.
If we let A happen again, B will probably happen.

Pretty rock-solid, if you ask me. If you replace A with "The government has reduced the people's right to privacy, in order to increase the government's power" and B with "The people have grown to accept their reduced rights, and the government has still wanted more power", you have the current situation.

If we (or rather, "they," as I'm not British) accept this invasion, then the government will likely be left wanting more, and the people will grow ever more complacent. It's happened every time thus far, why think that it'll be different this time?

Re:Slippery Slopes

[icebike]

Mod parent up.

Re:Slippery Slopes

[cayenne8]

It just goes to show why the populace would fight, or at least be cautious and try to restrain govt. from pretty much ANY law they want to pass, especially with regard to police needs and personal privacy.

The govt. will never stop at the originally intended intent of the law, no matter how much they promise to limit the reach of the law for the intended use that 'everyone can agree with'.

The govt. ALWAYS will later, expand upon said law to use it in new and creative ways never intended, or try to stretch it to be used to prosecute someone that might have done something, but, there currently isn't a direct law that applies (like with that lady who harrased a teen online, and said teen killed herself).

Heck...look at the new and creative ways in the past decade that they have been expanding the RICO act which was put in place only to target the mob.

We should insist that most new laws are not only VERY narrowly defined, but that they also have sunset provisions....to give the public at least a fighting chance to not only keep laws from expanding in scope, but, to also have hope that some that are downright bad...have a chance to go away.

Re:Slippery Slopes

[hairyfeet]

Well if they do it like they've been doing here in the USA they'll just say it is to catch those nasty pedos and then nobody will dare speak against it. The pedo has become the 21st century boogie man, like the commie in the 50s. They tried using terrorists but found that it doesn't shut up critics like pedo does. After all surely YOU don't want to let those evil pedos get away now, do you?

Re:Slippery Slopes

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

Every time A has happened, B has resulted.
If we let A happen again, B will probably happen.

Pretty rock-solid, if you ask me.

Well, remind me not to in the future. This is certainly not rock solid. You assume (like all people who use the slippery slope argument in this context) that people will take any abuse from the government just because they take a little abuse from the government (assuming, of course, that this is abuse, and not people feeling insecure and running to the government for help), that means they'll take any abuse from the government. I might be able to swallow a mouthful of sea water when I'm at the beach, but that doesn't mean I'll be able to finish the rest of the ocean.

It's a fallacy, pure and simple. It's an argument based on very shaky intuition based on small, trivial cases (where relevant variables do not change as a result of A happening), but fails to hold for most situations in life.

Re:Slippery Slopes

[zappepcs]

I think what is missing from the current picture, or any picture from around the world was implied by the war in Iraq, or at least by some of those perpetuating it: If you show people some freedom they will naturally grab hold of it and demand democracy and freedom for themselves. What is unknown is what it takes to move a westernized populace to revolt en mass. What amount of salt must a western government grind with it's boots into the wounds of its citizens rights before they revolt with guns, bombs, and beheadings? How far are we from that point? What revealed lie or uncovered atrocity against civil rights will be required to bring armed revolution to the front pages of newspapers around the world. What manner of indignation will it take to push the people into forcibly retaking government and reducing its size one head at a time?

These are the questions that must be pondered mightily in the halls of power. These are the questions that we the people should be looking for the government's preparation against. When the government is shown to be preparing for it, it's already time to be shooting at government loyalists.

Ask yourself, will it take only one head? Three heads? How many will be required to satisfy the people and the world that there has been a change of management? How do we in the US simply get rid of the federal government? Declare it null and void and fight off any who argue? Whose brother do you shoot? Whose father? If not bullets, what?

Now is the time to join politically active groups who want real change, change you can be part of and not just change you can believe in. You can believe all change once it happens; both good and bad. What we want is to be part of the change, change that benefits us all, not just corporations and pseudo fascist bureaucrats.

How much more will you take? How much more can you take?

âoeThere are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order.â
â" Ed Howdershelt

Re:Slippery Slopes

[artor3]

Every time the Sun has set, it has risen.
The Sun set a few hours ago for me, yet I'm confident that it will rise again.

I don't need a deductive proof to know it.

Or another example, if I flip a coin and have it land heads 100 times in a row, I can be pretty confident that if I flip it again, it will land on heads again. "Gamblers' Fallacy!" you might mistakenly claim. But it's not... the odds a of a fair coin landing on heads a hundred times in a row are on the order of 1 in 10^30. More likely, I have found a biased coin.

To consider your "gulp of saltwater at the ocean" example, you are thinking only of an isolated incident. That doesn't make a pattern. Now, if you swallowed a mouthful of saltwater every single time you went to the beach, twenty times in a row, then yes, I'd say it's likely that you will swallow yet another on your 21st visit.

Deductive logic is great for mathematicians. For everything else, inductive logic is our best tool.

Re:Slippery Slopes

[mpe]

The govt. will never stop at the originally intended intent of the law, no matter how much they promise to limit the reach of the law for the intended use that 'everyone can agree with'.

One thing which is uncertain is if said law will actually be used its "intended purpose" (the reason it was claimed to be needed in the first place.) e.g. In the UK non of the recent anti-terrorism laws appear to have been used against terrorists who cannot be portrayed as "Islamic". However it turns out that none of these laws are actually needed to sucessfully prosecute terrorists.

Heck...look at the new and creative ways in the past decade that they have been expanding the RICO act which was put in place only to target the mob.

But not used, in rather less creative ways, against corrupt businesses. e.g. the RIAA's activities look very much like a form of racketeering.

We should insist that most new laws are not only VERY narrowly defined, but that they also have sunset provisions....to give the public at least a fighting chance to not only keep laws from expanding in scope, but, to also have hope that some that are downright bad...have a chance to go away.
So long renewing a law is at least as hard as passing a new one this has the positive effect of less laws.

Re:Slippery Slopes

[wellingj]

How long? Not long.

Re:Slippery Slopes

[arkhan_jg]

They do use that argument, but the favourite phrase by far is "without these tools, the police will be hampered in their efforts to protect us from terrorists, criminals and illegal immigrants".

With the implied argument that if you're a 'civil liberties campaigner' who dares argue against the database state, you're in favour of the terrorists, criminals and illegal immigrants getting away scot-free.

Re:Slippery Slopes

[DangerFace]

it turns out that none of these laws are actually needed to sucessfully prosecute terrorists.

Yup, who'd have thought that planning to murder people, building bombs, and distributing material suggesting other people should commit murder has been illegal for a long, long time?

In the UK non [sic] of the recent anti-terrorism laws appear to have been used against terrorists who cannot be portrayed as "Islamic".

But they have been used against protesters, random people who look a bit shifty, and my mate who left his bike locked up outside a train station, apparently calling up a terror alert in case he'd filled the frame with nitroglycerine and nails.

All those terror laws actually did was mean the police don't need to remember the names of so many laws and acts, or have reasonable suspicion that you have committed a crime before they search you. Huzzah for democracy! Mob rule dressed up as mob rule, and somehow people seem to think it's a social panacea. I suppose those people are the mob... they're probably so innocent they've got nothing to fear, too...

Re:Slippery Slopes

[Hognoxious]

If we wear the yellow stars like they ask, then I'm sure they'll leave us alone...

Re:Slippery Slopes

[Hognoxious]

What manner of indignation will it take to push the people into forcibly retaking government and reducing its size one head at a time?

Cancelling the latest series of Celebrity I've Got A Bargain Ballroom In My Big Jungle Attic.

Or putting the price of beer & cigs up too far.

Re:Slippery Slopes

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

To consider your "gulp of saltwater at the ocean" example, you are thinking only of an isolated incident. That doesn't make a pattern.

That... that's exactly what I've been saying! What's to say that your sun-rising theory isn't similar?

OK, so applying logic equivalently doesn't seem to convince you, nor does picking apart your use of the word "solid" referring to your reasoning. How about this:

The UK, for every day since some day during 1215. It is reasonable that tomorrow (and then the next day, and the next, etc, etc). We can claim similar things for voting, basic liberties, just about everything except surveillance. Does this mean we should not worry about the "slippery slope" leading anywhere?

I have no problem with inductive reasoning being used to fill the holes of lack of information. It's this kind of one-eyed inductive reasoning, developed from cherry picking evidence and logic, that I feel so averse to.

Re:Slippery Slopes

[mdwh2]

I might be able to swallow a mouthful of sea water when I'm at the beach, but that doesn't mean I'll be able to finish the rest of the ocean.

Well, sometimes spotting a pattern from past experience is valid, other times it isn't.

It's a fallacy, pure and simple.

You've presented a single counter-example, and claim that the argument is always invalid? That's a fallacy!

In the context of politics, it is valid. One reason is that your analogy is based on what is physically possible, where as laws that are passed are constrained ultimately only by what politicians want. And in politics, you have the concept of a precedent - common is the argument "Since it was okay to pass this law, this new law is merely closing a loophole".

Drinking a mouthful of water doesn't set a precedent for you being physically capable of drinking the ocean. But politicians can pass whatever laws they like, and the issue is not about what's physically possible. A slipperly slope argument is not a fallacy if you can show evidence that we're on a slippery slope. The problem is that it goes like this:

1. New law X is proposed. Critics say "But won't this lead to Y?" Dismissed as a "slippery slope fallacy".
2. A few years later, law Y is proposed. Supporters say "Since we have law X, it's okay to pass Y, it's no different, or just closing a loophole. What's that, you say that X was bad anyway? Well you should have spoken up back then!"

As a real example, I've seen this where the law on fictional child pr0n was X, and the recent law on fictional "extreme" adult images was Y. In fact, the Coroners and Justice Bill mentioned in this law also criminalises all non-realistic child images too, and people giving evidence in support of the law have argued that this is no different to the laws on realistic images. Yet, if I point out my concerns that this'll lead to a law on "extreme" cartoons, I'll get accused of a slippery slope fallacy!

You can't have it both ways.

Similarly, the law on "extreme" images covers possession - the Government claims it's just closing a loophole, based on existing laws of publication.

Since supporters of new laws are quite willing to use previous laws as precedent, we had better damn well make sure we oppose laws not just on what they restrict, but by what precedents they will set for future laws.

Re:Slippery Slopes

[david_thornley]

Or the turkey notices that every day the farmer feeds him and takes care of him, and assumes it will always be so. Then November rolls around (in the US), Thanksgiving is coming up, and the turkey has an extreme but very brief surprise.

Re:Slippery Slopes

[mpe]

The pedo has become the 21st century boogie man, like the commie in the 50s. They tried using terrorists but found that it doesn't shut up critics like pedo does.

The other "problem" with using terrorists in this role is that plenty of governments support various terrorist groups. The only possible issue with "pedos" is sexism...

Re:Slippery Slopes

[DM9290]

I might be able to swallow a mouthful of sea water when I'm at the beach, but that doesn't mean I'll be able to finish the rest of the ocean.

It's a fallacy, pure and simple. It's an argument based on very shaky intuition based on small, trivial cases (where relevant variables do not change as a result of A happening), but fails to hold for most situations in life.

You are using the exact same reasoning that you are calling a fallacy.

You said "it fails to hold for most situations in life" and from that you induce that this predicts a failure to hold up for other situations a priori.

If you disagree with the reasoning behind the "slippery slope" argument, then you can not rely on that same reasoning yourself.

even if you had any empirical evidence, which you don't.

swallowing sea water is not analogous to giving up civil liberties.

Re:Slippery Slopes

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

You've presented a single counter-example, and claim that the argument is always invalid? That's a fallacy!

And that's a strawman. A fallacy is an argument that is not universally true. I could say, if it's raining, then I'm under a roof. It might be true tomorrow, but then again, it will be false if ever I go walking in the rain. Just because it's true tomorrow doesn't mean it's true all the time. Just because it's false the day after, doesn't mean that it's false all the time. But the fact that it can be both is sufficient to say it's a fallacy. Understand?

Re:Slippery Slopes

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

You said "it fails to hold for most situations in life" and from that you induce that this predicts a failure to hold up for other situations a priori.

For one, no I didn't. Show me my post where I say that, and then I might consider taking you seriously. Secondly, if I did say that, it would be out of experience. I'm sure that, if pressed, I could go through my day and find over a hundred everyday situations that fit the OP's argument template.

