back to article Only 12% of UK thinks Snoopers' Charter is 'adequately explained'

Only 12 per cent of the British public believe the Home Secretary has “adequately explained the impact of the Investigatory Powers Bill to the UK public and presented a balanced argument for its introduction”. A survey on data privacy issues conducted by Open-Xchange has found that the "internet-savvy" public in the UK, …

  1. allthecoolshortnamesweretaken

    That many? I'm surprised.

    1. Chris G Silver badge

      Perfectly explained

      We are doing this for you own good, we will take and look at all data to protect you all.

      Even if we are not sure what we are protecting you from.

      You will retain the right to complain, and moan.

  2. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    "You will retain the right to complain, and moan."

    "You will retain the right to complain, and moan until we say that will be considered unpatriotic and illegal."

    FTFY

    1. Triggerfish

      Please do moan and complain, it makes it easier to know whom to add to the database.

      1. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

        "Please do moan and complain if it makes you feel better, it makes it easier to know whom to add to You're already in the the database with everyone else"

        1. Triggerfish

          Sorry I meant upgrade your threat level.

  3. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Outlawing maths

    I'm not convinced somebody isn't already planning it. It's not like we have world class numeracy rates to begin with...

  4. David Pollard

    Security vs privacy?

    33 per cent [think] national security [is] more important for the government to protect than the right to personal privacy at 11 per cent.

    This false dilemma skews the whole debate from the outset. National security is directly contingent on accountability. Accountability only develops when people can be trusted. And if they can be trusted there's mostly no need for snooping.

    Indeed, snooping erodes trust; and lack of trust amounts to a loss of security.

  5. 2460 Something
    Holmes

    Adequately explained

    Of course it isn't adequately explained. If they actually explained all the ways within which they will twist it to screw over normal citizens (who are not supposed to be the target of this, they are looking for the 'terrorists' and other malcontent needles in the haystack) and the truth about just how astronomical the costs are going to be and how that is going to affect everyone through higher prices/hidden taxation then nobody within even a shred of decency would ever consider supporting it.

    Yes, yes I know it would probably still get through as their appears to be a very high proportion of politicians with no humanity when compared to the population as a whole (almost as if it were a requirement to becoming a politician), but still, at least it would be nice if for once they would actually be honest with us.

  6. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Not surprising considering she couldn't even explain it herself to the parliamentary committee.

  7. Chewi
    Megaphone

    Write to your MP!

    This survey doesn't mean much if we don't write to our MPs as we don't get to vote on it. I wrote a long e-mail to mine and got a great response.

    1. MrXavia

      Re: Write to your MP!

      But that only works if the MP's listen to the public...

      Unfortunately my MP did not listen when I wrote to him, instead sending out a 'standard letter' to every one who contacted him, meaning he received many letters, but didn't read them or bother to listen to the general message

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Write to your MP!

      Try searching the internet, you may find it's a canned response given by all MP's

    3. Thought About IT

      Re: Write to your MP!

      I got what read as a handout from the Ministry of Truth from my MP.

    4. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Write to your MP!

      What's the point? Andy the weazel Burnham has stated Labour will abstain, I.e. effectively vote yes. My MP voted for the ruled partially illegal DRIPA as well. Even David Davis has said he doesn't want to derail the bill and he has been a key voice among MPs who don't support mass spying on people.

  8. PassiveSmoking

    Don't be silly, they don't want your opinion about anything, you pleb. This isn't a democracy you know!

    .... oh, wait.

    1. Crisp

      Of course it's a democracy!

      Just like the Democratic People's Republic of Korea or the Democratic Republic of the Congo...

    2. Chloe Cresswell

      To quote Sir Humphry "It's a _British_ Democracy..."

  9. G R Goslin

    12% THINK they know what it means

    The usual glib lies before it comes into force. THEN it will be explained. After that will come the explanations that it means what we now want ti to mean, which is not clear from what it says.

  10. Velv
    Big Brother

    It's easy to explain the Investigatory Powers Bill - the authorities are going to gather together evidence on everyone on the presumption that everyone is guilty prior to them committing any crime

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      "[...] on the presumption that everyone is guilty prior to them committing any crime"

      "[...] on the presumption that everyone is guilty prior to them committing any alleged crime"

      FTFY

      1. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

        There's no need for "alleged", or even a trial if "they" already have the data.

  11. KroSha

    "making personal data easier for government officials to access will also make it easier for criminals to access that data as well"

    Particularly when it's the same group of people.

  12. Mike Shepherd
    Meh

    So complex?

    It's not as complex as made out. We know what the terrorists are about, so we trust them more than GCHQ and the rest, the people who labelled Harold Wilson a Soviet agent, who think Vanessa Redgrave is a "subversive" and who work, at our expense, to ensure that society heads in the direction they think best for us.

  13. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Only 12% of UK thinks Snoopers' Charter is 'adequately explained'

    and we know who they are...

  14. Loyal Commenter Silver badge

    "In some respects, however, the UK remains more conservative than its left-and-right hand kin, with 33 per cent thinking national security was more important for the government to protect than the right to personal privacy at 11 per cent."

    Sounds like someone has been writing very loaded questions there. The whole 'national security' vs privacy is a false dichotomy. There is no reason to believe that taking away personal liberty strengthens national security. Indeed, if this were the case, there would still be a British Empire covering 2/3 of the globe.

  15. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    12% are content with the explanation

    Which leaves 88% who are not content. With that many malcontents about there's obviously a need for the Snoopers' Charter.

    [... advice to the Minister responsible.]

  16. alain williams Silver badge

    Impact explained ?

    It is the need that I want explained... and please don't bring out the tired rubbish about: paedophiles, terrorists, drug barons and master criminals - we have heard that all before and it does not hold water; yes: they may catch a few low hanging fruit (the simpletons); but the big boys are not going to stop using good encryption just because it becomes illegal - that is even assuming that we are really at real risk from these people or that open-to-government encryption will let them be stopped.

    So: why does she want it? She is either stupid or has some other, hidden, purpose.

    1. Graham Marsden
      Devil

      @alain williams - Re: Impact explained ?

      > She is either stupid or has some other, hidden, purpose.

      I don't see that as an either/ or question...

  17. All names Taken
    Paris Hilton

    Forgive me but ...

    ... because I have not researched the theme.

    Only 12 per cent of the British public believe the Home Secretary has “adequately explained the impact of the Investigatory Powers Bill to the UK public

    That said there are differences between adequate explanation and/or adequate press reporting of an explanation.

    Doesn't Hansard still do its parliamentary reporting stuff

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2021