Slashdot Mirror
UK Gov't Can Demand Backdoors, Give Prison Sentences For Disclosing Them (arstechnica.co.uk)
An anonymous reader writes with some of the latest news about the draft Investigatory Powers Bill. Ars reports: "Buried in the 300 pages of the draft Investigatory Powers Bill (aka the Snooper's Charter), published on Wednesday, is something called a 'technical capability notice' (Section 189). Despite its neutral-sounding name, this gives the UK's home secretary almost unlimited power to impose 'an obligation on any relevant operators'—any obligation—subject to the requirement that 'the Secretary of State considers it is reasonable to do so.' There is also the proviso that 'it is (and remains) practicable for those relevant operators to comply with those requirements,' which probably rules out breaking end-to-end encryption, but would still allow the home secretary to demand that companies add backdoors to their software and equipment. That's bad enough, but George Danezis, an associate professor in security and privacy engineering at University College London, points out that the Snooper's Charter is actually much, much worse. The Investigatory Powers Bill would also make it a criminal offense, punishable with up to 12 months in prison and/or a fine, for anyone involved to reveal the existence of those backdoors, in any circumstances (Section 190(8).)"
Professor of journalism at City University Heather Brook writes at the Gaurdian: "When the Home Office and intelligence agencies began promoting the idea that the new investigatory powers bill was a “climbdown”, I grew suspicious. If the powerful are forced to compromise they don’t crow about it or send out press releases – or, in the case of intelligence agencies, make off-the-record briefings outlining how they failed to get what they wanted. That could mean only one thing: they had got what they wanted. So why were they trying to fool the press and the public that they had lost? Simply because they had won. I never thought I’d say it, but George Orwell lacked vision. The spies have gone further than he could have imagined, creating in secret and without democratic authorization the ultimate panopticon. Now they hope the British public will make it legitimate."
Professor of journalism at City University Heather Brook writes at the Gaurdian: "When the Home Office and intelligence agencies began promoting the idea that the new investigatory powers bill was a “climbdown”, I grew suspicious. If the powerful are forced to compromise they don’t crow about it or send out press releases – or, in the case of intelligence agencies, make off-the-record briefings outlining how they failed to get what they wanted. That could mean only one thing: they had got what they wanted. So why were they trying to fool the press and the public that they had lost? Simply because they had won. I never thought I’d say it, but George Orwell lacked vision. The spies have gone further than he could have imagined, creating in secret and without democratic authorization the ultimate panopticon. Now they hope the British public will make it legitimate."
Ooh it's all OK then. It'll only happen if the home secretary thinks it's "reasonable". Good job we don't have a party independent constitution which guarantees there's always a hard line nutcases as home secretary.
The answer of "is it reasonable according to the home secretary" is always a resounding "yes", with a side order of "fuck you, proles".
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Not too long ago, Europe objected that the US wasn't adequately protecting European citizens' data when US businesses are subject to government spying. These are legitimate concerns, but Europe is doing exactly the same thing the US is. As a US citizen whose data might be processed in Europe by multinational companies, how can I trust that my data is safe? When US companies and the US government are involved, I have the recourse of the court system. But there's no such recourse for me if the EU is spying. As a US citizen, I don't want my data shared with or processed in Europe. At least if it's in the US, I have a modicum of hope that the courts can protect me from government abuses.
UK != EU, especially when the UK's not even fully in the EU. Although reduced from what they used to be, Germany's concept of privacy far exceeds American or British standards; your data is much safer there, although ultimate privacy is an incompatability with the advent of the internet.
"Set a man a fire, he'll be warm for the rest of the night. Set a man afire, he'll be warm for the rest of his life."
Only if they are in the UK. Everyone other country can find and tell everyone about the backdoors as they are not bound by UK law.
Here's one:
A guy gets 8 years jail for defending himself against a home invasion.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_...
You read the bit where he stabbed a guy 4 times with a samurai sword, right? I know in Texas that sort of thing is fine, but in the UK that's not considered self defence.
Also, that article is from 11 years ago, can you not find a more relevant example? We've had 2 (semi) different governments since then.
What's missing from the story is the fact that Lindsay was a drug dealer. The men entered posing as drug buyers, Lindsay chased them outside repeatedly stabbing one of them in the back with a sword he kept to protect his "business".
More details. Carl Lindsay was a drug dealer, the 3 men showed up to purchase some pot and pulled a gun on him. The robber / victim, Stephen Swindells received 4 wounds, all inflicted from BEHIND and all inflicted AFTER chasing him from the home.
If you aren't part of the solution, then there is good money to be made prolonging the problem