For example: I wasn't run over on the busy street all my life, so I shouldn't be worried about it happening (making no mention of what would happen if I literally ran into busy traffic)

Another example: My boss hasn't fired me since I got my job 5 years ago. I can probably start urinating in his office now.

This isn't inductive reasoning, this is solid evidence as to the fallaciousness of the slippery slope. All I need to do is show that there are significant counter-examples to such inductive reasoning, and then it's a fallacy. It doesn't mean it's always wrong, it just means that we can't use it as proof that a phenomenon, like slippery slope, applies to certain situations.

For example, I don't think slippery slope (generally) works for civil liberties. Rulers derive their power from the people, be it their support, or merely their inaction. If a ruler is supported by no-one, and only a handful of people oppose him, then he will be easily overthrown. The ruler must make some people happy, so that those people will defend him against unhappy people. In that way, I believe that the majority of civil liberties of most people in western countries are not significantly at risk, even in the UK. Sure, governments can infringe on civil liberties now, because they generally pick off outliers that the majority of their constituents don't use in the first place, but from there, it does not follow that they will not have the right to vote. However, if you are a convicted or suspected terrorist, I would be very concerned about your civil liberties, not just the outliers, but basic rights, like your right to vote, or right to live without harassment from the government. I would go further, but godwin wouldn't approve.

If you want an example of somewhere where I think the slippery slope does work, try unchecked piracy. The reason why I think it's a slippery slope, and not civil liberties, is because, unlike civil liberties, there's no normalising force (it's unchecked). People might argue conscience, or an intellectual appreciation that artists need money to produce, but I think that as people grow more and more addicted to their free media stream, their conscience or intellect will have less influence over their decision-making. They will also give way due to cognitive dissonance, i.e. "it feels so good it can't be bad", then from that, "it's the artists who are being bad for making something so good feel so bad". The act itself spreads to others, and erodes its own normalising force, and thus, leaving piracy unchecked is a slippery slope.

Re:Slippery Slopes

[mdwh2]

Firstly, even if you disagree, that's not a straw man - it would be that you disagree that it's a fallacy.

And a fallacy is an invalid argument. Doesn't just have to apply to physical things - if I said "Your argument is wrong, because the sun rose today", that would be a fallacy.

Re:Slippery Slopes

[dreamsofcaffeine]

Well, consider this case: A frog is put in boiling water. He'll immediately jump out. Now put that frog in cool water and slowly heat the water. Slowly, it begins to get hotter and hotter and because the frog is able to tolerate small changes, he'll just ignore them, until it's boiling. Then, he's either dead or will knock the container with the boiling water over again 'cause he jumped out.

Now just do some replacements and there you have it. Tolerate small such changes, and you'll tolerate even more of them until you have a fucking big, steaming shit pile racing with relativistic speed towards you. I doubt that I'll have to elaborate on the effects of such an event.

Re:Slippery Slopes

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

You said I "claimed" something that I didn't claim (i.e. that it was wrong in all cases). That's a strawman, and you burnt it pretty good.

As for your comment about fallacies, I'll say that I'm using the mathematical definition of fallacies. A mathematical argument is a fallacy if there exists a set of circumstances where the hypotheses are satisfied, but the conclusion is false. So, if you said "if the sun rises, then you are wrong", then that would be a fallacy, since the sun not rising, for whatever reason, would not stop ke from being wrong. If, however, you can prove that the sun will rise forever and ever, then it would not be a fallacy!

Re:Slippery Slopes

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

Ah, Frog-boiling! Another fallacy!

It especially doesn't work so well when authorities don't tend to stay authorities for very long. Term limits inhibit the amount "boiling" one person can do, and it only takes his successor to undo all his changes. In fact, in order to "boil the frog" slowly enough, a politician would probably need more than one lifetime (let alone term length). What you'd need is a fairly large conspiracy, spanning one or more major political party. The whole thing doesn't even approach feasible.

Besides, frog-boiling is supposed to imperceptible. If you can tell it's happening, then it's not happening.

A facebook group?

[Anonymous Coward]

because we all know how well respected they are...

Re:A facebook group?

[owlnation]

True. Protesting on Facebook works on Facebook -- hence the Facebook protests that occur every other week about some trivial change to something on the site.

No2ID have the right idea. But... they really, really need to get their PR machine working. There's next to nothing ever mentioned about them anywhere. They need to be organizing much more high profile stuff. They need to be getting in the press regularly and frequently.

Having a Facebook group is fine, but it will achieve nothing by itself. Get it together people, because you do have a lot of support, you just need to channel it much, much better than you are currently doing.

Re:A facebook group?

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

No2ID have the right idea. But... they really, really need to get their PR machine working. [...] They need to be organizing much more high profile stuff. They need to be getting in the press regularly and frequently.

I don't know which press you've been reading, but NO2ID have been mentioned in just about every article on anything related to this subject that I've seen for the past several years. I'd guess only Liberty manage to attract more coverage opposing these issues, and even that might not be true any more.

Re:A facebook group?

[Hordeking]

No2ID have the right idea. But... they really, really need to get their PR machine working. There's next to nothing ever mentioned about them anywhere. They need to be organizing much more high profile stuff. They need to be getting in the press regularly and frequently.

That's a major affirmative.

I'm in the US and I've attempted to contact them a couple of times about potentially expanding to help fight similar foolishness in the US. After all, it seems like whatever one idiot English-speaking country does, the rest soon follow, whether or not it's a sensible idea. Noone ever got back to me.

Perhaps No2ID is actually an MI6 honeypot operation.

Re:A facebook group?

[Tensor]

My thoughts exactly ...

Way to take this seriously and be firmly opposed ... a facebook group ? WTF ... why not protest on twitter for that matter??

Evidently people in the UK are way too polite, ideally they should protest at Parliament's doorstep....

Re:A facebook group?

[Xest]

Facebook groups aren't created with the hope of people in power looking at the amount of people in the group and thinking "Oh, let's do something about that". They're created to spread the word- the point is that Facebook groups are viral, each time someone you know joins it you will see about it on your profile page or whatever. If you join, your friends will see about it too. This spreads and spreads so that more people are aware of the issue than otherwise would be.

That's why people use Facebook groups- to spread the word, not to directly try and achieve change. It's a quick and free way to spread the word to a lot of people you don't otherwise know.

Re:A facebook group?

[infolation]

Protesting within 1km of Parliament in the UK is illegal, unless you've been given Police permission. Even people with blank white placards, protesting that they're not allowed to protest, have been arrested.

Protester Brian Haw's still in Parliament Square because his protest pre-dated the poorly-drafted Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005.

Re:A facebook group?

[FourthAge]

No2ID has been running for several years now without doing anything to discredit itself and its members, such as aligning itself with the far right, carrying out violent protests, or endorsing a particular party. Those are the sort of wrecking tactics that we might expect the Government to use if it secretly controlled them.

However, its main problem is that it is an unfashionable issue. The main stream media is to blame for this. Instead of warning people about the ID register, they have encouraged complacency and the "doesn't bother me, I have nothing to hide" attitude which is so dangerous in an effective democracy.

No surprise, then, that No2ID rarely gets a mention. To their credit, the BBC do link to the No2ID site when it's relevant, and they do get quotes from the No2ID people, but they tend only to include these as a token "opposing viewpoint" and not a real argument.

Re:A facebook group?

[myspace-cn]

I been reading the fascist press. And I never heard of NO2ID until today. So, obviously the sarcastic overtone is unwarranted as the entire spectrum on both sides of the pond are controlled by fascism.

On the other hand, if you protest in the STREET in America, you will get locked up.

Why is that?

Ever think why the moment you block a street, the cops come out of the woodwork?

It's because no protest matters until it is IN the street.

Re:A facebook group?

[smoker2]

NO2ID got the attention of the Lords quite successfully. They are mentioned in the recently released report on surveillance in society. (p 18,27,78,101,114,)

One issue that bothers me is the ignorance of your average person when dealing with their own information.
A recent problem that has occurred to me is car insurance. I for one am heartily sick of the adverts on tv, but it suddenly struck me what's happening. In the "old days" you did business with an insurance company, maybe through an agent. All your records were on paper, and reasonably secure. These days, you do business online with an entity who is quite often an agent 3 or 4 times removed from the insurance company. So now there are 4 times as many people with access to critical personal data in this sector alone, and they are all online. Should we have to trust all of them ? Is the lure of "truly cheaper car insurance" worth spreading your personal data far and wide, to be picked over and mined by who knows who ?
If you answered yes to the last question, you deserve everything you get.

Re:A facebook group?

[mdwh2]

I know that RTFA is unfashionable here, but in this case it is worth it - nowhere on the Facegroup page does it claim that the group is as part of the protest - that's just poor wording in the Slashdot summary. The actions people are urged to do are clearly explained on the group - most notably, writing to your MP. It ought to be pretty obvious that the group is there as one of several means to spread information.

Do you seriously think that the Government would go "Well, we were going to scrap this ID card scheme - but then we found they'd spread the word on Facebook. Hahaha. Obviously we can't take them seriously now because of that"?

We might as well criticise NO2ID because someone decided to spread the word. "Protesting on Slashdot!? Way to take this seriously and be firmly opposed!"

Evidently people in the UK are way too polite, ideally they should protest at Parliament's doorstep....

Why didn't anyone think of it? All this time, people were thinking that protesting meant starting up a facebook group. If only you'd told us this before, ID cards would have long been defeated!

Oh wait - groups such as NO2ID have been campaigning for years, including directly to politicians, through the media, and yes, nationwide protests.

(Last time I looked, plenty of US and other countries have facebook groups too - does this mean that they are also "way too polite", and never protest, by your logic?)

Terrifying!

[gravos]

This legislation is truly terrifying. It allows the government to aggregate all data that they keep about you. It would mean that the government was exempt of the key points of the Data Protection Act.

We must do better than this.

Re:Terrifying!

[conlaw]

I just keep remembering that Orwell was a Brit. He may have gotten the year wrong in 1984, but it's looking more like he really understood their government.

Re:Terrifying!

[orielbean]

Yes, he fought on the side of communists, (Russian and International) as well as anarchists during the Spanish Civil War. Everyone who read 1984 and understood its message should also read Homage to Catalonia, his factual account of the Civil War. He knew that you could take the horrible tools of repression and what they might look like if machined in England.

Re:Terrifying!

[kohaku]

Phillip Pullman also did a great piece in the Times related to, although not specifically about, this recently. Oddly, it got pulled by the Times with no explanation. I wonder why?

Re:Terrifying!

[arethuza]

Excellent - mod the parent up!

Re:Terrifying!

[pjt33]

There wasn't a "side of communists [and] anarchists" in the Spanish Civil War. Communists and anarchists fought for the elected Republican government in preference to the fascist rebellion, so it would be accurate to say that he fought alongside communists and anarchists but it was on the side of democracy.

Re:Terrifying!

[damburger]

Not quite accurate; Orwell fought for a Trotskyist faction called POUM - he fought on the front line with them and also engaged in military action in conjunction with anarchists, and then ended up fighting Stalinists on the streets of Barcelona. He was genuinely supportive of the social revolution in Catalonia at the time and was certainly not fighting for contemporary liberal democracy.

Re:Terrifying!

[khakipuce]

On the other hand we keep hearing about child abuse, crimes and all manner of other issues that could have been avoided if only agency A could share data with Agency B.

It could be an oppressive conspiracy, or it could be a sensible measure to protect the vulnerable from horrific abuse. The key surely is "By Order" one benefit of having a lot of elected politicians is so that they can keep an eye on each other and we will be expecting them to scrutinize the orders made and the purposes for which they can be used.

I accept that this government, in particular, seems to have failed to act in a reasonable way with the legislation it enacts, but that doesn't mean that we should simply stop trying to make life better. What we need is better over-sight and a better way of stopping the government abusing the powers it grants itself.

Re:Terrifying!

[advocate_one]

strange as it's still there, but perhaps not linked to from any obvious place without doing a search.

Re:Terrifying!

[eadon-com]

He didn't get the year wrong in the way you suppose. He used 1984 as an anagram of 1948 - the time of the writing of the book.

oh the irony

[Anonymous Coward]

of protesting privacy on a companies site that base their revenue (and databases) on people handing them private data.

facebook isnt worth million$ for their pretty graphics

Re:oh the irony

[mdwh2]

Maybe, but the difference is that I choose to use Facebook, and I choose what data what to give it. And it isn't my money that they're forcibly taking.

