MPs wave through Blighty's 'EMERGENCY' surveillance laws

MPs rubber-stamped the government's fast-tracked Data Retention and Investigatory Powers bill (Drip) in Parliament late last night. Only 49 politicos opposed it, while 436 MPs approved the planned law, which the Tory-led Coalition has said was needed to "plug the holes" in its legislation. Home Secretary Theresa May has said …

[nsld]

Priceless

As the Home secretary is so keen to retain all our communications, and as the internet purely exists for the propogation of cat pictures perhaps we should all send emails to our elected representatives with those lovely, large HD pics of kittens as attachments to ensure they have all the data they need?

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Priceless

Do remember that this law requires the communications traffic data, and not the content of communications, are retained.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Priceless

Does that mean that pinging a billion IPs is a billion times more data than an email?

[yossarianuk]

Re: Priceless

QHCQ already store the content of communications.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Priceless (but WRONG)

GHCQ does not store YOUR comm info, the NSA does. That way GHCQ can honestly say they don't monitor the traffic of the UK. Vice versa for the USA, GHCQ has that data.

[Brent Longborough]

Re: Priceless

So, then, you would be happy, for example, if you were a teenage girl who successively phoned her doctor's surgery, an abortion clinic, and a suicide help hotline?

No content, of course, so no-one could possibly imagine what she was saying.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Priceless

No content, of course

Well, thankfully, she did not call a college to enroll in a chemistry course right before or right after the suicide hotline. Otherwise she would have had a visit from the department of pre-crime.

[a53]

Re: Priceless

More about you can be gained from the meta data than from the content.

[Geoff Campbell]

Re: Priceless

I have just instigated a campaign to get the use of the word "metadata" back on track. The heinous misuse to mean "bits of data stored in the header of other data" has been irking me for a while, and I just recently realised that this re-definition of a technical term is at the heart of the recent surveillance unpleasantness.

GJC

[Fred Flintstone]

Re: Priceless

I have just instigated a campaign to get the use of the word "metadata" back on track. The heinous misuse to mean "bits of data stored in the header of other data" has been irking me for a while, and I just recently realised that this re-definition of a technical term is at the heart of the recent surveillance unpleasantness.

Absolutely. Data about data is still, well, data.

The distinction is purely artificial when it concerns privacy.

The war on bullshit. You heard it here first.

[Don Jefe]

Re: Priceless

You can learn a lot from metadata, but at the end of the day there's a lot of assumption and somewhat less than logical correlation of information involved. Content removes a lot of that speculation and marketing research, but that's the nastiest part of all of this. Collecting content, plus metadata, is going to be pushed, and pushed hard, as a way to improve the accuracy of various terrorist detectors and reduce false positives in profile analysis.

You watch. People are going to support having their content captured if it means the anti-terror people will stop raiding their homes and offices in the course of 'following a lead'. They'll support it when a 'publicly convicted' terrorist goes free because his defense team argued marketing companies (you do know that's who creates the profile algorithms for the UK and US govts?) don't have the knowledge necessary to identify a terrorist. Whatever the specifics turn out to be, a massive miscarriage of justice will pave the way for everyone's content to be grabbed and people will consider it the lesser of two evils.

[streaky]

Re: Priceless

"Do remember that this law requires the communications traffic data, and not the content of communications"

How do you get the meta data without reading the content? the meta data IS the content. How do you get the meta data without *decrypting* the content more to the point. The law is in and of itself self-cancellling. It states that you can't slurp up content of communications but that you have to store the meta, the punishment for mass data slurp without warrant is worse than refusing to store meta.

Also we *still* don't know who has access and how often it's used and for what.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Priceless @streaky

For email (to which I think you refer) the 'metadata' would be everything sent by either the MAIL or RCPT commands. The, possibly encrypted, content of the communication is sent by the DATA command.

For traditional telecommunications, i.e. phone, the telecoms companies store this information for billing purposes anyway.

The new law does seem to have more transparency on the questions of how often and for what data is used. The old law contains a list of the organisations who could access this data and the reasons that they might access the data.

[streaky]

Re: Priceless @streaky

Titus, makes no difference what protocol. It's all going down the same pipe and there's literally no way to tell until you're hoovering it all up. Completely different to a phone network that routes the call in a different protocol to the data.

[JimmyPage]

Re: Priceless

Actually, that's not a bad idea.

If enough people just added [e-mail] to their emails, and (say) once a week dumped a log of their browsing history to a file and emailed that, plus a log of their phone calls (most mobile companies let you access it online) it wouldn't take long for something to break.

Obviously they'd try and prosecute under under some sort of harassment law, but they'd have to argue that they didn't need the data (as they had it already). There would also be the terrible niggle that somewhere in that mound of data there really was something of value.

It's such a good idea, I might contact my MP and ask if they can supply the correct email address.

