Investigatory Powers Bill lands in Parliament amid howls over breadth of spying powers The Investigatory Powers Bill (IPB) has been formally laid before the UK Parliament, renewing criticisms that the government is trying to force it through without adequate democratic scrutiny. While the government claimed (PDF) that the bill responds to various Parliamentary committees' “call for greater clarity” much of this …
(a) may be used to identify, or assist in identifying, a telecommunications service to which a communication is transmitted through a telecommunication system for the purpose of obtaining access to, or running, a computer file or computer program,
i.e. anything they want, as anything may "assist" to a greater or lesser degree. Like the complete contents of the packet.
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less."
Or cow farms...
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/feb/15/lords-overruled-recording-laws-vellum-goat-calf-skin
“The new legislation needs to be in force by 31 December 2016 in order to ensure that powers which are essential to counter the threat from criminals and terrorists do not lapse.”
So the only possible excuse for rushing at this point is that you expect this bill to get defeated, and have to re-write it again.
Where as, if you wrote it properly in the first place...
"It super pisses me off that I have to pay for spying that won't affect me, while I have to pay for a VPN on top of my ISP bill."
You can rent an offshore VPS to host your VPN, mailservers, blog and other useful stuff for around a fiver a month. Being doing this for a while. Amazing watching this business friendly government drive business abroad.
I (but not Theresa?) expect the serious crims and terrorists to be well ahead of me ... so why, why, why?
It seems crazy but we know that, for instance, the Paris attackers were using unencrypted text messages to organise. The terrorists are not way ahead of you. That's because they *are* crazy.
When we encounter non-crazy terrorists be very afraid because we're screwed. Therefore the best defence is to build a society which non-crazy people don't want to attack. Tolerance and inclusion are essential to that and privacy forms a small but important part too.
The Paris attackers were working on the not-unreasonable assumption that if the police hadn't collared them by the night of the big attack, then the police weren't on to them sufficiently for unencrypted comms on the night to be an issue.
Just because comms chatter is unencrypted does not mean that it is intelligible, either. Look at teenagers wittering on in text-speak language. Lots of info, not easily understood.
In the wake of 3 starting to offer network-level ad protection, could an ISP simply route all traffic (except BBC iPlayer :)) through a different company located in a civilised nation? Then the ICR available would be 'user X connected to the VPN', no more detail available, and the ISP would avoid spending extra money on compliance with this ridiculous law.
Hello Citizen,
Welcome to our new country Totalitaria. We will record and monitor everything you do, rest assured you are safe from terrorists from the moment you are born when we take and analyse your DNA and fit your personal safety tracker. Your School record will be monitored and analysed. Everywhere you go will be monitored through our network of friendly CCTV camera's. Every conversation you have, every website you visit , every thing you type will be monitored and analysed for your protection.
Rest assured anyone that thinks differently or shows any sign of dissent will be taken to one of our education centres where they will be re-educated (tortured) to reverse the error of their ways.
Regards,
Your Government.
So, in essence, she's trying to make it legal to spy on all British people without any evidence of wrong doing.
Bulk fishing. A straight violation of the Privacy Right. And the details are kept from Parliament and outside the democracy, on a "trust us" basis.
You donutters, look at what you did. Parliament said no to Snoopers Charter, you did it anyway and now the only people allowed in office are those ultra-pro-surveillance clones. Political elections held under GCHQ microscope and Farrs influence. You did that, you undermined the democracy, and turned the spying machine against Britain and now we get people like Theresa May.
She can see nothing wrong with making a Stasi surveillance machine on steroids watching every Brit for signs of dissent just in case.
Which is great, until 'excessive use of encryption technology' is enshrined into law as 'reasonable suspicion of cyber-terrorism' (or whatever they think will get through - terrorism, paedophilia, any other 'indefensible' argument) on the back of these regulations, and used as an excuse to kick in doors and confiscate equipment.
That sort of thing actually already happens, it just requires a bit more pretence at the moment - IE false accusations of hacking, etc - as right now, just Encrypting. Fucking. Everything. can't be used in and of itself as suspicion of a crime. It can certainly be used to bolster the case to get a warrant against you though, if the motivations are strong enough with the right people.
People say we're sleepwalking into a surveillance state, my reaction to the above (as that's pretty much what happened to them) suggests we've been there for a while, frankly.
Steven R
From the UK Parliament Website...
Delegated or secondary legislation is usually concerned with detailed changes to the law made under powers from an existing Act of Parliament. Statutory instruments form the majority of delegated legislation but it can also include Rules or Codes of Practice.What delegated legislation does
Delegated legislation allows the Government to make changes to a law without needing to push through a completely new Act of Parliament. The original Act (also known as primary legislation) would have provisions that allow for future delegated legislation to alter the law to differing degrees.
