Slashdot Mirror
For The UK's 'Snoopers' Charter', Politicians Voted Themselves An Exemption (independent.co.uk)
The "Snoopers' Charter" passed in the U.K. greatly expands the government's surveillance power. But before they'd enact the new Investigatory Powers Act, Britain's elected officials first voted to make themselves exempt from it. Sort of. An anonymous reader writes:
While their internet browsing history will still be swept up, just like everyone else's, no one will ever be able to access it without specific approval from the Prime Minister. And according to The Independent, "That rule applies not only to members of the Westminster parliament but also politicians in the devolved assembly and members of the European Parliament."
The article adds that the exemption was the very first amendment they approved for the legislation. And for a very long time, the only amendment.
The article adds that the exemption was the very first amendment they approved for the legislation. And for a very long time, the only amendment.
The UK masquerades as a democracy, and has for a long time. In reality it's the most hilariously over the top nanny state, The politicians there seem to make up laws for the sake of making up laws. I often wonder if this is just to give the illusion that a politician is doing something because fixing real problems is too hard.
BeauHD. Worst editor since kdawson.
Guy Fawkes masks are going off the shelves in record paces.
So how will the request filter know who is and is not an MP? It won't, so their details will still be leaked all over the place from the food standards agency to the ambulance service, those hotbeds of fighting serious crime and terrorism.
The GCHQ will always be able to snoop on said people; any thoughts to the contrary is naive.
If politicians got paid by productivity alone, they'd be on welfare.
Also furthering growth of alternate obfuscation
merrily surrendering all your guns probably doesn't seem like a good idea anymore.
Spying on MPs is bad, unless of course you want politicians to be blackmailed by spy agencies and entrenched political powers. Political figures tend to be exempt from most laws because otherwise you get interference with the government. This isn't the first law a politician's exempt from, and it's hardly the worst.
Now you just need to know what method is used to identify those exempt from the surveilance and copy that. What is it? A cookie or something?
The UK masquerades as a democracy, and has for a long time. In reality it's the most hilariously over the top nanny state, The politicians there seem to make up laws for the sake of making up laws. I often wonder if this is just to give the illusion that a politician is doing something because fixing real problems is too hard.
Stop wondering ... it is.
Remember, on the Animal Farm, some animals are more equal than others.
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
The only way to win is to stop the game from playing
The Prime Minister can still allow access to the browsing history of his political opponents, should there be a need for it.
I can see the reason. After all, there are a number of very good reasons why you don't want to hand out possibly blackmail-enabling information about your politicians.
The shortsightedness regarding this amendment is that the previously mentioned reason can be extended to EVERY FUCKING PERSON ON THE PLANET.
Guy Fawkes day (a la V for Vendetta, not the catholic stuff) is fast approaching in Britain.
Brexit the fucking UK off the inetrnet, they are becoming a security threat. Let them boil in their own nanny state shitbowl.
Brits, why did you let them do this? You're letting them take your freedom and letting them grant themselves powers that will keep you out of the loop and perpetuate their own power, preventing you from being able to do anything about it in the future. And what can you do to stop this from snowballing? Absolutely nothing now.
Basically everyone in here is like "well we're fine we can circumvent this with encryption" yeah for now, but why bother implementing laws you have to circumvent? Just get off your asses and get rid of the root of the problem. Oh wait you can't do anything about it.
You know a country that isn't?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
You know a country that isn't?
Probably Switzerland.
Well, at least it still is a representative democracy in theory. Look at the US, the "demos" (i.e. the population or at least its majority) doesn't get to pick the leader, so it is not a "democracy" under most reasonable definitions.
It's often just laziness. Sexting children is a hard problem to solve, requiring more than 2 minutes of thought... So screw it, pass the problem on to the social media companies. Just say they can fix it, people will assume you know what you are talking about and no one can accuse you of not doing anything.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
The UK masquerades as a democracy, and has for a long time. In reality it's the most hilariously over the top nanny state
Democracies and nanny states are not mutually exclusive. In fact, they are strongly correlated. Lots of voters want the government to be their mommy.
The problem with the UK is that they lack the checks-and-balances that many other democracies have. The lower house has nearly all the power, and the PM has a majority coalition that can ram through stupid laws very quickly.
No the USA is and was designed to be a republic.
You've managed to one-up the U.S. so far as destroying the civil rights (and perhaps the human rights) of your citizenry. I feel sorrow and pity for people who have to live in the increasingly Orwelliean nightmare that the UK is becoming. What's next for you, UK? Are you going to ally yourself philosophically with the communist Chinese government? You may as well try pulling that one off too, you're not that far from it already. No, wait, next they'll try to 're-unify' the British Isles again -- by force, for the 'safety and security of the people' I'm sure. Think of the children!