After all, in these times of austerity, it's only right we should help save them some money.

[Rob]

Wankers the lot of'em... that is all.

[Grikath]

unsurprised, but ...really?

people simply bend over and take this in britain?

[yossarianuk]

Re: unsurprised, but ...really?

This is how much the people of the UK care about freedom.

[Oliver Mayes]

Re: unsurprised, but ...really?

What exactly am I supposed to do about this? I did not vote for these politicians, I have no say in what they do.

[Sir Runcible Spoon]

Re: unsurprised, but ...really?

"people simply bend over and take this in britain?"

Please feel free to point out a civilized country where the politicians don't run roughshod over their voters' wishes.

[Don Jefe]

Re: unsurprised, but ...really?

Tonga!

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: unsurprised, but ...really?

"I did not vote for these politicians, I have no say in what they do".

A nice crisp definition of "Western democracy". As long as it's called democracy, though, you do retain responsibility for it - all of it. Nice setup, eh?

[Mad Mike]

Re: unsurprised, but ...really?

"A nice crisp definition of "Western democracy". As long as it's called democracy, though, you do retain responsibility for it - all of it. Nice setup, eh?"

Not really. I mean you don't call those farces every 5 years a vote do you? There's a limited number of parties you can vote for that have any chance of making a difference. All these parties are pretty similar (see this law for instance) and all populated by greedy, self-serving leaders and their sycophants. So, do I really have a choice? I haven't voted in years, as it doesn't make a difference and is pointless. There's nobody who had policies I want and they don't do what they say when in power anyway. Same for all the major parties.

So, I don't really believe we live in a democracy. After all, you can call us a democracy all you like, but it doesn't make it true.

[viscount]

Useless

Does anyone else remember how just a few weeks ago there was apparently nothing for Parliament to do: the Government had largely run out of bills. Odd then to have an "emergency" in the last week of session when the problem has been known since April.

Almost as if the Government would like to minimize scrutiny.

[yossarianuk]

Re: Useless

Almost like they've just given up pretending the reasons they want to reduce out freedoms now.

[Sir Runcible Spoon]

Re: Useless

At 98C we're pretty much boiled. Time to serve up I reckon.

[Anonymous Coward]

So...

...how long until the entire IP histories and phone logs of all MPs and their families and associates go on public record?

[Sir Runcible Spoon]

Re: So...

First line of defence: Don't log MP's stuff

Second line of defence: D-Notice

Third line: Put all those illegally obtained data trawls to good use and find out who did it then prosecute them in a secret courtroom, anonymously and with no legal representation. Claim to public it was all made up, invent a new 'crisis' to make the goldfish look elsewhere.

I'm sure there are more.

[Chris 244]

Re: So...

Nah, only 33 will have their info leaked.

[Mad Mike]

Re: So...

Neither politicians, nor GCHQ or anyone else wants this information leaked. After all, it's why government does exactly what GCHQ, MI5 etc. tell them to do. Anyone who tries to go their own way will soon have their records released (or what is claimed to be their records), demonstrating their 'interesting' hobbies.

[Anonymous Coward]

Email your support/opposition

If we only make our views known behind closed doors, we can't blame them for taking the wrong decisions.

As I mentioned in a comment to the original ElReg article - http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/07/15/uk_parliament_rubber_stamps_drip_retention_and_intercept_bill/ - the Open Rights Group page makes it easy to write to each "DRIP Hero" and thank them. The seem to appreciate this, and I have had a number of responses to my email of appreciation.

Another link to Michael Meacher's blog of his short speech, which has gone unreported, - http://www.michaelmeacher.info/weblog/2014/07/my-speech-on-the-emergency-data-protection-aka-indiscriminate-mass-surveillance-bill/

[Anonymous Coward]

Happy or Sad?

How should I feel that my life is so staggeringly boring the data they collect on me will be doing nothing more than using up cycles while they search for interesting stuff.

Actually gathering data on boring people should be considered a crime against the database.

Rebelion by tedium I'll call it, oh you stopped reading already...

[Destroy All Monsters]

Re: Happy or Sad?

Very good citizen, our Bore-O-Meter indicates you are reaching level 15, which is pretty much the top of the line of boring behaviour.

However, before we can hand you the well-deserved weekly "Good Citizen" prize, we would like to talk to you about some naughty words you took the liberty to express about the current government when you talked to your dear mother about the (entirely justifiably delayed) social security payout of a hip replacement surgery. This occurred last Monday at 11:35 or so. I am sure you do remember...

[Michael H.F. Wilkinson]

And so freedom is eroded, not by a torrent, but

DRIP, DRIP, DRIP

I'll get me coat

[dogged]

So we (the public) are not represented then. At all.

What further evidence does anyone need?