These changes range from the technical, like altering the level of a fine, to fleshing out Acts with greater detail; often an Act contains only a broad framework of its purpose and more complex content is added through delegated legislation.
As binding as a string vest. Essentially - the minister of the day can vary the code of practice and it does not need a parliamentary vote. So .. to paraphrase;
"The law says I can say what's going to happen. Well this year, I think you should all behave and tell me what you're thinking"
Something of this magnitude, of this severity, needs to have a firmer set of strictures defined. The limitations in terms of permitted and forbidden activity should be defined, debated and ultimately voted upon by parliament where they will pass or fail based on their merits.
Pulling aspects of law out into individual ministerial whim control should not be allowed or tolerated.
Can someone stop the world - I want to get off.
I share your chagrin.
However, re: how the bill is being handled, I've seen a pattern over the years, happening here and in the US: the gov-types introduce a security bill that shrieks with overreach, then the inevitable horse-trading begins. In the end, the proposers end up with a Law that is worse than the privacy/rights critics wanted, but the most egregious measures are pulled or dialled down, giving the illusion of a) relief and b) reasonableness. And all along the proposers were seeking the position they actually got, knowing they can return next year/whenever and gain yet more ground by the same tactic.
And that is how cynical the whole issue is to these control freaks! And that offends me even further...
I want to suggest that we start to frame the debate, not in terms that the proposers create (protection, fear and national interest alone), but in terms that change the public's perception of the issue - ways they can understand and feel. So, for example how would they feel if hidden strangers were listening in on their intimate conversations, watching them undress at home, assessing their every decision: strangers unaccountable, hidden and uninvited? Who could destroy their lives from afar, with impunity? What difference then if they are your government or a foreign power/group?
Dunno. But we must define what privacy means to us, and stand up for it, before they define it for us.
“call for greater clarity” - let's hope it's better than the existing legislation then but I won't be holding my breath. Some years ago our Hosting Server provider informed us that they had received and acted on a RIPA request for E-Mail information for a customer of ours who's Domain we host. Unsure as to whether or not there was a legal requirement for us to inform, in turn, our customer, or not, we contacted the relevant GOV UK department who were unable / refused to confirm what our position was. They forwarded to us 3 HUGE .pdf files, filled with legal jargon which would have taken a Barrister a year to wade through with the instruction - "it's all in there" We informed the client anyway and were subsequently informed, by the same GOV UK office, that we had broken the law. Yet, from what little I have read of the new legislation I did notice that "it will be illegal to inform someone that a RIPA request has been made against them", or similar, which suggests that it's not actually illegal at the moment.
Years ago, most laws appeared to pretty black and white to most of us. Of late they seem to take the view that "they will decide", under existing legislation, if in fact you have broken the law or not.
I'm reminded of the saying attributed to Cardinal Richelieu:"If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him."
I wouldn't trust these f***s an far as I could throw them.
> perhaps you missed the proposals to opt out of the European Convention on Human Rights
Ironically, Cameron is campaigning to stay In, even though this would actually make it *more* difficult for him to dump the ECHR and introduce his "You have the Rights we *say* you can have, provided they're not too inconvenient for us" British Bill of Rights.
Are enjoying this on our 'private' forums. Just for effect we will wait and plan for six months after you have had this legislation in place and then blow up multiple meat-bags all over the UK... then you get to decide just how effective your legislation was. Hey... thanks for the invite.
..What we need is good old fashioned home-grown terrorism. Anarchism for the UK.
It wouldn't work, look into what happens to 'Anarchists' in the UK sometime, the surveillance that they want to apply to everyone has been applied to 'Anarchists' for decades (It could be argued that it has been continuous since Victorian times).
They're probably more police/spook ridden than the animal rights mob.
"They're probably more police/spook ridden than the animal rights mob."
There are no anarchists in the UK. You just think there are because all the various agencies have had so many undercover operatives in there for so long and no interdepartmental communication that all the real ones have left. It's just spooks spying on police spying on spooks all interbreeding with each other.
Intercepting communications is the modern equivalent of mail intercepts, but is there any legal precedent for allowing government agencies to hack into our private electronic devices? Don't current laws protecting private property make this a criminal offence? I would certainly consider it offensive for someone to access my data without my permission, let alone modify my data or change the operation of my devices. Government exploits could risk our data integrity and leave us more vulnerable to hacking by third parties.
