8 ms·

The BBC is being a good state mouthpiece today - the fact that they're quoting May as saying it doesn't hold previously contentious matters (I.e. Breaking encry

The BBC is being a good state mouthpiece today - the fact that they're quoting May as saying it doesn't hold previously contentious matters (I.e. Breaking encryption) is disingenuous to say the least. The bill will say that "unbreakable" encryption is illegal - which means all encryption, as if it's breakable, well, it's not really encrypted, is it. Never mind that this is totally unenforceable. I could write up a one time pad with pen and paper. Most won't. Crooked cops will sell data. They'll blame "hackers". You only need look at the talktalk debacle to see how incredibly warped this govt's views are - they haven't arrested anyone at talktalk, who are tge ones who had such poor infosec that script kiddies could blow them wide open. Instead they're arresting children. Oh, and I'm seriouslt considering redomiciling my company - we only contribute a few hundred million quid to the UK economy.

mtgx 11y ago
The BBC has been a mouthpiece for both the UK and the US government for quite a few years. That's why I've always disliked seeing their articles here, and I'd prefer another source like TheGuardian instead. Their previous one about UK gov "backtracking" on encryption backdoors was just as bad. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34691956 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34691956 Read through it and see how 80% of it is the government's opinion about these things. It barely gives mention to what the civil liberty groups are saying. Read the last four paragraphs of the article, for instance. They only deal with how much of a headache end to end encryption is for authorities - and leaves it at that. What about what the civil liberty groups say about how it protects security and privacy?
- AlphaSite 11y ago
  The guardian is very left leaning as well, a more neutral paper would be better.
  - pjc50 11y ago
    There are basically no neutral papers in the UK. The Independent sort of tries, and the FT/Economist tend to be accurate with the facts but reflexively probusiness/neoliberal.
    - iamwithnail 11y ago
      There's no requirement to or expectation that they will be. Papers are not required to present any kind of balance, as long as what they say is broadly true (external pluralism), for a given value of true. The broadcast media (the free-to-air ones) are required to be demonstrably internally pluralistic, to show a variety of sources and viewpoints within their output - and that applies across BBC, ITV, Ch4 and Channel 5, but not Sky News; goes back to when Radio came on stream in the 1930s.
      - pjc50 11y ago
        Yes. Americans keep expecting "neutrality", which is hard to define and impossible to achieve.
    - jazzyk 11y ago
      The Economist is increasingly pro-BIG-business, pro-establishment, rather than fair/free-market (as it used to be).
      - marcoperaza 11y ago
        Good to know that I'm not the only one who's noticed this. It used to be my favorite paper, but I'm disappointed with the direction it's taken lately.
    - justincormack 11y ago
      The FT is not that neoliberal, it is fairly generally liberal, and generally more left wing than most of its readership by quite a margin, although it is quite varied.
  - Loic 11y ago
    A newspaper cannot be neutral. The real problem with the BBC is that it is officially proud to be neutral but it is not. I way prefer a lot of non neutral papers, where I know before hand their base political/economic/social views. This way I can go and read both sides of the story or if not that important, read just one side knowing that it is a partial view.
    - matthewmacleod 11y ago
      The BBC is by far the most neutral news source I have ever encountered. It's constantly subject to attack by both the government and the public, to the extent that it's terrified to take a stance on any issue.
      - Loic 11y ago
        This is what you think and this is the problem because you are not alone at all. I highly recommend you reading this book: "NEWSPEAK in the 21st Century". It is highlighting the fact that the BBC is not neutral for a lot of critical issues. This is why I prefer "opinionated" papers. Sorry for this thread going maybe a bit off-topic, but this a subject I am pretty attached too. Again, I am not saying that the BBC is not doing great work, but just that it is not as neutral as what the opinion think it is. http://www.amazon.co.uk/NEWSPEAK-21st-Century-David-Edwards/dp/0745328938/ http://www.amazon.co.uk/NEWSPEAK-21st-Century-David-Edwards/...
        sdoering 11y ago
        Thanks for the book tip will have a look at it. Having worked in news for some years and seen how (esp. online) news are produced and weighted for priority, it is to say, that it is quite a sad state of affairs. I stopped reading the news, following any news at all. If news do reach me and my interest exceeds a internal threshold, I start investigating the topic further. So having a view from outside my home country might be interesting.
      - pjc50 11y ago
        Cowardice is not neutrality. This is how we get global warming denialism given unreasonable amounts of airtime, using the "Views On Shape Of Earth Differ" approach.
  - mtgx 11y ago
    Left-leaning? So privacy is a left-wing thing?
    - jazzyk 11y ago
      Left and right are increasingly meaningless labels. These days it is more pro-establishment vs anti-establishment. For example, the most vocal people on privacy are an amalgam of independent thinkers on the "left" (The Guardian, etc) and independent thinkers on the "right" (Ron Paul, etc.) While the "leftist" Hillary Clinton calls Snowden a traitor (so do a lot of "right"-wing people, too).
      - justincormack 11y ago
        Although Britain's left wing party, Labour, is pro surveillance, even it seems under Corbyn, who is himself a target.
- matthewmacleod 11y ago
  Stop it – this article is completely fine. It quotes the government, explaining what the plan is. It explains the views of other parties and what they think is wrong with the proposals. It quotes a civil liberties group, who explain why it's bad. This is exactly what news should be. If you want more in-depth analysis or opinions, you should be looking elsewhere.
  - noja 11y ago
    Hang on - he has a point, the BBC has become very pro government with its commentary and the way they choose to present information. Particularly above the fold.
