Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

UK Snooper's Charter, AKA The Investigatory Powers Bill, Passes Through Commons (betanews.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the watching-your-every-move dept.

Mark Wilson quotes a report from BetaNews: The controversial Snooper's Charter -- or the Investigatory Powers Bill as it is officially known -- has been passed through the House of Commons by UK MPs. An overwhelming majority of politicians (444 to 69) voted in favor of the bill which has been roundly criticized by both the public and technology companies. The Investigatory Powers Bill grants the UK government, security, and intelligence agencies greater powers for monitoring internet usage, as well as permitting bulk data collection and remote hacking of smartphones. The law allows for the kind of mass surveillance that Edward Snowden warned about, and while the bill may have passed a majority vote, there are still those who fear not enough has been done to safeguard individuals' privacy. UPDATE 6/7/16: The title/body has been updated to clarify that the bill has been passed through the House of Commons. It will have to pass through the House of Lords before it becomes law. As one Anonymous Coward pointed out, the House of Lords may send it back for modification or reject it entirely.

52 of 88 comments (clear)

  1. So long, UK. by Yvan256 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Even the Doctor can't save you now.

    1. Re:So long, UK. by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 3, Informative

      Even the Doctor can't save you now.

      The Doctor protects Earth from external threats. He's quite happy to let us tear ourselves apart. However, being fictional has him at a considerable disadvantage, which only a stand alone complex could hope to resolve.

      --
      Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
    2. Re:So long, UK. by uCallHimDrJ0NES · · Score: 1

      I see this is the topmost thread in an important news item. Let's talk about Doctor Who. Man, I love that show...ran for like....ten years or something. I think it's based on a character from "King Kong Escapes". Is that right?

      --
      Cloudiot: A person who does not see offsite storage as a way to lose control over access to his or her own data.
  2. Inaccurate: it's not law yet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    Incorrect. It has been approved by the House of Commons vote. But it is not law, yet.

    It has to pass the House of Lords, and they may send it back for modification or reject it entirely. If they reject it three times, it is finished. This has happened, and there are many signs the Lords do not approve.

    1. Re:Inaccurate: it's not law yet by azzy · · Score: 1

      I think this evening was just it passing 3rd reading stage of the Commons. Can follow progress at http://services.parliament.uk/... (this was linked in the summary above).

    2. Re: Inaccurate: it's not law yet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      So are we, please enjoy the internet we created for you and the world.

    3. Re:Inaccurate: it's not law yet by MrL0G1C · · Score: 1

      The lords do throw out bad laws from time to time and they get nothing but stick for being undemocratic. I have yet to hear anyone come up with a better idea though.

      --
      Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
    4. Re:Inaccurate: it's not law yet by goose-incarnated · · Score: 1

      I'm not happy that this legislation has got this far, but fuck me I am glad I am not American.

      The only reason that legislation like this gets made into law is because the people writing it and making it into law are exempt from it. The law should have a clause restricting anyone passing a law from which they themselves are exempt.

      --
      I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
    5. Re:Inaccurate: it's not law yet by Xest · · Score: 1

      To be fair I wouldn't read too much into the relative votes, the real test is always the final vote in the commons. A lot of MPs that don't support these bills still vote for them before the final stage precisely because they either want the Lords to analyse it before making a final decision, or because they want the Lords to scrap it.

      The thing to realise is that if they vote against it they're embroiled in a political campaign, come re-election time their opponents can claim they're pro-terrorist and other such nonsense. By voting to pass it up to the Lords to amend or reject, they don't have that worry - the Lords can get away with it because they're unelected and so unaccountable. The Lords therefore makes a useful waste paper bin to throw bad law in to in this respect. MPs will only take the political battle on if they disagree with the Lords and don't like what the Lords have pushed back.

      As such one shouldn't read the vote for the bill as a large endorsement for it as is, that's really not what it is, it's just an endorsement for the fact that it should be passed up to the Lords to scrutinise.

