UK's planned Espionage Act will crack down on Snowden-style Brit whistleblowers, suspected backdoored gear (cough, Huawei)

UK Home Secretary Sajid Javid has announced an Espionage Bill, charging ahead with new laws intended to criminalise any British copycats of Edward Snowden – and allowing a future crackdown on Huawei. The bill, said Javid, "will bring together new and modernised powers, giving our security services the legal authority they need …

[phuzz]

"Brexit gets rid of the ECJ"

It doesn't, and removing the UK from it would be about as easy from within the EU as without.

[Anonymous Coward]

people who "betray" Britain

hello, democracy?

...

is that a knock on my digital door for voicing "extremist views", are we not there yet?

...

not there yet. But close, getting closer. You can't go to the countries they consider extremist, you can't download, view, let alone "share" material they consider extremist, you can't voice your views they consider extremist, (and, horror, horror, you can't even wank in private, cause extremist). And certainly, no whistle-blowing, because TRAITORS! TRAITORS! TRAITORS!

[Voidstorm]

Re: people who "betray" Britain

The true problem with this sort of "fudgislation" [that word reasonable and its ilk, etc] is the uses to which it may be put not simply by the encumbents [who are bad enough] but by an unanticipated future regime.

After all, the people only get input about who forms the government ONCE per five years, these days.

And, of course, talking about impeaching a legitimate government could be construed as ... yes, you guessed it... treason, which is defined as "whatever we say it is".

This sort of broadbrush lawmakiing is the worst kind, even if you trust the idiots that passed it in the first place...

[smudge]

An interesting test...

... would be how much of the proposed Bill would be legal if the UK remained a member of the EU. Call me cynical, but I'd bet that some of it wouldn't be.

I am fearful for the future.

[Roland6]

Re: An interesting test...

> how much of the proposed Bill would be legal if the UK remained a member of the EU.

Probably just the title page...

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: An interesting test...

Smudge, you should be more worried about how this falls in with the way that the European Union treats anyone daring to question them - it's hard to have proper negotiations when one party spends three quarters of the time allowed refusing to talk at all, and the other quarter sitting at the table with the fingers in their ears chanting "don't care what you say, we're gonna destroy you".

Don't forget that, even though 52% of the country voted Leave, our elected "representatives" seem to be able to ignore inconvenient votes when it suits them.

[Doctor Syntax]

Re: An interesting test...

Don't forget that, even though only 52% of the country voted Leave, our elected "representatives" seem to be able to ignore inconvenient votes claim it's the whole country when it suits them

They also keep telling us that they "promised" Brexit when about half of us don't consider it a promise but a threat.

[Norman Nescio]

Re: An interesting test...

It was, in fact, 51.89%¹ of the eligible electorate² who expressed a preference; or a full 37.44%³ of those eligible to vote. Not 52% of the country. In pure population terms, it was about 26.54%⁴, but some people were too young to vote in the referendum as they were under 18, and others ineligible because they were foreigners such as those with permanent leave to remain or EU nationals taking advantage of freedom of movement rules within the EU; and still more ineligible by virtue of the fact they were British, but had been absent (non-resident) from the UK for more than 15 years - possibly taking advantage of freedom of movement rules letting them live in another EU country⁵. The eligibility rules were complicated e.g. Irish citizens resident in the UK could vote, as could citizens of Malta and Cyprus, as those two countries are members of the Commonwealth, but other EU nationals could not.

(1) 17,410,742 - according to Wikipedia

(2) 46,500,001 - according to Wikipedia

(3) 17,410,742 x 100 / 46,500,001 = 37.44%

(4) The mid-year UK Population in 2016 according to the ONS was roughly 65.6 million (Time-series tabular form available here). 17,410,742 x 100 / 65,600,000 = 26.54%

(5)Wikipedia: Eligibility to Vote and Fullfact.org: Who can vote in the EU referendum?

[Voidstorm]

Re: An interesting test...

Or, to put docs data another way :

38% of the electorate voted "Leave"

36% of the electorate voted "Remain"

28% of the electorate voted "Fucked if I know"

Is it truly a suprise to anyone that a consensus can't be reached, either in public or in parliament?