    - MLR 11y ago
      I never understand this viewpoint, I read the BBC for online news and the Telegraph at home, it's very easy to see which one is pro government/pro Tory. The BBC is basically going to be gutted by the current government, I don't buy into this world where they're pro government, I find they're fairly neutral while a lot of the people criticising it are almost certainly anti Tory.
      - anon1385 11y ago
        Being less pro-Tory than the Telegraph is hardly a challenge. The Telegraph is the propaganda arm of the Tory party. As in they literally run press releases from CCHQ as news stories. The BBC should aim for their coverage to reflect facts, not just be a the-truth-is-in-the-middle triangulation of Labour and Tory positions. Their neutrality and balance mostly consists of getting a comment from the Tories and then getting a comment from Labour, with the assumption that doing so will cover all sides of any issue. One of the aims of any decent media organisation should be to challenge the establishment, but when the BBC is constitutionally unable to criticise positions where Labour and Tories both agree then it's unable to fulfil that role.
- forloop 11y ago
  > The BBC has been a mouthpiece for both the UK and the US government for quite a few years. This is quite well known—at least to people who think about such matters. Strangely, it seems to have been missed by the majority of HN. It's a state sponsored news agency: the BBC are the recipients of a "TV tax" (licence fee, if one watches TV).
  - untog 11y ago
    It's an organization funded by tax payers. That doesn't automatically mean it is a state mouthpiece. Unfortunately, they have not been very bold in their reporting since the Hutton Inquiry: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hutton_Inquiry https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hutton_Inquiry
    - teh_klev 11y ago
      The BBC is not funded by tax payers. It's funded by the TV License which is not compulsory. If you choose not to watch live broadcast television then you don't pay for a TV license.
      - DanBC 11y ago
        Your definition would mean VAT isn't a tax. Just avoid the luxuries[1] and you avoid the VAT. You have to pay the licence fee even if you never watch any BBC broadcast material. A person who only ever watches ITV would have to pay the licence fee. And non-payment of the licence fee was a criminal offence with fines, and non-payment of the fine sent many people to prison. It feels like a tax. [1] also tampons and sanitary towels, which probably don't feel like a luxury purchase.
        teh_klev 11y ago
        I hate to "well actually" you Dan :) I was informed by a TV license "officer" that provided you detune BBC channels you can still watch commercial channels. In the same way that I am permitted to listen to BBC radio channels (for which no license is required) via a Sky box. TV licensing have to prove that you're watching on-air BBC broadcasts.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
matthewmacleod 11y ago
The BBC is being a good state mouthpiece today - the fact that they're quoting May as saying it doesn't hold previously contentious matters (I.e. Breaking encryption) is disingenuous to say the least. No, it's not. The bill will say that "unbreakable" encryption is illegal - which means all encryption, as if it's breakable, well, it's not really encrypted, is it. Source please – I've not seen this language indicated anywhere. they haven't arrested anyone at talktalk, who are tge ones who had such poor infosec that script kiddies could blow them wide open. Instead they're arresting children. Poor information security isn't a crime. Breaking into computer systems is.
- rikkus 11y ago
  Poor information security is a crime when that information involves personal information. The Data Protection Act requires that personal information is kept secure. Just because no one has been prosecuted yet doesn't mean they couldn't or shouldn't be.
  - matthewmacleod 11y ago
    UK law basically says "assess the risk and take appropriate measures." Short of criminal negligence, it's extremely unlikely that anybody will be prosecuted.
    - ptaipale 11y ago
      The Talktalk data leak actually seems like criminal negligence. I don't know the British law, but that level of negligence at least should be criminal.
    - rikkus 11y ago
      "Appropriate technical and organisational measures shall be taken against unauthorised or unlawful processing of personal data and against accidental loss or destruction of, or damage to, personal data." TalkTalk did not take appropriate measures against unauthorised processing.
- Natanael_L 11y ago
tomblomfield 11y ago
The bill will not say unbreakable encryption is illegal. I've heard from sources inside the government that their intention is to maintain the legal status-quo dating from RIPA 2000. Which is to say that service providers have to disclose personal communications where reasonably practicable. Since it's not possible for service providers to break end-to-end encryption, they will have a defence. Obviously this is a bit of a fudge and the position may need clarifying in court. But it's not the intention of this bill to change the legal status quo.
- Natanael_L 11y ago
  > reasonably practicable May lead to "implement backdoors and ban unknown ciphertext"
- glomph 11y ago
  If that is the intention then why has no one from inside the government gone on record to say that?
- toyg 11y ago
  > it's not the intention of this bill to change the legal status quo. If they didn't mean to change the status quo, they wouldn't have introduced a bill. As it happens, they do want to change the status quo, by making clearly acceptable for authorities to eavesdrop, something that was, er, technically illegal before, despite them doing it anyway. So instead of punishing spooks for breaking the law, they're changing the law. Easy, innit?
  - autonomy77 11y ago
    Plus, with the new "websites visited" retention rules - extendable at whim, there will be a permanent record, for example of that episode of Frasier that you downloaded from a Torrent site. A permanent record that is, of you "stealing something".
  - d_theorist 11y ago
    >If they didn't mean to change the status quo, they wouldn't have introduced a bill. Just strictly on this point, sometimes bills (or parts of bills) are introduced to clarify existing law. It may be a matter of subtle semantics, but this is often what is meant when it is claimed that a bill will not change the law.
