UK Snoopers' Charter crashes through critics into the next level The Investigatory Powers Bill – better known as the Snoopers' Charter – has passed its second reading in the UK Parliament amid fierce criticism. There were 281 votes in favor and 15 opposed. All the main opposition parties decided to abstain from voting rather than oppose the bill. The proposed law – which would in effect …
... the bill was a good and necessary way of updating the law ... but the bill's nickname of "Snoopers' Charter" was insulting to the people who work to make the country safer
Going along with all manner of authoritarianisms and bullshit as long as the awkward feeling that someone, somewhere might be offended or made to feel bad by the wording can be avoided.
(Himmler discreetly puking into a handkerchief and asking for a reformulation and more humane final solutions, please)
... the bill was a good and necessary way of updating the law ... but the bill's nickname of "Snoopers' Charter" was insulting to the people who work to make the country safer
Indeed. But those who believe they are making the country safer whilst actually harming it should be criticised. If that criticism takes the form of humiliation by pointing out reality, that's unfortunate but shouldn't be avoided. Reality rarely can.
... the bill was a good and necessary way of updating the law ... but the bill's nickname of "Snoopers' Charter" was insulting to the people who work to make the country safer
Good! They should feel insulted. The whole bill is an insult. Not just to the people of this country but to the people who work in the security services.
Unless our hypothetical security services employee actually is a supporter of a fascist state and hopes to make such a state reality by bringing about the British stazi*, then obtaining powers like these is absolutely not why they signed up.
Proposing that state intrusion into the lives of citizens on this scale is required for the security services to do their job is an insult. The rest of us are just calling it what it is.
*And if they are, then I reckon we're all free to insult them as much as we like.
Couldn't agree more with you! These politicians are absolutely ridiculous and an embarrassment to the country!
This law is going to be the "final solution" to citizens' privacy. Gives me the shivers just thinking about it. The snoopers will log every URL every citizen visits and store it for 12 months, and that's just the tip of the iceberg!
Thank goodness I'm already all set and ready for the snoopers, am already running a VPN connection on all my devices. I'm not a criminal and I don't surf on suspicious websites, I just don't want the snoopers to log my every online move and store my life on their servers! It's that simple!
But I guess we better get used to be treated like we are all criminals. Personally, I've been using a reputable zero-logs provider for over a year now http://www.vpnworld.org/ipvanish So thanks to the snoopers, I'm not planning on cancelling my subscription anytime soon...
"Andy Burnham said that the ... bill's nickname of "Snoopers' Charter" was insulting to the people who work to make the country safer."
"Safer" than what? We hardly live in a dangerous environment. There are few existential threats to the population or the country itself*.
*Except from the people who want to make it "safer".
"All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others."
Continuing the Orwellian theme ...
Do not imagine, comrades, that leadership is a pleasure. On the contrary, it is a deep and heavy responsibility. No one believes more firmly than Comrade Napoleon that all animals are equal. He would be only too happy to let you make your decisions for yourselves. But sometimes you might make the wrong decisions, comrades, and then where should we be?
I thought that as a well, so as not to insult maybe we could rename it?
Authoritarian Powers Bill.
Removal of the right to Privacy Charter.
The forget democracy Charter.
The Labour party are a bunch of cowards who don't deserve to be the opposition Charter.
and for balance,
The Theresa May I have no idea what I'm asking for Charter.
The Nick Clegg we need all the votes we can get because we messed up University Fees Charter.
Was it Dr. Doolittle's "Push-Me-Pull-You" beast that had two heads? Or was it two asses? Whatever. Seems the UK and the US are playing that game, going in for a bit of first one, then t'other with upping their invasive surveillance powers.
It's all well and good for both to assure the hapless public that "safeguards, legal limits, and appropriate restrictions" are written in the bills, but there's nothing on earth strong enough to contain rogue agencies who wish to push, or ignore, those limits.
Snowden showed us. 'Tis a pity his warnings have served only to accelerate the push-me pull-you stampede to increase surveillance powers.
