back to article Home Sec: Let us have Snoop Charter or PEOPLE WILL DIE

Home Secretary Theresa May today claimed in The Sun that her draft law to massively ramp up online surveillance of Brits will "save lives". The Tory minister managed to squeeze in a bit of last-minute lobbying ahead of the publication of a report by peers and MPs scrutinising her controversial communications data bill. In an …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.
  1. Avatar of They
    FAIL

    Wow

    She really is full of shit

    1. Vimes

      Re: Wow

      Where being 'full of shit' is concerned:

      http://www.openrightsgroup.org/blog/2012/evidence-for-the-cdb

      From the blog entry:

      We are very interested to see if the Committee took a look at the submission by Caspar Bowden on page 102 of the written evidence highlighting the testimony given by Peter Davies (Chief Executive of the Child Exploitation and Online Protection centre), in support of the draft Bill. Mr Davies gave an example of a murder case in Lincolnshire in which increased data retention could have helped.

      A check on the internet for the details of the case show a rather different picture. Rather than featuring a communication data problem, the case was one in which the police failed to properly investigate the murder. Worse, it later emerged that a corrupt police officer had been feeding police intelligence about the victims — to the murderer.

      Not perhaps the best example to give as the Home Office ask us to trust the police with huge amounts of new intelligence gathering.

      1. Vimes

        Re: Wow

        In addition - thanks to the lack of editing for us mere mortals - another name comes to mind: Daniel Morgan.

        http://www.channel4.com/news/pi-murdered-for-plan-to-expose-police-corruption

        The police are the last people that should be trusted with this sort of power.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Wow

      I would go further.

      However, I suspect that my comment would be censored.

  2. h3

    Bitch

    Bitch

    1. Marvin O'Gravel Balloon Face

      Re: Bitch

      Unpleasant and misogynistic comments add nothing to the debate.

      1. Atonnis
        Go

        Re: Bitch

        But still get upvoted because some people agree.

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Bitch

        Bitch = Female Dog

        Don't insult female dogs by comparing those to her...

      3. streaky
        Facepalm

        Re: Bitch

        "Unpleasant and misogynistic comments add nothing to the debate"

        Totally disagree, they seem to raise the quality of it to be honest. It's a debate that *started* in the gutter. As the legendary Yazz once said - "the only way is up".

    2. Silverburn
      Mushroom

      Re: Mysogny

      What happens when a girl calls her a bitch...?

      <-- does this happen?

      1. Sir Runcible Spoon

        Re: Mysogny

        What happens when a girl calls her a bitch...?

        <-- does this happen?

        Well, my wife (who's appearance and general demeanor would usually make people believe butter wouldn't melt in her mouth) would just call her a "snooty old c**t."

        I'd have to agree.

  3. jai

    I read her comments, but all I hear and see in my mind is the sketches from MonkeyDust where the mob are stalking through the streets chanting "kill the peadophile!!"

    And then I get distracted humming the Ivan Dobsky theme to myself and looking for a space hopper....

    1. This post has been deleted by its author

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        ""That says Speedo. My hand was covering the 's'!"

        "There's no smoke without fire!"

        Males wearing Speedos seems to be taken as a sign of deviancy these days in the UK - and probably the USA too. High-board divers seem to attract much prurient interest from the general public.

        It is interesting to see UK/USA visitors' reactions on holiday in continental Europe - when swimming pools cite hygiene grounds to insist on brief trunks. A recent travelogue from a USA youth group visiting Spain was punctuated by off-camera embarrassed comments - about the locals in the street wearing shorts well above the knee.

        In the late 1950s England continental short shorts were a badge of sophistication - when compared to the traditional Baden-Powell below the knees ones. Before the advent of Lycra - the British thick woollen swimming trunks were in danger of producing hypothermia. At our Scout camp pool they were usually optional.

    2. streaky
      Terminator

      Re: Ivan Dobsky

      I only said I'd done it so they'd take my bollocks out the vice!

      By the powers invested in me by tabloid reading imbeciles I pronounce you guilty of paedophilia!

  4. MJI Silver badge
    Facepalm

    Waste of money

    System would be a waste of money and isn't she of the wrong party?

    Remember that a key part of conservatism is leaving us alone to get on with our lives, don't forget!

    1. Evan Essence

      Re: Waste of money

      Remember that a key part of conservatism is leaving us alone to get on with our lives

      That's only when they're in opposition, I think. Much like Labour who, now they're in opposition, are making much the same noises as the Tories did about Labour's plans for a Ministry of Snooping. Plus ça change...

    2. Raumkraut

      Re: Waste of money

      > System would be a waste of money

      Perhaps someone should ask her:

      "How many lives is it estimated that this £1.8bn project will save? How many lives do you think that £1.8bn would save if it were invested in NHS neo-natal care units instead?"

      1. John Smith 19 Gold badge
        Unhappy

        Re: Waste of money

        ""How many lives is it estimated that this £1.8bn project will save? "

        Lives. No. Money. Yes

        The claim is it will save £500m/year in the first 10 years, substantially more the £180m costs.

        However you can't ask them how they worked out the costs.

        And they won't say where these savings come from. Me suspicious? Damm right.

        1. teebie

          Re: Waste of money

          Live? No. Money? No. Jobs for ex-MPs? Yes

    3. John Smith 19 Gold badge
      Flame

      Re: Waste of money

      Home Secretary = sock puppet for civil servants.

      Different Home Sec. Different party. Different government.

      Same policy.

  5. Pete 2 Silver badge

    Creep

    > serious crime, terrorism and child sex offences

    All very laudable ... except we know from past experience of "anti-terrorism" laws that they get perverted, converted and subverted into general-purpose anti-anyone-we-don't-like laws. You can't pass a law to say "this will only be used against people we suspect of .... ", once a law is on the books, it becomes just another tool to be abused: like the chisel that gets used as a screwdriver - it wasn't designed for that, but that's what it gets used for if it's convenient.

    So the scope of laws creep out from the well-intentioned uses they were first written for and become just another weight hanging around the neck of our freedoms. Great idea in theory - terrible implementation in practice.

    1. Oliver Mayes

      Re: Creep

      Wasn't there a 'power' granted to local councils that allowed them to spy on people who they suspected of terrorist activity, only for them to immediately use it to monitor anyone suspected of anything (not cleaning up after their dog, applying to a school while not living in the catchment area, etc...)

      There's very little we can do about it though, the government long ago stopped caring what the public want or need.

      1. Evan Essence

        Re: Creep

        Wasn't there a 'power' granted to local councils that allowed them to spy on people who they suspected of terrorist activity, only for them to immediately use it to monitor anyone suspected of anything (not cleaning up after their dog, applying to a school while not living in the catchment area, etc...)

        Yup, it's RIPA you're thinking of. See also the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001, which the Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, used to freeze Icelandic assets during the financial meltdown in 2008.

    2. Tom 35

      Re: Creep

      The people who say they’re against this bill need to look victims of doggy poo, litter, and stuff they don't like in the eye and tell them why they’re not prepared to give the police the powers they need to control the public.

  6. Michael Hawkes
    Big Brother

    Thoughtcrime

    I'm not from the UK, but isn't increased government regulation and government intrusion supposed to be anathema to Conservative ideals?