robk 11y ago
How do you contribute that to the economy? Your profile is blank.
- pfig 11y ago
  That's probably how.
dave2000 11y ago
I don't see anyone reporting that the bill mentions encryption.
junto 11y ago
It will not include powers to force UK companies to capture and retain third party internet traffic from companies based overseas. It will not compel overseas communications service providers to meet our domestic retention obligations for communications data. And it will not ban encryption or do anything to undermine the security of people’s data. And the substance of all of the recommendations by the Joint Scrutiny Committee which examined that draft Bill have been accepted. https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/home-secretary-publication-of-draft-investigatory-powers-bill https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/home-secretary-public... Granted though, that is the single mention of encryption in the entire speech. Draft bill is here: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/473770/Draft_Investigatory_Powers_Bill.pdf https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachm... The draft Bill will not impose any additional requirements in relation to encryption over and above the existing obligations in RIPA. However, under "EQUIPMENT INTERFERENCE" it discusses the following: What is it? 27. Equipment interference allows the security and intelligence agencies, law enforcement and the armed forces to interfere with electronic equipment such as computers and smartphones in order to obtain data, such as communications from a device. Equipment interference encompasses a wide range of activity from remote access to computers to downloading covertly the contents of a mobile phone during a search. Why do we need it? 28. Where necessary and proportionate, law enforcement agencies and the security and intelligence agencies need to be able to access communications or other private information held on computers, in order to gain valuable intelligence in national security and serious crime investigations and to help gather evidence for use in criminal prosecutions. Equipment interference plays an important role in mitigating the loss of intelligence that may no longer be obtained through other techniques, such as interception, as a result of sophisticated encryption. It can sometimes be the only method by which to acquire the data. The armed forces use this technique in some situations to gather data in support of military operations. In other words, if you use "sophisticated encryption" then we'll just hack you, and that is about to be perfectly legal. Previously, "we" just used to do it anyway. Now we are going to make it legal, and have a FISA style "yes whatever officer" court in the UK, like you have in the US. This is really the bottom line here. The UK is moving towards a secret court, with secret decisions, copying the US style FISA. So long and thanks for all the cups of tea.
fpp 11y ago
With you on the move IT / High tech out of the UK bit (also already had talks with our accountants & lawyers to relocate our company away from the UK). One part of the "snooper's charter" is that it makes the ISPs / providers liable ("their duty") to store the content of I-Net sessions and provide access to this data for service, police & the tax office (not clear how all of these entities will share the data between each other or with the outside). De facto this makes any end-to-end encryption or zero-knowledge services impossible to provide from the UK. If this propagates across EU / US / other countries it will bring an end to many cloud-based services & many saving governments & commercial are planning or envisioning for the next years. Wild guess estimate in damages to the UK (five years) - £100Billion + long term effects. It seems the group of people pushing on this piece of legislation so heavily since years have not learned a bit from what is / has been happening in the UK and elsewhere for many years across industries (alternative reality: they want to create an very large income stream for themselves. This will nevertheless be most likely be short-lived at the cost of the overall UK economy / competitiveness - short- & long-term). What has been proven over-and-over again in the UK (and certainly elsewhere as well) is that government or similar oversight is not working and is constantly abused by those given access to these means when large financial amounts / incentives are available to those who "bend" these processes / regulations / e.a. to their own benefit. At the same time those so far do not have to fear any reprisal / punishment. This is another shortcoming and clearly demonstrates that the true intentions of this legislation must be completely different from the labeling publicly provided - I'm talking about punishment along the line given to so called "hackers" in the UK / US - 10 years min. - but wait - it was the UK just recently that has removed all punishment for breaking the law 100'000s of times by some of its services (they couldn't make it legal without due process through the parliament so they just removed the punishment). Let's have a brief look into how well "oversight" works in the UK: - News of the World (data / access sold off by government employees) - UK Mis-selling saga with PPI - unique case as almost £30Billion in compensations have been granted - non-working financial oversight - Gold fixing scandal - non-working financial oversight for many years / decade - FX fixing scandal - non-working financial oversight for many years / decade - Bailouts / 2008 financial crisis - non-working financial oversight for many years - NHS data leaks - no due process and proper data protection - plenty more to add ... ... crime and abuse of the rules happens when an opportunity is provided with incentives and no reprisal. IMHO - that is the biggest danger from all these almost limitless surveillance laws and powers provided without checks.
spacecowboy_lon 11y ago
And having worked at BT where those with wide access to the data on the phone network had to be Vetted (as they could look up the Queens phone number) I can't see a lot of ISP staff being happy at having to be PV Veted (Top Secret in US terms)
dave2000 11y ago
Not sure why BBC is getting a hard time for reporting the news.