Really this is no different to Blunkett's absurd People choose to have supermarket loyalty cards, so the Government's database is no different claim.

oh noes the databases!

[timmarhy]

And the morons choose to protest on facebook, so that anyone and everyone can see who you are and it's stored in one of the very databases this kind of act is targeted at.

not to mention that if your level of protest is a few mouse clicks, no one is going to take you seriously.

Re:oh noes the databases!

[andy_t_roo]

you could argue that non-anonymously protesting something like this shows the event is a bit more significant that a few mouse clicks -- if these people are right about what they are protesting, then their name would end up in a database of "people known to object to government activities" which can then be shared around.

i agree that objecting to other things via facebook isn't that significant (if you care send an email, or even better write the email, but print it out and post it), but publicly protesting potential privacy breaches?

Re:oh noes the databases!

[Tensor]

LOL i did not thought of this ... just thought that protesting on facebook was childish and stupid ... forgot about it being public and personal ...

So summing up ... to protest against public misuse of private databases they decide to make a private database of people protesting against public misuse of private databases ... BRILLIANT, at least it shows a highly evolved sense of ironic humor

Re:oh noes the databases!

[mdwh2]

BRILLIANT, at least it shows a highly evolved sense of ironic humor

No, it shows a straw man.

Please point me to somewhere on Facebook where they:

* Make membership compulsory.
* Require £93 for membership.
* Require information, including address, and fingerprints. (You do realise that you can, gasp, lie on a website? Or is your name really Tensor? Perhaps you should try claiming your name is "Tensor" and refusing to give your address and fingerprints when you are required to sign up for an ID card, and tell me how that works out?)
* Pass new laws making associated criminal offences.

to protest against public misuse of private databases they decide to make a private database of people protesting against public misuse of private databases

No one is protesting "databases". I bet NO2ID themselves have databases. Your straw man is no better than the tired "How can you be a member of a group against ID cards!!!" comments.

Furthermore, how does protesting against public misuse of private databases entail opposition to all databases? No one is claiming that "databases" are evil, the problem is the database planned by the UK Government, which as absolutely nothing to do with Facebook's.

protesting on facebook was childish and stupid

The fact that you say this suggests that you just have an axe to grind against Facebook, and hence resort to missing the point and making up a straw man to argue with. That's childish and stupid.

Raise your hand...

[NeutronCowboy]

...if you didn't see this coming. I don't think anyone believed for a minute that any government worker would idly sit on a data goldmine, and not utilize to its full capability. Which is why the proper response to any request for linking databases or collecting any data outside of that necessary for filing charges is "Are you crazy?"

I'd also like to point out that facebook groups are the new Internet petitions: completely meaningless. Either call or mail your representative, or take it like a good consumer.

Re:Raise your hand...

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd also like to point out that facebook groups are the new Internet petitions: completely meaningless.

Ha! Wrong - and to prove it, I've started a facebook group: NeutronCowboy is Wrong

Re:Raise your hand...

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

I don't think anyone believed for a minute that any government worker would idly sit on a data goldmine, and not utilize to its full capability.

They can't. Not with the Tabloid newspapers screaming "Something Must Be Done" every time some brat drinks themselves to death, or a knife is drawn outside of a nightclub.

The British public support this measure and others like it every single morning when they buy sensationalist, right wing papers whose sole objective seems to be to prevent the Government from acting in any kind of reasonable or rational way. Hence CCTV mania, databases and ID cards.

People are not oblivious to this. You must understand that most people in the UK want this. England has always been a very right wing country, and its press and politics reflects that. The only thing keeping the country sane at this point is the BBC and the conservative upper classes. May the gods help us all.

Re:Raise your hand...

[Chabo]

when they buy sensationalist, right wing papers

Yes, because The Guardian immune from sensationalism. I'm not even British and I can make this comment!

There is hope for me about the UK. People are starting to realize that the government isn't looking out for their best interests, especially among the younger generations.

Re:Raise your hand...

[TubeSteak]

I'd also like to point out that facebook groups are the new Internet petitions: completely meaningless. Either call or mail your representative, or take it like a good consumer.

Facebook groups are the new e-mail list.
They are useful for rallying and coordinating activities.

Though I doubt the government cares very much, many large corporations have keyed into
facebook/twitter/etc in order to quickly respond to complaints before they become PR messes.

Re:Raise your hand...

[Anonymous Coward]

The British public support this measure and others like it every single morning when they buy sensationalist, right wing papers whose sole objective seems to be to prevent the Government from acting in any kind of reasonable or rational way. Hence CCTV mania, databases and ID cards.

The British public do NOT support these kinds of measures. They only think they do because The Sun tells them so. Most of the people in the UK are brainless SkyTV addicted reality tv watching idiots (very much like the Nascar/reality tv watching rednecks in the states). The Sun prints something and they believe it because they want to fit in, are too lazy to think for themselves and believe that everyone else feels the same way. If they ever actually discussed these issues or even saw other real people (reality tv is not real people) they'd find that others dont approve of these measures.

Re:Raise your hand...

[poetmatt]

In the end, stuff like this amounts to a revolution across many countries, and the UK could certainly be the one to incite one. A global depression is absolutely enough to be a tipping point.

I think the question is whether the world "violent" will come before the revolution or not, and whether it will have to be, for that matter.

Re:Raise your hand...

[MichaelSmith]

The UK could be a republic before Australia. That would be embarrassing!

Re:Raise your hand...

[owlnation]

The only thing keeping the country sane at this point is the BBC and the conservative upper classes. May the gods help us all.

I'm concerned that you feel the BBC are some sort of beacon of hope. I see them as more the organ of the state. There's next to nothing about the erosion of people's rights on the BBC. There's no critical investigations of the effectiveness of CCTV nor any other measures. There's not even the slightest hint that we may be doomed by Jaquboots Smith, Jackboots Straw, or Gordon Brown-shirt.

I think you are wrong about the right wing press too. The Daily Mail and Telegraph are highly critical of the Big Brother state. The Guardian, however, isn't at all in any way.

I think the vast majority of the people in the UK do not want government to have this kind of power -- Sun readers included. The vast majority also, most certainly, want the Neues Arbeit Regime out of power as fast as possible. Something they are, of course, refusing to do.

Re:Raise your hand...

[cayenne8]

"I think the question is whether the world "violent" will come before the revolution or not, and whether it will have to be, for that matter."

I think that is pretty much impossible....they have already taken your guns over there in the UK, haven't they?

So much for the threat of violence.

Re:Raise your hand...

[glwtta]

They are useful for rallying and coordinating activities.

Slight correction: they are useful for making people feel like they are rallying and coordinating activities. They provide a nice outlet for people's urge to "stick it to the man" (usually by complaining), without actually accomplishing anything - everybody wins!

Re:Raise your hand...

[Chabo]

Don't forget that the government even wants to ban kitchen knives!

All for the sake of reducing "knife violence".

Remember folks: "gun violence" and "knife violence" are already illegal. In every jurisdiction in the U.S., there's already a law against "assault with a deadly weapon". I'm sure that U.K. jurisdictions have a similar law.

Re:Raise your hand...

[Tensor]

Or get out off your effing couch and GO to Parliament/congress/whatever ... you'll always be taken as seriously as the effort you put protesting.

And a few mouse clicks is definitely not the way to show outrage.

Re:Raise your hand...

[EdIII]

There is hope for me about the UK. People are starting to realize that the government isn't looking out for their best interests, especially among the younger generations.

There is no hope.

Sometimes things just need to get so bad that people want to leave and go someplace else. Then the people who control those people put up 25ft concrete walls surrounding them and shoot anyone trying to get out.

After awhile, the economy goes to shit, and the standard of living plummets. The young listen to the old about how it used to be different and look over the wall at where things are better. If it is really bad, then the young get together and conspire as to how to change things.

One of two outcomes occurs. Either the whole society collapses and becomes a purely academic pursuit for the anthropologists and archeologists in the centuries and millenniums to come, or this is a blood soaked revolution in which the people that are in the control sector of the population are marched out into the streets and violently killed.

This has happened before, it will happen again, and your only HOPE is that we might just fucking start learning from it. However, I doubt even that.

Facebook will not change the government's idealogy here. Marching them to the gallows will start changing things really damn quick.

Take a look at France and the guillotine :) "But WAIT!!! Let them eat cake! You poor peasants, just eat the fucking cake!!!! It was the OTHER guys!!!"

Re:Raise your hand...

[gringofrijolero]

I don't think I'd care for the kind of revolution a depression might bring on. And now we got an American doing the same kind of rabble rousing.

Re:Raise your hand...

[Anonymous Coward]

"The Guardian, however, isn't at all in any way."

What utter bollocks.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/civil-liberties

The Daily Mail piss and moan about the "nanny state" enough, granted. But that's because there's a Labour government in power right now. If (when) the Tories were in power, they'd be pulling the same shit and the Mail would be praising them for it.

The Daily Mail are as much a part of the problem as anything. Their fear-mongering reactionary and sensationalist stories about immigrants coming over here to steal our jawbs, blow up our tourist attractions and eat our children only serve to misinform the public on this sort of legislation.

As for the BBC... They have some superb services, but I agree, like media company, we need to be cautious on what information we digest from them.

Re:Raise your hand...

[Xest]

I think that was his point. The British public support it because they've been told to by the papers and that's all that matters to them.

What you're saying is "If they were enlightened then they wouldn't support it", but they're not and make no effort to be, hence they support it.

Re:Raise your hand...

[teabag_46]

You must understand that most people in the UK want this. Er, really? Who says so? I don't recall being asked if I wanted any self-serving government dick-head who felt like it, accessing information about me, at will, possibly to try and find a way of prosecuting me for something, excluding me from something, or including me in something. Because the government don't tell us in the news "we are doing something to take away more of your rights" most people just don't even realise it's happening until it's too late.

Re:Raise your hand...

[Anonymous Coward]

You seem to be confused about 'left wing' and 'right wing'.

But it is an easy thing to do, as the left in the UK like to say that everything bad and oppressive is right wing, which simply isn't true. Right of centre politics as practiced mainly means individuals not state. Let's clarifiy that once more:

Expansion of the state is a left wing idology.

Britain is pretty left wing 'socialist' in the scale of other countries. If it helps, the USA and Australia are examples of countries more right wing than the UK; France and Germany are examples of more left wing countries.

You then go on to say that it's the conservative upper classes (conservatives are right wing) and the BBC (left wing) who are keeping the country sane! It's not even self consistent!

Re:Raise your hand...

[Xest]

You have to realise the BBC are on difficult ground. If they actively oppose Labour's ideas they risk change of management to one more favourable to the government.

Look at what happened around the Iraq war when the BBC reported the government had exagerated claims about WMDs- heads rolled in the BBC even though we know now the BBC was dead right.

I don't know what versions of the Guardian you've been reading but they certainly do report the issues with CCTV cameras although by the sounds of it what you're asking for is opinion pieces that come out against cameras. It's pretty dangerous to confuse the two and this is why The Daily Mail and The Telegraph are awful publications because they merge opinion and fact and sell the combination as fact even when it's only partially so. In the face of this one could argue this is the problem with more balanced and liberal media outlets such as the BBC and The Guardian- they don't use the same dirty tactics of twisting British opinion in response.

Most people in Britain are simply unaware of this issue, that much of what the read isn't factual but is simply opinion but think because it's in a paper "it must be true". If the BBC or The Guardian seem less pressing on issues it's because they're doing what news outlets are supposed to do- reporting the news, rather than reporting opinion and passing it off as fact.

Only the elections can tell what the British people want but near the end of Bush's first term I heard the same things yet he was voted in again, near the end of the second term we heard the same and yet McCain with his very similar policies still got a disturbingly high proportion of the overall votes. I think it comes down to this, those who wont vote for who they currently see as the bad party, in this case, Labour are vocal in their opposition and it is those we hear about and because of this people like yourself assume this is the voice of the British people. That's not the case, the voice of the British people are the silent ones who vote Labour because they've always voted Labour and whose opinion wont change unless Labour does something that directly effects them - i.e. raises taxes. An example of this was seen in the recent local elections last year shortly after Labour raised taxes by eliminating the lowest tax band and was getting blamed for high fuel costs exagerated by the taxes on it- the two things the man on the street only really gives a damn about.

