Slashdot Mirror
UK Gov't Plans To Push "Emergency" Surveillance Laws
beaker_72 (1845996) writes The Guardian reports that the UK government has unveiled plans to introduce emergency surveillance laws into the UK parliament at the beginning of next week. These are aimed at reinforcing the powers of security services in the UK to force service providers to retain records of their customers phone calls and emails. The laws, which have been introduced after the European Court of Justice (ECJ) ruled that existing laws invaded individual privacy, will receive cross-party support and so will not be subjected to scrutiny or challenged in Parliament before entering the statute books. But as Tom Watson (Labour backbench MP and one of few dissenting voices) has pointed out, the ECJ ruling was six weeks ago, so why has the government waited until now to railroad something through. Unless of course they don't want it scrutinised too closely.
Sad to say it, but its just true.
Stalin, Hitler and Mussolini would be very proud of what the UK has become.
It sounds a little too much like "our evil plans, foiled!" to be believable as fixes to a genuine problem.
Everyone knows the best laws are the ones rushed through the commons and passed on the nod in the other place.
From TFA:
Mr Cameron said: "We face real and credible threats to our security from serious and organised crime, from the activity of paedophiles, from the collapse of Syria, the growth of Isis in Iraq and al Shabab in East Africa."
Paedophiles are a threat to national security now? Organised crime? Maybe, but for heaven's sake how stupid does this government think we are, that we would swallow yet another use of pedophiles as the bogeymen du jour? That was a rhetorical question, it's not a question of stupidity as much as it is voter apathy coming back to bite us in our collective backside. Again.
If God forks the Universe every time you roll a die, he'd better have a damned good memory.
The wars are starting now.
Is basically this: "...will receive cross-party support..." Everything that erodes privacy or impinges on liberties such as overbearing police powers, mass spying, rampant drug prohbition etc. It all gets unquestioned and unchallenged "cross party support".
...of what "national security" laws are actually used for in practice.
Everyone who voted Tory becuase they hated Blair's authoritarianism, please note here that they're exactly the same. Well, at least we knew Blair's cabinet was full of ex-Soviet-sympathisers, but this lot are just duplicitous cunts.
"A message on 10 July 2014 was posted from IP address X.X.X.X noting that the government are a bunch of duplicitous cunts."
Not long at all for lawmakers who had their previous law invalidated and worked in concert with members of the opposition to ensure that the proposed version is acceptable to a majority.
But of course Timothy WILL put the most muckraking spin on it he can...
Democracy is a sheep and two wolves deciding what to have for lunch. Freedom is a well armed sheep contesting the issue
This: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Is Where: http://en.memory-alpha.org/wik...
We Are Headed: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt07...
Never Forget: https://tinyurl.com/poorwesley...
They want control of your mind.
This isn't about entertainment at all - the end 'game' is the battle for your mind!
The Mind Has No Firewall | by Timothy L. Thomas. Parameters, Spring 1998, pp. 84-92.
http://pastebin.com/JdkqxBAa
The BBC news is reporting that apparently it's not as bad as it could be because it's not storing the content of phone-calls made, just who was called and when.
Anyone who wants to know just how powerful mere "metadata" actually is should go read http://kieranhealy.org/blog/ar... .
~Tim
--
Rushing on down to the circle of the turn
Are there any exemptions? Odds are they exempted themselves because...you know...they're above all that.
So I guess the Brits are going with their own version of the "Patriot Act" now?
Rush in unpopular laws while everybody is watching footy
In response to this direct threat to the UK, mesa propose that the Senate give immediately emergency powers to the Supreme Minister David Cameron!
CAPTCHA: "controls"
70yrs ago, England stood alone in Europe against the shackles of tyranny. A few years later, and millions lives lost, England prevailed. Little did they know at the time that less than a century later the same arguments made by the Nazis regarding an imaginary immigrant threat and terrorist would be used again by their own government. The government will save them from criminals, but who will save them from their own government?
What disturbs me is the apparently lockstep between the UK and the US in the subversion of democracy and installation of fascist totalitarianism. I'm not even a so-called conspiracy nut, this should just be obvious to anyone following the news. Why is this not being talked about?
Rewording a statute so that the recently disavowed laws are changed cosmetically 'just enough' to make it through a summer session will politics as usual. This is nothing other than kicking the can down the road and making work for the legal-industruial complex. We DO want the security services to go after the bad guys but could can we all at least keep our dignity when doing so?
'We need unlimited emergency powers all the time because of a special existential threat that we're not going to tell you about' is not acceptable as an explanation.
---- The above post was generated by the Turing Institute. Maybe.