[Sir Runcible Spoon]

You'd have to have an Earth endangering event occur to even make most proles notice that this was something that affected them. You know, like cancelling an episode of Coronation St. or something.

[Anonymous Coward]

The Wight Choice

Our MP, Andrew Turner (Con), has secured my vote in the next election, as he was one of the mere 33 with a conscience and backbone.

Not a Tory voter by choice, but this issue trumps all others, IMO.

[g e]

Re: The Wight Choice

Here's the others who voted NO:

http://www.tfa.net/2014/07/16/thank-you-to-those-mps-who-stood-up-against-the-drip-bill/

[Geoff Campbell]

<Peers over glasses>

That word "Emergency". You keep using it. I do not think it means what you think it means.

GJC

[Anonymous Coward]

Does that mean we're entitled to all MP meta data?

All equal before law should mean we ought to have access to their meta data too. After all, as public representatives they should have nothing to hide, no?

Sorry, slipped out of reality for a bit. Back in sync now.

[Richard 72]

Re: Does that mean we're entitled to all MP meta data?

Ahh. how cute. Obviously you hadn't heard of the Wilson Doctrine . MPs are exempt !!

[Anonymous Coward]

amazing speed

when your summer, paid-for holiday's round the corner, eh? :(

[Mr_Pitiful]

Thats going to be one pretty big database file

So how do you store everyones metadata?

I'm guessing SQL would probably be a little overloaded in a very short space of time!

Or are they going to have a database per person in the UK, wow that would be a big SQL array

[Kane]

Re: Thats going to be one pretty big database file @ Mr_Pitiful

"So how do you store everyones metadata?"

Google/Facebook already do to some extent don't they? Wasn't that the point of part of this bill? To ensure that companies are forced to hold the data for more than the statutory 12 months?

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Thats going to be one pretty big database file

*cough*unstructured data / nosql*cough*

[Avatar of They]

Title.

RIP Democracy.

[Jim 59]

Gosh isn't the government wonderful

I just wanted to say aren't our MPs great, and the folks in the security services are awfully nice too, don't you think ? Everything they do is just absolutely smashing.

[Anomalous Cowshed]

Slowly slowly, little by little...

Our governments are entrenching themselves further and further away from the people, using endless arrays of rules, coercive measures and repressive weapons to increase the chasm of power between individuals and the barely legitimate, increasingly bloated and nebulous organisations that purports to have the authority to govern them at will.

We are being increasingly encouraged to live our lives under permanent semi-voluntary surveillance (smartphones for convenience, Internet connections for work and entertainment, CCTV cameras "for our safety"). Does anyone wonder, nowadays, about the reason why governments are so keen to ensure that everyone has access to an Internet connection?

Meanwhile, the means of coercion and the weapons of repression are getting increasingly sophisticated. We are potentially monitored and tracked all the time. And if we step out of line, there are endless ways in which we can be controlled and repressed. Having read about the smart bullets with a range of 7 km and the drones and all the other repressive technology only available to the organised gangs in uniforms, you can imagine how difficult it would be to make a stand against them-for instance if they were to somehow change their attitude and decide to get a bit heavier with us, as we are told is the case in some so-called primitive dictatorships. If we were to suddenly have a rude awakening from the morass soporific consumerism and mind-addling entertainment in which we are mired, how far would we get trying to stand up to the system? How can the individual hold his own against "the boys in blue/green/grey/name it"?

[synonymous cowherd]

Re: Slowly slowly, little by little...

Does no one read Orwell, Huxley, etc. etc... any more ? : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_dystopian_literature . The politicians are merely imitating art, as we all sleep walk into the future no one ever imagined could happen - baahh. Buy type writers http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/15/germany-typewriters-espionage-nsa-spying-surveillance from here http://www.amazon.co.uk/s/?ie=UTF8&keywords=typewriters&tag=googhydr-21&index=aps&hvadid=27716486701&hvpos=1t1&hvexid=&hvnetw=s&hvrand=13127826598392373036&hvpone=&hvptwo=&hvqmt=b&hvdev=c&ref=pd_sl_2irrbogde_b

[Steven Roper]

Re: Slowly slowly, little by little...

Anomalous Cowshed, I absolutely share your sentiments. So I fought back against this horrific future the only way I know how.

I refused to have any children.

[Richard Neill]

Metadata vs URLs

For Internet data, that includes a URL... which is effectively the same thing as storing the contents of the communication itself. (with the exception of HTTP POST requests).

[David 45]

Desicable

As I am fond of saying, these jokers aren't in the real world. I'm sure they would be only too pleased to let me have sight of all the meta data of their own mails, so I could deduce what skeletons they have in their closets or what dirty washing they would like aired in public. This brazen abuse of the parliamentary process is totally despicable and just why did so many MP's vote for it? Can we please have a role of shame?