The tories ran with the part of the vote that suited their agenda.

To call it a majority when 64% of the electorate DID NOT CHOOSE that action is, frankly, offensive.

and the decision to run with a non-binding vote from less than half the population is continuing to bite us all in the ass...

[Dan 55]

One more step down the road we go

Step by stupid fucking step.

But it can't happen here...

[Chris G]

Weasel

I wouldn't trust this man as far as I could throw him.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Weasel

Now that's a test I'd pay to see, especially if it were conducted in an exciting arena of geography, such as having cliff edges nearby.

[Christoph]

Re: Weasel

A vertical cliff face. And a Trebuchet.

[stiine]

Re: Weasel

Or a quarry. According to Dr. Who, you Brit's have loads of them.

[martinusher]

So we're OK with actual backdoored gear?

(cough, Cisco?)

[John Smith 19]

"would be aimed at people who "betray" Britain, whether at home or abroad."

Let's start with Dominic Cummins shall we?

I'd say his feeding of targeted lies to the gullible banjos that went out to vote Leave was a betrayal of democracy in the UK.

Otherwise, just another loyal sock puppet following the script of his data fetishist masters.

The price of freedom is eternal vigilance against the UK Designated Centre for Evil (AKA The Home Office).

[Nick Kew]

Re: "would be aimed at people who "betray" Britain, whether at home or abroad."

Anyone can bet against the UK. George Soros famously made gazillions doing it in 1992.

But what if your hedge fund bets against UK while you are a member of parliament and pulling the prime minister's strings? Insider trading against the UK sounds to me like treason.

[Rich 11]

Re: "would be aimed at people who "betray" Britain, whether at home or abroad."

Are you by any chance thinking of our good friend Jacob?

[Anonymous Coward]

Time for a D notice

[Anonymous Coward]

I believe it's done as a rap lyric these days.

Time 4 Da Notice!

[Muscleguy]

I wonder what the position of things like being an activist for Scottish Independence will be like under it. Be interesting to see its provisions under Scots law since Sedition was repealed in Scotland by the Scottish parliament in advance of IndyRef1, just in case. In times past we would have been prosecuted for it.

I'm also a member of Scottish CND which wants the Trident missile system stopped, or at least removed from Scotland and the Navy doesn't think it has anywhere else to put it (it conducted a scoping study in case we voted Yes in 2014 which concluded that). Again, sedition in former times.

Hi, boys and girls at GCSB, having a good evening are you? Greetings from deep in the Yes City. Saor Alba.

[Anonymous Coward]

re. Scottish Independence

that would be, let me see... uhm... yes, I've got it, there: "undermining the integrity of the State, its international security and nuclear deterrent capability". Sounds like high treason allright, wouldn't you say, old chap? And they even dare try to pretend it's within some "democratic processes"!. How pathetic! I always said we should have been fair, but FIRM with these locals up north. Low fly a couple of tornados over their "parliament" or send a punitive expedition up there...

[Teiwaz]

allowing a future crackdown on Huawei

I'm sure it has the Chinese shaking in their boots.

Another step toward 'The Bed Sitting Room'

[Anonymous Coward]

GOd i hate what this country has become under the tories it's a tragedy

[David M]

Not just the Tories. David Blunkett and Jacqui Smith were nearly as bad, from what I remember.

[Martin-73]

Simple fact

Often said, often dismissed as overly simplistic, but it doesn't make it any less true: This shower of bastards work for US, not the other way round. Screw them and their ridiculous policies.

Mine's the one with the strawberry milkshake in the pocket

[Kane]

Re: Simple fact

"Mine's the one with the strawberry milkshake in the pocket"

Banana and Salted Caramel, I think you'll find.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Simple fact

This shower of bastards work for the US

FTFY

[Anonymous Coward]

Who really rules the World?