What a gods-be-damned dark world this is becoming. Fucking humans and their fucking bullshit.
I don't think this achieves what the people proposing the amendment intend. They're being stupid.
Wikileaks will leak their browsing history once it will be captured as mandated by law.
I'm looking forward to perusing it.
See subject: Tons of vehicles in the USA are immune to local law enforcement (e.g. speeding tickets) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZKeaw7HPG04
* That's the documentary by a GREAT MAN (Aaron Russo) called "America: Freedom to Fascism" - IF YOU HAVEN'T SEEN IT? By all means, DO...
(It has what I am talking about in it & MUCH more...)
APK
P.S.=> Don't think that shit wasn't going on here OR the "1% 'powers that be'" (after Mr. Trump gets thru w/ them they'll be 'the wannabe powers that were' imo) didn't want to make it so like the FOOLS in the UK are allowing (take away folks guns for instance? You have easily herded sheep w/ NO POWER to resist whatsoever) - whichy they TRIED here too no less in the US... apk
Wouldn't it be in the best interest of spies to get UK MPs to spy and now no one will be watching them.
Teens sexting each other is not a problem to be solved. Adults sexting minors is about as solved as it's going to get, going down the legal system road. If you want to lessen the problem, we're going to have to explore other avenues besides making it illegaler.
And not the crypto kind, they want to not only spy on my communication but my childrens too, but thats to be expected, parliament and the schools they went to are full of nonces and pedos so exempting themselves is a obvious move.
What the actual fuck is wrong with you "Republic" clowns ?
The US is supposed to be a democracy.
A republic is one form of government. A democratic vote is how its selected.
Fuck.
Well, at least it still is a representative democracy in theory. Look at the US, the "demos" (i.e. the population or at least its majority) doesn't get to pick the leader, so it is not a "democracy" under most reasonable definitions.
In Great Britain, the Prime Minister is not directly elected either.
Given their history of child sex ring abuse scandals one could argue that they needed to pass the exemption. That they can't see how this paints them speaks to the quality of our representation.
truly shameful.
To quote the ministerial adviser from a well-known British poltical satire:
"Something must be done. This is something. Therefore, this must be done."
Why all the upset,all they have done is to put down on paper exactly what the UK government and others have been doing for decades.
They never stuck to the old rules either,the spooks will ignore these as well.
I remember when the police etc needed the Secretary of state's signitature for a simple phone bug,one year,official figures said he had signed less than 100 orders to do so,meanwhile the met/tvp live forces reckoned they had bugged 400+ people's phones,very few folk noticed then,they will not notice the cockups or flouting of the new legislation..
I find it funny Americans jumping up and down telling Brits we fucked up when it was the tanks who started it all decades ago,and still deny half of what they do everyday..
While their internet browsing history will still be swept up, just like everyone else's, no one will ever be able to access it without specific approval from the Prime Minister.
If they really think they can legislate themselves an exemption, they're complete and utter idiots, especially if the exemption doesn't even forbid the data collection in the first place. Of course there will be people who can access it without approval, and without anyone noticing too.
I think people have just stopped learning about governance, civics, history, and social sciences in school.
their history is still in the database like everyone else's and we will get to see it all when the database gets hacked, in fact this could be a useful test to show it has been hacked.
Laws should apply to everyone equally or they aren't laws at all. Wasn't that one of the points of Orwell's "Animal Farm".
Does the UK not have terms and conditions saying the ISPs can do whatever they want with data they generate. So while the police my require a warrant to force the ISPs to hand over the data, now that they're required to collect everything won't the ISP simply sell it to the police instead? That's what happens here in the States. Why bother with a warrant when the company is willing to sell you the data.
And I take it the politicians aren't in their parliament positions for life. Once they're out the data is fair game anyway. I don't think they thought this though. Maybe for once it's good politicians suck at their job?
It perfectly achieves the goal of those who want the spying. Telling the ministers they are "exempt" from the spying is cheaper than bribing them to pass this law.
the fifth of November of gunpowder treason and plot. I know of no reason why the gun powder treason should ever be forgot.â
What the actual fuck is wrong with you "Republic" clowns ?
The US is supposed to be a democracy.
A republic is one form of government. A democratic vote is how its selected.
Fuck.
No, the USA is a plutocracy.