mtgx 11y ago

The BBC has been a mouthpiece for both the UK and the US government for quite a few years. That's why I've always disliked seeing their articles here, and I'd prefer another source like TheGuardian instead. Their previous one about UK gov "backtracking" on encryption backdoors was just as bad. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34691956 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34691956 Read through it and see how 80% of it is the government's opinion about these things. It barely gives mention to what the civil liberty groups are saying. Read the last four paragraphs of the article, for instance. They only deal with how much of a headache end to end encryption is for authorities - and leaves it at that. What about what the civil liberty groups say about how it protects security and privacy?

AlphaSite 11y ago
The guardian is very left leaning as well, a more neutral paper would be better.
- pjc50 11y ago
  There are basically no neutral papers in the UK. The Independent sort of tries, and the FT/Economist tend to be accurate with the facts but reflexively probusiness/neoliberal.
  - iamwithnail 11y ago
    There's no requirement to or expectation that they will be. Papers are not required to present any kind of balance, as long as what they say is broadly true (external pluralism), for a given value of true. The broadcast media (the free-to-air ones) are required to be demonstrably internally pluralistic, to show a variety of sources and viewpoints within their output - and that applies across BBC, ITV, Ch4 and Channel 5, but not Sky News; goes back to when Radio came on stream in the 1930s.
    - pjc50 11y ago
      Yes. Americans keep expecting "neutrality", which is hard to define and impossible to achieve.
  - jazzyk 11y ago
    The Economist is increasingly pro-BIG-business, pro-establishment, rather than fair/free-market (as it used to be).
    - marcoperaza 11y ago
      Good to know that I'm not the only one who's noticed this. It used to be my favorite paper, but I'm disappointed with the direction it's taken lately.
  - justincormack 11y ago
    The FT is not that neoliberal, it is fairly generally liberal, and generally more left wing than most of its readership by quite a margin, although it is quite varied.
- Loic 11y ago
  A newspaper cannot be neutral. The real problem with the BBC is that it is officially proud to be neutral but it is not. I way prefer a lot of non neutral papers, where I know before hand their base political/economic/social views. This way I can go and read both sides of the story or if not that important, read just one side knowing that it is a partial view.
  - matthewmacleod 11y ago
    The BBC is by far the most neutral news source I have ever encountered. It's constantly subject to attack by both the government and the public, to the extent that it's terrified to take a stance on any issue.
    - Loic 11y ago
      This is what you think and this is the problem because you are not alone at all. I highly recommend you reading this book: "NEWSPEAK in the 21st Century". It is highlighting the fact that the BBC is not neutral for a lot of critical issues. This is why I prefer "opinionated" papers. Sorry for this thread going maybe a bit off-topic, but this a subject I am pretty attached too. Again, I am not saying that the BBC is not doing great work, but just that it is not as neutral as what the opinion think it is. http://www.amazon.co.uk/NEWSPEAK-21st-Century-David-Edwards/dp/0745328938/ http://www.amazon.co.uk/NEWSPEAK-21st-Century-David-Edwards/...
      - sdoering 11y ago
        Thanks for the book tip will have a look at it. Having worked in news for some years and seen how (esp. online) news are produced and weighted for priority, it is to say, that it is quite a sad state of affairs. I stopped reading the news, following any news at all. If news do reach me and my interest exceeds a internal threshold, I start investigating the topic further. So having a view from outside my home country might be interesting.
    - pjc50 11y ago
      Cowardice is not neutrality. This is how we get global warming denialism given unreasonable amounts of airtime, using the "Views On Shape Of Earth Differ" approach.