The BBC and The Guardian do what they can in the bounds of being responsible, sticking to their job and allowing people to make up their minds based on fact, rather than force feeding people personal opinion like The Daily Mail and The Telegraph. You have to realise even a hint of political bias from the BBC is enough to get them in trouble, but where they do call the government out for what it is they should be commended for having the balls to do so- it's a lot harder, and a lot riskier for the BBC to do this than it is The Daily Mail who builds it's business model around shouting the odds.

But one final point about The Daily Mail as I'm concerned that you believe it actually cares about liberty rather than say, just slagging off an unpopular government at every chance it gets to sell papers. Read this:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2008/nov/10/pauldacre-dailymail

Some quotes from the Mail's chief:

"I am referring, of course, to Justice David Eady who has, again and again, under the privacy clause of the Human Rights Act, found against newspapers and their age-old freedom to expose the moral shortcomings of those in high places."

"Now most people would consider such activities to be perverted, depraved, the very abrogation of civilised behaviour of which the law is supposed to be the safeguard. Not Eady. To him such behaviour was merely 'unconventional',"

Does that sound like someone who cares about the right to privacy? about liberty? This guy thinks him and his

Re:Raise your hand...

[zmollusc]

the public don't support these measures, but the public is not consulted. At election time your choice is between different asshats. No matter who you vote for, the government get in, and the government is not on your side.

Re:Raise your hand...

[malkavian]

No, most people in the UK do not want this, in any way, shape or form.
The UK suffers from the "Silent Majority", where most people are just trying hard to get on with their lives, and make the world more livable. The voices that are always heard the loudest are from minority groups that scream very loud about their latest cause celebre, and this is actively encouraged by the current Government.. If you're in a majority group and speak loud, then you're tagged 'Oppressive' and derided; only if you've got some small group that can be exploited for political ends should you speak up.

You have to be joking if you think England is a right wing country! The media is soft Left (including the BBC, which is probably the largest media provider in the UK), the Government is Left, the general social setup is pretty left. Unless you stepped out of the 70s, missing the 80s, 90's and early 00's, there's pretty much no way you could miss the intensely left wing bias of the society at large.
I don't get how you see the ID cards and so on being a symptom of the people preventing the government acting rationally? These are ALL government initiated "projects" that people in general have fought at every step of the way (yes, I signed up to No2ID, and in fact, it's more the "Left" leaning people that are happy with all the CCTV, databases and so on, as they fervently believe that as long as "it's for the greater good", it won't be abused. Hell, if it's being done by the Left, then by definition it can't be wrong as it's all "for the people").

Personally, I'd say the only thing keeping England sane at this point is the vast, silent majority that tries to keep the excesses of either Left or Right from overreacting to the latest political cause..

Re:Raise your hand...

[teh kurisu]

But it is an easy thing to do, as the left in the UK like to say that everything bad and oppressive is right wing, which simply isn't true. Right of centre politics as practiced mainly means individuals not state.

Yes, but 'tough on crime' and protecting the individual is also a core right-wing policy, and it generally involves expanding the powers of the police to deal with threats real and perceived. A government is generally pretty harmless, but police officers who act with impunity because they know they can count on the support of their government are as big a danger to civil rights as anything else, because they are the ones with the handcuffs and the truncheons and the cells.

Only a centrist, liberal government can limit the powers of the police, the Tories certainly won't.

Re:Raise your hand...

[Handpaper]

I see nothing wrong with Dacre's choice of target in this case.
Through a string of libel rulings Eady has made proper investigative reporting very difficult, not just in the UK but, by acceding to the practice of libel tourism, throughout the rest of the world.

Re:Raise your hand...

[N1AK]

Expansion of the state is a left wing idology.

In Bush Jnr's 1st term government spending grew at the fastest rate in 30 years. Over the last 80 years government spending has grown faster under Republican Presidents than Democratic Presidents. Right wing parties like control just as much as the lefties they just exercise it differently by giving the money to private companies they choose rather than setting up public organisations.

Britain is pretty left wing 'socialist' in the scale of other countries.

That would depend upon your baseline, personally I will trust Political compass over your assessment (http://www.politicalcompass.org/). The main issue is what a party says, and what it actually does can vary so massively as to show no relation.

You then go on to say that it's the conservative upper classes (conservatives are right wing) and the BBC (left wing) who are keeping the country sane! It's not even self consistent!

The scary part is that both the BBC and the Lords (the wealthly conservatives?) although very different have been a check upon government in the UK, and both aren't democratic!

Re:Raise your hand...

[Xest]

He's not made proper investigative reporting difficult, he's just brought accountability to investigative reporting which only harms publications like The Daily Mail that post opinion and not fact.

As long as papers don't invade entirely private space and actions and get their facts straight there's no problem.

Dacre hates Eady because he has enforced the already written laws that exist to protect people against both publishing false information (the claim it was a Nazi orgy- it wasn't) and their entirely private parts of their lives. Dacre's problem is that this goes entirely against how his paper operates - posting at best opinion, and at worst lies, to try and sell his papers. Again, this is in contrast to say the BBC and The Guardian who generally try to stick to the facts.

I do understand there's an argument that the Mail's liberties have been infringed by limiting what they report, but personal liberty should come ahead of corporate liberty if the people are to be truly free. In this case we had a conflict also whereby Dacre was suggesting his right to report on anything no matter how private is more important than personal liberty such that if people decided to do something that he personally felt was wrong he should be able to expose it to act as a deterrent to others. Effectively he is stating that he has the right to use his freedoms to act against other people having theirs. Even worse is the argument that Mosley is an influence and so must be stopped from this, because had it not been plastered over the papers to start with and exposed then no one could've been influenced by his actions anyway. It was only the very exposing of it that could have that effect.

Do you really believe corporate freedom (because that's what it is, in The Daily Mail's case it certainly can't be called press freedom because they do not post only the facts) comes ahead of personal freedom?

All Eady has done is enforced the laws that exist to protect personal freedom. This has no effect whatsoever on proper investigative journalism, only on bad investigative journalism or mere speculation (i.e. the nazi claim). If journalists can be sure of their facts before the story is published there is nothing to worry about, if they can't then they should almost certainly not be publishing it anyway. The ruling has no effect on The Daily Mail investigating the Max Mosley case once they received the video/pictures for example, it only has an effect on them publishing it if a) the claims are false and/or b) it is of a strictly private nature.

Re:Raise your hand...

[Hognoxious]

Most people are as thick as two short planks, that's why.

Re:Raise your hand...

[Derwen]

There's a direct petition to the Prime Minister at the number 10 website: http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/End-of-privacy/

Re:Raise your hand...

[damburger]

Moron.

The right gives us collusion between corporations and states, the ultimate expressions of which are fascism and Nazism. The idea that the right stands for freedom is a disgusting fiction. As is the idea that the left stands for 'expansion of the state'

New Labour became oppressive in the wake of their well-publicized lurch to the right wing.

Bald assertion of your ideological talking points is unlikely to impress this crowd Mr. Coward. Redefining terms to suit your fringe viewpoints is not debate, it is merely a set of arrogant unsubstantiated opinions.

Re:Raise your hand...

[pjt33]

The UK goes a lot further. It's illegal to carry a knife with a blade longer than something like 2" (5 cm) unless you have a good reason.

Re:Raise your hand...

[damburger]

For readers outside the UK, 'silent majority' is a codeword used by the British National Party - a pretty much openly fascist outfit.

The idea of the government and society in the UK being 'left' wing sounds absurd to the vast majority of Britons - New Labour moved sharply to the right of the traditional position of the Labour party and have essentially continued Thatcher and Major's policies. We have had a conservative government since 1979.

Re:Raise your hand...

[smoker2]

Most people in the UK have *no idea* what is being taken from them. It is all greek to them and regard it all as political squabbling. They can be turned to face any issue according to who is asking and how. The internet is just another form of TV as far as most people are concerned, that is why they don't fight its regulation - after all, the other tv stations are regulated aren't they ?
The best quote to bear in mind regarding any political party or commercial concern is this :

Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master. Commissioner Pravin Lal "U.N. Declaration of Rights"

This warning applies both to government and to closed source software vendors. Yet another reason to get government using and promoting open source. It IS our government after all. Too many times these days, people seem to feel that because it's the govt. doing these things, it's out of our control. That is a fatalistic and self-fulfilling attitude.

Sure, many people would line up on the right side when somebody draws an obvious line, but you may have noticed that the powers that be are very careful not to draw that line so as to be obvious. So we drift unconsciously into totalitarianism, never having made a decision.
And the real kicker for me is that the general attitude amounts to "oh well, never mind, just get on with it".

Regarding the main story, however, I think there is too much being made of this. If you notice, the document is titled "Coroners and Justice Bill". What does a coroner do ? They deal with dead people, communicable disease, unnatural death, crime and other risks to the public. If this bill is being introduced at all, it must be due to certain pertinent information not being legally available to parties who have a legitimate need for it. You can't hamstring the government and expect them to be able to fulfill their function. Imagine if data protection were applied to the NHS database. Nobody would be able to access your data except your original GP or hospital. Makes the whole thing worthless, when it does have good legitimate uses. Imagine if a "Typhoid Mary" was walking the streets, but couldn't be tracked down to a home address or place of work. You know they have a credit card but data protection makes it illegal for the coroners dept. to access details of where and when that card was used. In the absence of other locating data, you are stuck. But surely in an emergency you must allow some passage of data between relevant parties. So I think this is just about removing criminal liability for those who have a legitimate need to access certain data. And it's not a free for all opening of flood gates, each case has to be approved by a senior government minister. We would do better to focus on what safeguards are to be applied to prevent misuse of this ability.

Re:Raise your hand...

[damburger]

1. The left do not universally want this. You are making a 'straw man' fallacy. Historically, the left has opposed the confusion of business and state interests - the right has supported it

2. You are an utter, utter moron. The left wing of the Nazi party (such as it was, they were by any normal standards still right wing) was purged by Hitler in the early days of the Third Reich. Don't come at me with this 'fail' shit when you are utterly ignorant of history.

Calling the Nazis leftists is just a pathetic political slander. You redefine words to fit your warped little worldview. Why don't you just shut up and go back to wanking over BNP literature.

Re:Raise your hand...

[Scrameustache]

The British public support this measure and others like it every single morning when they buy sensationalist, right wing papers

Manufacturing Consent

Re:Raise your hand...

[mdwh2]

I'd also like to point out that facebook groups are the new Internet petitions: completely meaningless. Either call or mail your representative, or take it like a good consumer.

So you think that Slashdot stories about the Government doing things are also meaningless?

Don't be silly. No one claims that the Government is taking note of Slashdot(!) or Facebook - the point of these is to spread information. And yes, NO2ID have been telling people to write to their MPs, years before you thought of it.

Re:Raise your hand...

[damburger]

"The BNP are left wing" is one of the most retarded statements I have ever come across on Slashdot. Couple this with the idiotic characterization of 'left wing' demonstrates a pathetic level of intellect. Go away you little troll.

Re:Raise your hand...

[maxume]

The first rule of violent global revolution is that you do not talk about violent global revolution.

Re:Raise your hand...

[mdwh2]

The Daily Mail piss and moan about the "nanny state" enough, granted. But that's because there's a Labour government in power right now. If (when) the Tories were in power, they'd be pulling the same shit and the Mail would be praising them for it.

Indeed. Whilst I'm glad of any opposition to authoritarianism, no matter who it's from or what the motive, I can't help thinking the Daily Mail only opposes because these laws will affect everyone (i.e., including white middle class Christian heterosexual British Daily Mail readers...)

Of course, it isn't as simple as some papers good, some papers bad. Most papers have had a range of views. But I think we'd be better off overall without the Daily Mail and other tabloids.

Re:Raise your hand...

[mdwh2]

I don't see how filming someone's private sexual activity, so you can distribute it on your commercial website, and write a sensational article to sell newspapers, is "proper investigative reporting".

If they discover evidence of a crime, they can go to the police like everyone else. If they want to publish the information, then they had damn well take some responsibility for when they get it wrong. And in the NOTW's case, there was no mistake here - anyone could see the harm that would be done by their intentional actions.

The NOTW should think themselves lucky - most people filming a private person's sexual acts, even if not for profit and distribution, would find themselves up on some voyeurism or harrassment charge. Is that harming my freedom of speech? Of course not.

Re:Raise your hand...

[mdwh2]

Well, basically left and right wing are pretty illdefined terms, that are often used to mean something beyond their strict economic meanings. I suspect that's what the OP meant, though I agree it's better to avoid them.