    1. FartingHippo
      Holmes

      Re: Thoughtcrime

      Yes, but they seem to have caught the 'mummy knows best' mentality from the last lot.

      A few brave souls have stuck to their principles (David Davis) and have been labelled 'courageous' i.e. 'you're on your own, sunshine' by the party leaders.

      At least ID cards have stayed dead.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Thoughtcrime

        "At least ID cards have stayed dead."

        Only until the next election, when the chances are that the control freaks of the Labour party will have it back on the agenda.

        1. andy mcandy
          Coat

          Re: Thoughtcrime

          i already have an ID card. not one of the government types admittedly. but it does get me into such interesting places are government facilities and prisons*

          *and perhaps most importantly, allows me to leave!

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Thoughtcrime

            I never got why ID cards would cost so much or were such a big deal...

            A high percentage of the population BUY an id card willingly, called a driving license. the rest often own a passport....

            1. Charles 9 Silver badge

              Re: Thoughtcrime

              The big concern is One ID To Rule Them All: IOW, a Big Brother situation.

              If the same ID was required for all sorts of government activity, then people can be tracked by the use of that card: first by private enterprise, then by the government. It's an inevitable function creep. Americans fight the same fight. They would rather have the chaos of messed up elections than have One ID To Rule Them All.

            2. Avatar of They
              Thumb Up

              Re: Thoughtcrime

              That was the issue, we have a driving licence, we have access to a passport, an oyster card, a bus pass, student ID, national insurance number. So why another level, why ANOTHER card to hold all that information.

              BUT one that DIDn't replace all the others, that was the problem for most. And of course it held far too much information, did nothing that the other cards couldn't do etc etc etc.

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Thoughtcrime

        "id cards dead" unless you'an immigrant. the unemployed will be needing "identity assurance" shortly...

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Thoughtcrime

      "... isn't increased government regulation and government intrusion supposed to be anathema to Conservative ideals?"

      As previous Conservative governments have shown - they only apply their libertarian principles to the making of money by their unscrupulous cronies. When it comes to interfering in ordinary people's private lives then they are resolutely authoritarian as upholders of "morality". The left and right wings of the ZaNuLabour party are much the same.

  7. Circadian
    Mushroom

    Who watches...

    ...the corrupt scum making these laws?

    If she is absolutely devoted to this, then we should at least have a pilot to see if it is of any worth. I propose 24/7/365.25 (ish) monitoring of MPs and senior civil servants with full openness so that we may see how many "meetings with interested parties" go through on a nod and a wink.

    After (say) approximately 25% of our elected representatives are jailed, let the rest vote on whether this is a good idea.

    1. Pen-y-gors Silver badge

      Re: Who watches...

      When I made an FOI request for a list of websites visited by and recipients of e-mails from The Home Secretary (a public servant) it was turned down as it may be personal info as she might have been using the government network for private activities...

      1. Dr. Mouse

        Re: Who watches...

        "as she might have been using the government network for private activities"

        Surely, our elected officials would never be allowed to abuse government systems with personal use?

        1. Pen-y-gors Silver badge

          Re: Who watches...

          Apparently 'yes'.

          Below is the full text of the Review when I appealed against their refusal...

          <blockquote>

          The review was requested of the decision to exempt from disclosure, under section 40(2) (personal information) of the FOI Act, information about websites accessed by the Home Secretary between 14 and 28 April 2012. Mr Pen-y-gors does not consider the information to be personal data, on the ground that it relates to actions by an individual acting in a public rather than a private capacity.

          To determine whether the response was correct, it is necessary to consider first, whether the information requested is personal data and, secondly, whether it was correct to withhold it.

          The information requested relates to a living individual, who is identifiable from that information. The information therefore meets the definition of ‘personal data’ in section 1(1) of the Data Protection Act (DPA). The ‘public/private’ distinction relates to the question of whether personal information can be disclosed, rather than the question whether it constitutes personal data in the first place.

          The next consideration, whether it was correct to withhold the data, is primarily a question of whether it would be possible to disclose the information under the FOI Act without breaching any of the data protection principles. The most relevant principle in this context is the first principle, which says (among other things) that data shall be processed fairly and lawfully and shall not be processed unless one of the conditions in Schedule 2 to the DPA is met.

          As to whether disclosure would be fair, this depends to an extent on whether the Home Secretary would have a legitimate expectation that this information would not be disclosed. I consider that she does.

          Although it is argued that the information relates entirely to the Home Secretary’s public life (on the ground that any website accessed by the Home Secretary would be related to the work of the Home Office), in fact this is not necessarily so. The Home Office policy on the use of the internet allows staff to make reasonable use of the internet in the office for personal reasons, providing it does not interfere with the work of the Department or take priority over work responsibilities.

          I consider that the Home Secretary does have a legitimate expectation that the identity of any websites she may have accessed will not be disclosed and that disclosure would be unfair.

          Even if we were to conclude that disclosure would be fair, it would still be necessary to meet at least one of the conditions in Schedule 2 to the DPA. The conditions relevant to disclosure under the FOI Act are condition 1 and condition 6. There is no consent to disclosure, so condition 1 is not met. Condition 6 might be met if there was a legitimate interest by the public at large in the information, which was not outweighed by the legitimate interests of the Home Secretary. I consider that the legitimate interest of the public in

          disclosure of this information is limited, particularly given the theoretical possibility that some websites may have been accessed for personal use. In any event, such interest is outweighed by the prejudice which would be caused to the Home Secretary’s legitimate interests in the information not being disclosed.

          I conclude that disclosure of the information would breach the first data protection principle and that it is therefore exempt under section 40(2) of the FOI Act, as in the original response.

          </blockquote>

          1. The FunkeyGibbon
            FAIL

            Re: Who watches...

            Quis custodiet ipsos custodes indeed...

            "I consider that the Home Secretary does have a legitimate expectation that the identity of any websites she may have accessed will not be disclosed and that disclosure would be unfair."

            Really? That's interesting because I would consider it unfair for the Home Secretary to spy on me too. Actually she won't be doing it herself what will happen is that power will be given to the police. This would be the same police that is outsourcing much of it's back office staff to private companies. So within a very short time the government will be giving G4S the ability to spy on all of us. Just as well they are a competent, well run and not-at-all untrustworthy company, eh?

          2. Fink-Nottle

            Re: Who watches...

            > Although it is argued that the information relates entirely to the Home Secretary’s public life (on the ground that any website accessed by the Home Secretary would be related to the work of the Home Office), in fact this is not necessarily so.

            In that case, in the interests of transparency, senior officials should NOT be permitted to make use of publicly funded internet access for personal reasons. There could then be no doubt as to there being a legitimate public interest in the information and no impediment to it's release.

          3. John Brown (no body) Silver badge
            Flame

            Re: Who watches...

            "Below is the full text of the Review when I appealed against their refusal..."

            But, but, but, surely Mrs May is a strong proponent of the doctrine "Nothing to hide, nothing to fear" since she's been quoted stating that in not so many words on many occasions!

        2. John Smith 19 Gold badge
          Unhappy

          Re: Who watches...

