Investigatory Powers Bill: Spooks willingly entering the light?

The redrafted Investigatory Powers bill is about to return to Parliament, accompanied by complaints that the government is trying to rush it through, threats of Conservative backbench rebellions and a withdrawal of Labour support. It could almost be the European Union referendum. Arguments over process and party splits are not …

[Vimes]

Didn't Andy Burnham also make the offer of supporting the bill if the government released data on Orgreave? Selling our privacy for their own personal political gain doesn't sound like the actions of a party anybody should be trusting, especially when you take everything else that has happened in the past that Labour have been directly involved with.

Andy Burnham: supported ID cards. Keir Starmer: involved in that whole situation involving Phorm whilst at the CPS.

And these are the people we have up against the tories in this case?

[Anonymous Coward]

In politics, Burnham is a ...

In politics there are signposts and weathervanes. Weathercocks will spin in whatever direction the wind of public opinion may blow them, no matter what principle they may have to compromise. And there are signposts, signposts which stand true and tall and principled.

Recent history makes it eminently clear that Burnham is a weathercock; whichever way the wind seems to be blowing, he follows it.

[Mark 65]

Re: In politics, Burnham is a ...

Recent history makes it eminently clear that Burnham is a cock

FTFY

[Warm Braw]

A further step on its long walk out of the shadows?

...things were happening outside the law and it is now proposed to put them inside the law...

Sounds to me like it's simply a question of having smoke and mirrors do the work of the former shadows...

[Graham Marsden]

Re: A further step on its long walk out of the shadows?

> smoke and mirrors do the work of the former shadows...

Definitely!

They're saying "Look, see all this? Look how open and transparent we're being! Oh don't worry about the man behind the curtain or the person looking over your shoulder or picking your pocket or spying through your window or listening to your phone calls, they're not important because we're being open, honest...!"

[phuzz]

"“The people who lobbied me hardest for independent authorisation, something that really passes muster internationally, is the intelligence agencies. It’s partly a question of recruitment for them,” he said."

Some of the people who are most against this bill are techies (including a lot of the readership of el'Reg), who would otherwise be the core recruiting pool for GCHQ, and it's starting to put a squeeze on them.

[Anonymous Coward]

Some of the people who are most against this bill are techies (including a lot of the readership of el'Reg), who would otherwise be the core recruiting pool for GCHQ,

If GCHQ were anything like as clever as they like the rest of us to believe they'd have no skills shortage (taking their claim at face value, natch), as the appropriate job adverts would appear targeted very closely to those qualified for the post, almost as spear phishing recruitment, and those who don't have skills they want wouldn't see any adverts for GCHQ.

Instead they use broadcast adverts that I often see, but don't have any of the skills for those jobs.

[theOtherJT]

Truth in fiction...

The attitude of GCHQ* has always been beautifully summed up for me by a quote from Judi Dench's M in Casino Royale

Who the hell do they think they are? I report to the Prime Minister and even he's smart enough not to ask me what we do. Have you ever seen such a bunch of self-righteous, arse-covering prigs? They don't care what we do; they care what we get photographed doing.

The first time I heard that I genuinely laughed out loud, because it seemed like such a perfect assessment of both how the security services have always treated those who are supposed to oversee them, and the CYA attitude of the ones supposedly providing the oversight.

*Yes, I know, different agency, but I reckon it stands for all TLAs

[John Smith 19]

"a social compact.." "extensive public debate.." "a new democratic licence to operate.."

So he's not arrogant, he's delusional.

What extensive public debate is he talking about? Most British people seem completely unaware it's even happening. Otherwise they read the "Nothing to hide, nothing to fear" bo***cks.

AFAIK the current "inspection" is a rubber stamp to do what they like, when they like.

[smudge]

Re: "a social compact.." "extensive public debate.." "a new democratic licence to operate.."

Apparently he is distantly related to Prostetic Vogon Jeltz: "...you’ve had plenty of time to lodge any formal complaints and its far too late to start making a fuss about it now.... I’m sorry but if you can’t be bothered to take an interest in local affairs that’s your own lookout... God I don’t know…apathetic bloody planet, I’ve no sympathy at all."

[Anonymous Coward]

It's vitally important that this spying doesn't become legitimised. As soon as that happens, people will begin abusing it (precedents: any powers granted to anyone, anywhere).

While it's illegal, it's spies doing spy stuff; and to be fair they have to do it because every other bastard is doing it (and if they weren't before Snowden they sure as fuck are now).

Make it legal, however, and that opens the gates to a dystopian nightmare where thoughtcrime is very much a possibility. Look at the tamping-down of populations managed by various groups throughout history just with pens and bits of paper; and then apply that sort of thinking to a world with the internet which enables more-or-less realtime coverage of more-or-less what you're thinking about now. Terrifying.

Even if you don't think the current lot will do it (and there aren't many that I would trust to keep half an eye on my pint while I went for a piss) there are no guarantees that some future lot won't take this further. Indeed, it's very likely to go wrong; and sooner rather than later.

[Anonymous Coward]

High Chancellor Adam Sutler will be rubbing his hands in glee.

(Anonymous, just for the mask)

[StaudN]

Nevermind "Brexit"

This topic should require a referendum of its own: "Should the government be allowed to keep a record of my Internet activity, Yes/No".

Edit: Just had a look on the uk.gov petitions website and found nothing to this affect... really?! They are doing a good job of keeping this one under the radar.

[allthecoolshortnamesweretaken]

Re: Nevermind "Brexit"

You know what to do then...

[John Smith 19]

Amusingly May is keen to leave the EU.