Which will in turn lead to electronic totalitarianism as someone seizes power and finds a way to detect practically any form of encryption and squash most form of steganography that remain, allowing for a quick sweep of probably dissidents so that the Secret Secret Police to find all the rest, likely by posing as radicals.
Then by your reasoning western society is doomed either way. Either the charter is allowed the government destroys it from within, or it's blocked and the bad guys exploit the weakness to destroy it from without. Either way, we lose. Maybe it's time to stock up on the canned food and shotguns...
"and said it needed "extensive amendments" before the SNP could support it."
Then why abstain? Why allow something to proceed to the next level if it's so clearly broken? Surely you either think it's close enough to being OK so you vote for it, or you don't and you vote against it?
Anything else is moral cowardice of the worst sort in my opinion, is a both a dereliction of their duty as MPs and a gross breach in trust put in them by the public that expect them to DO THEIR JOB.
Getting an 11% pay rise for not actually making any effort. Must be nice work if you can get it...
This, from orbit, to the lot of 'em -------------------->
It's the only way to be sure.
Abstaining shouldn't even be an option for anything remotely as important as this.
It must be a binary choice.
Abstaining says (to me) one of two things:
1) "We tacitly believe in this, but don't want to piss off the voters by saying outright YES".
2) "We want to say NO but don't have the balls to risk upsetting future career prospects."
Neither is acceptable from people supposed to be protecting our interests. Further proof were any needed that they're only protecting their own interests.
The data-fetish powertards have already won. Appearing to go through the democratic process is just for appearance.
Spinless yellow twat-faced scum-sucking maggots every last one of them.
EX-FUCKING-ACTLY!
Why 'abstaining' on issues like this is an option is beyond me. We, the citizenry, pay through our taxes a substantial sum of money to keep the parasites gainfully (Hah!) employed by voting on our behalf on important issues.
They don't turn up for some votes. They abstain on others. Meaning a Bill gets passed through a Parliament of 650 MPs with 281 votes - 43% by my sums. And that doesn't even account for the fact that the 328 or so Conservative MPs are running the country based on a little over 35% of the total vote, which in itself is only representative of the 60% or so of the population that voted in the first place!
That means this Bill has been through the Commons with (possibly) as little as 9% of the vote - if one chooses to interpret the numbers in a specific way, admittedly.
The SNP are hypocrites.
Labour are absolutely spineless.
The Lib Dems, at least, haven't flip-flopped on this particular position as they did on so many for the promise of a referendum on alternate voting systems.
"The Lib Dems, at least, haven't flip-flopped on this particular position as they did on so many for the promise of a referendum on alternate voting systems."
Personally I blame the senior partners in the last coalition for this. An alternative voting system serves the purposes of only the minor parties, not the Tories or labour. Both will fight tooth and nail to avoid asking the plebs for a decision without a concerted and biased info campaign to ensurre they get their way.
I expect the Brexit is a win-win for them too, which is why they've allowed a large group of their number ot support it.
I'm disinclined to judge any liberal flip-flopping until I see them in power in a majority - and I'm unlikely to live to see that.
"Meaning a Bill gets passed through a Parliament of 650 MPs with 281 votes - 43% by my sums."
There's a known remedy against that. Serious matters like amending the constitution should not be decided by a simple majority vote - say, 51% of those who bothered to vote on that particular day - but an extended majority consisting of 2/3 of the total headcount. Although this approach has also its weaknesses (numerous ways to incapacitate the parliament) it's a bit more honest.
"There's a known remedy against that. Serious matters like amending the constitution should not be decided by a simple majority vote - say, 51% of those who bothered to vote on that particular day - but an extended majority consisting of 2/3 of the total headcount. Although this approach has also its weaknesses (numerous ways to incapacitate the parliament) it's a bit more honest."
Except that the British constitution is a dog's dinner of statute, executive orders, judicial decisions, international obligations, precedent and tradition. There is no single document marked "constitution", there are thousands of them (and they're not marked "constitution").
And as it stands, the right to privacy isn't a constitutional matter in the UK anyway.