          "Surely, our elected officials would never be allowed to abuse government systems with personal use?"

          But they must be given the benefit of the doubt.

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Who watches...

        It would be one hell of a coincidence if she (Ms May) subscribed privately to the same porn as that rented by a prior Home Secretary.

    2. Vic

      Re: Who watches...

      > I propose 24/7/365.25 (ish) monitoring of MPs and senior civil servants

      No way!

      By skewing the sample under observation like that, you'll end up skewing the results. We'll end up with "proof" that mass surveillance is essential because of all the crimes detected up by the pilot...

      Vic.

    3. MrEee

      Re: Who watches...

      After all, who can look a victim of government corruption and abuse of power in the eye and say the police shouldn't have broader monitoring powers over the government? :) Frankly, I'd feel safer knowing what is actually going on with our officials than I would with another email / web snooping bill looking at my neighbors.

  8. b b
    Stop

    And for all of you playing buzzword bingo

    aka please-don't-think-critically-about-this-TERROR-OMG-THINK-OF-THE-CHILDREN

    > serious crime, terrorism and child sex offences

    HOUSE!

    1. Arrrggghh-otron

      Re: And for all of you playing buzzword bingo

      OMFG TERRORPEADOS!!!

      1. John Smith 19 Gold badge
        Childcatcher

        Re: And for all of you playing buzzword bingo

        "OMFG TERRORPEADOS!!!"

        Exactly. The militant wing of the ***.

        Notorious for their graffiti campaign "P******r seal of approval"*

        *Actually there has been no such campaign. But that's not to say there might not be at some point. Which is of course why everybody must be watched 24/7/365 forever.

  9. g e
    Stop

    "Anybody who is against this bill"

    Anybody who is for this bill is in it for themselves.

    What a repulsive and transparently self-interested harridan.

    1. Evan Essence

      Re: "Anybody who is against this bill"

      What a repulsive and transparently self-interested harridan..

      I'll be charitable and propose an alternative view: she's as thick as two short planks.

      1. ArmanX
        Unhappy

        Re: "Anybody who is against this bill"

        ...standing on end.

        That's what scares me; some people truly believe that this would not only help fight crime, but that it wouldn't be misused because of strict guidelines. They aren't malicious - they're worse. They're stupid.

        1. John Smith 19 Gold badge
          Unhappy

          Re: "Anybody who is against this bill"

          "They aren't malicious - they're worse. They're stupid."

          If she were a Communist she would refer to them as "Willing fools (VI Lenin?)"

          Good thing she's not, isn't it?

        2. Badvok
          Facepalm

          Re: "Anybody who is against this bill"

          " They aren't malicious - they're worse. They're stupid."

          You know you've lost an argument when you descend into name calling.

          1. ArmanX

            Re: "Anybody who is against this bill"

            It is blatantly obvious that this bill will not help stop "serious crime, terrorism and child sex offences". Laws are already in place (there, and here in the US) to allow the police to 'snoop' with the proper warrant. All this does is remove basic freedom. Anyone who believes that this bill really will stop crime is being mislead by the flimsiest of excuses.

            That being said, yes, it's true. We've lost the argument long ago. Our countries are being run by people who have either no regard for Internet privacy and personal security, or no understanding of the way the Internet works. The first group is malicious, willing to undermine personal freedom to make their jobs easier; the second group is willing to go along with anything because they don't understand what's going on - I could use nicer, bigger words like "prone to making unintelligent, uninformed decisions" or "acting in an unintelligent or careless manner" - but those are definitions of the word "stupid," so I went ahead and used the word "stupid" to describe them.

  10. El Bertle

    Does El Reg with its fine archival resources have the data to do a story on RIPA ? I thinking something which intersperses the quotes from whatever politician was responsible for introducing it, with a chart showing the number of RIPA warrants issued by purpose of issue ?

  11. Chad H.

    Has anybody thought to ask her the obvious question

    Had this law been in place a year ago, which life/lives would have been saved?

    1. Vimes

      Re: Has anybody thought to ask her the obvious question

      Or even better, would these powers have done anything to stop the 7/7 bombings? From the coroners report:

      “It is unlikely these could have been detected by surveillance given the large number of untraceable “operational” phones used by the bombers and only attributed to them once their identities and details were known.”

      i.e. these types of powers would have done nothing to stop the bombings and at best might have served a purpose at cleaning up the mess afterwards. And even that would be debatable.

      One other thing: they had one of the bombers under surveillance but had to stop watching him because of lack of resources (or at least this is what we were told at any rate). How then would increasing the size of the haystack be useful if the aim is to find the needle?

      1. John Smith 19 Gold badge
        Big Brother

        Re: Has anybody thought to ask her the obvious question

        "How then would increasing the size of the haystack be useful if the aim is to find the needle?"

        a very good point.

        Do you think perhaps the real purpose is not to catch terrorists?

        1. Vimes

          Re: Has anybody thought to ask her the obvious question

          Personally I can't shake the impression that they want to reduce the amount of work required to access information to a form filling exercise. They think that checking a few boxes should be sufficient.

          This is despite the fact that this has the potential of seriously undermining in the long term the ability of actually being able to do the forensic work that these investigations often entail. Why bother learning to do this or training others to do so if all you have to do is write down what you want in order to get the same results? The departments that handle this sort of thing well end up being dumbed down, new threats will end up emerging and they will find themselves in a position of not being able to deal with them.

          Of course this could also be down to the difficulties that government agencies face in regards to hiring people with appropriate levels of experience and knowledge. Just look at HMRC: all the clever and well paid accountants work for the sorts of firms that are currently running rings round them and they have a huge backlog of tax avoidance schemes that they just can't seem to clear. Presumably other parts of government - including the likes of the security service - face similar problems when it comes to IT experience, since those that can do the work would perhaps prefer to do so for the likes of Google, Apple or Microsoft where the salaries are probably much more attractive.

          In any case I think that this is about making their lives easier, not about protecting us.

  12. Pen-y-gors Silver badge
    Thumb Down

    She may be right...

    a snoopers charter may be able to prevent a death or two...

    BUT

    hundreds of thousands of people died to defend our freedom during World War II and that was considered a price worth paying. The attitude of May (and her friends in the Tory and Labour Parties) is that one death by a terrorist attack is too many, and it's worth undermining and abolishing every freedom we have if it can prevent a single death.

    WRONG!

    1. Kit-Fox
      Thumb Up

      Re: She may be right...

      I wish I could upvote this over & over & over again for the rest of time.

      That post should be put on the front page of every newspaper & news website in the UK for at least 2 days so that it will hopefully sink in.

    2. PassingStrange

      Re: She may be right...

      Indeed. Her argument is nothing more than specious, despicable emotional blackmail. The police will ALWAYS be able to do more with greater powers, no matter HOW draconian the state may become. That in itself is a VERY good reason why every such proposal must be treated with the very gravest of suspicion, and resisted unless plainly in the interests of freedom and democracy.

  13. Trevor 3

    Here you go then:

    The people who say they’re against this bill need to look victims of serious crime, terrorism and child sex offences in the eye and tell them why they’re not prepared to give the police the powers they need to protect the public.

