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.
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 Queen is given the speech to read... she is merely stating the objectives of the current party (or coallition in this case). Got nothing to do with her net abilities or knowledge.
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.
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.
Because it is never about law enforcement. .GOV wanted to stop crime they would have been spending money on the police force instead of dropping coppers like hot potatoes left right and centre.
.GOV is a licence to print money.
If the
Burgled? Here's an incident number for the insurance claim. Go away and stop trying to make us work. We don't have the resources to follow this up.
Assulted? Try to match one of these well dressed, smiling prettily, gentle looking men in these pictures to the snarling, pissed up lout that bottled you in the pub two weeks ago without being able to see the CCTV of the incident. Go away and stop trying to make us work. We don't have the resources to follow this up.
Your car was TWOC'd? Here's an incident number for the insurance claim. Go away and stop trying to make us work. We don't have the resources to follow this up.
Oh they put a few quid into "terrorism" but only because that in itself creates an air of terror in the public. Justifying more money being diverted to scanners, cyber squads and legislation like this which benefits a few well dressed guys with big computer dreams who know that selling IT to people who don't get it, especially in the
See NHS, schools, waste disposal, speed calming, CCTV, missile defence and a multitude of other election claims for more evidence.
Screw you Westminster; you take our tax with promises of making everyone's life better, then give it to your friends. Blue, Yellow or Red, you're all lying thieves.
Do not meddle in the affairs of geeks for they are subtle and quick to anger
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.."
To be completely precise, British people are fascinated by celebrities as much as Americans. One of this celebrity happens to be the queen and co. And, as an interesting note, the royal family happens to be celebrity in many countries, including the USA. There's no "us and them" here.
More like Daft Communications Bill.
Time is an illusion. Lunchtime doubly so. ~ Douglas Adams
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?
For French values of 'retire'.
Sure, which one do you think will do better, Camilla or Kate?
How about electing a leader? The whole concept of kings and queens is a throwback to genetic memory, these people are no better at leading the country then the people who empty the bins in the street would be.
It's all about preventing protests and rebellions.
It protects the rich elite from common folk. NOTHING ELSE!
Obama's legacy: (N)othing (S)ecure (A)nywhere and (T)error (S)imulation (A)dministration
Sure, which one do you think will do better, Camilla or Kate?
How about electing a leader? The whole concept of kings and queens is a throwback to genetic memory, these people are no better at leading the country then the people who empty the bins in the street would be.
The UK already elects a leader - The Prime Minister (who runs the country). Head of State in the UK (the Queen, currently) is a mostly ceremonial role (minimal power that could be taken away by Parliament at any time) unlike the USA where the President has actual power.
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.
The UK is a backwards country when it comes to politics. No elected leader for the House of Commons, and we use First Past the Post (FPTP) to elect our Members of Parliament. Our second chamber, the House of Lords is no elected at all, but reform was included in the Queen's speech to have elected peers using Sing Transferable Vote (STV).
The House of Commons using FPTP and Lords STV is ridiculous. One chamber elected by the most worst and unfair voting system, the other by a fair proportional representation.
The Commons are totally autonomous to the Queen. The Queen has no powers when it comes to government.
Not as bad as Belgium politics though.
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
The UK already elects a leader
No we don't. We elect MPs, not the leader.
The PM is chosen by the conservative party as they created a majority by forming a coalition - only 32% of the nation using the FPTP system elected the conservatives in to government.
This would make some of the most corrupt governments in the world happy to have such unfair systems. UK still uses it.
I'm British, and I personally fully support the Queen's role in this country. Leaving aside the tax dollars to support them (which I would reckon is probably offset by tourist spend on people coming to see the royal sights), her role is invaluable. Even though she doesn't have direct powers, providing that stability and consistency is, for me, a necessary role when dealing with the lizard like politicians that we have.
I dread to think how silly the forming coalition bun fight from a couple of years ago would have been - the media were in hysterics about a coalition, who it should be - having someone who has seen loads of prime ministers and governments come and go at the heart of the process is very useful.
Our alternative would be an directly elected head of state. The thought of a President Blair (which he tried his best to be) swanning around is nauseating - give me a figurehead like the Queen any day of the week.