[Anonymous Coward]

No surprise

The legislation is appropriate. It's just the vocal minority that oppose it.

[synonymous cowherd]

Re: No surprise

'The legislation is appropriate. It's just the vocal minority that oppose it.' One day is all they could spare, with in the best part of a year, and no open debate. All the details were fudged in private. You dirty rotter, you scoundrel, you... you... Dovregubben

[Steven Roper]

Re: No surprise

"The legislation is appropriate. It's just the vocal minority that oppose it."

Ah, I seem to have found our phantom downvoter. I was wondering why the majority of comments in this thread all had a single downvote. Looks like that was you.

Funny how the self-righteous rationalise their bigotry by claiming their opponents are a minority. Some minority, when you felt it necessary to downvote nearly every comment in the thread. And that you also felt it necessary to hide your identity when expressing your opinion.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Metadata vs URLs

Storing the url is a step beyond the the requirements in the EU Directive struck down by the CJEU, and there is no other country in the EU having legislated that service providers must retain the urls of visited websites.

I predict that any extension of the definition of metadata beyond what was already found wanting by the CJEU will be struck down as a violation of human rights either by the CJEU under the charter or the ECTHR under the European Convention of Human Rights.

Also Austria's constitutional court has nullified its implementation of the EU Data Retention Directive, and the EU commissioner for justice has indicated that there will be no new attempt to enact a new mandatory data retention regime.

So where does it leave the UK? If no other country is willing to follow, the the only likely effect of the new law is driving business overseas.

The UK government has no power to punish an Austrian or Swedish company for refusing to log its users.

Even a mutual legal assistance request to another state is ineffective, if its law does not require the equivalent retention of metadata.

The following countries in the EU have no data retention laws:

- Germany (struck down by the constitutional court).

- Austria (struck down by the constitutional court).

- Norway (suspended).

Sweden, Netherlands and Iceland have not yet suspended the enforcement of their data retention laws, but these only require retention of the limited categories of trafick data enumerated in the directive, and the period is only six months.

[Matt Bryant]

<Yawn>

Government legislation to help fight crime on the 'Net? Check!

Uninformed, paranoid bleating from the 'lovers of liberty' (AKA, the sheeple)? Check!

Just another day on El Reg.

[Destroy All Monsters]

Re: <Yawn>

Matty posting from the slightly-right-leaning-neckbeard basement again, and not even trolling?

Don't you have overpriced HP gear to sell?

[Derek Kingscote]

Sauce for the Goose

Of course if phones can be hacked, how long before all the data is trawled by some bent person and secret affairs go public

Liz Truss had an 18 month affair with then culture spokesman Mark Field

Edwina Curry & John Major - who knew

Many others

Plus ANPR cams tracking them

There's nowhere to hide

Don't forget to put LOL at the end of your email

[Vladimir Plouzhnikov]

As if any proof was needed

That what any government fears the most are their own citizens. Not terrorists, not foreign powers, not extraterrestrials, and it doesn't matter if the government is "democratic" or "authoritarian". They will always go out of their way to ensure that no smallest bit of vox populi would slip past their ears undetected.

[TkH11]

Possibly Illegal Law

I read the judgement of the related ECJ on this matter. I don't think for one moment the MP's have read the ECJ judgement and I do not think they understand what this new law is really about and the true scope of it. It's not just a time extension to the data retention time imposed on telco's; it is far more than that.

This new law - from my non-expert unqualified reading of the ECJ judgment is illegal!

The 1995 EU directive places at its heart the idea of privacy, and that what is stored must be proportionate and the minimum necessary.

The UK government has created a definition of a telcom's communication service which is all encompassing, covering just about every traffic type you can imagine.

They have deliberately misused the ECJ ruling and created an artificial sense of urgency to enable them to create a new law and push it through rapidly without the proper scrutiny and has enabled them to create a new law (soon to be passed on to the statute) which is far more wide reaching - and I would question is illegal - than is require, than is reasonable.

[Mad Mike]

Re: Possibly Illegal Law

Do you really think politicians care about legal and illegal? You may have noticed a relatively recent (about 10-15 years) change towards laws which are retrospective. A lot of this was initially around financial matters, but it has expanded into other areas as well. It was always considered wrong to implement retrospective laws as the person being prosecuted couldn't possibly know it would become illegal at the time of the 'crime'. When this first such law occurred was a game changer, as it basically gave MPs the ability to make their past crimes legal and make anyone a criminal at any time for past actions.

A good example of this is the law around tax avoidance. Tax schemes that were perfectly legal (avoidance) were suddenly made illegal and the impact went back as far as HMRC wanted. So, people setup what were perfectly legal tax avoidance schemes in the past that have now been declared illegal and that illegality (and therefore punishment....fine, repay tax etc.) goes back to the start of the arrangement if desired. This is even though the law that made it illegal only came in later!!