Note that whilst the UK is left of the US, it is not in any meaningful sense remotely "socialist". Yes, we have a national health service. Big deal, the US has nationalised education and military. In both countries, the vast majority of goods and services are produced by private individuals and corporations.

Re:Raise your hand...

[mdwh2]

The British public support this measure and others like it ... People are not oblivious to this. You must understand that most people in the UK want this.

Whilst I share your pessimist view of the British population and its media, this is not so clearly true for ID cards. Opinion polls suggest that people are in favour of an ID card, but only for something that is free, or very cheap. Support drops as soon as the price increases - a MORI in 2004 showed that only 20% were willing to pay more than £25, which is way less than the actual proposed cost of the ID card.

Now yes, I wish that people would oppose them out of principle, or issues such as freedom or privacy, rather than simply "I don't want to pay for it". But nonetheless, polls show that most people would be unwilling to support the ID card at its currently proposed cost.

More general polls also show that support for a card has fallen over time.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_Polls_on_British_National_Identity_Card for more details.

Re:Raise your hand...

[CommanderIsm]

The British public support this measure and others like it every single morning when they buy sensationalist, right wing papers whose sole objective seems to be to prevent the Government from acting in any kind of reasonable or rational way. Hence CCTV mania, databases and ID cards.

The British public do NOT support these kinds of measures. They only think they do because The Sun tells them so. Most of the people in the UK are brainless SkyTV addicted reality tv watching idiots (very much like the Nascar/reality tv watching rednecks in the states). The Sun prints something and they believe it because they want to fit in, are too lazy to think for themselves and believe that everyone else feels the same way. If they ever actually discussed these issues or even saw other real people (reality tv is not real people) they'd find that others dont approve of these measures.

hear hear

Re:Raise your hand...

[RockDoctor]

"I think the question is whether the world "violent" will come before the revolution or not, and whether it will have to be, for that matter."

I think that is pretty much impossible....they have already taken your guns over there in the UK, haven't they?

Ah, do I detect the mating call of the Common Spotted American Dimwit, who thinks that you can't have violence without guns?

Just for your information, the British authorities haven't "taken" "our" guns ; since the days when ball and shot were loaded separately, very, very few people have had guns, or have had a need for guns. Similarly, very few of the police have access to guns, or know how to use one. The army ? - oh forget them, they're tied up abroad fighting for American oil and are rapidly falling below 80% of their nominal strength.

The closest this country has been to revolution in my lifetime was the Miner's Strike of 1983-4. The weapon of choice then was the paving slab with a strong showing from the fence post. Which are perfectly adequate tools for carrying out a revolution against an unarmed police force. Numerically, the army don't matter, and would quite possibly lose significant personnel to mutiny in a popular revolution.

And we care why?

[girlintraining]

Really people, stop bitching, and start encrypting everything, using bank accounts in countries like Switzerland, and doing everything possible to minimize the data collected on you. Of course, you'll be labeled a terrorist for going "off grid", but if you want privacy anymore these days, you need to control your exposure. You. Personally.

Re:And we care why?

[ScrewMaster]

Really people, stop bitching, and start encrypting everything

That only works until the mere presence of encryption (or any dataset that merely appears to be encrypted) is criminalized to a high degree. They'll do whatever they can to make the average citizen perceive encryption as too risky.

Re:And we care why?

[MichaelSmith]

Really people, stop bitching, and start encrypting everything

That only works until the mere presence of encryption (or any dataset that merely appears to be encrypted) is criminalized to a high degree. They'll do whatever they can to make the average citizen perceive encryption as too risky.

What is the difference between "compressed" and "encrypted".

Re:And we care why?

[artor3]

What is the difference between "compressed" and "encrypted".

Whether or not it's in the government sanctioned format, of course.

Re:And we care why?

[MichaelSmith]

They only way that could happen is if the Government banned data which they could not interpret. /dev/urandom would be banned. (along with /dev/null).

Re:And we care why?

[andy_t_roo]

compressed data can be "trivially" returned to the original without any extra knowledge (other than the details of the compressions scheme) encrypted data, even with complete knowledge of the mathematical transform done, can't be undone without finding the extra info somehow. (also compressed data is basically always smaller, encrypted data is usually the same size, plus a header.

It is good practice to use both, so that breaking the encryption on a low entropy message is much harder (as it'll be compressed to a short, high entropy burst, and so no assumptions about "weak messages" can be made).

If you use an obscure compression method, then to automated filters there wouldn't be a difference.

Re:And we care why?

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

That only works until the mere presence of encryption (or any dataset that merely appears to be encrypted) is criminalized to a high degree.

Failing to provide any encryption key they think you have is already a criminal offence, potentially resulting in up to two years in jail, under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000.

Re:And we care why?

[Petrushka]

Using Swiss bank accounts may be a partial solution, but you're still going to have tax records, NHS records, driving licences, passports, etc. that you can't encrypt, and which you can't prevent inappropriate people from seeing (such as government ministers ... including the unelected ones). Encryption only helps with respect to personal communication. There are lots of transactions that require more insecure types of communication, unfortunately.

Re:And we care why?

[Dr_Barnowl]

If you use an obscure compression method, then to automated filters there wouldn't be a difference.

That depends whether the filter is designed to try common decompression methods, or whether it's designed to detect entropy.

Encrypted data should be indistinguishable from random noise, whereas there is definitely order to plaintext compressed data.

Stenanography is another matter.

But really, the best way to combat ubiquitous state surveillance (assuming you can't just legislate it away) is to make it prohibitively expensive, which means ubiquitous personal encryption. Alas, the general public aren't going to take it up without both an easy, pre-packaged way of using it, and a massive FUD campaign. The former, perhaps the hackers can handle that. But the FUD campaign would have to come through media channels controlled by Big Business, who have a vested interest in supporting the government.

Re:And we care why?

[arkhan_jg]

Already done. Failure to hand over the keys to any encrypted files they have a 'reasonable suspicion' you have the keys to, is punishable by up to 5 years in prison.

Re:And we care why?

[geekmux]

Really people, stop bitching, and start encrypting everything, using bank accounts in countries like Switzerland, and doing everything possible to minimize the data collected on you. Of course, you'll be labeled a terrorist for going "off grid", but if you want privacy anymore these days, you need to control your exposure. You. Personally.

Of course, you should also give up your cell phone (it can be tracked and they can profile your movements), as well as your car (you sure there's no RFID chip embedded somewhere in all that metal?). Any kind of banking is probably too risky, as is holding a job that requires you to go out in public to get to (cameras). Better start buying the lumber NOW with cash so your purchases can't be traced back to you when you build that shack high in the mountains, become a complete recluse and live off nature.

Remember, true Paranoia isn't a choice, it's a lifestyle.

And the ultimate answer to this is to FIGHT BACK, not cower in the corner and figure out a way to live around it.

Re:And we care why?

[mlush]

Ob xkcd

Re:And we care why?

[DaveGod]

Really people, stop bitching, and start encrypting everything, using bank accounts in countries like Switzerland, and doing everything possible to minimize the data collected on you. Of course, you'll be labeled a terrorist for going "off grid", but if you want privacy anymore these days, you need to control your exposure. You. Personally.

Terrorism was last year, now it's tax evasion. Bank's failure to comply (specifically, the Swiss) means a blacklisting.

Re:And we care why?

[andy_t_roo]

Encrypted data should be indistinguishable from random noise, whereas there is definitely order to plaintext compressed data.

A good compression method also maximizes entropy (by compressing the same message into a much shorter space)
If there is still some structure (non-randomness) in the message, then you could use that knowledge to compress the data further. (shortening the message at the cost of a more complex decompression method).

Therefore a "perfect" compression should look like a header + random noise, just like an encrypted message.

At the limit of compression, with known predefined probabilities of messages being passed, there is little difference between the compression and encryption - "message 1 = i want to have lunch with you tomorrow", message 2 "i agree", message 3 "how about the day after" Is both a great compression scheme for a specific type of communication, and also rudimentary encryption

Alice:1
Bob:3
Alice:3
Bob:2
(and then they have lunch 3 days from now)

What I want to know is ...

[ScrewMaster]

what credible threats to the life and liberty of the UK citizenry could possibly justify this?

Re:What I want to know is ...

[MightyMartian]

what credible threats to the life and liberty of the UK citizenry could possibly justify this?

Don't worry, the apparatchik will think of something.

Re:What I want to know is ...

[arkhan_jg]

Well, New Labour might not get elected again if we're not living in fear of terrorists, criminals and illegal immigrants. Got to give the police all the powers they need to fight these terrible crimes and protect us.

Oh wait, you said citizens. But when 'if you've nothing to hide, you've nothing to fear' is pretty much the win-every-time argument with the citizenry, they're rather getting what they wanted in the first place.

UK is FUBAR

[BountyX]

Why? Why is the UK so bent on tracking this shit all the time. The purpose of government and legislation is to facilitate interactions between people in some manner. I don't see the social service this provides to the welfare of the people? They are already tracking emails and phone calls unconditionally. All internet traffic is going through proxied servers (as evident during wikipedia incident with "child porn" on an album cover). Cameras all over cities. Seriously has anyone stopped to consider if all this technology is even EFFECTIVE (in use)? Furthermore, the fact that this "bypass" is given exclusive to the Minister is a big warning sign. I bet they're too scared to give people the same rights. The biggest risk of all this; ofcourse, is that augmentation of such data over a long period of time can pretty much be construed to incriminate anyone. What a waste of government resources.

Re:UK is FUBAR

[professorguy]

such data over a long period of time can pretty much be construed to incriminate anyone. What a waste of government resources.

A waste? Far from it. Having data to incriminate ANYONE is not a problem--it is the goal. Sounds like they got exactly what they wanted, resources be damned.

You're all missing the point!

[BlackSabbath]

Its not about privacy at all.

The government has discovered that by enacting legislation like this, they can generate almost limitless energy by sticking magnets on George Orwell's coffin and wrapping the whole thing in a copper coil. (There may be a requirement to immerse the whole apparatus in mineral oil to dissipate the heat generated by the ridiculously high speeds at which Orwell is expected to rotate).

Genius! Pure genius!

Re:You're all missing the point!

[de_smudger]

Well put. Duly plagiarised, and forwarded in a letter to my local MP. Thanks/I hope you don't mind ;d

Re:You're all missing the point!

[BlackSabbath]

Plagiarism is the sincerest form of flattery. Be my guest. Just bear in mind that politicians may actually take you seriously and attempt to do this.

Re:You're all missing the point!

[de_smudger]

Or they may take me seriously and be sending some nice gentlemen in balaclavas to rifle through my bins some time later tonight..? ;o)

My friend's response to this idea, lifted from an email conversation about the same:

That's a reclaimed liberty, don't you see? The freedom to have the state take such close interest in the minutiae of your everyday life, that's a rare gift. Who knows what benefits this could bring, what positive lifestyle changes they could force you to undertake freely by inspecting your refuse? All this Orwell posturing about privacy - they're the real fascists, dude.

Should Work Out OK...

[lobiusmoop]

As long as your sirname isn't Buttle.

Re:Should Work Out OK...

[perryizgr8]

As long as your surname isn't Buttle.

corrected now. please people use the proper spellings!

I said it before

[mlwmohawk]

The so called "democratic republics" HATE the freedom they profess to love.

Until the digital age, actual freedom was pretty hard. With the internet, the ability to reach the masses with ideas and data is virtually effortless.

In the U.S.A. at least, "We The People" better get off our asses and do something. In the UK, the BBC says the subjects have been careless with their freedoms.

This stuff is bullshit (sorry), march, protest, resist!!!!

Re:I said it before

[MichaelSmith]

The so called "democratic republics" HATE the freedom they profess to love.

The UK is a monarchy. Their entire political system exists because the Queen wants it to.

Re:I said it before

[mlwmohawk]

The UK is a monarchy. Their entire political system exists because the Queen wants it to.

Not really. The monarchy exists because the people let it. The history of the magna carta is pretty clear. It was in the best interest of the monarchy to live.

Re:I said it before

[Anonymous Coward]

In the U.S.A. at least, "We The People" better get off our asses and do something.

Of course, "You The People" in the USA have been great about getting off your asses and doing something about the FBI reading all your (and our) e-mail. You've been vigorously defending your rights when your government tries to extend copyright law into something draconian, and of course haven't let them become pawns of industry cartels to push those restrictions on the rest of us.

