Slashdot Mirror
UK Government To Revise Snooping Bill
megla writes "The BBC is reporting that the Draft Communications Bill is going to be re-written following widespread opposition. The hugely controversial bill would, as it stands, require ISPs to retain vast amounts of data and grant broad powers to authorities to access it, in some cases without needing any permission at all. For those who are interested in the gritty details the first parliamentary report into the legislation is sharply critical at times.
This is good news for anyone in the UK who values their privacy, but it may not be enough. Many would prefer to see the bill scrapped entirely." Opposition to the bill, at least in its original form, isn't just from crazy civil libertarian types, either; reader judgecorp points out that it even includes Deputy prime minister of Britain Nick Clegg.
It doesn't need to be revised, it needs to be scrapped!
As you smash one down they keep coming back with another version. How about a bill to make this sort of thing illegal?
Opposition to the bill, at least in its original form, isn't just from crazy civil libertarian types, either; reader judgecorp points out that it even includes Deputy prime minister of Britain Nick Clegg.
So now, even on Slashdot, anyone who gives a damn about their privacy is "crazy"? The Ministry of Truth is doing a superb job.
For those not familiar with UK politics, I'll just point out here that some of the claims in the parent AC post are objectively wrong. For example, not all Lib Dem MPs reneged on the tuition fees commitment (the pledge mentioned by the parent poster).
And the apology was funny...
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
Thanks to the conservative media, Civil Liberties has become a "Liberal" issue.
If you're a law abiding citizen, then you have nothing to worry about; therefore, you don't need Civil Liberties.
Of course what folks fail to realize is that there are so many laws on the books, everyone breaks at least three per day on average. We are all criminals in some shape or form.
I wish there was a satire website that would follow politicians and publish their criminal activity. Example: Well, this PM ( or Senator depending on country) broke the 1831 law on [fill in the blank of archaic or stupid law].
Keep doing that until legislatures are so ashamed of the law that maybe they do something about it.
...of the National Intelligence Council's Global Trends 2030 report, where:
...major trends are the end of U.S. global dominance, the rising power of individuals against states, a rising middle class whose demands challenge governments, and a Gordian knot of water, food and energy shortages, according to the analysts.
[enormous caches of data] will enable governments to “figure out and predict what people are going to be doing” and “get more control over society,”
Make no mistake, we (collectively) pose a risk to the power of the 0.1% going forward, and bills like this are being pushed through in "democratic" nations worldwide. Sadly we as a group always seem to vote against our best interests, so being aware of the long term trend is probably not going to change anything (thanks corporate media).
While I would be appalled if such a measure came up on this side of the pond; although we do seemingly allow Facebook and insert any company with an online presence here to do a lot of data collection; I am somewhat surprised to hear about this apparent level of outrage from Britain.
The U.K. has been monitoring its citizens via a network of CCTV cameras for sometime and they appear to be especially prevalent in cities such as London where we have been lead to believe that your movements are recorded as soon as you step onto the street.
Has the line finally been crossed?
For those unfamiliar with UK politics, Nick Clegg is the member of a minority party that gained power as part of a coalition. A lot of people who voted for them are unhappy that, in joining the coalition, they've had to make some compromises and have only managed to achieve some of their objectives. These people would, presumably, much rather that they'd stayed out and achieved none of them, allowing smug LibDem voters to keep claiming that things aren't their fault.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
The people, that is the British people, opted not to give anyone a clear majority, and that means that promises made prior to the election are pretty much swept away. If the British people wished the Liberal Democrats to keep their promises, they should have given them a majority in the House of Commons.
I'm not necessarily trying to defend the LibDems here, but since no one saw fit to elect any party as a majority government, it's hard to go back after the fact and decry that no one is keeping their word. The voters picked this Parliament, they have to live with it.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Then there should have been a hung parliament. 20% of the total electorate voted Labour in last time. That's less than the amount of adult smokers ffs.
Even less voted for Conservative this time, but marginally more than Labour. Somehow a coalition representing a quarter of the population's preference was deemed acceptable. It's bollocks.
"Wait. Something's happening. It's opening up! My God, it's full of apricots!"
... the word "NO!"
And it is well know that when you say something enough others will start believing it.
Soooo... keep saying it for the really hard headed governments.
I wish someone would kill this meme once and for all.
The source for the "Government CCTV everywhere" myth was a reporter looking at a sample street and extrapolating. A bit like taking the population density of downtown LA, Chicago or New York and applying it to the whole US land area and saying the US population was tens of billions [I'm too lazy to work out the figures but I hope you get the idea].
The overwhelming majority of CCTV cameras are privately owned (therefore they must be good in Slashdot groupthink) and not controlled by/accessible to the government/police/spooks... Even when they may have captured evidence of a crime it's non trivial for the authorities to get hold of the data and when they do, given the screenings shown on TV appeals*, the recordings are of such poor quality that it's debatable why they're there at all.
If anything you have more anonymity nowadays than a generation or two ago when a whole army of little "old ladies sitting behind net curtains" and gossiping about the goings on of people in the street was the norm -- still probably the case in smaller communities everywhere.
If you're really concerned, you have a right under current data protection laws to see/be given a copy of recordings where you are identifiable; not sure if anyone has ever bothered with this.
Now this proposed bill, on the other hand, is a completely different matter; the level of outrage is a feature of people faced with a first past the post electoral system that favours two parties who are more similar than different -- should be familiar to you too ;-)
Please don't equate British people with our MPs
*There's a programme on BBC every month or so where they appeal for help in solving some cases and show CCTV footage and re-enactments.