    I'm not prepared give the police excessive powers they think they need to protect the tiny minority of the unfortunate members of public affected by these heinous crimes.

    Anybody who is against this bill is putting politics before people’s lives.

    Certainly I am ensuring that surveillance is not put upon innocent members of the public, using the unfortunate and rare occasion (numbers of people attacked vs population of UK) someone may be harmed due to this surveillance not being in place.

    There will be paedophiles who will not be identified and it will reduce our ability to deal with this serious organised crime.

    Possibly yes. A small percentage of paedophiles who make up a tiny proportion of the UK may go free. They are not pokemon, you will never catch them all.

    1. James Micallef Silver badge
      Thumb Up

      Re: Here you go then:

      @trevor "They are not pokemon, you will never catch them all."

      Spot on, mate. Unfortunately no politician has the guts to publicly state what should be obvious to all - Laws and policing are systems designed and run by humans and will fail. No matter how efficient the system, some guilty people will go free and some innocent people will get accused and/or imprisoned. Tightening legislation to catch more guilty people will GUARANTEE that more innocent people will be imprisoned. Loosening legislation to prevent innocent people being jailed will GUARANTEE that more guilty people will go free. And as a society we must decide where to draw the line. That's a tough decision, but one we should be open about.

      1. Charles 9 Silver badge
        Unhappy

        Re: Here you go then:

        There are some who would say better to let an innocent man hang than let a guilty man go free, as the guilty man could then go on a spree or rampage and take more innocent lives. And would you believe it, when asked if they would be willing to step into the noose, there are people would essentially, "Abso-f***in-luely, damnit!"

        Then again, I also know people who view increased capital punishment as "population control"...

        1. MJI Silver badge

          Re: Here you go then:

          when asked if they would be willing to step into the noose, there are people would essentially, "Abso-f***in-luely, damnit!"

          Reminds me. I had an argument from a vehement anti motorist about speed limits.

          I mentioned drifting over, he thought fines ect, I though does it matter.

          So I asked him, do you want to be missed by the driver in low 30s looking where he is going, but just drifted over? or do you want to be hit by the car doing 29 because he was too busy speedo watching?

          Yes he said to be hit.

          BTW the worst analogy ever is accidentally drifting over a speed limit is as bad as accidentally drifting a knife into a person stomach!

          I was gob smacked - that was more safety nazis.

          Sorry to go slightly off topic.

  14. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Tory scum is full of shite! Nosey bastards need to keep their nose out.

    Like terror groups and SOC groups don't already use techniques to circumvent these measures they wish to introduce?

    It's just another way for the gov to spy on the people.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      what's tory got to do with it? this all labour party policy, as is most of the other crap we get from the govt.

      1. teebie

        Please stop pretending that the tory party and labour party are different things

  15. DJV Silver badge
    Unhappy

    Terry Pratchett was right

    (from 'The Last Continent')

    'Why did he have to go to prison?'

    'We put all our politicians in prison as soon as they're elected. Don't you?'

    'Why?'

    'It saves time.'

  16. arrbee
    Big Brother

    Perhaps certain media companies are in favour of this because they can see how useful all this new data will be when looking for juicy stories on celebs, MPs, or people challenging their behaviour. Its not as though they wont have access, one way or another.

  17. Captain Hogwash
    Facepalm

    Do as I say...

    ...or the puppy gets it. Is that really the best she can do?

  18. Kay Burley ate my hamster
    Stop

    No

    Show us we can trust you with this power, then we will think about it... The Anti-Terrorism act was massively miss-used.

    1. Wild Bill

      Re: No

      "The Anti-Terrorism act was massively miss-used." - so they've already shown us we can't trust them with this power. Nothing to think about.

  19. rory alsop 1
    WTF?

    Privacy - important for so many reasons

    This question over on Security Stack Exchange has some answers which May should read and digest. "Why does one need a high level of privacy/anonymity for legal activities?"

    http://security.stackexchange.com/q/7666/485

  20. drguyrope
    FAIL

    I propose...

    Complete and unlimited powers for the police and security services to do anything. No limits, no oversight and no judicial or parliamentary review. Anything. Anyone who is against this "WANTS PEOPLE TO DIE!".

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: I propose...

      A retired policeman was commenting on a draft law. Single issue lobby groups, and the police lobby, had removed the wording that said someone had to have "intent" to commit the offence. Their argument was that it was "too difficult to prove".

      He said that it was just what his ex-colleagues loved. They called it a "Martini Law" - anyone, any time, any place, anywhere.

  21. davemeetsworld
    Trollface

    when i read 'home sec' i thought. Fucking hell, not another anonymous spin off group.

    1. FSM

      If I wasn't on a train right now, I'd have LMFAO.

  22. Trollslayer
    Alert

    Hang on lads, I've had a great idea

    Use the money for more police officers.

    They have been cut and cut again.

  23. Peter Sommer
    FAIL

    Theresa May doesn't understand the law as it already is

    IP addresses are held already for 12 months: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukdsi/2009/9780111473894/schedule. Item 13 in the Schedule.

    If small ISPs are not holding on to that information it is not because of a defect in the current law but because the Home Office / Police haven't asked them to do so.

    Similarly all mobile phone companies already hold one year's records not only all calls and SMSs you send but all your locations for so long as the phone is switched on.

    These are powerful types of communications data that are already available to the police (and very important they are too) and which are very unlikely to be affected by any future technological change.

    Large numbers of decisions currently being made by the Home Secretary, starting with reducing police budgets by 20%, are easy candidates for "putting lives at risk"

    The aim of the Bill is to get ISPs to collect information from all of us for potential future use which is not necessary for their business and which is outside current definitions of "communications data". That includes web-based email, Facebook and other social networking, google searches, and skype-like services.

    This, the Home Office says, will cost the tax-payer £1.8bn over 10 years., £180m a year. The police only get £28m in real new money out of the Cyber Security Strategy

    1. Pen-y-gors Silver badge

      Re: Theresa May doesn't understand the law as it already is

      HTTPS everywhere?

      ISPs will have trouble logging web mail via google (https) or google searches (https) or Facebook (https) or Skype (encrypted)

      So what's the point? Most of what they claim to want isn't available to the ISP - they'll still need to get a court order and ask Google/Yahoo/Skype etc

      And slap on a nice VPN and they can't even get the websites you visited.

      1. Vimes

        Re: Theresa May doesn't understand the law as it already is

        http://www.parliament.uk/documents/joint-committees/communications-data/2012-10-24%20Private%20HO%20Corrected%20.pdf

        It may well have been redacted, but the following question/answer is of interest. I'm not sure if it's true or just bluster but it is interesting nevertheless.

        Q921 Lord Strasburger: Is it not the case that the sophisticated ones that you are referring to will use some of the avoidance techniques—encryption, VPNs and so on—in any case, so they will get around whatever provisions you put in place?

        Charles Farr: They will try to do that but, as some of your witnesses have implied, we can deal with some of it and much more than they think.

