Slashdot Mirror
More Plans For UK Internet Snooping Bill Revealed In Queen's Speech
TheGift73 writes "By far the most controversial bill discussed in the Queen's speech today has to be the 'Draft Communications Bill' which '...will allow the police and intelligence agencies to collect data on communications, like texts and emails, flexible to changes in technology, such as the Internet. This will apply UK wide.' The Queen's Speech has set out the government's legislative plans for the next year."
El Reg has the skinny on the CCDP related parts. From their article: "It's unclear if those 'strict safeguards' mean that a warrant, for example, would be needed before spooks could access such data. The rough proposal appeared to only fuzzily indicate that such protection for British citizens would be provided, however."
I though they had enough cameras to see everything everyone sends or reads anyway?
"Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
Near the end of the speech the queen also was heard to say "We are at war with Eastasia. We have always been at war with Eastasia."
Great warrior...hrmph! Wars not make one great.
They don't understand the internet, they shouldn't be making decisions about it. Can't we retire this queen, and get a new one?
It's always nice to see a Royal Monarch, decked in the spoils of war, complain about organized crime.
As above, so below.
"Kill 'em all and let Root sort 'em out"
The link in TFS to El Reg is missing. It should be http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/05/09/queen_speech_ccdp/
Here come the "This sucks for the UK but here's a list of all things wrong with the USA!" threads.
on all your email. In particular, don't use this list of addresses. OK?
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
Any decent criminal would use TOR or similar service, and the only data the ISP will be able to provide will be an encrypted bitstream, which will be difficult to decrypt.
So, since they're not interested in finding the criminals, why do they feel the need to spy on law abiding citizens?
You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your informed opinion. -- Harlan Ellison
....anything about tech.
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
What the British people see in their monarchy, I'll never know. I do know that until Britains stop shelling out $60 million (about 40 million Pounds) per year tax dollars to keep up the properties and lifestyle of these royal idiots http://www.royal.gov.uk/TheRoyalHousehold/Royalfinances/Sourcesoffunding/Overview.aspx , they have no right making fun of the US's fascination with celebrity. At least we don't directly pay ours with tax dollars and our celebrities pay taxes. If the Queen's just a "figure head" and only reads what's written by the Tories, we could have Britney Spears give an annual speech to the senate for a lot less cash and roughly equal mental capacity.
Ironically a couple of sentences earlier in The Queen's Speech, she read the sentence that "The government will protect freedom of speech." How can you do that when you're spying on people, and wanting to know what they say at all times? Never accept the line they are pushing that, oh, we'll only log the from, to and date/time headers. They will store the entire email, storage is dirt cheap and cost is irrelevant when you can rely on the taxpayer to throw unlimited money at pet projects.
Earlier today politicians said that tired out line "If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear." I didn't hear them say that when they were using the courts to stop their crooked expenses claims from becoming public knowledge.
The facts are simple, the state is VERY afraid of the free exchange of ideas, and are doing whatever it takes to stop people from doing something like kicking corrupt politicians out of office, or holding corrupt companies to account.
Take Nobody's Word For It.
When put to our expert panel of vendors^H^H^H^H^H^H^H advisors they said.. "Oink Oink.. scoffle scofffle..snort.. TERRORISTS!.. psst! got a lovely non-exec possition put aside for after the next election.."
More like Daft Communications Bill.
Time is an illusion. Lunchtime doubly so. ~ Douglas Adams
If Rupert Murdoch says its OK, its OK.
Have gnu, will travel.
Is this really "by far the most controversial bill" discussed in the Queen's Speech?
This is a controversial matter; it's also an important one. But the Queen's speech also discussed the reform of the House of Lords - a fundamental constitutional change which has led to a schism in the government. And it didn't suggest any change to the austerity program or welfare system, despite there being a lot of popular pressure to move away from austerity-only to focus on economic growth. Both of those questions are more controversial than the outlined surveillance bill.
I know that this is an important matter, and particularly important to people on Slashdot, but let's not lose perspective: this was not (unless I missed it) even discussed by Ed Miliband (the leader of the opposition party) when he criticised the legislative agenda. It's not the most controversial, or indeed important, measure announced.
AND HER FACIST REGIME.
It's sad how this becomes more and more relevant.
Except for the 500 million dollars net worth, plus 100 million per year, the military being commanded by royalty and nobility, the tax exemptions, the slight difference between slapping the Queen and being slapped by the Queen, and a hundred things more, her role is purely ceremonial.
"Kill 'em all and let Root sort 'em out"
encrypt, encrypt and encrypt.
I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
Or, rather, it's not possible to get them out of the job after a while and you have to wait for them to die or stop trying.
The US president is not voted for, only candidates give up for voting on are put in, but then you have die-hard Reps and Dems who will vote for a dead stoat if it ran under the right banner.
The queen's sole power is the one to dissolve or accept the government.
She could have done that to the Labour party since even though some would automatically cry "no" because it's a monarchy doing it, so few voted FOR Labour that all she'd have to do is "Nope. Try again. And properly this time" and enough would feel it right that they'd accept it.
Did they film a sequel or something?
The Draft Communications Bill '...will allow the police and intelligence agencies to collect data on communications, like texts and emails...'
It's high time for the police and intelligence to keep up the pace with journalists!
In theory the Queen can use the Royal Prerogative but she doesn't really do so, RP is devolved to her ministers. On paper she waves RP, but actually she just goes along with the elected Parliament's decisions. Looking at your link, the last time it was used by royalty to refuse to enact a bill was 308 years ago.
No comment on royalism vs republicanism, just to point out that the hereditary head of states here don't tend to explicitly do politics these days (say, the last 100 years or so).
Is this really "by far the most controversial bill" discussed in the Queen's Speech?...this was not (unless I missed it) even discussed by Ed Miliband (the leader of the opposition party) when he criticised the legislative agenda.
It was not discussed by the Labour leader, Ed Miliband, because, shamefully, the previous Labour governments (Blair/Brown) wanted even more draconian measures, including the creation of a giant central government database to hold the e-mail and phone call details. I suspect that to do the data mining they wish, this government will end up with IT consultancy and vendor recommendations to build something similar (at an exorbitant cost). And what is the point of collecting header data unless you want to get at the content? I don't believe any government assurances re limitations on this one bit!
I do think the invasion of privacy (what we have left of it) is something to get worked up about. While I agree there are other important bills (draft or otherwise) included in (or excluded from when it comes to economic stimulus) the Queen's speech, we should not let this one squeak by.
Also, there are two halves to this draft bill, both heinous IMHO:
(1) The surveillance/snooping/spying by the government listeners and the requirement for (UK) ISPs and mobile phone companies to make their log databases available for real-time snooping, supposedly with the caveat that Home Secretary Theresa May or a judge can sign a warrant to do so (certainly not comfortable with any Home Secretary being able to do this without having to pass a legal test)
(2) The entry and hearing of communications data evidence in secret closed courts (hence Justice Minister Ken Clarke's argument that the US is more likely to be willing to share secretly collected [via waterboarding at Guantanamo or rendition exercises?] evidence with the UK if it will not end up in open court.)
If you do not speak up, you can guarantee that with very little opposition (a few backbench Tories like David Davis and a smattering of Lib Dems not so enamoured of their government cars), the few scraps of privacy we have left will be taken away. Can you say Patriot Act UK?
I urge readers of Slashdot to sign (and forward the link to) the e-petition (set up a few weeks ago when this was first mooted) at: http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/32400
Signed,
K.E. (as I have already signed said e-petition, I am sure the government can find out exactly who I am)