Wait a second...

Re:I said it before

[perryizgr8]

whoosh!!

Re:I said it before

[Hognoxious]

The UK is a monarchy. Their entire political system exists because the Queen wants it to.

Are you American, by any chance?

Re:I said it before

[MichaelSmith]

No, an Australian. I have a copy of our constitution right here. The entire document rests on one statement that (basically) the Queen is in charge and may (or may not) appoint a Government to run things. If the UK is actually more democratic I would be very surprised. Personally I am waiting to see who's head rolls first.

Re:I said it before

[mlwmohawk]

Don't you mean governments hate freedom? I live under the rule of a democratic republic, but I certainly don't hate freedom. I want freedom. Government is what prevents me from exercising this most fundamental human right.

Are you willing to defend speech that makes your blood boil?

There are a lot of people in the U.S.A. who have forgotten that proper exercise of freedom is uncomfortable and annoying.

Re:I said it before

[Muros]

It was in the best interest of the monarchy to live.

Most people feel that way about themselves.

Next thing you know

[mc1138]

And they'll be trying to quarter soldiers in your home!

Re:Next thing you know

[Goodl]

I tried to read you page.but it doesnt exist

Their own data

[MrKaos]

I wonder how they would feel if it was their own data that was being accessed?

Re:People of the UK - just give up!

[Valdrax]

If half of the "UK is out to get it's citizens" articles here are to be believed - you might as well give up and get out as it appears that the fascists have taken over the UK government and nothing you can do will make it otherwise short of a revolution.

Or just challenge it in the European Court of Human Rights. They're likely to view such a change as a clear violation of the Data Protection Directive unless they think they can seriously walk such broad lifting of protections under the exemptions.

unbelievable. uk is practically a fascist country

[unity100]

it is just one step from here to a fascist regime. every kind of laws that violate magna carta has been implemented. british public did nothing. i cant believe my eyes.

Re:People of the UK - just give up!

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

You forget, we never elected the current administration in the first place. Fortunately, we will certainly get a chance to unelect them in the fairly near future.

Perhaps, in the spirit of the "changing the law to get one person is OK because public opinion that we've stirred up is against him" news articles we've seen this week, the next administration could change the law retrospectively so we could try the current lot for crimes against humanity?

Re:unbelievable. uk is practically a fascist count

[jirf88]

Indeed. Should this get passed V for Vendetta will be more than just a film I'm afraid. I believe Ben Franklin made a comment regarding this situation at one point...

Why exactly did Great Britain fight Hitler?

[freedom_india]

Why exactly did Great Britain fight Hitler?
Churchill said some crap about liberties, freedom & stuff like that.
(of course he was a racist pig and a cancer-inducing chronic smoker who slept when London burned).
Seems Hitler's ideas won after all. Lets step back a moment and analyze him:
1) He kept saying that the Soviets are a menace and communism must be wiped out.
Which became the mantra of UK and USA after WW2.
2) He racially profiled people: USA does the same under Truman, FDR and Bush. UK does it explicitly. Hell churchill was an exponent of freedom for all, but vehemently (and violently) denied the same to British Colonies.
3) He believed in Rule of law (the Reich laws of racism were based on US laws). So does UK and USA.
4) He refused to prosecute the Reich Police and Armed Forces who violated the law. Tasering police and fasle-evidence-planting police and murdering soldiers go scot-free in UK and USA.
5) He always thought that the State was bigger than the Individual. Hell yeah!
6) He was a proponent of tracking the smallest activity of the individual. So does UK.

So, it is proven as a theorem that Hitler's ideals are what UK is following.
Looks like he won after all!
Wow! Our brave Hurriance pilots, the brave lonely men in Bombers who did not return home, the men who braved Omaha and Gallipoli, and the countless WACs who wept when their men died will all be happy to learn this.
 

Re:Why exactly did Great Britain fight Hitler?

[Xest]

Whilst your post is rather sensationalist and outright false on some issues, I do have to agree that as a British citizen one of the things that makes me appalled by the current situation is remembering the stories my grandfather, a D-Day veteran told me. Him and millions like him did not fight and die for our freedoms only for them to be taken away by our own government.

As more people of that era pass away less and less people realise how important and how hard fought for our freedoms were. I still have two SS daggers that my grandfather took from captured German SS soldiers during the war locked away safely that I and hopefully future generations of my family can keep as a reminder of what was fought for. Perhaps ironically, if Labour and the police have their way, these knives will be confiscated as dangerous weapons when the only threat they pose kept safely as they are is a threat to Labour's totalitarian ambitions as I and my family and friends use them to keep in our memories what is important - our freedom.

Re:Why exactly did Great Britain fight Hitler?

[freedom_india]

My post was MEANT to be sensationalist to wake you all up.
Of course it contains many some "extended" truths. After all the UK government outrightly lies to its own citizens to send them to their deaths or silence the police force when it embarrasses its staunch Ally: Saudi Arabia.
If Labour and Police have their way, those SS knives you store will not only be taken away, but,
1) you will be classified as a terrorist and probably be shot on the subway.
2) Your grandfather will be retroactively be dishonorably discharged from the Armed Forces for taking home the Government's property plus be convicted as a thief, in addition to being red-flagged.
Outvote these buffoons just like you outvoted Churchill after the War.
Protest under law and complain to the LORDS. It is ironical that the unelected representatives care more about protecting liberties which the voted representatives seem eager to snatch away.
God Speed.

Re:Why exactly did Great Britain fight Hitler?

[freedom_india]

Sorry. Got carried away...Wrote it before having the morning coffee.

Re:Why exactly did Great Britain fight Hitler?

[Xest]

The problem is over the top sensationalist stuff like that generally doesn't wake people up, it leaves them thinking they're the ramblings of a madman that should be ignored.

Re:Why exactly did Great Britain fight Hitler?

[freedom_india]

ramblings of a madman that should be ignored.

...and thus enabling another Hitler to rise from the ashes...

Re:Why exactly did Great Britain fight Hitler?

[Xest]

Well yeah exactly, which is surely why it's better to stay calm and reasoned when arguing a point so that doesn't happen no?

Re:Why exactly did Great Britain fight Hitler?

[freedom_india]

You are talking logic my friend.
That NEVER works on Politicians.
If you stay calm, collected and talk logic, you would be laughed out of every single radio station, TV station and newspaper office.
You may be right, 100% yes, but it requires sensationalism to bring it to the masses.
Haven't you read "The rise and fall of the third Reich"?
Look, the common man cares shit about logic.
It is about how it affects his daily life, his life, his money and his kids. Period.
No one likes to change the status quo.
To make him do it, convince him he is under attack by Labor party which seeks to put a webcam in his bedroom, brainwash his kids into becoming servants of the Pope, rob his bank accounts by rich bankers, shoot him in the back without trial at a subway.
That is how you incite people. Not by dumb, stupid logic.
By God, no wonder you British are a sorry lot and lost your empire to boot.
If it weren't for Churchill to kick your asses, you would have probably signed a peace treaty with Hitler enabling him to gobble up USSR and roll up the EU while you drank tea, and chamberlain wringing his hands...

Re:Why exactly did Great Britain fight Hitler?

[girlintraining]

(of course he was a racist pig and a cancer-inducing chronic smoker who slept when London burned).

A man who saved his country and fought successfully against a vastly superior opponent should be derided simply because he was an asshole and *gasp* a smoker? Dude, sort out your priorities.

He racially profiled people: USA does the same under Truman, FDR and Bush. UK does it explicitly. Hell churchill was an exponent of freedom for all, but vehemently (and violently) denied the same to British Colonies.

Look, I get that you hate Churchill, but there have been a few Prime Ministers and party changes since his day.

Wow! Our brave Hurriance pilots, the brave lonely men in Bombers who did not return home, the men who braved Omaha and Gallipoli, and the countless WACs who wept when their men died will all be happy to learn this.

Kindly, they ARE happy to know this: There's still a country left to fight over, their children are alive, and as screwed up as things are now, at least there's something left to be screwed up.

Re:Why exactly did Great Britain fight Hitler?

[DaveGod]

Seems Hitler's ideas won after all. Lets step back a moment and analyze him:
[...]
3) He believed in Rule of law (the Reich laws of racism were based on US laws). So does UK and USA.
4) He refused to prosecute the Reich Police and Armed Forces who violated the law. Tasering police and fasle-evidence-planting police and murdering soldiers go scot-free in UK and USA.

These points in operation are mutually exclusive. The rule of law is that no-one is above the law. Having any exception is by definition incompatible. The rule of law is a matter of fact, he can say he believed in the rule of law but his actions clearly show he did not (which is, perhaps, the point you should be making but fall somewhat short of).

Re:Why exactly did Great Britain fight Hitler?

[freedom_india]

Can't you recognize sarcasm when you see it?
I don't hate Churchill. In fact i adore him.
Unfortunately, after him, there are no REAL Britons. Attlee, Blair, Thatcher, and the moronic Brown are more than happy to sell you guys out.
For fcuk's sake, recognize Sarcasm or go read Churchill's books.
I should probably flag my next posts with air-quotes and mention its category.

Re:Encryption

[TaoPhoenix]

t.o.w.u.t.m.p.o.e(o.a.d.t.m.a.t.b.e.)i.c.t.a.h.d.

The Only Way Under The Misuse Potential Of Extradition (Or Any Damn Tyrannical Minister Apointee To Be Expected) Is Conversing Together, Always Hors d'Å"uvre.

--
Hail Kurt Godel, who proved that anything can basically be transposed into something else.

Re:unbelievable. uk is practically a fascist count

[byornski]

That's gonna become the new godwin's law about the uk....

facebook...

[snicho99]

NO2ID has launched a Facebook group to challenge this threat to data protection.

Oh.... the ironing!

The UK may be coming a police state...

[DieByWire]

But at least it's a polite police state.

Re:The UK may be coming a police state...

[serialdogma]

You haven't dealt with the police lately have you?

Re:The UK may be coming a police state...

[CodeBuster]

They even allow you to remove your spectacles before they administer a beating and they always take a 15 minute break for afternoon tea; indeed, the whole process might almost be called, civilized.

Re:The UK may be coming a police state...

[TravellingMan]

Since 1984....

The arguement

[Demonantis]

The most powerful argument I have heard for use of surveillance technology is that people that don't break the law should not fear it. The problem is what if the laws change to suit the people in power. We don't need to give the government power that it does not need, but if we need to give them power to protect us it must come at a great cost to them. Regulate the access of the information. Make the process completely transparent. If abuse occurs make the system stop functioning or let the abused go free. It is safe guards like these that ensure the legal system. Why can't it be applied to all government functions.

Re:The arguement

[mpe]

The most powerful argument I have heard for use of surveillance technology is that people that don't break the law should not fear it. The problem is what if the laws change to suit the people in power.

In many cases there are so many laws that people will break several a day. Thus it can be more a case of changing which (and how) laws are enforced...

We don't need to give the government power that it does not need, but if we need to give them power to protect us it must come at a great cost to them.

Governments always claim to need additional powers to protect the public. Yet often appear unwilling to use the powers they have. For example why have the assets of no bank executives been confiscated?

Regulate the access of the information. Make the process completely transparent.

If an exception needs to be made do so via a court order which contains specifics.

If abuse occurs make the system stop functioning or let the abused go free.

Also ensure that the abuser is punished. Including such things as a crime committed by an official of the state should automatically attract a higher sentence than one committed by a member of the public. If anyone should be considered "guility until proven innocent" it should be government ministers and senior police officers too.

Elected dictatorship

[redelm]

Please excuse the sensationalism, but the UK-style parlementary systems look very much like elected dictatorships. There are no checks & balances against the government power where the executive is not even separate from the legislative.

As a concrete exampke, I offer the spectacles of Tony Blair putting down three separate back-bencher revolts against him. Labour traditionally had no business supporting the US, particularly over Iraq. Most of the Labour voters were against Iraq. But for some reason Tony thought differently. And was able to impose his will. How would be interesting to know.

Please note, I am not claiming US-style presidential systems are better. They are certainly less democratic in the sense that the people's will is often thwarted.

On this privacy issue, UK citizens may need to fall back to the EU courts and constitution. Rather ironic, the birthplace of freedom (Magna Carta) have to rely on the continent with fewer and a horrible history of citizens serving the state.