    6. Re:Inaccurate: it's not law yet by Richard_at_work · · Score: 2

      Under the Parliaments Act 1911 and 1949, the House of Commons can vote to over rule the House of Lords and pass a bill into law without the agreement of the Lords.

      Labour did this to enact the Hunting Act 2004, which banned fox hunting, so its still fully available to current governments.

    7. Re:Inaccurate: it's not law yet by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      We should prepare ourselves for the worst, because the Lords will almost certainly let most of it pass. The government has done its usual thing of putting in some really outrageous stuff for the Lords to complain about, so that the rest of the freedom and privacy destroying contents pass unrestrained.

      A VPN service is a good start. They are cheap (less than a fiver a month) and will block most data collection by your ISP.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  3. A little late but.... by stedlj · · Score: 1

    It looks like the start of 1984!

    1. Re:A little late but.... by mrchaotica · · Score: 2

      There's a reason the setting of the book was "Airstrip One..."

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

  4. Corbyns Labour party by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    This was only made possible by Labour voting with the Conservatives in a manner completely against what their party was meant to represent. I had high hopes that the Labour party under Corbyn would have reverted from the shallow, dishonest suits that had taken it over under "New" Labour. Here comes the new boss, same as the old boss. Facism by any other name would smell as vile.

  5. House of Lords could reject it by duguk · · Score: 4, Informative

    This isn't law yet.
    It has been passed, but it can still be pushed back by the House of Lords.

    The Register has a more informative, but shorter article: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2...

    1. Re: House of Lords could reject it by duguk · · Score: 1

      Same here. I don't think it's foolhardy to have a tiny bit of hope though, however small. They recently delayed Tax Credit cuts, rejected the Section 5 of the Public Order Act, and some controversial plans on Trade Union changes and Child Refugees. I'm not quite sure what's going on.

  6. If you keep voting for the same people... by FlyHelicopters · · Score: 3, Insightful

    An overwhelming majority of politicians (444 to 69) voted in favor of the bill which has been roundly criticized by both the public and technology companies.

    Yet those same people keep voting the same idiots into office...

    You only have yourselves to blame... we have the same problem in the US.

    1. Re:If you keep voting for the same people... by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 1

      Please remember that at the last general election, even together the Tories and Labour only polled around 67% of the popular vote, and that on a turnout of 66%. That means more people did not vote for either of those parties than did at the last election, and they seem to be the ones whose MPs for the most part supported this bill. And that's with a first-past-the-post electoral system, which realistically means plenty of the votes they did get were probably tactical rather than genuine preferences.

      It's hard to vote someone else into office when the system is so biased and the people currently in office have every incentive to keep it that way.

      --
      If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
    2. Re:If you keep voting for the same people... by FlyHelicopters · · Score: 1

      CGP Gray's "First Past the Post" video...
      https://youtu.be/s7tWHJfhiyo

      It's hard to vote someone else into office when the system is so biased and the people currently in office have every incentive to keep it that way.

      That is why you need guns, lots of guns... We used them 200+ years ago to get rid of King George, he rather sucked...

      You should read the first part of the Deceleration of Independence:

      When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

      We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

      Bold text is the important part for the purposes of this post...

    3. Re:If you keep voting for the same people... by FlyHelicopters · · Score: 1

      There is corruption and fascism everywhere. I weep for the US, their election is looking like a choice between cancer and rabies.

      There is some truth to that...

      I cringe when Trump makes some of his comments, they are so unnecessary...

      I support Trump as much because Hillary is evil and he is just... Trump... as actually supporting Trump...

      I'll vote for him, but he isn't my first choice either...

      BTW, which would you rather have, cancel or rabies? :)

    4. Re:If you keep voting for the same people... by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 1

      I don't think guns are what we need. What we need is for enough people to care that the current system becomes untenable and a better alternative becomes the only credible option for those making the decisions.