Yep, and this plays into one of the major reasons I won't be voting for leaving the EU - it is the closest thing we have to a written constitution that can be relied on by individuals. I've studied and taught too much Constitutional and Administrative Law to think the "unwritten constitution" is anything more than an excuse for government and Parliament to do exactly as they like (which it is - all that has changed in 400 years is that the divine right of the monarch moved to an elected body (look up "Parliamentary Supremacy" and compare with "the Balance of Powers" if you don't believe me)).
"There is no single document marked "constitution", there are thousands of them"
For practical purposes that's not necessarily a problem. Rolling them into a single set is a convenience, other factors are mainly emotional and symbolic. Maybe slightly better protection against political games - there would be stronger resistance to making shortsighted amendments.
What really matters is how are these constitutional provisions followed in practice. Including the public perception of constitutional protection. And that's the true problem in most parts the world. Heck, even the late and lamented Soviet Union had a well-written constitution. Seriously. Quite comparable with US and other western countries. No prizes for guessing its practical value though.
Very disappointed that more MPs weren't present explaining the problems and the futility of many of the ideas in the bill. Perhaps they don't understand, or perhaps they just don't care?
It was interesting to hear the arguments about the process that needed to be gone through to access this mass-gathered bulk data. Lots of discussions about whether judges could veto access, and the idea of a "double lock". They clearly haven't realised that this data will become public whatever the law says, simply because data with this sort of value will be hacked or leaked or both. Do they really think that BT Internet and TalkTalk and Virgin and all the others will be able to keep these "Internet Connection Records" out of the hands of criminals?
Then there's the whole problem about what an ISP is: will I need to log my own emails and web access, because I run my own mail server and web proxy? And what are Internet Connection Records, anyway? How much disk space will my logs take up if I do?
This bill involves as much logic and sense as the EU cookie laws: none at all.
The problem is most MPs and parties have been brainwashed to believe that something is required or the country will fall apart. They believe in some form of new powers "to tackle terrorism and crime". Even if they don't believe every word of the current bill they believe there must be a new bill on surveillance and electronic communication interception.
And the fastest way to get those new powers approved is to let this bill pass to committee and hope they can amend it prior to final reading.
What happens next will be the real tell-tale...
"The problem is most MPs and parties have been brainwashed to believe that something is required or the country will fall apart."
And they may well have reason to believe this. Wasn't there significant outcry after the July 7 attacks? If another one occurs and the people get the impression the government isn't doing enough to protect them (even in the event nothing could've been done by the government could've prevented it), there could be some very uncomfortable questions, especially at the polls.
Perhaps the real problem is the illusion of absolute security that the government seek to create in the first place? They've created a rod for their own back with this. They're being fundamentally dishonest with the general public much of the time, and presumably with good reason from their point of view. After all, if people realise that the likes of GCHQ can't monitor everything effectively then they might start to wonder why we're allowing them to waste so much money be pissing £1 *BILLION* up the wall. And a further £1.9 billion over the next 5 years too.
http://www.techweekeurope.co.uk/e-regulation/gchq-failed-cybersecurity-187406
I realise that this is a loop that's very difficult to escape and the words 'death spiral' come to mind to describe it, but maybe, just maybe, better results could have been spent if this money was directed to something that actually produced results?
Like the NHS? Education? Maybe more police officers? A better fire service perhaps?
The MI5 boss recently said they are planning another terrorist attack on the scale of 7/7 shortly
They were telling MPs literally the day before 7/7 that things were all quiet on the western front. They don't have a good track record as far as prediction is concerned.
You realise that by visiting theyworkforyou that you're marking yourself out as a political dissident who should have their security clearance revoked, be put on an unemployable blacklist and prevented from organising any gatherings don't you?
There will be a crime prevention order in the post, you are free to appeal to a court but won't be allowed to see the evidence or present a case.
All the abstainers seem to me to be aware that by abstaining they can say they didn't support the bill while being fully aware that by not voting against, they are allowing it to pass. Then they can have a salve for their consciences and feel they are honestly saying 'We didn't support it'. Le ts face it Labour was just as guilty of the introduction of draconian laws as this lot.