        And in regards to Charles Farr:

        http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2241645/Theresa-May-spy-tipped-mandarin--love-glamorous-aide.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

      2. Vimes

        Re: Theresa May doesn't understand the law as it already is

        Except that SSL already has problems thanks to man-in-the-middle attacks and even PPTP based VPN encryptions can be hacked.

        http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/07/31/ms_chapv2_crack/

    2. John Smith 19 Gold badge
      Meh

      Re: Theresa May doesn't understand the law as it already is

      "These are powerful types of communications data that are already available to the police (and very important they are too) and which are very unlikely to be affected by any future technological change."

      But they have weaknesses.

      They need RIPA approval.

      They are not real time.

      Her advisors want to be able to call up a map and show anyone moving around at will.

      They've seen spooks. They know it's possible.

  24. Anonymous Coward 101

    Seems that letting Little Baby Gary McKinnon off the hook hasn't helped her long term popularity.

  25. IDoNotThinkSo

    I don't think it is the Home Secretary that is ever in charge, that is the problem.

    Civil servants come to whoever is the current incumbent with all sort of scary stuff which frightens them into making these decisions.

    The previous government were just as bad (if not worse) on the snooping, but I expected this one to tell them to sod off rather more. Sadly I was wrong. Hopefully some of the more libertarian members of the Tory party will decide to vote against.

    1. Mike Richards Silver badge

      'I don't think it is the Home Secretary that is ever in charge, that is the problem.

      'Civil servants come to whoever is the current incumbent with all sort of scary stuff which frightens them into making these decisions.'

      My theory is there's something in the water supply at the Home Office which turns anyone into raving right-wing control freaks within six months of their appointment.

    2. stragen001

      Yes Minister

      IDoNotThinkSo:

      I don't think it is the Home Secretary that is ever in charge, that is the problem.

      Civil servants come to whoever is the current incumbent with all sort of scary stuff which frightens them into making these decisions.

      The previous government were just as bad (if not worse) on the snooping, but I expected this one to tell them to sod off rather more. Sadly I was wrong. Hopefully some of the more libertarian members of the Tory party will decide to vote against.

      I have recently been watching repeats of Yes (Prime) Minister which illustrates this perfectly. Not much seems to have changed since the 70s in the Civil Service. The Ministers dont run their departments, the Civil Servants to, and they manipulate the Minister with various scare tactics - the outcome of which is normally a bigger budget for their department, or other measures that increase the power of the Civil Servants.

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Conservatives v Libertarians

      "Sadly I was wrong. Hopefully some of the more libertarian members of the Tory party will decide to vote against."

      Are there many true libertarians in the Conservatives ranks? It is my impression that their libertarian principles only encompass their cronies getting rich by unscrupulous means. On social matters they are generally entrenched authoritarians claiming a divine right in matters of morality.

      A friend was a great admirer of the Austrian Economics school of libertarian thought. He found a personality test on the Ludwig von Mises Institute web site. So he insisted we should both take the test to highlight my leftist mind set. Imagine his chagrin when my result was a leftwing libetarian - while he came out as a rightwing authoritarian.

  26. David Pollard

    There will be paedophiles who will not be identified

    Would online surveillance have prevented abuse by Cyril Smith or Jimmy Saville?

    1. John G Imrie
      Big Brother

      Re: There will be paedophiles who will not be identified

      Of cause it would. They only got away with it because we can't snoop on everyone.

      This message brought to you by the Ministry of Truth.

      Long live BB.

  27. SkippyBing

    Just when you think

    Nick Clegg is utterly pointless he threatens to do something useful. It'll be interesting to see if he's doing this for principled reasons or because he's trying to separate the Lib Dems from their coalition partners in the public's mind before the next election.

    What's that? He's a politician you say? Oh so option b then.

  28. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    If it will cost "£1.8bn" to implement ...

    then it had better save at least 3600 lives because there are lots of reliable ways of saving a human live with £500k, such as by investing it in improved health care.

    1. JP19

      Re: If it will cost "£1.8bn" to implement ...

      "there are lots of reliable ways of saving a human live with £500k,"

      In other parts of the world there are lots of reliable ways of saving a human life with $10.

  29. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    "The people who say they’re against this bill need to look victims of serious crime, terrorism and child sex offences in the eye and tell them why they’re not prepared to give the police the powers they need to protect the public."

    But the bill state that one of the permitted purposes is "the prevention and detection of crime".

    Not "serious crime", just "crime".

    1. This post has been deleted by its author

  30. grandours

    The new party line

    They tried the same thing here in Canada, when the public safety minister said that people who are against their proposed legislation are "with the child pornographers". Fortunately, there was a huge backlash and the legislation was dumped (for now). Big brother is working hard to expand his reach.

    http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/tories-on-e-snooping-stand-with-us-or-with-the-child-pornographers/article545799/

    1. John Smith 19 Gold badge
      Unhappy

      Re: The new party line

      "when the public safety minister said that people who are against their proposed legislation are "with the child pornographers". "

      I noticed this. Very much the same routine.

      Weak minds think alike?

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: The new party line

        Fuck it - in for a penny as they say.

        If they want to treat me (a law abiding tax paying citizen) like a peadophile who wants to blow up schools, then I might as well just be one.

        After all, the only way to defeat an enemy is to kill* them.

        *Joke - this really means tickle them until they turn purple.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: The new party line

      The language is definitely Orwellian. A "child" in England & Wales is now defined as someone who is under 18. In some cases the definition is "looks under 18". They ignore the nuanced differences between paedophilia, hebephilia, and ephebophilia.

      An official member of a child protection group said a surprising thing on radio recently. He said that hebephilia and ephebophilia are natural human reactions to signs of sexual maturation - and are common in most people. As regards the laws - he said that our modern UK society has chosen to require adults to refrain from acting on these instincts.

      It seems that the basis for these laws was originally economic fears as much as morals. A new generation every 14 years is economically unsustainable - unless it is a low technology culture with a high mortality rate and short life expectancy.

  31. Number6

    From the other side...

    So people will die if we don't get the new laws. How many are going to die as a result of them?

    Freedom has a price. Lack of freedom often has a higher price even if it's not obvious until it's too late.

  32. SJRulez

    "Anybody who is against this bill is putting politics before people’s lives. We would certainly see criminals going free as a result of this."

    I'll just change my name to abu qutada and then it will be against my human rights......

  33. Petr0lhead
    Mushroom

    More tools to fight crime?

    I understand the Home secretary has yet to detail how these enforcement agencies are using the laws and tools they already have in this fight.

    If they can't hit a proverbial barn door with a proverbial shotgun, wouldn't it be better to invest in shooting lessons, rather than a howitzer?

  34. MissingSecurity
    Unhappy

    Is it telling...

    ...that my first thought was of President Bush.

  35. John H Woods Silver badge

    FTFY

    "The people who say they’re for this bill need to look refugees, veterans, survivors of the holocaust; descendants and relatives of those who fought in WWII etc. in the eye and tell them why they’re prepared to give the police the powers they need to turn the UK into a police state"

  36. Mike 140
    Big Brother

    Pah!

    Paedophiles talk to each other. So do terrorists. Therefore all converstaions must be recorded. Or do you eat babies?