      Unfortunately, even the modest change to use AV (i.e., IRV) instead of FPTP was voted down by around 2:1 in a referendum just a few years ago, after a horrible campaign that did the advocates about as much credit as the current EU referendum nonsense both sides keep spouting. The irony is that in the AV referendum, it seems some people voted against AV because they just didn't understand the issue and the alternative on offer, and others voted against AV fearing that if they endorsed that then it would stick forever when what they really wanted to see was more radical change.

      The only other major changes in recent years have been around the House of Lords, which is perhaps the ultimate insult to democracy in our country since the monarchy is essentially ceremonial at this point. Sadly, attempts at significant Lords reform have proved to be even less interesting to the general public than attempts at significant Commons reform.

      It turns out that people who are apathetic about elections and feel disconnected with the politics of the country are also apathetic about electoral reform, even though it could help to fix the things those people complain about after every election. It's all very sad.

      --
      If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
    5. Re:If you keep voting for the same people... by jareth-0205 · · Score: 1

      That is why you need guns, lots of guns... We used them 200+ years ago to get rid of King George, he rather sucked...

      You should read the first part of the Deceleration of Independence:

      He did. Though unfortunately you rather overestimated how much power the monarch wielded then and then gave all that misunderstood power to the president of the new US. The US president has far more power than he really should have in comparison to even the UK king then.

      Arming the populous with guns could make some sense when all the state military had was guns. Now the military has jets, missiles, unmanned drones... you'd probably have to up your civilian militia tech level somewhat to actually have any effective armed power.

    6. Re:If you keep voting for the same people... by jareth-0205 · · Score: 1

      voted against AV fearing that if they endorsed that then it would stick forever when what they really wanted to see was more radical change.

      This has to be one of the stupidest things I ever heard, but I did hear it lots. Such a insane way to shoot yourself in the foot, striking down an incremental improvement and 'holding out' for a more radical change that will clearly never come about if the smaller change can't be agreed on.

      But then there are those that claim they will swing from voting Sanders to Trump, so I suppose some brains defy understanding...

    7. Re:If you keep voting for the same people... by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 1

      Indeed.

      The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter. -- Winston Churchill

      --
      If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
    8. Re:If you keep voting for the same people... by Mouldy · · Score: 1

      The first-past-the-post voting system we have in the UK is very biased. The majority of people who voted did not vote for who is in charge.

      Even glossing over that; you make it sound like there's an alternative to having idiots run the country. I have never seen a politician or party in the UK that I think is qualified to run the country or make important decisions. They're all blithering idiots with their own agendas that couldn't care less about what their constituents actually want. They spout utter nonsense as election pledges to get votes and then U-turn on all of the important ones.

      So election day is always about voting for the lesser of (usually 2) evils. There is never anybody good.

      It'd be very difficult for anybody who actually is good to run the country for a few reasons;
      1. They'd have to part of 1 of the big 2 parties, or they have no chance of getting enough seats (due to first-past-the-post) 2. The 2 big parties have their own internal politics that'd prevent someone who in acts in favour of the population reaching the top if they didn't also align with each party's own private agendas.
      3. If they weren't part of 1 of the big 2 parties, they'd struggle to compete in terms of marketting & pre-election pledges. If the competition cheats (which it does by deceiving the voters) then Joe Blogg's super party will have to cheat to be competitive. It's similar to performance-enhancing drugs in sports; it forces honest sportsmen to cheat because they'd have no way of keeping up otherwise. If Joe Blogg's super party starts making ridiculous pledges it can't keep so it can get as much TV time as the big parties - then Joe Bloggs is just as bad as the others.

      So yeah - at this point, I just vote for the small guys in the hope that one day one of them might be big enough to change the political landscape enough to knock the big 2 off the top. But I'm also a realist and know that I'm essentially just wasting paper by voting for those guys. I'd imagine that's why so few people actually turn up to vote these days; the system's broken and anybody who wants to fix it can't get in power to fix it.