I can only assume that these politicians think that the general public are thicker than they are.
Everyone knows that those that abstained are in favour of this bill passing and by abstaining are in fact voting FOR it. With this there is NO middle ground, they are either FOR it or AGAINST it. By their non voting we shall know them as lying hypocrites.
Absolute weasel words here from Labour. They think the Bill isn't worthy of support in it's current form, but they won't vote against it. Instead, they simply abstain and allow the vote to pass with less than an absolute majority on the number of votes, instead only needing a majority of the number of people who turn up.
Andy Burnham (Shadow Home Secretary):
"I disagree entirely. As I said, we will not oppose the Bill because we will be responsible. I have recognised that the country needs a new law. I have also said, as I will come on to explain, that the Bill is not yet worthy of support. There are significant weaknesses in the Bill. I am sorry, but I am not prepared to go through the Lobby tonight and give the hon. Gentleman and his Government a blank cheque. I want to hold the Government to account. I want to see changes in the Bill to strengthen the Bill. When they listen, they will earn our support. That is entirely appropriate and responsible for an Opposition party to do."
I could accept abstaining if the threshold for passing a Bill or vote in the Commons remained 326, not a simple majority of the people in the chamber at the time. When a vote can pass on 281 votes because of mass abstentions, then abstaining isn't simply abstaining - it's effectively voting yes.
Last time the Lords pushed back on something the Government really wanted to get through - the benefit changes i think it was - they were told there would be "consequences".
(Although that was more because they interfered in a financial, budgetary matter which by custom they previously had not.)
I would suspect that if they interfere again, they will get slapped down and their power reduced. In this case, because it will be pointed out that the Bill passed with a huge majority and thus must represent the will of the people as filtered through their elected representatives....
As pointed out, the plan may be illegal under EU law.
So, if we vote for more EU integration rather than, say, Lidl catfood, would this law end up being stopped by that?
If the law is truly to be updated, i.e. made fit for purpose in the 21st Century, does that mean that all the bits of law clearly unfit for purpose and seemingly abused to date (in spirit if not in letter) will now be repealed or suitably amended as part of this?
That would be reassuring, if only in part.
I take it (unless corrected by a more knowledgeable fellow commentard) however that we're not going to feel reassured and that business can continue as before, but with new bells and whistles added.
the bits of law clearly unfit for purpose
For whose purpose?
There is only law at all in this area because the crown prerogative that "authorised" such activity in the past failed to pass muster in courts increasingly influenced by international treaties and standards. Each successive iteration of the spook laws has been about providing a legal veneer for "business as usual". What this has meant is becoming increasingly explicit about powers already being exercised. This isn't about new powers, it's simply an attempt to legitimise activity that already takes place and that might otherwise be subject to a legal challenge - while simultaneously allowing enough wiggle room to avoid the need to legislate again if the boundaries are pushed a bit further.
It's certainly not the intention of this bill to remove any powers that are currently believed to exist.
The problem, as even MPs have now pointed out, is that those powers are likely illegal already and will remain illegal under either EU treaties or the ECHR regardless of what this bill says.
The fact that the "law and order" party are pushing this hard, knowing that it is essentially inconsistent with international law, tells you that they prize "order" above "law" - as in the "natural order" of the rich man in his castle and the poor man at the gate.
"[...] as in the "natural order" of the rich man in his castle and the poor man at the gate."
Well - for the power elite life is bright and beautiful. One is reminded of poor children being indoctrinated with those words from an early age - reinforcing the social control of "know your place".
"He said the bill's nickname of "Snoopers' Charter" was insulting to the people who work to make the country safer"
Perverts' Charter? Voyeurs' Charter? Would be banged up in the nonce wing by now if Daddy hadn't put them through Oxford and used his Government connections to get them a job that keeps them off the streets Charter?
"Under the current wording, data access will also be allowed if it is in the "economic well-being" of the country."