  37. Magister
    Big Brother

    Quote from Benjamin Franklyn

    "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety"

    Pretty much says it all.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Quote from Benjamin Franklyn

      Right! Up against the wall, Magister! Quoting a known terrorist like that! With them, treated like them, I say! Against the Crown, the whole lot of ye!

      (considering that, from the Crown's perspective of the time, Dr. Franklin was indeed a traitor, and would doubtless be branded a TERRRRRRRROOOOORRRRIIIISTT<fnord!> in today's world, by quoting him you would be proving yourself to be a "Person Of Interest" yourself.)

      And many of you wonder why we Americans are so mistrusting of Government....

  38. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    It's not the police

    It's not the police who are the problem. They do the best they can, in spite of dwindling public support, reduced numbers and resources, and the shackles of bleeding-heart liberalism and eurocourts which hold the rights of criminals above the rights of victims and their families. Law is not a deterrent to crime, police are not a deterrent, an elected "Police Commissioner" certainly isn't; it's fear of the consequences of getting caught that serves as a deterrent, and those consequences can only come from the Courts.

    And the Courts are become "Another Last Chance Saloon", thanks to successive Brawndo-drinking Home Secretaries and the likes of Ken Clarke.

  39. N000dles
    Stop

    What of the UKIP Rotherham couple....

    I'm willing to bet that if the legislation was in place already you would have seen the electronic communications of that heinous UKIP couple monitored by the Labour run council. After all, they are a massive threat to disadvantaged children by taking them in and trying to give them a life where they don't have to rely on the state. A future life time of not living off the state might even lead them to becoming Tory voters and Daily Mail readers which is reason enough to throw everything in the arsenal at them......

    Are we sleepwalking into a situation where YOUR email could be read for party political purposes?

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: What of the UKIP Rotherham couple....

      Completely agree, being members of a political party is no reason to take kids away or to monitor someone!

      Monitoring should be for suspects of severe crimes only, and then only after a warrant is issued...

  40. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Where the hell do these ideas come from? Someone has to plant the idea in the first place.

    Furthermore, I can never understand why people who know sweet FA about the subject at hand are allowed to have control over it. I just don't get how or why people get these cabinet jobs when their expertise in the area amounts to checking their online mail, is it jobs for the boys?

    1. John Smith 19 Gold badge
      Big Brother

      "Where the hell do these ideas come from? Someone has to plant the idea in the first place."

      A unit in the Home Office.

      The same people who "advised" her Wackiness on the same subject.

      They just want you to feel "safe."

  41. collinsl

    Fix regular policing first!

    Theresa May is busy destroying the police service by cutting office numbers, and increasing paperwork. The police are stretched beyond breaking point and morale is at rock bottom and now she wants to give them something else to work at. With that resources?

    I say fix regular policing first by giving back the 30% cut from the budget and then add another 10% on that, and then worry about passing new legislation increasing the work of the police!

  42. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Government IT Projects

    Ignoring the fact that this is complete and utter bullshit of the highest caliber. Whens the last time the Government had a well thought-out and successful IT project? I just can't help but think of ID cards and the NHS project.

  43. stu 4
    Holmes

    NEVER give police extra powers

    "Let us do X please, we'll only use it for this wee thing"

    is constantly their cry.

    And time and time again, they are given power to do X, and after a short interval make use of it wherever they can possibly use it.

    I'm always stunned at the way Britain in the past 20-30 years seems to have totally abandoned all principles of 'seperation from the state'. As a previous commentard pointed out - we used to uphold our principles of privacy and freedom of speech.

    Yet now we are all happy to be videoed 24/7, monitored about where we go, what we buy and who we do it with, and are quite happy when people get locked up for having something written on a t-shirt.

    Have we invented a new kind of democratic fascism ?

    In a sense I hope it all blows up in their stupid faces and they get what they all deserve.

    Unfortunately as I live here too, I'm sure I'll also be its recipient.

    stu

  44. stragen001
    FAIL

    British Patriot Act

    This all sounds a lot like the arguments the USA used to pass the Patriot act and any number of other laws that violate peoples human rights.

    Get the law passed whilst the sentiment is in its favour, once its on the books its almost impossible to get rid of and will end up spawning British Equivalents of the Dept of Homeland Security

    What makes anyone think that similar laws in the UK wont be abused just as severely?

    1. John Smith 19 Gold badge
      Unhappy

      Re: British Patriot Act

      "This all sounds a lot like the arguments the USA used to pass the Patriot act and any number of other laws that violate peoples human rights."

      It is.

      Factoid about the PATRIOT ACT. 100s of paragraphs drafted and passed 6 weeks after 9/11/01/

      And 5 of them were probably to think up the BS backronym that makes up its name.

  45. Destroy All Monsters Silver badge
    Unhappy

    I, for one, welcome the new well-uniformed overlords and their pedophile-destroying Blasmusik!

    Llewellyn H. Rockwell Jr.'s "The Right, the Left and the State", which is actually meant for the US, explaining HOBBESIANISM:

    "Conservatives have become addicted to entertainment radio and television as the source of their news, and the underlying philosophy seems not to have any connection to history in any way. But because we are all intellectually indebted to some body of ideas, we have to ask: which one is it that informs modern-day conservatism?

    What we have at work here is a crude form of Hobbesianism, the political philosophy hammered out by the seventeenth-century Englishman Thomas Hobbes. His book Leviathan was published in 1651 during the English Civil War in order to justify a tyrannical central government as the price of peace. The natural state of society, he said, was war of all against all. In this world, life is “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.” Conflict was the way of human engagement. Society is rife with it, and it cannot be otherwise. What is striking here is the context of this book. Conflict was indeed ubiquitous. But what was the conflict about? It was over who would control the state and how that state would operate. This was not a state of nature but a society under Leviathan’s control. It was precisely the Leviathan that bred that very conflict that Hobbes was addressing, and he proposed a cure that was essentially identical to the disease.

    In fact, the result of the Civil War was the brutal and ghastly dictatorship of Oliver Cromwell, who ruled under democratic slogans. This was a foreshadowing of some of the worst political violence of the twentieth century. It was Nazism, Fascism, and Communism that transformed formerly peaceful societies

    into violent communities in which life did indeed become “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.” Leviathan didn’t fix the problem; it bred it—and fastened it on society as a permanent condition."

  46. This post has been deleted by its author

  47. Ken Hagan Gold badge

    Dear Theresa,

    The people who say they’re for this bill need to look victims of serious crime, terrorism and child sex offences in the eye and tell them why they’re exploiting their suffering for invidious political ends.

    But like the other guy said, I'll assume she isn't pure filth and is instead just incredibly stupid.

  48. Sean Timarco Baggaley
    FAIL

    Dear Mrs. May

    You ask: "The people who say they’re against this bill need to look victims of serious crime, terrorism and child sex offences in the eye and tell them why they’re not prepared to give the police the powers they need to protect the public."

    Allow me to rephrase that in terms that might, possibly, help you understand why spending £1.8bn. on such a moronic abbreviation of traditional freedoms hard-won in not one, but two major wars is a terrible idea:

    "The people who say they are for this bill need to look the many thousands of victims of road traffic accidents in the eye and explain why their lives are worth so much less than those this bill claims to be protecting."