US, Canada, India, UK... I guess this golden era of democracy is over. Here comes another round of dictatorships, population control and whatnot. Quite the dark heritage we're leaving for future generations.
Greendland
Hereditary titles and privileges to govern, landownership in the hands of a few, mmmm... time for a republic?
It's interesting (in a scary way) to compare the plight of the US and UK.
The UK has no constitution to speak of. It has a Human Rights Act, which acts as a mere slap on the wrist -- and the current Pry Minister wants to scrap it. However, we don't think she's a tyrant, just an authoritarian with bad taste in advisors.
The US has a constitution, including embedded rights. Whether he is or not, Trump sounded like a tyrant when campaigning. The US constitution is dependent on both citizens willing to challenge the govt and the Supreme Court's willingness to uphold it. Whilst constitutional protection for privacy is soft, protection for things like due process is strong.
I've said for about 8 years that while the US is quite likely to become a bit fascist towards eg immigrants, it's less likely in the UK. However, the UK is at much more risk of becoming a full blown police state.
See subject, look @ the results of a lawyer running things (not good, we don't need another - we need a businessman as the business of the USA is in deep shit due to lawyers running things (with paid off cronies & sycophants of the IMF + those like SOROS)).
Like what I posted above? FUNNY how a "RULE OF LAW" NATION EXEMPTS "THE IN CROWD" OF CRONIES & SYCOPHANTS eh? Rule of LAW?? Bullshit - it doesn't apply equally to all (Hillary Benghazi & email server etc. notwithstanding, Clapper too etc.)
* I'm pro USA...
(Trump doesn't have Saudi Arabian Wahhabi muslim ties OR Soros silver strings like Hillary did too - all of the above? Good enough for me...)
APK
P.S.=> Wake up - you & "your kind" (those on the welfare tit or that of gov't. backed industry OR stupid students bribed by "student debt forgiveness") are just their CHUMPS + you are EASY to see thru...
So much so, your favorite color HAS to be 'transparent', lol!
So before you label me? Like Mr. Trump (who is NOT taking presidential pay OR his 1st 100 days off, both a GREAT CREDIT TO THAT MAN already)? I am NOT for results that are poor from the present 'establishment' (IMF puppets)... apk
The US is supposed to be a democracy.
A republic is one form of government. A democratic vote is how its selected.
The united states is (and is "supposed to be") a constitutional republic -- i.e. it's law established through the constitution that governs the people -- not the arbitrary whim of the majority.
And maybe Antarctica...
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
The political parties are more vulnerable to the will of the voters. The voters have the power to choose minority parties, unlike the 'rigged' behaviour in the USA. That is why the PM has to form a coalition, which itself is meant to ensure that his policies avoid extremism. If the coalition partners are writing 'blank cheques' for the PM's policies, they have failed in their duty to the voters. Even the US system can't avoid that corruption.
What are you talking about? The leader of UK is even less democratically selected than the leader of the US! The Parliament chooses a Prime Minister. It would be as if the President were just chosen by Congress...
Don't they realise this is completely innefective? That 'exemption' UK politicians think they have can simply be bypassed by the GCHQ outsourcing the surveillance analysis to any of the other 'Five eyes' nations. I guess UK politicians are just fucking stupid.
Well, Antarctica is a continent, not a country so............
You are correct, they cannot exclude a cell phone because it belongs to a politician. But the can prempt evidence from making it into court.
No it's not. The US is _supposed_ to be a REPUBLIC. It was specifically designed NOT to be a democracy. Does the Electoral College and the Senate not make this crystal clear?
The framers worried about the "Tyranny of the Majority" as much as they worried about dictators and tyrants.
In a democracy you wouldn't have requirements of "3/4 of the states to pass amendments" or other such high levels. You'd only need 50.1%. I'd also like to point out that in the beginning, you didn't get to vote unless you owned land. In fact it wasn't until 1856 that white men without land could vote in every state.
Your attempt to reclassify this country as a democracy shows you have very little actual knowledge of how it works.
Coalition governments are quite rare in the UK, thanks to our first-past-the-post electoral system. We had one from 2010 to 2015, but the one before that was during the Second World War.
Just another wannabe fantasy novelist...
and as always, England Prevails!
yes. obviously. that such an exemption only increases the excuses for data collection "we need to know who people are in order not to spy on them!" It's just unbelievable that they are that stupid. It's a useless thing to ask... If they are going to ask for something it should be something about greater transparency, more oversight of the collection, watching the watchers is the only thing that might be helpful, if you are going to have watchers.