- mtgx 11y ago
  Left-leaning? So privacy is a left-wing thing?
  - jazzyk 11y ago
    Left and right are increasingly meaningless labels. These days it is more pro-establishment vs anti-establishment. For example, the most vocal people on privacy are an amalgam of independent thinkers on the "left" (The Guardian, etc) and independent thinkers on the "right" (Ron Paul, etc.) While the "leftist" Hillary Clinton calls Snowden a traitor (so do a lot of "right"-wing people, too).
    - justincormack 11y ago
      Although Britain's left wing party, Labour, is pro surveillance, even it seems under Corbyn, who is himself a target.
matthewmacleod 11y ago
Stop it – this article is completely fine. It quotes the government, explaining what the plan is. It explains the views of other parties and what they think is wrong with the proposals. It quotes a civil liberties group, who explain why it's bad. This is exactly what news should be. If you want more in-depth analysis or opinions, you should be looking elsewhere.
- noja 11y ago
  Hang on - he has a point, the BBC has become very pro government with its commentary and the way they choose to present information. Particularly above the fold.
  - MLR 11y ago
    I never understand this viewpoint, I read the BBC for online news and the Telegraph at home, it's very easy to see which one is pro government/pro Tory. The BBC is basically going to be gutted by the current government, I don't buy into this world where they're pro government, I find they're fairly neutral while a lot of the people criticising it are almost certainly anti Tory.
    - anon1385 11y ago
      Being less pro-Tory than the Telegraph is hardly a challenge. The Telegraph is the propaganda arm of the Tory party. As in they literally run press releases from CCHQ as news stories. The BBC should aim for their coverage to reflect facts, not just be a the-truth-is-in-the-middle triangulation of Labour and Tory positions. Their neutrality and balance mostly consists of getting a comment from the Tories and then getting a comment from Labour, with the assumption that doing so will cover all sides of any issue. One of the aims of any decent media organisation should be to challenge the establishment, but when the BBC is constitutionally unable to criticise positions where Labour and Tories both agree then it's unable to fulfil that role.
forloop 11y ago
> The BBC has been a mouthpiece for both the UK and the US government for quite a few years. This is quite well known—at least to people who think about such matters. Strangely, it seems to have been missed by the majority of HN. It's a state sponsored news agency: the BBC are the recipients of a "TV tax" (licence fee, if one watches TV).
- untog 11y ago
  It's an organization funded by tax payers. That doesn't automatically mean it is a state mouthpiece. Unfortunately, they have not been very bold in their reporting since the Hutton Inquiry: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hutton_Inquiry https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hutton_Inquiry
  - teh_klev 11y ago
    The BBC is not funded by tax payers. It's funded by the TV License which is not compulsory. If you choose not to watch live broadcast television then you don't pay for a TV license.
    - DanBC 11y ago
      Your definition would mean VAT isn't a tax. Just avoid the luxuries[1] and you avoid the VAT. You have to pay the licence fee even if you never watch any BBC broadcast material. A person who only ever watches ITV would have to pay the licence fee. And non-payment of the licence fee was a criminal offence with fines, and non-payment of the fine sent many people to prison. It feels like a tax. [1] also tampons and sanitary towels, which probably don't feel like a luxury purchase.
      - teh_klev 11y ago
        I hate to "well actually" you Dan :) I was informed by a TV license "officer" that provided you detune BBC channels you can still watch commercial channels. In the same way that I am permitted to listen to BBC radio channels (for which no license is required) via a Sky box. TV licensing have to prove that you're watching on-air BBC broadcasts.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

