MPs to sue UK.gov over 'ridiculous' emergency data snooping law Two MPs are planning to sue the UK government over its controversial emergency data snooping law, which was rushed through Parliament last week with what they described as “ridiculous and unnecessary haste”. Conservative David Davis and Labour’s Tom Watson are looking for a judicial review of the Data Retention and …
I'd have more respect for Davis and Watson if I could get rid of the nagging doubt that both are grandstanding - Davis because he missed out on a role he wanted in the reshuffle and Watson just because it seems to be his MO.
It's the run up to the summer break, it's two of them against the world - the chances of anything changing ~0.
"Such a shame David Davis didn't become Tory leader instead of Cameron."
Surprised that Cameron didn't reinstate him to the front bench. That's the usual way to silence awkward people. The policy of "collective responsibility" theoretically allows dissent in private in Cabinet arguments - but then being bound to support in public any decisions taken.
Such a shame David Davis didn't become Tory leader instead of Cameron.
Oh, but he did. Don't you remember how strongly Cameron insisted that only First Past The Post results should matter? That the person who got the most votes in the first round of an election should be declared the outright winner? Well, by that definition he must believe that David Davis is Tory leader.
Mine voted against it too. It's a shame that Elfyn Llwyd isn't going to stand at the next election as he's been a really good MP for the people.
He's the one who was behing the impeachment of Blair not too long ago and regarding this bill he was dead against it.
I haven't seen many good MPs in my life and Mr Llwyd is one of the small number.
"some politicians that really do work and act for their constituants."
In both cases they are obviously willing to trade ministerial office for freedom to speak their personal minds. Constituents generally vote the party ticket irrespective of whether they agree with the candidate. Getting an MP deselected by the local party committee needs serious personal transgressions or a powerful campaign against them.
On an issue like this the Tory party's supporters have conflicting authoritarian and libertarian groupings.
...or anything else?
It is truly remarkable that to achieve anything, government indulges itself in months and months of drafting "consultation", materials, then months and months of consultation, then months and months drafting impenetrable, poorly written, amateur legalese, meaning that new legislation inevitably takes years. Ask for anything to be done quickly, and the response is always "lack of parliamentary time". Clearly there's plenty of time for things that are high priority to them, even overlooking the ludicrously long holidays the scum take off at my expense.
"overlooking the ludicrously long holidays the scum take off at my expense"
I work with politicians on a daily basis, and have had the opportunity to meet and work with members of the cabinet from time to time. Before I did so, I was under the same impression that you were. I expected lazy, self-centered, self-important, overpaid, underworked types living the high life on expense accounts.
But over the last five years I've had to reevaluate as it appears some of my preconceptions were very, very wrong.
Let me start out by saying that I'm a regular poster here in the forums and I don't normally take stance with the government on most things, but I have to call it as I see it.
Ministers and Members are pretty hard working people. I provide IT support directly to some of them in their homes and offices and I can tell you they work long hours; way past the usual 9-5. I've often had to work up to 11pm to provide support to committees and chamber due to the reading of bills and such like and I've been called to support incidents as early as 6am. Likewise, it's not uncommon for members to work six or seven day weeks. Salaries aren't outrageous (though generous) and are dwarfed by comparison with "fat cat" bankers and CEOs, which should make you wonder why any educated person would choose a career in politics over one in business!
The "holidays" you refer to are known as "recess" and they are not simply "time off". Recess is called to allow MPs to return to their constituency offices to perform their duties as elected representatives as required by parliamentary regulations, where they work the same long hours as during "term time". When I knock off and head home, many members are still working into the night.
No matter whether I agree personally with their politics, aims or goals, I can assure you that they aren't lazy or feckless - they do work hard, and when they do take a holiday it's not out of expenses any more than their salaries are.
Now.....I can't say the same, in nearly all regards, of senior civil servants however. I had one ask me what I was doing for summer this year, and then they expressed suprise at my modest plans (working, and a spot of staycation) compared to their intended nine weeks in the Mauritious Isles....
Best to direct our ire at the correct targets.
Some of them are truly appalling. They're the ones who ask fawning questions in the Commons to convey to the PM they'll lick his arse anytime he gets a bit itchy, or to convey to the rest of us they already do. Otherwise it is being in the Cabinet that demonstrates what a bunch of shit-bags they are, a requirement of getting there in the first place.