      On the plus side, at least we can hope the Lords will reject the snoopers charter. One thing to note though, the Lords are not elected; and some Lords have already been caught trying to squeeze the snooper's charger into another bill. So, again, realist speaking; we can't assume the Lords will get it right either.


      tl;dr; We have a faux-democracy. Best we can do is hope the guys in power don't screw it up too badly.

    9. Re:If you keep voting for the same people... by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Our electoral system is badly broken. Every five years you get one vote to select a local MP, on a first-past-the-post system. In other words, whoever gets most votes in your area wins, and all other votes are discarded.

      Whichever party gets the most MPs gets to form the government. They get absolute control in most cases, the other party who got 1 MP fewer has no power. That part gets to pick its own Prime Minister, and you as a voter have no say in any of this.

      So come election time, you have to pick who you think will do a good job for you locally, who you want to be the ruling party and who you want to be PM. With one vote. And if in your area your chosen candidate has no chance of winning, you can either piss your vote away on them anyway or vote tactically for someone you don't really want and help ensure your real choice never becomes a contender.

      You also have to try to guess what your choice will do for the next five years, and they mostly lie to you before the election. Actually that bit isn't too hard to decipher, e.g. "we have no plans to do X" means "we will definitely do X as soon as we get in".

      So most people vote for stupid reasons, most often based on who they think will fuck up the economy the least. Trivialities like privacy, security and freedom come pretty far down the list, way past "who has the best hair" and "which leader do I personally despise the most".

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    10. Re:If you keep voting for the same people... by FlyHelicopters · · Score: 1

      I don't think guns are what we need./quote. :) At the end of the day, it usually takes violence to remove a government that doesn't listen to its people.

      I'd think the British, of all people, would know this...

    11. Re:If you keep voting for the same people... by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 1

      In extreme cases, yes, historically that has been true.

      Unfortunately, I think the real problem we have is not that our government is not listening to its people, but that so many of its people have so little to say. About one in three eligible voters didn't even vote in the last general election, even though it was looking extremely close in the polls beforehand. Far fewer usually turn out for things like council or MEP elections. Far fewer still actually engage with their elected representatives in any substantial way other than voting for or against them every few years.

      If we were talking about something like a government refusing to relinquish power after losing a reasonably free and fair election, then yes, some other form of taking power back would ultimately be necessary, but that's not really the case in the UK today and I'm not sure organisations like our police services or armed forces would support such a government for long even if it were. Our system is failing to give smaller parties fair representation, for sure, and personally I believe that should be changed. But we had a chance to do that during the last Parliament and overwhelmingly blew it, again apparently because a lot of people either couldn't or didn't bother to understand the issue and vote accordingly.

      So in a way our government is listening to its people. It's just that a large proportion of its people in most cases are saying they don't care. Of course, that is no less unfortunate for the people who do, or probably for the people who don't as well, even if they don't realise it. However, to break the cycle, we need to get enough support at least once to bring in an administration that will effect real constitutional change and rebalance the system to be fairer to those who are willing to participate. In a FPTP system when you inevitably alternate between two big parties most of the time, that's a tall order.

      --
      If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
    12. Re:If you keep voting for the same people... by FlyHelicopters · · Score: 1

      The first-past-the-post voting system we have in the UK is very biased. The majority of people who voted did not vote for who is in charge.

      tl;dr; We have a faux-democracy. Best we can do is hope the guys in power don't screw it up too badly.

      You don't have a democracy at all, you're just serfs rulled over by Kings by another name, and don't even know it.

      You've been given the illusion of freedom without actually having very much. And you gave up all your guns so you can't actually do anything about it either.

      The liberals in the US want to do the same thing, bunch of complete idiots is what they are.

    13. Re:If you keep voting for the same people... by FlyHelicopters · · Score: 1

      You don't have a democracy at all, you're just serfs rulled over by Kings by another name, and don't even know it.

      Follow up to my own post... We aren't really any better off in the US, sad to say...

      Our Kings however, are corporations who have cronies in the political parties... and they have done a good job of getting most people to "pick a team", thinking that it is a choice.

