4 ms·

I doubt they'll even debate it. And on the off chance they do, it'll be a "we understand the concern, but it's needed and your data will be safe". Frightening,

by iamben 10y ago

I doubt they'll even debate it. And on the off chance they do, it'll be a "we understand the concern, but it's needed and your data will be safe". Frightening, really.

rlpb 10y ago
> "...your data will be safe" I'd ask for statutory and automatic (no demonstration of harm required) [minimum] damages of (say) £1000 to every citizen for every breach together with the immediate dismissal of the head of the department responsible if the breach came from a government agency. The government should also pay for the insurance premiums of private companies coerced to implement this scheme against their potential payouts. If my "data will be safe", this shouldn't be a problem to implement as it will have zero cost.
- derrickdirge 10y ago
  "Oh, did we say 'your data'? Because we meant 'our asses.'"
TheGrumpyBrit 10y ago
This sentence says it all: "The bill provides a clear and transparent basis for powers already in use by the security and intelligence services, but there need to be further safeguards" People have long gotten used to the idea that the intelligence services are aware of their browsing history, and I think a lot of people are under the belief that this legislation does nothing more than legitimise and regulate the activity that already goes on. People don't seem to realise that it also gives your local council, the Gambling Commission, and the Food Standards Agency the ability to browse this data when they're bored during their lunch hour.
verbify 10y ago
They won't debate it, because they already debated it when they passed the bill in the first place. Here's a list of all the times it was discussed in Parliament: http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2015-16/investigatorypowers/stages.html http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2015-16/investigatorypow...

4 ms·

I doubt they'll even debate it. And on the off chance they do, it'll be a "we understand the concern, but it's needed and your data will be safe". Frightening,

by iamben 10y ago

I doubt they'll even debate it. And on the off chance they do, it'll be a "we understand the concern, but it's needed and your data will be safe". Frightening, really.

rlpb 10y ago
> "...your data will be safe" I'd ask for statutory and automatic (no demonstration of harm required) [minimum] damages of (say) £1000 to every citizen for every breach together with the immediate dismissal of the head of the department responsible if the breach came from a government agency. The government should also pay for the insurance premiums of private companies coerced to implement this scheme against their potential payouts. If my "data will be safe", this shouldn't be a problem to implement as it will have zero cost.
- derrickdirge 10y ago
  "Oh, did we say 'your data'? Because we meant 'our asses.'"
TheGrumpyBrit 10y ago
This sentence says it all: "The bill provides a clear and transparent basis for powers already in use by the security and intelligence services, but there need to be further safeguards" People have long gotten used to the idea that the intelligence services are aware of their browsing history, and I think a lot of people are under the belief that this legislation does nothing more than legitimise and regulate the activity that already goes on. People don't seem to realise that it also gives your local council, the Gambling Commission, and the Food Standards Agency the ability to browse this data when they're bored during their lunch hour.
verbify 10y ago
They won't debate it, because they already debated it when they passed the bill in the first place. Here's a list of all the times it was discussed in Parliament: http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2015-16/investigatorypowers/stages.html http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2015-16/investigatorypow...