FTA:
"I'll be explaining today why emergency legislation is needed to maintain powers to help keep us safe from those who would harm UK citizens."
— David Cameron
No need to explain, David. We all know this is just another excuse for more power-hoarding privacy invasion, and that "those who would harm UK citizens" are in fact you and your masters. Kindly stop pretending and man up. The only "emergency" here is the fear fantasy you're manufacturing and trying to get UK citizens to swallow.
'The Economy' is a giant Ponzi scheme whose most pitiable suckers are the youngest among us and the yet-unborn.
yes, and anything to do with Northern Ireland.
I'm sure Obama would gladly send copies of the expanded Patriot Act and NDAA for the UK to use a reference.
He's transparent like that.
"In order to ensure our security and continuing stability, the Republic will be reorganized into the first Galactic Empire, for a safe and secure society which I assure you will last for ten thousand years."
-- Emperor Palpatine
Similarly there's a lot of FUD about RIPA's password clause by people who haven't read the law which explicitly states that police have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that someone has a key before they can be prosecuted for not handing it over
Except it doesn't.
The actual quote from the law is:
IOW the defence has to show "sufficient evidence ... to raise an issue", and then and only then does the prosecution have to prove 'beyond a reasonable doubt'.
So this is a completely new standard of proof introduced into the British criminal system after 1000 years of using only the 'proof beyond a reasonable doubt' test.
How do you show 'sufficient evidence' that you have forgotten a password? Nobody knows.
AFAIK (and IANAL) no judge has yet accepted the defence has shown 'sufficient evidence'. How do you show a negative - that you don't know something? Maybe judges think (correctly) that it's impossible to 'raise an issue', so the prosecution never has to prove anything apart from that you didn't hand over a password.
This is what's known as the 'reverse burden of proof' introduced in RIPA. You don't have to prove 'beyond a reasonable doubt' you forgot the password, but you do have to show 'sufficient evidence', or - if you don't hand over a password - you're automatically guilty.
What's more the Home Office code of practice says that even if you have 'sufficient evidence' - it might not even be allowed in court 'if the person fails to raise some doubt as to whether he still had the key when the notice was given'.
it's never happened, everyone prosecuted to date has been like the plonker in yesterday's news story who incriminated themselves for the simple reason they were actually dickheads.
Perhaps you're assuming no judge would be that corrupt,so here's a case of someone who quite plausibly forgot his password being imprisoned:
Incidentally, if you do get ordered to hand over a password - even to sometimes else's data you happen to have - you're not allowed to tell anyone, presumably not even to ask for the password.
Moderated Usenet
Step 1) Enact "Emergency" law
Step 2) Declare an "Emergency" (anything will do, declare an epidemic of ingrown toenails)
Step 3) Don't ever resolve the emergency
Voila! You now have a law on the books that doesn't have public support but applies anyway. Bonuses, pats on backs, job well done, etc.
... or sounds a whole hell of a lot like it...
Like this law; If you are part of a terrorist cell and are communicating with terrorist cells or other members of a terrorist cell expect to be brought down. Your privacy will be invaded. You will no longer be able to hide behind privacy laws of law abiding citizens ever.
I don't think "conspiracy nut" holds the same meaning as it once did. It kind of died out after virtually every conspiracy was proven save for alien visitations/abductions and mind control. Black helicopters, check. Mass surveillance, check. Government propaganda, check. Government abductions, check. Torture, check. Blacksites, check. Assassinations, check. I could go on for a while but you get the idea.
Its that anything like the "terrorist" legislation here in the US that is used for pretty much everything except terrorism?
I wrote a letter to my MP. In it I expressly told him that I fear the government more than terrorists, that I don't trust the police (and quoted specific examples why) and drew direct parallels between this legislation and the activities of the Stasi.
He'll fucking ignore it, because he's an arrogant cunt that couldn't give a shit about his constituents, staunchly supports European integration ahead of the interests of the UK and until recently was in thrall to his corporate paymasters. Yes Kenneth Clarke, I mean you, you ugly fuckface.
EU law IS UK law by virtue of the UK being in the EU.
Not defending this Bill but currently ISPs aren't obliged to do what the Home Secretary tells them.
Apparently the "emergency" is that what they were doing was illegal
No. This is about ISPs retaining data, not the Govt. The reason they want it now is that ISPs are threatening to delete the data -- which would be a year's data plus however long it takes to pass this bill.
Not that it should be passed.
Works fine in Switzerland where they speak different languages. Compared to eg US democracy, it works brilliantly.
PS, much of the democracy is devolved.