Re:Elected dictatorship

[arkhan_jg]

The government can only rule as long as a majority of the house of commons support them. In the back-bench revolts you mention, Tony Blair survived due to
1) having a HUGE majority, so able to weather a large number of dissenters
2) support from the opposition parties, when the legislation was one they rather liked.

The upper house can make passing bad legislation very painful and drawn out indeed, though not block it altogether.

Finally, the UK government does not control the military; the Crown is nominal head of the armed forces, and the government has to effectively ask permission to use them.

The government is not a dictatorship, but it is a parliamentary democracy heavily weighted away from balanced or hung parliaments. The government of the day does have very wide ranging powers indeed, as long as parliament back them. The next government can of course reverse the lot if they choose.

A constitution is only worth the weight the government itself puts in it. How effective has the US constitution been at preventing waterboarding, or stopping illegal wiretaps? Plus all the wrangling over interpreting the wording. It's a nice idea, but in the end of the day there's very few limits that are actually effective.

Just allows what the NSA can do?

[AHuxley]

The UK just wants to cover itself.
The good old days of standing before the "house" and saying 'we' do not spy on UK citizens is over.
Allowing the NSA spy at will from bases within the UK.
Spying on "Ireland"
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/gchq-spies-eavesdropped-on-irish-1106575.html
The problem is not the spying, or allowing US bases to spy.
The problem for your average UK MP critter is getting exposed lying to the house.
A baited question about domestic public/corporate surveillance and this helps with that.
The MP can face questions in the house knowing they will be covered as they spin.

It's hard to imagine

[bugs2squash]

one government database being up-to date and containing accurate information.

Now imagine a dozen of them with conflicting information.

They'll wind up knowing less than they did in the beginning.

I'll wind up with a dozen aliases that even I did not know I had.

write to your MP

[dominux]

I did. It isn't hard and mine is going to vote against it. Of course he is in the opposition so it isn't too surprising, but wherever you are in the UK you can write to your MP (by email- its very easy) and a letter writing campaign by valid constituents is going to be noticed. A facebook campaign isn't quite the same thing. Here is my letter and the response and here is where you go to write to your MP

You have to be joking don't you?

[Anonymous Coward]

Out current NuLab Government just ignores anything they say.
Take the ruling about DNA etc made at the back end of last year.
Wacky Jacqui is just ignoring it. She says there will have to be a change in the law.
It is perfectly easy to add an ammendment to a bill going through Parliament or even do it by executive order in the interim while they wait for a law change.

Do they do this? Not a chance.
This bunch of 'Plonkers' are total control freaks. They want to know everything we do at all times. No privacy for the masses while they can hide all their excesses with impunity. Sort of sounds like the USSR jusr before their empire crumbled.

Remember at their head is 'el Gordo', the saviour of the world economy. Yeah Right.
Most of the MP's in charge are going to be out on their ears at the next election (provided they don't change the law in the meantime) so they are just fiddling while the UK burns. With all the news attention on the Economic Meltdown it is only too easy for them to slip out bad news unnoticed (just like 11-Sept-2001)

Only the Lib-dems are saying the right things about undoing this mess but they are unlikely to get elected to power. The Tories are certainly committed to cancelling ID Cards but I'm not sure about all this other stuff.

Remember, that it is now a possible Terrorist Act if you take a photo of a Policeman anywhere, anytime.
I'm posting as AC as I don't want Special Branch knocking my door down at 04:00 tomorrow morning.

Re:You have to be joking don't you?

[CrackedButter]

Posting as AC gives you an extra hour, we'll be round at 5 instead. Yours, the Plod.

Re:You have to be joking don't you?

[MadKeithV]

iPlod - the UK internet police.

Re:You have to be joking don't you?

[Computershack]

Remember, that it is now a possible Terrorist Act if you take a photo of a Policeman anywhere, anytime.

Not forgetting all the train spotting enthusiasts who have already been arrested under the Terrorism Act for photographing trains in stations.

Re:You have to be joking don't you?

[daveime]

The Tories are "certainly committed" to just about everything, while they are in opposition !

Once they get into power, watch as NONE of your freedoms will become any less scrutinized, and they'll just add their own unique brand of upper-class-twittery to the mix.

Face it, the only way to get ANY kind of change is to vote Lib-Dem en-masse at the next election, or not to vote at all. To be honest, a hung parliament is probably better than the current "non-choice" of Labour or Tory, at least for 4 years nothing much will change, as they'll spend all their time bickering.

Re:You have to be joking don't you?

[damburger]

Voting lib-dems is a waste of time - in power they will metamorphose as everyone else has. Personally I'd sooner see a hanged parliament than a hung one.

I would like to be able to do that...

[Chrisq]

, would allow any Minister by order to take from anywhere any information gathered for one purpose, and use it for any other purpose.

If I had the right to do that I would start by taking the bill and shoving it up the Prime Minister's arse.

Re:The arguement [sic]

[Egrob]

The obligatory pointer to an excellent work on this argument: 'I've Got Nothing to Hide' and Other Misunderstandings of Privacy by Daniel J. Solove Also discussed here a couple of years ago.

Re:People of the UK - just give up!

[arkhan_jg]

Having the DNA records of hundreds of thousands of innocent people - including young children - stored on the police database indefinitely was ruled illegal by the Court recently.

So far, the UK government has done jack all about changing the situation, and is muttering about having a consultation about maybe putting in place a machanism by which innoncent people can have their DNA removed from the database, considering the merits, in exceptional circumstances. But the police of course constantly trump how important the database is to
fighting crime and preventing terrorism, and of course they care about civil liberties, but they have to balance those in a fair manner against the need to fight crime effectively.
There are already such rules in place, but the case has to be pretty damn exceptional indeed to get your details off, even if you've never been convicted of anything.

Any such ruling by the court of human rights regarding other illegal data collection and mining would also likely be ignored, as the council of ministers and even the parliament is leaning towards ever greater data retention laws, such as the one passed in 2005.

Re:unbelievable. uk is practically a fascist count

[AndyboyH]

I think this may come as a shock to US /. readers.

Unlike your schooling system, which (as I understand it) teaches the constitution, the amendments and so on - and engrains the whole spirit of 'the government should fear their people', the UK has none of this.

The Magna Carta is not taught as part of UK National Curriculum. (It may be taught in private schools, but as another poster observed - the upper class that can afford private schools are the ones enlightened enough to fight this... The ignorant masses can't afford those schools and so aren't.)

The youth of the UK have no education about the document that arguably started the concept of human rights and personal freedoms, the same document the government is wiping it's feet on on a practically daily basis.

I'm trying not to sound like some old bastard (I'm only 25) but their only interest is celebrity scandal and gossip. Their parents are much the same.

It's why I keep getting the feeling that I should leave the country and move elsewhere. What I want for me and my family (i.e. freedom, interest in the country and the community) is not what the general populace of the UK consider important (i.e. the next big brother/pop idol/dancing on ice winner).

Re:Dear UK Goverment

[Anne Thwacks]

loosely disguised as fiction.

All the evidence is that the present UK government cannot tell fact from fiction. (like w^hbankers)

Facebook ?

[DaveDerrick]

Wow - launched a Facebook group ! I bet the government are quaking in their boots ! A social networking site isn't going to affect politics.

Re:ja mien furer

[Anne Thwacks]

If I had a business in the UK

No need wo worry, even if you had one, you surely won't next year. I am expecting bankruptcies to exeed the level they were in the last recession - where, three years in a row, 33% of companies were wiped out. (ie leaving about 15% of the original number of businesses) and there were considerable losses in the years before and after this exciting catastrophy.

I fully expect 50% of businesses to go in this year, and each of the two following years. This will leave less than 10% of the businesses we had a year ago.

Quite possibly most of these will be very antisocial. None will be in manufactur9ing, or anything else with a need for investment over a period exceeding 1 quarter.

Yes, I am making plans for my family to leave. But I wont be going to America.

Gordon Brown has been recieving secret training in Government methods by Robert Mugabe

Re:People of the UK - just give up!

[FourthAge]

And New Labour (the UK Government - still...) have the brass balls to tell us that we're not living in a police state.

Jack Straw (senior idiot MP). "Talk of a police state is daft".

Tom Harris (idiot MP). "Our liberties are safe with Labour".

Meanwhile, the Prime Minister considers introducing a special law to deal with one (very unpopular) retired banker with a huge pension that was approved by his Government. How democratic.

As a UK subject I cannot wait to vote these fuckwits out.

Re:People of the UK - just give up!

[myspace-cn]

Right, let's hate the UK citizens cause they aren't in control of their fascist government. American voters are absolutely in control of their fascist government. Right? So lets hate the Britts and have them hate us Yanks.

Britts lost their right to bear arms, while Americans still have theirs. But what neither one see, is invisible. Invisible vote rigging, invisible disease, invisible theft. We both get hit by the same ELF freq's.

Meanwhile, both our respective government's officials are masturbating and screwing us all in the back rooms. Inbred pieces of nasty pond scum on both sides of the pond! They love we're pissed at each other, can't be mad at them for willfully allowing all the theft of all the money and selling out both of our county's rights, and certainly can't keep up with their future preparations for the continuity of both respective government's power.

A hint: officials on both sides of the pond plan to keep the same shit up, until they both use the military against their own people. Neither government is financially viable. Officials on both sides need a 10th grade math teacher to slap their greedy power grabbing hands with a ruler/meter/switch/paddle/cord. They willfully turn a blind eye to the fraud which is now sending us down the river stix with no paddle.

It doesn't matter if you are a "bloody wanker" or a "piece of shit red neck hick motherfucker." The end result is lost civil rights, and theft of our savings in each of our respective currencies, and if we protest they will mow our ass's down.

It's the ultimate piracy.

"Shut the fuck up", is what the officials in both governments want. Wanna be if everyone in both governments was tested for drugs, there would be hell to pay?

I say fuck these motherfuckers of both governments, not the people of both governments.
In the US, if they continue down the same path, we will have %50 unemployment, and a depression much worse than the 1930's, and a military plan against the people who rebel. In the UK they have put together a little secret Military plan against protesters who have lost everything and are starving and rebel.

So.... Why do I hate UK citizens again? Why should I listen to psyop crap AC postings calling American's, Wanker Yanks?

If I was in England, and spoke my mind the queen would probably have me jailed nearly immediately, because the fact of the matter is the queen ain't a fucking GOD, she's a fucking human. Same as the president in the USA. A fucking lame fucking human. And in my opinion, some rock-stars have better judgment!

While you might be on video everywhere you go in England, out in the US, if we move $5,000 dollars we are tagged by the FBI.

The good news, is it's all going to come to a head. The US can keep pumping shit bailouts for so much longer, the MATH, is what is going to clear this out. In our case, it could be the government itself after a bond market crash. I can't tell you much more about the UK. Other than I know they have some military shit planned against the people.

Re:People of the UK - just give up!

[Jane_Dozey]

When senior police (aka politicians in uniforms) start claiming that we "need" these things in order to stay safe I have to laugh. Especially when people like Dame Stella Rimington, a lady who knows a darn sight more about any "terrorist threat" (ex-MI5 head), comes out and says what a load of rubbish they're talking. Makes me wonder if there actually *is* hope for us on this little island.

Re:People of the UK - just give up!

[Jane_Dozey]

No, we did elect the current government. We just didn't elect Brown. Luckily for him we elect parties here and not people. Unfortunately there isn't and probably will never be a law that says if the head of the party in power changes during their term then a new general election (or at the very least a vote of confidence) should be held.

Re:unbelievable. uk is practically a fascist count

[Computershack]

It's why I keep getting the feeling that I should leave the country and move elsewhere.

As much as I hate to admit it, France is looking pretty good. They've not forgotten how to tell their government to fuck off. Last time I came back from France, I felt immediately depressed the moment I pulled off the Eurotunnel and onto the motorway. Dirty, shitty stinkhole country pretty much sums up the UK now and that's from someone who served in the Forces.

Re:People of the UK - just give up!

[Valdrax]

Seeing as I always get the two of them mixed up, I will take your word for it.

Re:People of the UK - just give up!

[Sobrique]

The other one I've picked up on recently was this story: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1138845/Food-writers-online-guide-building-H-bomb--evidence-man-Guantanamo.html

Which does actually come from the Daily Fail, but none the less is a source of concern

Petition

[Thoughts from Englan]

For any Brits who want to voice an opinion I believe this is the relevant petition. http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/End-of-privacy

Re:People of the UK - just give up!