I.e. the economic well-being of the big companies. So this authorises any amount of spying on Trade Unions. And on anyone who wants to change the way the capitalist system runs, such as reducing or even slowing down the economic inequality that lets the 1% own most of the country. Or anyone who objects to TTIP. Anyone who objects to the government stealing the crutches from cripples by cutting disability benefit.
Or basically anyone who inconveniences the super-rich in getting richer.
It is important to be clear that, apart from internet connection records, all the powers in the Bill are already in use by our agencies and police forces, as they keep us remarkably safe from the myriad threats we face. - Philip Hammond
So everyone's browsing history is going to make Britain a safer place and if we are already "remarkably" safe then why the fuck are we putting this bill through anyway.
The more I read the more suspicious I become.
Anyway I might throw a final volley at my useless Labour MP today and tell him that in years to come when this all fucks up I will be able to look my children in the eyes and tell them I tried to make a difference by talking to my MP who in turn didn't acknowledge my concerns, abstained from voting on the matter and didn't have the balls to form an opinion, then I'll ask what will you say to your kids?
Harsh but fair.
If you're truly opposed to this bill then take action should it make it into law - there's numerous ways to protect your privacy (VPNs, ProtonMail etc.) - make use of them. Nothing says 'fuck you' better than their 'internet connection records' being a long list of foreign VPN gateways.
Until those foreign gateways start getting blacklisted and forced to be blocked by ISPs. And all the domestic ones will probably get a lot of scrutiny. After all, proxies are a known thing to the government, seeing as how they keep trying to block access to The Pirate Bay or whatever...
Then when the database fills up with unmanageable crud and you can't use it properly, AND the bad guys are still up to mischief and you still can't catch them, I'll laugh my arse off. I know the Gov will never admit this colossal balls up when it occurs, the only good I can assume is that a load of my fellow IT techs will earn some good overtime ( sadly at tax payers expense ) and have a fun project to put on their CVs going forward. Give it 3 years and it'll be demoted and then a few years more, it'll be quietly binned having been of zero use to any bugger.
I would love to believe that, however the mericans are way ahead on this with their data centres and the what not and will be supervising our system so they can use it, so chances are this will be the only successful first time I.T. project in the history of government.
Any criminals, hackers or terrorists will already know how to circumvent this guff. All this bill will do is waste billions of tax payers money catching minimal amounts of small fish if anyone at all and it will push the real “terrorists” into darker more secure places.
And MP’s should NOT be exempt from this! They should be just as accountable as the rest of us if they’re insisting on pushing this forward.
And good luck, I’m behind 7 proxies, VPN and Tor on public wifi on a burner laptop… the lengths I have to goto to look at pictures of lolcatz..
My understanding is that the Labour position is that the bill needs substantial changes before they will vote in favour of it and if these are not made, they will vote against in the final reading; this is the point of the committee stage. I can kind of understand this, in that the supposed point of the bill is to regulate the things that are already being done, to put them on a legal footing.
A bill that would reduce the spooks' powers to do what they already do would arguably be a good thing, but the likelihood of that happening is close to nil.
The whole thing is also arguably a moot point, since the Tories have an absolute majority, they will whip their own MPs to within an inch of their lives (which some of them will probably enjoy),and it will get a majority in the final reading even if all the other parties vote against it in union. The Lords will then send it back, and the scum Tories will then force it through with the Parliament Act. The ECJ will then find it unconstitutional, and the ECHR will find that it violates basic human rights. The Tories will follow this up with steadfastly not caring and bleating about how evil Europe is, whilst passing on heavy fines to the electorate. Meanwhile, the whole thing will be found to be an unworkable and contradictory mess, and we will become the laughing stock of the rest of the world.
I was impressed with Theresa May's opening speech: "I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Before I begin, I am sure that right hon. and hon. Members will be aware of the TERRORISTS!!! EVIL NASTY TERRORISTS EVERYWHERE!!! I would like to offer my deepest gratitude, sorry condolences to the family of the prison officer who was killed by TERRORISTS!!!"
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