Thus limiting the US's back door into EU data flows and letting the EU upgrade its data protection regime (IIRC the UK's was one of the weakest in Europe) and giving an incentive to locate any EU companies data centre anyplace but the UK.

Not that she can be expected to bother her poor little brain with such matters.

"Doublethink" indeed.

I suspect it's been a very long time since most senior politicians (the ones who've gone all out for naked ambition) have held just 2 views on a subject at the same times.

Slightly off topic can someone please explain to me why the EU would given the UK preferential treatment when it has effectively been stabbed in the back?

In IT terms how would you react if a senior manager a)Resigns on 1 weeks notice while b) Taking a copy of all the companies IP and database (although you can't prove it) and c) Hires away key staff to form his own company but d) Likes the company to keep paying his pension and gym contributions and his car expenses.

Wouldn't you be a bit miffed?

[Vimes]

Re: Amusingly May is keen to leave the EU.

Amusingly May is keen to leave the EU.

No longer true apparently, at least for the time being.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/feb/02/theresa-may-announces-intention-to-back-eu-membership

Thus limiting the US's back door into EU data flows and letting the EU upgrade its data protection regime (IIRC the UK's was one of the weakest in Europe) and giving an incentive to locate any EU companies data centre anyplace but the UK.

Which might also explain why she is now supporting the UK staying in the EU.

IIRC the Schrems ruling didn't actually say anything about the specific level of protection given to information, just that it had to be 'equivalent' to the level given to it within the EU itself. One way to allow spying without creating issues would be to drag the rest of Europe down to our level so that 'equivalent' matches what's proposed by May.

Doing that would be far easier to accomplish inside Europe as opposed to outside, and in reality the rest of Europe is probably closer to this than they realise anyway (just look at France where they propose to make elements of the state of emergency permanent and made part of their constitution).

As an aside the original Data Retention Directive put in place by the EU was done during the UK's presidency and was drafted by the Home Office. That's the sort of influence May will need if she wants to stand even a remote chance of getting her IP bill into place without creating havoc for everybody else in the process.

Slightly off topic can someone please explain to me why the EU would given the UK preferential treatment when it has effectively been stabbed in the back?

Because we're special apparently.

[John Smith 19]

Re: Amusingly May is keen to leave the EU.

"Amusingly May is keen to leave the EU.

No longer true apparently, at least for the time being.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/feb/02/theresa-may-announces-intention-to-back-eu-membership"

Curious. I rather though this was a conviction issue for Teresa May.

But apparently it isn't.

[sysconfig]

BBC "Analysis" on the subject...

The revised bill is expected to reflect the majority of the recommendations made by three Parliamentary committees.

Where recommendations have not been accepted, the government says they would compromise the capabilities of law enforcement and intelligence services.

(Source, about to disappear from the main news page soon)

No wonder that nobody apart from privacy advocates and IT guys complain. Even the TV channel that we are paying for isn't doing a lot to dig into the matter, and the wording is important here. "Would compromise the capabilities of law enforcement" is a very subjective view -- the government's. That phrase could be used to dismiss pretty much all of the recommendations, which I suppose is going to happen anyway, because it's been merely a couple of weeks since they were published.

[Eponymous Cowherd]

Re: BBC "Analysis" on the subject...

I did like this quote from Lawrence Jones of UK Fast:

"The bill is doomed from the outset... It's almost as if Theresa May doesn't understand how the internet works," he told BBC Breakfast.

No shit Sherlock!!!!

Three simple steps that even the less technically able can follow to ensure that their internet activity isn't snooped on:

1. Buy a TP-Link router.

2. Install Gargoyle on it.

3. Enable TOR plugin.

That is how trivial it is to ensure that you, your family's, and visitors' use of your broadband isn't being spied on by the Gov't. Frankly, any terrorist, paedophile or crook who can't take those (or the many similar) steps deserves to get caught.......

[Gordon 10]

Re: BBC "Analysis" on the subject...

Surprisingly even the commentards who haunt the BBC website and usually post messages with content that reads somewhere between Genghis Khan and a Daily Mail reader are almost 100% against this bill.

[Derek Kingscote]

Fools

Weren't they spying on Harold Wilson?

This gives them carte blanche to spy on all the politicians too.

No secret trysts for any of them. [Major; Currie et al.]

To be honest, I'm not too worried, they'll be overwhelmed in fairly short order, and they won't be able to build additional capacity fast enough. And how many people will they need to eyeball this stuff [ok some of it may be automated -but they still have to validate it.] and within 30 - 40 days.

If you are trying to find a needle in a haystack, the last this you do is to build a bigger haystack!

As the terrorists say : we only have to be lucky once, the Authorities have to be lucky all the time.

D

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Fools

they'll be overwhelmed in fairly short order, and they won't be able to build additional capacity fast enough

Who will be overwhelmed? The plan AIUI is for the ISP's to have to keep the records and add the costs to your monthly broadband bill. If the ISP's have any common sense they'll be doing this with a decent margin on it, and the more surveillance hardware and storage they need to buy, the better their investors will like it. Everybody wins. Government control freaks oppress the population. Spooks and almost every low level government employee has free access to your internet and comms history. Your ISP has a steadly growing asset base with an (in effect) government guaranteed annuity return. And we win because........ermm....errmmm....YEs! We win because we're immediately protected from paedoterrordrugdealingtaxdodgists!

Yay! Roll on Snoopers Charter! Three cheers for the evil witch May!

[Anonymous Coward]

Service providers to store browsing records for 12 months

"The Investigatory Powers Bill will force service providers to store browsing records for 12 months." ref

How is this technically possible, since my ISP assures me they don't spy on their customers.