For anyone who supports the government's right to hack our electronic devices, are you fine with them entering your home without your permission and tearing pages out of your diary, changing your shopping list, stealing your family photos, changing the settings on your radio etc. which are the real-world equivalent? This ruling crosses the line between the state serving the public interest and infringing on our privacy. When the authorities are granted these powers, they will be used against innocent people because someone with a grudge has accused them and they are under investigation. Why should anyone have to endure an ongoing invasion of privacy, without even being aware of it?
If the police need a warrant to enter your property, you are informed by them arriving at your property with a warrant, you are only subjected to one search, it's not ongoing so your privacy is not infringed after the police leave. Finally, if they do their job well they should not alter or damage your property. The electronic equivalent is imaging your hard drive without modifying it's content, then looking for evidence of the reported crime in the imaged data. I think these standards should apply when governments agencies seek access to our electronic devices. I also think that all information obtained this way is considered private and is only made public if used for a successful prosecution.
Ah, I see where you went wrong. The bill is in the state it's in due to considerations made by it authors. Ms. May's babbling incoherence when questioned clearly show that she is/was well removed from the authoring of the bill. The British State Security Agencies (SSA's) authored the bill as Snowden reawakened their awareness that sometimes even they can be held to account for their crimes against the people. So, they must have what they have been doing made legal as they have no intention of discontinuing their activities in theses areas – No Matter Want the People Think Or Want.
Your view that the bill is in a poor state is the result of your failure to remember that SSA's always act and speak in a manner that is A** backwards. If you can't keep them at arm's length, gloves and tongs are best kept at hand.
“You wanted privacy in the bill – it's in the bill. You get what you want, we get what we want. Win – Win. Now, STFU”.
The bill -will- allow them to do whatever it is they want to do regardless of the final text.
Chin up, we're not doing much better on the left side of the pond and it's good to see the British “can-do” spirit is still alive and kicking. Or..., is that just a death spasm?
Got to go and cast my ballet for Bernie as it's probably the only chance I'll get to vote for the only decent* person running for POTUS this time around.
(*decent in the sense that marking the ballet next to his name is the only option if I wish to keep my lunch down.)
OK here's a good reason why these powers are too broad especially as the police will have unwarranted access to every bodies browsers history for the previous year.
We're all tech people so we know how web pages work, but the guy in the street & most MP's don't.
They all think that their web history is what pops up in their browser when they click on a button, it's a list of every site they clicked on a link for or typed an address for, Theresa Mays' "itemised phone list" only for web pages.
But we all know that if the ISP records a web history it will not only list all those sites, but it will also list every site the loaded page pulls in content from and if they are loading scripts or active content then any site they access and so on.
For example I went to forums.theregister.co.uk to see this page & for the guy in the street that's all that appears in the history but looking at the media loaded for the page I've actually visited www.technojobs.co.uk, regmedia.co.uk, www.theregister.co.uk & go.theregister.com, looking at the page source I've also visited www.googletagservices.com & pubads.g.doubleclick.net & that's just from a quick skim there are probably more.
So the average person coming here thinks they've visited a single page, when in fact they've visited at least seven and this is one of the better sites. Some sites pull in contributions from dozens of other sites some even load scripts from other sites and those can load yet more from yet more sites.
It's a very rare site that when you visit it that's the only site you access.
All these other sites, that most people are blissfully unaware of, will end up in in the web log collected by the ISP and be available to the authorities without a warrant.
So what, these are perfectly legitimate sites and won't arouse any interest, there will be no 4 o'clock knock rousing you from your slumber to explain why you accessed one of them will there ?
Well while the major sites may have good security and can keep the bad guys out most of the time, can you guarantee all of the other sites that get accessed can keep the bad guys out ? What about the slightly seedier websites that some people access like the p*rn sites, can we guarantee their security is up to snuff & they haven't cut the odd corner to save a few quid ?
How about this scenario.
A bunch of black hats hack into one of the sites supplying scripts, and modify a commonly used script so that it downloads a bunch of stuff from some terrorist site & dumps it into some hidden div on the page say with a "display:none;" style, they leave it for a week and then remove the modification. Most people wouldn't even notice this has happened, the data isn't displayed or saved on the PC & the load time would be increased fractionally is all. But the web log that the ISP gathers and that the authorities can access without a warrant will now have a ton of references to terrorist sites.
So you could get a 4 o'clock knock & be dragged from your bed to blearily answer questions about your terrorist affiliations because of all these websites you visited, and when you deny any knowledge they can show you the logs of the access which will be all the proof that's needed, your life will effectively end at that point as the authorities tear it apart looking for more evidence.
Scared yet ?
If anyone would care to prove that this can't happen then I might sleep again.
I think people in the street need to be educated about what will actually be in the web log, I guarantee it will contain a damn sight more than most people think it does.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