"It's possible, true, but both Davis and Watson seem to be fully paid-up members of the awkward squad, so I wouldn't bet on it."
In that case, it's quite possible that the spooks are doing their best to create dig up some dirt on them to persuade them to be a little less awkward.
The main complaint on timing seemed to be that the government had been aware for some months of the potential need for this - i.e. that the European court ruling was not a 'bolt from the blue'. It's either a cock up that they didn't start the process earlier or a deliberate ploy.
I did note that at about 8pm there were only about 20 MPs in the house; so while a lot were happy to whine to camera about the rush, few had chosen to skip dinner and argue it out. Still, I suppose since the parties were in favour they saw it as a lost cause.
I read somewhere that apparently 'the coalition' could not agree about anything to do with this (3 months of cabinet discussion), and so the whole thing was was moved to a closed door session between the 3 main parties senior figures. At said meeting it would appear every ones concerns about privacy and basic human rights were weighed up against the security, and best interest of us all.
That's how freedom and democracy works for our best interest, or so it would seem.
PS Anyone taking bets on whether the EU is taking a very dim view, and whether or not UK.gov gets slapped with another EU high court ruling ?
"Not to mention a level of arrogant contempt for the people they are supposed to serve that beggars belief." The only arrogance beyond belief is yours in thinking your views alone represent all voters. I am a British voter that was quite content to see the bill passed, if you think I am in some tiny minority then it seems the majority of MPs from all three parties did not.
@Matt Bryant - there are a number of serious flaws in this law as first drafted. I have not yet checked the passed amendments to see if they clear these up, but on an initial reading it seems not (you have read both the draft and amendments before commenting on whether you are for or against this, haven't you?). As currently passed (my interpretation), if the government decides to investigate you or someone you have communicated with, and then you ask me to troubleshoot server logs for an unrelated issue (I sent an email but it wasn't delivered, perhaps) I will be unable to assist you - in fact it will be a criminal offence for me to do so.
".....there are a number of serious flaws in this law as first drafted. I have not yet checked the passed amendments to see if they clear these up.....(you have read both the draft and amendments before commenting on whether you are for or against this, haven't you?)....." So you haven't even read the final and passed amendments, yet you feel driven to post about it? Gee, I wonder what is driving your 'concern'.....
".....if the government decides to investigate you or someone you have communicated with, and then you ask me to troubleshoot server logs for an unrelated issue (I sent an email but it wasn't delivered, perhaps) I will be unable to assist you - in fact it will be a criminal offence for me to do so....." Alarmist male bovine manure. The Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Bill only extends existing powers to a few new arenas such as TOR and webmail, it does not introduce any of the uber-draconian rubbish as insisted by the tinfoil-attired. So, unless you want to contend that the old laws made you 'unable to assist' then there is NOTHING new to fear whatsoever. Please do point to any part of the DRIP bill or current legislation that would make your hilarious example a reality.
"" if you think I am in some tiny minority then it seems the majority of MPs from all three parties did not."
From a statement to the press by Matt Bryant, EL*.
* Establishment Lickspittle"
I note it is also a statement of fact you are unable to debunk, hence your resorting to whining. If you wish to contend that all three parties suddenly developed amazing conformity in the ranks through other means then please do explain them (and please don't waste time and bandwidth with dribbling bleats about The Man blackmailing all three parties of MPs). No doubt you will waste many hours trying to think of an alternative explanation to the facts - that those MPs simply espoused the will of the majority - but please don't get too upset she you run out of rants and have to accept the obvious. Enjoy!
So _you_ were consulted on this were you? Or perhaps it was part of a manifesto pledge being championed by the person you voted for perhaps?
The only arrogance I see here is in your assertion that because _you_ are happy with it, and all the MP's voted for it, that the MP's who voted for it somehow believe you are not in a minority.
I would like to posit that the MP's did what they were fucking told by the party whips and absolutely fuck all to do with what they thought their constituents' views on the subject were.
".....I would like to posit that the MP's did what they were fucking told by the party whips and absolutely fuck all to do with what they thought their constituents' views on the subject were." Strange that the party whips achieved not only consensus in their parties, but also across both main parties and the LibDems? The example of not only Tory backbencher revolts during the previous attempts by May to push through the Communications Data Bill, but also how the other parties seized on it as an opportunity to express their disagreement (most notably by LibDem leader Clegg), would seem to show that simply relying on the whips was not enough at all, you need a very clear and firm cross-party consensus followed by a clear will for the vast majority of rebellious backbenchers to agree. Oh, sorry, did that upset your alternate reality view? ROFL!