    14. Re:If you keep voting for the same people... by FlyHelicopters · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, I think the real problem we have is not that our government is not listening to its people, but that so many of its people have so little to say. About one in three eligible voters didn't even vote in the last general election

      That is more than the US, where half the people don't vote... but a large part of that is so many people don't see any REASON to vote, feeling it doesn't matter or make a difference...

      If we were talking about something like a government refusing to relinquish power after losing a reasonably free and fair election

      Do you honestly feel that you have "free and fair elections"?

      I don't, and I don't think we have them in the US. We have 4 serious political parties here, yet only 2 of them get on the TV for news or debates.

      Republicans
      Democrats
      Greens
      Libertarians

      Yet the last two are laughed at and get no time or attention by the media and are not included in the public debates on TV.

      They aren't nuts either, for example the Libertarians want a mix of the D and R teams, they want socially liberal policies such as ending the war on drugs, marry whoever you want, get government out of the bedroom, etc... Yet when it comes to money, they think government size should be cut in half. We have over 2,000 federal government agencies, it is absurd! They also want to stop all the "wars of not giving the US everything it wants" nonsense.

      The Greens are another matter, but at least they are a voice of something difference.

      The Democrats and Republicans don't actually care who is in power, so long as it is ONE OF THEM and not anyone else. This is why the Republicans are so against Trump, he isn't ONE OF THEM.

      Hillary Clinton, for example, is so completely bought and paid for and in the pocket of big banks and the military contractors that she'll do what she's told, regardless of what everyone THINKS she'll do right now.

      Note: The other 16 Republicans would have been much the same, so I'm not taking sides there. Trump got in because the people are sick of it.

      Bernie Sanders has done much the same on the Dems side, but thanks to the early "lead" of the Super Delegates and party pressure and rules, he got run over.

    15. Re:If you keep voting for the same people... by FlyHelicopters · · Score: 1

      In a FPTP system when you inevitably alternate between two big parties most of the time, that's a tall order.

      The real trick is to change the election system... The FPTP is broken beyond repair, it is a flawed system that needs to go.

      Note: We also are in the same boat, but worse thanks to our "Electoral College" where we don't even vote for President directly and the votes in 40 of the 50 states generally don't count anyway.

      Al Gore in 2000 got more votes than George W. Bush, yet Bush became President because of that system.

    16. Re:If you keep voting for the same people... by FlyHelicopters · · Score: 1

      Our electoral system is badly broken. Every five years you get one vote to select a local MP, on a first-past-the-post system. In other words, whoever gets most votes in your area wins, and all other votes are discarded.

      Then why don't you do something about it?

      Change the rules, throw out your existing government, tell them all to go pound sand. :)

    17. Re:If you keep voting for the same people... by tendrousbeastie · · Score: 1

      I don't necessarily blame the politicians. Ultimately their job is to keep winning elections. I don't mean to be cynical by saying that, but fundamentally they can have all the ethics and principles they want but if they don't win elections they are out.

      Voting against a bill like this leaves them very exposed to attack from the 'law and order' contingent. Voting for it does not leave them very exposed - in the UK and the USA the online freedoms argument does not poll highly in either raw numbers or intensity.

      Fundamentally they know that voting against this is likely to lose them more votes than it wins. For most of them this isn't a matter of life or death or a matter of principle, so the electoral argument wins.

    18. Re:If you keep voting for the same people... by FlyHelicopters · · Score: 1

      Sadly, you have a point... (not sad against you, sad against reality)

      The question becomes, how do we get leaders who stand on principle and do the right thing?

      Evil should be fought in all its forms, and this is one of them. A man of principle would never support this.

    19. Re:If you keep voting for the same people... by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      I did try... we had a referendum on a better system, but people were too dumb to understand it. I mean, it was really simple, easy for an 8 year old to grasp, but somehow people were either proud of being thick. Well, some people said they got it, but then rejected it on the grounds that other people were too thick.