[Sobrique]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7906381.stm
Covers a bit more of it, without being quite as sensationalist.

Also in this bill

[dugeen]

I suppose the only way to fight back against this law, once passed, would be through obfuscation and 'jamming' - generating lots of confusing and misleading information to make things more difficult for the government's goons when they're fishing through your data, looking for an excuse to have you locked up without trial or remorselessly gunned down on a tube train. Incidentally this bill also gives the government power to hold inquests in secret if that's justified by 'national security'. Effectively that would give them the power to have anyone they want killed without any comeback - no more embarrassing inquests like the Stockwell one.

Re:There are three words that should be said...

[splutty]

This is way more power than any agency, even government, should have. It's like, "You no longer have any right to privacy. Deal with it." I hope to the higher powers that be that this does not pass.

I would replace 'even government' in this with 'especially government'.

Government is a pretty opaque collection of people with entirely too little safe guards and monitoring on them. A government for the people would be accountable to the people, and I think we all agree that's a utopian thought at the moment.

Whoops!

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

The UK, for every day since some day during 1215. It is reasonable that tomorrow (and then the next day, and the next, etc, etc).

The words "magna carta" should have been in there somewhere.

Re:People of the UK - just give up!

[pjt33]

No, we elected the current Parliament. The government is elected by a constituency of one, the Prime Minister, who is also elected by a constituency of one, the Queen, who takes into account the party distribution within Parliament.

pack your bags

[GenePoolFairy]

I'm seriously think about migrating to Africa in the near future. I'm so sick of the current direction that "civilized countries" are heading to.

*sigh*

A Facebook group?

[Discocat]

There's some irony in the fact that they have chosen facebook to form a group aimed at preserving data protection...

Double standards

[clickclickdrone]

The UK government want more and more of our data and the ability to cross check/mine/sell the data yet last week decided the records of the discussions leading up to Gulf War 2 should be kept under wraps. Add in this new clause and you get a scary precedent.
I'm currently listening to a phone in on BBC Radio 4 on the subject and apparantly over 50% of callers support the government keeping data on everything because 'it helps protect us'. Clearly the governments scare tactics have worked and people are convinced keeping track of our phone calls, emails, genes, medical records etc. will protect us from the bad guys. The radio prog has already had someone phone up saying their local groups etc have had a member who was a policeman check them all (illegally) using their databases, another had a bank tracing family members to hassle someone with a debt and so on. You can put in all the protection systems you want, people will abuse the systems, if not the government itself.

Re:People of the UK - just give up!

[maypull]

I absolutely agree with the sentiment, especially drawing attention to Dame Stella Rimington's breath-of-fresh-air comments. However, I would clarify your first point: Britain's senior police officers (the Chief Constables of their respective forces, who together make up ACPO), are appointed by the Home Secretary, "Wacky" Jacqui Smith.

As such, they owe their positions to falling in line with the Party (capital P pun somewhat intended). The rank and file police officers I know just roll their eyes at stuff like this and carry on as normal -- much like the government's frankly despicable reclassification of cannabis as a class B drug, contrary to a heap of scientific advice.

Re:unbelievable. uk is practically a fascist count

[unity100]

france has been overly islamicized to the point of having islamic ghettos in which regular frenchmen, even police hesitate to set foot upon. much like how turkey has become.

best bet would be u.s. or canada.

Re:unbelievable. uk is practically a rascist count

[unity100]

it is the first document known in history that documents the rights of people against the government, be the people nobles, be the government king.

On the same note....

[hesaigo999ca]

This is actually why we have so many different departments within a government which has no access to the other's information, so when you get your drivers or passport, you would think I AM ALREADY IN THE SYSTEM, JUST REISSUE DAMN YOU, well this is why....you can not have one piece used for something else other then what it was for initially, or even reused.

I had a parking ticket I wanted to pay, and the clerk told me that it was now too late to pay there, it was in the hands of city hall...I told him ...I thought this was city hall...he said, no we are just the one's who give you the ticket, you have to see the ones who now enforce it.

Wasted another day driving downtown to city hall to pay a ticket that was a day past due....instead of near my house at one of the traffic centers.

Re:unbelievable. uk is practically a fascist count

[smoker2]

But you are wrong.
The Magna Carta only applied to Noblemen, not peasants. It was a power grab by rich and titled men over a weak monarch. There was no thought of human rights, only of power to control their own (the noblemen) feudal power and riches.
It is not taught as a constitutional document for that very reason. It is a historical account of power struggles in early English history, not an ideal to live by. And I was taught ABOUT it in a state school, but in history not politics or sociology.

From the British Library :

Magna Carta is one of the most celebrated documents in English history but later interpretations have tended to obscure its real significance in 1215. This iconic document was not intended to be a lasting declaration of legal principle. It was a practical solution to a political crisis which primarily served the interests of the highest ranks of feudal society by reasserting the power of custom to limit despotic behaviour by the king.

The majority of the clauses in Magna Carta dealt with the regulation of feudal customs and the operation of the justice system, not with legal theory and rights. It was King John's extortionate exploitation of his feudal rights and his ruthless administration of justice that were at the core of the barons' grievances.

All but three of Magna Carta's clauses have now become obsolete and been repealed, but the flexible way in which the charter has been reinterpreted through the centuries has guaranteed its status and longevity.

Legacy

Only three of the original clauses in Magna Carta are still law. One defends the freedom and rights of the English church, another confirms the liberties and customs of London and other towns, but the third is the most famous:

No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or exiled . nor will we proceed with force against him . except by the lawful judgement of his equals or by the law of the land. To no one will we sell, to no one deny or delay right or justice.

This statement of principle, buried deep in Magna Carta, was given no particular prominence in 1215, but its intrinsic adaptability has allowed succeeding generations to reinterpret it for their own purposes and this has ensured its longevity. In the fourteenth century Parliament saw it as guaranteeing trial by jury. Sir Edward Coke interpreted it as a declaration of individual liberty in his conflict with the early Stuart kings and it has resonant echoes in the American Bill of Rights and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

But the real legacy of Magna Carta as a whole is that it limited the king's authority by establishing the crucial principle that the law was a power in its own right to which the king was subject.

Read and learn.

Re:unbelievable. uk is practically a fascist count

[smoker2]

And just to be clear, the free man mentioned in "No free man shall be seized or imprisoned" is not a peasant. Under the feudal system, peasants were the property of the noble landowners, and had no rights. Free men were those who were granted freedom, it was not a natural state of being, granted to you at birth.
So the great Magna Carta merely gave more power to private landlords, it didn't grant anybody else inalienable rights. Should we really teach that in schools as something to aspire to ?

coinflip

[Scrameustache]

what credible threats to the life and liberty of the UK citizenry could possibly justify this?

Heads it's terrorists, tails it's pedophiles.

Re:coinflip

[ScrewMaster]

what credible threats to the life and liberty of the UK citizenry could possibly justify this?

Heads it's terrorists, tails it's pedophiles.

Pederrorists. Bad guys who come in the middle of the night to sodomize your children and put IEDs all around your house.

Re:People of the UK - just give up!

[mdwh2]

The same court of human rights which awards terrorists compensation?

Link please? Preferably not from the Daily Mail.

Re:People of the UK - just give up!

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

Luckily for him we elect parties here and not people.

Yes, poor as that system it, it is indeed what we currently have.

Of course, we elect parties on the basis of what they say they will do and not do, typically in a manifesto. In this case, for example, Labour gave a clear commitment before the last election that Tony Blair would serve a full third term, and they gave that promise in the face of sufficient public concern over Blair stepping down early and Gordon Brown taking over by default that they were unlikely to be elected otherwise.

Even ignoring the major failings of our electoral system, you can't possibly argue that the Brown administration has any sort of public mandate. Labour were only elected after giving an absolute, unequivocal guarantee that they were not being elected so this could happen.

oh noes the straw man!

[mdwh2]

Yes, what a moron I was. There I was protesting ID cards, when I should have been worried about the £93 I have to pay to Facebook. I didn't want to join Facebook, but they made it compulsory for everyone in the UK.

How hypocritical of me for me to question the Government, when I was quite happy to proceed to my local Facebook office, and hand over my fingerprints and other biometrics, as well as whatever personal details they wanted. Yes indeed, go to my profile, and you'll see my date of birth and address clearly entered. It's a good thing too, because if I forgot to keep it updated, it'd be a criminal offence.

Now, I must remember to make sure I haven't lost my Facebook card, as that's a criminal offence too.

Seriously, please try to think, rather than acting as if anything with the word "database" in it must be equivalent. I see that you have a Slashdot account - is that the same too? Does that mean you're a moron if you ever complain about privacy or use of your data, or any law by the Government that has the word "database" in it?

not to mention that if your level of protest is a few mouse clicks, no one is going to take you seriously.

Where does it say the group is itself a protest? The Internet is useful for spreading information. The action is all the other things that NO2ID are doing, and encouraging people to do: writing to MPs, donating to their defence fund, getting media coverage, encouraging people to refuse to register (or renewing their passport early to avoid the database).

But hey, I'm sure it's much easier to pretend they're all morons, and that a random Slashdot poster who's spent five seconds thinking about it knows more about the issues than they do.

Re:unbelievable. uk is practically a fascist count

[AndyboyH]

As I recall, the final vestiges of the original Magna Carta was also formally repealed in the 19th Century, as laws had obviously, evolved in time, to keep up with the evolution of the populace and the country's standing.

The original creators probably never envisaged that that document would last to such an extent and be enshrined in so many government's law, and judging the contents of a document that is (iirc) over 500 years old against the present day situation is bound to present such quandries.

My point remains though: regardless of the initial intent of the Magna Carta - the general populace of the UK is more interested in what's going on on TV than learning and understanding about their rights and freedoms.

Re:unbelievable. uk is practically a rascist count

[AndyboyH]

Does that reflect a diverse and meritocratic society?

No. In the day and age that the Magna Carta was created, did they have a diverse and Meritocratic society? No.

In modern day America, they still teach the constitution, despite the fact when it was freshly penned, black people were seen as nothing more than slaves. Does that make it any less relevant to teach? No.

Children should be educated about their freedoms. If that means teaching them modern law rather than the Magna Carta, so be it. Either way, they should be able to know enough to see what the rest of us do: the government is taking away their rights, slowly, steadily, and via the back door.

Re:People of the UK - just give up!

[DavOz]

But you can only vote for the crap the parties put up.

The party management follow the money: big donors buying lordyships and influence (why are the unions still paying ZanuLabour and getting nil in return though). This is where the real 'election' happens.

So you get timeservers guaranteed to say yes to anything & virtually no difference between the parties.

The quality of MPs is so poor that they have to bring Mandy back and recruit bonkers like Freud who then defect to the other side asap.

Re:People of the UK - just give up!

[magpie]

Erm What? The people never elect the executive, parliament does! You are not one of these people who think that you vote for the PM, YOU DON'T you vote for an MP who may or may not be part of a party. If they feel like it they can and have swapped side, voted down there own party leaders. The MPs (in the case of the Tories) or other party members (and trade unions in the case of labour) vote for who leads them, the leader of the largest party USUALLY becomes pm but this is not a given...and well on paper the Queen picks the PM.

Believe me I want rid of these idiots more than most, but please stop the whole unelected thing, the only normal (well by fife standards) people that elected brown were the electorate of Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (we in Scotland are sorry about that. But in our defence they are fifers.). The ONLY normal people to elect Blair were the electorate of Sedgefield

Across international boundaries? Bullshit!

[kheldan]

This is the kind of crap that starts WARS. Not political wars, but real, shooting wars where people die. Therefore, it'll never happen. If the UK wants to self-destruct, then that's their business, but if they think they can start grabbing information from other countries, they're insane. The UK government is rotten to the core, apparently, and needs some serious house-cleaning.

Oh, and I should mention...

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

If you disagree with the reasoning behind the "slippery slope" argument, then you can not rely on that same reasoning yourself.

You're wrong. Showing internal contradiction is a very valid way of proving a fallacy.

Did Slashdot cause the UK Government U-turn?

[rar42]

The UK Government has announced today - to the Daily Telegraph initially - that it will completely remove the offending clause from the Coroners and Justice Bill.

In the report, Jack Straw's minions seem to underplay the impact of the Slashdot article and mass Facebook/NO2ID campaign. Is this because they are worried that this sort of campaign could be launched at any time to keep them honest?