> "Not to mention a level of arrogant contempt for the people they are supposed to serve that beggars belief." The only arrogance beyond belief is yours in thinking your views alone represent all voters. I am a British voter that was quite content to see the bill passed
If you are not with Matt on this please consider supporting Liberty, the Open Rights Group ("Dear Theresa, see you in court" -> https://www.openrightsgroup.org/blog/2014/dear-theresa-see-you-in-court) or more generally the supporters of the Don't Spy on Us Campaign with your time and/or money.
Disclosure: Yes, I'm a member of a few of those.
".....If you are not with Matt on this...." It may surprise you to know I would support you using your legal and democratic right to challenge the ruling, even though I predict it will be nothing more than a waste of taxpayers money. It is refreshing to see a constructive response on these forums.
"I am a British voter that was quite content to see the bill passed, if you think I am in some tiny minority then it seems the majority of MPs from all three parties did not."
Translation. "I'm going to sell a shed load more storage systems to the big ISP's this year."
Matt Bryant. Ever vigilant in the fight to protect his standard of living.
".....Translation. "I'm going to sell a shed load more storage systems to the big ISP's this year."...." <Sigh> So sad that the sheeple have to insist the only reasons to support any POV other than their 'enlightened ideals' has to be because of some grubby, monetary interest. How childish! Just to set your mind at rest, let me make it clear for all the sheeple once again - I do not work for any storage or server vendor nor for any reseller, though I have done consultancy work for some and for several Government agencies, telecoms and ISPs. My current employment means I will not be in a position to consult or otherwise take advantage of the opportunities offered by the DRIP Act to vendors and resellers of storage, server or software. So please find another paranoid delusion to dribble over.
"I am a British voter that was quite content to see the bill passed, if you think I am in some tiny minority then it seems the majority of MPs from all three parties did not."
I might suggest that the party whips and the lack of time might have rather limited the ability and/or interest of MPs to find out what their constituents really thought - apart from the few punters who had the foresight to send the representative an email, of course. I'm pretty confident that the majority who did email their MP were against DRIP
> The MP's may have also voted on the basis that the majority of this law merely retains existing capabilities which are in the process of being revoked by an unfortunate decision by the ECJ.
That basis would be wrong then, wouldn't it?
"The legislation goes far beyond simply authorising data retention in the UK. In fact, DRIP attempts to extend the territorial reach of the British interception powers, expanding the UK’s ability to mandate the interception of communications content across the globe. It introduces powers that are not only completely novel in the United Kingdom, they are some of the first of their kind globally."
https://paulbernal.wordpress.com/2014/07/15/open-letter-from-uk-legal-academic-experts-re-drip/
".....I might suggest that the party whips and the lack of time might have rather limited the ability and/or interest of MPs to find out what their constituents really thought....." Because, of course, the response from the public to the Communications Data Bill and many other such surveillance-related Acts, plus the ongoing publicity over Snowden, none of that gave any indication? IMHO, to pretend the MPs went in to vote on this without any idea of their constituents feelings regarding surveillance is, frankly, a bit silly.
PS: I'm having some fun trying to work out which 'nicknames' have been added to the censor list by El Moderator seeing as some posts have been rejected for unexplained reasons.....
> Wow, you are just so good at this debating thing - not!
Ewe can talk, plumpkins. Remember this, lambchop?
Easy to 'debate' if you do it your way. And you know by now that if you want to troll, I can troll you better. Want to kick off again my little plumpgasm?
Only five minutes into the thread and already BlueGreen is trying to divert off into another thread rather than admit he cannot counter the points raised in this one! I would have to suggest he knows he's already lost any argument, hence his early diversion. Even as a forum stalker he's an abject failure!
".....Easy to 'debate' if you do it your way....." Yes, it is easy if you post facts and reasoned arguments, which is why you never win and why you're diverting off into denial again. Oh, BTW, if you want to revisit one of your many previous drubbings, please do show me the 'harm' from the NSA's activities you claimed you had proof of. As I recall, you failed to show it in several threads.
So, do you actually have anything to say related to the thread, or are you just going to rotate through your usual forum fluffing routine?