      I've pretty much given up at this point. Accepting the stupid and working with it is the only option.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    20. Re:If you keep voting for the same people... by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      I did try... we had a referendum on a better system, but people were too dumb to understand it.

      I totally agree.

      I mean it's impossible that they're not dumb and just happen to have a different opinion to you.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    21. Re:If you keep voting for the same people... by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      No, people openly admitted that they were too dumb to understand it. Go back and check some news reports from that time, one of the major themes was people saying they didn't get it or bizarrely that they thought other people didn't get it. The opposition threw in some confusion and uncertainty with nonsense like "the loser could win" too.

      You have to understand that the British public are ignorant, and that's how they like it. Even now, a week away from the EU referendum, people are saying they don't know who their MEP is and that somehow their inability to use Google and extreme laziness is the EU's fault. They are saying they want to be told the facts, even though there are no facts when it comes to predicting the future, and that they need guidance. In other words they want someone to tell them what to think, because they think they are too stupid to work it out on their own. The "debate" rarely rises above the level of buzzwords.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  7. Wahaha by campuscodi · · Score: 1

    So much lobbying from privacy groups, and it was all for nothing. They still voted their crappy law regardless of public opinion. :))))))))))

  8. They seem to be forgetting something . . . by mmell · · Score: 2
    Remember, remember!

    The fifth of November,

    The Gunpowder treason and plot;

    I know of no reason

    Why the Gunpowder treason

    Should ever be forgot! . . .

    1. Re:They seem to be forgetting something . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      When I first moved to the UK and discovered Guy Fawkes Day, it was unclear to me as to whether they were celebrating the fact that the plotters were stopped in time to prevent them from blowing up Parliament -- or the fact that they tried.

  9. I'm shocked by Dunbal · · Score: 2

    Look at that, a government grants itself even more tyrannical powers. See it wouldn't be so bad if the government could be trusted to use these powers only against "terrorists", but what they really want to use it for is to make an example of Mr. Smith because he's 200 pounds short on his tax return, Mr. Green because he posted something naughty about immigration, and Mr Blue because he happens to like midget porn and some bureaucrat didn't check and thought it was kiddie porn.

    --
    Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    1. Re:I'm shocked by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      The government is quite open about how it wants to abuse these powers. They have already said they give low level police and the tax office access to data illegally collected by GCHQ and MI5. If you read the comment submissions on this bill, one of the first was from Trading Standards who wanted to use the data to investigate people selling dodgy DVDs and fake Rolex watches down the market.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  10. What to do when spying is legal by AHuxley · · Score: 1

    If the ability to secure basic freedoms and protections for the press, media from constant domestic spying fails if new laws are finally passed... what can be done if everyone is been kept under a digital legal pre crime watch and internet logging?
    The digital ability to watch people create computer content is about all most advanced nations have fully invested in. Staff and contractors with security clearances to watch one person wonder around per day in 8-12 team member shifts per interesting person can often be spotted in different inward looking communities. Have fun and be creative with linguistic analysis and a vast world of creative writing on a very average networked computer.

    If your a member if the press, blogger, peace activist, academic, author, creative person that has become of interest to the security services....
    Buy a new average Microsoft laptop with related productivity apps, keep the laptop internet connected 24/7, add in a UK based cloud backup service. Install some fancy foreign sounding consumer grade AV. Add in any applications needed to get work ready for a publisher or for upload.