About time we got rid of FPTP and had some sort of proportional representation. Alternative Vote was never enough, it didn't please those who wanted to stick with FPTP, and certainly didn't for those that want a system such as STV.
I really want proportional representation. I want my friend who may have voted for a different party and didn't get in to power because of FPTP to have some representation even if I find their views barbaric.
And the British electorate had the chance to get rid of FPTP voting in favor of an AV system, and they rejected that. So that tells me the voters like the kinds of Parliaments they get.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
AV was better than nothing, and it was rejected. With AV in place parties that would have moved to a "purer" form of proportional representation like STV would have at least a moderately greater chance of being elected. But a rejection of AV essentially killed electoral reform for Westminster for at least a generation. It's rejection was also pretty much a rejection of all things LibDem, since this was the big ticket item in the coalition agreement that Clegg and Cameron had negotiated. From the AV referendum's failure then came Lords reform failure (though the proposed reforms are a dog's breakfast), and all the other humiliations that have lead the LibDems to the brink of electoral oblivion.
Besides, proportional representation would make the kind of coalition people seem to now hate pretty much permanent. Beware of what you ask for.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
When a problem comes along you must RIPA it!!!
When something's goin' wrong You must RIPA it!!!
No, it just confirms that voters are easily fooled by propaganda because they are incurious, and tend not to think about why they are told to do certain things.
From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
In the UK the two main political parties are Labour and Conservative. A very similar bill was proposed by the previous Labour government. The Conservative party, then in opposition, strongly opposed it. Now it is the Conservative party who are pushing for this legislation and the Labour party that is opposing it. This indicates why you can never trust politicians. When they are in power they do exactly what they were against when they were out of power. Governments are increasingly run by big business for the benefit of big business. Continuing to vote for the two main parties will mean no real change in policies.
If the voters are easily fooled, then why would electoral reform improve the matter? If the most basic unit of the electoral exercise is the simpering idiot you suggest, then clearly it matters little the precise nature of picking representatives.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
No, it tells you that the voters in the referendum thought they'd prefer the current kind of Parliament more than the alternative they were being offered. You can't logically read any more into the result than that.
In fact, a significant part of the "no" campaign was arguing that if the electorate positively endorsed AV, that would be even worse than sticking with the previous arrangement, because then anyone who wanted any form of actual PR later would have to overcome the claims of "but the people voted for the system we've got".
I would agree that the advocates for change, particularly the Lib Dems, were totally politically outplayed by those who stood to gain from leaving things as they were. The end result might still be an equally solid "no longer on the table" response to any attempt at reform in the near future.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
This is a pretty disingenuous argument, and one that is used by disappointingly frequently by squirming Lib Dems. This is the wording of the pledge:
“I pledge to vote against any increase in fees in the next parliament and to pressure the government to introduce a fairer alternative.”
Nothing about being in government, and it's pretty clear that the wording allows for them being in a coalition. This was a personal promise made by individuals, not just a manifesto point.
How dare you, after everything that's transpired over the last 10 years, call us "crazy civil libertarian types".
Governments always ask for more than they need with bills like this, then the revised version seems reasonable. As always, Calvin and Hobbes explains it best:
http://bestofcalvinandhobbes.com/2012/04/mom-can-i-set-fire-to-my-bed-mattress/
except the electorate isn't as smart as Calvin's mom.
http://rareformnewmedia.com/
For those unfamiliar with UK politics, Nick Clegg is the member of a minority party that gained power as part of a coalition. A lot of people who voted for them are unhappy that, in joining the coalition, they've had to make some compromises and have only managed to achieve some of their objectives. These people would, presumably, much rather that they'd stayed out and achieved none of them, allowing smug LibDem voters to keep claiming that things aren't their fault.
The point was that the LibDems only did so well because a lot of people were prepared to vote tactically. In my constituency, the chances of a Labour candidate winning are approximately the same as my winning the National Lottery two weeks running, so the argument was that it's better to vote LibDem in the hope of beating the Tories, rather than "waste" your vote on Labour.
The LibDem won, but then they formed a coalition with the fucking Tories anyway, which had never been suggested, and when the far more natural fit would have been with Labour.
As a result, people like me will never, ever vote LibDem again, in any circumstances whatsoever. This is unfair on a great many LibDems who are probably principled people with many good ideas, but it's true. At the next election, their vote will hopefully plummet back to 1970s levels and they'll probably end up with fewer MPs than UKIP. This is not a good thing, but it's their own stupid fault.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
The people, that is the British people, opted not to give anyone a clear majority, and that means that promises made prior to the election are pretty much swept away. If the British people wished the Liberal Democrats to keep their promises, they should have given them a majority in the House of Commons.
I'm not necessarily trying to defend the LibDems here, but since no one saw fit to elect any party as a majority government, it's hard to go back after the fact and decry that no one is keeping their word. The voters picked this Parliament, they have to live with it.
Yes, but the LibDems should never have agreed to be the junior partner in a coalition with the Tories in the first place. It would have made infinitely more sense to do a deal with Labour, they are far closer idiologically.
It's just that at the time, there was so much anti-Gordon Brown hysteria in the media, that Nick Clegg thought he was being clever by picking Cameron, when anyone with an ounce of political sense could have told him he was fucking himself and his party up for the next generation or two.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
And the British electorate had the chance to get rid of FPTP voting in favor of an AV system, and they rejected that. So that tells me the voters like the kinds of Parliaments they get.
Oddly, there wasn't a great deal of enthusiasm from the Tories (the senior partners in the government) for AV or anyother form of proportional reprsentation. The AV compromise presented to the public was unenthusiastically promoted, badly explained and never going to inspire anyone much.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it