    There are literally thousands of men, women and children who are being killed or maimed on the UK's roads every single year. Why are their lives not worth such an investment? Why are such crimes as running children over considered less 'important' than saving the far smaller number of lives affected by sex offenders, paedophiles and terrorists*. To paraphrase a WW2 veteran's comment at the time of the 7/7 bombings in London: "F*ck you! We've been bombed by professionals!" This is the same country that stood up to the Germans during the Blitz of WW2. We're better than this.

    There were 1901 deaths and 23122 serious injuries during 2011 on the UK's roads. [Source.] Why are their deaths and injuries tolerated more easily? Are all lives not equally valuable? Why should the severe maiming of a child by a drunk driver matter less than the injury of the same child at the hands of a paedophile, despite the former being far more likely?

    £1.8bn. would save an awful lot more lives if invested in improving pedestrian and road safety—perhaps by setting up a dedicated "Road Patrol" arm of the police force? – than any amount pissed up the wall on dubious ICT-related projects that no British government in living memory has ever managed to implement successfully, on time, or even on budget. Or, frankly, with any understanding of its ramifications.

    Madam, you are not qualified to even begin to specify an ICT project of this magnitude as you clearly have no clue how computers and the Internet actually work. All you will achieve by ramming through this Bill is pushing paedophile networks onto VPNs, which are impossible for any ISP to track and trace in any way: all the data is encrypted, including the addresses of websites, the contents (and headers) of emails, etc.

    A far better Bill would be one that improved the numbers of police on the ground, increased the numbers working in intelligence, and also helped train as many police as possible in advanced IT skills that go beyond merely understanding how to switch on a PC and use Microsoft Word to write their umpteen reports. (Oh yes: streamline the procedures too if you could. Paperwork really shouldn't be taking up 30% of the policeman's time; it's woefully inefficient.)

    The many incompetent civil servants you are charged with managing have become a laughingstock with regard to IT security and privacy thanks to their singular inability to stop leaving laptops and important data lying around on trains and in other public areas due to forgetfulness. (Never mind that such data should NEVER have been downloaded to such devices in the first bloody place.)

    So, no, we in the IT community wouldn't trust any current MP or Minister to successfully write a Bill like this. You're doing it wrong. Seriously. Stop. Please. And tell your peers and colleagues to please stop embarrassing themselves – and our nation – by vomiting up so many dumb Bills like this. It'd also help if you stopped listening to clearly biased "consultants" who have no interest in giving the taxpayer value for money, but every interest in giving themselves lucrative slices of any IT pies.

    Yours,

    --

    Me.

    * (What the hell are "terrorists" even doing on this list? The UK has been fighting terrorists since first member of the IRA chucked a bomb into a pub. What makes Al Qaeda so bloody special that, suddenly, nearly a century of experience is worthless and needs to be 'helped' by yet more pointless and dangerous intrusions into our privacy and freedoms? Your Bill will do absolutely nothing to improve matters.)

    1. Evan Essence
      Thumb Up

      Re: Dear Mrs. May

      APPLAUSE!

  49. Anonymous Coward
    Black Helicopters

    Theresa May is an amateur!!

    If she REALLY knew how to market domestic surveillance, she would have trotted out the "You don't have anything to fear if you are not doing anything wrong" argument!!

    1. John Smith 19 Gold badge
      Unhappy

      Re: Theresa May is an amateur!!

      "If she REALLY knew how to market domestic surveillance, she would have trotted out the "You don't have anything to fear if you are not doing anything wrong" argument!!"

      She will.

      She will.

  50. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Short summary..

    1 - there are enough laws as it is to address the issues at hand - we really have no need for more laws, especially since they leave too much room for abuse.

    2 - I would welcome a proposal for more transparency and independent oversight of the use of even the existing laws as they carry substantial potential for abuse. I can accept that some time delay may need to be implemented to prevent harm to ongoing investigations, but any uttering of the phrase "national security" or the use of the word "terrorist" as a motivator to skip due process should be buried under reviews to establish the veracity of such claims. If this is not possible I have but one question:

    What exactly do you have to hide?

  51. Mike Richards Silver badge

    Does anyone know Labour's opinion on this

    Part of me says they must be gagging for the opportunity to vote for greater state surveillance. But another part says they'll oppose it on the principled grounds of binning their actual policy for the sugar rush of trying to defeat the government (see recent EU vote).

  52. Arachnoid
    Thumb Down

    Sounds like a typical "if your not with us you against us" type of speech.Which is very hypocritical to assume your actually 100% correct without at least a debate with those it would affect and I mean a debate not a "we listened to your concerns but we still think we are right" type of judgment.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      *you're *your *you're

    2. Sir Runcible Spoon

      "

      Sounds like a typical "if your not with us you against us" type of speech.Which is very hypocritical to assume your actually 100% correct without at least a debate with those it would affect and I mean a debate not a "we listened to your concerns but we still think we are right" type of judgment.

      Only a Sith deals in absolutes.

  53. Big_Boomer Silver badge
    Thumb Down

    Nasty people

    Most of these are politicians and the scum that feed them or feed off them. So, I'm guessing that Mrs May and her cronies will be exempted from being spied on by Big Brother? Otherwise we would all learn even more about just how much certain people make from their various interests.

    When will the state stop trying to be my Mum? I left home 31 years ago f.f.s and even when I was living with my parents then my Mum didn't spy on me anywhere near as much as the state does now.

    Big Brother will never work as way before the state ever manages to implement it, even by dribs & drabs, we will reconstitute the state first. Note to all politicians, we pay your wages, we elect you, you are a PUBLIC SERVANT.

  54. Ozzy

    As Benjamin Franklin said:

    They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.

  55. gbru2606

    Will it...?

    This is to help protect the same system of 'democracy' and 'law and order' that gave us the MP's expenses scandal (ie. general house purchasing at taxpayers expense), endemic mobile phone hacking, police bribery and corruption, Media Mogul lies and manipulation of politics and innocent peoples lives for profit, massive levels of offshore tax avoidance and evasion over generations, unhindered manipulation of global interest rates and general banking corruption at a scale that has left governments across the globe broke and banks dysfunctional, un-voted for dismantling of the welfare state, NHS and comprehensive education system, and an enormous amount of unwanted and unneeded troops and weapons stationed abroad for a country of our size, with seemingly endless military interventions in other countries business.

    Right. This is the system we need to protect. We understand. Really we do. I know it's hard to let go, but you know you have to. You'll feel so much better in the end.

  56. Maty

    This has nothing to do with paedophiles or terrorism and everything to do with the government wanting to control its citizens.

  57. Maverick
    Facepalm

    <sigh>

    that's all :(

  58. Peladon

    One sometimes wonders if...

    ... politicians appointed to such posts all have some secret little book they read.

    I've split off the last line for emphasis...

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vic_Toews

    On January 19, 2010, (Canadian) Prime Minister Stephen Harper announced that Toews would replace Peter Van Loan as the new Public Safety Minister. In February 2012, as Minister, Toews introduced the Protecting Children from Internet Predators Act (also known as Bill C-30). If passed, the bill would grant police agencies expanded powers, mandate that internet service providers (ISPs) provide subscriber information without a warrant and compel providers to reveal information transmitted over their networks with a warrant.

