Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

British Government To Grant Warrantless Trawl of Communications Data

Posted by samzenpus on from the express-lane dept.

First time accepted submitter cardpuncher writes "Having opposed the previous government's attempts to introduce mass surveillance of Internet communications, the Conservatives are planning to introduce the very same policy they previously described as a 'culture of surveillance which goes far beyond counter terrorism and serious crime.' The plan is essentially to allow stored communication data to be trawled without the inconvenience of needing a warrant or even any reasonable suspicion."

7 of 82 comments (clear)

  1. I hope this is an April Fool by Dark$ide · · Score: 4, Insightful
    If it's an April Fool, it's not funny.

    If it's not an April Fool, it's not funny.

    Whatever it is this Gov't won't be my Gov't after the next election.

    --

    Sigs. We don't need no steenking sigs.

    1. Re:I hope this is an April Fool by Artifakt · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You do understand that the real reason governments do things such as this is so they WILL be your government after the next election, and the one after that, ad infinitum?

      --
      Who is John Cabal?
    2. Re:I hope this is an April Fool by RichardJenkins · · Score: 5, Informative

      The story is real, the Slashdot summary is utterly incorrect. For example, from the article:

      "A new law ... would not allow GCHQ to access the content of emails, calls or messages without a warrant"

      Also it doesn't say anything about trawling stored data, or proposing a requirement to stored data, rather that with a a warrant, GCHQ must be able to access data in real time.

  2. A warrant is required. by aristotle-dude · · Score: 4, Informative

    This is about real time access with a warrant. I suggest that everyone RTFA for once. The summary and title are WRONG. That is not to say that it is not still troubling but let's be real here.

    --
    Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
  3. Re:Yep, keep voting for higher taxes by Nithron · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I agree. But what is the alternative? England, which is where this is happening, has an effective two party system. Like most places. On an individual basis, you realistically have two choices, and they will both lead to the same thing.

    Theoretically, someone should be able to start their own party, and get voted into power by running policies specifically for the people. This is more difficult than it sounds, however, because you have to take into account that people do not vote rationally. Some might, relatively speaking, but probably the majority just vote for the same party forever.

    A popular uprising is a route around this. This requires the populace to be angrier and less apathetic than they are now, though, and while we had some nasty riots recently, they were nowhere near the numbers required to actually pull off a regime change. To get one of those, the living conditions in the country in question need to be much, much worse than they currently are in the UK.

    Blame can only be placed on the individual voter up to a certain point, as they have to work within the system they have, and with the people they are surrounded by. Of course, the people causing this problem are all individual voters too. But they are unlikely to be reading comments on slashdot. Even if you shouted this in their face, they would probably react with hostility, because their behaviour isn't really guided by stone-cold logic, and a lot of people don't like their behaviour being questioned. Also, you'd be shouting in their face.

    This situation isn't as bad as it sounds, though. If quality of life here got really bad, a popular uprising would occur. It's self regulating - if the system gets that bad, it will get replaced. If it doesn't, then hey, things are going pretty well, relatively speaking. Unless technology gets so advanced that rebellion becomes impossible, in which case, we'll all be screwed.

  4. Re:back to onetime pads and tapped morse it is, th by bobbocanfly · · Score: 5, Informative

    They can introduce all the warrantless tapping statutes they like but there's no obligation or wish on my part to hand over my decryption keys

    Incorrect. The UK has the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act, which lets them demand encryption keys/passwords. If you do not comply, you can face jail time

  5. Re:back to onetime pads and tapped morse it is, th by geckipede · · Score: 4, Informative

    I am under no lawful obligation to ...

    Willful ignorance or believing that you're in the US are not excuses that a UK court will accept. The comment you were replying to pointed you to the exact law that you're trying to deny exists.