> Only five minutes [...] an abject failure!
MBZCC
> please do show me the 'harm' from the NSA's activities you claimed you had proof of.
But plumpkins, did you not click on the nice link? The very one that points out that I didn't say such a thing and asks you to show that I did. And you couldn't and still haven't but now you're making the same accusations again because it's the default plumpness failure mode?
Someone famous (in his own cubicle anyway) once said "Wow, you are just so good at this debating thing - not!". Stupid or dishonest, which?
I'm not debating with you, Matt, for precisely the reasons I have stated elsewhere. Instead, I am planting a warning for others who might think it's worth their time engaging with you.
As I have gone to quite some lengths to explain, I don't call you a troll because you have opposing views to mine on many subjects, but because you are verbally abusive to everyone who disagrees with you, or even to those who agree with you but whose posts you have failed to comprehend.
As I have said, elsewhere, I value well considered and researched opposing views; they assist in refining my own thinking. You, however, are deliberately and consistently abusive in your debating, therefore you are a troll.
"I [Matt Bryant] am a British voter that was quite content to see the bill passed, if you think I am in some tiny minority then it seems the majority of MPs from all three parties did not."
Then, prey tell, Matt, why are you the one collecting the downvotes? In just about every forum I have seen, or discussion I have heard, the supporters of this action are, by a large margin, in the minority.
You are the one in error if you think yourself and a bunch of lilly livered yes men constitute a concensus of opinion.
"Then, prey tell, Matt, why are you the one collecting the downvotes? In just about every forum I have seen, or discussion I have heard, the supporters of this action are, by a large margin, in the minority....." If you lived in a sewage farm you would think swimming in shit was the norm. I suggest you try getting out and meeting a few people that do not hold the same POV as the challenge will either only make your preconceptions stronger or make you question what you have been told is The Truth. The vast majority of the British electorate do not even know The Register exists, let alone express themselves here, so it is simply foolish to think the sheeple that have started flocking here constitute a true reflection of public opinion.
Hmm,
Let us dissect your latest diatribe, shall we, Matty?
"If you lived in a sewage farm you would think swimming in shit was the norm."
People may work on a sewage farm, but they certainly wouldn't live on one (hint: It's not a real "farm"), and I image the last thing a sewage worker would think as "normal" would be taking a swim in a settling pond. As an analogy that is pretty ineffective.
"I suggest you try getting out and meeting a few people that do not hold the same POV as the challenge will either only make your preconceptions stronger or make you question what you have been told is The Truth."
I rather think you should take your own advice. How long did you spend writing all of those ill tempered replies? You need to get out more if that is the best use you can make of your time.
"The vast majority of the British electorate do not even know The Register exists, let alone express themselves here, so it is simply foolish to think the sheeple that have started flocking here constitute a true reflection of public opinion."
So why bother trying to convince us "sheeple" that we are wrong. We are all, obviously, hopeless unreformable reprobates not fit to share this space with you.
If I were you, I'd piss off to a forum where the participants are more sensible and open to new ideas.
"Let us dissect your latest diatribe...." I'm betting the 'dissection' will fail to address any of the points I raised, and merely degenerate into the usual denials that any POV other than The Truth should be heard.
"....People may work on a sewage farm, but they certainly wouldn't live on one (hint: It's not a real "farm"), and I image the last thing a sewage worker would think as "normal" would be taking a swim in a settling pond. As an analogy that is pretty ineffective....." So rather than trying to counter that environment limits the ability to see other POVs, and that deliberately limiting your environment by denying all other POVs have any value is merely denial, you want to concentrate on whether people would live on a sewage farm?!? You are the poster child for desperate denial.
".....How long did you spend writing all of those ill tempered replies?...." LOL, more egotistical denial from the sheeple! For a start, despite what you want to baaaah-lieve, I am not raging, I'm usually laughing my arse off at your denial! Does it help you to imagine that anyone that would dare to challenge The Truth must be 'raging'? And sorry if it bruises your ego, but debunking your drivel takes mere minutes at most, so the effort is trivial. I assume your confusion stems from your needing hours of 'deep thought' to come up with your posts?
".....So why bother trying to convince us "sheeple" that we are wrong....." Apart from the fact that it's fun watching you lot twist yourselves up in balls of denial, this used to be a respected technical website, so making it uncomfortable for the large number of non-technical sheeple that seem to have flocked here of late is a very good reason to continue. Hopefully you'll go away and the rest of us can get back to technical articles.
