Slashdot Mirror


Britain Has Passed the 'Most Extreme Surveillance Law Ever Passed in a Democracy' (zdnet.com)

Zack Whittaker, reporting for ZDNet: The UK has just passed a massive expansion in surveillance powers, which critics have called "terrifying" and "dangerous." The new law, dubbed the "snoopers' charter," was introduced by then-home secretary Theresa May in 2012, and took two attempts to get passed into law following breakdowns in the previous coalition government. Four years and a general election later -- May is now prime minister -- the bill was finalized and passed on Wednesday by both parliamentary houses. Civil liberties groups have long criticized the bill, with some arguing that the law will let the UK government "document everything we do online." It's no wonder, because it basically does. The law will force internet providers to record every internet customer's top-level web history in real-time for up to a year, which can be accessed by numerous government departments; force companies to decrypt data on demand -- though the government has never been that clear on exactly how it forces foreign firms to do that that; and even disclose any new security features in products before they launch. Not only that, the law also gives the intelligence agencies the power to hack into computers and devices of citizens (known as equipment interference), although some protected professions -- such as journalists and medical staff -- are layered with marginally better protections. In other words, it's the "most extreme surveillance law ever passed in a democracy," according to Jim Killock, director of the Open Rights Group.

5 of 359 comments (clear)

  1. Remind them that one day, their opposition can win by Lord+Kano · · Score: 5, Insightful

    During the Bush administration, I used to remind people of the dangers of giving too much power to the executive branch by reminding them that one day, another "Clinton" will have control.

    During the Obama administration, I reminded people that one day, another "Bush" will have control.

    Eventually, I'll remind people that another "Obama" or "Trump" will have control.

    Never give anyone, even your allies, the kind of power you would fear in the hands of your enemies.

    LK

    --
    "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
  2. Re:Truly despicable by Nidi62 · · Score: 5, Insightful
    So.....in order to keep others from making your country into a totalitarian state ruled by fear, you make your country a totalitarian state ruled by fear. Just wanted to make sure I understood you correctly.

    Of course, the irony seems to be lost on you that most of the immigrants are coming from places that were under British protection of not outright British control at one time or another in the last 100 years. Karma can be a real bitch, huh?

    --
    The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
  3. Re:Truly despicable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Once the real British regain control of their borders and kick out the terrorists and others who daily engage in an active assault on British laws and culture, then they can afford to ease up on domestic spying.

    This is what delusion looks like on the internet.

  4. They're keeping it secret by Coisiche · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The news suppression must be in force.

    No mention of it on the BBC website, but that's frequently the case if the government want something suppressed, the BBC is not the impartial news service that some people outside the UK think it is.

    What's more annoying is that it has no mention of this on the bills before parliament site which shows the last action as Lords bouncing back to Commons.

    But even if it's not actually law yet, it's going to be soon. There are just formalities left.

  5. Re:Truly despicable by 91degrees · · Score: 5, Informative

    So there isn't a problem of mass bombings and violence?

    No. there isn't.

    And is this violence coming from a select group of people?

    I believe people with strong anti-muslim views tend to be disproportionately represented.

    The simplest solution is to say clearly that freedom of expression trumps blasphemy laws. People can say whatever they want about a religion - even if i's considered blasphemous by adherents of that religion.

    Yes. Fortunately blasphemy laws were abolished 8 years ago.

    And violence, and threat of violence are not acceptable with prison or deportation (if non-citizen) as punishments.

    I believe this is the case.