    When criticised about privacy concerns, Toews responded that people "can either stand with us or with the child pornographers."

  59. John Smith 19 Gold badge

    "When criticised about privacy concerns, Toews responded that people "can either stand with us or with the child pornographers.""

    My first thought exactly.

  60. Anonymous Coward
    Unhappy

    Theresa

    An anagram of 'The arse'.

    I'm so tired of all this repetitious bollocks that I can't work up the enthusiasm to say anything more constructive.

  61. John Smith 19 Gold badge
    Unhappy

    She's still not explaine how this will *save* £5Bn over the same decade.

    http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/10/10/communications_data_bill_estimated_costs/

    And what about that "regular review of the business case" that's supposed to be happening.

    7/7 and its aftermath killed 57 people, 53 victims, 3 terrorists and 1 Argentinian electrician.

    That's £175m a life.

    There are calculations about the value of a human life. IIRC none is above $2.5m

  62. David 45

    MP letter

    I wrote to my MP, urging him to resist this bloody awful scheme and got back a lot of wishy-washy, non-substance about achieving a balance. It was, however, kind of me to let him have my views (so he said). What ever happened to the rather quaint idea that an MP is acting on behalf of his/her constituents and their wishes?

  63. David 45

    Total rubbish.

    Bit of desperate moral blackmail there. Definitely a touch of straw (Jack?) clutching as well. Real out-and-out villains would probably be a bit more savvy and use encryption to hide their tracks effectively. This is all about more government surveillance and control, if ever I heard it. I expect they'll now make it an offence to use encryption. Someone's already been banged up for refusing to reveal an encryption key or password.

  64. mark l 2 Silver badge

    The problem will be that is not well trained spooks looking at the info they collect to try an identify terrorist but some plod whos had a 2 day training course on how to use some software that scraps all the data from one of these black boxes for a specified date period as a csv file that he downloads onto his laptops or usb drive which then gets left on the train on his way home.

    Still we have to stop these pedos planting bombs in our kids while selling them cocaine

  65. Dodgy Geezer Silver badge
    FAIL

    Anyone lived in a pretty how town....

    ...Anybody who is against this bill is .....

    Anyone who starts a sentence by saying that 'anyone who is against ...(something)... is not the kind of person anyone should be trusting to set up rules that will impact everyone....

    ...or something like that...

  66. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Guys, you really have to stop this madness. Vote her, and people like her out as quickly as possible.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      I think maybe you haven't been paying attention. 'Home Secretary' seems to be a short-lived role these days and no matter who fills it, no matter what party they're from, they still come up with the same bullshit.

      If there was an election tomorrow and a total change of government, you could be sure that as soon as possible the new Home Sec would be pushing this stuff.

      1. PhilBuk
        Terminator

        Stepford Wives

        Yes, they all come out spouting the same control-freakery after a while. Their personality seems to change - strange that.

        It's the hard-liners in the Civil Service that write the same policy again and again. The're also trying to sneak in the old ID card (again!).

        Perhaps we need to put in a FOI request for a MRI scan of the current Home Secretary (suitably anonymised of course).

        Phil.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Stepford Wives

          Perhaps an MRI scan would reveal the presence of a Goa'uld parasite. That would explain it.

  67. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    >"We would certainly see criminals going free as a result of this."

    We would also see innocent people going free as a result of this, but apparently that isn't even a consideration.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: >"We would certainly see criminals going free as a result of this."

      "We would also see innocent people going free as a result of this, but apparently that isn't even a consideration."

      Presumably you mean that the investigation would show no incriminating evidence for an innocent person?

      You are forgetting the first rule of police investigations - "if there is no evidence against the suspect - then they are certainly guilty but also very clever". That would also be the flavour of the unsubstantiated suspicions subsequently entered as permanent "soft intelligence" on the police databases.

      Hence the usual all-encompassing face-saving press statement: "insufficient evidence to bring a charge" - unless the person has powerful connections to elicit an apology.

  68. PT

    "This serious organised crime."

    Really? Organised crime, like in bootleggers?

    The Paedo Mob must be the first crime organisation in history that isn't supplying something for which there's a strong public demand, coupled with a government prohibition that a majority of the public doesn't agree with.

    One wonders why Ms May chose the readership of the Sun as the target of this particular piece of mob oratory, rather than (say) the readership of the Daily Mail.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: "This serious organised crime."

      "The Paedo Mob must be the first crime organisation in history that isn't supplying something for which there's a strong public demand,..."

      A significant mass market appears to be there. The Sun has the highest circulation of any UK daily newspaper. Its brand feature is a naked woman/girl on Page 3. It was reknowned for prurient articles on the sexual activities of girls under the age of consent - while trumpeting the Page 3 picture of just-16 girls.

      Since 2003 the legal indecency thresholds have been raised to 18 (and not looking under 18). Owning pre-2003 anthologies of Page 3 pictures of 16/17 year olds could now be considered prima facie evidence in a police investigation.

  69. mIRCat
    Black Helicopters

    Give up my privacy rights? For me own good? Why didn't you say so! Wot!

    Mother knows best.

  70. JeffUK
    Mushroom

    freedom, security, jefferson

  71. Rob73!
    Big Brother

    Tough on Crime. Tough on the Causes of Crime.

    Really don't understand why everyone is so against giving the state more power? After all if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear.

    I have complete faith and trust in our law enforcement, judicial and political system and beleive that no abuse would be allowed top happen. After all the Police, Judges and MP's are all honest, dedicated anand would never seek to gain personally from public office............

    Oh, wait....

    1. John Smith 19 Gold badge
      Happy

      Re: Tough on Crime. Tough on the Causes of Crime.

      "Really don't understand why everyone is so against giving the state more power? After all if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear.

      I have complete faith and trust in our law enforcement, judicial and political system and beleive that no abuse would be allowed top happen. After all the Police, Judges and MP's are all honest, dedicated anand would never seek to gain personally from public office............

      Oh, wait...."

      A little too subtle for some people.

  72. John Smith 19 Gold badge
    Unhappy

    May "Tough on freedom. Tough on the causes of freedom."

    New Minister.

    New slogan.

    Old policy.

  73. Flakey

    My Take

    As I see it,when a MP is appointed as a Secretary of State, no matter what department, there seems to be a rush to "assert their authority" and "leave their mark" as well as the need to be seen to be doing something to justify their appointment as well as their inflated wages and over-inflated ego. Theresa May is no exception. She probably said to all her lackies on entering office "We really need to leave our mark on this department" Of course she will use the plural as a way of making all her lackies feel like they too are on some grand quest to change the department and the lives of millions,if not the world, which of course we, in the real world, know is complete and utter tosh and therein lies the problem, AFAICS, the need to be seen to be doing something.

    The next time a new Secretary of State is appointed, just watch and wait to see how long it takes him/her to come out with some "grand plan" it happens every time as in Ian Duncan Smiths Universal Credit (which has been criticised by a large number of groups as having the potential to cause chaos across the benefits system) and Im sure theres more if I could be bothered to look. Sometimes doing nothing is the best way forward.

This topic is closed for new posts.

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2021