Running neck and neck with the US - they are always talking about their special partnership, right? What the UK needs now is a buffoon as PM, to match Trump. They have the perfect candidate in Boris Johnson.
Data is stil collected. This means at some time, an insider or a hacker will leak it.
And since it is tagged "for use after prime minister approval only", it will be easy to leak only that data
Words change their meaning over time. The meaning of democracy has expanded into people voting, usually for representatives but possibly for electors and such and even referendums. Whether some things take a super-majority to pass doesn't take away that the people voted, even if it is indirectly voting for their local government who then votes to amend the Constitution. Limiting who can vote doesn't mean it is not a democracy either, very few democracies allow 16 yr olds to vote.
It is true that your framers set things up so a minority of people can tyrannize the majority (50.1% of voters in the least populous States vote in State governments who want to amend the Constitution taking away the rights of people in the most populous States where 99% voted for State governments against the amendment, or worse if the vote was split in the small States between more parties) but it's still a form of democracy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
Hey moron, read wikipedia.
You are dead wrong: "The United States of America and Republic of Iceland are examples of constitutional republics."
You seem to think you know what you are talking about, when you don't have the first fucking clue.
People like you are precisely why corruption thrives unchecked in our government. You are too goddamn stupid to grasp how any of it works, let alone hold your leaders accountable. And you fucking vote.
You fucking vote.
They want the means to apply force against you, without giving you the means of applying it against them. It is that simple.
This is quite clever of the established ruling elite. Their data is exempt and will not be collected or retained. But people new to politics running against them are not covered by this until they win.
So anyone feeling challenged by a new player will now have an additional valuable tool in keeping their job.
That's about the only country that first trains its citizens, then sends them home with the whole gear, rifle included. They also have direct democracy and a high standard of living so maybe there's something to be learned: do not abuse your citizens, treat them as responsible adults so they won't jihad you. And arm them well so they can jihad effectively.
This has always been the case and will always be. They're merely dealing with loopholes.
Yup. An ex PM is implicated. It goes right to the top.
sag
Yes, I'm sure the meaning of the word 'democracy' must have changed. It's not like it's from the ancient Greek words 'demo'/'demos' (the people) and 'cracy'/'kratia' (rulership, power).
Exactly. Is there extra funding for ISPs to add extra security for politician's data? If not, then it might not be easy to get with a search warrant, but you can bet that some of it will be leaked. Do MPs have some special sign-on for all Internet access? If not, then you can bet that some hotspot or mobile provider won't know that they're MPs and so will hand over the data when someone goes fishing for data on a particular IP address. Do MPs have their own Internet accounts that they don't share with their family? If not, then you can bet that someone will request the data on their husbands or wives and get the results indirectly.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
They don't teach you that in Brawndo appreciation class.
Science advances one funeral at a time- Max Planck
Considering what they generally produce, that would be preferable.
I have a modest proposal. Every time a politician submits a bill for consideration, he/she/it should have extracted precisely one cubic inch of flesh from his/her/whatever's own body. Or, in UK, 2.54 cm-cubed, as you prefer. That might make them more deliberative.
And Shylock, don't hold back on account of blood.
Just wait until someone cracks the data store and some interesting surveillance information is made public. Repeal the law now old chaps?
Science advances one funeral at a time- Max Planck
More important question. Does the kangaroo care?
Science advances one funeral at a time- Max Planck
We have always been at war with East Asia.
Science advances one funeral at a time- Max Planck
Your attempt to reclassify democracy as "everyone can vote" shows you have very little knowledge of how it works.
Go back and check how ancient Athens used to do it. They practically invented "demo" (people) "cracy" (rule).
Indeed. In fact at one point there was a possibility that despite being democratically chosen, that Donald Trump could have been replaced by the power brokers at the Republican National Convention in favor of someone that they felt more comfortable with.
Because it, too is a republican construct. Not because it's the "Republican" party, but because in the USA, when you vote republic-style, you're not really voting for the candidate, you're voting for the representative. And hoping that the representative, once elected, then votes for your candidate.
Seriously, what's the fucking hold up? It doesn't get any more clear cut than this. What a bunch of ball less losers.
http://i.cubeupload.com/T6cyLu.png
They should have considered the impact it would have on Orwell before passing such laws. His stories and brand become less worth and seemingly normal for every law they pass. That's not very nice when you have made a huge effort to be known as the worlds most paranoid nutjob.
Politicians vote themselves an exemption.
If that isn't an indication that the current government needs to be 100% completely removed and replaced, I don't know what is.