    Start been very creative in your chosen area of interest by creating publication drafts, folders names, search for and download a lot of background reading..
    Go to archives and take out vast amounts of material on events around the 1980-2000's.
    Invent a series of new informants with information going back to the 1970's with new stories they just have to get out about the political connected and the fun filled weekend parties, banking related gov funding, tax shelters... contractors, the wrong kind of political connections in the 1980's. Be very creative, add lots of names, times, dates. Leave an unexpected redacted space for code words of projects and operations but create paragraphs full of detail.
    Fill back into the 1970's and get really creative on into the 2000's. Line up any created story with past official events. Newspaper clippings and notes help.
    Load the draft files with political and banking bait, recreate old scanned documents by adding in unexpected names, meeting times with new informants. Ensure any and all documents are converted for easy digital searching. Add scanned paper files in a huge file format.
    Slow the internet connection down and scan in vast amounts of documents creating many huge files with very interesting file names.
    Add cryptic names (save some cyrillic names for later) but be very clear on details about all meeting with lists of a few fictional informants.
    Create an actor with the ability to pass CCTV capture, smile for facial recognition on the way, get tracked by automatic license-plate recognition and set up a meeting.
    Find a good voice actor with the correct professional sounding accent and tone for that decade to fill in the other side of the conversation with the cell phone on and the microphone well positioned to capture every word of their "story" that has to finally be told. Interact naturally and press for more details, create a heavy paper "file" or digital backup to be handed over with "everything" on it. Select a location that ensures a good voice print match and allows for acoustics that captures the sound of the hand over.
    Drive, walk or bike to the areas mentioned with your cellular device on and with a full battery for the first of many meetings and file hand overs.
    Take a rushed cell phone image of a created 'cover' page. Make sure it will pass layout analysis from that decade but only add to the mystery of the files origins or what could or should be very secret content.
    Add to your your own digital dossier every weekend with amazing meetings with a live mic on, new "secret" digital files collected for the clandestine services to find and a growing laptop full of digital details.

    Any real work do on a type writer, keep paper work only, keep paper copies to trusted friends and ensure the only time a digital version is made is at the time of publication. Give your cell p

    --
    Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
  11. Um.. I don't know much about UK politics by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    but in my neck of the woods (America) anyone with the word "Lord" in it's name usually isn't much for freedom and civil rights...

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:Um.. I don't know much about UK politics by lisaparratt · · Score: 1

      Ironically, being born into power can mean they are less corrupt than those who would seek it out.

    2. Re:Um.. I don't know much about UK politics by Richard_at_work · · Score: 2

      The intention of the House of Lords is to have a voting body which is not beholden to an electorate, so they can make the unpopular decisions and not be punished for it.

      This is the same House of Lords which rejected 90 day detention of terrorism suspects without charge, which was something the government was desperately trying to push through a few years ago.

    3. Re:Um.. I don't know much about UK politics by Trongy · · Score: 1

      Hereditary peers no longer have a right to vote in the House of Lords. The overwhelming majority of the House of Lords are life peers with only 92 selected hereditary peers being members.

    4. Re:Um.. I don't know much about UK politics by tendrousbeastie · · Score: 1

      I like the basic idea of having an independent house to scrutinise and approve/reject legislation from the commons. It is the same idea as he US senate, except the Senate to a certain extent has the same motives and incentives as the House.

      I would largely opposed to an elected HoL. As far as I can imagine it would, after the first couple of elections, reform along party lines and become a copy of the Commons and thus lose all of its independence.

      I find the appointment system to the Lords to be problematic, and I think a better system for entering the house should be thought up, but whatever that system it should be completely different from the party political electoral system used in the commons.

  12. It's all about mindset. by bzn · · Score: 1

    A large proportion of British (I'm speaking as one, so cool yo' jets) people have the "I'm not doing anything wrong, so I don't care if they look at my stuff" mindset, which is the worst possible mindset to have, as they screw everybody over. It's incredibly frustrating, and makes me want to leave this country as soon as I'm able.

  13. Re:American cretins can't even write properly... by Anonymous+Cow+Ward · · Score: 1

    It's fairly clear that the author was referring to MPs who voted for it. They are the ones who fear not enough has been done to safeguard individuals' privacy.

    --
    Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.
  14. Re:Privacy is for LUDDITES. by mrclevesque · · Score: 1

    "The best option now is to spread that loss all around"

    In Canada, politicians (national, provincial, and municipal) have been saying they'll be more transparent for years but so far they've actually made it harder to access information.