‘An offence is only committed if the defendant “knew or had reasonable grounds to believe his or her conduct was capable of benefitting a foreign power and intended or was reckless as to whether his or her conduct would prejudice the safety or interests of the state”’

The F^H^Hk you say, what I want to know is why you people aren't in jail? So now, we can all drop the pretense we don't live in a police state. Oh, never mind look over here “Celebrity F^H^Hk Island” is on :]

[streaky]

Backdoors..

Uhm..

suspected backdoored gear (cough, Huawei)

Except Huawei isn't suspected of being backdoored by the UK intelligence agencies who are a) quite good at this and b) have been all the way up one leg and all the way down the other.

If we're going to do this can we at least hold all the companies who manufacture networking gear to the same standard?

[Chozo]

Are there any countries that accept UK citizens seeking asylum ?

[rg287]

Are there any countries that accept UK citizens seeking asylum ?

I believe the Islamic State welcomes volunteers...?

[Anonymous Coward]

SORRY! Visits to Islamic State are NOT ALLOWED (and, surely, punishable upon return by refusing to let you back in. If you do return in one, animated piece).

[Swarthy]

Lucky You

You still have most of Europe you can bugger off to, and all of the Commonwealth countries. Us poor USAians are pretty well stuck with our shower, who are doing the same things; and our "government" has shat on the rest of the world from such a great height that us citizens are all tarred (well, it is a dark, tar-like substance) with the same brush, and no-one wants us.

Or is that just another lie perpetuated by our so-called leaders, to keep the sheep in line?

[MrTuK]

1984 !

Jokes aside people, this is so scary and it make me angry cos if the politicians won't deliver BREXIT as was mandated by the referendum by 51% of the vote then we are going down a very bad direction because the politicians really don't believe that they work for us and that if they create new laws then we will not be able to fight them when we eventually get back our backbone because our crimes will not be trying to make the country a free thinking state again but called Treason !

[Rich 11]

Re: 1984 !

BREXIT as was mandated by the referendum

Exactly which form of Brexit did the referendum mandate? No single one. And right now you've got exactly what you voted for.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: 1984 !

Rich 11, the form of "get out of the European Union". Just because people like you want to find anything to overturn the result does not mean the vote was any less valid.

There was supposed to have been "boilerplate" documents in place that only required the name of the country wishing to leave and the date of departure, plus the selection of the relevant options for percentage tariffs etc; the fact that these did not exist should prove to even the most thick-headed Remainer that the EU never had any intention of ever allowing anyone to leave.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: 1984 !

>Rich 11, the form of "get out of the European Union".

@AC - remember the question started with the word "Should". If you have had anything to do with requirements specification you will know that 'Should' is very different to 'Must' and 'Shall'.

As for overturning the result; currently Mogg and colleagues have been and are doing a very good job and will probably achieve this in June when Westminster gets another vote! :)

[Teiwaz]

Re: 1984 !

You are confusing a consensus leave movement with a single consciousness.

It's been following the normal pattern for Revolutions quite closely. Most revolutions are invariably followed by civil wars, where the victorious side in the first conflict splinter and turn on eachother while the losing side in the first conflict remains unified in their opposition to the revolution.

Leave was a unifying objective, but it's adherents all had differing notions of what that meant.

No plan, no strategy, just lies on the sides of buses.

[Rich 11]

Re: 1984 !

"Get out of the European Union, I don't care how" or "Get out of the European Union, I do care how and this is the agreement I'd like to see"? It does matter, you know. Like I said, you've got exactly what you voted for. Or perhaps you'd like to let us know your preference?

the fact that these did not exist should prove to even the most thick-headed Remainer that the EU never had any intention of ever allowing anyone to leave.

The fact that the Prime Minister could write a letter right now setting tomorrow as the date for the UK leaving the UK without any withdrawal agreement, but is only stopped from doing so by a law passed by the UK Parliament, should tell even the most thick-headed Brexiter that the EU doesn't have all the power the lying Brexiters claim it has.

[Doctor Syntax]

Re: 1984 !

There was supposed to have been "boilerplate" documents in place that only required the name of the country wishing to leave and the date of departure

Really? Could you point to something that says that, other than Leave bumph.

[streaky]

Re: 1984 !