matthewmacleod 11y ago

The BBC is being a good state mouthpiece today - the fact that they're quoting May as saying it doesn't hold previously contentious matters (I.e. Breaking encryption) is disingenuous to say the least. No, it's not. The bill will say that "unbreakable" encryption is illegal - which means all encryption, as if it's breakable, well, it's not really encrypted, is it. Source please – I've not seen this language indicated anywhere. they haven't arrested anyone at talktalk, who are tge ones who had such poor infosec that script kiddies could blow them wide open. Instead they're arresting children. Poor information security isn't a crime. Breaking into computer systems is.

rikkus 11y ago
Poor information security is a crime when that information involves personal information. The Data Protection Act requires that personal information is kept secure. Just because no one has been prosecuted yet doesn't mean they couldn't or shouldn't be.
- matthewmacleod 11y ago
  UK law basically says "assess the risk and take appropriate measures." Short of criminal negligence, it's extremely unlikely that anybody will be prosecuted.
  - ptaipale 11y ago
    The Talktalk data leak actually seems like criminal negligence. I don't know the British law, but that level of negligence at least should be criminal.
  - rikkus 11y ago
    "Appropriate technical and organisational measures shall be taken against unauthorised or unlawful processing of personal data and against accidental loss or destruction of, or damage to, personal data." TalkTalk did not take appropriate measures against unauthorised processing.
Natanael_L 11y ago

tomblomfield 11y ago

The bill will not say unbreakable encryption is illegal. I've heard from sources inside the government that their intention is to maintain the legal status-quo dating from RIPA 2000. Which is to say that service providers have to disclose personal communications where reasonably practicable. Since it's not possible for service providers to break end-to-end encryption, they will have a defence. Obviously this is a bit of a fudge and the position may need clarifying in court. But it's not the intention of this bill to change the legal status quo.

Natanael_L 11y ago
> reasonably practicable May lead to "implement backdoors and ban unknown ciphertext"
glomph 11y ago
If that is the intention then why has no one from inside the government gone on record to say that?
toyg 11y ago
> it's not the intention of this bill to change the legal status quo. If they didn't mean to change the status quo, they wouldn't have introduced a bill. As it happens, they do want to change the status quo, by making clearly acceptable for authorities to eavesdrop, something that was, er, technically illegal before, despite them doing it anyway. So instead of punishing spooks for breaking the law, they're changing the law. Easy, innit?
- autonomy77 11y ago
  Plus, with the new "websites visited" retention rules - extendable at whim, there will be a permanent record, for example of that episode of Frasier that you downloaded from a Torrent site. A permanent record that is, of you "stealing something".
- d_theorist 11y ago
  >If they didn't mean to change the status quo, they wouldn't have introduced a bill. Just strictly on this point, sometimes bills (or parts of bills) are introduced to clarify existing law. It may be a matter of subtle semantics, but this is often what is meant when it is claimed that a bill will not change the law.

robk 11y ago

How do you contribute that to the economy? Your profile is blank.

pfig 11y ago
That's probably how.

dave2000 11y ago

I don't see anyone reporting that the bill mentions encryption.