"....If I were you..." Gosh, a link to the Daily Mail - how original! Not. I appreciate that for you that was a truly gargantuan attempt at originality and wit but it's very staple sheeple fare. I would suggest you simply try a lot harder on the originality. Oh, and is that the predicted insistence that only the sheeples' POV should be heard here? You lot are so predictable and so boring.
> If you lived in a sewage farm you would think swimming in shit was the norm
If a certain turd floats by again and again, one might become painfully familiar with it. Anyway, on to the mian point.
> so it is simply foolish to think the sheeple that have started flocking here constitute a true reflection of public opinion.
Let me get this straight. 'The vast majority of the British electorate do not even know The Register exists' but we regists are, in your words, the sheeple. That means the great mass of the electorate *aren't* sheeple?
"If a certain turd floats by again and again, one might become painfully familiar with it....." The point I was trying to make is that, if all you do is talk to 'turds', then you will only hear their POV. In your case, the 'turds' are the other like-minded people you mix with, meaning that you only hear the opinions of the 'turds', therefore you fall into the logical fallacy of thinking everyone 'thinks' like a 'turd'. Hence your inability to accept there are those of us that are not 'turds'.
".....'The vast majority of the British electorate do not even know The Register exists'....." Obviously. The UK has a population of about 60 million, if we assume about 75% are voters that would be 45 million people - do you see 45 million unique posts on this thread, let alone down votes?
".....we regists ...." Again the ego. Please do not assume all Register members 'think' like 'turds' thanks. You are a very vocal minority subset of Register members. That the majority of the voting populace do not think like you is evident by the fact you are here moaning instead of enjoying all the laws being the way you want them to be, otherwise the politicians would be falling over themselves to enact laws to suit you. They are not, ergo yours is not the viewpoint of the majority. Enjoy!
“I want to be very clear that we are not introducing new powers or capabilities – that is not for this Parliament. This is about restoring two vital measures ensuring that our law enforcement and intelligence agencies maintain the right tools to keep us all safe.”
Like McDonalds, bland bullshit for undiscerning consumers can now be found worldwide.
All you need is some coppers reading this who lack a sense of humour, they'll be round on your doorstep next week to raid you and question you on your claims to commit mass murder of our illustrious elected officials.
You just know that in the Stalinist state we are heading towards, you just know it could happen.
There is actually an extensive, ongoing, developed monitoring of a specific known threat. Why else would ALL parties agree to this rushed legislation.
I don't for one minute believe it would have received the support from Labour if Ed Milliband not been fully appraised of what his predecessors left behind and he would be likely to inherit.
Now I know David Cameron announced in a vague way that loss of data retention "would hinder investigations", but I'd suggest there must have been something substantially more tangible to present otherwise the opposition would have taken the opportunity to oppose.
Or maybe I just need a thicker tinfoil hat...
'There is actually an extensive, ongoing, developed monitoring of a specific known threat.'
There may be. The problem is that if I'm going to give up my liberties in exchange for protection against a threat that for 'security reasons' no-one can tell me about, then I need to have a great deal of trust in the people I'm giving up those liberties to.
The British governmental system falls laughably below that standard, so if it's all right with you, I'll opt for open government and take my chances.
Tom Watson started tweeting about what was then an unnamed bill with an empty description on the Friday, he guessed it was DRIP that was going to magically appear on the Monday - and he was right - my own MP ignored all questions about the bill or about how he voted after the bill - so I guess he voted it through then...
I was involved in funding the Judicial Review which took place for IR35, a number of years ago.
Firstly, funding it was expensive, secondly, one of the defendant's (the government) arguments was that it's not for a Court of Law to overturn primary legislation, that's the job of Parliament.
Not sure how much consideration the judge gave to that defence, possibly some, possibly and quite likely a lot. During the week of court hearings some positive things went in our (the public's) favour, some went in favour of the government, but we didn't really have any clear sense of which way the case was going until after the hearings had been heard, But somehow, it seemed hard to imagine that the judge would rule in favour of Joe Public. He didn't. Anyway we know what happened with IR35, it was never repealed.
It will be interesting to see what happens if MP's challenge the law by way of a judicial review, do they stand a better chance at getting it repealed than the general public?
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