Exactly which form of Brexit did the referendum mandate? No single one.

Leaving the EU means leaving the EU. Only one single option matches that description and I'll give you a hint: it doesn't involve a customs union, single market membership or freedom of movement or not being able to - effectively or actually - negotiate trade deals.

What governments do once we've left is up to them (though I have some ideas) - but the mandate of leaving the EU is so clear even remainers managed to figure it out.

First principles. The mandate is judged on what voters were told in the referendum process. It was clear what leaving meant. Trying to retcon it after the fact doesn't change the facts, this stuff is easy to test.

[Anonymous Coward]

WE have left.

We took back control of our borders, look there is water surrounding our island nation.

We took back control of our money, we now use the pound and not the euro.

We took back control of our laws, passing acts in our very own houses of parliament.

We took back sovereignty allowing our judges to decide on cases in our own courts.

We have left.

Oh, no we could do that already, you total cockwomble.

[Rich 11]

Re: 1984 !

The mandate is judged on what voters were told in the referendum process. It was clear what leaving meant.

Daniel Hannan said it wouldn't mean leaving the single market.

Michael Gove said it would mean leaving the single market, but he still wanted access to it. He also claimed that every country in Europe except for Belarus was part of a free trade zone, and claimed that leaving the UK wouldn't mean we left this zone. He eventually accepted that the zone he had described didn't exist and he was confusing access to the single market with the customs union, including the partial customs union agreed with Turkey.

Arron Banks favoured the Norway option, which meant staying in the customs union.

Nigel Farage said it would mean leaving both the single market and the customs union.

Unfortunately I've forgotten exactly what Boris Johnson and David Davies said. My brain had given up by then.

Please note that only one of the above is achievable under a No Deal Brexit, and clearly not all of the high-profile campaigners were in favour of it in the run-up to the referendum. Some still aren't.

this stuff is easy to test

Glad I could help you test it.

[John Smith 19]

"The mandate is judged on what voters were told in the referendum process"

A massive pack of lies by the Leave campaign.

I've looked at some of the ads they spewed out to the 3 million undecideds whose details their sub-contractors had stolen "acquired" from Facebook and they have (literally) b**ger all to do with things the EU actually controls.

Nothing.

Not a thing.

A billion ads is about 16 for every man, woman and child in the UK.

The tactics of Joseph Goebbels are alive and well in the 21st century. Yeay for that.

This is the true price of failing to teach basic critical thinking skills (or bu***hit detection) in UK schools over decades of failure.

[Kane]

Re: 1984 !

Please, please, please invest in some commas. Here, you can have some of mine:

,,,,,,,

[Doctor Syntax]

Re: 1984 !

Can you make a reasoned argument (not an unpunctuated stream of consciousness) to explain why an advisory referendum should be considered a mandate.

The present mess is a first rate example of why a non-binding referendum - or any referendum that doesn't produce a supermajority - should be avoided as a means of making constitutional change.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: 1984 !

Doctor Syntax, the number of Remoaners who would be more than happy to accept even a single vote win if the result had been Remain gives the lie to the excuse that it was "too close".

Besides, you might have noticed that "Remain" didn't get *any* sort of majority so following your own argument, that option should be removed and we should leave. T'is sport indeed to see the engineer hoist on his own petard!

[Doctor Syntax]

Re: 1984 !

There were various options available in the wake of a slight majority in an advisory vote. A sensible one as for any major undertaking, would have been to undertake a feasibility study and/or an impact assessment. An impact assessment might have looked (amongst other things) at what would be the likely impact on, say, the order book of Scunthorpe steel plant and the knock on effect on the viability of the plant and the direct and indirect consequences for employment. At that point people could have been asked to vote in a binding referendum once they knew whether or not their vote might cost them their job.

So what happened? Refusing to acknowledge that the country was deeply divided on the matter it was eyes closed and charge. Invoke Article 50 without any significant planning at all. Now we're in a hole but never mind, keep digging.

[Dan 55]

Re: 1984 !

Brexit as mandated by the referendum was confused and unclear (52-48%), so be happy because that's what you've got.