junto 11y ago

It will not include powers to force UK companies to capture and retain third party internet traffic from companies based overseas. It will not compel overseas communications service providers to meet our domestic retention obligations for communications data. And it will not ban encryption or do anything to undermine the security of people’s data. And the substance of all of the recommendations by the Joint Scrutiny Committee which examined that draft Bill have been accepted. https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/home-secretary-publication-of-draft-investigatory-powers-bill https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/home-secretary-public... Granted though, that is the single mention of encryption in the entire speech. Draft bill is here: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/473770/Draft_Investigatory_Powers_Bill.pdf https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachm... The draft Bill will not impose any additional requirements in relation to encryption over and above the existing obligations in RIPA. However, under "EQUIPMENT INTERFERENCE" it discusses the following: What is it? 27. Equipment interference allows the security and intelligence agencies, law enforcement and the armed forces to interfere with electronic equipment such as computers and smartphones in order to obtain data, such as communications from a device. Equipment interference encompasses a wide range of activity from remote access to computers to downloading covertly the contents of a mobile phone during a search. Why do we need it? 28. Where necessary and proportionate, law enforcement agencies and the security and intelligence agencies need to be able to access communications or other private information held on computers, in order to gain valuable intelligence in national security and serious crime investigations and to help gather evidence for use in criminal prosecutions. Equipment interference plays an important role in mitigating the loss of intelligence that may no longer be obtained through other techniques, such as interception, as a result of sophisticated encryption. It can sometimes be the only method by which to acquire the data. The armed forces use this technique in some situations to gather data in support of military operations. In other words, if you use "sophisticated encryption" then we'll just hack you, and that is about to be perfectly legal. Previously, "we" just used to do it anyway. Now we are going to make it legal, and have a FISA style "yes whatever officer" court in the UK, like you have in the US. This is really the bottom line here. The UK is moving towards a secret court, with secret decisions, copying the US style FISA. So long and thanks for all the cups of tea.

fpp 11y ago

With you on the move IT / High tech out of the UK bit (also already had talks with our accountants & lawyers to relocate our company away from the UK). One part of the "snooper's charter" is that it makes the ISPs / providers liable ("their duty") to store the content of I-Net sessions and provide access to this data for service, police & the tax office (not clear how all of these entities will share the data between each other or with the outside). De facto this makes any end-to-end encryption or zero-knowledge services impossible to provide from the UK. If this propagates across EU / US / other countries it will bring an end to many cloud-based services & many saving governments & commercial are planning or envisioning for the next years. Wild guess estimate in damages to the UK (five years) - £100Billion + long term effects. It seems the group of people pushing on this piece of legislation so heavily since years have not learned a bit from what is / has been happening in the UK and elsewhere for many years across industries (alternative reality: they want to create an very large income stream for themselves. This will nevertheless be most likely be short-lived at the cost of the overall UK economy / competitiveness - short- & long-term). What has been proven over-and-over again in the UK (and certainly elsewhere as well) is that government or similar oversight is not working and is constantly abused by those given access to these means when large financial amounts / incentives are available to those who "bend" these processes / regulations / e.a. to their own benefit. At the same time those so far do not have to fear any reprisal / punishment. This is another shortcoming and clearly demonstrates that the true intentions of this legislation must be completely different from the labeling publicly provided - I'm talking about punishment along the line given to so called "hackers" in the UK / US - 10 years min. - but wait - it was the UK just recently that has removed all punishment for breaking the law 100'000s of times by some of its services (they couldn't make it legal without due process through the parliament so they just removed the punishment). Let's have a brief look into how well "oversight" works in the UK: - News of the World (data / access sold off by government employees) - UK Mis-selling saga with PPI - unique case as almost £30Billion in compensations have been granted - non-working financial oversight - Gold fixing scandal - non-working financial oversight for many years / decade - FX fixing scandal - non-working financial oversight for many years / decade - Bailouts / 2008 financial crisis - non-working financial oversight for many years - NHS data leaks - no due process and proper data protection - plenty more to add ... ... crime and abuse of the rules happens when an opportunity is provided with incentives and no reprisal. IMHO - that is the biggest danger from all these almost limitless surveillance laws and powers provided without checks.

spacecowboy_lon 11y ago

And having worked at BT where those with wide access to the data on the phone network had to be Vetted (as they could look up the Queens phone number) I can't see a lot of ISP staff being happy at having to be PV Veted (Top Secret in US terms)

dave2000 11y ago

Not sure why BBC is getting a hard time for reporting the news.