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/
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.
I mostly see people mocking the UK for letting the Queen rule the country, thus demonstrating they have no understanding of how our government works
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.
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).